HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-13 City Council Agenda Packet
1 May 13, 2013
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 HAMILOTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS
CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
May 13, 2013
5:30 PM
Council Member Holman
Participating from Econo Lodge
1441 West Central Avenue
Carthage, Missouri 64836
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council
Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
* The agenda now includes time estimates for each section or item. These are provided as part of the
Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject
to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use
more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting.
Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order
to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure
participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until
the item is called.
Call to Order
Closed Session 5:30-7:00 PM
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA,
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property: U.S. Post Office, 380 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 94301
Agency Negotiators: James Keene, Lalo Perez, Hamid Ghaemmaghami,
Joe Saccio, Curtis Williams, Aaron Aknin, Meg Monroe, Molly Stump, Cara
Silver
Negotiating Parties: City of Palo Alto and United States Post Office
Under Negotiation: Purchase: Price and Terms of Payment
2 May 13, 2013
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 HAMILOTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to
Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Lalo Perez,
Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray, Val
Fong) Employee Organization: Utilities Management and Professional
Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA) Authority: Government Code Section
54957.6(a)
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.
City Manager Comments 7:00-7:10 PM
Oral Communications 7:10-7:25 PM
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 7:25-7:30 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
3. Adoption of a Resolution Delegating Authority to the City Manager, or his
Designee, to Execute and Administer the Northern California Power Agency
Agreement Regarding the Use and Non-disclosure of Information
4. Adoption of a Resolution Summarily Vacating Several Public Easements Which
Have Been Relocated at 4329 El Camino Real
5. Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utility Rule and Regulation 3 (Description
of Utility Services), 5 (Service Contracts), 18 (Utility Service Connections and
Facilities on Customers' Premises), and 20 (Special Electric Utility
Regulations)
3 May 13, 2013
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 HAMILOTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS
6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's
Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2013
7. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Discussion of
the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Pilot and the City Auditor's
Recommendation to Continue the Hotline Beyond the Pilot Phase
8. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract with RBF Consulting to add
$134,088 for a Total Not To Exceed $484,088 for Design Services for the
California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Improvements Project
9. City of Palo Alto Response to Plan Bay Area Final Draft and Environmental
Impact Report
10. Approval of Solar Water Heating Incentive Program Services Contract with the
Center for Sustainable Energy California
11. Approval of Contract with Summit Uniforms for Five Years for an Amount Not
to Exceed $520,000 for the Purchase of Police, Fire, and Park Ranger
Uniforms and Related Equipment
12. Appeal of and Recommendation to Uphold Director’s Architectural Review
Approval of the Co-location by AT&T Mobility LLC of One Pole-Mounted
Wireless Communication Antenna and Associated Equipment Boxes on the
Existing Utility Pole Within the City’s Public Utility Easement on 3704 Carlson
Circle
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
7:30-8:30 PM
13. Acceptance of Long Range Financial Forecast for Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023
8:30-10:00 PM
14. Council Discussion of the Cubberley Community Advisory Report and
Guidance Regarding Negotiations Related to the Cubberley Lease and
Covenant Not to Develop
4 May 13, 2013
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 HAMILOTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS
10:00-10:30 PM
15. Transmittal of Policy and Services Committee Recommendation To Council For
The Adoption of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking And Tobacco
Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish New Smoking
Restrictions for Parks Under Five Acres; Increase No-Smoking Buffer Zones
from 20 to 25 feet for Consistency with LEED Standards; and Make Findings
Regarding the Purpose of No-Smoking Regulations In City Parks
10:30-11:00 PM
16. Consideration of City of Palo Alto Offer to Purchase U.S. Post Office Building at
380 Hamilton Avenue and Agreement to Assume Enforcement of Historic
Covenant
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 11:00-11:10 PM
Members of the public may not speak to the items
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.
5 May 13, 2013
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 HAMILOTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Technology and the Connected City Committee Meeting
Finance Committee Meeting
Policy and Services Committee Meeting
City/School Committee Meeting
Finance Committee Meeting Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
Informational Report Updating Council on Business and Residential Energy Efficiency
Loan Programs
Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2 Set 3
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3691)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval of NCPA Non-disclosure Agreement
Title: Approval of a Resolution Delegating Authority to the City Manager, or
his Designee, to Execute and Administer the Northern California Power
Agency Agreement Regarding the Use and Non-disclosure of Information
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) which
delegates authority to the City Manager, or his designee, to execute and administer the
Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Agreement Regarding the Use and Non-Disclosure of
Information for NCPA Projects (NDA) and to amend exhibits to the NDA as needed.
Executive Summary
As a member and signatory to the NCPA Joint Powers Agreement, a participant/owner of the
Calaveras Hydroelectric Project, and as a recipient of billing and scheduling coordination
services from NCPA, the City is entitled to potentially commercially sensitive data and
information related to the City’s load and electric supply resources. Typically the data is
accessed through the NCPA Data Portal, which is a secured web service, but may also be
obtained through reports created by NCPA using information derived from the Data Portal.
Because some of the data contained within the Data Portal is considered commercially sensitive
and could be used in a manner to gain an unfair market advantage, NCPA has been directed by
its governing board to require all entities requiring access to the Data Portal to execute the NDA
(Attachment B) effective July 1, 2013.
For the City, access to information on the Data Portal is essential to complete the functions of
settling NCPA monthly bills and developing strategies to manage electric supply commodity
costs and optimize the value of its supply resources. To maintain the City’s access to the Data
Portal and staff’s ability to effectively perform such functions execution of the NDA is required.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Discussion
On March 21, 2013, NCPA’s governing board, the NCPA Commission, adopted the NDA for use
by all of its members and agencies accessing information through the NCPA Data Portal through
NCPA Resolution No 13-42 (Attachment C). The NDA was developed through a collaborative
effort with its member organizations and respective legal counsels.
The NDA is a means for NCPA and its members to supplement their culture of compliance by:
(a) formally acknowledging the commercially sensitive nature of much of the data and
information NCPA creates and manages; (b) formally acknowledging the prohibition and
restrictions on sharing commercially sensitive data and information with third parties under
applicable law; and (c) mutually agreeing to treat commercially sensitive data and information
as “Confidential Information” to the extent permitted by federal and state laws.
