The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-04-23 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Council Chambers April 23, 2012 6:00 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 23, 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, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray) Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Special Orders of the Day 2. Proclamation for May as National Preservation Month City Manager Comments Minutes Approval December 19, 2011 January 9, 2012 January 17, 2012 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. 2 April 23, 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. 3. Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a Variance for the following exceptions associated with the remodel and addition to an existing single- family residence: (1) Placement of a swimming pool within a 24 foot special setback; (2) placement of noise producing equipment (pool equipment) within a 24 foot special setback; (3) one-story encroachment into the 24 foot special setback (approximately 90’-3” long by 4’-1” deep) (4) basement, following the first floor footprint, and below grade patio encroachment into the 24 foot special setback; and (5) one encroachment into the front setback (27” at the master bedroom corner for a length of 5’-6”) located at 885 Seale Avenue * Quasi-Judicial 4. Preliminary Approval of the Report of the Advisory Board for Fiscal Year 2013 in Connection with the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District and Adoption of Resolution Declaring its Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses within the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2013 and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing on May 7, at 7:00 PM or Thereafter, in the City Council Chambers 5. Approval of Amendment No. Five to Agreement with the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, Inc. to Provide a Contribution in the Amount of $200,000 from the Residential Housing Fund for Fiscal Year 2011/12 to be Expended Through Fiscal Year 2015/16 6. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2011 7. Approval of Amendment Eight to the Agreement With the County of Santa Clara for Abatement of Weeds to Change the Method for Setting Abatement Fees and Costs 8. Approval of Contract C12144913 with CompuCom Systems Inc. in the Amount of $210,617.28 per year for Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (MEA) 9. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $410,000 and Approval of Agreement with the County of Santa Clara for the City's Fair-Share Contribution for the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 10.Approval of City Council Priorities Quarterly Report Update 3 April 23, 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. 11. Discussion of Zoning Amortization Study and Options Related to Communications and Power Industries (CPI) at 811 Hansen Way 12. Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Amending the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan 13. Approval of the Use of $2,275,796 of Park Development Impact Fees to Fund Park Improvements at El Camino Park in Conjunction With Utilities Department CIP WS-08002 El Camino Park Reservoir Project 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 23, 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 Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee Packet Public Improvement Corporation Packet City Council Rail Committee Packet Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Report on Surplus Property Donated to Nonprofit Organizations and Contributions to the City from Those Nonprofit Organizations City of Palo Alto Investment Activity Report for the Third Quarter, Fiscal Year 2012 Public Letters to Council Public Letters to Council from the City Clerk CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION MAY AS NATIONAL PRESERVATION MONTH WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth and sustainable development, revitalizing neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character while enhancing livability; and WHEREAS, historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both urban and rural, and for Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic backgrounds; and WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of the heritage that has shaped us as a people; and WHEREAS, “Discover America’s Hidden Gems” is the theme for National Preservation Month 2012, cosponsored by Palo Alto Stanford Heritage and the National Trust for Historic Preservation; and NOW, THEREFORE, I, Yiaway Yeh, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby proclaim May 2012 as National Preservation Month, and call upon the people of Palo Alto to join their fellow citizens across the United States in recognizing and participating in this special observance. Presented: April 23, 2012 ______________________________ Yiaway Yeh Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 2621) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/23/2012 April 23, 2012 Page 1 of 8 (ID # 2621) Summary Title: Variances for 885 Seale Avenue Title: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a Variance for the following exceptions associated with the remodel and addition to an existing single-family residence: (1) Placement of a swimming pool within a 24 foot special setback; (2) placement of noise producing equipment (pool equipment) within a 24 foot special setback; (3) one-story encroachment into the 24 foot special setback (approximately 90’-3” long by 4’-1” deep) (4) basement, following the first floor footprint, and below grade patio encroachment into the 24 foot special setback; and (5) one encroachment into the front setback (27” at the master bedroom corner for a length of 5’-6”) located at 885 Seale Avenue * Quasi-Judicial From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve Variance 11PLN-00393 based upon the findings and conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Executive Summary The Variance application is for setback encroachments for an expansion to a single-story home located on a triangular-shaped parcel. The finished home, including the encroaching additions, would have 348 square feet (sf) less floor area than the maximum floor area allowed (3,749 sf) for this parcel. The parcel abuts an arterial street having a greater required setback (24 feet) than the typical 20 foot required rear setback for the R-1 Zone. Four of the five requested encroachments are within the 24 foot setback. The 24 foot setback has been similarly encroached upon by the nine neighboring homes, such that the average setback for existing homes along Embarcadero Road is 18 feet. In addition, the parcel’s existing protected Redwood tree canopies create restrictions on development within the allowable building envelope. On February 3, 2012, the April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 8 (ID # 2621) Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) tentatively approved the requested Variance to allow encroachments into two setbacks. The three neighbors, who together requested the hearing, spoke to the Planning and Transportation Commission on March 28, 2012 regarding their concerns. The PTC concurred with staff’s analysis of the site conditions and findings for Variance approval, and voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend Council approval of the project based upon the findings in the attached RLUA. Background Council Review Authority The provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code outlines that variances are generally approved or denied by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The Code allows, however, for a request by an affected party for a hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission, as was made in this case. Section 18.77.060(f) of the Code specifies that, for variance requests, the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission shall be placed on the Consent Calendar of the Council within 30 days. The Council may (1) adopt the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission; or (2) remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes, and (a) discuss the application and adopt findings and take action on the application based upon the evidence presented at the hearing of the planning and transportation commission; or (b) direct that the application be set for a new hearing before the City Council, following which the City Council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. The decision of the Council is then final. The Council’s hearing is scheduled within the 30-day timeframe following the May 28th PTC meeting. Site Characteristics The project site is located at the terminus of Seale Avenue near Embarcadero Road and abuts one private property lot, a site developed with a single-family, one-story home on the west side. Seale Avenue in this location is not a through street; it ends in a cul-de-sac. As shown in Figure 1, the 9,997 sf lot is atypical as a triangular shaped R-1 zoned lot. The parcel is defined in the zoning code as a “through lot” rather than a corner lot. The front lot line is the lot line abutting the street providing the primary access to the lot, in this case Seale Avenue. The rear lot line abuts Embarcadero Road, however the standard 20’ rear setback does not April 23, 2012 Page 3 of 8 (ID # 2621) apply because Embarcadero Road has a Special Setback of 24’. The other applicable setbacks for this site are standard dimensions: 20’ for the front setback (Seale Avenue) and 6’ for the side yard. Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of the site and building envelope. The site is currently developed with a 1,887 sf one-story residence and a detached 495 sf garage. The existing home encroaches into the Embarcadero Road 24’ special setback 4’-1”, maintaining a 19’-1’ setback. All nine parcels on this block have been developed with homes that encroach into the 24’ Embarcadero Road special setback; the approximate average setback is 18’ (based on roof outlines shown on the City’s data system). The property has five protected redwood trees; four are located in the rear right corner of the property and the canopy (or drip-line) of one of these trees encroaches into the buildable area of the parcel (the area outside the minimum property line setbacks). The other redwood tree is about midway along the front of the property; its drip-line also encroaches into the buildable area of the parcel. See Figure 1 below and the project plans (Attachment H). Figure 1: Project Site Buildable Area 24’ Special 20’ Front Setback 6’ Side April 23, 2012 Page 4 of 8 (ID # 2621) Project Description The proposed project includes the addition of 882 sf of new first floor area and 632 square feet of second floor equivalency (attic space) for a total floor area of 3,401 sf, where a maximum 3,749 sf of floor area may be allowed. The attic area above the first floor would not have permanent access and the dormer vents (not windows) are proposed to break up the mass of the roof. The plans also show roof skylights, which provide natural light to the first floor living area, which could be confused for windows into the attic space. Also proposed are a new 997 sf basement (not counted as floor area), a new pool and associated equipment, and new decking and paving around the site. The proposed height of the one-story home is 23 feet-eight inches (23’-8”), where a maximum building height of 30 feet is allowed. The requested Variance is for the following exceptions associated with the remodel and addition to the existing residence: 1.Placement of a swimming pool within a 24 foot special setback; 2.Placement of noise producing equipment (pool equipment) within a 24 foot special setback; 3.Residential building encroachment into the 24 foot special setback (approximately 90’-3” long by 4’-1” deep), aligned with the existing wall encroachments; 4.Basement encroachment into the 24 foot special setback, following the first floor footprint; and 5.Residential building encroachment into the front setback (27” at the master bedroom corner across a length of approximately 5’-6”). Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Review On March 28, 2012, the PTC reviewed and unanimously recommended approval of the project. The PTC staff report and meeting minutes are attached for reference. In addition to the applicants and two persons requesting the hearing, there were no other public speakers for this project. The main issue raised by the hearing requesters was the size of the home with respect to the neighborhood. Discussion Variance Purpose and Applicability April 23, 2012 Page 5 of 8 (ID # 2621) There are two purposes of a Variance as set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.030: to allow sites with special physical constraints based on natural or built features of a property to be used in ways similar to other properties in the vicinity, or to grant relief when strict application of zoning codes would subject a property to substantial constraints that would not normally arise on sites in the same zoning district. Variances for residential properties may be granted for site development regulations other than residential density, including regulations for parking, and regulations for “special” setbacks that are regulated under PAMC Title 20. The 24’ special setback along Embarcadero Road, delineated on the Setback Map (circa October 1959) and reflected on the Zoning Map, is the operative and more restrictive rear setback for the subject property, rather than the standard 20 foot rear setback on an R-1 property. Four of the five Variance request items are for relief from this “special” setback. The fifth Variance request item is for relief from the 20 foot front setback standard for all parcels within the R-1 zone district, for an area of approximately 11 square feet. Variance Findings The Tentative Director’s Decision to approve the Variance was based upon the four findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.030(c), subject to Conditions of Approval, listed below: 1.Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. The existing parcel has several unique conditions that impact development when the strict application of the municipal code requirements is applied. The site has an irregular triangular shape; the lot is a through lot backing onto Embarcadero Road, which has a 24’ special setback; and the property contains two protected redwood trees in or close to the buildable area of the lot. Also the existing home, which is being added onto, encroaches 4’-1” into the 24’ special setback for a length of approximately 69 feet. April 23, 2012 Page 6 of 8 (ID # 2621) ·Pool placed within the 24’ special setback: Due to the irregular shape of the lot and the existing protected redwood trees, there is limited area available to place a swimming pool. Once the required setbacks are applied to the site, there is no feasible area left to place a swimming pool, other than within the special setback. Swimming pools are permitted to be located within the standard 20’ rear yard setback, but because this site has the special setback, pools are not permitted. The special setback was established many years ago throughout various parts of Palo Alto for the future widening of streets; it is not anticipated that this action will occur within the foreseeable future. ·Building encroachment into the 24’ special setback: The footprint of the existing home already encroaches 4’-1” into the 24’ special setback for close to 69 feet. The addition proposed (first floor and basement) to this elevation would continue along this plane for an additional 22 feet. The site has limited area to develop in the front of the lot because of the triangular shape of the lot and encroaching root zone of the existing protected redwood tree located at the setback line along the Seale frontage. The development proposed is generally consistent with what would be allowed with the standard 20 foot rear setback. ·Pool equipment and master bedroom encroachments: For these two encroachments, the same limitations apply; development on the east side of the parcel is restricted by the existing redwood trees and the narrowing of the triangular shaped buildable area, due to setback requirements. The placement of the pool equipment (noise producing) in the 24’ special setback would not impact adjacent residents because there are none on this side. 2.The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Other than the requested exceptions, the project complies with all other City regulations. The granting of these exceptions is not considered a special privilege, but rather is based upon the unique circumstances of the parcel as explained above and shown on the project plans. April 23, 2012 Page 7 of 8 (ID # 2621) 3.The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Policy L-1: Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area; and Goal H-2: Conservation and maintenance of Palo Alto’s existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods. The proposed project use does not conflict with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance; it does not conflict with the promotion and protection of public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. 4.The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The proposed improvements to the existing single-family home are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and will be compliant with all the City’s regulations (Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and, therefore, will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. Special Setbacks The PAMC does not allow for any encroachments into a Special Setback, unlike the provisions for standard rear setbacks. PAMC Section 20.08.030 states that no building or structure may be placed between the street and the “special” setback line. The establishment of special setbacks along major roadways was done by the City more than 50 years ago to limit development within those setbacks in the event the City decided to expand the adjacent roadway. As mentioned previously, all the parcels adjacent to Embarcadero Road on this block have structures that currently encroach into this special setback, so this condition is not unusual or uncharacteristic of this neighborhood. Future Attic Conversion One concern raised by the Commission was the area of the attic and potential for conversion to second floor via addition of a permanent staircase. Should a permanent staircase be requested to be added in the future to convert the attic area into a second floor within the roof, a building permit would be required, and April 23, 2012 Page 8 of 8 (ID # 2621) any second floor area over 150 square feet converted to living area would be subject to the Individual Review process. Should any staircase be installed without a permit, it would be subject to removal if the City were to be made aware of the installation. Resource Impact The proposed project is not expected to have impacts on City revenue or expenses. Policy Implications The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. Environmental Review This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Attachments: ·Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action(PDF) ·Attachment B: Location Map (PDF) ·Attachment C: Variance Tentative Approval Letter, February 3, 2012 (PDF) ·Attachment D: P&TC Staff Report w/o attachments, March 28, 2011 (PDF) ·Attachment E: P&TC Minutes, March 28, 2012 (PDF) ·Attachment F: Applicant's submittal, November 1, 2011 (PDF) ·Attachment G: Request for Public Hearing, February 17, 2012 (PDF) ·Attachment H: Plans (TXT) Prepared By:Clare Campbell, Planner Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager 1 DRAFT ACTION NO. 2012-xx RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR VARIANCE 11PLN-00393 (MARYAM HAQ, APPLICANT) On April 23, 2012, the Council upheld the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s February 3, 2012 decision to approve the Variance application for setback encroachments making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On November 1, 2011, Maryam Haq and Zahid Rahman submitted for a Variance for the following exceptions associated with the remodel and addition to an existing one-story single-family residence: (1) Placement of a swimming pool within a 24 foot special setback; (2) Placement of noise producing equipment (pool equipment) within a 24 foot special setback; (3) Encroachment into the 24 foot special setback (approximately 90’-3” long by 4’-1” deep), consistent with the existing wall encroachments; (4) Encroachment of a new basement into the 24 foot special setback, following the first floor footprint; and (5) Encroachment into the front setback (27” at the master bedroom corner for a length of 5’-6”) (“The Project”). B. Following staff review, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the Variance application on February 3, 2012 and on February 17, 2012, within the prescribed timeframe, a request for a public hearing was submitted; additional information is contained in CMR #2621. C. On March 28, 2012, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and voted [6-0] to recommend that Council uphold the Director’s decision to approve the project. The Commission’s action is contained in the CMR #2621. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. 2 SECTION 3. Variance Findings. 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. The existing parcel has several unique conditions that impact development when the strict application of the municipal code requirements is applied. The site has an irregular triangular shape; the lot is a through lot backing onto Embarcadero Road, which has a 24’ special setback; and the property contains two protected redwood trees in or close to the buildable area of the lot. Also the existing home, which is being added onto, encroaches 4’-1” into the 24’ special setback for a length of approximately 69 feet.  Pool placed within the 24’ special setback: Due to the irregular shape of the lot and the existing protected redwood trees, there is limited area available to place a swimming pool. Once the required setbacks are applied to the site, there is no feasible area left to place a swimming pool, other than within the special setback. Swimming pools are permitted to be located within the standard 20’ rear yard setback, but because this site has the special setback, pools are not permitted. The special setback was established many years ago throughout various parts of Palo Alto for the future widening of streets; it is not anticipated that this action will occur within the foreseeable future.  Building encroachment into the 24’ special setback: The footprint of the existing home already encroaches 4’-1” into the 24’ special setback for close to 69 feet. The addition proposed (first floor and basement) to this elevation would continue along this plane for an additional 22 feet. The site has limited area to develop in the front of the lot because of the triangular shape of the lot and encroaching root zone of the existing protected redwood tree located at the setback line along the Seale frontage. The development proposed is generally consistent with what would be allowed with the standard 20 foot rear setback. 3  Pool equipment and master bedroom encroachments: For these two encroachments, the same limitations apply; development on the east side of the parcel is restricted by the existing redwood trees and the narrowing of the triangular shaped buildable area, due to setback requirements. The placement of the pool equipment (noise producing) in the 24’ special setback would not impact adjacent residents because there are none on this side. 2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. All the parcels adjacent to Embarcadero Road on this block have structures that currently encroach into the 24’ special setback, so this condition is not unusual or uncharacteristic of this neighborhood. Other than the requested exceptions, the project complies with all other City regulations. The granting of these exceptions is not considered a special privilege, but rather is based upon the unique circumstances of the parcel as explained above and shown on the project plans. 3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Policy L-1: Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area; and Goal H-2: Conservation and maintenance of Palo Alto’s existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods. The proposed project use does not conflict with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance; it does not conflict with the promotion and protection of public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. 4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be 4 detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The proposed improvements to the existing single-family home are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and will be compliant with all the City’s regulations (Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and, therefore, will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. SECTION 4. Variance Approval Granted. Variance approval is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 5. Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by HP Atelier Architecture & Planning titled Remodel/Addition Plans for Haq & Rahman Residence, consisting of 7 pages, and received April 11, 2012, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. Planning Division 1. The use shall be conducted in substantial conformance with the project plans received on April 11, 2012 and related documents on file with the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. This approval document shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit review, as applicable. 3. The proposed below grade patio, adjacent to the swimming pool, shall maintain a minimum 16’ setback from the Embarcadero property line; this measurement is taken from the inside of the retaining wall of the below grade patio. 4. The building permit plans shall include an attic floor plan and sections to clearly define this area. This area is not approved as 5 usable living area and has not been included in the floor area calculations. Public Works Engineering 5. Include in plan submittal for Building Permit: STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention- It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center or on the City’s website. 6. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. 7. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: If the proposed project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. SECTION 7. Indemnity. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 6 SECTION 8. Term of Approval. Variance Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the original date of approval (February 3, 2012), pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090. PASSED: X-X-X-X AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by HP Atelier Architecture & Planning titled Remodel/Addition Plans for Haq & Rahman Residence, consisting of 7 pages, and received April 11, 2012. 106.2' 58.0' 22.4' 96.2' 89.5' 40.7' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 35.8' 110.0' 74.7' 42.6' 115.9' 60.0' 107.1' 69.2' 107.1' 60.0' 110.0' 69.2' 110.0' 60.0' 106.2' 69.2' 134.0' 80.0' 135.0' 71.0' 134.0' 71.0' 178.9' 206.7' 1 1.8'4.0' 123.1' 1 23.1' 76.5' 163.5' 65.0' 75.9' 7 3.1' 9 3.7' 70.9' 87.7' 58.4' 108.0' 1 10.0' 93.7' 6 1.2' 10 8.7' 59.3' 153.4' 138.5' 35.8' 73.2' 138.5' 6 1.2' 153.4' 5 9.4' 59.4' 123.6' 61.2' 13 8.5' 108.7' 6 1.2' 12 3.6' 59.4' 108.0' 66.0' 129.2' 6 9.3' 129.2' 66.0' 150.3' 69.3' 150.3' 66.0' 171.5' 6 9.3' 60.0' 90.0' 31.4' 40.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 45.0' 31.4' 90.0' 65.0' 110.0' 159.6' 1' 134.0' 125.6' 117.5' 135.0' 35.9' 160.0' 86.0' 135.0' 71.8' 134.0' 51.8' 31.4' 114.0' 71.0' 134.0' 71.0' 134.0' 71.0' 134.0' 71.0' 134.0' 71.0' 134.0' 71.0' 134.0' 71.0' 134.0' 71.0' 134.0' 71.0' 134.0' 71.0' 134.0' 62.1' 100.0' 63.0' 135.0' 76.1' 135.0' 56.1' 31.4' 115.0' 45.0' 159.6' 100.0' 100.0' 160.0' 135.0' 102.3' 135.0' 102.3' 60.0' 60.0' 0.0' 00.0' 70.0' 100.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 10 0.0' 70.0' 60.0' 114.2' 1 14.2' 60.0' 1 09.7' 109.7' 105.1' 97.5' 16.0' 75.1' 100.0' 73.4' 24.9' 84.7' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 10 0.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 60.0' 1594 1820 1836 1852 1885 1873 1861 1868 8 5 2 1590 1584 1580 8 7 2 8 7 6 8 8 0 869 875 863 851 1889 8 6 8 8 6 0 1873 1855 857 8 6 4 1837 1884 841 872 866 1920 873 881 860 1900 8 7 7 848 854 842 890 1911 8 6 9 8 7 3 8 7 7 1 0 2 4 1 5 8 5 8 8 1 8 8 5 8 8 9 3 8 8 5 8 8 1 1 5 9 5 1 5 98 8 9 5 B R ET HAR TE STR EET E M B A R C A D E R O R O A D SEALE A VEN U E W A L N U T D R I V E This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend 24' Special Setback Project Site 0' 99' Im m e d i a t e N e i g h b o r h o o d Co n t e x t CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2012 City of Palo Alto ccampbe, 2012-03-21 13:00:23 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) February 3, 2012 MaryamHaq 885 Seale Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ATTACHMENT C Ci!y ofPaIo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Subject: 885 Seale Avenue [11P~N~0039~1, Variance Application Dear Ms. Haq: On February 3, 2012,~n~.tapBl~.~~~~?n r~~eren~~9above was c~~~itionally apprQ~ed b~thy Director of Planning aJ;Xq~owmunity~pY~I09ment. The approv~~'Was granted pursuap:ttot~e Palo Alto Municipalr0c1er~;g4~~) ~.ectio)J18.77. This determi~~tion is based on the r~vi~}V of all information cCJn~aint(d witl;Iintheproject file, all publiq§~mp1ents received, andtJrre review of the propo~aJin ~Q!llparisoh to applicable zoning and ntyp.lcipal code requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPlION Request by Mary~m Hac[raIid Zahid Rahman for a Varia the following exceptions associated with tper remodel ahd a.ddition to an existis~Alpily residence: (1). Placement of a s~iipming pool within a 24 foot speci~l ~4)iPlacement of noise producing equipm~pr (pool¥quiI?ment) within a 24 fo ·'L.~~\1')~~k; (3). One-story encroachment into t~~24 fO~~'1~pecial setback (approxi~fl~~~~?9?n~,:.'~~R~~y 4' -1 " deep). (~). Basement, following,.tlt~ first floor footpri~t, and below~¥···. ~~~~i~ee~~~~chment into the 24 foot special setback;T~n? (5). One encr~.~~~ment into'~nrolltse~~~~~(~7" at the.m~ster bedroom comer for a lyfIgth of 5' -6").'Zone:;R-1. Envirq;nm¥\.ssessment: Exe1"l1ptfrQm CEQ A per section 15301: V ARIANCE FINDINGS Variance approval is based on th~fil1~itlg8 Jpdic~ted unger}> AMCSectiop 18;76.030(q)andis subject to the Conditions of ApprovaJTistedbelpw: 1. Because of special circumstances api)liCallleitot~~sUbject property,>i~c(udi~~./but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location,· or~L!.~rofln1in$s;thes~riCft qppUcation of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Planning 250 Hamilton A venue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 Transportation 250 Hamilton A venue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2520 650.329.2154 Building 285 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2496 650.329.2240 IlPLN-00393 Page 2 of 4 The existing parcel has several unique conditions that impact development when the strict application of the municipal code requirements is applied. The site has an irregular triangular shape; the lot is a through lot backing onto Embarcadero Road, which has a 24' special setback; and the property contains two protected redwood trees in or close to the buildable area of the lot. Also the existing home, which is being added onto, encroaches 4' -I" into the 24' special setback for a length of approximately 69 feet. • • • Pool placed within the 24' special se~~~£1\:I?uxt()t9~j~~g~lars~~p~ of the lot and the existing protected redw?od.tr~~~,tnere i~ ~i~tedareaavail~?l.e~o.IJ~ace a swimming pool. Once the~eq~h;~dset,?~cks ar7 applied to th~ .site, tner~.i.s~o feasible area left to pla:eJs~immil1~ P?ol, othe~thanwit~in ~re spes.~~ls~tba8~~ Swimming pools ar~.permt~ydte be located withinthestal1~~~~ to' re~r yarn setback, but beca~~@.Hlis site has t~~ spec~~1~etba~~'P9ols·a~~1l0~pe~~!.t~d. The special setback.~a~establisne~~anr.ye'ars\(;{go ... !~~ol!gh?lltvariou~p'~~s of Palo Alto for the fqtut;e widening of streets; it {snot anticipated that this action will occur within .. .te~fo~~.~~~.~?le future. Building e~C~9ac9!llent il}tot~~~4} special setback:.~pe footprint of the~xisting home alre~cly el1sroaches ~'-1" into the 24' special )§~tback for close to 69 feet The addi~lo~ pr~pose<l;(~irstfloor and basement) to~~~~~levation would conhpue along th~spla~~ •.... !~r~n .. ~dditional 22 feet. The si~~.B~~;lhnited area to develop in the fron~o.f th~.lotoeqlUse of the triangular sha~e?f~~.~lot and encroaching root zone o~:~~e ~xisting; Pfotected redwood tree locat~~~$tlte setback line along the Seale f~?~~agy.;~~~.a9velopment proposed is ge~erallY99nsistent with what would be allowed witntne standard 20 foot rear setback: Pool r9~ipment alid I?aster bedroom e~g~~~~~~~~!§: For these two encroacp1J1ents, the sa:p1e limitations apply. Q~X~~.8Pmt,~Pt?B.the east side of the parcel l$restricteq by the existing redw06ati¢~stl:t~: narrowing of the triangula:f$haped~¥ildaple area. The place~~~tQi~~~~?ipment in the 24' special sethqck would not impact adjacent re§.~gl ec.ausethere are none on this side. 2. The granting of th~~pplica~{()l1shall.itot affect· subs~~~~~al complian.c;e ~J~h the regulations or constitut~a g~ant of special privil~~esinconsistent.l1Jfth··th~ U1Jlit~tions upon other properties il1the.yicinityqnd in th€i same zoning district a~th(! subject property. Other than the requested exceptiQ~~,tre pr()j~~.t c2lnplle~wHr all~th~r€ft~ regulatiQl1s. The granting of these exceptions isnQtc9Ilsiderea,a sw~cial pJivil~ge, 'I?~t rath~l' i~b~~ed upon the unique circumstances of the parcel ase)\plained above and ShoWl}on t~~project plans. 3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Policy L-1: Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the IlPLN-00393 Page 3 of 4 urban service area; and Goal H-2: Conservation and maintenance of Palo Alto's existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods; The proposed project use does not conflict with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance; it does not ,conflict with the promotion and protection of public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. 4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the Pllblic heqlth, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The proposed improvements t~theex:istin&Sipgle-fam~~Y'hop1e~s c~inpati~J~~itnJ~~ surrounding residential neig~porhoo~.anQ.:willl)e compliant with all th~~~ty;~ regu~ations (Planning, Building, Fire,~tc;) and{ therefor~;willnotbe detrimental to public>nealth, safety, and welfare. CONDITIONS OF APPR0VAL 1. The use shall be ~Q~QU9t~~ in su~~taritiar conformance with~~~> project plans recelV:~d ~n December 19, 201.1 al1P rela;~d/doGuments on file with t~~/<;ity of Palo Alto Planning Division, excepta~m9<iified bythesyconditions of approval~ 2. This approval letter, jncluqing the. Conditions of Approvf;\l,snaUbe printed on the plans , submitted for bhi~dif\g perqiit review, as applicable. 3. The proposedbtHow grade patio, adjacent to the swi 'iigppol, shall maintain a minimum 16 '~elback from the Embarcadero propeuy~ ;lhi$m.easurement is takel1 from the inside of the retaining wall of the below gradeEp~tl(). 4. The building pe~~ plansShaUinclude an attic flo~Itg~~~'~~~s~~~~~~s to clearly define this area. This are.ai~ not approved as usable living£ll:-S1a.ang,Qasn()tpy~n included in the floor area calculations. DIRECTOR'S DECISION In accordance with the provision~.?f.~A~.~ C~.~pter 1~.71:q?~(c},~p~ p~rso~rri~'r~Quesf~ hearing of the Variance decision De~9:re.lhePl~n~~I1.g~nd ]~~psp.~ttati~n~p~pllss~9n. Sqcli request must be made in writing to th~rl~pI1.ing Pi,visi9n witn;~n 14ca~~tldar da,y§ofthe publication or mailing of this decision. A Vari~nce';Y~~chhas not beenused for any period of one (1) year or more shall become null and void (PAMCt8.79.990). The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. A one- year extension of the approval may be granted providing the written request is submitted prior to the expiration of the permit. IIPLN-00393 Page 4 of 4 Should you have any questions regarding the Director's decision, please do not hesitate to contact the project planner, Clare Campbell at (650) 617-3191. TO: FROM: PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Clare Campbell, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: March 28,2012 SUBJECT: 885 Seale Avenue [l1PLN-00393): Request by Maryam Haq and Zahid Rahman for a Variance for the following exceptions associated with the remodel and addition to an existing single-family residence: (I) Placement of a swimming pool within a 24 foot special setback; (2) Placement of noise producing equipment (pool equipment) within a 24 foot special setback; (3) One-story encroachment into the 24 foot special setback (approximately 90' - 3" long by 4' -I" deep); (4) Basement, following the first floor footprint, and below grade patio encroachment into the 24 foot special setback; and (5) One encroachment into the front setback (27" at the master bedroom comer for a length of 5' -6',). Zone: R-l. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per section 15301. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment's decision to approve Variance IIPLN-00393 based upon the findings and conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). BACKGROUND Process History On February 3, 2012, the Director of Planning and Community Environment tentatively approved the requested Variance to allow encroachments into two setbacks. Within the prescribed 14 calendar day timeframe, one request for a public hearing, representing three neighbors, was received for the application. The written request is included as Attachment E to this report. City of Palo Alto Peg. 1 Site Characteristics The project site is located at the tenninus of Seale Avenue near Embarcadero Road and abuts one piece of private property; a site developed with a single-family, one-story home, on the left (west) side. Seale Street in this location is not a through street; it ends in a cul-de-sac. As shown in Figure I, the 9,997 sflot is atypical as a triangular shaped R-I zoned lot. The parcel is defined as a "through lot" rather than a comer lot. The front lot line is the lot line abutting the street providing the primary access to the lot; in this case, Seale Avenue. The rear lot line abuts Embarcadero Road; however, the standard 20' rear setback does not apply because Embarcadero Road has a Special Setback of24'. The other applicable setbacks for this site are standard dimensions; 20' for the front setback (Seale Avenue) and 6' for the side yard. Figure I provides a visual depiction of the site and building envelope. Irt==2:~r Speoial SetlbaC~l,J .~''=' ====,,(1 ~''''''''fT.''''''' C:::~~:::::,J Buildable Area Figure I: Project Site The site is currently developed with a 1,887 sf one-story residence and a detached 495 sf garage. The home encroaches into the 24' special setback 4' -I", maintaining a 19'-1' setback. All nine parcels on this block have been developed with homes that encroach into the 24' Embarcadero Road special setback; the approximate average setback is 18' (based on roof outlines shown on the City'S data system). The property has five protected redwood trees; four are located in the rear right comer of the property and the canopy (or drip-line) of one of these trees encroaches into the buildable area of the parcel (the area outside the minimum property line setbacks). The other redwood tree is about midway along the front of the property; its drip-line also encroaches into the buildable area of the parcel. See Figure I above and project plans (Attachment F). City of Palo Alto Page 2 Proj ect Description The proposed project includes the addition of 436 sf of new floor area for a total of 2,818 sf, where a maximum 3,749 sf of floor area may be allowed. Also proposed is a new 997 sf basement (not counted as floor area), a new pool and associated equipment, and new decking and paving around the site. The proposed height of the one-story home is 23 feet-eight inches (23'- 8"), where a maximum building height of 30 feet is allowed. The requested Variance is for the following exceptions associated with the remodel and addition to the existing residence: (I) Placement of a swimming pool within a 24 foot special setback; (2) Placement of noise producing equipment (pool equipment) within a 24 foot special setback; (3) Residential building encroachment into the 24 foot special setback (approximately 90' -3" long by 4' -I" deep), aligned with the existing wall encroachments; (4) Basement encroachment into the 24 foot special setback, following the first floor footprint; and (5) Residential building encroachment into the front setback (27" at the master bedroom comer across a length of approximately 5' -6"). SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES Variance Purpose and Applicability There are two purposes of a Variance as set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.030: to allow sites with special physical constraints based on natural or built features ofa property to be used in ways similar to other properties in the vicinity, or to grant relief when strict application of zoning codes would subject a property to substantial constraints that would not normally arise on sites in the same zoning district. Variances for residential properties may be granted for site development regulations other than residential density, including regulations for parking, and regulations for "special" setbacks that are regulated under P AMC Title 20. The 24' special setback along Embarcadero Road, delineated on the Setback Map (circa October 1959) and reflected on the Zoning Map, is the operative and more restrictive rear setback for the subject property, rather than the standard 20 foot rear setback on an R-I property. Four of the five Variance request items are for relief from this "special" setback. The fifth Variance request item is for relief from the 20 foot front setback standard for all parcels within the R-I zone district, for an area of approximately II square feet. Variance Findings The Tentative Director's Decision to approve the Variance was based upon the four findings indicated under P AMC Section 18.76.030(c), subject to Conditions of Approval, listed below: I. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges etifoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. The existing parcel has several unique conditions that impact development when the strict application ofthe municipal code requirements is applied. The site has an irregular triangular City of Palo Alto Page 3 shape; the lot is a through lot backing onto Embarcadero Road, which has a 24' special setback; and the property contains two protected redwood trees in or close to the buildable area ofthe lot. Also the existing home, which is being added onto, encroaches 4' -I" into the 24' special setback for a length of approximately 69 feet. • Pool placed within the 24' special setback: Due to the irregular shape of the lot and the existing protected redwood trees, there is limited area available to place a swimming pool, Once the required setbacks are applied to the site, there is no feasible area left to place a swimming pool, other than within the special setback. Swimming pools are permitted to be located within the standard 20' rear yard setback, but because this site has the special setback, pools are not permitted. The special setback was established many years ago throughout various paris of Palo Alto for the future widening of streets; it is not anticipated that this action will occur within the foresecable future. • Building encroachment into the 24' special setback: The footprint of the existing home already encroaches 4' -I" into the 24' special setback for close to 69 feet. The addition proposed (first floor and basement) to this elevation would continue along this plane for an additional 22 feet. The site has limited area to develop in the front of the lot because of the triangular shape of the lot and encroaching root zone of the existing protected redwood tree located at the setback line along the Seale frontage. The development proposed is generally consistent with what would be allowed with the standard 20 foot rear setback. • Pool equipment and master bedroom encroachments: For these two encroachments, the sanle limitations apply; development on the east side of the parcel is restricted by the existing redwood trees and the narrowing of the triangular shaped buildable area, due to sethack requirements. The placement of the pool equipment (noise produeing) in the 24' special setback would not impact adjacent residents because there are none on this side. 2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the Vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Other than the requested exceptions, the project complies with all other City regulations. The granting of these exceptions is not considered a special privilege, but rather is based upon the unique circumstances of the pareel as explained above and shown on the project plans. 3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Policy L-I: Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area; and Goal H-2: Conservation and maintenance of Palo Alto's existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods. The proposed project use does not conflict with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance; it does not conflict with the promotion and protection of public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. City of Palo Alto Page 4 4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The proposed improvements to the existing single-family home are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and will be compliant with all the City'S regulations (Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and, therefore, will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. Special Setbacks The P AMC does not allow for any encroachments into a Special Setback, unlike the provisions for standard rear setbacks. PAMC Section 20.08.030 states that no building or stmcture may be placed between the street and the "special" setback line. The establishment of special setbacks along major roadways was done by the City more than 50 years ago to limit development within those setbacks in the event the City decided to expand the adjacent roadway. As mentioned previously, all the parcels adjacent to Embarcadero Road on this block have stmctures that currently encroach into this special setback, so this condition is not unusual or uncharacteristic of this neighborhood. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. TIMELINE This project is tentatively scheduled for Council Consent Calendar on April 23, 2012. A minimum of three votes is required for Council to remove the project from the consent calendar. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 1530 I, Existing Facilities. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Record of Land Use Action 8. Location Map C. Variance Tentative Approval Letter, Febmary 3, 2012 D. Applicant Submittal* E. Request for Public Hearing F. Plans (Commission only)* * Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff COURTESY COPIES: Maryam Haq, Property Owner City of Palo Alto Page 5 PREPARED BY: Clare Campbell, Planner REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DEPARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: __ ~ ____ ~_' __ ' _____ _ Curtis Williams, Director City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Excerpt Minutes of March 28, 2012 Draft PTC Commissioners: Staff: Eduardo Martinez - Chair Curtis Williams, Planning Director Susan Fineberg – V-Chair Melissa Tronquet, Senior Deputy City Attorney Samir Tuma Amy French, Acting Assist. Director Arthur Keller Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official Greg Tanaka Rafael Ruis, Transportation Engineer Mark Michael Clare Campbell, Planner Zariah Betten Administrative Assistant Molly Stump, City Attorney Robin Ellner, Administrative Assoc. III 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 885 Seale Avenue: Request by Maryam Haq and Zahid Rahman for a Variance from R-1 Zone required and special setbacks associated with the remodel and one-story addition to an existing one-story single-family residence including accessory structures (swimming pool and equipment, below grade patio) encroaching into the special 24’ setback, and a portion of the bedroom addition (27” across a 5’-6” length) encroaching into the 20’ front setback. Zone: R-1. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per section 15301. 30 31 32 Chair Martinez: Okay Item 3 is a request for a Variance for addition remodeling at 885 Seale Avenue in Palo Alto. We’ll being with a Staff Report. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Clare Campbell: Good evening Commissioners. I’d like to start out by just reviewing the parcel details. As you can see from the slide up here, the project sight is an irregularly shaped triangular lot. The parcel itself is defined as a through lot according to the Municipal Code and in turn the front of the lot is the street side that has the primary access and for this situation it is the Seale Avenue side of this property. The Embarcadero Road frontage is considered the rear of the site for zoning purposes. The standard R-1 front and rear setback is 20 feet but for this parcel the rear setback is 24 feet due to the 24 foot special setback that runs along both sides of Embarcadero Road from Alma Street to Highway 101 and you can see this section here is the rear and this is the front. The project site has five protected redwood trees, four of which are located at the corner of the parcel. There are two redwood trees that encroach into the buildable area. We have one on the side in this corner and one on the front side of the parcel. Also, this triangular shape right here represents the buildable area for the site so 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 that’s what that is supposed to be. Also, the existing one story house encroaches 49 inches into the special setback for a length of approximately 70 feet and its this clear section right here that shows the existing condition as it is today. The Variance request that is before you tonight is for the placement of a swimming pool and the 24 foot special setback, this one here in the back, the placement of noise reduction pool equipment in the 24 foot special setback, the rear addition that adds 21 linear feet of new encroaching area into the existing 70 foot length. We have two sections. There is a little bit on the left side and a little bit on the right side. This rear addition is aligned with the existing encroaching wall and its approximately 85 square feet. The Variance also includes the encroachment of a new partial basement into the 24 foot special setback and this encroachment follows the first floor footprint and it’s a little hard to see but it’s the hatched area in this section right here and lastly there is a request for a 27 inch encroachment into the front setback which is this little circle right here which is part of the master bedroom corner for a length of approximately 5 feet 6 inches. This existing parcel has several unique conditions which impact the development of the lot. Staff has evaluated the Variance and made the required findings as outlined in the Staff Report and Record of Land Use Attachment to support the requested exceptions. This concludes the Staff presentation and the homeowners are present tonight and will provide a brief presentation for you. Thank you. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Chair Martinez: Before we proceed with that I want to remind everyone that this is a quasi-judicial matter and is subject to our disclosure policy be that as it may. Anyone have anything to offer? Okay with the broad definition of disclosure I want to say that I visited the property on the weekend when it was raining. I didn’t speak to anyone or see anyone but it really gave me a way better understanding of the issues and the site and the surrounding conditions that I could perceive just from the drawings themselves. Okay. Does the Applicant wish to make a presentation? Okay you will have up to fifteen minutes if you choose. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Maryam Haq: I’m just going to read out my thoughts. I remember bidding to buy our house on 885 Seale and I remember being told by the seller that there was a competing bid by a contractor who wanted to demolish and rebuild the property. I thought at the time that it was a pity to lose the charm of this quaint old house. We would rather enhance this house than replace it. It has a very happy vibe and I’d never want to mess with that. We love the giant redwoods. They give our home a sense of serenity. It’s like getting away from it all despite the fact that we have a very busy Embarcadero and fire station nearby. We also saw its limitations and the lot as you’ve seen sits on a substandard pie shaped triangle. We knew it was subject to lots of setbacks from all sides. It has several protected redwoods. We also knew that the property used to front Embarcadero also faces Seale. We knew there were a number of easements for utilities, etc. that only apply to this particular property in the whole neighborhood. We even knew that the current orientation of the house does not take best advantage of our beautiful California sun. In 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 fact, most of the sunshine is completely blocked by the existing garage. We knew all of this yet we bought this house because we love it. We moved in because we wanted to get the feel of the place rather than ruthlessly demolish and build a brand new boxy anesthetic monster home on top of that property. I just didn’t think that would be fair. After moving in we’ve continue to try to figure out a plan to spend and we’ve spent several months thinking about how we would like to improve our home. During this phase we were faced with three options. We could either demolish the house and build a big monstrosity in excess of 3,300 square feet which is the allowed buildable area, we could add a second story or we could build a basement. In fact, we were told that the most return on our investment would come from rebuilding from scratch and the second cheapest option would be to build a second story. It was a real challenge to contend with all these limitations and not succumb to the idea of demolishing. That didn’t appeal to us. We never wanted that dramatic of change. We wanted a house that fit with the character of the neighborhood and our own philosophy of life. We believe our resulting plan tries to strike a balance to aesthetically fit into the surroundings, respect our neighbor’s privacy, enhance living comforts, take into account the sunlight considerations and we think it does so within the planning codes as much as possible. In trying to maintain this balance we decided not to add the second story to the house and we’ve limited the footprint of the house to 2,700 square feet even though the maximum allowed is 3,300. To us, this represents the least intrusive way to add square footage with minimal impact on the neighbors and the neighborhood. We really believe that our request does not impact public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience to our neighbors and our community. One of our goals has been to reuse existing materials and infrastructure as much as possible. For example, we plan to save much of the windows, flooring, doors and try to reuse them where we can. It was for this reason that we left the placement at the back of the house on the Embarcadero side and kept the current back wall where it is. We recognize this existing wall does not respect the mandated setback but we believe our remodel does not aggravate the intrusion. Also, in an effort to cut down on roof materials ending up in landfill and to reduce cost in constructing a new roof, we’ve tried to maintain the current pitch of our roof and since the width of the house has increased, this has resulted in the rise of the overall height of the roof however we do not plan to use the attic as living space. It will be just that, an attic. I have a handout here and you already have this handout. I’ve just enlarged it. It comes from Sheet A-102 and it shows the pitch of the roof just extending beyond and keeping in line with what exists already. As you can see the roof continues on the pitch of the existing roof and there are no stairs to the attic. During the submittal process we have done our best to accommodate requests by the City to make our remodel conform to the code as much as possible however given the number of constraints we were dealing with it became clear to us we would have to apply for some Variances. In fact, we tried to communicate this fact to our 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 neighbors who have raised this objection after I found out about their complaint. I went to their house and tried to explain our situation. I even offered to eliminate the pool to address their concerns about noise and see if there was any way we could work together. I invited the ladies to come over for tea so they could see for themselves that we were not building a monster home. Unfortunately, the ladies have not visited our house from the inside once. Instead they sent an email to the City complaining that their names were provided to me which I believe is public knowledge. I found their attitude disheartening because I moved to this neighborhood hoping to find a family friendly multigenerational neighborhood where my kids can feel comfortable hanging out in the street and enjoy warmth and security from the people around them. My understanding is that neighbors should talk to each other and try to settle their differences amicably. I’m happy to say this process has brought us closer to our neighbors and for the most part I have found many welcoming and friendly families around us. I thoroughly respect our neighbors’ right to object to something that they feel affects them and I have tried to put myself in their shoes. I wouldn’t want a monster home next to my house either. We thought about whether our situation would meet any of the grounds for the objection to a Variance. Some of the grounds for an objection to a Variance approval that I could think of but I don’t believe that we are violating could be that we don’t believe that the remodel negatively impacts the value of the properties in our neighborhood for example. We don’t believe that our remodel would be detrimental to the public safety or welfare. We do not believe our remodel would increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire. We do not believe our remodel would be invasive on the privacy of our neighbors. We do not believe our remodel would be out of place with the character of our neighborhood. We are staying with a single story and finally just to validate these understandings we went around the neighborhood and obtained signatures from our immediate and distant neighbors and I have a copy of signatures from all the neighbors immediately around us as well as on Embarcadero itself. It shows that they do not object to our remodel. During the process we did not find a single neighbor who turned us down because they objected to the remodel thus we find it hard to understand how our Variance approval affects neighbors who live far enough away, at least three houses away, on a different street where they cannot even hear or see our property. I believe Variances are allowed to be applied for at unique properties and I think ours is certainly one of those. Thank you. 40 41 42 Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. Let’s open the Public Hearing. We have two speakers. You’ll each be given three minutes. 43 44 45 Vice Chair Fineberg: Jo Ann Zausen to be followed by Linda Zausen and forgive my pronunciation. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ms. Jo Ann Zausen: Thank you and I appreciated hearing the whole disclosure of everything the family feels about the neighborhood. My feeling is that the house is very large and would be a beautiful addition to one of Palo Alto’s larger bigger lotted areas. It’s proposed to go in our neighborhood which was built as a post war family community of modest homes designed for working single families built on the old Palo Alto streets with trees and I’m glad they’re saving which of course is required but that the trees are being honored and so on and accepted and with ample yards but with yard space for children, not the whole area consumed with the house. The way I had heard this originally there were five Variances and then there was a question about the pool might be excluded and the pool house but I guess its back on the table to be built and it just seems to me that the house consumes most of the lot, its too big for the neighborhood and would be very well suited for another neighborhood where the lots are bigger and can accommodate such a large and beautiful lovely home. Thank you. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Linda Zausen: The house that Ms. Haq wishes to build is very lovely, similar in design and floor plan to many new homes around town. The problem is that it is too big to fit within the property she purchased for it. The proposed house would encroach into the allowable setbacks and easements in multiple places requiring at least five separate Variances. Palo Alto has suffered less from the building of oversized structures on lots too small to accommodate them than many surrounding communities. The City and its Planning Department have established fairly rigid setbacks, easements and building restrictions. The traditional enforcement of these requirements have at least slowed down Palo Alto from becoming another Los Gatos or Willow Glen where huge houses are built out to the edges of the sidewalk. Like many Palo Altoans, I would like to see the City take a more proactive position in restricting or discouraging such buildings. The City may be unable or unwilling to do this but it at least should insist that its own building codes are followed. Variances should only be allowed under hardship or unusual circumstances. The only reason for allowing the Variances in this case seems to be because the proposed structure would not otherwise fit into the lot. This is not only disturbing in itself but could set a precedent for future development. Every developer in the Bay Area will start looking at Palo Alto as a good place to erect some huge home on a small lot for quick resale. If a standard structure produces an encroachment, developers will be encouraged by the knowledge that Variances are readily available. As was stated, the existing house does encroach into one easement by over four feet for its entire length and this was noted, the buyers of the property did note this. It appears that most of the house will be destroyed in order to build the new house with the possible exception of the back wall. In that case, the new house needs to conform to the same setbacks and easements that apply to every other resident of Embarcadero Road and the City. The new house could be located so it no longer violates the easement however the Variances not only maintain the current four foot plus encroachment but extend it for a distance of ten to fifteen feet on each end of the current structure and then add the basement underneath. To assert that this is a proper application of the building requirements is unfair to every other homeowner in Palo Alto. 5 1 2 3 4 Chair Martinez: Okay thank you very much. We are going to close the Public Hearing and bring it back to the Commission. Commissioner Michael. Commissioner Michael: I have a question for Staff and I want to thank both the Applicant and the other two women who had comments on the project for helping us understand much better what’s going on. Attachment A includes Section 3 which is the Variance findings and then there’s an Attachment C which is a letter to the Applicant which also has Variance findings and they are different and specifically it seems though on the letter of February 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 rd which is on Page 3 of 4 the Finding 4 is left off of your Attachment A and I wondered if that had any significance or if that was just an omission. 13 14 15 16 Ms. Campbell: That would just be a typo so we would need to correct that. It does need to have all four findings in this draft document. We need to correct that for Council review. Thank you. 17 18 19 20 Chair Martinez: Does the Applicant want to make a closing comment? I will reopen the Public Hearing for that and in conformance with our procedures you are allowed an extra three minutes. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Mr. Zahid Rahman: All I wanted to add is that when I was hearing… I’m a Public Accountant and part of my job is to try to put myself in other people’s shoes and understand where they are coming from. I am trying to understand the ladies’ concern and reason for raising the objection and what I can do about it to address it. What I thought I heard today was their concern about the big house and we’ve already talked about that but in terms of how it impacts them I was thinking of the reasons someone would object to a Variance, public safety, welfare, value, noise, etc. I didn’t get that out of the commentary but again, we are flexible, we are looking to accommodate and work with them but I just don’t know… I think all I’m hearing is we just have to conform to the Variances and that’s part of my concern. I’m willing to work with it but I’m not sure what I can offer. Thank you. 33 34 35 Chair Martinez: Thank you. I’ll close the Public Hearing with that. Commissioner Tuma did you have some comments? 36 37 38 39 Commissioner Tuma: The first question, the setback on Embarcadero Road along this stretch is 24 feet instead of the standard 20 feet. What’s the reason for that? What are we trying to achieve there? 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Amy French, Acting Assist. Director: I’m trying to remember the date but I believe it was back in the 50s when this was set. 1959, late 50s when the special setbacks were created by special ordinance throughout Palo Alto and for the most part the idea was for widening. In the 50s the car was king and widening roads was the way and so I think that was the general reason that those setbacks were placed on major arterials so there could be road widening unless you’re aware of another reason. 