As part of the NDA, the City is required to select and maintain one staff person to act in an
administrative role to coordinate communication between the City and NCPA relating to the
City’s access to the NCPA Data Portal and to administer and ensure adherence to the NDA.
Additionally, the NDA contains two exhibits needed to allow access to the NCPA Data Portal.
Exhibit A is required by City employees requiring direct access to the Data Portal. Exhibit B is to
be signed by employees of City contracted consultants receiving information deemed to be
confidential by NCPA.
Resource Impact
Approval of the resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute and administer the NCPA
NDA will not impact the City’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Electric Operating Budget. Execution and
administration of the NDA is expected to occur in FY 2014, and will be carried out with existing
resources within the proposed FY 2014 Electric Operating Budget.
Policy Implications
Acquiring data through the NCPA Data Portal supports the Council-approved 2011 Utilities
Strategic Plan objective to manage supply costs.
Environmental Impacts
This activity would not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the
physical environment and is therefore not a “project” for purposes of Section 21065 of the
California Environmental Quality Act. No environmental review is necessary.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution NCPA Non-Disclosure Agreement (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Attachment B: NCPA Non-disclosure Agreement (PDF)
Attachment C: NCPA Commission Resolution 13-42 (PDF)
*NOT YET APPROVED*
130417 dm 015 NCPA Reso 1
ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute and Administer the Non-Disclosure Agreement
Regarding the Use of Information Between the Northern California
Power Agency and the City of Palo Alto
R E C I T A L S
A. The Northern California Power Agency (“NCPA”) was formed in 1968 for
the purpose of utilizing the joint action of participating public power entities to pursue
common interests for the benefit of all such members; and subsequently revised on April 1,
1973 and January 1, 2008. The City of Palo Alto (“City”) is a member of NCPA as one of the
original signatories to the NCPA Joint Power Agency Agreement.
B. The City as a participant in the Calaveras Hydroelectric Generation
Project (“Calaveras”) and as a signatory to several NCPA agreements receives services from
NCPA including scheduling coordination, settlements and billing with the California
Independent System Operator (“CAISO”); the City’s wholesale electric suppliers; renewable
energy suppliers; and the Western Area Power Administration (“Western”).
C. In providing such services to the City, NCPA creates and manages data
and information that may be of a commercially sensitive nature as defined under various
Federal and California State laws and regulations. NCPA makes this data available to the City
via a secured web-service (“NCPA Data Portal”) or through other means such as reports
derived via data from the NCPA Data Portal. The City is entitled to access and use the data
and information directly attributable to its proportionate participation share of Calaveras, its
load and supply resources. The City has established individual user accounts to the NCPA Data
Portal to aid in billing settlements and the formulation of strategies to manage costs and value
of existing resources and load.
D. On March 21, 2013 NCPA’s governing board, (“NCPA Commission”)
approved “The NCPA Agreement Regarding The Use And Non-Disclosure Of Information For
NCPA Projects” (“NDA”) to contractually facilitate future access to the NCPA Data Portal and
commercially sensitive data and information by its members’ staff and consultants effective
July 1, 2013.
E. The NDA requires certain administrative functions including: i) managing
access to the NCPA Data Portal; ii) maintaining the confidentiality of certain information; iii)
establishing internal controls and processes; iv) ensuring proper training of City staff utilizing
the Data Portal; and v) proper execution of the NDA and exhibits.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
130417 dm 015 NCPA Reso
F. The information accessed via the NCPA Data Portal is vital to the
business operations and financial accounting practices of the City and losing access to the
NCPA Data Portal will limit the City’s ability to effectively manage its electric load, resources
and costs.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to
execute and fully carryout the administrative functions as required by the NDA.
SECTION 2. Costs associated with the execution and administration of the NDA are
considered negligible and will be included in the as part of the Utilities Department’s annual
Electric Operating Budget.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3
130417 dm 015 NCPA Reso
SECTION 3. The Council hereby finds that this ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility of significant environmental effects occurring as a result of the adoption
of this ordinance.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_____________________________ ______________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
______________________________
Director of Administrative Services
______________________________
Director of Utilities
1
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY
AGREEMENT REGARDING THE USE AND
NON-DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
FOR NCPA PROJECTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to NCPA project power sale agreements, associated operating
agreements, facility agreements, and other applicable service agreements (collectively referred
to as “NCPA Project”), the Receiving Party, as a participant in one or more NCPA Projects, is
entitled to receive certain Confidential Information from NCPA concerning the operation of
NCPA Projects in which it holds an entitlement share, expressed as either a generation
entitlement share or project participation percentage, to output from the NCPA Project; and
WHEREAS, NCPA intends to provide NCPA Project data, including Confidential
Information, to the Receiving Party primarily through its Data Portal; and
WHEREAS, some of the Confidential Information provided includes data relating to the
Receiving Party’s entitlement share or project participation percentage of the NCPA Project
including operations, bids and costs; and
WHEREAS, the parties recognize that NCPA Project data designated as Confidential
Information has the potential to be misused for unlawful market purposes; and
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to put procedures in place to prevent the use or
disclosure of the Confidential Information in a manner that might be construed to violate federal
or California law;
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants in this Agreement, NCPA and the
Receiving Party agree to contractual limits and protection concerning the disclosure and use of
the Confidential Information, as follows:
1. Purpose, Scope and Definition. The purpose of this Agreement is to permit the Receiving
Party to review and use the Confidential Information to which it is entitled pursuant to its generation entitlement share or project participation percentage in an NCPA Project, for any
lawful purpose, subject to the restrictions on disclosure to Third Parties and uses set forth herein. Confidential Information under this Agreement consists of commercially sensitive information,
which may include, but is not limited to, price, quantity, location or timing of electric industry
marketing decisions, provided by NCPA to the Receiving Party, whether through the Data Portal or otherwise, pertaining to the Receiving Party’s generation entitlement share or project
participation percentage in NCPA Projects. Except as otherwise provided in Paragraphs 4 and 5, Confidential Information includes:
(a) All written materials marked “Confidential” or “Proprietary” or “Sensitive” or other words of similar import provided by NCPA to the Receiving Party;
(b) All observations of equipment or data, including computer screens, and oral disclosures
that are indicated as “Confidential” or “Proprietary” or “Sensitive” or other words of
similar import at the time of the observation or the disclosure; and
2
(c) Notes, copies printouts or summaries of or regarding the Confidential Information
prepared by the Receiving Party or its employees, agents, consultants, attorneys or
members.