6 1 2 3 4 5 Commissioner Tuma: No its truly a question I don’t know the answer to so I was trying to figure it out. The thought was to have a larger setback to preserve the possibility of having wider roads down the road. And is there a plan to do that along this stretch in Palo Alto. 6 7 8 Ms. French: Not as far as I know and given our more recent thinking on traffic calming, etc., I don’t think that’s a direction we’re still in favor of. 9 10 11 12 Commissioner Tuma: And just to be clear, if this homeowner wanted to they could demolish the existing structure and build up to a 3,300 approximately square feet above grade along with the corresponding… 13 14 Ms. Campbell: They would be allowed to build approximately 3,749 square feet 15 16 17 Commissioner Tuma: Above grade plus because basements don’t count they can build a full basement that would be perhaps in the neighborhood of another 1,300 square feet. 18 19 20 Ms. Campbell: Their lot coverage is allowed to be at 3,400 so they could cover quite a bit of space. 21 22 23 24 Commissioner Tuma: So 5,000 or 6,000 square feet would be feasible without coming in for any sort of requests for Variances and that would be for two stories as well as long as they don’t infringe on daylight plane so they could build a substantial home on this lot. 25 26 27 28 29 30 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. My understand is that when you have a home where the roofline exceeds a certain amount of feet above the first floor level that there is an imputed second floor calculation for that and I’m wondering if that standard parameter which I believe is standard R-1 issue is taken into account here in terms of floor area and the amount of this building. 31 32 33 Ms. Campbell: Yes it was and based on the plans provided there was no second floor equivalency for this project. 34 35 36 Commissioner Keller: And what is the minimum height where we have second floor equivalency included? 37 38 39 Ms. Campbell: It’s from finished floor to top of roof material so if you’ve got that clear space of 17 feet then you would could that toward second floor equivalency. 40 41 42 43 44 Commissioner Keller: So above 17 feet? According to this diagram building Section 1 from finished floor to top of roof is 28 feet 8 inches and by the mean value theorem there must be some that’s at least 17 feet and therefore there would be some amount for which there is imputed second floor area and I’m wondering why that isn’t taken into account. Ms. Campbell: For the project, because there is an actual floor or ceiling that cuts across that so what happens is that if you have a tall ceiling, let’s say you have a vaulted entry 45 46 7 1 2 3 4 inside or a tall living room and you walk in and have high ceilings that is where we would count it double for the floor area calculations but if it is already cut or if there is a ceiling going across that we wouldn’t count that area more than once. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: Is the area at all accessible? 7 8 Ms. Campbell: Not from the plans that we see. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: So there is no access hatch? 11 12 Ms. Campbell: There must be an access hatch but the plans didn’t go into that detail. 13 14 15 16 Commissioner Keller: I’m not sure about the code but I don’t remember anything about the limits being whether there is a ceiling there or not. I thought it had to do with roofline so I’m confused. 17 18 19 20 Ms. French: There is no indication of a staircase. A staircase is what defines that that would be a second floor. It’s not intended to be a second floor, its intended to be an attic. I can pull up the code. 21 22 23 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Yes that would be helpful if you can get back to us on that. Also is the fence along Embarcadero Road is that limit still going to remain at four feet? There is a rule that says unless your fence is at least 20 feet behind the property line, you can’t have a fence greater than four feet. Isn’t that the understanding? 26 27 28 Ms. Campbell: That is correct. Within the 16 foot zone adjacent to a street, the maximum height is four feet. 29 30 31 Commissioner Keller: Right and I’m assuming the fence on the Embarcadero Road side will remain at four feet and not raise any higher is that correct? 32 33 Ms. Campbell: I didn’t check on the fence height for the project. 34 35 Chair Martinez: The existing fence is higher than that right now. I think it’s six feet. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: So if the fence remains its allowed to be six feet? 38 39 Ms. Campbell: Yes. 40 41 42 43 44 Commissioner Keller: Okay typically its supposed to be four feet. So one quick thing. If they were to build a two story building as suggested by Commissioner Tuma would that have to go through individual review and would the neighbors have to have feedback and would consideration of adjacencies by explored? 45 46 Ms. Campbell: Yes. 8 1 2 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 3 4 5 Commissioner Tanaka: I was wondering if the Vice Chair could tell us the address of the other two public speakers, where they live. Okay it’s in Attachment E. 6 7 Vice Chair Fineberg: We have that in the letter we have from them. 8 9 10 11 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay out of curiosity let’s say, it sounds like they have a lot of access to floor ratio left. Let’s just say that the attic was counted as second floor. How much area would that be? 12 13 14 Ms. Campbell: I didn’t do the calculations for the roof or the attic floor area space. I don’t know. 15 16 Commissioner Tanaka: Do you think it will be more than the allowable building area? 17 18 Ms. Campbell: I’m sorry could you repeat that. 19 20 21 Commissioner Tanaka: Yes I was just curious, let’s say hypothetically that the area on the attic was counted as towards the floor area ratio. Would that exceed the 3,749? 22 23 24 Ms. Campbell: I don’t know because I didn’t do the attic calculations for the square footage. 25 26 Chair Martinez: What’s the square footage of the usable area right now? 27 28 Ms. Campbell: The square footage of the proposed home is 2,818 square feet. 29 30 31 Commissioner Keller: Does that include the garage? Under R-1 properties the garage is included in the square footage. 32 33 Ms. Campbell: Yes it does. 34 35 36 Chair Martinez: It looks like the attic can’t be any more than 900 square feet so it’s close to that 3,700 maximum. 37 38 39 Commissioner Tanaka: It looks like in the plan there are actually windows in the attic. Is that right? 40 41 Ms. Campbell: There are dormers. Yes. 42 43 Commissioner Tanaka: Great thank you. 44 45 46 Chair Martinez: Okay let’s go to Commissioner Michael. You had some follow up. We’re going to make some comments first. Okay you’re next. Vice Chair Fineberg. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Vice Chair Fineberg: There are a couple of areas of concern for me. The idea that there has to be some unique feature in the property to allow it to have the Variance. This is actually one of the properties that in my mind and in the experience of the places where we’ve granted Variances meets the test for those Variances. It is a triangular shaped lot, it’s got three redwoods and it’s a through property and its rare that we find that and there are many properties, typically multifamily or in the commercial district where the condition of uniqueness to be quite blunt is something more like it’s the only property on the northeast corner of X and Y road across the street from Z which I find sort of ridiculous so my inclination is that the conditions exist to grant the Variance here. I am wondering though given that the properties along that block have already been built into the 24 foot special setback and I don’t know when the other properties were built but I would guess it was some time from the 40s to the 90s and maybe a mix so does it make sense to even continue with the special setback should this conversation be a time to trigger that on that block or some similar block we change the special setback condition and I know that’s a conversation greater than the scope of tonight’s hearing, but it begs the question of should there be a reconsideration in fairness to all property owners and maybe that would trigger a massive redevelopment and maybe in keeping it in the special setback in place keeps the status quo stable and doesn’t push us into those properties being redeveloped so I don’t know where that will go but given that there is a small increase in the square footage compared to what would be allowed if they tore it down, that I’m kind of going to where my thinking is going. A couple of questions. One the issue of the pool in the special… I’m sorry if I can just finish this and one more, the issue of the pool in the special setback, would it be advisable to have some kind of condition that it wouldn’t tie the City’s hand and they would be allowed to build it but in the event that Embarcadero were to be widened that the City have easement rights or require the pool to be torn out so that would eliminate the reason to not build the pool so I don’t know if the City Attorney can comment on that or that’s just a ridiculous idea don’t even go there which may be how I’m leaning. 32 33 Chair Martinez: Do we have a choice on our answer of that? 34 35 36 37 Ms. Tronquet: I don’t even think its eliminating any easements. We typically wouldn’t agree to that through a Variance but its more a question about whether we want it to encroach into the special setback or not. 38 39 40 41 Vice Chair Fineberg: I’m assuming the reason we have that special easement is so that if in the future the City wanted to condemn the property and build a street they could and is that Condition the same, we would just condemn the pool? 42 43 44 45 Ms. Tronquet: It still exists, we’re just allowing an encroachment so that is something we would just have to deal with when and if we made the decision to expand Embarcadero Road. 10 1 2 3 Vice Chair Fineberg: And there is no action now contemplated and thought of so I’m not suggesting we should. 4 5 6 7 Ms. French: I just want to correct one language issue. I wouldn’t use the word easement at all in this case because the City does not have an easement at all in that area, the special setback area. 8 9 10 11 Vice Chair Fineberg: The last thing I want to ask, is this project in the FEMA flood zone either the San Francisquito Creek or the tidal flood zone and is there any impact on that in building a basement. Has that been considered or is that out of the flood zone? 12 13 14 Ms. Campbell: In my review of the plans, it is not located within a special flood area so a basement is permitted. Yes. 15 16 Vice Chair Fineberg: Okay thanks. 17 18 Chair Martinez: Are they including a basement in this? 19 20 21 Ms. Campbell: There is a new partial basement. It’s shown on your plans on sheet A- 202 so it’s a partial basement. 22 23 24 Chair Martinez: Okay thank you. Are you ready? Do you have an answer for Commissioner Keller? 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Ms. French: Gross floor area, there is a chart in the 1812 chapter for single family that has checkmarks, etc. and we do have a technical manual that we help people to understand that table and the definition in 1804 talks about low density inclusions so what is included is floor area where the distance between the top of the finished floor and the roof directly above it which is interpreted to be directly above it, not intercepted by a ceiling, measures 17 feet or more should be counted twice so what Clare had stated about vaulted living rooms and vaulted entries, that is what that is referring to. First floor to a ceiling and roof that is 17 feet. 34 35 36 37 Commissioner Keller: So I heard you say to the roof above it, not to the ceiling so either the code is wrong or being interpreted wrong but it certainly is the case that to the roof above it. 38 39 40 41 Ms. French: It is to the roof above it but I’m saying if there is something interrupting, another level of something interrupting, it’s not interrupted. It’s not straight up to the roof. It’s not a vaulted space. There is a ceiling of the garage… 42 43 44 Commissioner Keller: Does the code say anything about vaulted space or does it say the roof above it? I’m confused. 45 46 Ms. French: I quoted directly. It says the roof directly above it. 11 1 2 Commissioner Keller: So it doesn’t say anything about a vaulted space, it says the roof. 3 4 5 Ms. French: It doesn’t. I’m just helping you out with our interpretation of what’s in our technical manual. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Commissioner Keller: Well the problem I have is this. Part of the issue of floor area ratio has to do with massing and that’s part of the reason why we have the floor area maximum for single family residences in terms of mass of the property and if people can build a very high roof that is interrupted by a ceiling in between that negates that 17 foot limitation then you have a building that looks bigger than the floor area actually indicates and to me that’s very troubling if it’s open it counts and if its not open it doesn’t count. I have real heartburn with that interpretation based on my understanding of why the floor area was created. 15 16 Ms. French: If I may can I read you another section of that same code? 17 18 Commissioner Keller: Please. 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ms. French: Item 4 says the entire floor area footprint of a vaulted entry feature whether enclosed or unenclosed will be counted twice in the calculation of gross floor area so there is the term vaulted for another section of that same chapter that was added later when we were seeing vaulted entry features over and over again so it’s a similar idea in that you are counting something twice penalizing folks for putting very tall spaces. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: So whether its divided or not, is that what it says? 27 28 29 Ms. French: It doesn’t say whether or not divided but we consider that wording vaulted to mean not divided. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: Could you read the wording again? I’m not sure I got it. 32 33 34 Ms. French: The entire floor area of a footprint of a vaulted entry feature whether enclosed or unenclosed shall be counted twice in the calculation of gross floor area. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: What does enclosed and unenclosed mean? 37 38 Ms. French: It can have open walls. 39 40 41 Commissioner Keller: I see and that is counted twice because of the visual appearance of it? 42 43 Ms. French: It is intended to discourage double high entry features. Commissioner Keller: So I am not an attorney and I don’t even play one on TV but my understanding of the law and perhaps our attorney can weigh in on it here but when you have a mention of a language like vaulted somewhere in the code then clearly there is a 44 45 46 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 notion of that elsewhere in the same section of the code where it specifically mentions the word roof, that means roof not ceiling and if meant to mean ceiling it would say ceiling and by virtue of the fact that it says roof and the roof is at 23 feet 8 inches that that amount of space from the first floor area up to 17 feet or above should be counted towards floor area so perhaps the City Attorney could weigh in on that understanding. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ms. Tronquet: This is not something we had a chance to talk about in advance of the meeting. I did not have the chance to look at it or review it with Planning Staff so it’s an issue we can look at before this project goes to Council but what we’re hearing from Staff is that this is how their technical manual has interpreted it and how they’ve applied it for a long period of time so we can look at your concerns but I’m simply not prepared to address it tonight because I haven’t looked at the technical manual or the code. 14 15 16 17 18 Commissioner Keller: It would be helpful that before this goes to Council for that to be resolved and if the floor area for such high features whether open to the downstairs or not should be included then that should be reflected in the Staff Report to the Council and include in the floor area ratio. Thank you. 19 20 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka you had a follow up. 21 22 23 24 25 26 Commissioner Tanaka: I know what you’re saying Commissioner Keller. I think in the code somewhere there is something that says if the attic space is over 5 feet it gets counted so the way the code works, I think the way so that you can’t defeat it is if you have clear space over 17 feet it gets counted twice but if you have attic and its over 5 feet it gets counted toward your floor area ratio. 27 28 29 30 Commissioner Keller: So wouldn’t that mean that since the ceiling is at 8 feet and there are 17 or so feet between 8 feet and 23 feet 8 inches that there is a significant part of it that is at least 5 feet? 31 32 Commissioner Tanaka: That’s why I asked how big is the attic? 33 34 35 36 37 Ms. French: If I could clarify Commissioner Tanaka, the code section being referred to is when there is permanent access to the attic that is when we start counting the five foot rule we call it so anything five feet or above is counted as floor area when there is permanent access. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice Chair Fineberg: So what’s the enforcement mechanism for knowing whether there’s permanent access installed later and just for correctness sake if the top of the roof is 23 feet 8 inches and the ceiling height on the first floor is 8 according to my math that is a 15 foot 8 inch ceiling height in the attic which I think could be structured very nicely for livable space and it may not even be that this current building owner does it but its something that could be done 5, 10, 20 or 50 years down the road with a subsequent owner that might not have the same character as current owners so what’s the enforcement mechanism if any? 13 1 2 3 4 Ms. French: A building permit is required for installation of a permanent staircase as is any risky behavior if anything is done without legal methods they are subject to tearing it out if it’s discovered. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Chair Martinez: Okay as I mentioned at the beginning of this I had the benefit of walking around the property and driving through the neighborhood. It seems to me that one of the decorations, I don’t know what to call it is that the building is out of keeping with the neighborhood. Directly across the street there is a house, not directly but at an angle, there is a house with a partial second story. One of the other accusations was that the pool and pool house were going to contribute excessive noise. I believe that if you’re standing on the sidewalk on Embarcadero close to that you would hear other excessive noise before you would hear this pool house and pool. One of the other suggestions was that this property owner should be treated no differently than the other neighbors along Embarcadero with this special setback and as your documents proved, everyone is sitting within 24 feet of this special setback. I don’t know what the conclusions are about excessive square foot or whether what should be counted or not but as I look at these plans I look at the neighborhood, this house is not excessively massive and in some way its almost like an island. There’s no neighbor to the back, there is no connection across Embarcadero. It’s on a cul-de-sac so there is no neighbor to the right and there is no neighbor across the street. That two story house I mentioned is at an angle to this. There really is no significant or otherwise impact on any neighbor or anyone in this neighborhood for what this Applicant is proposing so I find it difficult to see otherwise than what the Director’s tentative approval suggests that the Variance is appropriate as Vice Chair Fineberg has said because this is a very difficult lot to build on. When you’re there you don’t get a sense that it’s impacted or tight to the sidewalk. There is plenty of open space with the big lush trees but they are in a triangular configuration so I believe there is quite a bit of merit in approving or recommending the approval of this Variance and I would like a Commissioner to propose a Motion for us. Commissioner Michael. MOTION 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Commissioner Michael: So having heard all the discussion, I would make the Motion that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve the Variance 11PLN00393 based upon the findings and conditions of the Record of Land Use Action and this says Attachment A but as noted in my question earlier, Attachment A and Attachment C differ in terms of the findings so if you can conform that so that is complete we will refer to those complete findings in this Motion. 42 43 44 Chair Martinez: Do we have a Second? Motion by Commissioner Michael, Second by Vice Chair Fineberg. Do you care to speak to your Motion? Commissioner Michael: I appreciate the concerns of the residents in the neighborhood as well as the inquiry by my colleagues in the Commission. I also appreciate the statement 45 46 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 by the Applicant relative to their understanding of the unique characteristics of this property and their desire to do the remodel rather than the tear down and something that people might criticize as too massive. This seems to be well thought out, well planned and the analysis that the Staff supports the requested Variance which seems to be consistent with the findings then this would be acceptable and desirable. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Thank you Vice Chair. 9 10 Vice Chair Fineberg: What he just said. 11 12 13 Chair Martinez: You weren’t listening were you? Okay call for the Vote. Okay but don’t send us off track. 14 15 16 17 Commissioner Tanaka: This is quick. I was curious about the dormer windows on the left hand side, the two that face the only neighbor, the second story windows and I was wondering, do they look into the neighbor’s windows? 18 19 Ms. Campbell: Staff didn’t analyze that. I could not tell you. 20 21 22 23 24 Ms. French: I would add that if at some point an Applicant or subsequent owner were to come in with a permanent staircase to the attic and put a floor in there to become a second floor the project would have to go through the individual review process and those windows would be analyzed as to privacy impacts upon the neighbors. 25 26 Ms. Campbell: Just to clarify the plans call them out as vents, not windows. 27 28 29 30 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. So they’re not actually windows. Great thank you. VOTE 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Chair Martinez: All those in favor say Aye. I see six Ayes and no Nos so the Motion passes with Commissioner Keller, Tanaka, Martinez, Fineberg, Michael and Tuma voting in support and good luck to you all. Thank you. MOTION PASSED APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of February 8 and 22, 2012. Chair Martinez: We have some minutes to approve. What are the dates? February 8th and February 22 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 nd. Any corrections or anything else? Motion to approve. Second by Commissioner Tanaka. All those in favor say Aye. Okay passed unanimously. It’s okay you can still vote according to our rules with all Commissioners voting in support of that. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Vice Chair Fineberg: City Council met to hear the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center. It was I think approximately a three hour hearing and ended quite late. Council certified the Final EIR and the Amendments to the Final and Draft EIRs. They also approved the Tentative Map to merge the parcels and do subdivision to create single parcels for the ten residential parcels and they approved the project. One of the items that we touched on earlier in our hearing is Council identified a desire to close the sidewalk gap that runs north from the Plaza along West Bayshore up into East Palo Alto so that’s what triggered adding that sidewalk gap closure in the Bike and Ped Master Plan. It also triggered a discussion by Council about changes that need to be made at the exits from Highway 101 onto Embarcadero to help make traffic safer so there was a Motion which was approved and Council directed Staff to return to Council with an information item within 90 days regarding the traffic concerns for Highway 1 and the Embarcadero Road intersections and to identify potential funding sources so that Council could agendize this discussion for a future meeting. 17 18 Chair Martinez: How’s our Transportation Element going? Got a report on that? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Commissioner Keller: We are making progress. There was no meeting today and the next meeting will be before the next Commission meeting. I’m not sure why there was no meeting today but we are through most of the sections. I think we are waiting for one or two sections left and feedback to get a copy of all the stuff that’s done so far. It has to come in from the Bike Plan, information from the Bike Plan and information from the relevant parts of the Rail Corridor Task Force has to come in but I think it would be worthwhile to have some early feedback from the Commission on what’s available and not necessarily wait until June or July. If anything we can simply possibly give a copy of the Draft for people to look at and not necessarily take up meeting time for that. 29 30 31 Chair Martinez: Okay I Second that so we will get the word to the Planning Director of our request. I would actually like all the Commission to be able to make comment on that. 32 33 34 Commissioner Keller: In particular to do that in redline form for all the sections of the Comp Plan, to distribute that to all for review. 35 36 37 38 Chair Martinez: The Housing Element is coming to our next meeting so that will give us a preview of where it’s going but I agree with you. Commissioner Tuma a report on Natural Resources. 39 40 41 42 43 Commissioner Tuma: We had another meeting today. We’re through a good portion of it including through Goals 1 and 2 of 6 and I think we’ve got two more meetings scheduled in the next two Wednesdays that we have Commission and I think we will wrap it up by then. Chair Martinez: I would also add that this is where we’re adding sustainable environment climate change goal so its an entirely new goal and I’d like Commissioner Keller to really 44 45 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 have the full Commission weigh in on this and when did they say it may come, in May or something like that? Because it’s pretty exciting because it really changes things. Before I forget I want to thank the Vice Chair for taking my place at the last two Council meetings and on topics that really you were there late and took a lot of the S word. I will take your place, I could never replace you in May. I wanted to report on as liaison to the ARB that I was invited to their retreat. It was a lovely affair, right Amy? We had a good discussion about working closer together. The new Chair is replacing Heather and is Judith Wasserman and we are going to continue at least monthly or bimonthly our meeting to come to a proposal for a second joint meeting. They have offered to, or want to host the joint meeting. The condition is that it will be an evening meeting so we don’t have to be there at 8:30 or whenever they meet and so we’ll be coming back hopefully in April with our second joint meeting with the ARB in late April perhaps. Anyone else? Any other reports? Okay with that… One other thing. Commissioner Michael had wanted a moment where we could suggest future Study Sessions and you want to talk about one that you had in mind? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Commissioner Michael: What I had suggested at the pre-Commission meeting was the possibility of studying or doing some analysis of the notorious Palo Alto process which as a new Commissioner I have been trying to decipher to see what exactly it is that’s within the purview of the Planning Commission that makes this a better process or not and I think there’s a lot that I need to understand and it appears Vice Chair Fineberg confessed that she had gone through a similar exercise when she became a member of this Commission and she’s agreed to share with me her insights but in the paper this week there was an article about the Saratoga process which apparently is just as bad or maybe worse than the Palo Alto process. There was an Applicant that had gone back with ten designs to their Commission and got bumped and it’s still not done, neither rejected or approved but in any event I thought it might be worthwhile for us as a group to undertake the question of could the Palo Alto process be improved. 32 33 Chair Martinez: Any other ideas for Study Sessions? Yes, Commissioner Keller. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Keller: I am looking forward to a continued discussion about Environmental things and I’m wondering how that fits in with the fact that we no longer have a person on Staff of the department that supports us of a Sustainability Planner so since Kristin Parineh has left that’s an issue. The next thing is since I noticed the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Improvement Project is coming to us on April 25th and that has been fraught with increasing controversy I would suggest that we plan to make that not many other things on that evening’s agenda because it’s probably going to be a particularly long item I would guess with the public being involved so I just think that it’s worthwhile making room for it. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Vice Chair Fineberg: The question you just asked prompted me to look at our agenda and we used to have a section on the back of it that was kind of garage items and unless I’m missing it, I’m sorry parking lot list, not garage. Unless I’m missing it I don’t see it on here anymore and that was kind of… Okay so I’m being told its on our tentative agenda. What that brings to mind then is whether we need to have, we usually go through a process periodically of prioritizing which of our items will come up as Study Sessions because we can’t do everything that we would like to do so maybe we need to have some kind of I don’t know if it’s a retreat or put the dots on the board process just to pick which items we’ll prioritize and have three to five Study Sessions in a year so the ones for instance we had years ago talked about having a grocery store overlay and I don’t see that in the last parking lot list it had been dropped and while I’m talking I’m looking at our tentative agenda and I’m sorry I don’t see it. Okay so the parking lot list has dropped the grocery store overlay and I would like to see that one come back on and somehow we have to prioritize which are our most important ones we want to review. 16 17 18 Chair Martinez: Okay very good. At 10:04, meeting adjourned. Thank you. 18 ) November 1, 2011 Variance Request From: Zahid Rahman and Maryam Haq Owners 885 Seale Avenue Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Attachmen t F RECEIVED NOV 01 Z011 Department of Planning & Cornmunity Environrnent We are requesting a variance for a remodel and addition we would like to undertake at our home at 885 Seale Avenue. The lot is a sub-standard lot, a pie shaped property that fronts Embarcadero Avenue at the back of the home (technically, per the city, the front of the home). Per the existing conditions, and in this remodel, the proposed front entrance to the home is on Seale. The home has one adjacent lot only, a lot that originally included our slice of property. The owners subdivided to create 885 Seale Avenue. Because of special circumstances including the shape of the lot, three large protected redwoods and the adjacent very busy, noisy street, we are limited. The proposed plans take into account our desire to add a partial basement and expand the existing footprint by an additional 927 square feet. In these proposed plans: The back (Embarcadero side) of the building is into the required setback by 4' -0". This is an existing intrusion; we are not proposing that the home move from the existing intrusion. The proposed master bath shower area encroaches into that setback area by 5'-0". The entire rear light well is in what is considered by the City standards "front yard" though this is Embarcadero and our home has never fronted that street. The proposed swimming pool is in what is clearly our backyard, though again, technically the front yard. A recent site survey has determined that a portion of our new design (M -BR) is in the Seale side setback. Currently the setback from the Seale Avenue side is being calculated from the easement line that runs along this side. The easement strip is approximately 10' wide (inclusive of the side walk) and legally belongs to us and is dedicated as an easement to the City. We would like to request that the Seale side setback to be taken from the edge of the street where our legal property line is and not from the ) ) easement line. During the design phase, we have tried to strike a balance to remodel the house so that it aesthetically fits in with the surroundings, respects our neighbors' privacy, enhances living comforts and is within the planning codes as much as possible. For this reason, we decided not to add a second level to the house and limit the footprint of the house to 2,700 sqft, whereas the maximum permissible build-out area is over 3,300 sqft. We strongly believe that this renovation presents the least intrusive way to add square footage with minimal impact on the neighbors and the neighborhood. We believe our request does not impact public health, safety, general welfare or convenience of our neighbors or the community. Regards ) ) 885 Seale, Variance Request View from front door facing Barbara Way Home directly across street on Seale ) ) 885 Seale, Variance Request Embarcadero frontage ) ) 885 Seale, Variance Request Embarcadero Frontage 885 Seale Ave, Palo Alto, 94303 (Maryam Hag & Zahid Rahman) I do not have objection to the variance approved by the City of Palo Alto on February 3,2012 with respect to the above property. Address 2'61 Seaf-L .Av PI+-(A 9fJt(] / q (!J 0 bzuf" &tvr~ fJ-rv f!:ulo 14110. C!/-I-_ qq 3~3 !1~; ;gar/oArIA..-~JV6 tvtftJ A/1cJ c4 ftj3tJ 3 I 1 (. () {3 tl,r-b{/A~~ j){'-I ~ P~& ala ell rtrJo ~qO S~6 lTV ~~\'0 A)+O eA-9i,303 ~"7J I 5~1L-d..t.,~ P aJA'ozt?; c·A ~ If .3 0 3 8 to 6h:M~N7 ;zJ Pfl/p Ali 0" (I) 0 (f r~ ) f7~ l~t~;4 (J~ A~/ c/-\ 1Y303 8tp1 ~ULCcdwtd-(~, r4 )0ft o;~3 ~ Signature ~~L~. ~~ ~~ 0!f7h~ Campbell, Clare From: Joan Reid [jonisreid@gmail,com] Friday, February 17, 2012 9:44 AM Campbell, Clare Sent: To: Cc: French, Amy Subject: 885 Seale Ave Palo Alto To: Clare Campbell Planner Planning Division Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 From: Linda Zausen 872 Embarcadero Rd Palo Alto, Ca 94303 Joan Zausen 872 Embarcadero Rd Palo Alto, Ca 94303 Joan Reid 868 Embarcadero Rd Palo Alto, Ca 94303 Date: February 17,2012 Re: Proposed Variances: 885 Seale Avenue Palo Alto Ca, 94303 Attachment G Page lof2 We are registering our concerns, per our conversation with you at your office on February 16,2012 at 8:40 a.m., regarding the five proposed variances for the above listed property in accordance with the provisions ofPAMC Chapter 18.77.060 (c) we are requesting a hearing of the Variance decision before the Planning and Transportation Commission. This request is being submitted by email within 14 calendar days of the mailing of this decision. Variance Findings: Based on the planning department's February 3, 2012 letter to Maryam Haq from Amy French (City of Palo Alto): 1. "Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject property the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district as the subject property. " We live in the "the vicinity and zoning district as the subject property" and we oppose the city's decision to not follow the "the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title ... in the vicinity and zoning district as the subject property." Our homes are on Embarcadero Rd. We have to contend with excessive noise, excessive dust and dirt and excessive speed by drivers who believe Embarcadero Rd is an extension of Freeway 101. We would be forced to contend with a larger than usual and customary home in our neighborhood: a home with an extended roof height and noisy pool equipment which would deprive us of the "privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district ... " When one drives around this once charming city of Palo Alto, one is stuck by the inordinate number of "Monster" homes that abound. These homes most often do not conform to the surrounding homes. These "Monster" homes may have been provided with Variances and the lack of the "application of the requirements and regulations" as are the proposed Variances for 885 Seale Avenue. As noted in Ms. French's letter, the existing home exceeds the regulations: "Also the existing home, which is being added onto, encroaches 4' -1" into the 24' special setback for a length of approximately 69 feet." Ms. Haq understood the limitations of the lot she purchased. If Ms. Haq wants to "encroach 4' -1" into the 24' special setback approximately 69 feet" then the requirement should be changed so that it is applicable to every homeowner. If the conditions under which the special 24' special set back were established no longer apply the setback regulation should be changed. The letter to Ms. Haq indicated, " ... because this site has the special setback, pools are not permitted." 3/2112012 Page 2 of2 Your department granted a proposed variance for a pool at the rear of the property. When we looked at the plans this morning in the planning office it did not appear a "minimum 16' setback from the Embarcadero property line" actually existed. It appeared to us the entire pool and patio were not just encroaching on the setback, but were within it; and not just the 24' setback or a revised 16' setback, but within 6', or maybe closer, of the Embarcadero Road property line. 4. The letter to Ms. Haq indicated: "the proposed improvements to the existing single-family home is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood ... and therefore, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.:' It will be an eyesore in an otherwise generally single storey, single-family home residential neighborhood. The very neighborhood in which my (Joan Reid) home has been in my family since 1975, and in which Linda and Joan Zausen have had a home since 1991. CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL 4. "The building permit plans shall include an attic floor plan and sections clearly define this area. This area is not , approved as usable living area and has not been included in the floor area calculations." We find this statement interesting in and of itself. We wonder why an attic would be added to an existing structure and yet was not included in the floor area calculations. We were under the impression that all space within the walls of a home was calculated as floor area. We were under the impression we paid taxes on the basis of the cost of our homes which were based on the size of our homes, in addition to other factors. A larger home would seemingly have a higher tax rate. The addition of the attic enlarges the existing structure. It is additional space that is being added, it may be used for storage or it may be used "as usable living area." How do you know now, in advance of the construction, that it will not eventually be used "as usable living area?" How do you, as city planners, enforce that "condition?" How does your department enforce "irregular/atypical" living spaces in this city? Possibly such "irregular/atypical" and "non-permit" living spaces exist at 876 Embarcadero Rd. It is a lot with a single family home, a second dwelling with electricity and multiple sheds that may be lived in. This document confirms we are invoking our right to a hearing regarding the proposed approval for the stated variances at 885 Seale A venue Palo Alto, Ca 94303. Weare exercising our option to register our concerns and are appealing to you and your department to help us, citizens and tax payers, of Palo Alto understand how we can make our voices heard when we feel . our neighborhood is being so altered. We believe the proposed variances applied to the property at 885 Seale Avenue negatively affect the integrity of our neighborhood. The purchaser was most assuredly aware of the character of our neighborhood and zoning district when she purchased the home. Yet she subsequently applied for city variances to alter that integrity and character. Her actions and the city's proposed approval of such variances disallow us of enjoying our privileges in our established neighborhood. Yours truly, Joan Reid Linda Zausen Joan Zausen cc: Amy French amy . french @cityofpaloalto.org 3/2112012 5030.txt Council Members only Page 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 2763) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/23/2012 April 23, 2012 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 2763) Summary Title: BID Preliminary Re-Authorization Title: Preliminary Approval of the Report of the Advisory Board for Fiscal Year 2013 in Connection with the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District and Adoption of Resolution Declaring its Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses within the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2013 and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing on May 7, at 7:00 PM or Thereafter, in the City Council Chambers From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council: (a) Preliminarily approve the Business Improvement District (BID) Advisory Board’s 2013 Budget Report for the BID (Attachment 1) and; (b) Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments in the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2012, setting a date and time for the public hearing on the levy of the proposed assessments for May 7, 2012, at 7:00 PM, or thereafter, in the City Council Chambers (Attachment 3) Executive Summary This Council action includes a preliminary approval of the BID Board’s annual report, and sets a time and place for a public hearing for the staff presentation, and to determine any objections to the assessments. Since the BID inception in 2004, a number of activities consistent with State BID law have been accomplished by the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association (PADBPA), the entity with which the April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 2763) City contracts to provide services to the 800+ businesses assessed in the Downtown. These include addressing the three main issues facing downtown businesses: cleanliness, safety, and attractiveness, as well as participation in zoning and other matters affecting downtown businesses. Assessments for BID businesses are based on the size, type and location of the business. Assessments range from $50 for individually owned professional businesses to $500 annually for financial institutions. The PADBPA has monthly open meetings governed by the Ralph M. Brown Act which any business or individual can attend. At last year’s re-authorization hearing, some Councilmembers asked staff to evaluate the possible expansion of the BID area and adjustments to the fee structure. Staff consulted with the PADBPA Board who did not favor expanding the boundaries or adjusting fees at this time. Legal staff has informed us that expansion of the boundaries will require re-establishment of the District including the expanded area which may require a vote of the entire assessment district. Background The Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) was established by the City Council in 2004 pursuant to the California Parking and business Improvement Area Law to promote the economic revitalization and physical maintenance of the Palo Alto Downtown business district. The Council appointed the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association (PADBPA), a non- profit corporation, as the Advisory Board for the BID. The Board’s purpose is to advise the Council on the method and basis for levy of assessments in the BID and the expenditure of revenues derived from the assessments. Pursuant to BID law, the Advisory Board must annually submit to the Council a report that proposes a budget for the upcoming Fiscal Year for the BID. The report must: 1) propose any boundary changes in the BID; 2) list the improvements and activities to be provided in the Fiscal Year; 3) estimate the cost to provide the improvements and activities; 4) set forth the method and basis for levy of assessments; 5) identify surplus or deficit revenues carried over from the prior Fiscal Year; and 6) identify amounts of contributions from sources other than assessments. April 23, 2012 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 2763) The Council must then: 1) review the report and preliminarily approve it as proposed or as changed by the Council; 2) adopt a resolution of intention to levy the assessments for the upcoming Fiscal Year; and 3) set a date and time for the public hearing on the levy of assessments in the BID. Absent a majority protest at the public hearing on May 2, 2011, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution confirming the report for Fiscal Year 2012 as filed or as modified by the Council. The adoption of the resolution constitutes the levying of the BID assessments for Fiscal Year 2012. Discussion The Advisory Board has prepared a report (Attachment 1) for the Council’s consideration which includes the proposed budget for the Palo Alto Downtown BID for Fiscal Year 2013. As required by BID law, the report has been filed with the City Clerk and contains a list of the improvements, activities, and associated costs proposed in the BID for Fiscal Year 2012. The Advisory Board has recommended no change in the BID boundaries or the method and basis for levying assessments. A map of the BID and assessment schedule is attached (Attachment 2). The proposed assessments in the BID for Fiscal Year 2013 are the same as the assessments in Fiscal Year 2012. No increases are proposed. The budget report for Fiscal Year 2013 was reviewed and approved by the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association at its board meeting on March 28, 2012. Resource Impact Adoption of the proposed BID budget does not directly impact City revenue. BID assessments are restricted for use exclusively by the BID. It is anticipated that a healthy BID will encourage vitality in the retail community and consequently result in additional sales tax revenue for the City. Some staff effort is expended annually to administer the collection of the BID. Staff will continue to monitor staff administrative time devoted to the collection of BID assessments to assure that City costs do not exceed April 23, 2012 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 2763) estimates for these services. The cost and collection of BID assessments past 60 days is borne by the BID. The Attorney's Office will continue to provide legal oversight to the BID during the annual reauthorization process. Administrative Services staff provides assistance in the collection of BID assessments. The Economic Development Manager will continue to provide oversight to the BID and will prepare the annual reauthorization. Environmental Review This action by the City Council does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act, and therefore no environmental assessment is necessary. Attachments: : PAd Annual Report 2012-13 (DOC) : Bid Map and Fee Schedule (Exibit A & B) (PDF) : 0130950 RESO Declaring Intention to Levy BID FY13 (PDF) Prepared By: Thomas Fehrenbach, Econ Dev Mgr Department Head: James Keene, City Manager City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager 1 Introduction This report from the Advisory Board of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association (“PAd”) was prepared for City Council to review for the annual reauthorization of the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District (“BID”) pursuant to Section 36533 of the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989 (Section 36500 and following of the California Streets and Highways code) (the “Law”). This report is for the proposed fiscal year for the BID commencing July 1, 2012 and ending June 30, 2013. (“Fiscal Year 2012-13”). As required by the Law, this report contains the following information: I. Any proposed changes in BID boundaries and benefit zones within the BID; II. The improvements and activities to be provided for Fiscal Year 2012-13; III. An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities for Fiscal Year 2012- 13; IV. The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for Fiscal Year 2012-13. V. The amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year. VI. The amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to the Law. Submitted by Anne E. Senti-Willis, Chair, and Russell S. Cohen, Executive Director on behalf of the Advisory Board (“Advisory Board”) of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association (“PAd”). The Advisory Board approved this report on March 28,, 2012. Received on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Palo Alto on March 29, 2012. 2 Section I: BID boundaries and Benefit Zones There have been no changes in the BID boundaries or benefit zones within the BID and no changes are proposed. The current boundaries are depicted on the map below. The area of the BID is referred to as “Downtown” 3 2011-12 FISCAL YEAR IN REVIEW “Keeping Downtown Palo Alto Safe, Spotless and Successful.” Identified approximately $25K in new assessments by updating data base Included letter to new businesses with first invoice helping to educate and inform them about PAd Included letter with second invoice to all businesses within district Increased street cleaning schedule and improved street cleaning equipment resulting in noticeable improvements Increased police presence with addition of dedicated patrol officers downtown Recruited new board members Initiated Cogswell Plaza improvements, work plan approved and renovations begin in Spring/Summer 2012 Developed rules of engagement for Lytton Plaza with Parks Department. Launched PAd Facebook page Completed annual financial audit Conducted “on the street” surveys regarding Downtown general issues Recruited media coverage including “Eye on The Bay” ( KCBS) and “Around the Bay” ( KNTV-NBC) live remote Gathered approx. 140 email addresses from Downtown businesses Assumed responsibility for the Chamber Parking Committee which in turn has helped to develop Downtown parking policy enhancements Initiated monthly meetings with City of PA Economic Development Manager as well as monthly meetings with Chief Parking Official. Designed and placed advertising in Palo Alto Weekly and Palo Alto online Designed and managed media coverage and vendor participation for: “The Downtown Palo Alto Clean, Green Street Scene” and “The Downtown Palo Alto Light the Night Holiday Tree Lighting” event Worked with merchants, restaurants and City staff for the first ever closure of University Ave for “World Music Day” Initiated the “Downtown Crown.” A symbolic gift presented to new businesses upon their grand opening. Five crowns have been presented during calendar year 2011 4 Conducted PAd breakfast roundtable entitled, ” In Pursuit of the Perfect Public Parking Program” with featured speakers from the City of San Francisco’s Transportation Commission, City of Palo Alto and Redwood City Partnered with city of Palo Alto on Gran Fondo, United Nations Association Film Festival, Giants Championship Trophy in Lytton Plaza and Parade of Champions events Conducted board member brainstorming and prioritization goal setting offsite. Media coverage included at least 10 articles on Downtown events and issues. 5 Section II: Improvements and Planned Activities for Fiscal Year 2012-13 Programs, Events and Activities: A more attractive Downtown: Continued robust cleaning schedule along with improved cleaning equipment including a higher pressure, hot water device to allow for gum removal through a partnership with the City of Palo Alto and its vendors. An active lamppost banner schedule is in place for both spring and summer and is in development for fall and winter. New banner ordinance language is in development. Lighting and landscaping improvements for Cogswell Park will commence in May 2012. Rules of engagement regarding amplified music and permitting for Lytton Plaza are under development with a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation commission forthcoming. Work continues with the Palo Alto Police Department to address aggressive panhandling and loitering conflicts. Work continues with the Downtown Streets Team, North County Alternative Services, InnVision, Palo Alto Police Department and the City of Palo Alto Public Works Facilities and Operations Divisions to address both area cleanliness and area’s complex transient population issues, with special emphasis on Downtown public parking garages and alleyways. Landscaping enhancements along University Avenue in partnership with the city of Palo Alto landscape architect. Work scheduled to begin Spring 2012. Twinkle lights in Lytton Palza upgraded to solar timers while street trees remain on traditional timers enabling better control of electricity in Lytton Plaza. Work with the City of Palo Alto Economic Development Manager to develop and implement restaurant outdoor seating guidelines and process. Flagpoles displaying American Flags during national holidays on lamp posts is under development with the city of Palo Alto Public Works division. Enhancing downtown with a preponderance of public art, including art in vacant storefronts in under development through a partnership with The City of Palo Alto Art Commission, ArtHere and others. “First /Art Crawl” under consideration of reemergence. A more informed Downtown: Work is underway to create a Downtown Ambassador program. Currently the Downtown Streets Team (DST) administers a tiered system employing participants to clean Downtown 6 streets and alleyways in exchange for food and housing vouchers. Participants are rewarded and promoted through tiers based on performance. The introduction of a new tier, “Downtown Ambassador,” will become the ultimate reward. These “Ambassadors” will be neatly uniformed and well educated about Downtown events and businesses. They will function as Downtown concierges for visitors and patrons of Downtown Palo Alto. Funding will come from multiple private/public partnerships. Revitalization of the block captain program is under discussion. “rBlock” geographic communications tool under beta testing by city of Palo Alto and PAd to test efficiency of this method of mass communication. Continued board member recruitment/development is underway with special attention given to diversity. Desired diversity would include a variety of business types represented on the board, including but not limited to Financial, Technology, Retail, Medical, Restaurant, Real Estate, and Hospitality as well as at least one representative from more distant points within the district. Providing information through a printed walking map of Downtown is under development Providing information and branding of Downtown through publication of “Made in DOWNTOWN Palo Alto” is under development. A more connected Downtown: Web presence: Re-engineer website to communicate with district members. Re-branding of PAd to be included in website redesign B2B focused. This refocus will allow members to build relationships amongst fellow members of the district, be better informed about events, issues and programs that affect their businesses directly. Give business of all kinds a better connection to PAd for specific advocacy needs. Web site will function as a portal for archival information—minutes, agendas and a members’ only contact list. Social media may be employed to provide a more immediate outreach opportunity to members and the public. A comprehensive email database is being developed in order to design an effective electronic communication strategy. Surveys Both electronic and on the street, personal outreach and surveys are ongoing in order to determine what successes can be capitalized upon and what concerns need to be addressed regarding doing business in Downtown Palo Alto. Partnerships 7 Building relationships with Stanford Dean of Student Activities, Athletic Events Marketing Director, Office of Government and Community Relations and University Real Estate Office to enhance connectivity and encourage Stanford visitors and community members to come Downtown. Other partnership discussions underway include, Palo Alto Community Fund, Palo Alto Institute, Palo Alto Art Center, Kiwanis, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and more. Outreach Through vigorous outreach, the PAd member database has been updated and made more accurate resulting in approximately 160 new member listings representing approximately $20,000 in additional assessments. Ongoing outreach to members regarding issues that might affect the success of their day-to-day activities, (i.e. construction updates, special events, street closures, temporary sidewalk obstructions, etc.) Note: SF Giants Trophy appearance downtown and Parade of Champions event are examples of this face-to-face, personal outreach effort. A more efficient Downtown: Continued improvement of way-finding signage including but not limited to public parking way- finding and additional bike arcs/racks and corrals. Supporting the ongoing efforts to streamline the permitting process through the City of Palo Alto Development Center. PAd now administers and facilitates the former Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Parking Committee as much of the work plan discussed by this committee is downtown-centric. A more active Downtown: The second annual Earth Day celebration called “The Downtown Palo Alto Clean Green Street Scene” will be held April 20, 2012. Support, promote and expand World Music Day. Support and promote The Palo Alto Gran Fondo Bicycle Ride and Taste of Palo Alto. Support the efforts of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau and ongoing Stanford events and opportunities to drive more visitors to Downtown Palo Alto from the Stanford campus. Help promote United Nations Association Film Festival, Stanford Jazz Summers, Palo Alto Institute Film Festival and TheaterWorks programs. Transition oversight and promotion of a vibrant and well-used Lytton Plaza from the Friends of Lytton Plaza. 8 New events to attract visitors and encourage neighbors to visit downtown Palo Alto more often are under development through subcommittees of the PAd. 9 Section III: Budget for 2012-13 The total funds available for activities for this fiscal year are estimated to be $29,715. The budget for providing the activities is set forth as follows: BID 2012/13 Budget INCOME Total Non-Assessment Sources Assessments $160,000 Allowance for Uncollectible Assessments ($35,000) Other Revenue $12,600 $12,600 09-10 Surplus Carryover $50,000 TOTAL INCOME $187,600 $12,600 EXPENSES Operating Expenses Staff Salaries Executive Director Salary $66,000 Payroll taxes and expense $6,600 Office Supplies & Expenses $2,000 Internet/Website Maintenance $500 Telephone $900 Rent $3,120 Reauthorization Advertising $2,000 Audit-Tax Returns $5,700 Legal $1,000 $1,000 Insurance - Liability $1,800 Workman's Comp $1,000 Nominating $1,500 Contingencies $2,000 Subtotal -- Operating Expenses $94,120 $1,000 Programs, Marketing and Events Banners $7,500 $2,000 Breakfast Roundtables $5,700 $4,100 Events $7,000 $3,500 Member Outreach & Communication $11,250 $2,000 Downtown Streets Team $5,000 District Improvement $57,030 Subtotal --Programs, Marketing & Events $93,480 $11,600 TOTAL EXPENSES $187,600 $12,600 10 Section IV: Method and Basis of Levying the Assessment Cost Benefit Analysis / Bid Assessments The method and basis of levying the assessment is provided in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for Fiscal Year 2012-13 and is not changed from the FY 2011-12 assessment. There have been no changes made to the Cost-Benefit Analysis or to the BID Assessments since they were approved by City Council on February 2, 2004. The method of calculation used to determine the cost and benefit to each business located in the BID is described below. The BID assessments are based on three criteria: the type of business, the location of the business and the size of the business. It has been consistently demonstrated that the typical BID program places a higher priority on activities such as commercial marketing. As a result, the retail and restaurant establishments in the BID are assessed more than service and professional businesses in the district. While service-oriented businesses benefit from a BID less than retailers and restaurateurs, they benefit more than professional businesses such as medical, dental, architectural, consultant and legal offices with their minimal advertising and promotion needs. For these reasons, various business types are assessed according to the benefit that they receive from the BID, as follows:  Retail and Restaurant 100% of base amount  Service 75% of base amount  Professional 50% of base amount Exceptions to this rule include financial institutions that are traditionally charged a flat rate regardless of location or size and lodging businesses that are typically charged by total rooms. The location of a business also determines the degree of benefit that accrues to that business. Centrally located businesses tend to benefit more, as do businesses located on the ground floor. For this reason, A and B benefit zones have been identified for the BID. In Palo Alto, Zone A benefit businesses are assessed 100% of the base benefit assessment while Zone B businesses are assessed 75%. A third criterion is used in the BID to determine benefit. This criterion, the size of the business, takes into consideration the number of full time employees employed by the business. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a more complete understanding of the application of these three variables to establish BID benefit. Attachment 2 is the BID assessment for each business located within the BID boundaries. Applying the criteria identified in Attachment 1, a summary of the assessment that applies to each business by size, type and location is outlined. In addition to the Cost-Benefit Analysis, the assessments include the following criteria: 11  An exemption for “single person professional businesses” that have 25% or fewer full time equivalent (“FTE”), including the business owner. This covers employees who work less than 10 hours a week (based on a 40 hour work week; an FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually)  An assessment specifically for “single person businesses” that have 26% FTE to 1 FTE in the professional business category of the BID (An FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually)  The tiering of other professional businesses by size based (according to benefit) on the “single person business” criteria This outline provides information by which a business can determine its annual assessment based on objective criteria. Except where otherwise defined, all terms shall have the meanings identified below: Definitions of Business Types in the Downtown Business Improvement District Retailers and Restaurants: Businesses that buy or resell goods such as clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies as well as businesses that sell prepared food and drink. Service Businesses: Businesses that sell services such as beauty or barber shops, repair shops, most automotive businesses, dry cleaners, art and dance studios, printing firms, film processing companies, travel agencies, entertainment businesses such as theatres, etc. Hotel and Lodging: These include businesses that have as their main business the lodging of customers. This is restricted to residential businesses that provide lodging services to customers for less than 30 days. Professional Businesses: Businesses that require advanced and/or specialized licenses or academic degrees such as architects, engineers, attorneys, chiropractors, dentists, doctors, accountants, optometrists, realtors, insurance brokers, venture capital firms, consultants, advertising and marketing professionals and mortgage brokers and similar professions. Financial Institutions: Includes banking, savings and loan institutions and credit unions. Additional clarification on business definitions will be defined according to Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Advisory Board recommends that the following businesses be exempt from the BID assessment:  New businesses established in the BID area following the annual assessment for the year in which they locate in the BID area  Non-profit organizations  Newspapers  “Single person professional businesses” that have 25% or less FTE, including the business owner The Assessment calculated shall be paid to the City no later 30 days after receipt of the invoice with the amount of the annual assessment sent by the City. A second notice will be mailed as a reminder to businesses that have not remitted payment by that date. Late payment will be subject to a 10% late fee. 12 Section V: Revenue Surplus or Deficit Based on the revenue balance on 02/28/12 of $103,225, the PAd expects a surplus carryover of $50,000. Expected expenses for the remainder of FY 11-12 are as follows: Current Revenue Balance $103,225 Expected expenses for remaining FYE6/30/2012 Staff Salaries $25,000 Elections & Annual Report $3,500 Office & Operating Expenses $10,000 Outside Audit $4,000 Reauthorization Advertising $2,500 Downtown Streets Team $5,000 Rent $1,300 Total Expected Expense $51,300 Expected Carryover $50,000 Section VI: Non-assessment Income It is estimated that $ 12,600.00 will be raised in fundraising, and sponsor support. Additionally, anticipate in kind contribution towards expenses for Fiscal Year 2012-13. Projected Income for Fiscal Year 2012-13 Roundtable Breakfasts (donation) $4,100 Legal (donation) $1,000 Banners $2,000 Events $3,500 Member Outreach & Communication $2,000 Total $12,600 13 Section VII: PAd Board of Directors by Business Type Retailers and Restaurants Alice Duetsher, Shady Lane Gifts Whitney Denson, Five Ten Gifts Georgie Gleim, Gleim the Jeweler Jeff Selzer, Palo Alto Bicycles Cornelia Pendelton, University Art Hotel and Lodging Barbara Gross, Garden Court Hotel Service Businesses Robert Peterson, Peterson Architects Financial Institutions Deborah Pappas, Borel Private Bank & Trust Company Professional Organizations Anne E. Senti-Willis, Thoits, Love, Hershberger & McLean Non Profit Organizations Chris Richardson, Downtown Streets Team Meredith Hagedorn, Dragon Theater LIAISONS Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Paul Wright, President & CEO Downtown Streets Team Eileen Richardson, Executive Director City Of Palo Alto Greg Scharff, Palo Alto City Council Thomas Fehrenbach, Manager of Economic Development 1 Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 1 A General Statement Regarding Cost-Benefit Analysis For BID Businesses Using The Traditional Three Criteria Formula Criteria 1) Type of Business: Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Type Of Business: In a review of 200 California Business Improvement Districts, it is consistently demonstrated that the typical BID Program places a higher priority on Commercial Marketing Programs than on Civic Beautification and Commercial Recruitment Programs. With that trend in mind, retail and restaurant businesses, with their emphasis on, and need for, commercial marketing, are traditionally assessed more than less marketing-sensitive service-oriented or professional-oriented businesses. However, while service-oriented businesses benefit from a BID less than retailers and restaurateurs, they benefit more, (from commercial marketing programs), than professional businesses such as medical, dental and legal offices with their minimal advertising and promotion needs. Therefore, set forth below, is an example of how various business types might be considered regarding the computation of the annual benefit assessment. • Retail and Restaurant: 100% of base amount • Service: 75% of base amount • Professional: 50% of base amount Exceptions to this rule include financial institutions that are traditionally charged a flat rate regardless of location or size and lodging businesses that are typically charged by total rooms. Lodging businesses are assessed based on the total number of rooms because it is a more equitable manner of determining size. Many lodging businesses have many part time employees, but revenues are based on the room occupancies of the hotel, not the goods sold or serviced provided by employees. Criteria 2) Location of Business: Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Location of Business: It has also been consistently demonstrated that the more centrally located businesses tend to benefit from BID activities and services to a greater degree than businesses located toward the periphery of the proposed BID boundaries. Events and activities tend to originate in the central core of the Downtown area and spread benefit to the outer areas with diminishing energy and impact, much like the ripple effect of a stone tossed into a body of calm water. Furthermore, ground floor businesses tend to benefit to a greater degree than businesses located in upper floors. Therefore, in some cases, a new BID's annual benefit assessment formula also takes these street level criteria into account. As mentioned above, special events, fairs, festivals and other activities tend to take place within, or along, the Main Street core rather than in the areas at the periphery of the Downtown core. Additionally, BID-sponsored seasonal decorations, public art projects, street banners and street furniture tend to be located within the immediate core area. 2 Attachment 1 Therefore, businesses located within the most central area of the proposed BID are considered to be within "Zone A" which should be considered the primary benefit zone. There is typically a "secondary zone" or "Zone B" within most proposed BID areas. This area receives less benefit than Zone A and should be assessed accordingly. An example of how different zones might be treated regarding the computation of the annual benefit assessment is as follows. • Zone A: 100% of base benefit assessment • Zone B: 75% of base benefit assessment In the case of Downtown Palo Alto, it is recommended that all Zone A upper floor businesses, as well as any other businesses located at the periphery of the proposed BID, be considered as Zone B businesses. Please refer to the map in Attachment I. Criteria 3) Size of Business: Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Size of Business: In approximately 50% of newly established BIDs, a third assessment criterion is used. This criterion involves the size of each individual business that is based upon the businesses’ total number of full-time employees. Full-time employees are those working a total of 2,000 hours per year. Part-time employees are grouped into full-time job positions, i.e., two half-time employees total one full-time. Fractions are rounded down to the nearest whole number with no less than one person as a minimum for business. An example of how various business sizes might be treated regarding the computation of the annual benefit assessment is as follows: Retail/Restaurants Service Businesses Small 50% of base amount Under 6 FTE* Under 4 FTE Medium 75% of base amount 6 to under 11 FTE 4 to under 7 FTE Large 100% of base amount 11 or more FTE 7 or more FTE * FTE = full time employees Additionally, an exemption was established for “single person professional businesses” that have 25% or less FTE, including the business owner. This covers employees who work less 10 hours a week (based on a 40 hour work week) Since “single person businesses” that have 26% FTE to 1 FTE in the professional business category of the BID benefit the very least from the assessment, their assessments have been tiered by size based (according to benefit) on the new “single person business” criteria. 1 Attachment 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District Annual BID Assessments ZONE A ZONE B (75% of Zone A amount) Restaurants & Retailers Under 6 FTE (50% of base amount) $225 $170 6 to under 11 FTE (75% of base amount) $340 $260 11 or more FTE (100% of base amount) $450 $340 Service Businesses Under 4 FTE (50% of base amount) $170 $130 4 to under 7 FTE (75% of base amount) $260 $200 Over 7 FTE (100% of base amount) $340 $260 Professional Businesses 25% or fewer FTE, including owner (0% of base amount) Exempt Exempt 26% FTE to under 1 FTE (25% of base amount) $60 $50 2 to 4 FTE (50% of base amount) $110 $90 5 to 9 FTE (75% of base amount) $170 $130 10+ FTE (100% of base amount) $225 $170 Lodging Businesses Up to 20 rooms (50% of base amount) $225 $170 21 to 40 rooms (75% of base amount) $340 $260 41+ rooms (100% of base amount) $450 $340 Financial Institutions $500 $500 Note 1: For retail, restaurant, service, and professional businesses, size will be determined by number of employees either full-time or equivalent (FTE) made up of multiples of part-time employees. A full FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually. Lodging facilities will be charged by number of rooms available and financial institutions will be charged a flat fee. Note 2: Second floor (and higher) businesses located within Zone A will be assessed the same as similar street-level businesses located within Zone B. Note 3: Assessment amounts are rounded to the nearest ten dollars. The minimum assessment will be $50.00. Not Yet Approved 120327 jb 0130950 1 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Its Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses Within the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2013 and Setting a Time and Place for May 7, 2012 at 7:00 PM or Thereafter, in the Council Chambers THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DOES HEREBY FIND, DECLARE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (the "Law"), California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500 et seq., authorizes the City Council to levy an assessment against businesses within a parking and business improvement area which is in addition to any assessments, fees, charges, or taxes imposed in the City. SECTION 2. Pursuant to the Law, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4819 establishing the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District (the "District") in the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 3. The City Council, by Resolution No. 8416, appointed the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, to serve as the Advisory Board for the District (the "Advisory Board"). SECTION 4. In accordance with Section 36533 of the law, the Advisory Board prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report entitled "Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District, Annual Report 2012-2013" (the "Report”). The City Council hereby preliminarily approves the report. SECTION 5. The boundaries of the District are within the City limits of the City of Palo Alto (the "City") and encompass the greater downtown area of the City, generally extending from El Camino Real to the East, Webster Street to the West, Lytton Avenue to the North and Addison Avenue to the South (east of Emerson Street, the boundaries extend only to Forest Avenue to the South). Reference is hereby made to the map of the District attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference for a complete description of the boundaries of the District. SECTION 6. The City Council hereby declares its intention, in addition to any assessments, fees, charges or taxes imposed by the City, to levy and collect an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal year 2013 (July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013). Such assessment is not proposed to increase from the assessment levied and collected for the prior fiscal year. The method and basis of levying the assessment is set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. Not Yet Approved 120327 jb 0130950 2 SECTION 7. The types of improvements to be funded by the levy of an assessment against businesses within the District are the acquisition, construction, installation or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more. The types of activities to be funded by the levy of an assessment against businesses within the District are the promotion of public events which benefit businesses in the area and which take place on or in public places within the District; the furnishing of music in any public place in the District; and activities which benefit businesses located and operating in the District. SECTION 8. New businesses established in the District after the beginning of any fiscal year shall be exempt from the levy of the assessment for that fiscal year. In addition, non-profit organizations, newspapers and professional "single-person businesses," defined as those businesses which have 25% or less full time equivalent employees, including the business owner, shall be exempt from the assessment. SECTION 9. The City Council hereby fixes the time and place for a public hearing on the proposed levy of an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal year 2013 as follows: TIME: 7:00 p.m. or soon thereafter DATE: Monday, May 7, 2012 PLACE: City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 At the public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons regarding the levy of an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal year 2013 shall be heard. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Any protest pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings must be in writing and shall clearly set forth the irregularity or defect to which the objection is made. Every written protest must be filed with the City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The City Council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest and at the public hearing may correct minor defects in the proceedings. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest must contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the City as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business. A written protest which does not comply with Not Yet Approved 120327 jb 0130950 3 the requirements set forth in this paragraph will not be counted in determining a majority protest (as defined below). If, at the conclusion of the public hearing, written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the District which will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent (i.e., there is a majority protest), no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment, as contained in this resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the City Council. If the majority protest is only against the furnishing of a specified type or types of improvement or activity within the District, those types of improvements or activities shall be eliminated. SECTION 10. For a full and detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided for fiscal year 2013, the boundaries of the District and the proposed assessments to be levied against the businesses within the District for fiscal year 2013, reference is hereby made to the Report of the Advisory Board. The Report is on file with the City Clerk and open to public inspection. SECTION 11. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide notice of the public hearing in accordance with law. // // // // // // // // // // // // Not Yet Approved 120327 jb 0130950 4 SECTION 12. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of 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: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto (ID # 2330) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/23/2012 April 23, 2012 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2330) Summary Title: $200k Contribution to County Housing Trust Title: Approval of Amendment No. Five to Agreement with the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, Inc. to Provide a Contribution in the Amount of $200,000 from the Residential Housing Fund for Fiscal Year 2011/12 to be Expended Through Fiscal Year 2015/16. From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.Approve Amendment No. Five to Agreement with the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, Inc. to Provide a Contribution in the Amount of $200,000 from the Residential Housing Fund for Fiscal Year 2011/12 to be Expended Through Fiscal Year 2015/16. 2.Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. Five with the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, Inc. Executive Summary Council approval of the recommended actions will provide an additional $200,000 in financial contributions to the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, Inc. (HTSCC) to support activities and efforts to increase affordable housing opportunities. It will also increase HTSCC’s administrative fee percentage from 1% to 5% of the contribution to compensate for their increased expenses. The City of Palo Alto has provided a total of $950,000 in financial contributions since the inception of the HTSCC to increase affordable housing opportunities in Palo Alto. HTSCC has invested close to $3.45 million in Palo Alto through its homeless/special needs and multi-family residential loan programs, and first-time homebuyer assistance program. No General Fund monies are being used for this housing activity. Only Housing funds collected through developer fees are used to contribute to HTSCC and are restricted for the development of affordable housing and no other purpose. Background In 2000, the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, Inc. was created to provide additional financial resources to address the County’s affordable housing deficit. The HTSCC’s initial funding endowment of $20 million was met in two years and included contributions from public April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2330) jurisdictions in the County, major employers and private foundations. On October 23, 2000, the City Council approved a contribution of $500,000 from the City’s Residential Housing Fund, with the provision that the City’s fund be used exclusively for qualifying affordable housing projects located within Palo Alto. The City provided additional funding in the amount of $150,000 in 2004, and in 2009 and 2010, the City contributed $100,000 each of those years. On December 13, 2010, the City Council approved an allocation of $100,000 from the Residential Housing Fund for a City contribution to HTSCC. This year’s $200,000 request is a one time request. HTSCC anticipates a higher number of loans at higher amounts in the upcoming year, based on developer feedback. HTSCC will also be awarding higher amounts for predevelopment loans. HTSCC is also requesting an increase in the administrative fee from the current 1 percent of the contribution to 5 percent of the contribution. The administrative fee has been at one percent since the City’s initial contribution in 2001. However, since that time, administrative and loan processing expenses have increased. Other participating jurisdictions, including the City of Sunnyvale and the City of Mountain View, have increased their administrative fee percentages to the 5 percent administrative fee. The increased administrative fee comes out of the City’s contribution and does increase the contribution amount. Discussion The City’s participation in the Housing Trust has increased the available housing funding for a number of Palo of Alto projects, including its recent loan commitment of $600,000 for the Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s acquisition of 2811-2825 Alma St. Since the execution of the Agreement with the City, the HTSCC has loaned approximately $2.74 million to non-profit housing developers for various projects in Palo Alto as shown below. Project Name Number of Units HTSCC Loan Amount Opportunity Center 89 $ 650,000 Oak Court Apartments 53 $ 400,000 Fabian Way Senior Housing 56 $ 689,439 Tree House Apartments 35 $ 500,000 801 Alma Family Housing 50 $ 500,000 2811 Alma Street 6 $ 600,000 Total 289 $ 3,339,439 In addition, the HTSCC invested close to $111,000 assisting 17 households purchase homes in Palo Alto through its first-time homebuyer program. Assisted households had an average income of $58,466, and the average home purchase price was $239,443. Since the City has already entered into an agreement with the HTSCC and the terms for the use of the funds are unchanged, the existing Agreement needs only to be amended to reflect the additional contribution and increase in administrative fee. April 23, 2012 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2330) Resource Impact The contribution of $200,000 will come from the Residential Housing Fund. The $200,000 will be transferred immediately to the HTSCC after approval of the request. After the $200,000 transfer, the cash balance in the Residential Housing Fund will be approximately $118,628. Approximately $4 million in additional funds are expected from the Sterling Park development this year. However, those funds will be retained pending the outcome of a lawsuit brought by Classic Communities challenging the housing in lieu fees. Staff expects additional smaller in-lieu payments from other developments within the next 6 months. No General Fund monies are being used for this housing activity. Policy Implications The recommendation furthers Comprehensive Plan policies that support addressing housing needs on a regional basis and working with outside agencies and other jurisdictions to develop and implement housing programs. Environmental Review This action is not considered a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, as it would not cause a physical change in the environment. Attachments: ·Attachment A: Amendment No 5 with Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (PDF) ·Attachment B: Agreement between City of Palo Alto and Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, Inc. dated May 7, 2001 (PDF) Prepared By:Tim Wong, Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Amendment No. Five to the Agreement No. C1l36231 Between the City of Palo Alto and Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, Inc., A California Nonprofit Corp. This Amendment No. Five ("Amendment") to the Agreement No. C 1136231 ("Agreement") is entered into (tIt ; I /I j ;:)<2 { ).== , by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO ("CITY"), and H USING TRUST OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, INC., a California Nonprofit Corporation, ("HTSCC"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, on May 7, 2001, Agreement No. CI136231 (Attachment B) was entered into between the parties regarding the City'S initial contribution of $500,000 to the Housing Trust Fund Endowment of Santa Clara County; and WHEREAS, on July 12,2004, the Agreement was amended to reflect an increase in the amount of the City of Palo Alto's contribution HTSCC by an additional $100,000 to be expended in fiscal year 2004-05 and an additional $50,000 to be expended in fiscal year 2005- 06; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2007, the City Council approved a time extension allowing for the expenditure of the City's contribution of $50,000 made in fiscal year 2005-06 through fiscal year 2009-10; and WHEREAS, on May 11,2009, the Agreement was amended to reflect an increase in the amount of the City of Palo Alto's contribution HTSCC by an additional $100,000 to be expended through fiscal year 2013-14; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 20 I 0, the Agreement was amended to reflect an increase in the amount of the City of Palo Alto's contribution to HTSCC by a third $100,000 to be expended through fiscal year 2012-20 I 4; and WHEREAS, on December 13,2010, the Agreement was amended to reflect an increase in the amount of the City of Palo Alto's contribution HTSCC by an additional $100,000 to be expended through fiscal year 2014115; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION I. Section 2 of the Agreement, entitled "Deposit of City's Residential Housing In-Lieu Funds into Endowment Fund" is hereby amended to read as follows: 120411 dm 0120532 "City agrees to deposit an additional sum of $200,000 within thirty (30) days after mutual execution of this Amendment No. Five to the Agreement, which shall be expended through fiscal year 2015-2016, and according to paragraph 3.2.2 of the Agreement." SECTION 2. Section 7 of the Agreement, entitled "Administrative Fees" is hereby amended to read as follows: "The HTSCC may charge an annual administrative fee equal to five percent (5%) of the fair market value of the Endowment Fund against the Endowment Fund. The HTSCC may also charge against the Endowment Fund reasonable bank fees. One-Twelfth (1/12) of the annual fees will be deducted monthly. The HTSCC shall report the fees charged against the Endowment Fund in its quarterly and annual reports." SECTION 3. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Agreement, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF: the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment No. Five on the date first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney APPROVED: Director of Administrative Services Director of Planning and Community Environment 120411 dm 0 120532 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager HOUSING TRUST OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, INC., a California Nonprofit Corporation By: ~ ;;::2 C? .I ~~~~~;;Ig,C~ By: __________ _ Name: Title: ----------- ) Endowment Fund. follows: SECTION 1. ) In view of the above, the parties agree as AUTHORITY AND STATUS OF HTSCC HTSCC :represents and· warrants that the information contained in this Agreement is true and accurate to the best of its knowledge, and that it is a duly organized, validly existing nonprofit corporation in good .standing under the laws of its place of incorporation; that its signatory to this Agreement is authorized by resolution, bylaws, or constitution of the nonp~ofi t corporation, currently, in .full force and. effect, ·to execute this Agreement on HTSCC's behalf. SECTION 2. DEPOSIT OF CITY'S RESIDENTIAL· HOUSING IN-LIEU FUNDS INTO ENDOWMENT FUND City agrees to deposit the sum of $500,000 into the Endowment Fund within 30 days after the mutual execution and delivery of this Agreement. SECTION 3. USE OF CITY'S RESIDENTIAL· HOUSING IN- LIEU FUNDS 3.1 HTSCC ag.rees that no fees will be charged to City's Residential Housing In-Lieu Mitigation Funds on deposit in the Endowment Fund for administrative or overhead costs, including but not limited to fundraising expenses. The sole administrative expenses which may be charged to City's Residential Housing In-L.ieu Funds on deposit in the Endowment Fund shall·be as set forth in Section 6. 3.2 The Community Foundation Silicon Valley shall serve ·as the Endowment Fund's fiscal agent, and the City's funds shall be paid directly to· them. All disbursements of the City's Residential Housing In-Lieu Funds from the Endowment Fund shall be in the form of loans secured by a deed of trust recorded against the property. The HTSCC shall consult, in advance, with the City Manager of Palo Alto, prior to making any loans. Th~ initial disbursement of the funds shall be used only for one or more projects that meet all of th~ following criteria: 3.2.1 The project must provide rental housing or housing for the homeless. A project to provide home ownership assistance is not eligible. 2 010427 syn 0090828 ", \ J \ ) 3.2.2 The proj ect must increase, improve or preserve affordable housing, or housing for the homeless, in the 'City of Palo Alto. 3.2.3 Such housing must be affordable to persons and families of low or very low income households as . those terms are defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Dev.elopment as pertains to' the San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area. 3.2.4 . The HTSCC shall use the City's Residential Housing In-Lieu· Funds to increase, improve or preserye affordable housing for homeless· individuals and families and/or affordable rental housing f.or persons and .families of low or very low income households, by methods of providing financial assistance that include, but are not limited to, the methods set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2 (e), excluding subsections' (4) and (8). 3.2.5 Any new or substantially rehabilitated. housing that is developed, financed or assisted, in whole or in part, with the City's Residential Housing In Lieu Funds shall remain available at affordable housing .. costs to persons and families' of··low or very low. income households, as t.he case may be, for the longest feasible time, but not less than thirty (30) years for rental units. The HTSCCshal1 require the recording in the o'ffice of the County Recorder'. of covenants or restrictions implementing this Section 3.2.5 for each parcel or unit of real property subject to this Section 3.2.5, which covenants or restrictions shall run with the land and shall be enforceable against the original owner and successors in interest, by the City or the HTSCC. 3.2.6 There 'shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person, or group of persons, on account of race, color, religion, national orlgln, ancestry, gender, marital status, sexual preference, or handicap status in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer , use, occupancy, tenure or enj oyment of any such proj ect, or any part thereof, nor shall any recipient of the City's Residential Housing In-Lieu Funds, or any person claiming under ,or through such person, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, loca-cion, number use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees of any such project. 3 010427 syn 0090828 \ ) 3.2.7 The restrictions of this Section 3.2 shall apply to the initial use of the City's Residential In-Lieu "Hous.ing Funds by the HTSCC. 3.2.8 The HTSCC shall refund to the City any portion of the City Residential Housing In-Lieu Funds that have not been disbursed or contractually committed to be disbursed in accordante with this Section 3.2 by the date that is thirtY-Six (36) months after the date of this Agreement. If the City's Residential Housing In-Lieu Funds are disburs~d or contractually commi tted to be disbursed in accordance with this Section 3.2 within ·such 36-month· period, the HTSCC shall have no obligation to repay any portion of the City's Residential ·Housing In-Lieu Funds to the City. 3.3 All disbursements by the HTSCC shall be made after· consul tation with the City Manager of Palo Alto· and wi th the advice and suggestion of the HTSCC Board 6f Directors which includes .two members of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The HTSCC shall follow the re~ommendations regarding disbursements rendered by the Endowment Fund Steering Committee unless to do so would be a violation of law, this Agreement, or the HTSCC's Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. SECTION 4. INVESTMENT OF THE FUND The HTSCC shall hold, manage, invest and reinvest the Endowment Fund in accordance with the "reasonably prudent person standard. Provided, inyestment ·of the funds contributed by the City under this Agreement shall be limited to money-market funds of the type described in Government Code Section 53601(k) (2). SECTION 5. FINANCIAL REPORTS 5.1 The HTSCC shall establish and maintain, in generally accepted accounting principles, a of all financial transactions related to the accordance with complete record Endowment Fund. 5.2 The HTSCC shall provide City with quarterly reports which shall set forth in detail all financial transactions· related to the Endowment Fund. The HTSCC shall also provide City with a copy of its audited report, prepared by independent certified public accountants annually. 4 010427 syn 0090828 ~ '\ j J' j " J HTSCC shall provide City with a written report on the initial expenditure of the City's Residential- HouE!ing In Lieu-Funds, including, at a minimum, for each project assisted-with City's Residential Housing In-Lieu Funds, the following information: location and. description of the assisted project(s); number of units; rent and income restrictions; and term of restrictions. 5.3 The SECTI'ON 6. ADMINISTRATIVE FEES The HTSCC may charge -an annual administrative fee equal to one percent (1%) _ of the fair -market value of the Endowment Fund against the Endowment Fund. _ The HTSCC may also charg~ against the Endowment Fund reasonable bank -fees. One-Twelfth (1/12) of the annual-fees will be deducted monthly. The HTSCC shall report the fees charged -against the -Endowment Fund in its quarterly and annual reports. SECTION 7. NOTICES Any corrununication or notice which either party is required to send to the other or which either party desires to send to the other, shall be in writing and shall be -either personally delivered or mailed in the United States mail, postage piepaid, to the respecti~e parties addressed as follows: City: HTSCC: City Manager City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, Inc. 111 West St. John_Street, Suite 710 San Jose, CA 95113 Either party may change its address by sending notice of the new address to the other party pursuant to this Section. SECTION 8. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS The HTSCC shall comply ordinances, codes and regulations local governments. 5 010427 syn 0090828 with all applicable laws, of the federal, state and ) ., . ,. / CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR April 23, 2012 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2011 The City Auditor’s Office recommends acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2011. At its meeting on March 20, 2012, the Finance Committee approved and unanimously recommended the City Council accept the report. The Finance Committee minutes are included in this packet. Respectfully submitted, Jim Pelletier City Auditor ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2011 (PDF) Attachment B: Finance Committee Minutes Excerpt (March 20, 2012) (PDF) Department Head: Jim Pelletier, City Auditor Updated: 4/17/2012 5:44 PM by Deniz Tunc Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR March 20, 2012 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2011 RECOMMENDATION The City Auditor’s Office recommends the Finance Committee review and recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2011. SUMMARY OF RESULTS In accordance with the Municipal Code, the City Auditor prepares an annual work plan and issues quarterly reports to the City Council describing the status and progress towards completion of the work plan. This report provides the City Council with an update through the first two quarters of activities and summarizes our Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Work Plan activities. Information on the status of each assigned project is attached (pages A-1 through A-4). Completed Projects During the second quarter of FY 2012, the City Auditor’s Office completed the following reports: Audit of the Use of Library Bond Proceeds Macias Gini & O’Connell’s Audit of the City of Palo Alto’s Financial Statements as of June 30, 2011 and Management Letter City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summary Second Quarter Sales for April - June 2011 Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2011 In-process Projects The following projects were in-process as of December 31, 2011: Implementation of Employee-only Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report Human Resources Employee Benefits Audit Attachment A Updated: 3/14/2012 10:54 AM by Deniz Tunc Page 2 Other Information Over the past year, Michael Edmonds served as Acting and then Interim City Auditor and left City employment on October 25, 2011. In November 2011, a team of government auditors from two other jurisdictions came to our office for one week, reviewed our reports and working papers and interviewed our staff. This peer review, coordinated through the Association of Local Government Auditors (ALGA), found that the Office of the City Auditor's internal quality control system was suitably designed and operating effectively to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with Government Auditing Standards for audits and attestation engagements during the period July 2008 through June 2011. In January 2012, Ian Hagerman, Senior Performance Auditor, accepted a position in the Police Department. On behalf of the City Auditor’s Office, I would like to express my appreciation to City staff for their cooperation and assistance during our reviews throughout this past year. Respectfully submitted, Jim Pelletier City Auditor ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Status of Audit Projects as of December 31, 2011 (PDF) Department Head: Jim Pelletier, City Auditor Attachment A Updated: 3/14/2012 10:54 AM by Deniz Tunc Page 3 Attachment A City Auditor’s Quarterly Report A – 1 As of December 31, 2011 Status of Audit Projects as of December 31, 2011 Audit Project Description and Preliminary Objectives Status Accomplishments Year-To-Date Target date for Items to be Completed AUDIT ADMINISTRATION, FOLLOW-UP AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES 1) Annual Audit Work Plan and Quarterly Status Reports – The Auditor’s Office submits quarterly reports to the City Council outlining project status and progress towards completing the assignments on this annual work plan. In process Annual work plan issued in October 2011 2) Annual Audit Recommendation Status Report – The Municipal Code requires the City Auditor to issue an annual report on the implementation status of recommendations from recently completed audits. We also meet with the departments involved during the year to discuss progress towards implementing open audit recommendations. In process The last report was issued in April 2011, and the Finance Committee provided direction that the next report should be for the period ending June 30, 2012. The Auditor’s Office will continue to meet with departments during the year to discuss progress towards implementing open audit recommendations. Target completion date: Fall 2012 3) Meeting Attendance – To facilitate internal communication and coordination of efforts, the City Auditor attends: a. City Manager’s weekly Executive Leadership Team, Agenda Planning meetings. b. Utility Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) – Since issuance of our Assessment of Utility Risk Management Procedures in July 2002, the City Auditor has acted as an advisor to the UROCC. c. Design Team Steering Committee meetings. On-going On-going On-going The City Auditor will regularly attend weekly Executive Leadership Team meetings, Agenda Planning meetings, and UROCC meetings. One of the audit staff is a member of the Design Team Steering Committee which promotes creative problem solving through design thinking and collaboration. Attachment A City Auditor’s Quarterly Report A – 2 As of December 31, 2011 Audit Project Description and Preliminary Objectives Status Accomplishments Year-To-Date Target date for Items to be Completed REVENUE AUDITS AND MONITORING 4) Sales and Use Tax Allocation Reviews – Sales and use tax represents about 14%, or $20.2 million, of the City’s projected General Fund revenue for fiscal year 2012. The Auditor’s Office contracts with MuniServices for quarterly sales and use tax recovery and information services, and we also conduct sales and use tax monitoring in-house. The purpose of this monitoring is to identify misallocations of local sales and use tax of companies doing business in Palo Alto. In addition, MuniServices prepares the quarterly sales and use tax information reports that are provided to the City Council as informational items. The contract with MuniServices continues through April 30, 2014. On-going In the first quarter of FY 2012, the City did not receive sales and use tax recoveries although there were potential misallocations pending resolution. In the second quarter of FY 2012, the City received $71,018 in sales and use tax recoveries related to the misallocation of taxes from three companies. Moreover, potential misallocations from 46 companies (21 MuniServices and 25 City of Palo Alto) are pending resolution by the State Board of Equalization. Total Sales and Use Tax Recoveries: FY 2012 $71,018 (City of Palo Alto $71,018) 5) Alternative Fuel Tax Credit Recoveries – As part of the Auditor’s Office continuous revenue monitoring efforts and findings from the Audit of Fleet Utilization and Replacement (April 2010), the Auditor’s Office initiated revenue recoveries from the Federal government’s alternative fuel tax program, which was originally in effect through December 31, 2009, and subsequently extended through December 31, 2011. Completed The Auditor’s Office worked with ASD, and Utilities to prepare and file claims for the alternative fuel tax credit totaling $49,235 for the period of January through December 2011. The City received payment for the claims in early 2012. FINANCIAL AUDITS AND PROCEDURAL REVIEWS 6) Annual External Financial Audit (contracted audit service) – The City Charter requires that the City Council engage an independent certified public accounting firm to conduct the annual external audit. Completed The FY 2011 audited financial statements were issued in December 2011 and presented to the Finance Committee on December 14, 2011. Attachment A City Auditor’s Quarterly Report A – 3 As of December 31, 2011 Audit Project Description and Preliminary Objectives Status Accomplishments Year-To-Date Target date for Items to be Completed PERFORMANCE AUDITS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 7) Annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Report In process The 10th annual SEA Report is in process. Target completion date: January 2012 8) Audit of Library Bond Proceeds – Through the 2008 voter-approved Measure N, the City issued general obligation bonds to rebuild the Mitchell Park Library and adjacent community center, and renovate the Main and Downtown libraries. This audit will evaluate controls for the use of the general obligation bond funds to ensure the funds are used efficiently and in compliance with federal regulations for the use of tax- exempt bond funds. Completed Audit of Library Bond Proceeds issued in December 2011 9) Audit of Purchasing Card Transactions – The purpose of this audit is to determine the adequacy of controls over purchasing card transactions, and to assess compliance with existing guidelines and procedures. Completed Audit of Purchasing Card Transactions issued in September 2011. 10) Utilities Department Risk Assessment Completed In FY 2011, a Senior Performance Auditor position was added to the Auditor’s Office budget to provide on-going and continuous audits of Enterprise Fund activities. The Senior Performance Auditor worked with a utilities consultant to perform a risk assessment to identify areas of strength, as well as opportunities for improvement within each division of the Utilities Department. The risk assessment was completed in August 2011 and the results are incorporated into the FY 2012 work plan and will be used to identify audits to be included in future work plans. 11) SAP Security Audit – In planning the SAP audit, which was included in the City Auditor’s Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Audit work plan, the Auditor’s Office detected a significant SAP security vulnerability resulting from an unsecured system-provided SAP user account. The unsecured user account allowed the Auditor’s Office unrestricted access to sensitive and confidential information. This initial finding prompted an audit to assess controls required to secure SAP access. Completed The Auditor’s Office issued the SAP Security Audit in October 2011. Attachment A City Auditor’s Quarterly Report A – 4 As of December 31, 2011 Audit Project Description and Preliminary Objectives Status Accomplishments Year-To-Date Target date for Items to be Completed 12) Human Resources Employee Benefits –This audit will review benefit oversight, costs and administration through the Human Resources Department. In process Preliminary survey phase in process Currently on hold due to staff turnover and re- evaluation of audit work plan 13) Contract Oversight (NEW) – This audit will assess key oversight controls pertaining to City contracts, with a focus on pricing accuracy. Not started 14) Alarm Permitting Program (NEW) - The audit will assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the City’s alarm permitting ordinance. Not started 15) Grants Management (NEW) - The audit will assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the City’s grant management practices. Not started 16) Utilities Reserves (NEW) –This audit will assess compliance with existing reserve guidelines and compare the City’s reserve guidelines with other government-owned utilities. Not started 17) Utility Users Tax Revenues (NEW) - Utility Users Tax Revenues related to cell phone usage have dropped significantly in the past few years. For instance, Utility Users Tax Revenues from telephones dropped by $530,000 from FY 2010 to FY 2011. Accordingly, the Administrative Services Director has requested the Auditor’s Office to contract with a utility tax auditor to determine if the City is receiving all of the Utility Users Tax Revenues from cell phones that it is entitled. This item also ranked high on the Citywide Risk Assessment. Not started 18) Construction Process (NEW) – This audit was recommended by the Finance Committee and will review various construction projects as it relates to the bidding and change order process. The audit would assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the City’s construction management practices. Not started Attachment A 1. A Jim Pe months quarter going f proceed statem 1) the Hotline and 3) becaus were t utilities Finance Council the Pee Mr. Pel separat involve fraud ri Vice Ma Contrac Mr. Pel Vice M others Mr. Pel within t items li Auditor’s O lletier, Ci s prior to rly reports forward. ds was ents. As o impleme , 2) the a the Hum e of a sh two audit s reserves e Committ l Member er Review. letier stat te letter d movem isk assess ayor Scha ct Adminis letier said ayor Sch available letier said the fiscal isted wou Office Qua ity Audito o the pres s to be p During th completed of Decem entation o annual Se man Resou ift in Staf s current . The Pee tee. Price ask . ted there provided ment to e sment with arff confir stration an that was arff asked and what d his proc year. In ld not be Finance 1 Minu rterly Rep or acknow sentation presented he second d as wa ber 31, 2 of the em ervice Effo urces Emp ffing. He tly underw r Review ked if the were no with som lectronic h each aud rmed the nd the Uti correct. d how th the plan w ess began review of accomplis e Commit 1 utes Excerp port as of wledged t date. H closer to d quarter s the ex 011 there mployee o orts and A ployee Be noted bey way 1) c had been ere were a findings in me opport work pap dit. two audit lities Rese hose two was for th n by dete the previ shed withi ttee pt December he report He stated o the actu the aud xternal a e were thr only Frau Accomplis enefits au yond the contract a complete any recom n the Pee tunities fo pers and ts current erves aud audits w he remain rmining w ious Work in a year. Re M r 31, 2011 t was dat his goal ual end o it of the audit of ree projec ud, Waste shments ( dit which quarterly administra ed and pre mmendati er Review. or improv the perfo tly underw its. ere selec ing audit what could k Plan it w In the de egular Mee March 20, 2 1. ted for th was for of the qua library b the finan cts in pro e, and Ab (SEA) Rep was on update t ation and esented to ons made . There w vement w ormance way were ted from items. d be achie was noted evelopmen eting 2012 hree the arter bond ncial cess buse port, hold here d 2) o the e on as a which of a the the eved the nt of Attachment B 2 March 20, 2012 the upcoming year’s Work Plan the remaining items would be incorporated as feasible. Vice Mayor Scharff asked where the audit recommendations came from. Mr. Pelletier said since he was not employed by the City when the current Work Plan was developed, he was not comfortable answering. Chair Shepherd felt the Alarm Permitting Program was inaccurately described in the audit recommendations. The request for the audit was in response to finding out why there were so many false alarms. She noted the number of times the safety departments were dispatched counted against the City on the SEA report. Mr. Pelletier said the audit recommendation was referencing the Alarm Permitting Ordinance but his understanding of the concern was focused more on the number of false alarms and how they were being responded to. Chair Shepherd said in October there was a listing of items for discussion. The alarm item was an efficiency matter for the departments who responded to the alarms. Vice Mayor Scharff recalled the residents were distressed about the alarm permit fees plus fines for false alarms. Mr. Pelletier agreed to review the history of the matter once the alarm issue came to the forefront in a quarterly report period. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the alarm issue was brought up because of the current SEA Report or the previous one. Chair Shepherd said the previous one. Vice Mayor Scharff said he would like to know if the alarm issue was as prevalent in the current SEA Report as it was previously. Mr. Pelletier said his goal for development of the Work Plan was to reevaluate the audits that had been mentioned but had not begun along with new matters. Council Member Price said being the year of infrastructure, contract oversight and construction processes were items of concern to the City. She asked if Mr. Pelletier shared methodologies or practices with other auditors. She asked if Mr. Pelletier could perform preliminary work on the items that were not primary items but were on the list. Attachment B 3 March 20, 2012 Mr. Pelletier said auditors did benchmark themselves and share with other jurisdictions through participation in professional organizations of local government auditors. His goal was to develop a more risk assessment based approach to future Work Plans. He said once the Work Plan was in place the objective was to accomplish each audit as expeditiously as possible so the recommendations were timely. He understood other departments had a high level of work flow and it was not appropriate to overwhelm them with audit requests. In those incidents his Staff would prepare other audits or perform preliminary research for other upcoming audits. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Price to recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2011. Chair Shepherd said item 4 was Sales and Use Tax Allocation Reviews. It referenced MuniServices; she asked who they were and how the City operated with them. Mr. Pelletier explained MuniServices was a vendor used by the City to perform recovery research. If they were to locate any misallocations of sales tax they submitted requests to the state for the return of funds. In reference to item 4 they had submitted 21 requests for reallocations. The City paid MuniServices 40 percent of their recovery. Chair Shepherd asked if the MuniServices was provided information or did they compile their own research. Mr. Pelletier clarified MuniServices performed their own research and analysis. The City Auditor’s office had a part-time employee who independently researched misallocations of sales tax. The findings from the City employee were at 100 percent recovery to the City. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Attachment B City of Palo Alto (ID # 2495) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/23/2012 April 23, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2495) Summary Title: Amendment to County Weed Abatement Agreement Title: Approval of Amendment Eight to the Agreement With the County of Santa Clara for Abatement of Weeds to Change the Method for Setting Abatement Fees and Costs From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council approve amendment eight to the agreement between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto for abatement of weeds to change the method by which weed abatement charges are set and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement amendment. Executive Summary If approved, the agreement amendment (Attachment A) would change fees charged to property owners from a percentage-based fee determined by the County contractors’ weed abatement costs to a fixed-rate fee that will be approved annually. All other elements of the agreement and program will remain the same. Background The Santa Clara County Department provides weed abatement services to a number of cities in the County, including Palo Alto. Through the program, the County Department of Agriculture identifies properties in Palo Alto with hazardous vegetation that represent a fire and/or health hazard. Following notice to property owners and public hearings as required in Chapter 8.08 of the Municipal Code, he hazardous vegetation on these properties is abated by the County if property owners fail to do it themselves. The cost for County abatement is then considered a special assessment on each property. Discussion The current agreement for weed abatement between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto was adopted in April 1977. Since then, the agreement has been amended several times to modify the charge for the County’s program costs to administer the Hazardous Vegetation Management Program. These charges pay for the full cost of the Hazardous Vegetation Management Program and are paid for by the owners of properties where hazardous vegetation has been identified. April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2495) Abatement costs under the current agreement are 150% of the weed abatement contractor’s fee, which covers the cost of abatement and the County’s administrative costs. Amendment Eight will revise fee provisions so that the County will provide the City with a list of costs each year, which the Council will approve at the time it adopts the annual resolution ordering abatement. Resource Impact There are no fiscal impacts to the City of Palo Alto as a result of the Weed Abatement Program. The Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture expenses are recovered through the Weed Abatement Program administrative fees charged to property owners. Fees for weed abatement services are included as a special assessment on bills for property taxes levied against the respective lots and parcels of land, which are considered liens on these properties. Policy Implications This procedure is consistent with existing City policies and Chapter 8.08 of the Municipal Code. Environmental Review Santa Clara County has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Sections 15308. Attachments: Attachment A - Amendment Eight (PDF) Attachment B - Original Weed Abatement Agreement (PDF) Prepared By: Gordon Simpkinson, Department Head: Dennis Burns, Police Chief City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR ABATEMENT OF WEEDS The Agreement for the Abatement of Weeds (Agreement) between the County of Santa Clara (County) and the City of Palo Alto (City) previously entered into on April 18, 1977, as amended on November 5,1979, November 20,1981, February 15, 1983, January 14, 1997, August 18, 1998, October 12,1999, and January 12,2001 is hereby amended to modifY the charge for the County's program costs to administer the Hazardous Vegetation Management Program. IT IS AGREED between the parties as follows: 1. Statement of Costs Section 6 of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: In December of each calendar year, County shall deliver to City a list of all reasonable and necessary fees and costs approved and adopted by County's Board of Supervisors for all administrative, enforcement, and abatement services to be provided under this Agreement. All fees and costs in said list shall be recovered by County pursuant to Section 7 of this Agreement unless at a public hearing held within sixty (60) days of County's delivery of said itemized statement to City the City's governing body expressly declines to accept any fee or cost in said list. In the event City's governing body does decline to accept any fee or cost in said list, County shall be relieved of any and all obligations to. provide any services under this Agreement for the weed abatement season for which said itemized statement is submitted to City. Thereafter, on or before the 10th day of August of each year, County shall render to City an itemized statement or report ofthe reasonable and necessary fees and cost of the administrative, enforcement, and abatement services performed for the respective parcels of land in the City. The itemized statement or report shall include a description of the lots and parcels of land for which services were performed, and verification by signature of the County official administering the Hazardous Vegetation Management Program. Charges for services performed on parcels owned by the City will include a reduced administrative fee of75% of the cost of the weed abatement contractor. II II II II II II II 2. Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement relIlllin the same. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Kevin O'Day, Director Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management Date Approved as to form and legality: Lj~hl.U /~ ('A~k' Ie"'/I Mark Bernal r I < Deputy County Counsel 49685J.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO Sid Espinosa, Mayor Date , , ! 1 4 j i ; , , J , ) ,., , 3 j ) AGREEMENT FOR THE ABATEMENT OF HEEDS BY COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR THE CITY OF PALO ASTO THE FOLLOt'JING is an Agreement betweefl COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I state of California, hereinafter called "County," and CITY OF PALO ALTO, Santa Clara County, California, hereinafter called "City," both of whom understand and agree as follows: N:iEREAS I City has the power to conduct weed abatement under Government Code of the State of California 539500, et seq.; and WHEREAS, City has home rule authority to adopt ordinances for public health, safety and welfare, including weed abatement procedures; and WHEREAS, City has exercised this power by adoption of Chapters 8~08 and 9.56 of the Palo Alto ~unicipal Code for the Abatement of Weed.s; and WHEREAS, county, "under provisions of the Health and Safety Code of tho State of California and under its ordinances has the power to enforce the abatement of hazardous weeds; and WHEREAS I the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County t by resolution has exercised the power granted to County pursuant to the Health and Safety Code of the State of California, commencing at S14875, and WHEREAS/ the parties hereto have the power to enforce weed abatement within their corporate limitsj and WHEREAS, County and City are desirous of contracting for the services of the County Fire Marshal to perform the actual services of abatement of weeds; and vlHEREAS" County is agreeable to rendering such services and Ci ty is agre-eable to have such services rendered under the terms and conditions, hereinafter set forth for the reason of efficiency and mutual 'benefit of both parties; NOW, THEREFORE I it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. Purpose of Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to promote the efficiency and economy of operations in the abate- Dent of weeds by City ,and COU:1ty. This Agreement shall provide for the performance by county of functions relating to weed abate- ment in territory within the City at the same time that County is working in the Urban Service Area of City. The fu~ctions to be performed by County for City shall be hereinafter set forth~ 26 Joint Cooperation. County shall prepare Assessorrs parcel maps and ll.sts of parcels owned by the City and of vacant privately owned parcels within the City of Falo Alto requiring abate~ent of weeds and transmit said naps and lists to the City for review and approval of processing. County shall further provide to City proposed annual schedules for the perforrnance of weed abatement functions by the county in the Urban Service Area of the City~ Upon receipt of the final lists of parcels requiring abaterr.e:nt of weeds and Assessor's parcel maps thereof, the City shall commence and expeditiously proceed with procedures for ordering abatement of weeds on said properties pursuant to Chapter B~OB and/or 9~56 of the Palo Alto Munic~pal Code. 3. Notice. County shall prepare all notices and other documents relatrng to the weed abate:r.lent proceedings required by Chapters 8~08 and 9.56 of the Palo Alto Municipal Coder in- cluding but not limited to Notice To Destroy Weeds and Notice Of Hearing On Report A~d Assessment For Weed Abatement, in form required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code or state law, and shall cause the posting and/or publishing of said notices and documents as required by said Code or state law. County shall also ca~se such notices to be mailed to the record owners of affected parcels. Any failure to mail such notice, or any failure on the property owner to receive it, shal~ not affect the validity of the weed abatement proceedings, or any lien for the cost of such abatement~ 4.. :rearin5; by Council.. The Council 0:: the City" shall con- duct public hear~ngs on the proposed removal of weeds pursuant to the provisions of the Palo Alto .Municipal Code at such times as the CO'.lnty Fire Marshal shall notify the City of the County I s intention to proceed with weed abatement activities. The Fire Marshal shall at that time present the City such .appropriate resolutions or orders as may be necessary for adoption by the Co;."lnci 1 in order to commence abatement proceedings. such resolutions and orders shall be presented to City staff for review and recomr:lendation to City Council. Upon adoption by the Council of a resolution or order declaring the weeds on the respective parcels of land to be nuisances as provided by Chapter 8.0B and/or 9.56 of the Palo Alto .Municipal Code and the determination to proceed with the abatement of weeds, such resolution and dcter- !nination shall be deemed to authorize the performance of the service or removal of weeds by the County in accordance with this Agreement unless otherwise specified a 5, county Responsibilities. After action is taken at each stage by the CouncIl, County, through the Fire Marshal, shall cause the abatenc'nt of weeds in the fallowing If,atter I to-wit: Upon proper authorization by City to County, the Fire Marshal shall remove the weeds on the designated properties, where the need for weed abt;ttement still exists because owners have failed to so re- move said, weeds· through voluntary abaterr:ent or by contract with the County,:. for such abatement .. 6. The Fire ~~rshal shall render to the City or report of the cost of the weed abatement services performed for the respective parcels of land in the Cit~ on or before the twentieth of July of each year, which shall inClude the County's administrative cost of 25% of the cost for parcels in the City of weed abatement services of the weed abatement contractor for the respective parcels. The statement shall inClude the description of the lots and parcels of land ::or which weed abatement services were performed, and verification by signature of the County Fire NarshaL County shall, at least 30 days prior to the hearing provided for in Section 8.08.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, bill each affected record property owner for his weed abatement cost (incl~ding the County's adminis- trative cost)~ The failure to send such bill, or the failure of any property owner to receive it, shall not affect the validity of the weed abatement proceedings or any lien for the cost of such abatement. 7. Inclusion of Assessme~t on Count S·J.bseguent to the perrormance of serVlces spec~f~e ~n Paragrap 5 hereof, Council of the City shall corr~nce and expeditiously proceed with the actions specified and required py Chapter 8.08 and/or 9.56 of -2- the Palo Alto Municipal Code to assess the costs of the weed abatement services performed for the City upon the .respective property owners. Subsequent to appropriate notice and public hearing, if the same be determined proper and warran~ed, the City shall require the County Tax Collector to include said costs for the current year as a special assessment on bills for taxes levied against the respective lots and parcels of land. Such special assessments shall be liens on the respective properties, 8 ~ Time and Manner of Collection ~ The a'l'Ciounts of the assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the sa~e manner as county taxes are collected, 'and "are subject to the sane penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary county taxes~ 9. Remittance of Costs. The cost of weed abatement shall be advanced by County and re~mbursed to County as and when col- lected by County Tax Collactor* 10. Liability. City shall assu~e no liability for the pay- ment of salary, wages, or other co~pensation to officers, agents, employees, or contractors of County in performing services here- under. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity to County officers, agents, employees, contractors, or to third persons for injury, sickness, or damages arising out of the weed abatement operations under this Agreement excluding any damages or injury arising out of any dangerous or defective condition of public property owned by the City. County agrees to and shall indemnify and hold City harmless from all darr,ages I liabilities, obligations, or claims thereof of whatsoever nature ar~sing in any rranner out of the performance of or failure to perform any services or obligations pursuant to this agreement by the County, its agents, officers, employees, or con tr actors:."" ll~ Records". Each officer or department of County perform- ing any service pursuant to this Agree~ent shall keep itemized and detailed work or job records covering the cost of all services , performed". 12. Independent Contractors. It is agreed that this Agree- ment is by and between Independent contractors, and it is not intended nor shall it be construed to create the relationship of agent# servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or associa- tion between County and City~ 13. Duration of Agreement. '"!'his Agreement shall become effective on date of execut~on and shall run until the governing body of City or County shall exercise the right to terminate this Agreenent as of the first day of Septerr~er of any year, by giving notice to the other party not less than ten (10) days Rrior to the date of ternlination .. 14. Time of com~liance. All services or actions required to be performed or ta en by the parties hereto shall be performed or taken in an expeditious and timely manner. In particular, any actions shall be performed in such manner as to allow compliance with any deadlines or schedules set +orth by applicable provisions i j of state, countYI or city codes, ordinances I resolutions or regu- lations. Each party shall notify the other of any such deadlines or schedules of which it is aware and of any other schedules pro- posed to be followed by said parties. 15. Use of Herbicides. Nei ther County nor any of its con- tractors shall use any herbicides in the performance of services hereunder. 16~ Project Coardination~ The city Manager shall be repre- sentative of City for all purposes under this agreement~ ROBERT ARCULARIUS is designated as the Project Manager for the City ~~nagerl and he shall supervise the progress and execution of this agreement. liliAN B. CARDER, Fire Marshal, is hereby desig- nated as the Project Director for County. IN WI~~ESS WHEREOF, ~~nt as of A~~~ ~ DONA~D M. RAINS, C erk Board of Supervisors APPROVED: R, Counsel Cp,[M::kf:ar~ J ~dG~ D~rector of Publ~c Works the parties hereto have exeouted this APR 1 B 1M1 C~ OF SANTA CLARA ~~n+'~~ Bo~~d Qf Supervisors eI OF PALO ALTO yor City of Palo Alto (ID # 2649) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/23/2012 April 23, 2012 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2649) Summary Title: Award of MEA Contract to CompuCom Systemss Inc Title: Approval of Contract C12144913 with CompuCom Systems Inc. in the Amount of $210,617.28 per year for Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (MEA) From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a one year agreement with four one year follow on options of the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement with CompuCom Systems, Inc, using the Terms and Conditions set forth by the County of Riverside, California, Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (MEA) (RIVCO-20800-(002-007)-12/12, in the amount of $210,617.28 per year, for Microsoft Licensing and Maintenance. 