2. Non-Disclosure. Subject to Paragraph 4 below, the Receiving Party shall keep the
Confidential Information in strict confidence and shall not disclose such information or
otherwise make it available, in any form or manner, to any other person or entity (a “Third
Party”) other than its employees, agents, consultants, attorneys, or members who are reasonably
necessary to assist the Receiving Party with decisions regarding its interest in the NCPA
Project. Employees, agents, consultants, attorneys and members shall be classified as follows:
(a) Designated Reviewers are persons authorized by the Receiving Party Administrator to
access the Data Portal. The Receiving Party shall cause any such Designated Reviewer
who is an employee of the Receiving Party to execute Exhibit A to the Receiving Party’s
Agreement prior to such employee receiving or viewing Confidential Information
through the Data Portal. The Receiving Party shall cause any such Designated Reviewer
who is a consultant of the Receiving Party to execute Exhibit B to the Receiving Party’s
Agreement prior to such consultant receiving or viewing Confidential Information
through the Data Portal.
(b) Designated Recipients are persons who are not authorized to access the Data Portal, but
who are authorized to view Confidential Information from the Data Portal as part of
their work in assisting the Receiving Party with decisions regarding its interest in the
NCPA Project. The Receiving Party shall cause any such Designated Recipient who is
an employee of the Receiving Party to review this Agreement and shall take such
measures as it deems prudent to ensure that the Designated Recipient understands both
the Receiving Party’s and his or her responsibilities with regard thereto. The Receiving
Party shall cause any such Designated Recipient who is a consultant to execute Exhibit
B to this Agreement prior to such consultant receiving or viewing Confidential
Information.
(c) Decision Makers are persons who are members of the governing board, including, but
not limited to, city council, governing board, and utility commissions, of the Receiving
Party, executives of the Receiving Party or attorneys for the Receiving Party who are
not authorized to access the Data Portal but who may review reports and
recommendations summarizing aggregated data that may be based on Confidential
Information, in the course of making or approving decisions related to the Receiving
Party’s decisions about its NCPA Project interests. The Receiving Party shall take such
measures as it deems prudent to ensure that Decision Makers understand the Receiving
Party’s and their responsibilities with regard thereto.
(d) A copy of each executed Exhibit A or B shall be provided to NCPA.
It is the ongoing responsibility of the Receiving Party to ensure that: (i) each Exhibit A
and Exhibit B is accurate; (ii) each Exhibit A and Exhibit B permits access only to a current
Designated Reviewer or Designated Recipient of the Receiving Party; (iii) each Designated
Recipient or Designated Reviewer receiving the Confidential Information understands the
scope of permissible use; and (iv) each new Exhibit A and Exhibit B, and any notice of
cancellation of an Exhibit A or Exhibit B, is immediately submitted to NCPA. The Receiving
Party shall immediately report to NCPA any unauthorized access to NCPA’s Data Portal or
3
other breach of this Agreement.
3. Use of Confidential Information.
(a) It is understood and agreed by the Receiving Party that both parties have obligations under
federal and California law to safeguard the Confidential Information against use or
disclosure for purposes inconsistent with federal or California antitrust laws or for
purposes of market manipulation.
(b) The Receiving Party may use the Confidential Information received hereunder for any
lawful purpose, provided that it does not disclose the Confidential Information to
Third Parties other than Designated Reviewers, Designated Recipients, or Decision
Makers as provided in Paragraph 2, and receives similar commitments as provided in
Paragraph 2.
(c) Receiving Party shall take all prudent measures to ensure that its Designated Reviewers,
Designated Recipients and Decision Makers use the Confidential Information in
compliance with this Agreement and with all laws and regulations, and safeguard its
confidentiality.
4. Exceptions to Non-Disclosure. Notwithstanding Paragraph 2 above, a party to this
Agreement shall not have breached any obligation under this Agreement if the Confidential
Information is disclosed to a Third Party when the Confidential Information:
(a) was in the public domain at the time of such disclosure or is subsequently made available
to the public consistent with the terms of this Agreement; or
(b) had been received by the Receiving Party prior to the time of disclosure through other
means without restriction on its use, or had been independently developed by the
Receiving Party without use of Confidential Information, as demonstrated through
documentation; or
(c) is subsequently disclosed to the Receiving Party by a Third Party without restriction on
use imposed by the Third Party and without breach of any law, agreement or legal duty
to the Third Party; or
(d) subject to the provisions of Paragraph 5, is used or disclosed pursuant to statutory duty or
an order, subpoena or other lawful process issued by a court or other governmental
authority of competent jurisdiction.
5. Notice of Pending Third Party Disclosure.
(a) In the event that a court or other governmental authority of competent jurisdiction issues
an order, subpoena or other lawful process requiring the disclosure of the Confidential
Information, the Receiving Party shall notify NCPA immediately upon receipt thereof to
allow NCPA to be involved in such proceeding for the purpose of safeguarding the
Confidential Information.
(b) In the event that the Receiving Party is a federal, state, or local governmental entity
4
and/or is subject to public records law or regulation, including but not limited to the
federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), U.S. Code Title 5, Section 552, as
amended, or the California Public Records Act, California Governmental Code Sections
6250, et seq., the Receiving Party shall: (i) notify NCPA immediately upon receipt of a
request for public records that include all or part of the Confidential Information; and
(ii) subject to sub-paragraph (c), treat the requested Confidential Information as exempt
from disclosure.
(c) The Receiving Party shall not be in violation of this Agreement if it complies with an
order of a court or governmental authority, or a public records law or regulation,
requiring disclosure of the Confidential Information, after: (i) NCPA has unsuccessfully
sought to maintain the confidentiality of such information as provided herein; (ii) NCPA
has notified the Receiving Party in writing that it will take no action to maintain such
confidentiality; or (iii) counsel for the Receiving Party has determined that disclosure is
required under a public records law or regulation, the counsel for the Receiving Party has
provided NCPA with three (3) business days written notice of such determination, and
NCPA has not responded or sought an order restraining disclosure within such time
period.