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders or amendments to the contract with CompuCom Systems, Inc., for additional but unforeseen licensing and maintenance needs which may develop during the term of this contract, the total value of which shall not exceed $105,308.64 Change orders or amendments may become necessary as the City moves forward with its move to Windows 7. There are new capabilities in this product that may require installation of new Microsoft software; such as Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM) with Operating System Deployment (OSD), Microsoft System Center Virtual Machine Manager (SCVMM) and possibly System Center Operations Manager (SCOM). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a support services contract for Microsoft Product Licensing and Maintenance as described in the original Riverside County MEA, dated November 28, 2011 and goes through December 31, 2016. The City of Palo Alto has used the Riverside MEA since 2005. This is a renewal of the City’s MEA with a change of vendor providing the licenses and maintenance of the licenses. Riverside’s sheer volume of licenses of Microsoft products used has allowed them to obtain deep discounts on these products. This discount is allowed to be passed on to other agencies within the state. The Riverside agreement has various third party April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2649) suppliers of Microsoft products. Because of this it was necessary for the City to send out a request for quotation to these vendors, so that the City would obtain the most advantageous quote for the City’s needs. BACKGROUND The support services contract is for 4,260+/- licenses for the MEA software used by the City. Each employee uses at least four Microsoft licensed products to perform their daily duties. These licenses include, but are not limited to; Microsoft Office Suite, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Calendar, etc. The MEA allows the City to keep up with the most current version of Microsoft products with no additional cost to the City. Microsoft software is the standard for all City departments. Microsoft is used for word processing, spreadsheet processing, database creation and management, etc. Support services consist of product support, including telephone technical assistance and update subscription services providing Microsoft product upgrades, maintenance releases and patches as Microsoft makes them available. The telephone assistance to be provided will take the form of a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week support hotline available to only designated points of contact (POC) defined by the City; as well as enjoy access to Microsoft’s on-line support system. CompuCom Systems, Inc. was chosen as the City’s provider of Microsoft products as it is an approved vendor of Microsoft Products per the Riverside County MEA and a City issued RFQ. Summary of City Piggyback Process [AKA PAMC 2.360 (k)] Microsoft EA Proposed Length of Project 60 months Number of Solicitations Emailed to Riverside Contract Providers 3 Total Days to Respond to Bid 8 Pre-Bid Meeting N/A Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting N/A Number of Bids Received: 2 Bid Price Range From a low of $210,617.28 per year to a high of $225,676.86 per year. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $210,617.28 per year submitted by CompuCom Systems, Inc. be accepted.. Staff would utilize a standard contract negotiated by Riverside County on behalf of State and local government entities. The Riverside County contract RIVCO-20800-(002-007)-12/12 provides the City with a financial savings of approximately $1,719.12 per year or $8,595.60 over the term of the contract. April 23, 2012 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2649) RESOURCE IMPACT The contract will be in the amount of $210,617.28 per year (plus applicable taxes) and the funds are included in the FY 2012 Applications Maintenance Internal Service Fund Budget. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Approval of this contract amendment does not constitute a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, no Environmental Assessment is required. Attachments:  Attachment A: County of Riverside Bid Response (PDF)  Attachment B: County of Riverside MEA AWARD (PDF)  Attachment C: County of Riverside Reseller Agreements AR-M550N_20120223_012330 (PDF)  Attachment D: County of Riverside MEA RFQ PUARC-1200 (PDF)  Attachment E: County of Riverside MEA Program form (PDF)  Attachment F: County of Riverside MEA Agreement 03.27 (PDF)  Attachment G: CompuCom Bid (PDF)  Attachment H: Late renewal ammendment (PDF)  Attachement I: Enrollment form (DOCX)  Attachement J: Product selection form (DOCX)  Attachment K: Signature_Page (PDF) Prepared By: K.B. Paige, Senior Technologist Department Head: Jonathan Reichental, Chief Information Officer City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager PUARC-1200 RECAP Version: 1 Bid: RFQ #PUARC-1200 - Microsoft Enterprise License End Date: Oct. 11, 2011@1:30PM Item Name Applications Added at Signing 2%Added at Signing 1.25%Added at Signing 0.25%Added at Signing 0.00%Added at Signing -1.50%Added at Signing -2.50% Applications True-ups 4%True-ups 1.25%True-ups 0.25%True-ups 0.00%True-ups -0.50%True-ups 0.00% Systems Added at Signing 2%Added at Signing 1.25%Added at Signing 0.25%Added at Signing 0.00%Added at Signing -1.50%Added at Signing -2.50% Systems True-ups 4%True-ups 1.25%True-ups 0.25%True-ups 0.00%True-ups -0.50%True-ups 0.00% Servers Added at Signing 2%Added at Signing 1.25%Added at Signing 0.25%Added at Signing 0.00%Added at Signing -1.50%Added at Signing -2.50% Servers True-ups 4%True-ups 1.25%True-ups 0.25%True-ups 0.00%True-ups -0.50%True-ups 0.00% New Additional Products (Non-Specific) Added at Signing 2%Added at Signing 1.25%Added at Signing 0.25%Added at Signing 0.00%Added at Signing -1.50%Added at Signing -2.50% New Additional Products (Non-Specific) True-ups 4%True-ups 1.25%True-ups 0.25%True-ups 0.00%True-ups -0.50%True-ups 0.00% Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up %Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up %Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up % PC Mall Gov, Inc. ExcelFormat : Bid Tabulation By Vendor Dell Marketing, L.P.EnPointe Technologies Sales Inc Insight Public Sector, Inc.Softchoice Corporation SUMMARY: Recap Cost is provided at a level D-7.5 cost plus mark up percentage (%). Negative numbers represent a "below cost" percentage. The County has determined Insight Public Sector, Inc. to be the overall most responsive and responsible bidder for this commodity. The County reserves the right to reject any or all offers, to waive any discrepancy or technicality and to split or make the award in any manner determined by the County to be most advantageous to the County. CompuCom Systems, Inc. Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up %Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up %Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up % DATE:11/9/2011 PUARC-1200 1 of 1 The County of Riverside Purchasing and Fleet Services 2980 Washington St. Riverside, CA 92503 Ph:(951) 955-4937 www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us PCS: Ines Mark Ph:(951) 955-4944 email: imark@co.riverside.ca.us 2980 WASHINGTON STREET • RIVERSIDE, CA 92504-4647 • (951) 955-4937 • FAX (951) 955-4946 NOTIFICATION TO BIDDERS REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RFQ) # PUARC-1200 Microsoft Enterprise License Riverside County Purchasing and Fleet Services would like to thank you for submitting a proposal for the above mentioned RFQ. The overall most responsive and responsible vendor: Insight Public Sector, Inc. The County has recommended that Insight Public Sector, Inc., be awarded a contract which is scheduled to be submitted for approval at the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors’ meeting on November 8, 2011, Agenda No. 3.27 In addition the other five vendors will be listed for statewide contracts: CompuCom, Softchoice Corp, PC Mall Gov, EnPointe Technologies, and Dell Marketing The County appreciates your interest and your company’s name will remain on our vendor’s list for future bid considerations. Please visit the County of Riverside Purchasing Website for future opportunities at: www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us Ines Mark Procurement Contract Specialist NIGP CODE: 20800, 20811 County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 1 REQUEST FOR QUOTE # PUARC-1200 Microsoft Enterprise License By: Ines Mark Riverside County Purchasing & Fleet Services 2980 Washington Street Riverside, CA 92504-4647 Telephone: (951) 955-4937 Email: imark@co.riverside.ca.us NIGP Code(s):20800, 20811 County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 2 INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS I. Vendor Registration – Unless stated elsewhere in this document, vendor must register online at www.Purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us and http://http://www.publicpurchase.com//with all current Vendor information, to be registered on the County’s database. II. For all RFQ’s Riverside County’s Purchasing website will post a letter of notification on its website, and will provide a direct link to PublicPurchase.com. III. Format - Use the electronic format provided by PublicPurchase.com. If submitting more than one bid, separate the bid documents. IV. Pricing/Delivery/Terms/Tax - All pricing shall be quoted F.O.B. destination, (e.g., cash terms less than 20 days should be considered net) excluding applicable tax, which is a separate line item. The County reserves the right to designate method of freight. The County pays California Sales Tax and is exempt from Federal excise tax. In the event of an extension error, the unit price shall prevail. V. Other Terms and Conditions - The terms and conditions as indicated in this document and/or attached are hereby included with full force and like effect as if set forth herein. Copies of the applicable Terms and Conditions may be obtained by contacting Riverside County Purchasing at the number shown above and requesting a copy be faxed or mailed to you. VI. Period of Firm Pricing - Unless stated otherwise elsewhere in this document, prices shall be firm for 90 days after the closing date, and prior to an award being made. VII. Specification/Changes - Wherever brand names are used, the words "or equal" shall be considered to appear and be a part of the specification. If you are quoting another make or model, cross out our nomenclature and insert yours. If no make or model is stipulated, insert yours. Attach applicable specifications and/or brochures. Variations in manufacturers, design, etc., may be acceptable, bidders are encouraged to offer them as alternatives; however, the County reserves the right to reject those alternatives as non-responsive. VIII. Recycled Material - Wherever possible, the County of Riverside is looking for items made from, or containing in part, recycled material. Bidders are encouraged to bid items containing recycled material as an alternative for the items specified; however, the County reserves the right to reject those alternatives as non-responsive. IX. Method of Award - The County reserves the right to reject any or all offers, to waive any discrepancy or technicality and to split or make the award in any manner determined by the County to be most advantageous to the County. The County recognizes that prices are only one of several criteria to be used in judging an offer and the County is not legally bound to accept the lowest offer. X. Return of Bid/Closing Date/Return to - The bid response shall be submitted electronically to PublicPurchase.com by 1:30 p.m. on the closing date listed above. Bid responses not received by County Purchasing by the closing date and time indicated above will not be accepted. The County will not be responsible for and will not except late bids due to slow internet connection, or incomplete transmissions. XI Local Preference - The County of Riverside has adopted a local preference program for those bidders located within the County of Riverside. A five percent (5%) price preference may be applied to the total bid price during evaluation of the bid responses. To qualify as a local business, the business must have fixed offices within the geographical boundaries of Riverside County and must credit all sales taxes paid resulting from this RFQ to that Riverside County location. or XII. Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Preference - The County of Riverside has implemented a Disabled Veteran Owned Business preference policy. A three percent (3%) preference shall be applied to the total bid price of all quotes/bids/proposals received by the County from certified disabled veterans owned businesses. If the bid is submitted by a non-Disabled Veteran owned business, but lists subcontractors that are identified and qualified as Disabled Owned Business, the total bid price will be adjusted by 3% of the value of that subcontractor’s portion of the bid ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IF CHECKED, THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS HEREBY MADE PART OF THIS RFQ X APPENDIX "A” PLANS/DRAWINGS SAMPLES X EXHIBITS (A) X_ ATTACHMENT (Product List) #116-110 Special Conditions/Response #116-130 Equipment Information Sheet _X #116-260 Local Business Qualification Affidavit #116-310 Boilerplate Contract IF CHECKED, THE FOLLOWING GENERAL CONDITIONS ARE INCLUDED WITH FULL FORCE AND LIKE EFFECT AS IF SET FORTH HEREIN X #116-200 General Conditions X #116-210 General Conditions Materials and/or Services _ #116-230 General Conditions - Equipment #116-220 General Conditions - Public Works #116-240 General Conditions - Personal/Professional Service To access any of these General Conditions go to www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us, located in Vendor Registration/Bidding Opportunities. If an addendum is issued for this procurement, it will be the vendor’s responsibility to retrieve all applicable addendum(s) from the Public Purchase website. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 3 APPENDIX A 1.0 INFORMATION 1.1 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - It is agreed by the parties that time is of the essence, and in the event complete delivery is not made within the schedule set by the County, and pursuant to the bid specifications, damage will be sustained by the County, it will be impractical, and extremely difficult to ascertain, and determine the actual damage sustained. Therefore, it is agreed that the successful bidder shall pay to the County of Riverside, as fixed and liquidated damages, and not as penalty, a dollar sum in the amount of $_________ per calendar day for each and every calendar day that a delay in making delivery in excess of the time or times specified. It is further agreed that in the event such damages are sustained by the County, the County shall deduct the amount from any payment due or that may become due to the vendor under the contract. 1.2 "Electronic submission hereof is certification that the Bidder has read and understands the terms and conditions hereof, and that the Bidder’s principal is fully bound and committed." All County terms and conditions are found at www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us. Bidders must acknowledge the applicable terms and conditions that are checked at the bottom of page 2 of this document. 1.3 CASH DISCOUNT_% from receipt of good or invoice, whichever is later. (terms less than 20 days will be considered net) Cash discount shall be applied to grand total. 1.4 Delivery: ___ calendar days after receipt of order. 1.5 Please Check: ____Disabled Veteran ____ Local Business – if checked, the above signer certifies that the above business is located within the geographical boundaries of Riverside County and that all sales taxes generated based on this RFQ will be credited to that location in Riverside County. If claiming Local Preference please submit form 116-260. 1.6 If Bidder experiences technical issue with the online bidding process, Bidder must contact the Procurement Contract Specialist (PCS) for further bid submission instructions. Bidder must contact the appropriate PCS a minimum of 1 hour prior to bid close time of 1:30 PM. 2.0 DEFINITIONS A. Wherever these words occur in this RFQ, they shall have the following meaning: B. “RFQ” shall mean Request for Quote. C. “Addendum” shall mean an amendment or modification to the RFQ (Request for Quote). D. “Bid” shall mean the proposal submitted by a Bidder on the Bid Form consistent with the Instructions to Bidders, to complete the Work for a specified sum of money and within a specified period of time. E. “Bidder” shall mean an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation that submits a qualified Bid for the Work, either directly or through a duly authorized representative. F. “Contractor” shall mean any employee, agent, or representative of the contract company used in conjunction with the performance of the contract. For the purposes of this RFQ, Contractor and Bidder are used interchangeably. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 4 G. “COUNTY” shall mean the County of Riverside and its agencies. H. “CCISDA” shall mean the California County Information Services Directors Association I. “MISAC” shall mean the Municipal Information Systems Association J. “LAR” shall mean the Large Account Resellers K. “EA” shall mean Enterprise Agreement L. “Qualified Device” shall mean any personal desktop computer, portal computer, workstation, or similar device that is used by of for the benefit of Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. It does not include: (1) any computer that is designated as a server and not used as a personal computer, (2) any Industry Device, (3) any device running an embedded operating system (e.g., Windows Phone 7) that does not access a virtual desktop infrastructure, or (4) any device that is not managed and/or controlled either directly or indirectly by Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. Enrolled Affiliate may include as a Qualified Device any device which would be excluded above (e.g., Industry Device). M. “MDOP” shall mean Microsoft Desktop Optimization Platform N. “MSDN” shall mean Microsoft Developer Network 3.0 PURPOSE/BACKGROUND 3.1 Purpose a) The County of Riverside is soliciting bids for a consortia approach to collectively enter into a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement and Select program in order to utilize the desktop volumes to achieve the best possible price as detailed in this RFQ. Microsoft has demonstrated flexibility in dealing with CCISDA\MISAC to accommodate government issues and concerns to offer a customized Enterprise Agreement that will work for all government agencies within the state of California. b) The purpose of this RFQ is to seek both renewal pricing for those under the current Microsoft Agreement from any authorized LAR within the State of California plus allow new enrollments to take place based on combined volumes of those staying with the old agreement, those renewing in this new contract, and those joining into the new contract for the first time. c) The intent of this RFQ is to award to no more than five (5) Microsoft authorized and responsible Large Account Resellers (LAR) in the State of California that meets the terms and conditions of this RFQ. The LAR(s) will serve as the administrator of this agreement and will collect all dollars directly from those jurisdictions enrolled under this awarded contract. 3.2 Background a) Since June 19, 2001, The California County Information Services Directors Association (CCISDA) and the Municipal Information Systems Association (MISAC) of California have been participating in a state-wide Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA) and Select program. The County of Riverside will continue to administer this award, to include participation from CCISDA and MISAC. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 5 b) The California County Information Services Directors Association (CCISDA) is the official organization of the county information technology directors in the state of California. They represent the 58 California counties in the area of information technology and county government. c) The Municipal Information Systems Association (MISAC) of California is a statewide organization of approximately 150 member agencies. They represent the 475 Cities and Special Districts in the state of California in the area of information technology and county government. d) Current participation in this successful contract has surpassed 488,000 desktops and over 460 separate enrollments to this Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. The current Large Account Resellers (LAR) have worked with each of these entities to explain the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement, helped them make decisions about their licensing needs, provided enrollment assistance, and coached them during annual EA requirements including true-ups and annual payments. The awarded LAR(s) will be required to deliver this same level of service, as well as provide continuing education to enrollees on other services and benefits provided to participants in the EA. e) The LAR(s) must allow CCISDA/MISAC members with the opportunity to continue to enroll in the Enterprise Agreement after the open enroll period at a highly discounted price based on cumulative volumes of desktops enrolled under the new and existing contracts. f) In addition, many government entities could not purchase from a sole LAR due to local preference purchasing requirements. The intent of this RFQ is to award to multiple Large Account Resellers (LARs) under a single agreement and to get credit for volumes under the existing contract and for those that want to change to the renewal contract or for those governments enrolling for the first time. g) Many counties do not upgrade their software on their desktops on an annual basis and most do so every two to three years. As a result, most may not benefit from Software Assurance under the Select Program nor can justify an Enterprise Agreement. Therefore, to make an Enterprise Agreement a tool for government, it must be cost effective, ease licensing management, and encourage government to stay current with new software versions to take advantage of the latest technological improvements that could benefit employee productivity. An additional benefit can be realized through other offerings made available to EA participants. When such offerings are introduced, it is imperative that the LAR make the offering known to the agency in order for them to obtain the most out of their EA investment. 4.0 PRODUCT LINE 4.1 Enterprise Agreement Program Products The products offered under the Enterprise Agreement (EA) may be purchased individually or in total as follows: 4.2 Enterprise Products a) The Enterprise Agreement offers California County Governments access to the most recent releases of the Desktop Professional Platform products. The Enterprise Agreement Desktop Platform products are: i. Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise Edition with MDOP ii. Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 iii. Microsoft Core Client Access License Suite or Enterprise Client Access License Suite County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 6 b) Government entities who enroll in the Professional or Enterprise Platform (the Windows 7 Enterprise Edition operating system upgrade, Office Professional Plus 2010, and Core CAL Suite or Enterprise CAL Suite) receive a platform discount on top of their already discounted enterprise software product. c) Government entities not adding products at signing may still add additional products to their enrollment at any time with License & Software Assurance (pro-rated annually for the remaining term of their enrollment). d) For full product listing see excel attachment “PUARC-1200 Product listing.” 4.3 Additional Products and Services a) Nearly all other available Microsoft software titles are obtainable as additional products. They provide the same License & Software Assurance coverage as enterprise products, but do not require an enterprise-wide commitment. For products licensed at signing, payments can be spread throughout enrollment years in the same way that enterprise product payments are annualized. Also, additional products at signing will have corresponding pricing for the use of the True Up ordering process, enabling an annual consolidation of ordering. Government entities not adding products at signing may still add additional products to their enrollment at any time with License & Software Assurance (pro- rated for the remaining term of their enrollment). b) Premier Services are available through the Riverside Master Agreement for as long as it is offered as products under the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. c) Examples of software products available as additional products include Office Visio, Microsoft Project, Windows servers, Exchange servers, Microsoft Office SharePoint Servers, SQL Servers, Visual Studio Team Edition (w/ MSDN), MapPoint Web Service, and many others. d) A complete list of additional products is available on the Microsoft Product List at: http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/PL.aspx e) To learn more about Product Use Rights, visit: http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/PUR.aspx 4.5 Customized Components: a) The awarded Large Account Reseller(s) as part of the contract must be willing to accept the administration of the contract. California government entities will enroll by Agency (understanding that all desktops in a department must be committed unless the desktop has an asset tag where it has been paid and owned by another government jurisdiction). b) Commitment for each government entity is at least 25 desktops in the entire organization. Organizations under 25 qualified workstations are required to combine enrollments with other local government entities for a total of at least 25 qualified workstations s to qualify. The government entity who handles the enrollment for multiple jurisdictions will also be responsible for distributing license confirmations. c) The LAR’s are required to provide annual reports of qualified workstation counts by enrollment and ask for desktop true-ups for net additional desktops added during each contract year. The customer is expected to true up additional products added to during past year. Quarterly reports of licenses purchased under the Select agreement (provided by this contract) must also be provided including product and version number. It is preferred that this capability be provided though the Internet. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 7 d) All products covered under the EA automatically include Software Assurance for either the full thirty- six (36) or sixty (60) month contract period options. During the contract period, participating government entities will be entitled to all version upgrades at no additional charge. And on termination of the contract, participating organizations will own the most current version of covered products as of the contract termination date, whether the version is installed or not. e) During the EA each participant will be required (but not limited) to count total qualified workstations in their organization which will be reported to the LAR. Other counts such as True-Up of additional products and additional of 'not-at-signing' products may be required. f) The Enterprise Agreement term is sixty (60) calendar months from the date of acceptance, or an optional thirty-six (36) months if requested. Enrollment for this program will be open until the expiration of the Master Agreement. While the number of net desktops in each organization may increase annually, there could be certain economic issues (such as discontinuing a government service due to funding) or political shifts (such as County Courts becoming a State Agency or a government entity filing for bankruptcy) that could impact desktop counts. Microsoft will deal with decreases in qualified workstation counts on an individual basis without penalty to other enrollments. EA participants that terminate for cause, will own licenses equal to the portion of the total contract period for which they participated. Participants terminating prior to year 2 shall own licenses for 1/3 of the total desktops enrolled. Participants terminating prior to year 3 shall own licenses for 2/3 of the total desktops enrolled. The licenses shall be for the current version of the products at the time of termination. If any one County/Department terminates the enterprise agreement, it shall have no bearing or impact on the others enrolled. g) EA enrollees receive perpetual license to the most current version of the software covered under this agreement upon initial payment. By participating under the EA, enrollees immediately become current and stay current. Net new desktops added during the contract period immediately have the right to install the most current versions of the products covered under the EA and the “true-up” payment must be made at the beginning of the next contract year. h) All new software covered and purchased under the EA is to be delivered to the COUNTY electronically, unless explicit instructions are communicated that delivery method would be otherwise. 5.0 TIMELINE DATES: 1. RELEASE OF REQUEST FOR QUOTATION September 20, 2011 2. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS Bidders must submit their questions online at PublicPurchase.com. All questions submitted are within the correct RFQ located on PublicPurchase.com. Must be submitted by: Date: October 3, 2011 Time: 1:30 PM 3. DEADLINE FOR QUOTATION SUBMITTAL Bid results are posted on PublicPurchase.com October 11, 2011 at 1:30 PM 4. TENTATIVE DATE FOR AWARDING CONTRACT 5-90 days, contingent upon lowest bidder meeting all of the bid specifications. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 8 6.0 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The period of performance shall be for 5 year(s), with each year renewable in one-year increments, with the completion date of 12/31/17, with no obligation by the County of Riverside to purchase any specified amount of services. 7.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Procedures for Submitting Quotations All quotations must be submitted in accordance with the standards and specifications contained within this Request for Quote (RFQ). The County reserves the right to waive, at its discretion, any irregularity, which the County deems reasonably correctable or otherwise not warranting rejection of the quotation. The County shall not pay any costs incurred or associated in the preparation of this or any quotation or for participation in the procurement process. Quotes must be specific unto themselves. For example, “See Enclosed Manual” will not be considered an acceptable quotation. Receipt of all addenda, if any, must be acknowledged in the quotation. Late quotations will not be accepted. Postmarks will not be accepted in lieu of this requirement. Quotations submitted to any other County office will be rejected. 8.0 METHOD OF AWARD (Specifications) Quotations will be evaluated based on relevant factors, including but not limited to the following: a. Lowest overall purchase price b. Adherence to specifications as detailed in this RFQ (PUARC-1200) c. Prompt payment discounts on 30 days or less d. Warranties e. All associated delivery costs f. Delivery date g. Product acceptability h. Service/Customer Support 9.0 EVALUATION PROCESS All quotations will be given thorough review. All contacts during the review selection phase will be only through the Purchasing Department. Attempts by the Bidder to contact any other County representative may result in disqualification of the Bidder. The County recognizes that prices are only one of several criteria to be used in judging an offer, and the County is not legally bound to accept the lowest offer. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 9 10.0 INTERPRETATION OF RFQ The Contractor must make careful examination and understand all of the requirements, specifications, and conditions stated in the RFQ. If any Contractor planning to submit a quote finds discrepancies in or omissions from the RFQ, or is in doubt as to the meaning, a written request for interpretation or correction must be given to the County. Any changes to the RFQ will be made only by written addendum and may be posted on the Purchasing website at www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us and PublicPurchase.com. The County is not responsible for any other explanations or interpretations. If any provision in this agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. All notices regarding this procurement may be posted on the County’s purchasing website at www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us and PublicPurchase.com. 11.0 CANCELLATION OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS The County may cancel the procurement process at any time. All quotations become the property of the County. All information submitted in the quotation becomes “public record” as defined by the State of California upon completion of the procurement process. If any proprietary information is contained in or attached to the quote, it must be clearly identified by the Bidder; otherwise, the Bidder agrees that all documents provided may be released to the public after bid award. The County reserves the right to withdraw the Request for Quote (RFQ), to reject a specific quote for noncompliance within the RFQ provisions, or not award a bid at any time because of unforeseen circumstances or if it is determined to be in the best interest of the County. 12.0 COMPENSATION 12.1 The County shall pay the awarded bidder for equipment and services performed, after the equipment are installed and tested to the satisfaction of the County. Expenses incurred and compensation shall be paid in accordance with an invoice submitted to County by awarded bidder. The County shall pay the acceptable invoice within thirty-(30) working days from the date of receipt of the invoice, or the goods/services are received, whichever is later. 12.2 No price increases will be permitted during the first year of the award. All price decreases (for example, if CONTRACTOR offers lower prices to another governmental entity) will automatically be extended to the County. The County requires written proof of cost increases prior to any approved price adjustment. After the first year of the award, a minimum of 30-days advance written notice is required for consideration and approval by County. No retroactive price adjustments will be considered. The net dollar amount of profit will remain firm during the period of the Agreement. Annual increases shall not exceed the Consumer Price Index- All Consumers, All Items - Greater Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange County areas (Microsoft Enterprise License Agreement) and be subject to satisfactory performance review by the County and approved (if needed) for budget funding by the Board of Supervisors. 13.0 USE BY OTHER POLITICAL ENTITIES The CONTRACTOR agrees to extend the same pricing, terms, and conditions as stated in this Agreement to every political entity, special district, and related non-profit entity in Riverside County. It is understood that other entities shall make purchases in their own name, make direct payment, and be liable directly to the CONTRACTOR; and County shall in no way be responsible to CONTRACTOR for other entities’ purchases. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 10 Exhibit A Software Assurance Benefits: The Enterprise Agreement includes Software Assurance, Microsoft’s enhanced maintenance program that helps customers get the most out of their software investments. Access to valuable benefits such as training, deployment planning, software upgrades, and product support can help increase the productivity of the entire organization. Awarded LAR(s) will continue to educate and assist participants on what these benefits are and how participants can take full advantage of them. Here are details on Software Assurance benefits throughout each phase of software management. Stage Benefit Description Planning Stage New Version Rights With Software Assurance, you receive new versions of licensed software released during the term of your agreement to deploy at your own pace as they become available. You can reduce the costs associated with acquiring new version releases and immediately take advantage of the latest technology. Spread Payments You can make payments annually, instead of making one up-front payment. This helps you to reduce initial costs and forecast annual software budget requirements up to three years in advance. Deployment Stage Packaged Services: Information Work Solution Services These one- to three-day partner-managed workshops help IT teams learn how desktop applications assist support deployment, security, and infrastructure business goals like project prioritization. You also learn how to implement high-value projects in the IT environment to maintain or accelerate productivity. Workshops include Information Work Business Value Discovery and Information Work Architectural Design Session. Microsoft Windows Pre- installation Environment (WinPE) This is a tool based on the Windows Server® 2003 operating system and the Windows XP Professional operating system that allows IT staff to build custom solutions that speed up deployment through automation, so they spend less time and effort keeping desktops updated. WinPE can run Windows setup, scripts, and imaging applications. Using Stage Training Vouchers You will receive training vouchers for training on select courses from Microsoft Certified Partners for Learning Solutions (CPLS), the premier authorized training channel for delivering learning products and services on Microsoft technology. Taking training from Microsoft CPLSs helps you prepare for deployment, enable smoother migration, and stay up- to-date with the latest Microsoft technologies, giving you the competitive advantage you need. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 11 Exhibit A Cont’ Software Assurance Benefits: eLearning Courses Microsoft’s eLearning provides your employees access to individual, on-demand Microsoft software courses. eLearning can be delivered online or offline and includes simulations, hands-on exercises, and learning assessments. Home Use Program The Home Use Program increases employee productivity and maximizes the value of your Microsoft Office investment because with it, your employees can use Office desktop programs for work or personal needs. Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise Edition The Windows 7 Enterprise Edition is optimized for large organizations and includes features such as data protection that safeguard lost or stolen PCs, application compatibility, and the ability to deploy a single image in multiple locations around the world (per availability of Windows Vista), helping you to lower your deployment and management costs. Microsoft Virtual PC Express Migrate legacy applications during an operating system upgrade in a safe, protected way. Microsoft Virtual PC Express supports a single instance of a virtual operating system (in comparison, Virtual PC 2004 supports multiple instances). Virtual PC Express will be made available to our Software Assurance customers in early 2006, ahead of the Windows Vista Enterprise Edition. Maintenance Stage 24 X 7 Problem Resolution Support With Software Assurance, you can be continuously connected with Microsoft for your support needs. You can select the right level of help when you need it with business-critical 24 hours a day, 7 days a week phone support for all Microsoft server products, Windows, and the 2007 Microsoft Office system, in addition to unlimited Web support. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 12 Exhibit A Cont’ Software Assurance Benefits: Unlimited Web Support Complement your business-critical 24 hours a day, 7 days a week phone support with unlimited Web support during business hours, and decide which level of support is best for the issue. This helps you lower your total cost of support and ownership through time and gives you a choice for how to use your direct connection to Microsoft. TechNet Plus Subscription with Two Support Calls/Year IT professionals have access to TechNet Plus subscription media, featuring resources such as the Microsoft Knowledge Base, software updates, utilities, technical training, and how-to articles to help them succeed. They also have access to additional premium TechNet Plus benefits, including evaluation software without time limits, pre-release versions of Microsoft products, two technical support incidents per year, and TechNet Plus Subscriber Online Services. IT professionals can also access TechNet Managed Newsgroups with more than 100 IT-related newsgroups, where they can post technical questions and are guaranteed responses by the next business day. “Cold” Backups for Disaster Recovery Customers with Software Assurance for Microsoft server software, as well as related Client Access Licenses, are eligible for complimentary "cold backup" server licenses for disaster recovery. Corporate Error Reporting Corporate Error Reporting (CER) gives you a clear and easy way to monitor and review error information so you can control deployment of fixes and resolutions. It provides the ability for applications and the operating system to collect and report on crashes in the system. Transition Extended Life- cycle Hotfix Support Enter into Extended Hotfix Support Account (EHSA) as hotfix issues arise. Annual fees and required sign- up periods associated with EHSA are waived for Software Assurance customers, increasing peace of mind and reducing support costs. A Premier or Essential Support agreement is a pre-requisite for eligibility. For more information about Software Assurance benefits, please visit: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 13 Local Business Qualification Affidavit The County of Riverside Local Business Preference may be applied to this Request for Proposal/Quotation. If you qualify for this preference, please submit this form along with your response to this RFP/Q. Definition of Local Business A local business shall mean a business or firm with fixed offices located within the geographical boundaries of Riverside County, and authorized to perform business within the County. In doing so, credit all sales tax from sales generated within Riverside County to the County, and who provide product or perform contracted work using employees, of whom the majority are physically located in said local offices. Local businesses” shall have a Riverside County business street address. Post office box numbers, residential addresses, or un-staffed sales offices shall not suffice to establish status as a “local business.” To qualify as a “local business” the location must be open and staffed during normal business hours and the business must establish proof that it has been located and doing business in Riverside County for at least (6) six months preceding its certification to the County as a local business. Additional supporting documentation that may be requested by the County to verify qualification includes: 1. A copy of their current BOE 531-A and/or BOE 530-C form (State, Local & District Sales, and Use Tax Return Form). This is what businesses submit to the State Board of Equalization when paying the sales tax to the State of California indicating the amount of the payment to be credited to each jurisdiction (i.e. Counties, Cities). 2. A current business license if required for the political jurisdiction the business is located. 3. Proof of the current business address. The local business needs to be operating from a functional office that is staffed with the company’s employees, during normal business hours. Business Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Physical Address:_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone: ____________________ FAX: _________________ E-Mail: ___________________________________ Length of time at this location: ______________ Number of Company Employees at this address: ________ If less than 6 month, list previous Riverside County location: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Business License # (where applicable): __________________ Jurisdiction_________________________________________ Hours of Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________ Primary function of this location (i.e., sales, distribution, production, corporate, etc): __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________ ________________ Signature of Company Official Date _________________________________________________________________ Print Name, Title Submittal of false data will result in disqualification of local preference and/or doing business with the Riverside County. Form # 116-260 Rev 8/04 1 CompuCom Systems Inc. 7171 Forest Lane Dallas TX 75230 www.compucom.com Wednesday, April 04, 2012 Adrian Brown, JD Contract Administrator Purchasing & Contract Administration City of Palo Alto Mezzanine Floor 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Brown, Please find below our response for bid to renew your upcoming Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. This annual payment is valid for either a 3 year or a 5 year term. Please let me know if you have any questions. 144913 Microsoft Enterprise License, Volume Licensing for City of Palo Alto, California; Piggyback to Riverside County, California RFQ No. PUARC-1200 (MS Agreement Number 01E73134, Riverside Contract No. RIVCO-20800-002-12/12) EA Annual Payment Microsoft Part Number: Product Description: Unit Price: Quantity: Total: 269-12442 OfficeProPlus ALNG SA MVL Pltfrm $77.41 1000 $77,410.00 FQC-02460 WinPro ALNG SA MVL Pitfrm $28.44 1000 $28,440.00 W06-01072 CoreCAL ALNG SA MVL Pitfrm UsrCAL $29.41 1000 $29,410.00 359-00961 SQLCAL ALNG SA MVL UsrCAL $24.05 1000 $24,050.00 395-02504 ExchgSvrEnt ALGN SA MVL $595.99 3 $1,787.97 810-04760 SQLSvrEnt ALGN SA MVL $1,264.14 15 $18,962.10 9JD-00053 VSUltwMSDN ALGN SA MVL $1,503.14 4 $6,012.56 D87-01159 VisioPro ALGN SA MVL $78.29 40 $3,131.60 H21-00591 PrjctSvrCAL ALGN SA MVL UsrCAL $23.62 75 $1,771.50 H22-00475 PrjctSvr ALGN SA MVL $724.78 1 $724.78 H30-00238 PrjctPro ALGN SA MVL w1PRJCTSvrCAL $152.64 50 $7,632.00 P72-00188 WinSvrEnt ALGN SA MVL $346.82 15 $5,202.30 P73-00226 WinSvrStd ALGN SA MVL $106.71 57 $6,082.47 Total 4260 $210,617.28 2 Brief description of CompuCom’s value adds around the EA CompuCom takes our Microsoft relationship seriously; Microsoft is worth 80% of our State of California Public Sector software business, so we have to make sure we do it right! CompuCom employs 4 outbound (California based) Software Specialists, plus 4 dedicated Software Only support personnel located in Dallas. These 8 specialists only support software sales to State and Local Government in California. Our 4 outbound CompuCom Software Licensing Specialists are Microsoft MCPs and SIIA Certified Software Managers; they can help you maneuver around the intricacies of the Software Licensing Agreement’s language and definition. Your CompuCom Local Software Licensing Specialist will guide you through the annual True-Up process by providing detailed instructions and reports approximately 2 to 3 months prior to your anniversary date. CompuCom's detailed reports help you anticipate annual payments for budget purposes, plus provide valuable information when you’re counting your assets for future purchases. Regards, Miles Allarea Software Solutions Specialist Phone 916-934-6023 Pass-Through Warranty and Other Rights As a reseller, end-user warranties and liabilities (with respect to any third party hardware and software products provided by CompuCom) shall be provided as a pass-through from the manufacturer of such products. All software products are subject to the license agreement of the applicable software supplier, as provided with the software packaging or in the software at time of shipment. All prices are subject to change based on re-leveling by Microsoft or change of reseller incentives by Microsoft. EnrAmend(WW)(ENG)(Jul2011) Grace Period B M55 B Page 1 of 1 Enterprise Enrollment Amendment ID M55 000-cgodfrey-S-386 For the purposes of this Amendment, “Entity” can mean the signing entity, Customer, Enrolled Affiliate, Government Partner, Institution, or other party entering into a volume licensing program agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary or in addition to any terms in the Enrollment, the Enrollment is amended as follows: Entity may submit a renewal order no later than 90 days after the expiration date of Enrollment/Authorization number 6880181, so long as the effective date of Entity’s renewal order starts one day following the expiration of the previous term. In the absence of this Amendment or an on-time renewal order, Entity loses the opportunity to renew Software Assurance, and Subscription Licenses may be impacted. This Amendment must be attached to a signature form to be valid. Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 1 of 10 Enterprise Enrollment State and Local Enterprise Enrollment number (Microsoft to complete) Proposal ID Previous Enrollment number (Reseller to complete) 6880181 Earliest expiring previous Enrollment end date 1 1/31/12 This Enrollment must be attached to a signature form to be valid. This Microsoft Enterprise Enrollment is entered into between the entities as identified in the signature form as of the effective date. Enrollment Affiliate represents and warrants it is the same Customer, or an Affiliate of the Customer, that entered into the Enterprise Agreement identified on the program signature form. This Enrollment consists of: (1) these terms and conditions, (2) the terms of the Enterprise Agreement identified on the signature form, (3) the Product Selection Form, (4) any supplemental contact information form or Previous Agreement/Enrollment form that may be required, (5) any order submitted under this Enrollment. This Enrollment may only be entered into under a 2011 or later Enterprise Agreement. All terms used but not defined are located at http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/contracts. In the event of any conflict the terms of this agreement control. As a condition of entering into this Enrollment with 25-249 Qualified Devices or Qualified Users, the Enrolled Affiliate agrees that (1) it also has 250 or more Qualified Devices or Qualified Users; or (2) as a condition of entering into this Enrollment with 25-249 Qualified Devices or Qualified Users, Enrolled Affiliate has elected not to receive CD ROMs as part of the Enrollment and therefore no CD ROMs will automatically be shipped. If Enrolled Affiliate is enrolling with 25-249 Qualified Devices or Qualified Users and it would like to receive CD ROM Kits and updates, Enrolled Affiliate may order these through its Reseller for a fee Effective date. If Enrolled Affiliate is renewing Software Assurance or Subscription Licenses from one or more previous Enrollments or agreements, then the effective date will be the day after the first prior Enrollment or agreement expires or terminates. Otherwise, the effective date will be the date this Enrollment is accepted by Microsoft. If renewing Software Assurance, the Reseller will need to insert the previous enrollment or agreement number and end date in the respective boxes above. Term. This Enrollment will expire on the last day of the month, 60 full calendar months from the effective date unless otherwise renewed. Any reference in this Enrollment to "day" will be a calendar day. The 60- month initial term is required by the The County of Riverside as indicated in the original request for proposal and final award. Customer may terminated this Enrollment for its convenience without penalty on the third anniversary of this Enrollment (or at any other time as permitted by California law) subject to proportional licensing as set forth in Section 7d of the Agreement. Product order. The Reseller will provide Enrolled Affiliate with Enrolled Affiliate’s Product pricing and order. Prices and billing terms for all Products ordered will be determined by agreement between Enrolled Affiliate and the Reseller.The Reseller will provide Microsoft with the order separately from this Enrollment. Prior Enrollment(s). If renewing Software Assurance or Subscription Licenses from another Enrollment or agreement, the previous Enrollment or agreement number and end date must be identified in the respective boxes above. If renewing from multiple Enrollments or agreements, or transferring Software Assurance or MSDN details, the Previous Agreement/Enrollment form must be used. Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 2 of 10 Terms and Conditions 1. Definitions. Terms used but not defined in this Enrollment will have the definition in the Enterprise Agreement. The following definitions are used in this Enrollment: “Additional Product” means any Product identified as such in the Product List and chosen by Enrolled Affiliate under this Enrollment. “Enterprise Online Service” means any Online Service designated as an Enterprise Online Service in the Product List and chosen by Enrolled Affiliate under this Enrollment. Enterprise Online Services are treated as Online Services, except as noted. “Enterprise Product” means any Desktop Platform Product that Microsoft designates as an Enterprise Product in the Product List and chosen by Enrolled Affiliate under this Enrollment. Enterprise Products may only be licensed for all Qualified Devices and Qualified Users on an Enterprise-wide basis under this program. “Expiration Date” means the date upon which the Enrollment expires. “Industry Device” (also known as line of business device) means any device that: (1) is not useable in its deployed configuration as a general purpose personal computing device (such as a personal computer), a multi-function server, or a commercially viable substitute for one of these systems; and (2) only employs an industry or task-specific software program (e.g. a computer-aided design program used by an architect or a point of sale program) (“Industry Program”). The device may include features and functions derived from Microsoft software or third-party software. If the device performs desktop functions (such as email, word processing, spreadsheets, database, network or Internet browsing, or scheduling, or personal finance), then the desktop functions: (1) may only be used for the purpose of supporting the Industry Program functionality; and (2) must be technically integrated with the Industry Program or employ technically enforced policies or architecture to operate only when used with the Industry Program functionality. “Qualified Device” means any personal desktop computer, portable computer, workstation, or similar device that is used by or for the benefit of Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. It does not include: (1) any computer that is designated as a server and not used as a personal computer, (2) any Industry Device, (3) any device running an embedded operating system (e.g., Windows Phone 7) that does not access a virtual desktop infrastructure, or (4) any device that is not managed and/or controlled either directly or indirectly by Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. Enrolled Affiliate may include as a Qualified Device any device which would be excluded above (e.g., Industry Device). “Qualified User” means a person (e.g., employee, consultant, contingent staff) who: (1) is a user of a Qualified Device, or (2) accesses any server software requiring an Enterprise Product Client Access License or any Enterprise Online Service. It does not include a person who accesses server software or an Online Service solely under a License identified in the Qualified User exemptions in the Product List. “Reserved License” means for an Online Service identified as eligible for true-ups in the Product List, the License reserved by Enrolled Affiliate prior to use and for which Microsoft will make the Online Service available for activation. “Transition” means the conversion of one or more License to or from another License(s). Products eligible for Transition and permitted Transitions are identified in the Product List. “Transition Period” means the time between the Transition and the next Enrollment anniversary date for which the Transition is reported. Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 3 of 10 2. Purpose. This Enrollment enables Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise to obtain, or subscribe to, Licenses for Enterprise Products, Enterprise Online Services, and Additional Products. Enrolled Affiliate may choose between on-premise software and Online Services as well as the ability to transition Licenses to Online Services while maintaining Enterprise-wide coverage. Additionally, Enterprise Online Services may be purchased without Enterprise-wide coverage. 3. Product Use Rights, Qualifying Systems Licenses and Transitions. In addition to applicable terms of the Enterprise Agreement, the following terms apply to this Enrollment: a. Product Use Rights. For Enterprise Products, if a new Product version has more restrictive use rights than the version that is current at the start of the applicable initial or renewal term of the Enrollment, those more restrictive use rights will not apply to the Enrolled Affiliate’s use of that Product during the term. b. Qualifying systems Licenses. The operating system Licenses granted under this program is upgrade Licenses only. Full operating system Licenses are not available under this program. If Enrolled Affiliate selects any Desktop Platform, Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade, or Windows Intune, all Qualified Devices on which Enrolled Affiliate expects to run the Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade must be licensed to run, and have installed on them, one of the qualifying operating systems identified in the Product List. Note that the list of operating systems that qualify for the Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade varies with the circumstances of the order. That list is more extensive at the time of the initial order than it is for some subsequent orders and system refreshes during the term of this Enrollment. Exclusions are subject to change when new versions of Windows are released. For example: The following are not considered qualifying operating systems: (1) ANY Windows Home or Starter edition; (2) Embedded Systems; and (3) Linux.These are examples of exclusions only and may change. Please see Product List for all current qualifying operating systems. c. Transitions. The following requirements apply to Transitions: (i) Licenses with active Software Assurance or Subscription Licenses may be Transitioned at any time if permitted in the Product List. While Enrolled Affiliate may Transition any time, it will not be able to reduce Licenses or associated Software Assurance prior to the end of the Transition Period. (ii) If a Transition is made back to a License that had active Software Assurance as of the date of Transition, then Software Assurance will need to be re-ordered for all such Licenses on a prospective basis following the Transition Period. Software Assurance coverage may not exceed the quantity of perpetual Licenses for which Software Assurance was current at the time of any prior Transition. Software Assurance may not be applied to Licenses transferred by Enrolled Affiliate. (iii) If a device-based License is Transitioned to a user-based License, all users of the device must be licensed as part of the Transition. (iv) If a user-based License is Transitioned to a device-based License, all devices accessed by the user must be licensed as part of the Transition. d. Effect of Transition on Licenses. Transition will not affect Enrolled Affiliate’s rights in perpetual Licenses paid in full. (i) New version rights will be granted for perpetual Licenses covered by Software Assurance up to the end of the Transition Period. Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 4 of 10 (ii) For L&SA not paid in full at the end of the Transition Period, Enrolled Affiliate will have perpetual Licenses for a proportional amount equal to the total of installments paid versus total amounts due (paid and payable) for the Transitioned Product. (iii) For L&SA not paid in full or granted a perpetual License in accordance with the above or Subscription Licenses, all rights to Transitioned Licenses cease at the end of the Transition Period. 4. Pricing. a. Price Levels. For both the initial and any renewal term Enrolled Affiliate’s Price Level for all Products ordered under this Enrollment will be Level “D” throughout the term of the Enrollment. Price Level’s will be captured in the Product Selection Form. b. Setting Prices. Enrolled Affiliate’s prices for each Product will be established by its Reseller. Microsoft’s prices for Resellers are fixed throughout the Enrollment term based upon current prices at the time of the initial order for the Product. This includes the following: (i) Any future pricing (if applicable); and (ii) Prices for Transitions, including any prices related to the use of a Product during the Transition Period (if applicable). 5. Order requirements. a. Minimum Order Requirements. Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise must have a minimum of 25 Qualified Users or Qualified Devices. (i) Initial Order. Initial order must include at least 25 Licenses from one of the four groups outlined in the Product Selection Form. (ii) If choosing Enterprise Products. If choosing Enterprise Products in a specific group outlined in the Product Selection Form, Enrolled Affiliate’s initial order must include an Enterprise-wide selection of one or more Enterprise Products or a mix of Enterprise Products and corresponding Enterprise Online Services for that group. (iii) Additional Products. Upon satisfying the minimum order requirements above, Enrolled Affiliate may order Additional Products. (iv) Country of Usage. Enrolled Affiliate must specify the countries where Licenses will be used on its initial order and on any additional orders. b. Adding Products. (i) Adding new Products not previously ordered. Enrolled Affiliate may add new Enterprise Products by entering into a new Enrollment or as part of a renewal. New Enterprise Online Services may be added by contacting a Reseller. New Additional Products, other than Online Services, may be used if an order is placed in the month the Product is first used. For Additional Products that are Online Services, an initial order for the Online Service is required prior to use. (ii) Adding Licenses for previously ordered Products. Additional Licenses for previously ordered Products must be included in the next true-up order. Enrolled Affiliate must Licenses for Online Services prior to use, unless the Online Services are (1) identified as eligible for true-up in the Product List or (2) included as part of other Licenses (e.g., Enterprise CAL). c. True-up orders. Enrolled Affiliate must submit an annual true-up order that accounts for changes since the initial order or last true-up order, including: (1) any increase in Licenses, including any increase in Qualified Devices or Qualified Users and Reserved Licenses; (2) Transitions (if permitted); or (3) Subscription License quantity reductions (if permitted). Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 5 of 10 Microsoft, at its discretion and as permitted by applicable law, may validate the customer true-up data submitted through a formal product deployment assessment, using an approved Software Asset Management (‘SAM’) Partner. The true-up order must be received by Microsoft between 60 and 30 days prior to the Enrollment anniversary date. The third-year anniversary true-up order is due within 30 days prior to the Expiration Date. Enrolled Affiliate may true-up more often than at each Enrollment anniversary date except for Subscription License reductions. (i) Enterprise Products. Enrolled Affiliate must determine the current number of Qualified Devices and Qualified Users (if ordering user-based Licenses) and order the License difference (if any), including any Enterprise Online Services. (ii) Additional Products. For Products which have been previously ordered, Enrolled Affiliate must determine the Additional Products used and order the License difference (if any). (iii) Online Services. For Online Services identified as eligible for true-up orders in the Product List, Enrolled Affiliate must first reserve the additional Licenses prior to use. Microsoft will provide a report of Reserved Licenses in excess of existing orders to Enrolled Affiliate and its Reseller. Reserved Licenses will be invoiced retroactively for the prior year based upon the month in which they were reserved. (iv) Late true-up order. If the true-up order is not received when due: 1) Microsoft will invoice Reseller for all Reserved Licenses not previously ordered. 2) Transitions and Subscription License reductions cannot be reported until the following Enrollment anniversary date (or at Enrollment renewal, as applicable). (v) Transitions. Enrolled Affiliate must report all Transitions. Transitions may result in an increase in Licenses to be included on the true-up order and a reduction of Licenses for prior orders. Reductions in Licenses will be effective at end of the Transition Period. Associated invoices will also reflect this change. (vi) Subscription License Reductions. Enrolled Affiliate may reduce the quantity of Subscription Licenses on a prospective basis if permitted in the Product List as follows: 1) For Subscription Licenses part of an Enterprise-wide commitment, Licenses may be reduced if the total quantity of Licenses and Software Assurance for an applicable group meets or exceeds the quantity of Qualified Devices identified on the Product Selection Form. Step-up Licenses do not count towards this total count. 2) For Enterprise Online Services not a part of an Enterprise-wide commitment, Licenses can be reduced as long as the initial order minimum requirements are maintained. 3) For Additional Products available as Subscription Licenses, Enrolled Affiliate may reduce the Licenses. If the License count is reduced to zero, then Enrolled Affiliate’s use of the applicable Subscription License will be cancelled. Invoices will be adjusted to reflect any reductions in Subscription Licenses at the true-up order Enrollment anniversary date and effective as of such date. (vii) Update statement. An update statement must be submitted instead of a true-up order if, as of the initial order or last true-up order, Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise has not: (1) changed the number of Qualified Devices and Qualified Users licensed with Enterprise Products or Enterprise Online Services; and (2) increased its usage of Additional Products. This update statement must be signed by Enrolled Affiliate’s authorized representative. The update statement must be received by Microsoft between 60 and 30 days prior to the Enrollment anniversary date. The last update statement is due at least 30 days prior to the Expiration Date. Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 6 of 10 d. Step-up Licenses. For Licenses eligible for a step-up under this Enrollment, Enrolled Affiliate may step-up to a higher edition or suite as follows: (i) For step-up Licenses included on an initial order, Enrolled Affiliate may order according to the true-up process. (ii) If step-up Licenses are not included on an initial order, Enrolled Affiliate may step-up initially by following the process described in the Section titled “Adding new Products not previously ordered,” then for additional step-up Licenses, by following the true-up order process. (iii) If Enrolled Affiliate has previously ordered an Online Service as an Additional Product and wants to step-up to an Enterprise Online Service eligible for a Transition, the step-up may be reported as a Transition. (iv) If Enrolled Affiliate Transitions a License, it may be able to further step-up the Transitioned License. If Enrolled Affiliate chooses to step-up and the step-up License is separately eligible to be Transitioned, such step-up Licenses may result in a License reduction at the Enrollment anniversary date following the step-up. 6. Payment terms. For the initial or renewal order, Enrolled Affiliate may pay upfront or elect to spread its payments over the applicable Enrollment term. If spread payments are elected, unless indicated otherwise, Microsoft will invoice Enrolled Affiliate’s Reseller in three equal annual installments. The first installment will be invoiced upon Microsoft’s acceptance of this Enrollment and on each Enrollment anniversary date. Subsequent orders are invoiced upon acceptance of the order and Enrolled Affiliate may elect to pay annually or upfront for Online Services and upfront for all other Licenses. 7. End of Enrollment term and termination. a. General. At the Expiration Date, Enrolled Affiliate must immediately order and pay for Licenses for Products it has used but has not previously submitted an order, except as otherwise provided in this Enrollment. b. Renewal Option. At the Expiration Date, Enrolled Affiliate can renew Products by renewing the Enrollment for one additional 36 full calendar month term or signing a new Enrollment. Microsoft must receive a Product Selection Form and renewal order prior to or at the Expiration Date. The renewal term will start on the day following the Expiration Date. Microsoft will not unreasonably reject any renewal. Microsoft may make a change to this program that will make it necessary for Customer and its Enrolled Affiliates to enter into new Agreements and Enrollments. c. If Enrolled Affiliate elects not to renew. (i) Software Assurance. If Enrolled Affiliate elects not to renew Software Assurance for any Product under its Enrollment, then Enrolled Affiliate will not be permitted to order Software Assurance later without first acquiring L&SA. (ii) Online Services eligible for an Extended Term. For Online Services identified as eligible for an Extended Term in the Product List, the following options are available at the end of the Enrollment initial or renewal term. 1) Extended Term. Licenses for Online Services will automatically expire in accordance with the terms of the Enrollment. An extended term feature that allows Online Services to continue month-to-month (“Extended Term”) is available. During the Extended Term, Online Services will be invoiced monthly at the then-current published price for Enrolled Affiliate’s price level as of the Expiration Date plus a 3% Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 7 of 10 administrative fee for up to one year. If Enrolled Affiliate does want an Extended Term, Government Partner must submit a request to Microsoft. Microsoft must receive the request not less than 30 days prior to the Expiration Date. 2) Cancellation during Extended Term. If Enrolled Affiliate has opted for the Extended Term and later determines not to continue with the Extended Term, Government Partner must submit a notice of cancellation for each Online Service. Cancellation will be effective at the end of the month following 30 days after Microsoft has received the notice. (iii) Online Services not eligible for an Extended Term. If Online Services are not identified as eligible for an Extended Term in the Product List, the Licenses will be cancelled and will terminate as of the Expiration Date. Any associated media must be uninstalled and destroyed and Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise must discontinue use. Microsoft may request written certification to verify compliance. (iv) Customer Data. Upon expiration or termination of a License for Online Services, Enrolled Affiliate must tell Microsoft whether to: 1) disable its account and then delete its Customer Data (“Data Deletion”); or 2) retain its Customer Data in a limited function account for at least 90 days after expiration or termination of the License for such Online Service (the “Retention Period”) so that Enrolled Affiliate may extract its Customer Data. 3) If Enrolled Affiliate indicates Data Deletion, Enrolled Affiliate will not be able to extract its Customer Data. If Enrolled Affiliate indicates it wants a Retention Period, Enrolled Affiliate will be able to extract its Customer Data through Microsoft’s standard processes and tools, and Enrolled Affiliate will reimburse Microsoft if there are any applicable costs to the extent allowed by applicable law. If Enrolled Affiliate does not indicate either Data Deletion or a Retention Period, Microsoft will retain Enrolled Affiliate’s Customer Data in accordance with the Retention Period. 4) Following the expiration of the Retention Period, Microsoft will disable Enrolled Affiliate’s account and then delete its Customer Data. 5) Enrolled Affiliate agrees that, other than as described above, Microsoft has no obligation to continue to hold, export or return Enrolled Affiliate’s Customer Data. Enrolled Affiliate agrees Microsoft has no liability whatsoever for deletion of Enrolled Affiliate’s Customer Data pursuant to these terms. d. Termination for cause. Any termination for cause of this Enrollment will be subject to the “Termination for cause” Section of the agreement. e. Early termination. Any Early termination of this Enrollment will be subject to the “Early Termination” Section of the Enterprise Agreement. For Subscription Licenses, in the event of a breach by Microsoft, Microsoft will issue Reseller a credit for any amount paid in advance that would apply after the date of termination. Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 8 of 10 Enrollment Details 1. Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. Identify which Affiliates are included in the Enterprise. Check only one box in this section: Enrolled Affiliate Enrolled Affiliate and the following Affiliate(s): Enrolled Affiliate and all Affiliates, with following Affiliate(s) excluded: Please indicate whether the Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise will include all new Affiliates acquired after the start of this Enrollment: Include future Affiliates 2. Contact information. Each party will notify the other in writing if any of the information in the following contact information page(s) changes. The asterisks (*) indicate required fields. By providing contact information, Enrolled Affiliate consents to its use for purposes of administering this Enrollment by Microsoft, its Affiliates, and other parties that help administer this Enrollment. The personal information provided in connection with this Enrollment will be used and protected in accordance with the privacy statement available at https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/servicecenter. a. Primary contact. This contact is the primary contact for the Enrollment from within Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. This contact is also an Online Administrator for the Volume Licensing Service Center and may grant online access to others. Name of entity (must be legal entity name)* City of Palo Alto Contact name* First KB Last Paige Contact email address* KB.Paige@cityofpaloalto.org Street address* 250 Hamilton Ave City* Palo Alto State/Province* CA Postal code* 94301 (For U.S. addresses, please provide the zip + 4, e.g. xxxxx-xxxx) Country* USA Phone* 650-617-3109 Fax Tax ID b. Notices contact and Online Administrator. This contact (1) receives the contractual notices, (2) is the Online Administrator for the Volume Licensing Service Center and may Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 9 of 10 grant online access to others, and (3) is authorized for applicable Online Services to add or reassign Licenses, step-up, and initiate Transitions prior to a true-up order. Same as primary contact Name of entity* CompuCom Systems, Inc Contact name* First Bruce Last Valentin Contact email address* bvalenti@compucom.com Street address* 7171 Forest Lane City* Dallas State/Province* TX Postal code* 75230- (For U.S. addresses, please provide the zip + 4, e.g. xxxxx-xxxx) Country* USA Phone* 972-856-4617 Fax Language preference. Choose the language for notices. English This contact is a third party (not the Enrolled Affiliate). Warning: This contact receives personally identifiable information of the Customer and its Affiliates. c. Microsoft Account Manager. Microsoft Account Manager for this Enrolled Affiliate is: Microsoft account manager name: Gina Kirby Microsoft account manager email address: gkirby@microsoft.com d. Media delivery contact (DO NOT COMPLETE IF ATTACHING MEDIA ELECTION FORM). This is the contact at the ship to/electronic delivery address. Same as notices contact and Online Administrator Name of entity* City of Palo Alto Contact name: First* KB Last* Paige Contact email address (required for online access)* KB.Paige@cityofpaloalto.org Street address (no PO boxes accepted)* 250 Hamilton Ave City* Palo Alto State/Province* CA Postal code* 94301 - (For U.S. addresses, please provide the zip + 4, e.g. xxxxx-xxxx) Country* USA Phone* 50-617-3109 Fax e. Online Services Manager. This contact is authorized to manage the Online Services ordered under the Enrollment and (for applicable Online Services) to add or reassign Licenses, step-up, and initiate Transitions prior to a true-up order. Same as notices contact and Online Administrator Name of entity* City of Palo Alto Contact name*: First KB Last Paige Contact email address* KB.Paige@cityofpaloalto.org Street address* 250 Hamilton Ave City* Palo Alto State/Province* CA Postal code* 94301 Country* USA Phone* 50-617-3109 Fax This contact is from a third party organization (not the entity). Warning: This contact receives personally identifiable information of the entity. f. Reseller information. Reseller contact for this Enrollment is: Reseller company name* CompuCom Systems, Inc. Street address (PO boxes will not be accepted)* 7171 Forest Lane City* Dallas State/Province* TX Postal code* 75230 Country* US Contact name* Bruce Valentin Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 10 of 10 Phone* 972-856-4617 Fax 972-856-0265 Contact email address* bvalentin@compucom.com The undersigned confirms that the information is correct. Name of Reseller* Signature* Printed name* Bruce E. Valentin Printed title* Microsoft Licensing Specialist Date* Changing a Reseller. If Microsoft or the Reseller chooses to discontinue doing business with each other, Enrolled Affiliate must choose a replacement Reseller. If Enrolled Affiliate or the Reseller intends to terminate their relationship, the initiating party must notify Microsoft and the other party using a form provided by Microsoft at least 90 days prior to the date on which the change is to take effect. g. If Enrolled Affiliate requires a separate contact for any of the following, attach the Supplemental Contact Information form. Otherwise, the notices contact and Online Administrator remains the default.  Additional notices contact  Software Assurance manager  Subscriptions manager  Customer Support Manager (CSM) contact 3. Financing elections. Is a purchase under this Enrollment being financed through MS Financing? Yes, No. EA-EASProdSelForm(US)SLG(ENG)(Oct2011) Page 1 of 3 Document X20-02722 Enterprise and Enterprise Subscription Enrollment Product Selection Form – State and Local Enrollment Number Microsoft to complete for initial term Reseller to complete for renewal 6880181 Step 1. Please indicate whether Enrolled Affiliate is ordering Enterprise Products or Enterprise Online Services on the initial enrollment order. Choose both if applicable. Enterprise Products. Choose platform option: Professional Desktop Qualified Devices: 1000 Qualified Users: 1000 Enterprise Online Services1 Step 2. Select the Products and Quantities Enrolled Affiliate is ordering on its initial Enrollment Order. Quantity may not include any Licenses which Enrolled Affiliate has selected for optional future use, or to which it is transitioning or stepping up within enrollment term. Products for which the Enrolled Affiliate has an option to transition or step-up should be listed in Step 3. Products2 Quantity Office Professional Plus Office Pro Plus 1000 Office Pro Plus for Office 365 Office 365 Plans1 Office 365 (Plan E1) Office 365 (Plan E2) Office 365 (Plan E3) Office 365 (Plan E4) Client Access License (CAL). Choose 1 Option. Core CAL, including Bridge CAL’s (if applicable) Core CAL 1000 Core CAL Bridge for Office 365 Core CAL Bridge for Windows Intune Core CAL Bridge for Office 365 and Windows Intune Enterprise CAL (ECAL) ECAL ECAL Bridge for Office 365 ECAL Bridge for Windows Intune ECAL Bridge for Office 365 and Windows Intune The Client Access License selection must be the same across the Enterprise. Specify whether licensing CAL per Device or User: User Windows Desktop Windows OS Upgrade 1000 Windows VDA Windows Intone Windows Intune Windows Intune Add-on3 Other Enterprise Products Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack (MDOP)4 EA-EASProdSelForm(US)SLG(ENG)(Oct2011) Page 2 of 3 Document X20-02722 If selecting Windows Desktop or Windows Intune option, Enrolled Affiliate acknowledges the following: a. The Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade licenses offered through this Enrollment are not full licenses. The Enrolled Affiliate and any included Affiliates have qualifying operating system licenses for all devices on which the Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade or Windows Intune licenses are run. b. In order to use a third party to reimage the Windows Operating System Upgrade, Enrolled Affiliate must certify that Enrolled Affiliate has acquired qualifying operating system licenses. See the Product List for details. Step 3. Indicate new Enterprise Products and Online Services Enrolled Affiliate has selected for optional future use where not selected on the initial enrollment order (above): Products2 Office Pro Plus for Office 365 Office 365 (Plan E1) Office 365 (Plan E2) Office 365 (Plan E3) Office 365 (Plan E4) Enterprise CAL (ECAL) Step-up, including Bridge CALs Windows Intune Windows Intune Add-on3 Step 4. Establish the Enrolled Affiliate’s Price Level. Enrolled Affiliate must first count the quantity of Software Assurance and Licenses in each of the groups as described below by using the quantities entered in the above table. If Enrolled Affiliate does not order an Enterprise Product or Enterprise Online Service associated with an applicable Product pool, the price level for Additional Products in the same pool will be price level “D” throughout the term of the Enrollment. Do not include Bridge CALs, as License quantities are determined by the corresponding Enterprise Online Service(s). Products Price Group Qty from above Qty Price Level Office Professional Plus + Office Professional Plus for Office 365 + Office 365 (Plans E2–E4) 1 1000 250 and Above D Client Access License + Office 365 (Plans E1-E4) 2 1000 Client Access License + Windows Intune Add-on + Windows Intune 3 1000 Windows Desktop Upgrade + Windows VDA + Windows Intune 4 1000 Product Offering/Pool Price Level Enterprise Products and Enterprise Online Services: Set price level using the highest quantity from Groups 1 through 4 D Additional Product Application Pool: Set price level using quantity from Group 1 D Additional Product Server Pool: Set price level using the highest quantity from Group 2 or 3 D Additional Product Systems Pool: Set price level using quantity from Group 4 D 1 Enterprise Online Services may not be available in all locations. Please see the Product List for a list of locations where these may be purchased. 2 Additional Products may be included on the order, but are not selected on this form. 3 Windows Intune Add-on requires purchase of Windows OS Upgrade or Windows VDA. 4 MDOP requires purchase of Windows OS Upgrade, Windows VDA, or Windows Intune. EA-EASProdSelForm(US)SLG(ENG)(Oct2011) Page 3 of 3 Document X20-02722 This form must be attached to a signature form to be valid. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2553) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/23/2012 April 23, 2012 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 2553) Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: Oregon Expressway Ross Road Traffic Signal Funding Title: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $410,000 and Approval of Agreement with the County of Santa Clara for the City’s Fair- Share Contribution for the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve an agreement with the County of Santa Clara and adopt a budget amendment ordinance in the amount of $410,000 for the City’s fair-share contribution to the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project intersection and roadway improvements at and adjacent to the intersections of Oregon Expressway & Ross Road and Oregon Expressway & Louis Road. Executive Summary The County of Santa Clara is leading the design and construction of operations improvements on Oregon Expressway between from Bryant Street and West Bayshore Road to help improve operations at signalized intersections. The City received 100% design documents for the project in February and staff is recommending a $410,000 (13%) fair-share contribution towards the construction cost of the project, estimated at $3,150,000. The fair-share contribution will cover the cost of a new traffic signal at the Oregon Expressway & Ross Road intersection, microwave bicycle detection equipment at both Ross Road and Bryant Street, and other minor civil improvements requested by the City. The City’s local match contribution will be provided from previously collected traffic impact fees from the Stanford Research Park Transportation Impact Fee Program. The remainder of the project includes traffic signal updates at each existing signalized intersection, sidewalk improvements, pedestrian ramp improvements, street resurfacing, and roadway markings/signage improvements. The remaining cost of the improvements, including the construction engineering and inspection costs, is being funded by the County of Santa Clara through a combination of Federal Earmark Funds, Measure B Funds, and County Road Fund sources. April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 2553) Background Oregon Expressway is part of the Santa Clara County expressway system, and is designed to relieve local streets of commuter and other non-neighborhood traffic. Oregon Expressway connects US 101 to State Route 82 (El Camino Real) and to Interstate 280. In 2003, the County adopted a Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study that provided a long-term plan for the improvement and maintenance of the expressway system. The plan identified this as a Tier 1a project and included specific recommended improvements along Oregon Expressway between Bryant Street and US 101. In August 2003, the City Council endorsed the high priority recommendations in the Study for Oregon Expressway. The County updated the Comprehensive County Expressway Study in 2009. In 2008 and 2009, the County held a series of community outreach meetings and worked with City staff to develop conceptual alternatives for these improvements. The proposed improvements at the Ross Road and Louis Road intersections with Oregon Expressway were generally well received by members of the community. The concept plans for each of the improvements were brought to, and adopted by City Council in November, 2009. As part of the approval, City Council directed staff and the County to incorporate a bicycle and pedestrian- friendly signalized intersection crossing at the currently un-signalized intersection of Ross Road and Oregon Expressway. The County secured approximately $4.2 million, including a Federal grant and County match funding, for environmental, design, construction and construction engineering of improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle safety and vehicle operating conditions along Oregon Expressway. The project will reduce traffic delays through improved traffic signal coordination, an additional element of the project. Currently, the signalized intersections along Oregon Expressway have less than ideal lane configurations and operate with relatively older equipment, which restrict the opportunities to optimize the signal timing patterns. To improve system-wide operations, the County will improve each intersection, provide communications equipment to interconnect the corridor, and develop new traffic signal timing plans. To improve intersection efficiency, the intersection’s signal phasing would need to be modified such that the pedestrian crossing times (across Oregon) can occur simultaneously or be limited to one walk phase across Oregon Expressway per cycle. This will generally be achieved by having protected left turn phases, and the pedestrian phases crossing Oregon Expressway to occur simultaneously. At Ross Road, Staff worked with the County to develop concept plans for a bicycle and pedestrian friendly traffic signal that would provide an important link in the future Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard. The traffic signal concept for the Ross Road intersection is similar to the existing traffic signal where the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard crosses Embarcadero Road; this is considered the first element of the future Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard. Discussion The County has requested a fair-share contribution from the City of Palo Alto for the following improvements at a not-to-exceed cost of $410,000: New Oregon Expressway & Ross Road Traffic Signal April 23, 2012 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 2553) The new traffic signal will allow bicycle and pedestrian movements across Oregon Expressway while restricting vehicle movements on Ross Road to “Right Turn Only” movements onto Oregon Expressway. Vehicles on Oregon Expressway will be allowed to turn left onto Ross Road through new protected left turn movements as well as right turn movements. This new operation was approved by the community during the 2008-09 community outreach process of the project. The new Oregon Expressway & Ross Road traffic signal is a key element of the future Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard. Louis Road Civil Improvements The additional improvements adjacent to the intersection of Oregon Expressway and Louis Road that the City has requested as part of the project include modifying the existing rolled curbs to vertical curbs on the south side between Oregon Expressway and Warren Way. This will result in No Parking restrictions on both sides of Ross Road between Oregon Expressway and Warren Way to provide dedicated bicycle lanes facilities and improve intersection sight distances. Oregon Expressway & Ross Road, Bryant Street Microwave Bicycle Detection Both Ross Road and Bryant Street are identified as future and existing Bicycle Boulevards, respectively, in the Draft Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Enhanced detection is another key element of the Draft Plan so the City requested that the County install microwave detection for these side streets to help implement enhanced signal timing strategies such as Dynamic Minimum Green and Green Extension Times only when bicycles are present. The county agreed to include these improvements into their overall Oregon Expressway Improvement Project as long as the City provided a fair share contribution towards them. The $410,000 “Not to Exceed” contribution represents 13% of the overall engineer’s estimate for the project. The costs were reviewed by both the Public Works Department and Transportation Division and deemed to be appropriate for the associated cost of design and construction improvements. The County will invoice the City periodically during the construction phase until the cap is reached. Timeline The County of Santa Clara received Council approval of the proposed concept plans in November 2009. Over the past two years, the County has been developing the final design plans and has been working on through the extensive Caltrans environmental clearance requirements. The 100% improvement plans for the project were completed in December 2011, and were used by the City to develop the City’s recommended fair share contribution towards the project. The County anticipates opening the contractors bidding process in Summer 2012, with construction anticipated to start in the Fall 2012. Resource Impact The environmental review, design and construction of the Oregon Expressway improvement project is funded by the County using grant funds and county matching funds totaling approximately $4.2 million. Approximately $1,000,000 of these funds were used by the County to cover the environmental and design cost of the project. The City’s fair share contribution April 23, 2012 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 2553) towards the project is $410,000, or 13% of the overall estimated construction phase of the project, $3,150,000. The City’s local match will be provided through previously collected traffic impact fees from the Stanford Research ParkProject. The Stanford Research Park (SRP) traffic impact fee was intended for improvements at Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway and two additional intersections, Page Mill/El Camino and Page Mill/Hanover. The total estimated cost of these improvements in 2001 was $10 million, including $1.2 million for Oregon/Middlefield. Currently there is a balance of approximately $3.1 million in the SRP impact fee fund. Policy Implications The recommendations in this report are consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan policies including: Program T-22: Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern end of the Bryant street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway spaced by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Policy T-27: Avoid major increases in street capacity unless necessary to remedy serve traffic congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists. The recommendations are consistent with the Council-approved priorities for the Oregon Expressway as identified in the 2003 County Expressway Planning Study Implementation Plan, and the Council-approved preferred concept plans presented in November 2009. Environmental Review The County of Santa Clara is the lead agency for preparation of the environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for this project. Since the project is receiving Federal Funds, environmental clearance for the project falls under the more stringent NEPA requirements. The preliminary Environmental Study form was signed by Caltrans on December 17, 2009. The Environmental Study determined the project was categorically excluded from the requirements to perform a full Environmental Impact Statement, provided additional technical studies were performed and a summary of the community meetings was included. The technical studies have now been completed and the County is awaiting final NEPA clearance from Caltrans. Attachments: Attachment A: Revision 1 to Cost Sharing Agreement - Oregon Level of Service Improvements (PDF) Attachment B: Cover sheet for the 100% design of the Oregon Expressway impovements project (PDF) Attachment C: Budget Amendment Ordinance - Oregon Expressway Improvement (PDF) April 23, 2012 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 2553) Prepared By: Rafael Rius, Traffic Engineer Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Page 1 of 8 Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for the Widening Improvements on Oregon Expressway Between El Camino Real and Homestead Road – December, 2011 COST SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, AND THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR LEVEL-OF-SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS ON OREGON EXPRESSWAY, BETWEEN US-101 AND SR-82 This is an agreement made and entered into as of the date it is fully executed by and between the City of Palo Alto, California, a chartered municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as “CITY”), and the County of Santa Clara, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as “COUNTY”), collectively referred to herein as the “PARTIES.” RECITALS WHEREAS, the 2003 County Expressway Planning Study identified the Level-of-Service (LOS) Improvements on Oregon Expressway, between US-101 and SR-82 in the City of Palo Alto as a Tier 1A priority bike, pedestrian and operational improvement project; WHEREAS, these improvements are necessary to improve traffic flow, reduce delay to motorists, improve bike and pedestrian facilities, and reduce traffic congestion in both the CITY and on the COUNTY Expressway; WHEREAS, CITY has collected development impact fees for a portion of the construction of improvements on Oregon Expressway; WHEREAS, COUNTY intends to design and construct LOS, bike and pedestrian improvements on Oregon Expressway between US-101 and SR-82, which improvements will be hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”; WHEREAS, the PROJECT includes the construction of upgraded traffic signals and optimized signal timing plans; pedestrian and bike crossing improvements; channelization to separate Page 2 of 8 Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for the Widening Improvements on Oregon Expressway Between El Camino Real and Homestead Road – December, 2011 turning and through traffic on Oregon Expressway and the associated intersection improvements which will provide traffic relief throughout this portion of CITY; WHEREAS, CITY has acknowledged the future benefit of this PROJECT to CITY and indicated its willingness to contribute funding to the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES desire to memorialize such agreement in writing. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of their mutual promises and covenants, and subject to the terms, conditions, and provisions hereinafter set forth, the PARTIES agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1) Scope of Work: The scope of work will consist of the construction of upgraded traffic signals and optimized signal timing plans; pedestrian and bike crossing improvements; channelization to separate turning and through traffic on Oregon Expressway and the associated intersection improvements; and all work necessary to complete the improvements, all of which will hereinafter be referred to as “PROJECT”. The PROJECT will be constructed according to the design plans, specifications and estimates approved in writing by both COUNTY and CITY. Attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein is a PROJECT location map. 2) Design, Environmental and Right of Way Phase: COUNTY, as the lead agency on this PROJECT, is preparing, plans, specifications and engineers estimate (PS&E), environmental documents as required and Right of Way clearance for PROJECT. This Phase will be 100% funded by COUNTY. COUNTY will submit to CITY for design review the 95% PS&E level of design. CITY will provide review, approval, and written permission to proceed with work, and for CITY issuance of a permit, at no cost to COUNTY, for work within CITY jurisdiction prior to advertisement for contractor bids. CITY will review and provide design review comments to COUNTY within a timely manner. Page 3 of 8 Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for the Widening Improvements on Oregon Expressway Between El Camino Real and Homestead Road – December, 2011 3) Award of Contract and Construction: The construction work will be performed by a contract awarded by competitive bid and administered by COUNTY pursuant to its contracting principles and applicable law. COUNTY will provide CITY with a copy of all approved project schedules. Weekly schedules will be provided to CITY staff representatives at the weekly PROJECT meetings. COUNTY will provide CITY with a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Action Plan Element (ESCAPE) submittal prior to COUNTY approval. The PROJECT will be completed to the COUNTY’s and the CITY’s reasonable satisfaction, and such extra work as may be desired within the PROJECT limits will be accommodated, subject to being in compliance with the respective standards of COUNTY or CITY and sufficient PROJECT funds being available to ensure completion of the necessary work. 100% of the Construction Engineering / Inspection costs will be funded by COUNTY. 4) PROJECT Cost and Funding: For construction of the base project, COUNTY has secured a total of $3,315,000 from various funding sources as listed below: Federal Earmark Funds $2,640,000 County Roads Portion of Measure B Funds $ 627,000 County Road Funds $ 48,000 TOTAL $3,315,000 These funds are budgeted for both the construction contract, and the cost of construction engineering / inspection. In addition, through an extensive public outreach and comment process, bike, pedestrian and vehicle enhancements were identified. These enhancements are in addition Page 4 of 8 Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for the Widening Improvements on Oregon Expressway Between El Camino Real and Homestead Road – December, 2011 to the original base project, are not eligible for reimbursement form the Federal Earmark funds and will be financed by CITY. Based on the 95% Engineers Estimate the total cost of the construction contract is estimated at $3,150,000. The CITY’s portion of the estimated construction costs is $410,000 or 13% of the total construction cost. Therefore, CITY will reimburse COUNTY 13% of the actual construction bid amount up to a CITY maximum of $410,000. Any changes to the scope of work as identified by COUNTY or CITY that is beyond the PROJECT description identified in this agreement, that may increase design or construction costs, shall receive prior written approval and agreement on a funding plan from both COUNTY and CITY. COUNTY will not authorize its consultants or contractors to perform work which would result in any additional cost above and beyond the agreed amount as set forth in this AGREEMENT, without prior agreement and written approval from CITY. 5) Timing of PROJECT Funding: a) Within 30 days of project award, CITY shall reimburse COUNTY 13% of the Awarded Construction contract amount up to a maximum of $410,000. b) If the lowest responsive bid from a responsible bidder exceeds the total estimated construction cost of $3,150,000, PARTIES will convene within five days of bid opening to determine a mutually agreed upon course of action. c) COUNTY will obtain all necessary written approvals from CITY, including approval of PS&E, and necessary encroachment permits, prior to PROJECT advertisement, bidding addendum, contract award, extra work and/or change order approval. If the PARTIES cannot agree on a final version of PS&E, prior to PROJECT advertisement, then PARTIES will Page 5 of 8 Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for the Widening Improvements on Oregon Expressway Between El Camino Real and Homestead Road – December, 2011 convene and determine a mutually agreed course of action. PROJECT advertisement will not be made until PARTIES agree to the final version of PS&E. d) COUNTY will provide CITY with a set of vellum original “As Built” construction plans after the PROJECT is completed as part of the final accounting. 6) Indemnification: In lieu of and not withstanding the pro rata risk allocation, which might otherwise be imposed between the PARTIES pursuant to Government Code Section 895.6, the PARTIES agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by a Party shall not be shared pro rata but, instead, COUNTY and CITY agree that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each of the PARTIES hereto shall fully indemnify and hold each of the other PARTIES, their officers, board members, employees, and agents, harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability imposed for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party, its officers, employees or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such party under this AGREEMENT. No party, nor any officer, board member or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the other PARTIES hereto, their officers, board members, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to such other PARTIES under this AGREEMENT. 7) Insurance: COUNTY will require its construction contractor to indemnify CITY, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents and to provide automobile, workers Page 6 of 8 Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for the Widening Improvements on Oregon Expressway Between El Camino Real and Homestead Road – December, 2011 compensation, bodily injury insurance, property damage insurance and contractual liability coverage during the performance of the PROJECT. The COUNTY will also require that the CITY, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents be designated as additional insureds on the construction contractor’s commercial general liability policy. 8) Additional Provisions: a) The parties’ waiver of any term, condition or covenant, or breach of any term, condition, or covenant shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term, condition or covenant or breach of any other term, condition or covenant. b) This agreement is the entire AGREEMENT between COUNTY and CITY relating to the PROJECT. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations, or representation not expressly set forth in this agreement are of no force or effect. c) If any term, condition or covenant of this agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this agreement will be valid and binding on COUNTY and CITY. d) This agreement will be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. e) This agreement may be executed in counterparts and will be binding as executed. f) The term of this agreement will commence upon execution of the agreement by both PARTIES and shall remain in effect until terminated by mutual agreement of the PARTIES or pursuant to Section 8(h). If not terminated earlier, the AGREEMENT will expire on December 31, 2017. g) All changes or extensions to the AGREEMENT must be in writing in the form of an amendment and approved by both PARTIES. Page 7 of 8 Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for the Widening Improvements on Oregon Expressway Between El Camino Real and Homestead Road – December, 2011 h) Either COUNTY or CITY may terminate the agreement at any time prior to award of the construction contract for the PROJECT upon thirty (30) days written notice. Once the construction contract for the PROJECT has been awarded, the agreement can be terminated only upon the mutual written consent and terms acceptable to both PARTIES. i) The designated project manager for COUNTY for the duration of the PROJECT is Craig Petersen, or his designee. COUNTY’s project manager will have all the necessary authority to direct technical and professional work within the scope of the agreement and will serve as the principal point of contact with COUNTY. The CITY Traffic Engineer, Jaime Rodriguez, or his designee, will serve as the principal point of contact for the CITY, responsible for coordinating design review of the proposed project plans for the CITY, for obtaining the necessary CITY approvals and permits, including an encroachment permit for this PROJECT and for authorizing work which may result in additional cost. j) The AGREEMENT does not change any authority or responsibility between COUNTY and CITY with regard to design, maintenance, operation or future repair responsibility. 9) Notices – Notices required by this agreement may be delivered by first class mail addressed to the appropriate party at the following addresses and deemed received when sent to: To CITY: CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: ?????????????? To COUNTY: ROADS AND AIRPORTS DEPARTMENT 101 Skyport Drive, San Jose, CA 95110-1302 Attn: Michael Murdter, Director Page 8 of 8 Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for the Widening Improvements on Oregon Expressway Between El Camino Real and Homestead Road – December, 2011 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have entered into this AGREEMENT as of the date it is fully executed. “CITY” “COUNTY” City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara _______________________ _______________________ ????????? George Shirakawa, President City Manager Board of Supervisors Attest: Attest: _______________________ _______________________ ????????? Maria Marinos City Clerk Clerk of Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM & LEGALITY: ________________________ __________________________ ????????????? Elizabeth G. Pianca City Attorney Deputy County Counsel e • B ~ ~ t! ~ ~ , ~ §I 5 " II :; , ~I • , ! ! ! 0 5 " " / e ~ ;1 ~jQ ENGINEER KIMLEr-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6130 STONERIOGE WALL ROAD SUITE 370 PLEASANTON. CA 9~SB (92~) 398-48-40 CONTACT: BRIAN SOWERS LEGEND PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY [ '.:--. I CONCRETE SIDEWALl< CURB AND GUTlER CURB PAVEI.4ENT OVERLAY r •• ·•·•• ••.•••• '1 LANDSCAPING o------n STREET UGHT ~ TRAFFlC SIGNAL O!J CONTROUER CABINET o TRAFFle LOOPS TRAFFle CONDUIT 1.40NUt.4ENT SIGN UllUTY POLE .t GUY WATER VALVE HYDRANT 0 PULL BOX D TREE GRATE lREE E"l CATCH BASIN WATER SANITARY SEWER STORM DRAIN GAS ELECTRIC TELEPHONE TELEVISION DM01 -l~: LIMIT OF WORK- REY1S1Cl15 LANDSCAPING HAYGOOD .!r: ASSOCIATES 14-96-8 SOLANO AVENUE ALBANY, CA 904-706 (510)527-6343 CONTACT: LEAH HAYGOOD EXISTING ------ t·· i! -[ ----------- _.-... ---- t. -..... -. I o------n * >--Cr-'T\ [T-~J.~ --~ " " n rJ 0 y , O~ i-( I I ----- " ..... ---" " II e tJC --.-- "- .- ~-- --I--.. 100 OM03 T503 1003- ~ OM 05 COUNTY OF SANTA ROADS AND AIRPORTS CLARA DEPARTMENT PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ON OREGON EXPRESSWAY SAN t.lATEO COUNTY T505 1004-- FEDERAL PROJECT NUMBER: HPLUL-5937(163) EA# 04-925719 AlAMEDA COUNTY ~J-p PROJECT LI MITS "@ ~~t· ~1 ~i:. D'l. ~ "" J. • ~.r,~~ t-, ~h@ #~of-~ ~ .. ~\ I I--!Bfj 0 r \ 4 11_ (lJ1{ A'£o:::. ",., ~ (;;) 9J1~i'\I/<U 14 SUNNYVALE ~ ·-------....:---_L-'b~ 1~ T ~ .'."0 @ r::,~ ¥; \io . \\ a 61 lWJ WIRII.JRTON ~'<£ 'lH1T~ Cl.'AA SANTA CLARA COUNlY 'L ,-CIO.±... 9 I ", l~~ I "I ~ I~i I Ii I~ ~ PROJECT DM07 T507 1005-~ I '.-----' Lr2 ~ 6i Rl ~_ 1ST ST CIHPSELL/ \ /~ '" LIMITS OM09 T509 1006- OM10 S!;! 1 - NOT TO SCtH -\:df -----r---=--.l-_ -L __ _ = -~ ~~-~ ;~_lUiioou.Fcj~~ ':;=,,0-~-=-=---'&'J!;~ . ! ':-_1~.Ml:l2_ _ _ ___ .iEMO: ~-r~E ?i--=. ,,----. ,~QD . -I ~J,!l . .~ . . _ YaW __ ._.::J~ I' ~ I 5 ~ BY I DATE I APP'D I I ~~!!I~ DM06 LOO KEY OM08 LOO SITE PLAN~ Cou~nY OF S.~Nl~ CL.~R.~ RO.~DS .~ND .~IRPORTS DEP.~RTME~n NPjDC/AS • SUBMITTED: APPROVED: ceilGt£D DATE NPjDC/AS _ .. DATE 8SLLF ~~o DATE I WOPJo( m OER I~a. I AC AS ANG PT AVE BC BW, BOW BRC BPB CL. CIL CONC ClRS 01 OH OLC OWY E EC EL EP EX EXPY FG FF FH FL F/O FOC GB GR HP HMA, HWAC INV eLT UP LP LONG "AX "H "'N ~ I SHEET INDEX ABBREVIATIONS ASPHALT CONCRETE AGGREGATE BASE ANGLE POINT AVENUE BEGIN CURVE BACK OF WALK BACK OF ROLLED CURB BIKE PUSH BUTTON CENTERLINE CONCRETE CENTERS DRAIN INLET DETECTOR HAND HOLE DETECTOR WIRE DRIVEWAY EASllNG END CURVE ELEVAllON EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISllNG EXPRESSWAY FlNISH GRADE FlNISH FLOOR FlRE HYDRANT FLOW UNE FlBER OPllCS FACE OF CURB GRADE BREAK GRATE HIGH POINT WISC N NO NTS D.C. O.C.B.W. OG P' PEU PCC PED PP' PRC PT PVC P" P\IIIT R R, RT RO RI" R/W RCP SO SDMH SIC SNS HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE INVERT ELEVA liON 55 SSWH ST LEFT LIP OF GUTlER LOW POINT LONGllUDINAL WAXIWUW WANHOLE WINIMUM STIl 5. TC THERWO TIP VEH LIMIT OF -WORK MISCEUANEOUS NORTHING NUMBER NOT TO SCALE ON CENTER ON CENTER BOTH WA'fS ORIGINAL GROUND/GRADE PULLBOX PHOTO ELECTRIC UNIT PORnANO CEMENT CONCRETE OR POINT OF COW POUND CURVAlURE PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN PUSH BunON POINT OF REVERSE CURVAlURE POINT POLYVINYL CHLORIDE POINT OF VERllCAL INFLECllON PAVEMENT RADIUS RIGHT ROAD RIM/TOP OF GRATE ELEVAllON RIGHT-OF-WAY REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE STORW DRAIN STORW DRAIN MANHOLE SIGNAL INTERCONNECT STREET NAME SIGN SANITARY SEWER SANITARY SEWER MANHQ.E STREET STANDARD SIDEWALK TOP OF CURB ELEVATION AT FACE OF CURB lHERMOPLASllC l'r'PICAL VEHICLE. VEHICULAR 10." DESIGN POI. I.EVIEW ONLY UNVAII.'Il012 111"'1_'" ~ml".Hcm IIII....J_U and Aaeoclales, I~ r~ ~" ,_",tJ E"'''''"'' ... ,_,.nd E"""""",,,'01 0"" ..... ",. r.!'_-:=="::.;,~"'" 1::::::g::Il:::J:: 0""' """'"""'" """u DC IMPROVEMENTS ON OREGON EXPRESSWAY DRAwtJG I~a. COl NONE TITLE & INDEX 5tH 110. 1 ~ 87 AO~RnSE~nH DATE: C(JITRACT IJo FU 1.10. &," ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $410,000 WITHIN THE STANFORD RESEARCH PARK/EL CAMINO FUND FOR THE CITY’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE OREGON EXPRESSWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 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 County of Santa Clara is leading design and construction operations for intersection and roadway improvements on Oregon Expressway from Page Mill Road to Highway 101; and C. The County of Santa Clara is funding the project with Measure B funds, County Road Funds, federal earmark funds, and local match; and D. The City of Palo Alto’s share of local matching funds is thirteen percent of construction costs for the project, or $410,000; and E. The City’s local match will be provided by through previously collected traffic fees from the Stanford Research Park Program. These revenues have been deposited to the Stanford Research Park/El Camino Fund; and F. City Council authorization is needed to amend the Fiscal Year 2012 Stanford Research Park/El Camino operating budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. The sum of Four Hundred Thousand Ten Dollars ($410,000) is hereby appropriated to Interagency Expense in the Stanford Research Park/El Camino budget and the Stanford Research Park/El Camino Fund Reserve is correspondingly reduced. SECTION 3. The Stanford Research Park/El Camino Fund Reserve is hereby reduced by Four Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($410,000) to Two Million Eight Hundred Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Eight Dollars ($2,819,978). SECTION 4. 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 5. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 6. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby 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: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 2717) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/23/2012 April 23, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2717) Council Priority: City Finances, Community Collaboration for Youth Well-Being, Emergency Preparedness, Environmental Sustainability, Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: City Council Priorities Update Title: Approval of City Council Priorities Quarterly Report Update From:City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the City Council Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report for the period ending March 31, 2012. Executive Summary This report provides an update on the status of work related to the priorities. Some activities previously reported on have been completed and removed from the quarterly report. These items include: 1) City Finances: Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) completes long- term city infrastructure needs report to City Council; 2) Emergency Preparedness: Conduct community exercise; 3) Emergency Preparedness: Implement Office of Emergency Services (OES) restructure; 4) Environmental Sustainability: Evaluate and implement plan to introduce electric vehicle (EV) charging stations; and 5) Land Use & Transportation Planning: Complete Stanford University Medical Center Project. It is anticipated that the next quarterly report, to be provided in July 2012, will include new goals as established by the Council related to the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) report recommendations and additional work items associated with Council guidance provided from retreats held by the Council this spring.The new goals will be set by the Council with staff providing input and information to assist the Council.Once the Council has established the new goals, staff will include them in the next report and also provide an update on the current status and next steps for these new goals. April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID #2717) Background The City Council was provided reports in March, July, and November of 2011 and a final 2011 calendar year report in January 2012 that included a master list of the Council priorities and key goals under each priority. This report includes activities for the most recent quarter January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2012. Attachments: ·April 23, 2012 Council Quarterly Report (PDF) ·Excel Spreadsheet (PDF) ·January 30, 2012 Council Quarterly Report (PDF) Prepared By:Rob Braulik, Assistant Director of Administrative Services Department Head:James Keene, City Manager City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager c Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 2 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 2012 Strategic Priorities Summary A. City Finances (CF) Goals 1. Complete labor negotiations with major bargaining groups 2. Complete refuse fund study and stabilization 3. Complete and implement economic development policy 4. Execute budget/fiscal measures to ensure long‐term financial stability B. Emergency Preparedness (EP) Goals 1. Evaluate a secondary electrical transmission line source 2. Implement recommendations of Foothills Fire Management Plan 3. Improve emergency operations readiness C. Environmental Sustainability (ES) Goals 1. Evaluate construction of composting digester or alternatives 2. Establish formal collaboration with Stanford University 3. Explore methods to integrate Palo Alto Green into City Sustainability Programs 4. Prepare Urban Forest Master Plan D. Land Use & Transportation Planning (LUTP) Goals 1. Complete Development Center plans improving customer service/accountability 2. Complete Rail Corridor Study 3. Substantially complete Comprehensive Plan update 4. Facilitate efforts to sustain Caltrain 5. Participate in regional SB375 & Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 6. Prepare Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan update E. Youth Well Being (YWB) Goals 1. Implement Project Safety Net 2. Magical Bridge Playground Project Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 3 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t City Finances (CF) Executive Summary: City finance strategies form the foundation for the City Council identified priorities. A stable financial picture in the short and long‐term ensures the City’s ability to deliver on all five Council priorities. Sound City finances are integral to Palo Alto’s quality of life. A key principle of the City’s finance objectives is to provide for the City’s finances in the near and long‐term. For example, the City negotiates labor agreements and the contracts envisioned during this cycle are ones where the City plans to make meaningful long‐lasting changes to key City legacy costs (e.g., pension and health care). The City is working toward developing a sustainable business model for funding ongoing infrastructure needs, while eliminating a major backlog of City projects. These efforts will take time, yet this investment is well worth the effort. This work will result in improving the overall high quality of life that Palo Alto citizens have come to rely and expect from their City government. Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011‐2012: 1. Complete labor negotiations with major bargaining groups 2. Complete refuse fund study and stabilization 3. Complete and implement economic development policy 4. Execute budget/fiscal measures to ensure long‐term financial stability Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 4 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 5 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 1. Project: Complete labor negotiations with major bargaining groups Department: Human Resources Department Secondary Department: City Attorney Project lead: Interim Human Resources Director Project start date: May 2010 Target completion date: June 2012 Current status: In June 2011, the City reached an agreement with Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to rollover SEIU’s contract, keeping its existing terms, and extending the current contract until June 30, 2012. On October 17, 2011, Council approved a Memorandum of Agreement with the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) with a term ending on June 30, 2014. Most recently, on March 5, 2012, a new Memorandum of Agreement with the Fire Chief’s Association (FCA) was adopted by Council with a term ending June 30, 2014. Thus, since 2009, SEIU, Management, IAFF, and FCA employees have made important concessions, including paying a portion or all of the employee retirement contributions required by CalPERS, 10% medical premium contributions for actives and retirees, new pension tiers for new hires, and, in the case of IAFF, providing flexibility to the City to make staffing changes. The City has proposed similar concessions but has not yet reached agreement with the Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA) (16 formal meetings since July 2011), and Police Managers (PMA). Due to the inability to reach agreement with PAPOA, the City declared impasse on February 24, 2012. Effective January 1, 2012, the City must comply with a new law (AB 646) signed by Governor Brown. This law requires non‐binding fact finding, should the union request it, after the parties reach impasse but before the Council can impose new economic terms. The timeline for steps involved are established by law. The City has not reached agreement with UMPAPA, a newly formed unit of management employees in the Utilities Department that the City was ordered by an arbitrator to certify in April 2011. Ten meetings have been held to‐date. However, UMPAPA employees were formerly part of the City‐wide unrepresented management group and are already under the same concessions described above because UMPAPA was formed after those changes went into effect. Next steps: The City has been in negotiations with PAPOA, PMA, and UMPAPA for six months or longer, depending on the unit, without reaching agreement. In 2012, staff’s goal is to bring negotiations with PAPOA, PMA and UMPAPA to a close in order to provide the City and employees with resolution. Staff initiated contract negotiation meetings with SEIU Classified Unit in late March 2012, in attempt to reach agreement prior to the expiration of the current Memorandum of Agreement. Staff plans to negotiate a successor agreement with the SEIU Hourly Unit in fall 2012. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 6 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 2. Project: Complete refuse fund study and fund stabilization Department: Public Works Department Secondary Department: Administrative Services Department Project lead: Interim Public Works Director Project start date: August 2010 Target completion date: June 30, 2012 Current status: Major progress has been made this Fiscal Year in returning the Refuse Fund to financial health and stability. Fiscal Year 2011 revenues have matched expenditures for the first time since Fiscal Year 2008, and reserves are no longer decreasing. The Palo Alto Landfill was closed with substantial savings to follow. Short and long‐term time schedules have been developed to place the Refuse Fund on a trajectory to full sustainability. Next steps: Fiscal Year 2013 refuse rates are being recommended which not only maintain the financial health of the Fund, but begin a three year process of balancing the commercial and residential rates such that each pays its full cost of service. In addition, the proposed rates will begin to build a Commercial Sector Reserve, which had been depleted in recent years. Further good news is that it appears that the anticipated Fiscal Year 2012 loan from the General Fund will not be needed. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 7 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 3. Project: Complete and implement Economic Development Policy Department: City Manager’s Office Project lead: Economic Development Manager Project start date: January 2011 Target completion date: July 2012 Current status: The Economic Development Policy has gone through several iterations, and was presented to the Policy & Services Committee along with a separate Draft Staff Action Plan in November 2011. The Policy is nearly developed; staff anticipates returning to the Policy & Services Committee one final time before returning it to the City Council for adoption. Next steps: Staff will include the final changes, and are scheduled to bring a final version of the Plan back to the Policy and Services Committee in May 2012 for adoption. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 8 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 4. Project: Execute budget/fiscal measures to ensure long‐term financial stability Department: Administrative Services Department Secondary Department: City Manager’s Office Project lead: Chief Financial Officer Project start date: May 2011 Target completion date: Fall 2011 Current status: Potential revenue measures to be considered were provided to the Council during the Council retreat on March 26, 2012. The Council directed staff to work with the Policy and Services Committee to continue exploring options that could potentially be included in the November 2012 election. Next steps: Based on the direction provided by the Council, staff will work with the Policy and Services Committee regarding future revenue measures. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 9 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t B. Emergency Preparedness (EP) Executive Summary: The City, like any community in the Bay Area, is susceptible to a variety of natural hazards including earthquakes, floods, wild‐land fires, and manmade disasters. The City is committed to protecting life, property, and the environment through a number of activities including preplanning, training, rapid emergency response, and public safety education. Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011: 1. Evaluate a secondary electrical transmission line source 2. Implement recommendations of Foothills Fire Management Plan 3. Improve emergency operations readiness Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 10 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 11 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 1. Project: Evaluate a secondary electrical transmission line source Department: Utilities Department Project lead: Utilities Director Project start date: July 2010 Target completion date: December 2013 Summary: Staff’s evaluation on the economics and feasibility of the transmission project, to provide a second electric transmission line source for the City, identified the SLAC project as the preferred option. This project would connect the City’s Quarry Substation to the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC’s) 230 kV substation. This would not only increase reliability by providing a second connection point, but also provide savings in the electric fund by avoiding certain transmission charges that the utility currently pays because it is connected to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) low voltage transmission system. Another pending alternative would be a PG&E project to establish a 115kV line from Ames to Colorado on the existing 60kV lines. As noted in the last quarterly update, staff and PG&E agreed that the SLAC project is a viable alternative to the Ames project. The initial evaluation of alternatives has been completed and the next phase is for potential parties to the SLAC project to sign a Letter of Intent to facilitate further discussion and development of a project agreement. Current status: As reported in the last quarterly report, staff and PG&E submitted letters to the California Independent System Operator (CASIO) in December 2011 requesting that CAISO postpone further evaluation of the Ames project for the current 2011‐2012 planning period to allow the City time to coordinate a proposal with SLAC and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). CAISO has complied with that request. Staff has shared with SLAC, Stanford, and WAPA a set of guiding principles for an agreement or letter/memorandum of understanding to move forward with project development. Next steps: Pending responses from SLAC, Stanford, and Western the City will sign a Letter of Intent. Up to this point, meetings and discussions have been technical in nature. If the City encounters obstacles to a secondary electrical transmission line source that are not driven by technical interconnection issues, staff will pursue other political avenues to bring the parties to the table to achieve agreement and progress. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 12 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 2. Project: Implement recommendations of Foothills Fire Management Plan Department: Fire Department Secondary Department: Police Department Project Lead: Acting Public Safety Director Project Start Date: January 2011 Target Completion Date: Ongoing Current status: The Foothills Fire Management Plan's author, Carol Rice of Wildland Resource Management (WRM), continues work as a consultant as next steps are further outlined. Her scope of work includes certain high priority elements of the Plan (such as evacuation routes), attending Santa Clara FireSafe Council meetings to coordinate with other jurisdictions, and seeking sources of grant and other funding to address the current budget shortfall. Next steps: In spring and summer 2012, staff will conduct three community education meetings on wildland fire and emergency procedures and for outreach on roadside treatments. Current plans call for Los Trancos Woods area to be the initial segment for work. Parks and Recreation personnel will assist in verifying that no vital fauna or flora is disrupted as part of these efforts. A contract is being developed with Santa Clara FireSafe Council to conduct roadside treatments to reduce risk along evacuation routes. In addition, CDC Work Crews will be mobilized to conduct roadside treatments once logistics have been developed. If details for a five‐year agreement with approval from Council can be worked out, future segments will be given a priority by CalFire for CDC work crew availability. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 13 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 3. Project: Improve emergency operations readiness Department: Police Department Secondary Department: Fire Department Project lead: Acting Public Safety Director Project start date: January 2011 Target completion date: Ongoing Current status: A core asset in the emergency operational readiness of the City is the Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC). Recently, the MEOC was deployed for the first time as a full 911 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), taking all 911 calls for Palo Alto and Stanford University. In addition, the MEOC has been deployed to:  Stanford Football Games: Such mass gatherings are not only identified as a high‐risk target by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, but have always been a priority for PAPD and Stanford DPS. The MEOC serves as a communications and command post for PAPD, PAFD, and Stanford DPS staff.  Lehigh Quarry (Cupertino) Multiple Homicide: This workplace violence event crossed several jurisdictions. Our MEOC served as the Command Post for that event, patching together disparate radio channels. This was the first unplanned deployment of the MEOC and was a success.  VIP, Dignitary & Presidential Visits: When the President of the United States visited Palo Alto/Stanford, the MEOC was the locus of our command and the Secret Service liaisons. With the election season ramping up, staff can expect more visits of this type, including other political candidates, in addition to other VIPs, such as foreign dignitaries. Most recently, the MEOC was deployed to support multiple‐day operations to protect the President of Israel. Next steps: The Police Department and OES will work in collaboration with the Information Technology (IT), Department to update plans, staff training, disaster supplies and equipment, and technology (communications, IT systems) to support extended operations under the all‐hazard planning environment. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 14 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 15 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t C. Environmental Sustainability (ES) Executive Summary: Environmental sustainability is a core value and ongoing priority for the City. The City has been a leader in this area in the Bay Area metropolitan region and in North America. The City is a Certified Green Business and has adopted a Climate Protection Plan, Sustainability Policy, Palo Alto Green Program, and continues to make strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011: 1. Evaluate construction of composting digester or alternatives 2. Establish formal collaboration with Stanford University 3. Explore methods to integrate Palo Alto Green into City Sustainability Programs 4. Prepare Urban Forest Master Plan Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 16 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 17 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 1. Project: Evaluate construction of composting digester or alternatives Department: Public Works Department Project lead: Interim Public Works Director Project start date: October 2010 Target completion date: Spring 2012 Current status: The Feasibility Analysis was completed on time and was vetted in a series of public and Council meetings. Proponents and opponents of a Palo Alto facility on the Landfill/Byxbee Park site had extensive comments on the analysis. Comments were also received on the alternative regional sites in the South Bay Area. Next steps: Following completion of the Energy/Compost Feasibility Study in September 2011, Palo Alto voters approved Measure “E” on November 8, 2011, which undedicated 10 acres of Byxbee Park for consideration as a site for such a facility. Next steps include staff developing a process and timeline for considering whether to build such a facility. This will occur in the late spring of 2012. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 18 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 2. Project: Establish formal collaboration with Stanford University Department: City Manager’s Office Project lead: Deputy City Manager Project start date: 2011 Target completion date: Complete, but partnership will be ongoing Current Status: As reported previously, there are three main connection points which could be explored and expanded to develop a stronger relationship between Stanford University and the City. They are internships or academic exchange, faculty knowledge or City projects, and intra‐departmental development or utility relationships. A team at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) has formed a “Water Team” with Stanford staff, graduate students and faculty at Stanford to review potential projects, including a system of recycled water usage. A new pilot project to test technology (reverse osmosis) for removing salts and toxics is being implemented at the RWQCP in 2012. A pilot to concentrate organics as a first step toward energy recovery was conducted at the RWQCP in early 2012 as part of the collaboration. Staff is industrial partners in Stanford’s new Engineering Research Center on Reinventing Urban Water Use and will continue to participate in 2012. Next Steps: Staff will be working with the Office of Government and Community Relations to determine an appropriate way to celebrate the internships discussed above, and further develop the process to encourage future internships. Staff will continue to collaborate with the many different departments on issues or programs where the City could add value to the process or the community. Such programs or events could include the Solar Decathlon which Stanford students are participating in, Earth Day events, and joint community groups such as the Community Environmental Action Partnership. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 19 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 3. Project: Explore methods to integrate Palo Alto Green into City Sustainability Programs Department: City Manager’s Office Secondary Department: Planning and Community Environment, Utilities Department Project lead: Assistant to the CM for Sustainability Project Start Date: 2011 Target Completion Date: On‐going efforts continue to pull all sustainability related efforts together Current Status: Staff is implementing a Sustainability Steering Committee and a multi‐department Sustainability Team whose goal would be to provide an integrated, seamless approach to promoting sustainable behaviors. This team would be supported by the steering committee lead by the City Manager and the directors from the Utilities, Planning, and Public Works Departments. This new team will seek out opportunities to work across departments and with various community groups. Next Steps: Staff is developing a strategy to implement a comprehensive multi‐departmental outreach education plan for the public, as well as, metrics and a framework for a sustainability strategy. The first step in the plan is for a sustainability webpage which has been developed in conjunction with the City’s website project. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 20 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 4. Project: Prepare Urban Forest Master Plan Department: Planning and Community Environment Secondary Department: Fire Department Project lead: Director, Planning and Community Environment Project start date: December 2010 Target completion date: January 2013 Current status: CalFire has reviewed the Urban Forest Master Plan and indicated its support on the direction of the Plan. The Plan satisfies requirements for reimbursement of the City’s $66,000 grant. Staff is working with the City’s consultant to complete an outline of the draft, and has created formatting for the document. Background technical documents are complete. Further work has been deferred, pending the hiring of an Urban Forester in the Public Work’s Department. That position filled, work is anticipated to commence in mid‐May 2012. Subsequently, staff will schedule community meetings and hearings with Boards, Commissions, and the Council in late 2012. Next steps: In mid‐2012, following the hiring of the Urban Forester, staff and the City’s consultant will revise the draft Plan and hold a community workshop. The Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning and Transportation Commission will hold meetings subsequent to the workshop. In late 2012 or early 2013, the Urban Forest Master Plan is tentatively scheduled to return to the Council for adoption. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 21 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t D. Land Use & Transportation Planning (LUTP) Executive Summary: Land use and transportation are key indicators of quality of life in Palo Alto. The overarching principle of the City’s land use and transportation objectives is to provide for sustainable development and services: growth, rehabilitation, and services that are sustainable in economic and fiscal terms, as well as in environmental respects. The City desires to develop in ways that promote the efficient delivery of services, assures high‐quality development and design, protects and broadens the City’s tax and revenue base, preserves and enhances key environmental attributes, minimizes energy and water use, and promotes transportation alternatives such as walking, bicycling, and transit. Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011‐2012. 1. Complete Development Center plans improving customer service/accountability 2. Complete Rail Corridor Study 3. Substantially complete Comprehensive Plan update 4. Facilitate efforts to sustain Caltrain 5. Participate in regional SB375 & Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 6. Prepare Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan update Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 22 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 23 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 1. Project: Complete Development Center plans improving customer service/accountability Department: Planning and Community Environment Secondary Department: City Manager’s Office Project lead: Planning Director Project start date: July 2010 Target completion date: March 2012 (Phase 1), January 2013 (Phase 2) Current status: The Development Center (DC) Blueprint Project has entailed a series of efforts by the Steering Committee (department heads and upper level managers), Staff Action Committee (approximately 20 staff members involved in the DC process from multiple departments), and a Development Center Advisory Committee (professionals and others with periodic or regular interaction with the DC). On August 1, 2011, the Council authorized the City Manager to hire staff to implement program actions including piloting new project management and point of contact procedures, as well as maintaining adequate levels of service at the DC counter. Budget for the additional staff, technology improvements, and additional office space was approved by Council on December 6, 2011 and January 9, 2012. The DC Manager position has been filled and a recruiting firm has been retained to begin hiring for a DC Director. Other positions will be in recruitment in spring 2012. Space on the second floor of the 285 Hamilton building has been leased to accommodate other support for the DC. Substantial remodeling of the first floor to a more customer‐service orientation is scheduled for June 2012. Extensive technology enhancements are also being planned to facilitate more online permitting and customer convenience. The DC Advisory Committee meets periodically to advise staff regarding the process changes. A report to Council in summer 2012 will outline performance measures and monitoring programs to assure progress. Next steps: Staff has recruited and hired counter assistance, plan check staff, and project management staff on a contract basis, and is recruiting for permanent staffing. The DC Manager will continue to implement the pilot programs previously initiated. As positions are in place and technology is upgraded, more and more of the system improvements will be finalized. Reorganization of space needs at the DC is expected in June 2012. This will help establish the collaborative approach anticipated in the new system. Staff will return to the Council in July 2012 with an update of performance measurement objectives and procedures, and will continue to meet with the DC Advisory Group to assure that customer service enhancements are consistent with their desired outcomes (and those of the public in general). Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 24 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 2. Project: Complete Rail Corridor Study Department: Planning and Community Environment Project lead: Planning Director Project start date: November 2010 Target completion date: June 2012 (Phase III) Current status: The Rail Corridor Task Force has met 14 times to discuss a variety of issues, opportunities, and vision concepts for the Corridor. Study Sessions with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Council were conducted on June 8 and June 27, 2011 to summarize activity and progress to date. The Task Force has reviewed the progress of Phase I in a document outlining the vision concepts developed and basic information reviewed and developed. A tour of the Rail Corridor Study Area was held on September 10, 2011 and included 28 participants. A preliminary draft Plan has been reviewed at two meetings of the Task Force and a revised draft was reviewed on January 19, 2012. The Draft has been reviewed by the public at a community workshop, and by the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, Citizens Traffic Safety Committee, Planning and Transportation Commission, and the Council’s Rail Committee. Next steps: An updated draft report will be reviewed by the Task Force in early May prior to review and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission. The Council will then consider the Plan for approval, likely in June or July 2012. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 25 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 3. Project: Substantially complete Comprehensive Plan Update Department: Planning and Community Environment Project lead: Planning Director Project start date: 2008 Target completion date: June 2013 Current status: The Comprehensive Plan is expected to be completed, in draft form, by late 2012 and then undergo environmental review (Environmental Impact Report) prior to adoption. The Area Concept Plans have received preliminary review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, and are tentatively scheduled for the Council’s consideration in February 2012 (East Meadow Area tentatively approved), and June 2012 (California Avenue Area). A draft Housing Element will be considered by the Council in June 2012, and forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review. The Planning and Transportation Commission has completed its review of the policies and programs contained in the Housing and Land Use/Community Environment chapters, and are now reviewing the Community Services and Transportation chapters. Next steps: The Planning and Transportation Commission will continue to review the policies and programs for community services, transportation, and business and economics through the spring and into the summer of 2012. In June 2012, the draft Housing Element will be reviewed by the Council and forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. In July 2012, the Council will review the California Avenue/Fry’s Area Concept Plan. Environmental review of the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated to begin in 2012, and the Plan would be adopted in mid‐2013. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 26 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 4. Project: Facilitate efforts to sustain Caltrain Department: City Manager’s Office Secondary Department: Planning and Community Environment Project start date: March 2011 Target completion date: Ongoing Current status: The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) continues to evaluate long‐term Caltrain strategies to sustain Caltrain service on the Peninsula. The City continues to work with other public agencies, Federal and State legislative advocacy firms, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) to consider strategies and plans to address Caltrain’s operating and capital modernization fiscal issues. The City Council Rail Committee has regularly invited Caltrain technical and policy staff to present information on Caltrain’s plans to modernize rail lines through electrification, install a new positive train control system (mandated by the Federal government), and develop a fiscally sustainable business model with or without high speed rail (HSR) on the Peninsula. There has been no definitive progress to date on a long‐term fiscal plan which would include a dedicated funding stream for Caltrain service (e.g., Peninsula‐wide sales tax). The City Council’s Rail Committee has taken strong positions opposed to the State’s HSR project, including financing and ridership projections. The Committee recently commented on a MOU between the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Caltrain and other regional agencies that sets a framework necessary for obtaining available funding from the California High Speed Rail Authority to help support the Caltrain electrification effort as part of a Blended System. The Committee has also commented on the revised Program EIR for the Bay Area to Central Valley segment of the HSR project. Next steps: It is anticipated that discussions will continue during Fiscal Year 2012 between partners including San Francisco County and City, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, the MTC, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), major private employers, Stanford University, City of Palo Alto, and other Peninsula cities to come up with a viable funding plan for Caltrain. The Rail Committee will continue to stay actively involved in both High Speed Rail and Caltrain proposals. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 27 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 5. Project: Participate in SB375 & Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Department: Planning and Community Environment Project Lead: Planning Director Project Start Date: 2009 Target Completion Date: 2013 Current status: Staff continues to attend 3‐4 regional and countywide meetings monthly to participate in these regional planning discussions. Council Member Scharff and the Planning and Community Environment Director attend monthly meetings of the Regional Housing Needs Methodology Committee. The regional agencies released an Initial Vision Scenario on March 11, 2011. Alternative growth scenarios were released by the Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission in July 2011. On July 18, 2011 the Council directed staff to work with a subcommittee to formulate an action plan to focus on coordination with State legislators and other cities, particularly with respect to demographic and economic assumptions. Staff met with the Subcommittee twice and reported to the Council on September 19, 2011 at which time the Council formalized its direction to staff and asked that the Subcommittee become a Standing Committee after January 1, 2012. The Regional Housing Mandate Committee has met several times and directed information to be prepared relative to growth projections. The City has commented to the regional agencies regarding the One Bay Area Grant Program and housing allocations with the sphere‐of‐influence (Stanford). The Council conveyed concerns about the Alternative Scenarios to ABAG in February 2012. The Draft Preferred Scenario was released on March 9, 2012, and resulted in somewhat reduced housing projections for the region and for Palo Alto. The Committee will meet again on April 19, 2012, and meets regularly on the third Thursday of each month at 4:00 p.m. Next steps: Staff continues to meet with the Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee to implement a Council strategy and to prepare a response to the regional agencies regarding the Draft Preferred Scenario. On an ongoing basis, staff will continue to attend regional meetings and participate in countywide coordination efforts. Council Member Scharff continues to meet with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology Committee, which is anticipated to release a draft of the housing allocations for review at its April 26, 2012 meeting. Local agencies are anticipated to respond to the draft RHNA allocations following the draft allocations. The approval of the SCS is anticipated in early 2013. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 28 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 6. Project: Prepare Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan update Department: Planning and Community Environment Project lead: Planning Director Project start date: November 2010 Target completion date: June 2012 Current status: The development of the new Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is nearly complete. A City‐wide community meeting was held in March 2011, along with a Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session in April 2011. A Council Study Session was held in May 2011. The Study Session was preceded by a bike ride to tour two of the City’s bicycle boulevards. A Parks and Recreation Commission briefing was held on May 24, 2011. On August 31, 2011 the draft plan was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning and Transportation Commission. The Council reviewed the Plan in November 2011, and recommended several revisions and review by some of the Boards and Commissions prior to final adoption. Staff met with South Palo Alto neighborhoods regarding several issues on January 12, 2012; then met with the Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning and Transportation Commission in March 2012. Next steps: Final review and adoption of the Plan by Council is anticipated in June 2012. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 29 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t E. Youth Well Being (YWB) Executive Summary: The City plays two important roles with regard to community collaboration for youth well being. First, the City plays a role of convener and coordinator, bringing the community together in order to effectively harness the community’s talent, expertise, and goodwill so that the community may have the greatest impact in fostering youth well being. A meaningful example of the City’s role as convener and coordinator is seen in the Project Safety Net (PSN) Community Task Force. PSN is focused on developing and implementing a comprehensive community‐based mental health plan for overall youth and teen well being. A focus in 2011 is to support PSN as defined in the PSN Plan (www.PSNPaloAlto.org). Secondly, the City plays a direct role in providing programs, services, and facilities for youth and teens. Examples include the variety of afterschool programs at the Palo Alto Teen Center, Children’s Theatre, Junior Museum and Zoo, Art Center, and Rinconada Pool. The City’s capacity to provide programs, services, and facilities for youth well being is dependent on community collaboration through substantial support of Friends Groups and foundations. An example of community collaboration can be seen in the vision to build the Magical Bridge Playground in coordination with the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks. The Magical Bridge Playground is planned for Mitchell Park and will be Palo Alto’s first playground accessible to people of all abilities and ages. Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011: 1. Implement Project Safety Net 2. Magical Bridge Playground Project Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 30 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 31 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 1. Project: Implement Project Safety Net (PSN) Department: Community Services Department Secondary Department: Police Department Project lead: Division Manager of Recreation Services Project start date: September 2009 Target completion date: Ongoing Current status: A program director for Project Safety Net has just been hired and started work on April 10, 2012. The position was funded by funds from the Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement. Next steps: The new Project Safety Net Program director will work on furthering the work of the partners of the PSN community coalition to move PSN strategies further, develop a communications plan, crisis protocol plan, and a fundraising plan. Project Tracking Report (January 1, 2012‐March 31, 2012) Page 32 Ci t y of Pa l o Al t o St r a t e g i c Pr i o r i t i e s Qu a r t e r l y Re p o r t 2. Project: Magical Bridge Playground Project Department: Community Services Department Project lead: Director, Community Services Project start date: July 2011 Target completion date: June 2013 Current status: After approving the Letter of Intent between the City and the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks (Friends) on July 18, 2011 staff began working with the Friends to create a Scope of Work for landscape design services. Managed by the City’s Public Works Engineering Division, this Scope of Work will include the design and specifications of the universal‐access playground and associated parking, pathways, landscaping, and other amenities. By taking the lead with the design portion of the project, the Friends could better focus on fundraising for the project, including the research of possible grant programs. City Landscape Architect, Peter Jensen distributed the Request for Proposals for the design services and six qualified proposals were received and evaluated by both City staff and the Friends. On December 7, 2011, three members of the Friends, together with staff from Public Works and Community Services interviewed the four most promising finalists. Staff reviewed references for the unanimously selected finalist (Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey) and a contract for design services with the landscape design firm of RHAA was brought to the Council for approval in January 2012. Staff, together with representatives of the Board of the Friends, conducted a kick‐off meeting with representatives from RHAA on February 16, 2012. On March 14, 2012, staff conducted an internal design review process meeting. On March 17, 2012, RHAA facilitated a community information‐gathering meeting that was extensively advertised. Subsequently, staff has coordinated a bicycle circulation review meeting and a parking assessment meeting to address concerns and ideas voiced at the first community meeting. On March 27, 2012, City Landscape Architect, together with the RHAA Associate, presented conceptual bike connections from the neighborhood through the park and “play zones” to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their feedback. On January 15, 2011, the Friends hosted a fundraising event at Vino Locale that was very well attended. $16,800 was raised for the project at this single event. Additional fundraising events are scheduled for early 2012 to continue building momentum for the project. Next steps: Staff anticipates that the design for the playground will be finished by May 2012, and will then be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Council by July 2012. The design firm will then be able to finalize their design concepts and prepare final cost estimates for the project. Under the terms of the Letter of Intent, the Friends have until June 30, 2013 to raise the funds for the project and be able to enter into a construction agreement with the City. City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities City Council Priorities Dept Dept CF EP ES LUTP YWB CE CP Completed PS A. City Finances (CF) 1 Complete labor negotiations with major bargaining groups HR ATT  Negotiations are underway with PAPOA, UMPAPA, SEIU 2 Complete refuse fund study and stabilization PW ASD  Refuse fund stablizing and on positive trend 3 Complete and implement economic development policy MGR    Final plan returning to Council in May 2012 4 Execute budget/fiscal measures to ensure long-term financial stability ASD MGR P&S to explore options for Nov 2012 election B. Emergency Preparedness (EP) 1 Evaluate a secondary electrical transmission line source UTL   Letter of Intent to potential parties of SLAC 2 Implement recommendations of Foothills fire management plan FIR POL 3 community workshops planned spring/summer 2012 3 Improve Emergency Operations readiness POL FIR OES and IT Dept. updating plans for readiness C. Environmental Sustainability (ES) 1 Evaluate construction of compositing digester or alternatives PW Decisoin this spring on building a facility 2 Establish formal collaboration with Stanford University MGR Continuing work with Stanford Ofc of Com. Relations 3 Explore methods to integrate Palo Alto Green into city sustainability programs MGR PCE, UTL New sustainabiltiy webpages under development 4 Prepare Urban Forest Master Plan PCE FIR Master plan will be completed late 2012, early 2013 D. Land Use & Transportation Planning (LUTP) 1 Complete Development Center plans improving customer service/accountability PCE MGR DC Manager hired. DC space being upgraded 2 Complete Rail Corridor study PCE  Plan to return the Council in June/July 2012 3 Substantially complete Comprehensive Plan update PCE   Plan adoption mid 2013 4 Facilitate efforts to sustain Caltrain MGR PCE  Discussions still underway on long-term plan 5 Participate in regional SB375 & Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)PCE  Draft RHNA allocations out in late April 2012 6 Prepare Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan update PCE Final plan reivew in June 2013 E. Youth Well Being (YWB) 1 Implement Project Safety Net CSD POL New director implement com, protocol, $ plans 2 Magical Bridge Playground project CSD Design will be completed in May 2012 Acronym Definitions City Finances (CF) Emergency Preparedness (EP) Environmental Sustainability (ES) Land Use & Transportation Planning (LUTP) Youth Well Being (YWB) Community Engagement (CE) Collaborative Partnerships (CP) An X means that is the priority whereas a check indicates crossover with other priorities Dept P, primary department responsible for priority Dept S, secondary department(s) involved in priority work Department Abbreviations Administrative Services (ASD), City Manager (MGR), Community Services (CSD), Fire (FIR), Human Resources (HR), Planning and Community Environment (PCE), Police (POL), Utilities (UTL) Projects by Dept ASD 5% CSD 11% FIR 5% HR 5% MGR 21% PCE 32% POL 5% PW 11% UTL 5% City of Palo Alto (ID # 2419) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/30/2012 January 30, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2419) Council Priority: City Finances, Community Collaboration for Youth Well-Being, Emergency Preparedness, Environmental Sustainability, Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: City Council Priorities Title: Approval of the Final City Council Priorities Report for Calendar Year 2011 From:City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the final City Council Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report for calendar year 2011. This report includes the final quarter results for the period October 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. The City Council adopted Council priorities on January 22, 2011. This report provides a final update on the status of work related to the priorities for the full calendar year. Background The City Council was provided reports in March, July and November of 2011 that included a master list of the Council priorities and key goals under each priority. Staff has provided regular quarterly update reports to the City Council. The enclosed report is the final quarterly update report on the progress of the priorities for calendar year 2011. This report includes activities for the most recent quarter October 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Attachments: ·January 30, 2012 Quarterly Report (DOC) ·Excel tracking worksheet (PDF) January 30, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2419) ·Staff Report 1497 -March 21, 2011 (PDF) ·Staff Report 1892 -July 11, 2011 (PDF) ·Staff Report 2108 -November 07, 2011 (PDF) Prepared By:Rob Braulik, Director of Office of Management and Budget Department Head:James Keene, City Manager City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 2 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 2011 Strategic Priorities Summary A.City Finances (CF) Goals 1.Complete labor negotiations with major bargaining groups 2.Complete refuse fund study and stabilization 3.Complete and implement economic development policy 4.Execute budget/fiscal measures to ensure long-term financial stability 5.IBRC completes long-term infrastructure needs report to City Council B. Emergency Preparedness (EP) Goals 1.Conduct community exercise 2.Evaluate a secondary electrical transmission line source 3.Implement recommendations of Foothills Fire Management Plan 4.Implement Office of Emergency Services (OES) restructure 5.Improve emergency operations readiness C. Environmental Sustainability (ES) Goals 1.Evaluate construction of composting digester or alternatives 2.Evaluate and implement plan to introduce electric vehicle (EV) charging stations 3.Establish formal collaboration with Stanford University 4.Explore methods to integrate Palo Alto Green into City Sustainability Programs 5.Prepare Urban Forest Master Plan D. Land Use & Transportation Planning (LUTP) Goals 1.Complete Development Center plans improving customer service/accountability 2.Complete Rail Corridor Study 3.Complete Stanford University Medical Center Project 4.Substantially complete Comprehensive Plan update 5.Facilitate efforts to sustain Caltrain 6.Participate in regional SB375 & Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 7.Prepare Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan update E. Youth Well Being (YWB) Goals 1.Implement Project Safety Net 2.Magical Bridge Playground Project Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 3 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report A.City Finances (CF) Executive Summary: City finance strategies form the foundation for the City Council identified priorities. A stable financial picture in the short and long-term ensures the City’s ability to deliver on all five Council priorities. Sound City finances are integral to Palo Alto’s quality of life. A key principle of the City’s finance objectives is to provide for the City’s finances in the near and long-term. For example, the City negotiates labor agreements and the contracts envisioned during this cycle are ones where the City plans to make meaningful long-lasting changes to key City legacy costs (e.g., pension and health care). The City is working toward developing a sustainable business model for funding ongoing infrastructure needs, while eliminating a major backlog of City projects. These efforts will take time, yet this investment is well worth the effort. This work will result in improving the overall high quality of life that Palo Alto citizens have come to rely and expect from their City government. Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011: 1.Complete labor negotiations with major bargaining groups 2.Complete refuse fund study and stabilization 3.Complete and implement economic development policy 4.Execute budget/fiscal measures to ensure long-term financial stability 5.IBRC completes long-term infrastructure needs report to City Council Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 4 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 5 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 1. Project: Complete labor negotiations with major bargaining groups Department: Human Resources Department Secondary Department: City Attorney Project lead: Interim Human Resources Director Project start date: May 2010 Target completion date: December 2011 Current status: In June 2011, the City reached an agreement with Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to rollover SEIU’s contract, keeping its existing terms, and extending the current contract until June 30, 2012. On October 17, 2011, Council approved a Memorandum of Agreement with the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) with a term ending on June 30, 2014. Thus, since 2009, SEIU, Management,and IAFF employees have made important concessions,including paying a portion or all of the employee retirement contributions required by CalPERS, 10% medical premium contributions, new pension tiers for new hires, and, in the case of IAFF, providing flexibility to the City to make staffing changes. The City has proposed similar concessions but has not yet reached agreement with the Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA)(15 meetings since July 2011), Police Managers (PMA), and the Fire Managers (FCA). The City also has not reached agreement with UMPAPA, a newly formed unit of management employees in the Utilities Department that the City was ordered by an arbitrator to certify in April 2011. However, UMPAPA employees were formerly part of the City-wide unrepresented management group and is already under the same concessions described above because UMPAPA was formed after those changes went into effect. Next steps: The City has been in negotiations with PAPOA, PMA, the Fire Chiefs, and UMPAPA for six months or longer, depending on the unit, without reaching agreement. In 2012, staff’s goal is to bring these negotiations to a close in order to provide the City and employees with resolution. In addition, in early 2012, staff plans to prepare a successor agreement with the SEIU Hourly Unit and begin negotiating a new contract with SEIU Classified Unit in the early spring, prior to expiration of the current agreement in June 2012. Effective January 1, 2012,the City must comply with a new law (AB 646) signed by Governor Brown. This law requires non-binding fact finding, should the union request it, after the parties reach impasse but before the Council can impose new economic terms. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 6 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 2. Project: Complete refuse fund study and fund stabilization Department: Public Works Department Secondary Department: Administrative Services Department Project lead: Interim Public Works Director Project start date: August 2010 Target completion date: December 2011 Current status: Major progress has been made this Fiscal Year in returning the Refuse Fund to financial health and stability. Fiscal Year 2011 revenues appear to have matched expenditures for the first time since Fiscal Year 2008, and reserves are no longer decreasing. The Palo Alto Landfill was closed with substantial savings to follow. Short and long-term time schedules have been developed to place the Refuse Fund on a trajectory to full sustainability. Next steps: A major set of analysis was presented to the Council on July 6, 2011 with refuse rate changes to ensure financial health in Fiscal Year 2012. The initial Cost of Service Study was completed in fall 2011. The next step is to prepare Fiscal Year 2013 Refuse rate recommendations to continue the progress made to date. This will be accomplished in the winter 2012. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 7 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 3. Project: Complete and implement Economic Development Policy Department: City Manager’s Office Project lead: Economic Development Manager Project start date: January 2011 Target completion date: December 2011 Current status: The Economic Development Policy has gone through several iterations, and was presented to the Policy & Services Committee along with a separate Draft Staff Action Plan in November 2011. The Policy is nearly developed; staff anticipates returning to Policy & Services one final time before bringing it to the City Council for adoption. Next steps: Staff will include the final changes, and plans to bring a final version of the Plan back to the Policy and Services Committee for final adoption in the next 30-60 days. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 8 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 4. Project: Execute budget/fiscal measures to ensure long-term financial stability Department: Administrative Services Department Secondary Department: City Manager’s Office Project lead: Chief Financial Officer Project start date: May 2011 Target completion date: Fall 2011 Current status: Many potential revenue measures to be considered were incorporated into the IBRC report discussed by the Council on January 17, 2012. Next steps: Based on the finance policy guidance provided by the Council from the January 17, 2012 meeting, staff will initiate work regarding future revenue measures. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 9 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 5. Project: IBRC completes long-term infrastructure needs reports for City Council Department: Public Work’s Department Secondary Department: City Manager’s Office, Administrative Services Department Project lead: Deputy City Manager Project start date: November 2010 Target completion date: December 2011 Current status: Staff worked closely with the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) to identify infrastructure needs and sources of funding. This included exploring new sources of revenues from new or existing sources, potential of issuing additional debt and review of other options to deliver services to the community. Next steps: Completion of the IBRC report occurred on December 22,2011. The next step is for Council to consider the many recommendations contained in the Report. This will occur during the winter and spring of 2012. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 10 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 11 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report B. Emergency Preparedness (EP) Executive Summary: The City, like any community in the Bay Area, is susceptible to a variety of natural hazards including earthquakes, floods, wild-land fires, and manmade disasters. The City is committed to protecting life, property, and the environment through a number of activities including preplanning, training, rapid emergency response, and public safety education. Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011: 1.Conduct community exercise 2.Evaluate a secondary electrical transmission line source 3.Implement recommendations of Foothills Fire Management Plan 4.Implement Office of Emergency Services (OES) restructure 5.Improve emergency operations readiness Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 12 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 13 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 1. Project: Conduct community exercise Department: Police Department Secondary Department: Fire Department Project lead: Acting Public Safety Director Project start date: January 2011 Target completion date: September 2011 Current Status: As noted in the last Quarterly Report, the Quakeville Community Exercise was conducted on September 10, 2011. Next steps: Quakeville 2012 planning will commence next quarter. The exercise may involve setting up a shelter (in partnership with the Red Cross and the Community Services Department), supported by newly-restructured Emergency Services volunteers. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 14 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 2. Project: Evaluate a secondary electrical transmission line source Department: Utilities Department Project lead: Utilities Director Project start date: July 2010 Target completion date: December 2011 Current status: Palo Alto met with PG&E staff in December 2011 to discuss next steps for PG&E’s Ames project. Given the technical and economic evaluations to date, City and PG&E agreed that the National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC)project is a viable alternative to the Ames project, but that the City needs more time to coordinate a proposal with SLAC and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). To that end, both PG&E and the City submitted letters to the California Independent System Operator (CASIO) in December 2011 requesting that CAISO hold on further evaluation of the Ames project for the current 2011-2012 planning period. Next steps: Staff will evaluate the proposal and alternatives for project facilitation offered by WAPA, and will continue discussions with representatives from SLAC and WAPA to explore this alternative. The City will prepare a comprehensive cost and benefit analysis. Up to this point, meetings and discussions have been technical in nature. If the City encounters obstacles to a secondary electrical transmission line source that are not driven by technical interconnection issues, staff will pursue other political avenues to bring the parties to the table to achieve agreement and progress. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 15 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 3. Project: Implement recommendations of Foothills Fire Management Plan Department: Fire Department Secondary Department: Police Department Project Lead: Acting Public Safety Director Project Start Date: January 2011 Target Completion Date: Ongoing Current status: As noted in the last Quarterly Report, staff renewed the contract of the Foothills Fire Management Plan's author, Carol Rice of Wildland Resource Management (WRM). The scope of work includes certain high priority elements of the Plan (such as evacuation routes),and seeking sources of grant and other funding to address the current budget shortfall. Next steps: In spring and summer 2012, staff will conduct three community education meetings on wildland fire and emergency procedures. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 16 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 4. Project: Implement Office of Emergency Services (OES) restructure Department: City Manager’s Office/Police Department Secondary Department: Fire Department, City Manager’s Office Project lead: Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Safety Director Project start date: May 2011 Target completion date: Fall 2011 Current status: In December 2011, staff selected and Council confirmed the appointment of Officer Kenneth Dueker to serve as the Director of the Office of Emergency Services. Next steps: Director Dueker is developing a workplan to address the various areas for improvement identified in prior consultants’ reports and topics identified by staff. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 17 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 5.Project: Improve emergency operations readiness Department: Police Department Secondary Department: Fire Department Project lead: Acting Public Safety Director Project start date: January 2011 Target completion date: Ongoing Current status: Restructuring of the Office of Emergency Services (OES) opens opportunities for improvements to the City’s ability to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from all hazards. This all- hazards planning best practice encompasses not only natural disasters, but technological failures, damage to infrastructure, large-scale criminal events, and more. Next steps: The Police Department and OES will work in collaboration with Public Works, Utilities, Information Technology (IT), and other departments to build a comprehensive system and plan set to address all hazards. This will be a multi-year project and will comply with the Homeland Security and Exercise Evaluation Program model. Key elements will include updated plans,staff training, disaster supplies and equipment, and technology (communications, IT systems). Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 18 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 19 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report C. Environmental Sustainability (ES) Executive Summary: Environmental sustainability is a core value and ongoing priority for the City. The City has been a leader in this area in the Bay Area metropolitan region and in North America. The City is a Certified Green Business and has adopted a Climate Protection Plan, Sustainability Policy, Palo Alto Green Program, and continues to make strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011: 1.Evaluate construction of composting digester or alternatives 2.Evaluate and implement plan to introduce electric vehicle (EV) charging stations 3.Establish formal collaboration with Stanford University 4.Explore methods to integrate Palo Alto Green into City Sustainability Programs 5.Prepare Urban Forest Master Plan Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 20 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 1. Project: Evaluate construction of composting digester or alternatives Department: Public Works Department Project lead: Interim Public Works Director Project start date: October 2010 Target completion date: October 2011 Current status: The Feasibility Analysis was completed on time and was vetted in a series of public and Council meetings. Proponents and opponents of a Palo Alto facility on the Landfill/Byxbee Park site had extensive comments on the analysis. Comments were also received on the alternative regional sites in the South Bay Area. Next steps: Following completion of the Energy/Compost Feasibility Study in September 2011, Palo Alto voters approved Measure “E” on November 8, 2011,which undedicated 10 acres of Byxbee Park for consideration as a site for such a facility. Next steps include staff developing a process and timeline for considering whether to build such a facility.This will occur in the winter and spring of 2012. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 21 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 2. Project: Evaluate and implement plan to introduce electric vehicle (EV) charging stations Department: City Manager’s Office Secondary Department: Planning and Community Environment, Utilities Department Project Lead: Assistant to the CM for Sustainability Project start date: 2011 Target completion date: EV chargers installed July 2011; remainder of goals will continue through the end of the year Current status: A multi-departmental task force developed an EV Policy. This Policy was approved by the Policy and Services Committee on October 18, 2011, and approved by Council on December 19, 2011. The City is a leader in adopting a set of policies supporting EV infrastructure and EV adoption. Rapid changes are occurring in the EV industry including new models of cars and new standards for EV chargers. Federal and state subsidies available for EV-related projects are helping to influence the rate of EV adoption and infrastructure development. The City recognizes EVs as an important part of the solution for reaching its greenhouse gas emission reduction goal, and so has an interest in encouraging the use of EVs throughout the community. The five EV chargers, from the ChargePoint America Program (DOE funded) grant, were installed in 2011. The installation costs were funded by a grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management (BAAQMD) district. The chargers are being well utilized with an average of 10 charging sessions at the five chargers each day during the fist week of January 2012, with usage constantly increasing. The electricity dispensed at the five chargers to these EVs effectively assist EV owners reduce greenhouse gas emissions, by approximately 2 tons/month, or 24 tons per year at current utilization levels. This estimate would increase with higher utilization of these chargers. The multi-departmental task force has developed and distributed a Request for Information (RFI) for EV charging service providers. The objective of the RFI was to solicit interest on developing and funding the deployment of a private-sector owned, operated, and maintained charging station infrastructure within the City, while using the City’s remaining $25,000 grant from the California Energy Commission (CEC)as seed funding. Next steps: The multi-departmental task force will continue to thoroughly review all related EV issues,and is working with regional players in developing a comprehensive EV regional infrastructure.The task force will review the progress of issues discussed and will return to the Council with updates. The task force will be reviewing the responses from the RFI that were sent in December 2011.The City will use the remainder of the grant funds from the CEC to fund any project that will be developed as a result of the RFI process. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 22 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 3. Project: Establish formal collaboration with Stanford University Department: City Manager’s Office Project lead: Deputy City Manager Project start date: 2011 Target completion date: December 2011, but partnership will be ongoing Current Status: As reported previously, there are three main connection points which could be explored and expanded to develop a stronger relationship between Stanford University and the City. They are internships or academic exchange, faculty knowledge or City projects, and intra-departmental development or utility relationships. Staff has gathered the details on at least 25 Stanford interns who have worked with the City since 2005, including five in 2011 who focused on sustainability issues. On September 29, 2011, Professor Noah S. Diffenbaugh from the Department of Environmental Earth System Science and Woods Institute for the Environment spoke at a community forum on adaptation. Staff is hopeful that this is the first of many potential events where staff and Stanford personnel will work together. The Assistant to the City Manager for Sustainability arranged for a site tour of the Jerry Yang and Akiko Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building (Y2E2) at Stanford on December 12, 2011. Y2E2 is a green building that set high sustainability standards for Stanford. A team at the Water Quality Treatment Plant has formed a “Water Team” with graduate students and faculty at Stanford to review potential projects, including a system of recycled water. Next Steps: Staff will be working with the Office of Government and Community Relations to determine an appropriate way to celebrate the internships discussed above, and further develop the process to encourage future internships. Staff will continue to collaborate with the many different departments on issues or programs where the City could add value to the process or the community. Such programs or events could include the Solar Decathlon which Stanford Students are participating in, Earth Day events, and joint community groups such as the Community Environmental Action Partnership. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 23 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 4. Project: Explore methods to integrate Palo Alto Green into City Sustainability Programs Department: City Manager’s Office Secondary Department: Planning and Community Environment, Utilities Department Project lead: Assistant to the CM for Sustainability Project Start Date: 2011 Target Completion Date: 2012 Current Status: Staff coordinated a community event titled Adapting to Climate Change and Sea Level Rise in the Bay Area on September 29, 2011. Staff heard about the ongoing efforts from the Army Corps of Engineers to protect Palo Alto, why the San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission is considering amendments to the San Francisco Bay Plan to address sea level rise, what the academic world is talking about with respect to climate change, and what other cities in the Bay Area are doing. The discussion included impacts of not only sea level rise, but flooding, wildfires, resource issues, and changes in weather and temperature. The event was recorded and can be found on the Midpeninsula Community Media Center’s website: http://www.communitymediacenter.net/watch/pacc_webcast/September/PACC_092911.html. Staff is implementing a multi-department Sustainability Team whose goal would be to provide an integrated, seamless approach to promoting sustainable behaviors. This team would be supported by a steering committee lead by the City Manager and the directors from the Utilities, Planning,and Public Works Departments. This new team will seek out opportunities to work across departments and with various community groups. Staff is developing a strategy to implement a comprehensive multi-departmental outreach education plan for the public. The first step in the plan is for a sustainability webpage which will be developed in conjunction with the City’s website project. Next Steps: As a follow up to both the community meeting held in September 2011, and the December 2011 Study Session on the San Francisquito Creek JPA role, staff is planning schedule a Study Session with Council to discuss all issues pertaining to adaptation and sea level rise. Staff will continue to work with the Community Environmental Action Partnership and other community groups, such as the Palo Alto Neighborhoods, Acterra, and Transition Palo Alto to help build partnerships and promote sustainability. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 24 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 5. Project: Prepare Urban Forest Master Plan Department: Planning and Community Environment Secondary Department: Fire Department Project lead: Director, Planning and Community Environment Project start date: December 2010 Target completion date: September 2012 Current status: CalFire has reviewed the Urban Forest Master Plan and indicated its support on the direction of the Plan. The Plan satisfies requirements for reimbursement of the City’s $66,000 grant. Staff is working with the City’s consultant to complete an outline of the draft, but has deferred extensive work pending the hiring of an Urban Forester in the Public Work’s Department. Subsequent to that position being filled, staff will schedule community meetings and hearings with Boards, Commissions, and the Council in mid-2012. Next steps: In early 2012, following the hiring of an Urban Forester, staff and the City’s consultant will revise the draft Plan and hold a community workshop. The Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning and Transportation Commission will hold meetings subsequent to the workshop. In the summer of 2012, the Urban Forest Master Plan is tentatively scheduled to return to the Council for adoption. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 25 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report D. Land Use & Transportation Planning (LUTP) Executive Summary: Land use and transportation are key indicators of quality of life in Palo Alto. The overarching principle of the City’s land use and transportation objectives is to provide for sustainable development and services: growth, rehabilitation, and services that are sustainable in economic and fiscal terms, as well as in environmental respects. The City desires to develop in ways that promote the efficient delivery of services, assures high-quality development and design, protects and broadens the City’s tax and revenue base, preserves and enhances key environmental attributes, minimizes energy and water use, and promotes transportation alternatives such as walking, bicycling, and transit. Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011. 1.Complete Development Center plans improving customer service/accountability 2.Complete Rail Corridor Study 3.Complete Stanford University Medical Center Project 4.Substantially complete Comprehensive Plan update 5.Facilitate efforts to sustain Caltrain 6.Participate in regional SB375 & Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 7.Prepare Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan update Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 26 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 27 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 1. Project: Complete Development Center plans improving customer service/accountability Department: Planning and Community Environment Secondary Department: City Manager’s Office Project lead: Planning Director Project start date: July 2010 Target completion date: March 2012 (Phase 1), then ongoing Current status: The Development Center (DC) Blueprint Project has entailed a series of efforts by the Steering Committee (department heads and upper level managers), Staff Action Committee (approximately 20 staff members involved in the DC process from multiple departments), and a Development Center Advisory Committee (professionals and others with periodic or regular interaction with the DC). Some process changes have been implemented over the past year. On August 1, 2011, the Council authorized the City Manager to hire staff to implement program actions including piloting new project management and point of contact procedures, as well as maintaining adequate levels of service at the DC counter. Budget for the additional staff, technology improvements, and additional office space was approved by Council on December 6, 2011 and January 9, 2012. The DC Manager position is currently in recruitment and a recruiting firm has been retained to begin hiring for a DC Director. Next steps: Staff has recruited and hired counter assistance, plan check staff, and project management staff on a contract basis, and is recruiting for permanent staffing. The DC will permanently implement the pilot programs previously initiated. As positions are in place and technology is upgraded, more and more of the system improvements will be finalized. Reorganization of space needs at the DC is expected in January and February 2012. This will help establish the collaborative approach anticipated in the new system. Staff will return to the Council in February 2012 with an update of performance measurement objectives and procedures, and will continue to meet with the DC Advisory Group to assure that customer service enhancements are consistent with their desired outcomes (and those of the public in general). Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 28 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 2. Project: Complete Rail Corridor Study Department: Planning and Community Environment Project lead: Planning Director Project start date: November 2010 Target completion date: December 2011 (Phases I and II), June 2012 (Phase III) Current status: The Rail Corridor Task Force has met ten times to discuss a variety of issues, opportunities, and vision concepts for the Corridor. Study Sessions with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Council were conducted on June 8 and June 27, 2011 to summarize activity and progress to date.The Task Force has reviewed the progress of Phase I in a document outlining the vision concepts developed and basic information reviewed and developed. A tour of the Rail Corridor Study Area was held on September 10, 2011 and included 28 participants. A preliminary draft Plan has been reviewed at two meetings of the Task Force and a revised draft was reviewed on January 19, 2012. Next steps: Following Task Force review of the draft Plan in January 2012, meetings will be scheduled with the City-Schools Traffic Safety Committee, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, Council Rail Committee, and Planning and Transportation Commission prior to a second community-wide meeting. An updated draft will then be reviewed by the Task Force prior to review and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission.The Council will then consider the Plan for approval, likely in May of 2012. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 29 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 3. Project: Complete Stanford University Medical Center Project Department: Planning and Community Environment Secondary Department: City Manager’s Office Project lead: Planning Director/Deputy City Manager Project start date: Early 2007 Target completion date: June 2011 (Completed July 6, 2011) Current status: On June 6, 2011 the Council approved all entitlements, the Development Agreement, and certified the Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Renewal and Replacement Project. The second reading of the Development Agreement and zoning ordinances were approved on August 1, 2011. Next steps: SUMC has made Initial payments (approximately 1/3 of total) to the City for community benefits. Construction of improvements on Welch Road and the upgrade of the Hoover Pavilion have commenced. In 2012, Stanford hospitals will undergo review by the State (California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development) for building permit review and approval. In 2013, hospital construction will commence. The completion of the entire project, including hospitals, clinics, and parking garages is expected in 2025. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 30 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 4. Project: Substantially complete Comprehensive Plan Update Department: Planning and Community Environment Project lead: Planning Director Project start date: 2008 Target completion date: September 2012 Current status: The Comprehensive Plan is expected to be completed, in draft form, by late 2012 and then undergo environmental review (Environmental Impact Report) prior to adoption. The Area Concept Plans have received preliminary review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, and are tentatively scheduled for the Council’s consideration in February 2012 (East Meadow Area),and June 2012 (California Avenue Area). A draft Housing Element will be considered by the Council in April 2012, and forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review. The Planning and Transportation Commission has completed its review of the policies and programs contained in the Housing and Land Use/Community Environment chapters, and is now reviewing the Community Services and Transportation chapters. Next steps: The Planning and Transportation Commission will continue to review the policies and programs for community services,transportation, and business and economics through the winter and spring of 2012. In April 2012, the draft Housing Element will be reviewed by the Council and forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The Council will review the East Meadow Area Concept Plan on February 13, 2012. In June 2012, the Council will review the California Avenue/Fry’s Area Concept Plan. Environmental review of the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated to begin in 2012 and the Plan would be adopted in mid-2013. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 31 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 5. Project: Facilitate efforts to sustain Caltrain Department: City Manager’s Office Secondary Department: Planning and Community Environment Project lead: Deputy Director, Rob Braulik Project start date: March 2011 Target completion date: December 2011 Current status: The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB)continues to evaluate long-term Caltrain staff strategies to sustain Caltrain service on the Peninsula. The City continues to work with other public agencies, Federal and State legislative advocacy firms, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG)to consider strategies and plans to address Caltrain’s operating and capital moderization fiscal issues. The City Council Rail Committee has regularly invited Caltrain technical and policy staff to present information on Caltrain’s plans to modernize rail lines through electrification, install a new positive train control switching system (mandated by the Federal government), and develop a fiscally sustainable business model with or without high speed rail (HSR) on the Peninsula. There has been no definitive progress to date on a long-term fiscal plan which would include a dedicated funding stream for Caltrain service (e.g.,Peninsula- wide sales tax). Next steps: It is anticipated that discussions will continue during Fiscal Year 2012 between the partners including San Francisco County and City, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), major private employers, Stanford University, City of Palo Alto,and all the peninsula cities to come up with a visible funding plan for Caltrain. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 32 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 6. Project: Participate in SB375 & Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Department: Planning and Community Environment Project Lead: Planning Director Project Start Date: 2009 Target Completion Date: 2013 Current status: Staff continues to attend 3-4 regional and countywide meetings monthly to participate in these regional planning discussions. Council Member Scharff and the Planning and Community Environment Director attend monthly meetings of the Regional Housing Needs Methodology Committee. The regional agencies released an Initial Vision Scenario on March 11, 2011. Alternative growth scenarios were released by the Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission in July 2011. On July 18, 2011 the Council directed staff to work with a subcommittee to formulate an action plan to focus on coordination with State legislators and other cities, particularly with respect to demographic and economic assumptions. Staff met with the Subcommittee twice and reported to the Council on September 19, 2011 at which time the Council formalized its direction to staff and asked that the Subcommittee become a Standing Committee after January 1, 2012. The Regional Housing Mandate Committee has met several times and directed information to be prepared relative to growth projections. The City has commented to the regional agencies regarding the One Bay Area Grant Program and housing allocations with the sphere-of-influence (Stanford). The Committee’s next meeting is scheduled for January 26, 2012. Next steps: Staff continues to meet with the Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee to implement a Council strategy and to prepare a response to the regional agencies for late February/March 2012. On an ongoing basis, staff will continue to attend regional meetings and participate in countywide coordination efforts. Council Member Scharff continues to meet with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology Committee, which is anticipated to release a draft of the housing allocations for review in March or April 2012. Local agencies are anticipated to respond to the draft RHNA allocations following the draft allocations. At approximately the same time, the preferred Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)scenario is anticipated to be released. The approval of the SCS is anticipated in early 2013. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 33 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 7. Project: Prepare Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan update Department: Planning and Community Environment Project lead: Planning Director Project start date: November 2010 Target completion date: April 2012 Current status: The development of the new Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is nearly complete. A City-wide community meeting was held in March 2011, along with a Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session in April 2011. A Council Study Session was held in May 2011. The Study Session was preceded by a bike ride to tour two of the City’s bicycle boulevards. A Parks and Recreation Commission briefing was held on May 24, 2011. On August 31, 2011 the draft plan was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning and Transportation Commission. The Council reviewed the Plan in November 2011, and recommended several revisions and review by some of the Boards and Commissions prior to final adoption. Staff met with South Palo Alto neighborhoods regarding several issues on January 12, 2012. Next steps: Meetings with the Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning and Transportation Commission are scheduled in February 2012. Final review and adoption of the Plan by Council is anticipated in April 2012. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 34 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 35 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report E. Youth Well Being (YWB) Executive Summary: The City plays two important roles with regard to community collaboration for youth well being. First, the City plays a role of convener and coordinator, bringing the community together in order to effectively harness the community’s talent, expertise, and goodwill so that the community may have the greatest impact in fostering youth well being. A meaningful example of the City’s role as convener and coordinator is seen in the Project Safety Net (PSN) Community Task Force. PSN is focused on developing and implementing a comprehensive community-based mental health plan for overall youth and teen well being. A focus in 2011 is to support PSN as defined in the PSN Plan (www.PSNPaloAlto.org). Secondly, the City plays a direct role in providing programs, services, and facilities for youth and teens. Examples include the variety of afterschool programs at the Palo Alto Teen Center, Children’s Theatre, Junior Museum and Zoo, Art Center, and Rinconada Pool. The City’s capacity to provide programs, services, and facilities for youth well being is dependent on community collaboration through substantial support of Friends Groups and foundations. An example of community collaboration can be seen in the vision to build the Magical Bridge Playground in coordination with the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks. The Magical Bridge Playground is planned for Mitchell Park and will be Palo Alto’s first playground accessible to people of all abilities and ages. Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011: 1.Implement Project Safety Net 2.Magical Bridge Playground Project Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 36 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 37 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 1. Project: Implement Project Safety Net (PSN) Department: Community Services Department Secondary Department: Police Department Project lead: Division Manager of Recreation Services Project start date: September 2009 Target completion date: Ongoing Current status: Coordinate the PSN Community Coalition and guide its implementation:Monthly PSN meetings have been coordinated by the City and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). A website and Facebook page for PSN have been created to provide regular updates for anyone interested in learning about PSN and/or getting involved. Several community trainings have been held on identifying individuals-at-risk of suicide (gatekeeper training). Training was held on October 24, 2011 to train ten PSN members to be suicide prevention Gatekeeper trainers. With PAUSD, created an effective and sustainable structure for the PSN Community Coalition. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the PSN Community Coalition and its members to define roles, responsibilities and commitments was created for 2011-12. With the generous support of the Santa Clara County Mental Health Department, PSN received a $30,000 grant for consulting services.PSN has defined a sustainable structure and implementation plan. Funding for PSN has come from a number of sources, including the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation, Palo Alto Women’s Club, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and Stanford University and Hospital. Over the 2011 summer,the Council completed the Development Agreement for Stanford’s expanded hospital. As part of the agreement, two million in community benefits was designated to support PSN. Staff incorporated the Developmental Assets into the planning, implementation, and evaluation of City programs and services for youth and teens. The Developmental Assets Subcommittee of the PSN has launched a campaign to inform and educate the community about Developmental Assets. The campaign includes an Asset of the Month Program, overpass banners, posters and other materials promoting the importance of Developmental Assets in a young person’s life. Next steps: Secure administrative capacity for coordinating the PSN community coalition, support PSN partners in developing specific action plans to move PSN strategies forward, and provide new and creative opportunities for teen involvement in community decision making. Project Tracking Report (October 30, 2011-December 31, 2011) Page 38 City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report 2. Project: Magical Bridge Playground Project Department: Community Services Department Project lead: Director, Community Services Project start date: July 2011 Target completion date: June 2013 Current status: After approving the Letter of Intent between the City and the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks (Friends) on July 18, 2011 staff began working with the Friends to create a Scope of Work for landscape design services. Managed by the City’s Public Works Engineering Division, this Scope of Work will include the design and specifications of the universal-access playground and associated parking, pathways, landscaping,and other amenities. By taking the lead with the design portion of the project, the Friends could better focus on fundraising for the project, including the research of possible grant programs. City Landscape Architect,Peter Jensen distributed the Request for Proposals for the design services and six qualified proposals were received and evaluated by both City staff and the Friends. On December 7, 2011, three members of the Friends, together with staff from Public Works and Community Services interviewed the four most promising finalists. Staff and the Friends are currently reviewing references for the unanimously selected finalist and a contract for design services will be brought to the Council for approval in early January 2012. On January 15, 2011, the Friends hosted a fundraising event at Vino Locale that was very well attended. $16,800 was raised for the project at this single event. Additional fundraising events are scheduled for early 2012 to continue building momentum for the project. Next steps: Staff anticipates that the design for the playground will be finished by May 2012, and will then be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, Architectural Review Board,and Council by July 2012. The design firm will then be able to finalize their design concepts and prepare final cost estimates for the project. Under the terms of the Letter of Intent,the Friends have until June 30, 2013 to raise the funds for the project and be able to enter into a construction agreement with the City. City of Palo Alto Strategic Priorities City Council Priorities Dept Dept CF EP ES LUTP YWB CE CP Completed PS A. City Finances (CF) 1 Complete labor negotiations with major bargaining groups HR ATT SEIU, IAFF, & Management agreements 2 Complete refuse fund study and stabilization PW ASD  Cost of Service Study 3 Complete and implement economic development policy MGR    Final policy nearly developed 4 Execute budget/fiscal measures to ensure long-term financial stability ASD MGR  Potential revenue measures incorporated in IBRC report 5 IBRC completes long-term city infrastructure needs report for City Council PW ASD, MGR   IBRC report B. Emergency Preparedness (EP) 1 Conduct community exercise POL FIR  Quakeville Community Exercise 2 Evaluate a secondary electrical transmission line source UTL   Submitted letters to CAISO 3 Implement recommendations of Foothills fire management plan FIR POL Renewed contract with plan's author 4 Implement Office of Emergency Services (OES) restructure POL FIR, MGR OES Director hired 5 Improve Emergency Operations readiness POL FIR Ongoing restructuring of OES C. Environmental Sustainability (ES) 1 Evaluate construction of compositing digester or alternatives PW Energy/Compost Feasibility Analysis 2 Evaluate and implement plan to introduce electric vehicle (EV) charging stations MGR PCE, UTL EV Policy, 5 EV chargers installed, RFI 3 Establish formal collaboration with Stanford University MGR Adaptation forum, Y2E2 tour, Water Team 4 Explore methods to integrate Palo Alto Green into city sustainability programs MGR PCE, UTL Event on Climate Change, Sustainability Team 5 Prepare Urban Forest Master Plan PCE FIR CalFire review of Urban Forest Master Plan D. Land Use & Transportation Planning (LUTP) 1 Complete Development Center plans improving customer service/accountability PCE MGR Management and resource changes complete 2 Complete Rail Corridor study PCE  Area site tour, review preliminary draft Plan 3 Complete Stanford University Medical Center project PCE MGR  SUMC project approvals complete 4 Substantially complete Comprehensive Plan update PCE   PTC review of Area Concept Plans 5 Facilitate efforts to sustain Caltrain MGR PCE   Rail Committee advocating for sustainable Caltrain funding 6 Participate in regional SB375 & Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)PCE  Created Standing Committee 7 Prepare Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan update PCE Plan nearly completed E. Youth Well Being (YWB) 1 Implement Project Safety Net CSD POL Outreach/training, Developmental Assets 2 Magical Bridge Playground project CSD RFP review for Scope of Work, Fundraiser Acronym Definitions City Finances (CF) Emergency Preparedness (EP) Environmental Sustainability (ES) Land Use & Transportation Planning (LUTP) Youth Well Being (YWB) Community Engagement (CE) Collaborative Partnerships (CP) An X means that is the priority whereas a check indicates crossover with other priorities Dept P, primary department responsible for priority Dept S, secondary department(s) invovled in priority work Department Abbreviations Administrative Services (ASD), City Manager (MGR), Community Services (CSD), Fire (FIR), Human Resources (HR), Planning and Community Environment (PCE), Police (POL), Utilities (UTL) Priorities by department ASD CSD FIR HR MGR PCE POL PW UTL City of Palo Alto (ID # 2712) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 4/23/2012 April 23, 2012 Page 1 of 6 (ID # 2712) Summary Title: CPI Amortization Study Title: Discussion of Zoning Amortization Study and Options Related to Communications and Power Industries (CPI) at 811 Hansen Way From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council consider input from staff, CPI and the Barron Park residents, and direct staff whether to prepare zoning amendments or develop additional materials, including consultation with a technical peer reviewer regarding the feasibility of potential improvements to further reduce hazardous materials quantities at CPI and the risk level of such materials in proximity to residential properties. Executive Summary Communications and Power Industries, Inc. (CPI), or its predecessor firm, Varian Associates, has occupied the property at 607 and 811 Hansen Way since 1953. In 2006, CPI moved its San Carlos operation to Palo Alto and upgraded its plating shop, which is located immediately adjacent to residences in the Barron Park neighborhood. Those neighbors have expressed significant concern about the operations at CPI, particularly in light of a few accidental discharges or releases at the site. The City has commissioned an “amortization” study to define a reasonable period of time for CPI to recoup its investment in the plating shop, but then to relocate it away from the residential area. The intent of the meeting item is to review and discuss the “amortization” study, to provide input from staff, CPI and Barron Park residents, and to allow the Council to provide direction for next steps. A few options are outlined, including a) initiating zoning amendments and amortization for the CPI plating shop, b) evaluating a broader scope of impacts of hazardous materials uses adjacent to residential areas, and/or c) working with CPI and neighbors to facilitate further meaningful reductions in the amount and/or changes in the use, transportation or storage of hazardous materials in this location to enhance health and safety of the adjacent neighborhood. Background April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 6 (ID # 2712) Communications and Power Industries, Inc. (CPI), or its predecessor firm, Varian Associates, has occupied the property at 607 and 811 Hansen Way since 1953. The Microwave Products Division of CPI manufactures klystron vacuum tubes, which are used to amplify microwave and radio-frequency signals for various applications, including defense systems, satellite communications and medical devices. As part of the manufacturing facility, CPI operates a metal plating shop, which is located in a building adjacent to residential property located on Chimalus Drive in the Barron Park neighborhood (Attachment A). Until recently, the plating shop was the only facility in Palo Alto that uses or stores hazardous materials (potassium cyanide and nitric acid) at or above the threshold limits for regulation under the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (“CalARP”), under Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations. In 2005-2006, CPI consolidated the operations of its San Carlos facility (formerly Eimac Products) in Palo Alto. As part of and subsequent to the consolidation, and in response to three hazardous materials incidents at the site, CPI has made substantial upgrades to the plating shop, including upgrades to storage, processing and safety equipment. Some of these upgrades included: February 2005: Partial seismic upgrade to plating shop building. April 2008: Installation of toxic gas alarms outside plating building (on Chimalus side) to detect nitric acid or hydrogen cyanide fumes or vapors. January 2009: Relocation of Potassium Cyanide from exterior storage building into plating building. March 2009: Installation of natural gas generator to provide emergency power to plating shop ventilation and treatment system. May 2009: Installation of filtered fume hood for handling and weighing potassium cyanide. 2006–2009: Reduction of Potassium Cyanide quantities from approximately 700 pounds to approximately 400 pounds and reduction of Nitric Acid from over 4000 pounds to less than 2000 pounds. In March of 2012, CPI reported to the County that it has reduced the storage or use of Potassium Cyanide to below 100 pounds and the storage or use of Nitric Acid to below 1,000 pounds, both below the threshold of the Title 19 regulations (Attachment C). CPI also notified the City’s Fire Department of that action and staff is awaiting confirmation from the County. Hazardous Materials Incidents In February of 2006, residents in the Chimalus neighborhood reported a noxious odor, which turned out to be caused by a gas (nitric acid) release from CPI. Following this incident, neighbors began expressing concerns about the proximity of the plating shop to the residential neighborhood, as well as “right-to-know” regulations. In March of 2008, approximately 10 gallons of 31% hydrochloric acid was released in the rear April 23, 2012 Page 3 of 6 (ID # 2712) driveway and about 60 gallons of a less than 31% mixture of hydrochloric acid and water were release inside the basement of Building 2 during a chemical delivery due to an improper overfill and disconnect procedure by the delivery driver. In May of 2008, approximately 50 gallons of diluted wastewater containing copper and nickel was released to Matadero Creek due to improper weekend shutdown of process equipment and improper opening of a containment valve that discharges to the creek. Corrective actions were taken for each of the events and no incidents have been identified or reported since 2008. As noted above, a number of upgrades followed some of the incidents and discussions with the City and neighbors. Zoning Ordinance Amendments In 2006, in response to concerns expressed by Barron Park residents about the proximity of highly toxic chemicals to the neighborhood, the City Council enacted zoning code amendments to address their concerns. The amendments are encompassed in Section 18.23.100 (Hazardous Materials) of the Municipal Code and were intended to prevent further intensifying such hazardous materials use and to provide more notification for residents anywhere throughout the City when adjacent facilities increased or modified hazardous materials use and storage. In particular, a conditional use permit (CUP) is required for any new facility that would be subject to CalARP (Title 19) regulation. In addition, no facility that is subject to CalARP regulation is allowed within 300 feet of a residential zone or property with existing residential uses. However, because CPI was in existence at the time of the new requirements, it is considered a legal nonconforming use. A legal nonconforming use may generally continue, provided that the level of nonconformity is not expanded and the use does not change. The ordinance did not include provisions for “amortization,” i.e., phasing out the nonconforming use. The zoning code section is included as Attachment D. Amortization Study In response to continuing neighborhood concerns, the City commissioned an amortization study to evaluate the time period required to allow the phase out of the plating shop operation within 300 feet of the residential area while permitting CPI a reasonable period of time to recoup its investments in that facility. The study was completed in July of 2011 and the results are discussed below. Discussion The purpose of the Council meeting is to present the amortization study results and to outline zoning or other options to reduce or eliminate potential hazardous materials impacts on neighboring residential properties. Amortization Study Amortization of a nonconforming use is intended to phase out a use that is either incompatible with adjacent uses or where a change in use is desired as an orderly planning transition to other uses (for instance, conversion of an area from light industrial uses to residential). The City of Palo Alto has provided in the past for amortization periods of anywhere from five years to 30 April 23, 2012 Page 4 of 6 (ID # 2712) years for changes in use. The California Supreme Court has held that “zoning legislation may validly provide for the eventual termination of nonconforming uses without compensation if [the legislation] provides a reasonable amortization period commensurate with the investment involved.” Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1980) 453 Cal.3d. 848. The City would look to a number of factors in determining a reasonable amortization period. Where the elimination of the use would require the removal of physical improvements, “the reasonableness of the amortization period depends on the interplay of many factors, including the depreciated value of the structures to be removed, their remaining useful life, and the harm to the public if they are left standing.” City of Salinas v. Ryan Outdoor Advertising, Inc., (1987) 189 Cal.App. 3d 416. In response to the Barron Park neighborhood concerns, the City commissioned an amortization study (Attachment B) to determine a reasonable amortization period for CPI to come into compliance with the current Zoning Ordinance. The study, prepared by CB Richard Ellis (economic real estate consultants), concluded that a reasonable amortization period is 20 years from the date that the most significant improvements occurred on the CPI site. Specifically, the study would support an ordinance eliminating the nonconforming use in 2026, fourteen (14) years from now. Because CPI indicated at the time it could not achieve compliance with the zoning regulations (reduction of chemical use below Title 19 thresholds), the study assumes that CPI would be required to relocate its plating shop to a location more than 300 feet from residential property. CPI cooperated with the study and provided confidential financial information to the City’s consultants (note that the study is redacted to exclude some financial information). Staff expects CPI to take the position that amortization is unwarranted at this time. Staff also anticipates CPI to take a different perspective on appropriate amortization methodology and to contend that a longer period is appropriate should amortization occur. Zoning Options Staff notes that, if the County verifies CPI’s statement that it is now below Title 19 thresholds for hazardous materials, they are currently in compliance with zoning. Staff has identified a few potential approaches, however, to implement the intent of the amortization study or other methods to further minimize risk to surrounding neighbors. The potential feasibility or drawbacks to the options are outlined as well. 1. Initiate a Zoning Ordinance amendment to prohibit plating shops, or facilities using similar hazardous materials, within 300 feet of residential zones, and require amortization for CPI consistent with the amortization study. This will entail outreach to CPI and neighbors and an assessment of other plating shops in the community (three) and whether there would be any concerns (they are not proximate to residential). 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to better define the levels of hazardous materials use and storage for plating shops and similar industrial processes and appropriate separation from residential areas, and provide for amortization periods accordingly. This option would likely rely on technical hazmat experts to provide input for those criteria. The April 23, 2012 Page 5 of 6 (ID # 2712) resultant regulations may also affect businesses other than CPI, particularly in the Research Park, where many businesses abut residential sites. 3. Do not modify the zoning, but work with CPI and the neighbors to achieve further reductions in chemical use and storage, and possibly changes in the handling, transportation, storage and use of hazardous chemicals, to reduce risk and promote health and safety in the adjacent neighborhood. Seek technical consultant assistance to evaluate hazardous materials operations to suggest methods to achieve further meaningful reductions and improvements in safety practices. Negotiate voluntary compliance with identified improvements, or, in the absence of voluntary compliance, evaluate options for regulatory action and appropriate phase-in period. Staff recommends that Council discuss the input from staff, CPI, and the neighbors and provide direction regarding the above alternatives and a timeframe for response. At a minimum, it appears that it would be beneficial for the City to retain a technical consultant to provide a strong basis for subsequent City actions and/or to work with CPI to further reduce chemical usage and enhance safety measures. Resource Impacts Resource impacts will include staff time to research the issues further and work with the neighbors and CPI, as well as to amend the Zoning Ordinance (including hearings with the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council), if so directed by Council. Other costs may include retaining hazardous materials technical consultants to advise the City. Finally, there may be potential litigation costs of various actions. Policy Implications CPI is currently in compliance with the Zoning Code. However, further action may be appropriate to assure that health and safety is provided for neighboring residential areas. There are also policy implications regarding how or whether subsequent actions would affect other businesses in the Research Park or elsewhere in Palo Alto. Environmental Review Environmental review is not required at this stage of discussion. Enviornmental review will, however, be required at the time of any proposed zoning ordinance amendments. Staff anticipates, however, that no environmental impacts would accrue from amortization as the result would generally enhance health and safety for nearby residents. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: July 6, 2011 CPI Amortization Study (PDF) April 23, 2012 Page 6 of 6 (ID # 2712) Attachment C: March 28, 2012 Letter from CPI to Santa Clara County Re: CalARP DeRegistration (PDF) Attachment D: Section 18.23.100 (Hazardous Materials) of the Zoning Code (PDF) Attachment E: April xx, 2012 Letter from CPI (PDF) Prepared By: Curtis Williams, Director Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager 71.5' 102.7'120.0' 5.6' 25.0' 54.3' 33.5'5.6' 120.0' 15.1' 70.2' 155.1' 90.8' 113.2' 50.1' 113.2' 50.1'76.6' 35.0'25.0' 3.7' 43.3' 129.3' 86.3' 165.9' 74.1' 74.2' 78.4' 49.7' 18.8' 10.0' 102.4' 10.1' 53.2' 150.1' 8.2'85.0' 50.3' 59.1'102.4' 10 85.0' 705.1' 1227.7' 325.5' 94.4' 381.8' 1133.4' 81.2' 75.5' 81.2' 67.0' 94.7' 11.1' 10.9' 74.2' 68.7' 38.7' 176.3' 108.6' 158.5' 18.0' 47.8' 3.7' 43.3' 129.3' 114.9' 51.2' 150 149.8' 49.9' 150.0'150.0' 49.9' 150.0 50.0' 50.0' 55.3' 20.8' 60.7' 93.6' 55.0' 113.0' 60.7' 21.0' 28.8' 75.0' 60.0'93.6' 52.0' 33.1' 59.8' 75.0'97.5' 63.6' 144 590.8' 182.6' 705.1' 50.0' 55.3' 26.4'58.7' 69.7' 87.8' 100.0' 50.0' 317.0' 375.4' 208.0' 196.8' 365.7' 157.4' 706.6' 526.6' 375.4' 186.5' 381.8' 94.4' 325.5' 14.4' 50.0' 88.5' 26.5' 13.5' 58.7' 69.7' 59.8' 13.5' 327.5' 366.1' 72.5' 80.0' 102.6' 102.6' 142.5'94.4'94.4' 103.2'55.5' 55.5' 55.0' 55.0'65.9' 65.9' 113.0'115.0' 115.0'115.0' 115.0'115.0' 115.0' 174.7' 156.5' 18.0' 47.6' 94.5'112.7' 112.7' 113.7' 113.7' 113.8' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 113.8' 62.6'75.0' 28.8' 113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 113.8' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 62.6' 62.6'113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 62.2' 62.2'62.2' 62.2'75.8' 75.8'113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 76.4' 76.4'63.0' 63.0'56.0' 56.0'56.0' 56.0'56.0' 56.0'56.0' 56.0' 113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 80.0' 108.2' 54.0' 54.3' 8.4' 71.0'71.0' 36.8'87.0' 113.0'113.0' 41.7' 50.1'56.0' 56.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 56.0' 56.0' 56.0' 56.0' 56.0' 113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 56.0' 56.0' 56.0' 56.0'73.5' 55.6' 55.6'56.0'113.5'113.5' 811 611 722 718 714 710 706 704 678 668 650 632 695 3470 686 667 655 588 698 700 701 705 707 709 704 706 698 3440 3445 633 649 615 604 605 601 3475 3337 592 572 582 593 606 604 610 3300 607 602 550 911 850 700 600630 660 690690A 3327 3399 3333 630 330 CHIMALUS DRIVE A A V E N U E HANSEN WAY EL CAMINO REAL CHIMALUS DRIVE MATADERO AV HANSEN WAY HANSEN WAY TIPPA WINGO S T R E E T This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0' 180' CPI 811 Hansen Wy CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2012 City of Palo Alto jnortz, 2012-04-16 08:29:52 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) CERE CONSULTING July 6, 2011 Mr. Don Larkin Assistant City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CBRE CB HICHARD ELLIS 101 California Street 44th floor San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415 772 0123 F 4157720459 www.cbre.com/consulting RE: Estimated Am@rti:z:ation Period for CPS FfOIci!ity fOIt 811 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, CA Dear Mr. Larkin: As requested, CBRE Consulting has estimated a reasonable amorlization period for a porlion of the Communications and Power Industries, Inc. (CPI) facility located in Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto, California. Specifically, the amorlization period relates to the storage and use of cerlain chemicals above Title 19 thresholds within 300 feet of a residential area. As such, this perlains to a porlion of CPl's Building 2 at 811 Hansen Way (the "plate shop"), as well as a secured outdoor storage area located between Buildings 1 and 2. The contents of this letter are subject to the attached assumptions and general limiting conditions. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS As discussed in the following sections, CBRE Consulting concludes that a reasonable amorlization period for the CPI plate shop facility is 15 years from the date of this letter. This period allows CPI to fully utilize its equipment while adequately preparing for a relocation of the plate shop either at the existing site or at a new location altogether. ASSIGNMENT BACKGROUND . Communications and Power Industries, Inc. (CPI), through its predecessor firm, has occupied the properly at 607 and 811 Hansen Way in Palo Alto since 1953. The company manufactures products that are used in communications, medical, military, and scientific applications. As parl of its manufacturing process, CPI operates a "plate shop" where the materials it uses in the assembly process are cleaned to a very high level. This cleaning process involves the use of chemicals, including CBRE CONSULTING Mr. Don larkin July6,2011 Page 2 CBRE CB RJCHARD EUIS potassium cyanide and nitric acid. Given the hazardous nature of these chemicals, there is concern about the proximity of CPl's plate shop facility to a residential neighborhood and an elementary schooL Although CPI had been operating the plate shop for decades, awareness of and concern about the CPI facility and its chemical use increased after the 2005-2006 relocation and integration of the company's former San Carlos "EIMAC" facility into the Palo Alto site. CBRE Consulting was engaged by the City of Palo Alto to estimate a reasonable period in which to amortize the zoning for the property. In amortization, the zoning of the property is reclassified to a different use, with the current occupant granted a certain period of time (the amortization period) in which to find and move to a new location. Upon the expiration of the amortization periodt the use becomes non-compliant. The City of Palo Alto has engaged in this type of process for other properties, including special districts, in the distant past. In this particular situation, the amortization . relates to Title 19 and the storage and use of chemicals above Title 19 thresholds within 300 feet of residential use. The amortization period allows the building owner/occupant to reap the benefit of using the building and/or fixtures and equipment over its estimated remaining economic or useful life. Economic life is defined as the period over which improvements to real property contribute to property value.I, 2 Useful life is defined as an estimate of how long an .item of property can be expected to be usable in trade or business or to produce income.3 In theory, by the end of the amortization period, the building and/or fixtures and equipment have no remaining utility to the owner/occupant. In this situation, the amortization period relates to CPl's plate shop facility. ASSIGNMENT SCOPE OF WORK CBRE Consulting's scope of work included the following tasks: o Meet with City of Palo Alto officials to discuss the property and to review available records pertaining to the site, such as assessment and tax data, building permit applications, fire department records, risk management plans filed with Santa Clara County, and other documents. (!) Tour the CPI facility to view the use of the buildings, the processes that take place within the buildings, the chemical storage areas, etc. Additionally, CPI responded to a request for information regarding the size and breakdown by use of its facility and periodic capital investment over time, particularly the investment related to the integration of the former San Carlos facility in 2005-2006; however, detailed capital investment information was not provided. 1 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Edition (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2010), 64. 2 By contrast, physical life is defined as the total period a building lasls or is expected to lost as opposed 10 its economic life. (See Footnote 1 for reference, 146). 3 Deportment of Ihe Treasury, Inlernal Revenue Service, Publication 946: How to Depreciate Property. April 6, 2011, 113. CBRE CONSULTING Mr. Don Larkin Juiy6,2011 Page 3 CBRE CH 1~ICHARD ELJJS ~ Conduct research into estimates of "lives" for the building, fixtures, and equipment, through sources such as CPl's 1 O·K reports to the Securities arid Exchange Commission (SEq, Marshall Valuation Service (a third.party vender of data on building and equipment valuations and lives), CB Richard Ellis' own Cost Segregation Group, and other sources. c;, Analyze the dota collected and estimate overall and remaining lives for the buildings, fixtures, and/or equipment. Of these estimates; identify the most pertinent remaining life as the basis for the amortization period. PLATE SHOP OVERVIEW The CPI plate shop is located in Building 2 (811 Hansen Way) to the rear of the structure in an area with two stories. Building 2 shares a parcel with Building 1, the land under which is ground-leased from Stanford University. This is one of the first facilities constructed in Stanford Research Park, with Building 2 doting to about 1957 (per Santa Clara County Assessor's records). The facility has been continuously occupied by Varian Associates/CPI (which is a successor entity.to Varian's Electron Device Business). To the rear of Building 2 (at the southeasterly end of the property) are an access driveway and a tall sound wall, beyond which is a 50-foot drainage and sanitary sewer easement that is on the CPI parcel. After the easement is the property line, with the Barron Park neighborhood beyond. The chemicals used by CPI are stored near the southeasterly end of the property. The potassium cyanide is stored outside in a secure storage area. The nitric acid, along with sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid, are stored in tanks located just inside Building 2, along the southeasterly perimeter of the building. In addition to interior access, the storage tanks can be accessed from the outside via exterior doors. The exterior access facilitates refilling of the chemical storage tanks from tanker trucks. CPI has indicated that the plate shop is integrated with its manufacturing processes, whereby the materials are cleaned often more than once during product assembly and testing. The plate shop itself is supported by a variety of other equipment that extends beyond the confines of its walls. These include boilers that heat the water, plumbing to and from the plate shop (for air, acids, and water), back-up generator, chemical storage tanks, air scrubbers and exhaust duels, waste storage tonks and treatment system, etc. Thus, relocating the plate shop requires the moving of all the support equipment that ensures its proper and safe operation. The plate shop has been in operation for decades. In fact, the entire CPI operation at the Palo Alto facility exhibits the adaptation of its business over a 55+·year period in buildings that are not as efficient as a new facility. However, with the 200.5-2006 relocation and integration of the former San Carlos JlEIMAC" facility into the Palo Alto site, the plate shop underwent a substantial upgrade that included new processing tanks, lighting, ducting, fire protection power supplies, plumbing, and new acid storage tanks, among other improvements. CBRE CONSULTING Mr. Don Larkin July 6, 2011 Page 4 LIFE ESTIMATES CBRE CI3 RlCHARD ELLIS Estimates of the appropriate "Iife" for the plate shop relate to the useful life of the equipment that supporls the facility. The !wo main sources of estimates for the life of the building and equipment are CPI's own 1 O-K filings to the SEC and Marshall Valuation Service, which in parl extracts its estimates from the U.S. Treasury Deparlment Internal Revenue Service Publication 946. According to the CPI 2010 1 O-K filed December 10, 2010 for the period ending October 1, 2010, "plant and equipment are depreciated over their estimated useful lives using the straight-line method" base.d on the following schedule: Asset Category CPI Property Plant and Equipmenf Lives for DepreciatioA Purposes Land Improvements Process Equipment Machinery and Equipment Office Furniture and Equipment Years 25 20 12 7 to 12 5 to 10 Source: CPllnternational, Inc. Form 1 O·K, Filed 12/10/10; CBRE Consulting. The "process equipment" above generally includes the equipment used in the plate shop. This time period also correlates to the life expectancy specified in a letter from CPI to the City of Palo Alto: "The life expectancy of a typical cleaning/plating facility (or "plate shop") is approximately 10 years. Due, in parl, to a diligent maintenance program, CPI has been successful in extending the life of our plate shop to approximately 15 years."4 Based on CBRE Consulting's tour of the (PI facility, the process equipment is only one component of the operation. There is a variety of other equipment integrated with the plate shop, as previously noted. To identify the lives of tliese components, CBRE Consulting used the life expectancy guidelines provided by Marshall Valuation Service, as follows: 4 Letter from Bob Fickett, President and Chief Operating Officer, CPt to the City Council of the City of Palo Alia, dated January 18, 2007. CBRE CONSULTING Mr. Don Larkin July 6,2011 Page 5 CBRE CI3 FlJCHARD (::LLlS Life Expectancy Guidelines Selected Equipment Categories Equipment Category Industrial Boilers Circulation Piping Generator Storage Tanks (Steel Pressure) Air ductsl variety of materials Aerospace Industry Equipment Fabricated Metal Products Equipment Source: Marshall Valuation Service; and CBRE Consulting. ABSORPTION PERIOD ESTIMATES Bose Amortization Period Life Years- Average Quality 20 27 22 22 Life Years- Good Quality 25 30 25 23 17 (min.) 25 (max.) 8 to 12 9.5to14.5 Note the above table does not present an exhaustive list of the equipment contained within the facility but is illustrative of the varied lives of such items. CBRE Consulting believes that a reasonable amortization time period should factor in the other equipment necessary for reliable and safe operation of the plate shop. The range of lives for these items is from 1 7 to 27 years for average quality items and 23 to 30 years for good quality items. Therefore, we considered the range of lives presented in the above tables, with the shorter lives for the process equipment (12 years per CPI/S 10· K) balanced by the longer lives for the plumbing, storage tanks, and generator (midpoints about 22 to 26 years). As CBRE Consulting was not provided with a. detailed breakdown of the acquisition date and cost for all the equipment within and supporting the plate shop, it used a range of weighting between the process equipment and the other equipment to arrive at an estimated period of 20 years. CBRE Consulting reserves the right to amend its amortization period estimate if detailed data regarding the acquisition date and cost for all of plate shop and supporting equipment are made available. Amortization Period Adjustment Although the plate shop was in operation prior to the relocation of the San Carlos facility to Palo Alto, a reasonable starting point for an amortization period would be 2006, when the majority of the upgrades to the Palo Alto plate shop were completed. Subsequent to this movel certain additional improvements have been model most notably the installation of a new emergency electrical generator CBRE CONSULTING Mr. Don Larkin July.6{ 2011 Page 6 CBRE CB I'lJCHARD Fl..US for one fume scrubber{ which cost approximately _in 2010. However, the generator's cost is less than _percent of the plate shop upgrades expended in 2006. Thus, the amortization period should be reduced by five years to reflect the time period since the installation of the majority of the improvements in 2006. This results in an adjusted time period from 20 years down to 15 years from the date of this leiter. CLOSING COMMENT Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this letter report. Sincerely, Mary A Smitheram-Sheldon Senior Managing Director N:\T eom-StrategicConsulting\ Teom-Projects\2008\ 1008169 Polo Alto\Reporl\ 1008169 Cily of Polo Alto RO l.doc CBRE CONSULTING CBRE CB RICHAFi.D ELUS CBRE Consulting has made extensive efforts to confirm the accuracy and timeliness of the information .. contained in this study. Such information was compiled from a variety of sources, including interviews with government officials, review of City and County documents, and other third parties deemed to be reliable. Although CBRE Consulting believes all information in this study is correct, it does not wqrrant the accuracy of such information and assumes no responsibility for inaccuracies in the information by third parties. We have no responsibility to update this report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report;'Further, no guarantee is made as to the possible effect on development of present or future federal, state or local legislation,' including any regarding environmental or ecological matters. The accompanying projections and analyses are based on estimates and assumptions developed in connection with the study. In turn, these assumptions, and their relation to the proiections, were developed using currently available economic data and other relevant information. It is the nature of forecasting, however, that some assumptions may not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, actual results achieved during the projection period will likely vary from the projections, and some of the variations may be material to the conclusions of the analysis. Contractual obligations do· not include access to or ownership transfer of any electronic data processing files, programs or models completed directly for or as by-products of this research effort, unless explicitly so agreed as part of the contract. This report may not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is prepared. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this study shall be disseminated to the public through publication advertising media, public relations, news media, sales media, or any other public means of communication without prior written consent and approval of CBRE Consulting. ----------------~----.... ,-"---... ~~=ac:ma ~ ~.lI!iIIIDliIC:I ~-#/fI"': ~ ::;::a Communir:arion.r &: Power Induslri!!S March 28,2012 Mr. Ruben D. Williams County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division 1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95112-2716 RE: CalARP De-Registration Dear Mr. Williams: CEIVED BY: _SJ-ARA COUNTY b-ENV. HEALTH lnl2 APR -2 PH 3: 07 This letter is to request de-registration of Communications & Power Irldustries' (CPI) Potassium Cyanide and Nitric Acid processes at 811 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, CA, 94304 from the California Accidental Release Program. Quantities of Potassium Cyanide and Nitric Acid have been reduced to below CalARP threshold quantities and the processes are no longer subject to the applicability requirements ofCCR19, Section 2735.5(a)(2). As we discussed during our March 22 phone conversation, I have enclosed tables she-wing the calculated quantities in pounds of Potassium Cyanide and Nitric Acid used at our facility. These calculations include quantities in both the processing tanks and storage containers. Also enclosed is a description of the engineering controls we discussed for the basement Nitric Acid storage tank. We have also enclosed a copy of the most recent CalARP Registration form that was submitted on 3/4111, and updated Business Owner/Operator Identification and Business Activities forms that reflect this change. We have submitted an updated Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement to the Palci Alto Fire Department that shows the quantities used and stored in the covered processes are now below CalARP threshold quantities. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at· (650) 846-3141 or john.dale@cpii.com. Sincerely, ~~C~WERmDUS1RlliS . JohnM. Drue Envirorimental Engineer Enclosures(5) 611 Hansen Way RO. Box 50750 Palo Alto, CA 94S0S-D750. U.S.A. (550) 646-2BOO Fax (650) 845-3315 Nitric Acid Usage at CPI lotal Volume at weight at Nitnc In Weight at Nitnc In Process Tank or Process Tank or Process Tank or Description Container (gal) Container (%) Container (Ibs) Nitric acid bottles 1 6.6 70 54.2 Copper Bright Dip2 50 22.6 155.6 Descale2 51 2.2 6.0 SS, Ml-9 2 26.3 26.2 67.5 MolyClean2 27.6 5.9 19.3 Nickel Bright Dip3 5.6 28.0 15.2 Kovar Bright Dip2 26.9 15.5 52.3 HC4 Dip:! 26.9 65.3 203.1 Mandrel Etch3 5.6 14.8 9.2 Nitric acid storage (basement)" 45 67 350.2 Total: 932.6 1Total of 10 bottles containing 2.5 L of 70% nitric acid per bottle. 2Process tanks or containers made up from 67% nitric acid. 3Process tanks made up from 70% nitric acid. Explanation of Calculations: Weight of nitric acid was determined based on volume of the process tank and % volume of nitric required to make up the tank. Specific gravity of 67"!~ or 70% nitric acid was used to convert volumes to weight. % Weight of nitric acid was based on the ratio of nitric acid weight vs. the sum the weights of all consitutents used 111 the bath. KCN Usage at CPI Description KCN storage' Technistrip 9030' Copper Strike Sliver plate Silvabrite II SE Replenisher Brightener' Copper Strike Copper Plate KCN Cleaner Cyanide lift station Waste treatment 4Solid 100% KCN. 5Solid Technislrip 9030 lotal vOlume aT Process Tank or Container (gal) 15 (Ibs) 1.5 (lbs) 46.4 40.3 40.3 51.9 51.9 5 900 1480 51ncJudes What is used In the bath and unused in stock. Explanation of Calculations: welgnt aT KLiN In welgnt 01 KLiN In Process Tank or Process Tank or Container ("/0) Container (Ibs) 100 15 70 1 2 7 13 45 2 0;097 2 8 2 10 6 2 0.005 1 0.005 1 Total. 90 Weight of KCN was determined based on volumeof the process tank and conc'entratlon of KCN required to make up the tank. % Weight of KCN in makeup was based on MSDS or conversion from concentration to % weight. cpr Utilities Nitric Acid Tank Level and Fill Controls 3/26/12 Nitric Tank Level Controls Tank level controls consist of two independent systems: 1) Electronic U1trasonic sensor system consisting of a tank mounted level sensor and local console mounted digital read out in gallons. III Alarm points monitored locally and at Security Control Panel III Fill· Set Point -maximum allowable fill level initiates Blue indicator light at local monitoring panel III High Level Alarm -set point at maximum allowable level initiates Red indicator light at local panel and alarm condition at Security Control Panel 2) Reverse Site Glass -tank mounted site glass mechanical indicator via float and clear PVC tube It Local visual indicator only Maximum Tank Level settings: 25 gals -Fill Set Pomt 30 gals -High Level Alarm Note: Maximum quantity -40 gallons Calibration and Maintenance: Level controls calibrated by comparison to manual measurement (dip stick) and volume calculation (volume chart) for specific tank. Ultrasonic sensor and Electronic meter calibrated accordingly Site Glass level indicator -Line on tank for site glass visual indicator Annual calibration/verification of level indicator is done as part of scheduled PM Fill Controls Tank filling is done using cpr Utilities documented procedure (Bulk Chemical Unloading) consisting of specific delivery instruction for cpr employees and Acid supplier which include: Acid Delivery Safety/Emergency procedures Setup instructions Communication Fill level instructions and indicators Maximum fill requirements Secure operation instructions Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials (A) Purpose In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. (B) Requirements (i) The project shall be designed to comply with all safety, fire and building codes for the storage, use and handling of the hazardous materials involved. (ii) Any new structure that is designated an "H" occupancy (storage, use and handling of specified types and quantities of hazardous materials), or any existing structure that is converted to an "H" occupancy, as specified by the California Building Code, shall be designed in accordance with the currently adopted California Building Code and Fire Code. (iii) Where a building or area used for such storage, use and/or handling is located within 150 feet of a residential zoning district or of properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties), the business owner shall provide a report to the fire department addressing the adequacy of the emergency contingency plan, which addresses safety of the nearby residential area, including but not limited to, procedures for accidental releases or other emergencies, and other protective measures as required by Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, upon: (a) A change in the types of hazardous materials stored, used or handled on the site in quantities above the reporting threshold established in California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95; and/or (b) A 100% or greater increase in the quantities of a previously disclosed hazardous material stored, used or handled on the site above the reporting threshold established in California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95; and/or (c) Release/threatened release incidents. (iv) For any such facility outlined in (iii) above, upon application for any building permit for improvements that would result in a change in the types of hazardous materials stored, used or handled on the site or an increase in the quantities of hazardous materials stored, used or handled on the site, the city shall provide written notice to the owners and residents of all residential property within 150 feet from the property line, not later than ten days after issuance of the building permit. The notice shall inform the property owners that an application has been received, the nature of the request (such as the type of materials), that the fire department and building department have determined the project to be in compliance with relevant hazardous materials regulations, and that the application and details are on file with the fire department and/or building department. (v) If an applicant proposes a new structure or a modification of an existing structure on a development site that will entail hazardous materials stored, used or handled in excess of the threshold limits of regulated substances listed in Tables 1 - 3 of Section 2770.5 of Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations - Chapter 4.5 Public Safety, or proposes to increase the amounts of hazardous materials on-site above Title 19 threshold limits (including hazardous wastes), notification shall be provided to "affected residents" (and property owners) advising them that the proposed risk management plan (RMP) is available for public review with the Santa Clara County department of environmental health. Notification from the city shall be mailed not later than 10 days after receipt of the information by the fire department (the county allows for a comment period of at least 45 days). Comments may be submitted to the SCCDEH, which shall review the RMP and any comments received. Any user or operator of hazardous materials above Title 19 threshold limits in Palo Alto shall submit a copy to the Palo Alto fire department of the RMP they are required to prepare under Title 19 and file with the Santa Clara County department of environmental health (SCCDEH). No building or fire department permit shall be issued prior to the submittal of the RMP to the SCCDEH and the fire department and the completion of the required public review period. The applicant is required to identify in the RMP the zone where potential serious offsite consequences would occur from an accidental release of the largest quantity of a regulated substance. This zone extends from the proposed place of usage or storage to a distance where a toxic vapor cloud, heat from a fire, or blast waves from an explosion resulting from an accident at the usage or storage point would travel before dissipating to the level at which serious injuries from short-term exposures will no longer occur. "Affected residents" are those who reside or own residential property within this zone. (vi) Notwithstanding the provisions above, no new "H" Occupancy portion of a facility (building or area) designated for storage, use or handling of hazardous materials above Title 19 threshold limits, and no conversion or reconstruction of an existing facility designated for storage, use or handling of hazardous materials above Title 19 threshold limits shall be allowed except upon approval by the city council of a conditional use permit, and in no event shall such facility be located closer than 300 feet to a residentially zoned property or a property with existing residential uses in a nonresidential zone. These provisions shall also apply to facilities that propose (a) to increase the quantity of allowable hazardous materials that previously were below Title 19 threshold limits to levels that exceed Title 19 threshold limits, or (b) to increase the quantity of hazardous materials that already exceed Title 19 threshold limits to a quantity in excess of ten percent (10%) above amounts allowed by an RMP in effect as of November 1, 2006. (vii) Any facility that is no longer subject to the applicability requirements of Title 19 as described above and for which de-registration of the RMP is submitted by the owner or operator shall not re-establish the use, storage, or handling of hazardous materials in excess of Title 19 threshold limits, except in compliance with the notice and setback requirements outlined above. (viii) No facility proposing the use of BioSafety Level 4 etiological agents shall be permitted in the city of Palo Alto. (Ord. 4933 § 4 (part), 2007) Disclaimer: This Code of Ordinances and/or any other documents that appear on this site may not reflect the most current legislation adopted by the Municipality. American Legal Publishing Corporation provides these documents for informational purposes only. These documents should not be relied upon as the definitive authority for local legislation. Additionally, the formatting and pagination of the posted documents varies from the formatting and pagination of the official copy. The official printed copy of a Code of Ordinances should be consulted prior to any action being taken. For further information regarding the official version of any of this Code of Ordinances or other documents posted on this site, please contact the Municipality directly or contact American Legal Publishing toll-free at 800-445-5588. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2552) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 3/19/2012 March 19, 2012 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 2552) Summary Title: Gas Utility Long-term Plan Revisions Title: Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Amending the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), and the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council approve the attached resolution adopting revisions to the Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP) Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan. Executive Summary The proposed changes to the Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP) Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan will align GULP to the Council direction to discontinue the gas laddered purchasing strategy for pool customers and implement gas supply rates that change every month based on the market price of gas. Both the UAC and the Finance Committee unanimously support the proposed changes to GULP. Background At its November 1, 2011 meeting, the Council directed staff to develop market price-based, monthly-adjusted gas supply rates (Staff Report #2106). In that report, staff identified the need to revise some sections in the GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan that were adopted by Resolution #9151 (Staff Report #1313). Discussion The transition to market-based gas supply rates requires revisions of GULP Objective 1, Strategy 1 and Implementation Plan Items 1 and 2. The current language and the proposed revisions are shown in the table below: GULP Current Proposed Objective 1 Balancing Stability and Competitiveness Passing a market supply cost signal through to customers March 19, 2012 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 2552) GULP Current Proposed Strategy 1 Balance supply cost stability with market exposure by: a. Diversifying energy purchases for the pool across commitment date, delivery date, duration, suppliers, pricing terms & delivery points; b. Leaving some fraction of the forecasted gas pool needs exposed to near-term market prices; and c. Avoiding long-term (>10 years) fixed-price commodity contracts. Pass a market supply cost signal through to customers by: a. Purchasing natural gas at prices based on the monthly and daily market index prices; and b. Changing gas supply rates monthly to reflect market prices. Implementation Plan Items 1. Continue to implement a laddered commodity purchasing strategy for the pool. 2. Review the laddering strategy and rate stability with the Utilities Advisory Commission and recommend changes, if appropriate. 1. Transition from the laddering strategy to market price-based, monthly-adjusted gas supply rates by: a. Developing a new purchasing plan to be approved by the Director of Utilities; b. Designing a new monthly- adjusted gas supply rate; c. Recommending revisions to the reserve guidelines for Council approval; and d. Conducting customer communication and outreach. The transition to market-based gas supply rates makes gas storage (a seasonal price hedging tool) irrelevant. Therefore, the proposed changes remove the references to gas storage in Strategy 2 and eliminate Implementation Plan Item 3. The current language and proposed changes are shown in the table below: GULP Current Proposed Objective 2 Lower delivered gas cost over the long term No change Strategy 2 Lower delivered gas cost over the long term by: a. Acquiring pipeline and/or storage assets that yield supply costs below market and meet operational needs; b. Taking advantage of the City’s low cost of capital to acquire gas supply and assets; and c. Optimizing existing assets. Lower delivered gas cost over the long term by: a. Acquiring pipeline assets that yield supply costs below market and meet operational needs; b. No change c. No change March 19, 2012 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 2552) GULP Current Proposed Implementation Plan Item 3 Pursue cost-effective gas storage services by: a. Signing enabling agreements with available gas storage service providers; b. Monitoring gas prices for seasonal differences; and c. Purchasing gas storage services when cost-effective. Deleted The other GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan tasks remain unchanged. The complete set of GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan with the proposed changes is provided as Attachment B. Commission Review and Recommendations On December 7, 2011, the UAC unanimously (5-0) approved, without discussion, a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed revisions to the GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan. Commissioners Keller and Eglash were absent. The excerpted minutes of the UAC’s December 7, 2011 meeting are included in Attachment C. On February 7, 2012, the Finance Committee approved (2-1) a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed revisions to the GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan (Staff Report #2440). Council Member Burt voted against the motion, and Council Member Price was absent. The excerpted draft minutes of the Finance Committee’s February 7, 2012 meeting are provided as Attachment D. Resource Impact Short-term resources will be required for implementation of the new gas commodity purchasing and rate strategy. In the long-term, it is anticipated that 0.4 FTE will be redeployed from gas portfolio management to other projects. This savings includes small amounts of time spread across multiple individuals in Utilities and Administrative Services. Policy Implications The Council direction to implement market price-based, monthly-adjusted rates represents a shift from prior policy to provide stable gas rates to customers. Staff will propose changes, if appropriate, to the Gas Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve Guidelines when it presents the Fiscal Year 2013 gas budget and rates. Environmental Review The proposed changes to the GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan do not meet the definition of a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Thus, no environmental review is required. March 19, 2012 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 2552) Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Approving Amendments to GULP (PDF) Attachment B: Proposed GULP Strategies and Objectives (PDF) Attachment C: Minutes from Dec 7 UAC meeting (PDF) Attachment D: Draft Excerpt Minutes of Finance Meeting of 2-7-12 (PDF) Prepared By: Karla Dailey, Sr. Resource Planner Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager *NOT YET APPROVED* 120305 dm 6051680 Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan A. On March 7, 2011, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9151, which approved the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan (the “Plan”). B. The Utilities Advisory Commission and the Council Finance Committee have recommended the Council’s approval of certain amendments to the Plan, which are attached and incorporated by reference. Those amendments pertain to the discontinuation of the gas laddering purchase strategy and the implementation of gas supply rates that change monthly according to market prices. C. Resolution No. 9151 is intended to be amended to reflect the current version of the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE,the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the amendments to the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan (GULP), attached to this Resolution as Attachment B. SECTION 2. Resolution No. 9151 is hereby amended in so far as the Plan, as amended, is hereby approved. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines // // // // ATTACHMENT A *NOT YET APPROVED* 120305 dm 6051680 and, therefore, no environment assessment is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney ______________________________ Director of Administrative Services ______________________________ Director of Utilities ATTACHMENT B Proposed Gas Utility Long‐term Plan (GULP) Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan GULP Objectives: 1. Market price transparency – Pass a market supply cost signal through to customers. 2. Supply Cost Management – Lower delivered gas cost over the long term. 3. Energy Efficiency – Ensure the deployment of all feasible, reliable, cost‐effective energy efficiency measures. 4. Climate Protection – Reduce the carbon intensity of the gas portfolio in accordance with the Climate Protection Plan. 5. Parity with PG&E – At a reasonable cost, protect the City’s interests and maintain access to transportation on par with PG&E’s core customers. GULP Strategies: 1. Pass a market supply cost signal through to customers by: a. Purchasing natural gas at monthly and daily market index prices; and b. Changing gas supply rates monthly to reflect market prices. 2. Lower delivered gas cost over the long term by: a. Acquiring pipeline assets that yield supply costs below market and meet operational needs; b. Taking advantage of the City’s low cost of capital to acquire gas supply and assets; and c. Optimizing existing assets. 3. Ensure the deployment of all feasible, reliable, cost‐effective energy efficiency measures by: a. Developing and implementing a ten‐year gas efficiency plan every three years that includes a reasonable carbon price premium for traditional gas supplies; and b. Considering the impacts (cost, benefits, and GHG emissions) of substituting electricity‐using appliances for gas‐using appliances and vice versa in the ten‐year gas efficiency plan. 4. Reduce the carbon intensity of the gas portfolio in accordance with the Climate Protection Plan by: a. Designing and implementing a voluntary retail program using reasonably priced non‐ fossil fuel gas resources; and b. Purchasing non‐fossil fuel gas for the portfolio as long as it can be done with no rate impact. 5. At a reasonable cost, protect the City’s interests and maintain access to transportation on par with PG&E’s core customers by: a. Participating in the regulatory and legislative arenas when the potential impact on the City is aligned with the cost to intervene and the probability of success; a. Negotiating with PG&E for fair access to transportation and storage; and b. Exploring potential joint action with other public agencies. ATTACHMENT B GULP Implementation Plan: 1. Transition to market price‐based, monthly‐adjusted gas supply rates by: a. Developing a new purchasing plan to be approved by the Director of Utilities; b. Designing a new monthly‐adjusted gas supply rate; c. Revising the reserve guidelines for Council approval; and d. Conducting customer communication and outreach. 