6. Term.
(a) This Agreement shall remain in effect unless and until NCPA provides ten (10) days prior
written notice to the Receiving Party of its termination. Termination shall not extinguish
any claim, liability or cause of action under this Agreement existing at the time of
termination.
(b) Provisions Surviving Termination. The provisions of Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall
survive the termination of this Agreement for a period of five (5) years.
(c) Destruction of Documents. Nothing in this Agreement
shall prevent the Receiving Party from otherwise
lawful destruction of documents or files containing
Confidential Information in the ordinary course of
business, provided that the method of destruction
safeguards the Confidential Information.
7. Notices.
(a) Administrator(s) for Data Portal Access. Receiving Party shall designate one (1) person
to act as Administrator on its behalf, and shall provide the name, street address,
telephone number, facsimile number and email address of such Administrator to
NCPA’s Representative designated under sub-paragraph (b) prior to Receiving Party
being granted access to the Data Portal. Either party may change the identity of its
Administrator or the address for notice to its Administrator by providing notice to the
other.
The Receiving Party’s Administrator shall administer access to the Data Portal on behalf
of Receiving Party’s employees, agents, consultants, attorneys or members, including
but not limited to making requests for new user accounts, maintenance and
5
administration of existing user accounts, and administration of digital security
certificates. NCPA’s Administrator shall administer on behalf of NCPA all such
requests by Receiving Party’s Administrator.
All communications, pursuant to this sub-paragraph, from Receiving Party’s
Administrator to NCPA’s Administrator shall be in writing, via email, to the following
address: dataportaladmin@ncpa.com.
(b) Representatives and Addresses. All notices, requests, demands, and other
communications required or permitted under this Agreement other than those between
Administrators shall be in writing and shall be either: (i) delivered in person; (ii) sent by
U.S. certified mail, postage prepaid; or (iii) sent by overnight delivery; addressed as
follows:
Receiving Party:
Entity Name: ____________________________
Name of Contact (person or position):
____________________________
Address: ____________________________
Telephone: ____________________________
Facsimile: ____________________________
Email: ____________________________
NCPA:
Dave Dockham
NCPA Assistant General Manager
651 Commerce Drive
Roseville, CA 95678-6411
Phone: 916.781.3636
Fax: 916.783.7693
and
Michael Dean
NCPA General Counsel
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.556.1531
Fax: 916.556.1516
6
Changed Representatives and Addresses. A party hereto may from time to time change
its representative or address for the purpose of notices to that party by notice specifying a
new representative or address.
(c) Effective Date of Notices. All notices and other communications required or permitted
under this Agreement that are addressed as provided in this Paragraph 7 shall be
effective upon delivery.
8. Complete Agreement; No Other Rights.
(a) This Agreement contains the complete and exclusive agreement of the parties with
respect to the subject matter thereof, and supersedes all discussions, negotiations,
representations, warranties, commitments, offers, contracts, and writings prior to the date
of this Agreement, with respect to its subject matter. No change to this Agreement shall
be effective unless agreed to in writing by the parties hereto. Any conflict between the
language of this Agreement and any mark, stamp, annotation or other language
identifying something received hereunder as Confidential Information shall be resolved
in favor of this Agreement.
(b) This Agreement is not intended to create any right in or obligation of any party or Third
Party other than those expressly stated herein.
9. No Warranties or Representations. Any Confidential Information disclosed by NCPA
under this Agreement carries no warranty or representation of any kind, either express or implied.
The Receiving Party shall not be entitled to rely on the accuracy, completeness or quality of the
Confidential Information, even for the purpose stated in Paragraph 1.
10. Injunctive Relief. The Receiving Party agrees that, in addition to whatever other
remedies may be available to NCPA under applicable law, NCPA shall be entitled to obtain
injunctive relief with respect to any actual or threatened violation of this Agreement by the
Receiving Party, its Designated Recipients or any Third Party to whom Receiving Party
disclosed Confidential Information. The Receiving Party agrees that it shall bear all costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, that may be incurred by NCPA in enforcing the
provisions of this paragraph, only if NCPA prevails in the litigation.
11. Governing Law. This Agreement is made in the State of California and shall be governed
by and interpreted in accordance with its laws.
12. Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their successors, and
assigns. The Receiving Party shall not assign this Agreement without NCPA’s prior written
consent.
13. Construction of Agreement. Ambiguities or uncertainties in the wording of this
Agreement shall not be construed for or against any party, but shall be construed in the manner
that most accurately reflects the parties’ intent as of the date they executed this Agreement.
7
14. Signature Authority. Each person signing below warrants that he or she has been duly
authorized by the party for whom he or she signs to execute this Agreement on behalf of that
party.
15. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, all of
which shall be considered one and the same Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized
representatives as of the date set forth above.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY
By: ____________________________
Name: Jim Pope
Title: General Manager Date:
RECEIVING PARTY:
____________________________
By: ____________________________
Name:
Title: Date:
EXHIBIT A
INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY NON-DISCLOSURE AND
USE OF INFORMATION AGREEMENT FOR NCPA PROJECTS
The undersigned, (print or type name), employed as -
_________________ (title) by , hereby acknowledges that
he or she in his/her official capacity has received a copy of the NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY AGREEMENT REGARDING THE USE AND NON-
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION FOR NCPA PROJECTS in which the Receiving Party,
____________, has an entitlement interest, dated between the Northern
California Power Agency and the Receiving Party designated therein ("Agreement"). The
undersigned hereby acknowledges that the undersigned has read the Agreement and
understands the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of Confidential Information
(as defined in the Agreement), the provisions of the Agreement relating to such
confidentiality, and the limitations on the use of Confidential Information. In consideration
thereof, the undersigned agrees to be bound by all of the provisions of the Agreement.
Dated:
Signed:
Print Name:
Telephone:
Email:
1
EXHIBIT B
CONSULTANT STATEMENT FOR
NON-DISCLOSURE AND USE OF INFORMATION AGREEMENT FOR NCPA
PROJECTS
Name of Consulting Entity:
Type of business and state in which business organization is formed (e.g. a California
corporation):
Located At (address of
Consulting Entity):
Has been engaged to provide technical support and analysis to the following entity:
__________________________________________________________________
Consulting Entity hereby acknowledges that it has received a copy of the
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY AGREEMENT REGARDING THE USE
AND NON-DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION FOR NCPA PROJECTS in which the
Receiving Party, ________________________, has an entitlement interest, dated
between the Northern California Power Agency and the Receiving
Party designated therein ("Agreement"). Consulting Entity hereby acknowledges and agrees
that in order to access Confidential Information (as defined in the Agreement), Consulting
Entity must comply with the provisions of the Agreement, and it agrees to do so.