2. Pursue below‐market assets available through the Gas Transportation and Storage Settlement by: a. Evaluating the pipeline capacity reservation options available; and b. Contracting with PG&E for any pipeline capacity with an estimated cost below the forecasted market value. 3. Pursue opportunities for natural gas prepay transactions by: a. Hiring a consultant to help staff with: i. Identifying any internal policy changes needed including the policy on the use of financial instruments; ii. Identifying system and internal processes required; iii. Identifying opportunities; and iv. Evaluating opportunities and quantifying the benefits and costs; and b. Seeking UAC recommendation and Council approval regarding whether to proceed with a gas prepay transaction. 4. Develop an implementation plan to meet the gas efficiency targets by summer 2011 including the: a. Evaluation of the cost‐effectiveness of substituting gas‐using appliance for electric‐ using appliances and vice versa and the greenhouse gas impacts of such substitutions; and b. Incorporation of any cost‐effective substitution measures in the implementation plan to meet the gas efficiency targets. 5. Track and report progress against adopted gas efficiency goals by: a. Providing quarterly updates on the gas efficiency program achievements to the UAC; and b. Providing annual updates on gas efficiency program achievements to the UAC and the City Council. 6. Continue evaluating new gas efficiency technologies and undertake pilot studies where appropriate. 7. Pursue reasonably priced non‐fossil gas for a voluntary program through NGPP by: a. Reviewing the due diligence report to be provided to NGPP participants by the end of October 2010; and b. Based on the results, recommending whether to continue participating in the projects. ATTACHMENT C Excerpted Utilities Advisor Commission Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2011 ITEM 3: ACTION: Proposed Revisions to the Gas Utility Long‐term (GULP) Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan Director Valerie Fong stated that the changes ensure that GULP is in line with the Council approval of the new gas purchasing/rate strategy. ACTION: Vice Chair Berry made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed revisions to the GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5‐0). FINANCE COMMITTEE DRAFT EXCERPT Meeting February 7, 2012 Proposed Revisions to the Gas Utility Long-Term Plan Objectives, Strategies, and Implementation Plan. Utility Director, Val Fong said this item was in regards to Administrative updates on the Gas Utility Long-Term Plan (GULP) to reflect the Council’s direction on the gas implementation plan. City Manager, James Keene said the Council had taken action on the item and Staff had to identify the language changes that needed to be made in the policy. Chair Shepherd asked if the Commission wanted to speak to the item. The Commission stated there was no discussion. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Chair Shepherd, that the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council approve the proposed revisions to the Gas Utility Long-Term Plan (GULP) Objectives, Strategies, and Implementation Plan. MOTION PASSED:2-1, Burt no, Price absent ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:54 pm. 1 FIN 02-07-12 ••••••••••• ATTACHMENT D City of Palo Alto (ID # 2411) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/23/2012 April 23, 2012 Page 1 of 14 (ID # 2411) Summary Title: El Camino Park Improvement Project Title: Approval of the Use of $2,275,796 of Park Development Impact Fees to Fund Park Improvements at El Camino Park in Conjunction With Utilities Department CIP WS-08002 El Camino Park Reservoir Project From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council: 1) Accept the Community Services Department (CSD) and the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendations for the approval of the (pre- Architectural Review Board reviewed) design for park improvements at El Camino Park, including pathways, a synthetic turf playing field, a multi-use natural turf playing field, landscaping, an expanded parking lot, a dog exercise area, and other amenities (Attachment A); and 2) Accept CSD‘s recommendation that $2,275,796 of Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) be used to fund staff’s tentative list of improvements to El Camino Park (Attachment B); and 3) Defer the actual construction of the Council and Park and Recreation Commission’s recommended dog exercise area until an environmental assessment can be completed for Stanford University’s approval, and until funding can be identified and secured. Executive Summary Since June 2010, staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) have discussed possible park improvements at El Camino Park that could coincide with construction of the Utilities Department’s El Camino Park Emergency Water Reservoir Project (CIP WS-08002). On June 13, 2011 (CMR # 1746), Council reviewed and approved in concept the park improvement design (as then recommended by the Commission), and instructed staff to add a dog park and April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 14 (ID # 2411) additional parking to the design; and then to return to the Commission for final design approval. At their September 27, 2011 regular meeting, the Commission approved a revised design of the project that accommodated additional parking and a dog exercise area. The Commission, however, felt that the $2,622,010 cost estimate for the project would not leave enough in the Park Development Impact Fee account for future park needs. The current Park Development Impact Fee balance is $2,813,245. The Commission recommended that staff look to other funding sources to pay for the dog exercise area ($207,000) and the expanded parking lot ($342,260). Staff recommends that the Council approve the final proposed design and the expenditure of $2,275,796 to fund the renovation of El Camino Park including the list of improvements. Staff understands and appreciates the Commission’s concern about using a significant portion of the impact fee balance, but given the critical need for parking to accommodate anticipated increased park usage, staff has included the expanded parking lot in the recommendation for impact fee funding. Since the Commission felt that the dog park was a non-essential improvement, staff further recommends deferring this portion of the project until a future date when the impact fee balance has replenished; and a finalized design and an environmental assessment and can be funded and completed to the satisfaction of Stanford University (landowner). Staff recognizes that there are many recommendations for capital improvement funding in the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee Report, and staff is hesitant to further impact the already heavily committed capital improvement budget by recommending new capital improvement projects funded by the General Fund at this time. Background The Project, which began with construction on the Utilities reservoir and ancillary buildings, has created a unique opportunity for the City to leverage time and resources to improve several areas of the popular park. Since June 2010, the Commission has discussed park design improvements at nine regular meetings and one special on-site meeting at the park. April 23, 2012 Page 3 of 14 (ID # 2411) ● June 22, 2010- Utilities Department project managers presented to the Commission an update on the El Camino Park Reservoir Project. The Commission agreed with staff this was an opportunity to improve the park and significantly expand recreational and sports opportunities in the north part of Palo Alto (as recommended in the 2002 Field Report). ● June 29, 2010- A special Commission meeting was held at the park. Staff, Commissioners and members of the public brain-stormed ideas for possible improvements for the park. These ideas included synthetic turf fields, new public bathroom, improved pathways and many other creative suggestions such as an outdoor volleyball court or a BMX bike track. ● July 27, 2010- The Commission made a motion to ask staff to submit its list of improvement ideas to Siegfried Engineering Inc., the landscape architect firm designing the Project, to evaluate feasibility and possible design and construction costs. ● September 28, 2010- Many of the Commission’s suggested park improvements were included in the draft park project design. The Commission offered additional feedback on the draft design. The Commission sent a memo to the City Council recommending that Council find a way to fund park improvements at El Camino Park as opposed to simply rebuilding the park as it was prior to the reservoir project. ● October 26, 2010- Siegfried presented the Commission with an update on the conceptual design of the Project. The Commission provided additional input on the design. ● January 25, 2011- Siegfried presented the Commission with five refined design options with varying pathway, parking, amenity and field configurations for their consideration. The Commission asked to see a combination of three of the refined designs, and highlighted the importance of expanding public parking to accommodate the anticipated significant expansion of field and park use generated by the redesign of the park. ● February 22, 2011- Staff presented a conceptual design incorporating the Commission’s feedback, and presented two options for the use of impact fee to fund the improvements (discussed in detail below). ● On June 13, 2011, staff presented the Council with a recommendation for using impact fees to fund improvements at El Camino Park (CMR 1746; Attachment C). The Council approved the motion 8-1 (Price opposed) of using $1,420,500 of April 23, 2012 Page 4 of 14 (ID # 2411) impact fees for the Commission and staff’s recommendation of improvements at El Camino Park with six amendments. The Council instructed staff to: 1. Pursue connectivity at the north (across Alma Street to the pathway) and south end of the park (past the train station) for pedestrians and bicycles. (See the bike/pedestrian page on Attachment A) 2. Return to the Parks and Recreation Commission for final design approval. (The Commission reviewed and approved the final design recommendation on September 27, 2011.) 3. Incorporate bike racks into the final design. (Fifteen bike racks have been added to the design- each rack supports two bikes) 4. Return within 90 days with an alternative to the current PF zoning that would be more restrictive or restricted to recreational uses so as to create a disincentive for other uses in the future. (Staff has confirmed that the PF zoning is the most restrictive zoning available for this property.) 5. Incorporate into the final design some type of dog exercise area and provide more details on public parking to ensure that there will be no overflow parking into the adjoining neighborhood. (A dog park and additional parking are included in the recommended design; however, staff proposes deferring the final design and construction of the dog exercise area portion until impact fee funds have replenished and an environmental assessment is completed to address Stanford University’s environmental concerns.) 6. Pursue an extended term lease with Stanford University for El Camino Park beyond the current June 2033 expiration date. (City staff is in discussion with Stanford University regarding a possible nine year extension for the lease for El Camino Park to 2042.) ● June 21, 2011- Staff returned to the Commission to discuss the options for dog exercise area locations as directed by Council on June 13, 2011. Staff presented the Commission with five options for possible dog exercise area locations for their consideration. The Commission voted 3:2 to recommend installing a dog exercise area in the north side of the El Camino Park between Palo Alto Avenue/Alma Street and San Francisquito Creek in an unimproved section of El Camino Park. One of the dissenting Commissioners favored a dog park at the south end of the April 23, 2012 Page 5 of 14 (ID # 2411) park; the other dissenting Commissioner preferred creating a shared ball field and dog exercise area rather than a new area in the north part of the park. ● July 26, 2011- Staff returned to the Commission to discuss the options for additional parking as directed by the Council on June 13, 2011. Staff presented five options for their consideration. The Commission concurred with staff and chose to recommend Option E, which added an additional 29 parking spaces (for a total of 71 spaces). During the review the Commission highlighted the need to include improvements for a convenient passenger loading/unloading area into the parking lot design. (After adding the loading and unloading area to the final parking lot design, there are an additional 26 parking spaces, for a total of 68 spaces.) ● September 27, 2011- Staff returned to the Commission to seek their recommendation to the Council for the final design (as directed by the Council on June 13, 2011). The Commission stated that they support the revised design; however, they felt funding for the dog exercise area ($207,000 plus contingency) and the expanded parking lot ($450,000 plus contingency) should come from some source other than Park Development Impact fees. The Commission agreed that expanding the parking lot at El Camino Park is critically important. They also noted that the dog exercise area is a nice, but non-essential feature at this time. The cost of the final design including the dog exercise area and the expanded parking lot is $2,503,496. The cost of the final design without the dog exercise area and expanded parking lot would be $1,899,310. If the dog exercise area and the expanded parking lot were funded by other means, the impact fee balance would be $913,935. (Sept. 27, 2011 Staff Report Attachment D) Throughout these meetings the Commission raised questions and made comments about pedestrian/bike access to the park, the replacement restroom location (specifically related to safety and access), tree protection efforts, maximizing parking spaces to accommodate the expansion of field and recreational use, fencing possibilities for a joint-use dog exercise area, and lighting improvements. In addition to the Commission’s guidance on design features, Recreation staff has collected insight from various field user groups (during the annual field booking process) regarding preferred field design features such as synthetic turf, field size, and multi-use designs to accommodate growing April 23, 2012 Page 6 of 14 (ID # 2411) interest in sports such as lacrosse. This input provided direction for the current design of park improvements. Discussion Siegfried Engineering Inc. designers incorporated the Council, the Commission, and staff’s recommendations regarding site features to create a final site design for improvements at El Camino Park (Attachment A). The design includes a synthetic turf soccer/lacrosse field on the north-end of the park, and a natural turf softball/multi-use field on the south-end near the transit station. The recommended design includes an expanded parking lot that adds 26 parking spaces and a new loading/unloading area to the existing parking lot (total of 68 spaces), and a future dog exercise area. Dog Exercise Area The dog exercise area design allows for a fenced dog exercise area located in the undeveloped north side of El Camino Park next to San Francisquito Creek. There is an existing light pole in the area that would provide use of the dog exercise area in the evening. The approximately .5 acre (about the size of half a football field) dog run would have a wood chip base, benches, and a water fountain for humans and a special spigot for dogs. Stanford University requires certain mitigations to ensure that the dog exercise area will not contaminate San Francisquito Creek and trout habitat. The City would need to hire a consultant to help ensure the dog exercise area design avoids runoff into the creek and mitigates other potential environmental impacts. Although the use of the northern most portion of El Camino Park appears to be an appropriate location for a dog exercise area that can serve the needs of residents of North Palo Alto, because of its proximity to protected riparian habitat, the need to mitigate any possible impacts to the creek, and serious funding limitations, staff does not recommend final design and construction of the dog exercise area at this time. The Commission noted that they are in full support of dog exercise areas in Palo Alto. However, they argued that it would be better to save the balance of impact April 23, 2012 Page 7 of 14 (ID # 2411) fee money for future City-wide park needs, rather than to spend the impact fee money on a dog exercise area at El Camino Park at this time. Staff considered the possibility of funding the dog exercise area through other means, including General Fund Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funds. However, the funding for CIP projects is extremely limited, and populated with higher priority needs such as replacing the restroom at El Camino Park. Once funds are available and a final El Camino Park dog exercise area design is created and approved by Stanford University, staff will ensure that its final design compliments the other dog exercise areas in Palo Alto at Hoover, Greer, and Mitchell Parks. If the Council opted to go beyond staff’s recommendation and fund the dog exercise area with impact fees, the cost of the dog park would be $207,000 (plus contingency), which would make the total cost for all the improvements to El Camino Park $2,503,496. This would leave a balance in the impact fees of only $309,749. El Camino Park Restrooms The existing cinder-block restroom building at El Camino Park was built in 1940. The restroom is in very poor condition. Access for handicapped patrons is limited and fixtures are outdated. The restroom must be removed to accommodate the expanded parking lot and the synthetic turf field at the north end of the park. The design illustrates the new location of the restroom, which will be located towards the end of the parking lot between the two fields. The new restroom will cost approximately $300,000. A new restroom cannot be funded with impact fees, because impact fees cannot be used to replace or repair existing infrastructure. Staff has submitted a separate CIP funding request for a new restroom at El Camino Park for fiscal year 2013, which would allow for the restroom to be built at the same time as the other El Camino Park improvements. In addition to this centrally-located restroom, there is also a JC Decaux automated public toilet (accommodates only one person at a time) located in the undeveloped, southern most portion of the park near the Red Cross parking lot. Other Design Elements The final design also includes a new decomposed granite (DG) exercise pathway with security lighting, mulch for the non-turf areas, soccer catchment fencing, April 23, 2012 Page 8 of 14 (ID # 2411) four picnic tables, a maintenance equipment storage shed, and electric conduit and footings, which will allow for adding soccer field lighting at a future time without the need to renovate the synthetic turf. Fifteen bike racks have also been added to the design (each rack supports two bikes). Tree Impacts The current park design requires the removal of two sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) trees (size of the two trees: 17.4’’ and 20.4’’ diameter at chest height (dbh)) for the project, and the removal of one old Monterey Pine tree for safety reasons. The project also requires relocating two small coastal redwood trees (size of trees 2.2’’ and 2.3’’ dbh) in the park. Thirty-six new trees will be planted in the park as part of the recommended design. Trail Connectivity Staff is pursuing trail connectivity at the north end of the park (across Palo Alto Avenue to the existing multi-use pathway) and south end of the park (past the train station) for pedestrians and bicycles. Planning & Transportation and Parks staff will hire a contractor to perform a traffic safety study to confirm the best route for the connectivity at the north end of the park and the exact position of a safe crosswalk on Alma Street. Staff is also working with Stanford University and MacArthur Park to improve the pedestrian and bicycle connectivity at the south end of the park. Staff is requesting that a concrete sidewalk be installed to allow for pedestrians and bicyclists to continue from the corner of University Ave at El Camino Real across the front of the MacArthur Park Restaurant past the top of Circle Drive and connect to the existing Class I multi-use trail that runs past the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and Palo Alto High School. (See Page 6 of Attachment A for a map illustrating trail connectivity.) Zoning Options The Council directed staff to return with an alternative to the current PF (Public Facility) zoning designation that would be “more restrictive” or restricted to recreational uses so as to create a disincentive for other uses in the future. April 23, 2012 Page 9 of 14 (ID # 2411) According to Curtis Williams, Director of Planning, the PF zoning is the most restrictive zoning possible for the El Camino Park property. The PF zoning designation does not allow for residential development. Cost Increases The Council’s request (June 13, 2011) to include significantly expanded parking ($342,260) and a dog run ($207,000) added significant costs to the project. Design, engineering services and construction management is estimated to be at least $400,000. The significant increase is because of field and parking lot grading issues, tree conservation efforts, and lack of City staff to assume construction management and engineering services duties as previously projected. A 10% contingency for the park improvements ($206,891) was also not included in the cost estimate in previous staff reports, but has now been added. There were also previously undisclosed costs from the landscape architect for restoration planting of perimeter trees, reseeding some turf areas and irrigating the natural grass area north of the synthetic turf ($89,000). Stanford University Lease for El Camino Park Part of the approved June 13, 2011 Council motion was a directive for staff to pursue an extended term lease with Stanford University for El Camino Park beyond the current June 2033 expiration date. Palo Alto Utilities Department had previously secured permanent easements for areas of the park where the reservoir and pump station are located in order to protect the sizeable investment in the infrastructure. Given the large investment the City is making in developing and enhancing other parts of the park, the Council expressed its desire to pursue options for extending the City’s lease for El Camino Park. A request was submitted by the Real Estate Division’s staff to Stanford University to consider the extension of the lease. The City Attorney’s Office and the City Manager’s Office are in discussion with Stanford University regarding Stanford’s Campus Energy System Improvement Project which would replace the existing campus heating and cooling co-generation plant with a state of the art and energy efficient facility. Certain portions of the development are subject to the City’s April 23, 2012 Page 10 of 14 (ID # 2411) approval under the Sand Hill Development Agreement. Stanford’s new energy facility, located on the academic campus and in Santa Clara County’s jurisdiction, is restricted by the development by the Development Agreement for nine years. Stanford University has proposed extending the El Camino Park lease by nine years commensurate with their request to allow early development of the energy facility. Should the Council amend the Development Agreement, the El Camino Park lease would then expire June 2042. This matter will be brought to Council for consideration in the near future. Other Park Projects Fundable by Impact Fees Staff has identified several other park projects that meet the impact fee funding requirements. These projects include: 1. Phase II Byxbee Park. The Baylands Master Plan states that park development of Phase II at Byxbee Park Hills would cost as much as $2,067,700 (in 1989 dollars) if all aspects of the conceptual plan were implemented. This cost estimate was done in 1989 and was based on a conceptual plan. Given the age and conceptual nature of the plan, staff recommends re-examining and updating the plan. For example, the 1989 conceptual plan envisioned the construction of an additional parking lot, the creation of a paved astronomical viewing platform, and the use of expensive construction elements that staff feel need to be reevaluated and prioritized based on current park user needs. CSD staff is currently working with Public Works staff to construct the access path/trail system for Phase II. The alignment of the shared access path/trail system is very similar to the layout of the 1991 Hargreaves Phase II trail plan. 2. Cubberley Snack Shack/Restroom. This project is projected to cost $220,000. Because the lease for Cubberley expires in 2014, staff recommends deferring this project until a new lease that will ensure that community access is in place. 3. Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting. This project is projected to cost $130,000. Because the lease for Cubberley expires in 2014, staff recommends April 23, 2012 Page 11 of 14 (ID # 2411) deferring this project until a new lease that ensures community access is in place. Staff suggests that these projects, and any additional park projects that could be funded by impact fees, should be discussed at a future Park and Recreation Commission meeting where the Commission could review the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations and findings, and then consider creating a revised top ten list of projects to be funded by impact fees that could be brought to Council for review. Park Project Timeline ● September 2011 Begin Phase 1 Construction (reservoir, pump station, etc.) ● May 2012 Architectural Review Board Review Phase 2 Park improvements ● January 2013 Complete Phase 1 (reservoir, pump station, etc.) ● June 2013 Begin Phase 2 (park improvement construction) ● March 2014 Complete Phase 2 (park re-opens to the public) Resource Impact The El Camino Park Improvement Project would utilize $2,275,796 of the total $2,813,245 in the park impact fee account. This would leave a balance of $537,449 for future projects at this time. At the June 13 2011, City Council meeting, staff anticipated having a balance of $1,379,500 in the impact fee account. However, the additional Council directed park features (expanded parking lot and dog run) and design, engineering and construction services, and other unanticipated costs have significantly increased the cost of the project. Park Development Impact Fees The Nexus report projected $1.3 million annual revenue from the Park Development Impact Fees (based on ABAG forecasts of population and employment). Actual Impact fees collected since 2006: April 23, 2012 Page 12 of 14 (ID # 2411) FY 2006 $470,000 FY 2007 $1,041,000 FY 2008 $1,316,000 FY 2009 $218,000 FY 2010 $352,000 FY 2011 $151,203 FY 2012 (to Dec.) $173,483 Maintenance Costs Associated with Park Improvements Converting the north natural turf field (1.5 acres) to synethic turf will reduce water, fertilizer, seed, rodent control, and mowing expenses at El Camino Park by approximately $43,131 per year. The synthetic turf will require approximately $3,447 in annual maintenance costs. The increase in maintenance cost due to the new dog exercise area, trails, picnic tables, and increase in associated trash and litter would be approximately $6,530 per year. The overall net decrease in annual operating costs associated with the improvements in the park would be approximately $33,154. Utilities Department Contribution The Utilities Department’s water bond funds will contribute approximately $1,641,790 towards the basic cost of the park reconstruction. This contribution is what the Utilities Department would have paid to restore the park to its original condition after the impacts from the reservoir project. The $1,641,790 has already been factored into the calculation of the funds needed for the park improvements. The $2,275,796 from impact fees, combined with the contribution from Utilities, is necessary to fund the additional park improvements (excluding the dog park). Limited General Funds to pay for El Camino Park Improvements The Administrative Services staff advise that unless all available impact fees are used to fund this project, or some of the park improvement features are removed April 23, 2012 Page 13 of 14 (ID # 2411) or deferred, the project will place significant pressure on available General Funds for infrastructure rehabilitation. Furthermore, it should be noted that this project’s improvements have not been included in the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee (IBRC) report so it can be placed in context of overall General Fund infrastructure needs. This information about the limited General Funds influenced CSD staff’s recommendation to fund the expanded parking lot with impact fees and to defer the dog exercise area until more funding is available. Policy Implications The proposed park improvements are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. The proposed project is consistent with the goals of the 2002 Athletic Fields Report. This project is also consistent with Parks and Recreation Commission policy that staff carefully consider the construction of dog exercise facilities for large neighborhood or regional parks when designing park improvements. Environmental Review The Utilities Department’s El Camino Park Reservoir Project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An EIR has been completed for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. An addendum to the EIR will be prepared to incorporate the additional park improvements called out in Attachment B. A separate study would need to be commissioned for the review of the future dog exercise area to ensure that the design specifically addresses the concern of Stanford University. Attachments: ATTACHMENT A -El Camino Park Final Design (PDF) ATTACHMENT B- Park Improvements Funded By Park Development Impact Fees (PDF) April 23, 2012 Page 14 of 14 (ID # 2411) ATTACHMENT C - June 13, 2011 CMR El Camino Park Improvement Project (PDF) ATTACHMENT D - Sept 27, 2011 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report El Camino Park (PDF) Prepared By: Daren Anderson, Department Head: Greg Betts, Director, Community Services City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Staff Recommended Impact Fee Use at El Camino Park Attachment B Improvements Impact Fee Costs Design, CA, and Construction Management 400,000$ Remove or Relocate Existing Trees 7,500$ Soccer Catchment Fence $ 62,500 8 foot Safety Fence $ 10,000 Synthetic Turf Soccer Field $ 809,000 New Storage Building $ 19,000 Trash Enclosure $ 25,000 Existing Restroom Demolition $ 10,000 Concrete Pathways and Flatwork $ 98,930 Extended D.G.. Pathway $ 36,000 Extended D.G.. Pathway Lighting $ 67,500 Electric Conduit for Soccer Field Lighting $ 36,715 Additional Parking with Drop Off, Lighting, and Landscaping $ 342,260 Picnic Areas and Bike Racks $ 25,000 Rubber Mulch Areas $ 30,000 Re-Seed and Irrigate North Grass Area and Plant Perimeter Trees $ 89,500 Contingency(10%) $ 206,891 Dog Park Including Contingency $ (207,000 + 10%) Defer project 0 Total:2,275,796$ Park Development Impact Fee Fund 2,813,245$ Park Development Impact Fee Balance 537,449$ City of Palo Alto (ID # 1746) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/13/2011 June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 11 (ID # 1746) Summary Title: El Camino Park Title: Approval of Park Development Impact Fees to Fund Park Improvements at El Camino Park in Conjunction With Utilities Department CIP WS-08002 El Camino Park Resevoir Project From:City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council: 1.Approve the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff’s suggested use of $1,420,500 of Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) to fund the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommended list of improvements to El Camino Park (Attachment A); and 2.Direct staff to pursue a long-term lease with Stanford for EL Camino Park beyond the current June 2033 expiration date. Executive Summary Since June 2010, staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) have discussed possible park improvements at El Camino Park that could coincide with construction of the Utilities Department’s El Camino Park Reservoir Project (CIP WS-08002) (Project). With the Commission’s guidance, staff created a list of improvements (e.g., synthetic turf soccer/lacrosse field, expanded parking, and new pathways) that can be funded by impact fees. Staff is recommending that Council approve the use of impact fees to fund the list of improvements at El Camino Park. Background The Project, which is currently in its final stage of design for the reservoir and ancillary buildings, has created a unique opportunity for the City to leverage time and resources to improve several areas of the popular park. Since June 2010, the June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 11 (ID # 1746) Commission has discussed park design improvements at six regular meetings and one special on-site meeting at the park. •June 22, 2010-The Utilities Department presented to the Commission an update on the El Camino Park Reservoir Project. The Commission decided this was an opportunity to improve the park. •June 29, 2010-A special Commission meeting was held at the park. Staff, Commissioners, and members of the public brain-stormed ideas for possible improvements for the park which included synthetic turf fields, new public bathroom, improved pathways among many other creative ideas such as an outdoor volleyball court or BMX track. •July 27, 2010-The Commission made a motion to have its list of improvement ideas forwarded to Siegfried Engineering Inc., the landscape architect firm designing the Project, to evaluate feasibility and possible costs. •September 28, 2010-Many of the Commission’s suggested park improvements were included in the draft park project design. The Commission decided to move forward with making a recommendation to Council. •October 26, 2010-Siegfried presented the Commission with an update on the design of the Project. The Commission provided additional input on the design. •January 25, 2011-Siegfried presented the Commission with five design options for their consideration. The Commission asked to see a combination of three of the designs, and highlighted the importance of expanding public parking to accommodate expanded field use. •February 22, 2011-Staff presented a conceptual design incorporating the Commission’s feedback, and presented two options for the use of impact fee to fund the improvements (discussed below). Throughout these meetings the Commission raised questions and made comments about pedestrian/bike access to the park, restroom location (specifically related to safety and access), tree protection efforts, maximizing parking spaces, fencing possibilities for joint dog exercise area, and lighting improvements. In addition to the Commission’s guidance on design features, Recreation staff has collected insight from various field user groups regarding preferred field design features such as synthetic turf, field size, and multi-use designs to accommodate growing sports such as lacrosse. This input provided direction for the current conceptual design of park improvements. June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 11 (ID # 1746) The Commission believes improvements to current fields and the addition of new multi-use sports facilities will attract downtown residents to the park and make it a vibrant part of the City’s park system. Renovations to the park would increase usability of current park assets, meet some well-understood recreational needs in our community, and make effective use of space within the park that is currently undeveloped. The Commission has urged the Council (October 20, 2010, memorandum, Attachment B) to seek or provide supplemental funding to make park improvements at the park in conjunction with the Utilities reservoir project. Regarding funding alternatives, the Utilities Department is limited by the terms of Proposition 218, in that the City's Water Fund may pay only for the water project and in-kind replacement of the park and related park amenities directly impacted by the Project, and not other new park improvements or enhancements. In appreciation of the funding limitations, staff and the Commission recommend using impact fees to augment the Utilities Department’s in-kind park replacement. Park Development Impact Fees On March 25, 2002, the Council adopted Ordinance 4742, creating Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC, to establish development impact fees for parks, community centers, and libraries. The impact fees are legally required to be expended to augment recreational opportunities through the improvement of parks in order to compensate for increased demand for City facilities and services brought about by new residential and commercial development and the associated increase in population. In order to validly impose fees on new development, the City had to establish a “nexus” between the development and the public facilities or services that would be funded by the fee, and the City also had to establish a connection between the development and the amount of the fee that is being imposed on the development. The City retained the services of DMG-MAXIMUS (DMG) to create a “nexus” report (Parks and Community Facilities Impact Fee Study, September 2001) to provide the legal framework for the imposition of development fees. According to the report, impact fees for parks are intended to cover the cost of land acquisition and park improvements for neighborhood and district parks. The report goes on June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 11 (ID # 1746) to say, “Because of the difficulty of acquiring desirable park sites in Palo Alto, the City may choose to expend impact fee revenue for improvements that enhance the capacity of existing parks to serve additional demand, rather than to acquire more land.” Impact fees cannot be used for maintenance or operating costs, and should be used on capital projects that significantly enhance capacity. After the Council established the development impact fee ordinance in 2002, staff worked with community groups, recreation clubs, and the Parks and Recreation Commission to study strategies for enhancing park and recreational facilities throughout the City in order to mitigate for increased usage caused by new development. A Commission-recommended prioritized list of ten park improvement projects (Top Ten List, Attachment C) to be funded by impact fees was approved by the Council on March 12, 2007 (CMR:168:07). This list includes adding restrooms to parks with large sports fields, replacing natural turf with synthetic turf on four popular sport fields to expand play capacity, adding lights for tennis court and field facilities to expand play capacity into the evening, and the addition of a children’s playground at Heritage Park. The Commission’s Recommendation for Impact Fee Use at El Camino Park On February 22, 2011, staff presented the Commission with two possible options for using impact fees to fund improvements at El Camino Park (Attachment D). Staff provided context for the recommended options by explaining the various sources of funding for capital improvement projects (CIPs) in parks: the general fund infrastructure reserve, grants, donations, and impact fees. The Commission and staff carefully reviewed and analyzed the incomplete projects on the Top Ten List, as well as other park projects that could potentially be funded by Park Impact Fees. The Commission thoughtfully debated the two options for impact fee use at El Camino Park. Staff recommended “Option A,” which included the following features: a synthetic turf north soccer/lacrosse playing field; a synthetic turf south softball/multi use playing field; a new 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 limited tree removal and design fees. This option would have used $2,360,500 of the current impact fee balance of $2.8 million. June 13, 2011 Page 5 of 11 (ID # 1746) The Commission voted 4-2 to instead recommend “Option B” (Minutes for Commission Meeting, Attachment E), which included a synthetic turf north soccer/lacrosse playing field; a natural turf south softball/multi use playing field; a new 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 limited tree removal and design fees.; as well as a new decomposed granite pathway with lighting, and four picnic tables. Option B will use $1,420,500 of the current impact fee balance. The difference between the two options is that Option B is $940,000 less expensive than Option A; includes only one synthetic turf field instead of the two proposed in Option A; and includes a decomposed granite path with lighting and four picnic tables that were not included in Option A. The Commission expressed the importance of retaining funding in the impact fee account for future projects and possible land acquisition. The Commission pointed out that having two artificial turf fields would likely draw high numbers of field users to the park. They also noted that even with the additional 13 parking stalls that will be added from expanding the parking lot, there would likely be insufficient parking to accommodate the high volume of field users from two multi-use synthetic turf fields. The current field use levels often exceed the capacity of the existing parking lot. Staff had initially thought the close proximity to public transit and the parking lot at the Stanford Shopping Center across El Camino Real from the park would provide alternatives for park users to get to the park. Several Commissioners pointed out that in their experience field users typically do not use public transit to get to playing fields, and would be unlikely to park far from the fields. The Commissioners also highlighted the high replacement costs and relative short life spans of the synthetic turf fields (synthetic turf has a typical life span of eight to ten years, and cost approximately $550,000 to replace). Some Commission members felt that the City could add synthetic turf to the south field at a future date if it is deemed prudent; while two Commissioners felt there would be a cost savings from installing a south synthetic turf as part of this project. After lengthy discussion, staff agreed with the 4-2 Commission vote that Option B represents the best use of impact fees at El Camino Park. The majority of Commissioners supported Option B because they felt that even with additional parking spaces created by the new design the park would create too much user demand if there were two synthetic turf fields at this June 13, 2011 Page 6 of 11 (ID # 1746) one facility. Two Commissioners voted against the motion because they felt that Option B only provided for the conversion of one field (the soccer field) to synthetic turf. They expressed their concern that because of the demonstrated need for more playing fields in Palo Alto. The two Commissioners were, however, in favor of all other aspects of the conceptual design of Option B, including picnic areas, parking, and pathways. Archtectural Review Board (ARB) Study Session On May 5, 2011, Siegfried presented the proposed improvements to the ARB for a study session. The Board stated that they appreciated the decomposed pathways and the tree preservation efforts. They were pleased with the clustering of restroom, scorekeepers booth, and storage facility; and liked that the design of these structures match the design of the proposed Utilities pump station building. The Board suggested joining the storage building and scorekeepers building into one structure. They also asked staff to return with a species list for the trees to be planted, and a sample of the proposed rubber mulch. The Board commented that they would like to see the bike path connect with Alma Street. Staff explained that this is a future design element, however it is currently unfunded and requires additional study. Staff will return to seek final ARB approval in July or August. Discussion Conceptual Site Design and Staff’s Recommendation for Remaining Impact Fee Use ($1,420,500) at El Camino Park Siegfried incorporated the Commission’s and staff’s recommendations regarding site features to create a conceptual site design (Attachment F). The design includes a synthetic turf soccer/lacrosse field on the north-end of the park, and a natural turf softball/multi-use field on the south-end near the transit station. The benefits of this option are increased capacity for the park to accommodate field users, increased revenue from field brokering fees, and an improved and safer playing surface. The 2002 Parks and Recreation Commission report “Got Space”, identified field space as one of the most critical recreation needs of our community. The report suggested that Palo Alto would benefit from having a synthetic playing field in the north, south, east, and west regions of the City. The City has synthetic playing fields in the south and west (Cubberley Community Center and Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields). A synthetic field at El Camino Park would provide a field for the northern region of Palo Alto. At some point in the June 13, 2011 Page 7 of 11 (ID # 1746) future, a synthetic turf field can be added to Greer Park, which serves the eastern region of the City. The recommended design also includes an expanded parking lot (13 additional parking stalls), a new decomposed granite exercise pathway with security lighting, mulch for the non-turf areas, soccer catchment fencing, four picnic tables, a maintenance equipment storage shed, and electric conduit and footings, which will allow for adding soccer field lighting at a future time without damaging the artificial turf. It should be noted that future lighting for the soccer field has not yet been thoroughly vetted with the community or residents who might be affected by the lights. Attachment A lists the features that would be funded by impact fees and their associated costs. Many of the Commission’s and staff’s Park improvement wish-list items (new restrooms, score keeper building, dog run, and replacement of existing asphalt pathways) do not meet the “increase park capacity” requirement for legal use of impact fee funds. Staff will continue to research funding sources for these park improvements including future capital improvement projects with an attempt to have the additional projects completed while the park is under renovation. Dog Run The Commission requested that Siegfried look at opportunities to incorporate an off-leash dog exercise area into the park design. Siegfried’s design allows for a fenced dog run located just north of the north-end playing field. The decomposed granite path has been configured in such a way that a dog run could conceptually be placed inside the pathway loop. A fenced dog run would require more maintenance than the proposed passive recreation multi-use lawn area, which would serve as an area where people could recreate near the surrounding picnic tables. The size for the dog run would be approximately .5 acres. Though the City has small dog runs at Greer Park and Hoover Park that are less than .5 acres. A study on off-leash dog exercise areas by the School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis finds a correlation between the size of the dog run and its success, with larger dog runs being ranked as more successful. The City of Boulder Colorado has a minimum size of 1 acre for fenced dog runs. June 13, 2011 Page 8 of 11 (ID # 1746) Given the size limitations and increased maintenance costs associated with dog runs, staff does not recommend an exclusive-use dog exercise area in this location. El Camino Park Lease Owned by Stanford University, El Camino Park is under long-term lease to the City of Palo Alto. On January 12, 2009 Council approved the recommendations in CMR 104:09 to sign an agreement with Stanford University on the terms and conditions for the easement rights to place the reservoir in the park. Five permanent easements were established to permit the construction, maintenance and operation of the reservoir, pump station, well and water supply pipelines. These easements are permanent and will only terminate upon the abandonment or non-use of the facilities for a period of two consecutive years. The north section of the park, where the synthetic turf is proposed, does not have a permanent easement. It is under lease through June 2033. Due to the significant investment the City of Palo Alto may make in improving El Camino Park, the Parks and Recreation Commission made a motion that was unanimously approved at their April 26, 2011 meeting to request that Council pursue a long-term lease with Stanford for El Camino Park beyond the June 2033 expiration date. Tree Protection Efforts An Arborist’s Pre-construction Tree Protection Report was performed Ray Morneau in 2008 for this project. Early in the design process, Siegfried estimated that 16 trees would be removed for the reservoir project. The City Planning Arborist, Dave Dockter, worked with Siegfried, Parks, and Utilities staff to devise options for preserving additional trees. The current proposed park design requires the removal of two sweetgum trees (size of the two trees: 17.4’’ and 20.4’’ diameter at breast height -dbh) for the project, and the removal of one Monterey Pine tree for health and safety reasons. The project also requires relocating two small coastal redwood trees (size of trees 2.2’’ and 2.3’’ dbh) in the park. Thirty- six new trees will be planted in the park as part of the conceptual design. The cost for the tree removals and relocations is estimated to be approximately $2,500. Olympic Grove The southwestern border of the park is occupied by four trees planted in the 1980s in honor Palo Alto Olympic medalists. The four Coast Redwoods were June 13, 2011 Page 9 of 11 (ID # 1746) planted to honor their notable achievements. As part of the proposed project, an honorary plaque will be installed to commemorate the Olympic Redwood Grove. Future park projects that could utilize impact fee money Staff has identified several other projects at other City parks that meet the impact fee funding requirements of significantly expanding user capacity. After funding the suggested improvements for El Camino Park, the remaining impact fee balance would be $1,379,500. These potential impact fee-funded projects might include: 1.Magical Bridge (universal access) Playground at Mitchell Park. This project is projected to cost approximately $1.6 million. The City will allocate the land necessary for the playground and $300,000 (recommended in the 2012 Capital Budget recommendation) for the project. The remainder of the funding is expected to come entirely from fundraising and grants from the Friends of the Magical Bridge Playground. 2.Phase II Byxbee Park Trails (once the landfill is closed and capped in 2012). There has been no formal cost analysis for trail design and construction, though staff estimates that a simplified version of the Hargreave’s 1991 Byxbee Park Plan trail design (listed in the Baylands Master Plan) would cost approximately $275,000 for trail developments, signage and visitor amenities. 3.Cubberley Snack Shack/Restroom. This project is projected to cost $220,000. However, because the lease for Cubberley expires in 2014, staff recommends deferring a decision on this project until a new lease that ensures long-term community access is in place. 4.Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting. This project is projected to cost $130,000. However, because the lease for Cubberley expires in 2014, staff recommends deferring a decision on this project until a new lease that ensures long-term community access is in place. June 13, 2011 Page 10 of 11 (ID # 1746) Staff suggests that these projects, and any additional park projects that could be funded by impact fees, should be further discussed at a future Commission meeting where the Commission will consider creating an updated Top Ten list of projects to be funded by impact fees that will be brought to Council for review and adoption. Park Project Timeline •May 5, 2011 Architectural Review Board Study Session •November 2012 Complete Phase 1 (e.g., reservoir and pump station) •November 2012 Begin Phase 2 Construction (e.g., park restoration, synthetic and natural turf, and pathways) •May 2013 Complete Phase 2. Park re-opens to the public Resource Impact The El Camino Park Improvement Project, as recommended to Council by staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission, would utilize $1,420,500 million of the total $2.8 million in the impact fee account. This would leave a balance of $1.435 million for future projects. The Nexus report had projected $1.3 million annual revenue from the Park Impact Fees (based on ABAG forecasts of population and employment). Below are the actual impact fees collected since 2006: FY 2006 $470,000 FY 2007 $1,041,000 FY 2008 $1,316,000 FY 2009 $218,000 FY 2010 $352,000 FY 2011 thru Jan’11 $112,000 Policy Implications The proposed park improvements are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. June 13, 2011 Page 11 of 11 (ID # 1746) The proposed project is consistent with the Park and Recreation Commission’s review of the design of the project and is consistent with the goals of the 2002 Athletic Fields Report. Environmental Review This project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. Attachments: ·Attachement A -Impact Fee Improvements (PDF) ·Attachement B -Memo to Council (PDF) ·Attachment C-Park and Recreation Commission Top Ten List 2007 (PDF) ·Attachment D-Park and Rec Commission Staff Report El Camino Park (PDF) ·Attachment E -Feb 22, 2011 PARC Minutes (PDF) ·Attachment F-Conceptual Design (PDF) Prepared By:Daren Anderson, Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: Daren Anderson, Division Manager COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATE: September 27, 2011 SUBJECT: El CAMINO PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to Council the approval of $2,682,164 of Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) to fund the Parks and Recreation Commission’s and Council’s final list of improvements to El Camino Park (Attachment A). Executive Summary Since June 2010, staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) have discussed possible park improvements at El Camino Park that could coincide with construction of the Utilities Department’s El Camino Park Reservoir Project (CIP WS‐08002) (Project). With the Commission’s guidance and considerable input, staff created a list of improvements (e.g., synthetic turf soccer/lacrosse field, expanded parking, and new pathways) that can be funded by impact fees. Staff is recommending that the Commission recommend that Council approve the final proposed design and the expenditure of $2,682,164 to fund the full list of improvements at El Camino Park. Background The Project, which is currently in its final stage of design for the reservoir and ancillary buildings, has created a unique opportunity for the City to leverage time and resources to improve several areas of the popular park. Since June 2010, the Commission has discussed park design improvements at eight regular meetings and one special on‐site meeting at the park. ● June 22, 2010‐ The Utilities Department presented to the Commission an update on the El Camino Park Reservoir Project. The Commission decided this was an opportunity to improve the park. ● June 29, 2010‐ A special Commission meeting was held at the park. Staff, Commissioners, and members of the public brain‐stormed ideas for possible improvements for the park which included synthetic turf fields, new public bathroom, improved pathways among many other creative ideas such as an outdoor volleyball court or BMX track. ● July 27, 2010‐ The Commission made a motion to have its list of improvement ideas forwarded to Siegfried Engineering Inc., the landscape architect firm designing the Project, to evaluate feasibility and possible costs. ● September 28, 2010‐ Many of the Commission’s suggested park improvements were included in the draft park project design. The Commission decided to move forward with making a recommendation to Council. ● October 26, 2010‐ Siegfried presented the Commission with an update on the design of the Project. The Commission provided additional input on the design. ● January 25, 2011‐ Siegfried presented the Commission with five design options for their consideration. The Commission asked to see a combination of three of the designs, and highlighted the importance of expanding public parking to accommodate expanded field use. ● February 22, 2011‐ Staff presented a conceptual design incorporating the Commission’s feedback, and presented two options for the use of impact fee to fund the improvements (discussed below). ● June 21, 2011‐ Staff returned to the Commission to discuss the options for dog park locations as directed by Council on June 13, 2011. Staff presented the Commission with five options for possible dog park locations for their consideration. The Commission voted 3:2 to recommend installing a dog park in the North side of the El Camino Park next to San Francisquito Creek. ● July 26, 2011‐ Staff returned to the Commission to discuss the options for additional parking as directed by Council on June 13, 2011. Staff presented five options for their consideration. The Commission concurred with staff and selected Option E, which adds an additional 29 parking spaces (total of 71). The Commission highlighted the need to include improvements for loading/unloading area into the parking lot design. Throughout these meetings the Commission raised questions and made comments about pedestrian/bike access to the park, restroom location (specifically related to safety and access), tree protection efforts, maximizing parking spaces to accommodate the expansion of recreational use, fencing possibilities for a joint dog exercise area, and lighting improvements. In addition to the Commission’s guidance on design features, Recreation staff has collected insight from various field user groups (during the annual field booking process) regarding preferred field design features such as synthetic turf, field size, and multi‐use designs to accommodate growing sports such as lacrosse. This input provided direction for the current design of park improvements. On June 13, 2011, staff presented Council with a recommendation for using impact fees to fund improvements at El Camino Park (Attachment B). Council approved the motion 8:1 (Price opposed) of using $1,420,500 of impact fees for the Commission’s and staff’s recommended improvements at El Camino Park with five amendments. Council instructed staff to: 1. Pursue connectivity at the north (across Alma Street to the pathway) and south end of the park (past the train station) for pedestrians and bicycles. 2. Return to the Parks and Recreation Commission for final design approval. (This will be brought to the Commission on September 27, 2011.) 3. Incorporate bike racks into the final design. 4. Return within 90 days with an alternative to the current PF zoning that would be more restrictive or restricted to recreational uses so as to create a disincentive for other uses in the future. 5. Incorporate into the final design some type of dog exercise area and provide more details on public parking to ensure that there will be no overflow parking into the neighborhood. Discussion Siegfried incorporated the Council’s, the Commission’s, and staff’s recommendations regarding site features to create a site design for improvements at El Camino Park (Attachment C). The design includes a synthetic turf soccer/lacrosse field on the north‐end of the park, and a natural turf softball/multi‐use field on the south‐end near the transit station. The recommended design includes an expanded parking lot that adds 26 parking spaces and a new loading/unloading area to the existing parking lot (total of 68 spaces), and a new dog park. The dog park design allows for a fenced dog run located in the undeveloped north side of the El Camino Park next to San Francisquito Creek. There is an existing light pole. The approximately .5 acre (about the size of half a football field) dog run will have a wood chip base, benches, and a water fountain. The design also includes a new decomposed granite exercise pathway with security lighting, mulch for the non‐turf areas, soccer catchment fencing, four picnic tables, a maintenance equipment storage shed, and electric conduit and footings, which will allow for adding soccer field lighting at a future time without damaging the artificial turf. Fifteen bike racks have been added to the design (each rack supports two bikes). The current park design requires the removal of two sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) trees (size of the two trees: 17.4’’ and 20.4’’ diameter at breast height ‐dbh) for the project, and the removal of one old Monterey Pine tree for health and safety reasons. The project also requires relocating two small coastal redwood trees (size of trees 2.2’’ and 2.3’’ dbh) in the park. Thirty‐six new trees will be planted in the park as part of the conceptual design. The cost for the tree removals and relocations is estimated to be approximately $2,500. Staff is pursuing trail connectivity at the north end of the park (across Palo Alto Avenue to the pathway) and south end of the park (past the train station) for pedestrians and bicycles. Planning and Transportation and Parks staff will hire a contractor to perform a traffic safety study to confirm the best route for the connectivity at the north end of the park and the exact position of a safe crosswalk. Staff is also working with Stanford University and MacArthur Park to improve the pedestrian and bicycle connectivity at the south end of the park. Staff is requesting that concrete sidewalk be installed to allow for pedestrians and bicyclists to continue from the corner of University Ave at El Camino Real across the front of the MacArthur Park Restaurant past the top of Circle Drive and connect to the existing Class I multi‐use trail that runs past the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and Palo Alto High School. Council directed staff to return with an alternative to the current PF (Public Facility) zoning designation that would be more restrictive, or restricted to recreational uses so as to create a disincentive for other uses in the future. According to Curtis Williams, Director of Planning, PF zoning is the most restrictive zoning possible for the El Camino Park property. The PF zoning designation does not allow for residential development. Council’s (June 13, 2011) request to include increased parking ($500,000) and a dog run ($206,594) added significant costs to the project. Other costs that also increased were design and construction management ($400,000) (due to the lack of adequate City staff to assume construction management duties requires more contractor costs), and 10% contingency for the park improvements. There were also unanticipated costs such as planting perimeter trees and reseeding and irrigating the natural grass area north of the synthetic turf ($89,000). Part of the approved June 13, 2011 Council motion was a directive for staff to pursue a long‐term lease with Stanford for EL Camino Park beyond the current June 2033 expiration date. Palo Alto Utilities Department secured permanent easements for areas of the park where their reservoir and pump station are located in order to protect the sizeable investment in the infrastructure. Given the large investment the City is making in developing and enhancing other parts of the park, Council would like to pursue options for extending the City’s lease for El Camino Park. A request has been submitted from City Real Estate staff to Stanford University to consider the extension of the lease. Park Project Timeline ● October 2011 Council Approval Phase 2 Park Improvements ● September 2011 Begin Phase 1 Construction (e.g., reservoir, pump station) ● November 2011 Architectural Review Board Study Session ● November 2012 Complete Phase 1 (e.g., reservoir, pump station) ● November 2012 Begin Phase 2 Park improvement construction ● October 2013 Complete Phase 2. Park re‐opens to the public Resource Impact The El Camino Park Improvement Project, as recommended to the Parks and Recreation Commission would utilize $2,682,164 of the total $2.8 million in the impact fee account. This would leave a balance of $117,837 for future projects at this time. At the June 13 2011 City Council meeting, staff anticipated having a balance of $1,379,500 in the impact fee account. However, the additional Council directed park features (expanded parking lot and dog run) and other unanticipated costs have significantly increased the cost of the project. *The City anticipates that $_____ in new park development impact fees will be received in the next fiscal year. (This information will be available at the September 27, 2011 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting.) * This information was not provided at the meeting, the Planning department was unable to provide us with this amount. Policy Implications The proposed park improvements are consistent with Policy C‐26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C‐22 that encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. The proposed project is consistent with the goals of the 2002 Athletic Fields Report. This project is also consistent with Parks and Recreation Commission policy that staff consider the construction of dog exercise facilities for large neighborhood or regional parks when designing park improvements. Environmental Review The Utilities Department’s El Camino Park Reservoir Project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An EIR has been completed for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. An addendum to the EIR has been prepared to incorporate the additional park improvements called out in Attachment A. Attachments Attachment A‐ Park Improvements to be funded by impact fees Attachment B‐ CMR to Council June 13, 2011 Attachment C‐ El Camino Park Site Design Prepared By: Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks, and Golf Manager Community Services Department