Consulting Entity acknowledges and agrees that its review of Confidential
Information is solely for the purpose of providing consultancy services to the Receiving
Party and that its use of Confidential Information shall be limited to the same. To the extent
that Consulting Entity provides technical support and analysis to parties who are not party
to this Agreement, Consulting Entity agrees that disclosure of Confidential Information to
such parties is prohibited by the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
2
The undersigned agrees that he or she is authorized by the Consulting Entity to
execute this Consultant Statement to the Agreement.
Dated:
Consulting Entity:
By: (signature)
Print Name:
Telephone:
Email:
2025232.1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3590)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Resolution Vacating Public Service Easements at former PA
Bowl Site
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Summarily Vacating Several Public Easements
Which Have Been Relocated at 4329 El Camino Real
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Resolution Summarily Vacating Public
Utilities Easements (PUE) at 4329 El Camino Real, Palo Alto.
DISCUSSION
The owners of the property at 4329 El Camino Road have requested that the City vacate PUE
which is no longer necessary due to the relocation of utilities in connection with the revisions of
the development plan filed on December 28, 2011 at this location. Owner will be granting the
City new easements for the placement of those utilities. Therefore, this PUE is no longer
necessary for any future public purpose. Staff has notified AT&T (formerly SBC
Communications), the City Utilities, Public Works and Planning Departments of the proposal to
vacate the PUE and all concur with the vacation. Therefore, the PUE to be vacated is not
necessary for any present or future use and it may be summarily vacated in accordance with
Section 8333 of the California Streets and Highways Code.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The easement vacation processing fee of $1,811.00, as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule,
has been paid by property owner.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The recommendation does not represent any change to City policies. The Planning Department
has determined that the vacation of the PUE is in conformity with the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed summary vacation of the PUE is categorically exempt from the review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations
Section 15305 as a minor alteration in land use limitations.
Attachments:
Attachment "A" Easement Vacation Resolution May 2013 (DOC)
Exhibit A Legal Description PUE Abandonment (PDF)
1
Recorded at no charge in
accordance with Streets &
Highways Code Section 8325
at the request of and
when recorded return to:
CITY OF PALO ALTO/REAL ESTATE
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
________________________________________________________________
SPACE ABOVE LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
ATTACHMENT “A”
A.P. No.: Various
Project No.: CEV 01/13
Project: Vacation of Easements
Former Palo Alto Bowl
Site at 4301 El
Camino Real
S U M M A R Y V A C A T I O N
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO SUMMARILY VACATING PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS
WHEREAS, Chapter 4 of the Public Streets, Highways and
Service Easements Vacation Law, commencing with Streets and
Highways Code section 8330, provides for summary vacation of
streets and public service easements; and
WHEREAS, the easements were accepted by the City of Palo
Alto and recorded in the Office of the Santa Clara County
Recorder on the map entitled Tract No. 10083, filed for record
on December 28, 2011, in Book 849 of maps, at pages 39 through
53, and;
WHEREAS, Section 8333 of the Streets and Highways Code
authorizes the City Council to summarily vacate public service
utilities easements which are no longer necessary when the
easements have been superseded by relocation and no other public
facilities are located within the easements; and
WHEREAS, the City council intends to summarily vacate
the Public Service Easements for Utilities as more particularly
described herein in Exhibit “A” attached to this resolution and
2
depicted on the plat map attached as Exhibit “B” to this
resolution; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. This vacation is made under the authority of
California Streets and Highways Code Chapter 4 of part 3 of
Division 9, commencing at Section 8330 et. seq.
1. The Public Service Easements described herein on Exhibit
“A” and depicted on the plat map attached as Exhibit “B”
have been superseded by relocation; and
2. No public facilities are located within the said Public
Service Easements; and
3. The public convenience and necessity do not require
reservation of any portion of these easements; and
4. The Council has considered the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
and ratifies the determination of the planning department
that the vacation of the pipeline public service easement
is in conformity with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 2. Based upon the findings made in Section 1 of
this Resolution and the provisions of Section 8333 of the
Streets and Highways Code, the City Council does hereby order
that the public service easements as shown on the attached map
shall be and hereby are summarily vacated.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk, acting by and through the
Real Property Manager, is hereby directed to record at Santa
Clara County Records a certified copy of this Resolution,
including the Map.
SECTION 4. The public service easements for utilities
described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in the plat map attached
as Exhibit “B” will no longer constitute public service
easements from and after the date of recordation of the
documents identified in Section 3 of this Resolution.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the summary vacation
of the public service easements is exempt from review under the
California Environmental Act pursuant to Title 14 California
Code of Regulations section 15305 as a minor alteration in land
use limitations.
3
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ______________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
______________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3722)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Resolution to Amend Utilities Rule and Regulation 3, 5, 18,
and 20
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utility Rule and Regulation 3
(Description of Utility Services), 5 (Service Contracts), 18 (Utility Service
Connections and Facilities on Customers' Premises), and 20 (Special Electric
Utility Regulations)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution amending Utilities Rule and Regulation 3, 5,
18, and 20, as attached.
Executive Summary
Utilities Rules and Regulations are updated based on required modifications to City of Palo Alto
Utilities (CPAU) business operations. The recommended amendments add practices and
procedures for the definition, installation, location, and payment of utility “Special Facilities”
services (facilities contracted in addition to, or in substitution for, the standard facilities
normally provided).
Background
Rule and Regulation 3 (Description of Utility Services) establishes the basis for providing utility
service, including a listing of available services, location of Points of Service, delivery capacity,
and load limitations, for the electric, fiber, water, gas, and wastewater utilities.
Rule and Regulation 5 (Service Contracts) lists the types of utility services requiring a contract
with the customer.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Rule and Regulation 18 (Utility Service Connections and Facilities on Customers’ Premises)
outlines utility service and facility connections, installations, and ownership responsibilities.
Rule and Regulation 20 (Special Electric Utility Regulations) describes requirements for service
connections; utility facilities; utility and customer equipment; service configuration; system
restrictions, operations and protection; special services; and Special Facilities.
Discussion
Rule and Regulation 3 (Description of Utility Services).
The proposed changes to Rule and Regulation 3 include grammatical and typographic
corrections, add language for alternative locations of utility equipment, create an additional
category under “Special Facilities,” clarifies Applicant costs, and removes three-phase
residential service from “Special Facilities.”
Rule and Regulation 5 (Service Contracts).
The proposed changes to Rule and Regulation 5 include grammatical and typographic
corrections, add categories of utility services which may require a customer contract such as
utility equipment in limited access locations, power quality, and power factor improvements,
add Reserve Electric Capacity, and clarifies the contract Application language and procedures.
Rule and Regulation 18 (Utility Service Connections and Facilities on Customers’ Premises).
The proposed change to Rule and Regulation 18 replaces “Utility Load Sheets” with “Utility
Service Application.”
Rule and Regulation 20 (Special Electric Utility Regulations).
The proposed change to Rule and Regulation 20 adds language to Section J, “Special Facilities,”
that permits either up-front or fixed-term payments in customer contracts (“These costs will be
calculated by CPAU based on the net present value, and shall be paid by the Applicant in
advance of installation unless alternative payment arrangements are approved by the Director
of Utilities”).
Resource Impact
Approval of changes to Utilities Rule and Regulation 3, 5, 18 and 20 will not result in a
significant change in operating revenues or expenses.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent a change to current City policies.
Environmental Review
These changes in Utility Rules and Regulations and Utility Rate Schedules are not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code
Section 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15273(a)(1)
and (3).
Attachments:
Attachment A - RESO Amendment to Rules and Regs 3, 5, 18, 20 (PDF)
Attachment B - Amended Rule 03 effective May 13 2013 (PDF)
Attachment C - Amended Rule 05 effective May 13 2013 (PDF)
Attachment D - Amended Rule 18 effective May 13 2013 (PDF)
Attachment E - Amended Rule 20 effective May 13 2013 (PDF)
*NOT YET APPROVED*
130423 dm 015010
1
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Amendments to
Utilities Rule and Regulation 3 (Description of Utility Services), Utilities Rule
and Regulation 5 (Service Contracts), Utilities Rule and Regulation 18 (Utility
Service Connections and Facilities on Customers’ Premises), and Utilities
Rule and Regulation 20 (Special Electric Utility Regulations)
The City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utilities
Rule and Regulation 3 (Description of Utility Services) is hereby amended as attached and
incorporated. Utility Rule and Regulation 3, as amended, shall become effective May 13, 2013.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utilities
Rule and Regulation 5 (Service Contracts) is hereby amended as attached and incorporated.
Utility Rule and Regulation 5, as amended, shall become effective May 13, 2013.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utilities
Rule and Regulation 18 (Utility Service Connections and Facilities on Customers’ Premises) is
hereby amended as attached and incorporated. Utility Rule and Regulation 18, as amended,
shall become effective May 13, 2013.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utilities
Rule and Regulation 20 (Special Electric Utility Regulations) is hereby amended as attached and
incorporated. Utility Rule and Regulation 20, as amended, shall become effective May 13,
2013.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
130423 dm 015010
SECTION 5. The Council hereby finds that this ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility of significant environmental effects occurring as a result of the adoption
of this ordinance.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_____________________________ ______________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
______________________________
Director of Administrative Services
______________________________
Director of Utilities
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 1
A. GENERAL
Rule and Regulation 3 describes Services that are offered within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Palo Alto. For Rules specific to each type of Service, please refer to the following Rules and
Regulations:
Rule and Regulation 20 – Special Electric Utility Regulations
Rule and Regulation 21 – Special Water Utility Regulations
Rule and Regulation 22 – Special Gas Utility Regulations
Rule and Regulation 23 – Special Wastewater Utility Regulations
Rule and Regulation 24 – Special Refuse and Recycling Utility Regulations
Rule and Regulation 25 – Special Storm and Surface Water Drainage Utility Regulations
Rule and Regulation 26 – Special Fiber Optics Utility Regulations
B. ELECTRIC SERVICE
1. BASIS OF SERVICE
a. Unless otherwise provided in a Rate Schedule or contract, CPAU’s Electric rates are
based upon the furnishing of Electric Service to Customer Premises at a single Point
of Delivery at a single voltage and phase classification. Unless specified otherwise,
each Point of Delivery shall be metered and billed separately under the appropriate
Rate Schedule. Any additional Service supplied to the same Customer at other
Points of Delivery or at a different voltage or phase classification shall be separately
metered and billed.
b. The type of distribution Service (voltage, Secondary, Primary) available at any
particular location may be determined by inquiry to a CPAU Engineering
representative.
c. If the Customer, for his or her convenience, requests Secondary or Primary Services
at an alternate Point of Delivery other than the normal Point of Delivery as
determined by CPAU, the Customer is responsible for all cost of providing
Secondary or Primary Services at such alternate location.
d. CPAU assumes no duty or liability for inspecting, validating or approving the safe
operating condition of the Customer’s Service, appliances, or equipment downstream
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 2
of the Utility Meter.
e. See Rule and Regulation 20. "Special Electric Utility Regulations" regarding special
Service requirements.
2. LOCATION OF POINT OF SERVICE
a. SECONDARY SERVICE
1. OVERHEAD SERVICE AT SECONDARY VOLTAGES
The Point of Service for Overhead Service at secondary voltages will normally be
located at a power pole on the perimeter of the parcel to be served, which is, in
CPAU’s judgment, most conveniently located and in compliance with CPAU
standards and specifications and applicable building and electrical codes.
2. UNDERGROUND SERVICE AT SECONDARY VOLTAGE
The Point of Service for Underground Service at secondary voltages will normally be
located at the Secondary connectors of the transformer serving the Customer’s Load,
or in the Secondary hand hole, if available.
b. PRIMARY SERVICE
The Point of Service for Primary Service will normally be at the point near the
property line of the premises to be served which is, in CPAU’s judgment, most
conveniently located with respect to CPAU’s transmission or distribution facilities.
c. EXCEPTIONS
If several buildings are occupied and used by one Customer in a single business or
other activity, CPAU may, at its discretion, furnish Service for the entire group of
buildings through one Service connection at one Point of Service.
3. EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 3
All new equipment in underground areas required to provide electric service to a Customer
shall be pad-mounted..
In addition, any three-Phase electric service connection and any electric service connection
rated at 400 Amps or greater which is located either in an underground or overhead area
must be served from a pad-mounted transformer.
The Utilities Director, or his/her designee, may authorize: 1) an exception to the above
provisions when, in his/her opinion, a pad-mounted equipment installation in any particular
instance would not be feasible or practical or 2) installation of electric service equipment in
locations with limited access by utility installation equipment. Such pad-mounted equipment
installations may will be considered “Special Facilities” as defined in Rule and Regulation
20, and the Applicant will be responsible for the costs described such in that rule and
outlined in the Service Contract as described in Rule and Regulation 5.
If the Applicant wants a Point of Delivery other than at the location determined by the
CPAU, the CPAU will work with the Applicant to assist in the selection of the alternate
Point of Delivery location for the electric service equipment within the boundaries of the
Applicant’s property. When the Applicant chooses a Point of Delivery location other than
the location which has been determined by the CPAU, the Applicant must acknowledge that
such an alternate Point of Delivery location will cause CPAU personnel to incur delays when
performing repairs or service restoration during emergencies. In addition to being
responsible to pay for the initial cost of installation of such electric service equipment in an
alternate location, the Applicant shall also be responsible to pay for any future additional
labor, equipment, and materials costs incurred by the CPAU related to providing any special
equipment necessary to facilitate replacement, removeremoval, or relocate relocation of any
electric service equipment which has been installed in an alternate Point of Delivery location
at the Applicant’s request.
Any installation intended to assist in “screening” of electric service equipment by
landscaping or structures must be constructed in a manner which meets all of the CPAU’s
clearance standards. The plans for such screening must be approved by the City of Palo Alto
and CPAU prior to beginning work on the screening installation.
When requested by CPAU, theThe Applicant shall provide a Public Utility Easement in
recordable form for installation of such facilities within the boundaries of the property. All
pad-mounted equipment will be subject to CPAU’s aesthetic guidelines.
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 4
4. EMERGENCY AND STANDBY SERVICES
CPAU may provide back up Emergency, and other Standby Service to Customers as Special
Facilities. . See Rule and Regulation 20 "Special Electric Utility Regulations" regarding
special Service requirements.
5. SERVICE DELIVERY VOLTAGE
The following are the standard Service voltages normally available. Not all standard
Service voltages are available at each Point of Delivery. These Service voltages are
available in locations that already have this Service voltage and have sufficient capacity, as
determined by CPAU, to serve the new Load. Any equipment installed on 120/240, 3 wire or
240/120, 4-wire Services shall have the capability of converting to a 120/208, 3 wire or 208
Y/120, 4-Wire Service.
a. DISTRIBUTION OF VOLTAGE
Alternating-current Service will be regularly supplied at a nominal frequency of
approximately 60-Hertz (cycles per second).
Single-Phase Three-Phase Three-Phase
Secondary Secondary Primary
120/240, 3 -wire 240/120, 4-wire* 12,470, 3-wire
120/208, 3-wire 240, 3-wire*
208 Y/120, 4-wire
480 Y/277, 4-wire
*Only available in special conditions as determined by the Electric Engineering
Manager.
b. All voltages referred to in this Rule and appearing in some Rate Schedules are
nominal Service voltages at the Point of Delivery. CPAU’s facilities are designed
and operated to provide sustained Service voltage at the Point of Delivery, but the
voltage at a particular Point of Delivery will vary within satisfactory operating range
limits.
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 5
c. In areas where a certain standard Secondary voltage is being delivered to one or
more Customers, CPAU may require an Applicant for new Service in such areas to
receive the same standard voltage supplied to existing Customers.
d. CPAU may change the voltage at which Service is delivered, including converting
existing 4160 volt Primary Service to 12,470 volt Service. If CPAU notifies the
Customer that a Service voltage change is necessary, the Customer will be required
to provide Service equipment capable of accepting the new voltage and meeting
other CPAU requirements. . Costs to provide suitable Customer’s Service entrance
equipment and any other associated equipment to receive Service at the new voltage
shall be borne by the Customer.
6. VOLTAGE AND FREQUENCY CONTROL
a. Under normal Load conditions, CPAU’s distribution circuits will be operated so as to
maintain Service voltage levels to Customers within plus or minus 5 percent of the
nominal Service voltage at the Point of Delivery. Subject to the limitations above,
CPAU will maintain the voltage balance between phases as close as practicable to
2.5% maximum deviation from the average voltage between the three phases.
b. Voltages may be outside the limits specified above when the variations:
1. arise from Service interruptions;
2. arise from temporary separation of parts of the system from the main system;
3. are minor momentary fluctuations and transient voltage excursions of short
duration which may occur in the normal operation of CPAU system;
4. are beyond CPAU’s control.
c. Due to conditions beyond the control of CPAU, the Customer, or both, there will be
infrequent and limited periods when voltages will occur outside of the nominal
Service voltage ranges. Utilization equipment may not operate satisfactorily under
these conditions, and protective devices in the equipment may operate to protect the
equipment.
d. Where the operation of the Customer’s equipment requires stable voltage regulation
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 6
or other stringent voltage control beyond that supplied by CPAU in the normal
operation of its system, the Customer, at its own expense, is responsible for
installing, owning, operating, and maintaining any special or auxiliary equipment on
the Load side of the Service delivery point as deemed necessary by the Customer.
e. The Customer shall be responsible for designing and operating its Service facilities
between the Point of Delivery and the utilization equipment to maintain proper
utilization voltage at the line terminals of the utilization equipment.
f. The Customer shall not impose a Load on CPAU’s system that will cause the voltage
limits in this section to be exceeded for an adjacent Service delivery point.
g. When there is reasonable indication of a problem, CPAU shall test for excessive
fluctuations at its own expense. Voltage checks requested by the Customer more
than once in any twelve month period shall be paid by the Customer, unless CPAU
determines that excessive voltage fluctuation exists.
h. CPAU may institute measures to prevent the continuous operation of equipment
detrimental to Service to other Customers or may discontinue Electric Service to the
offending Customer. (See Rule and Regulation 20, Special Electric Utility
Regulations).
i. Customers are responsible for protecting their connected Loads, audio, video, and
electronic equipment, including computers, from sudden voltage or frequency
fluctuations outside nominal Service and frequency ranges. Such protection may
include, but is not limited to, surge protectors.
7. GENERAL LOAD LIMITATIONS
a. SINGLE-PHASE SERVICE
1. Single-phase Service normally will be 3-wire, 120/240 volts (or 3-wire,
120/208 volts at certain locations as now or hereafter established by CPAU)
where the size of any single motor does not exceed 7-1/2 horsepower (10
horsepower at the option of CPAU). For any single-phase Service, the
maximum Service size shall be 400 ampere. If the Load exceeds the
capability of a 400 ampere single phase Service the Service shall be three-
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 7
phase.
2. In locations where CPAU maintains a 120/208 volt secondary system, 3-wire
single-phase Service normally shall be limited to that which can be supplied
by a main switch or Service entrance rating of 200 amperes. Single-phase
Loads in these locations in excess of that which can be supplied by a 200
ampere main switch or Service entrance rating normally will be supplied with
a 208Y/120 volt, three-phase, 4-wire Service. b. THREE-PHASE SERVICE (480 VOLTS OR LESS) Minimum Load Maximum Demand Normal Voltage Requirements Load Permitted
240/120 5 hp, 3-phase connected 400 Amperes
240 5 hp, 3-phase connected 400 Amperes
208Y/120 Demand Load 75 kVA 500 kVA 480Y/277 Demand Load 112 kVA 2,500 kVA (See Note 1)
Note 1. Applicants or existing Customers with a planned or existing single or
multiple building development having a maximum Demand in excess of 2500 kVA,
as determined by CPAU, will be required to take delivery at the available primary
voltage and are required to provide their own primary switchgear and transformer(s).
Determination of maximum Demand and Service voltage will be made by CPAU and
the decision of the Electric Engineering Manager will be final.
1. Where three-phase Service is supplied, CPAU reserves the right to use
single-phase transformers, connected open-delta or closed-delta, or three-
phase transformers.
2. Three-phase Service will be supplied on request for installations aggregating
less than the minimum listed above, but not less than 3 horsepower (hp),
three-phase Service, where existing transformer capacity is available. If
three-phase Service is not readily available, or for Service to Loads less than
3 hp, Service shall be provided in accordance with CPAU’s applicable Rule
20 on Special Power Service requirements.
3. Residential customers requesting three-phase service shall be responsible for
all labor and material costs required to provide service, including the cost of
the transformer. These installations are not considered “Special Facilities” as
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 8
described in Rule and Regulation 20.
34. An Applicant or existing Customer requiring Service with a maximum
Demand in excess of 1000 kVA, as determined by CPAU, shall be served by
a padmount transformer. No submersible or vault-installed transformers in
excess of 1000 kVA will be installed by CPAU. Where an existing
underground Service must be upgraded beyond 1000 kVA, the Customer
shall be required to provide adequate space for installation of the padmount
transformer. In the event the Customer is unable to provide adequate space
for the padmount transformer, then the Customer shall make arrangements at
his or her expense to receive Service at primary voltage.
c. THREE-PHASE SERVICE (OVER 2,000 VOLTS)
The following three-phase primary voltage may be available as an isolated Service
for a single Applicant; and where that Applicant’s Demand Load justifies such
voltage. The determination will be made by CPAU.
Minimum Demand Maximum Demand
Normal Voltage Bank Installed Load Permitted
4,160 500 kVA 3,600 kVA
12,470 1,000 kVA 11,000 kVA
Note: 4,160 volt Services will not be furnished for new Services.
8. TEMPORARY SERVICE
Temporary Service is Electric Service which, in CPAU’s opinion, is of an indefinite duration
at the same location, or for operations of a speculative character or of questionable
permanency, or any other Service which is estimated to last less than one year. CPAU will
furnish Temporary Service if the furnishing of such Service will not create undue hardship
for CPAU, or its Customers, and the following conditions are met:
a. The Applicant for such Temporary Service shall apply for Service on an Application
form provided by CPAU Engineering and shall pay to CPAU in advance the cost of
installing and removing any facilities necessary in connection with the furnishing of
such Service by CPAU.
b. Each Applicant for Temporary Service shall prepay a Temporary Service Fee in
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 9
accordance with Electric Service Connection Fees Rate Schedule E-15.
c. Nothing in this Rule and Regulation shall be construed as limiting or in any way
affecting the right of CPAU to collect from the Customer an additional sum of
money by reason of the Temporary Service furnished or to be furnished or removed
hereunder.
d. If the Temporary Service connection time exceeds one-year, the Applicant shall
apply for an extension of the Temporary Service. The Director of Utilities or his/her
designee will determine if the Service should be reclassified as a permanent Service.
9. SERVICE DOWNSTREAM OF METER
CPAU assumes no duty or liability for inspecting, validating or approving the safe operating
condition of the Customer’s Service, appliances, or equipment downstream of the Utility
Meter.
C. FIBER OPTIC SERVICE
Fiber Optic Service includes the custom construction and licensing of single mode Fiber routes
between points within the City of Palo Alto. It is the Customer’s responsibility to establish all
electronic devices and networks required to pass data over their licensed CPAU Dark Fiber routes.
1. LICENSING SERVICES
All Dark Fiber routes are licensed in accordance with the currently approved Dark Fiber
Rate Schedules, and in compliance with the Utilities Rules and Regulations. See Rule and
Regulation 26, “Special Fiber Optic Utility Regulation,” regarding special Service
requirements. All CPAU fibers terminate within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of
Palo Alto.
2. OTHER SERVICES
CPAU offers custom Dark Fiber construction and ancillary Services such as Fiber Optic
cable splicing, engineering feasibility studies, and when specifically requested by the
Customer, multimode Fiber cable installations.
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 10
3. QUALITY
Dark Fiber routes in the City of Palo Alto comprised of single mode Fiber comply with
generally accepted industrial standards and specifications. All construction is done using
industry accepted techniques and procedures. All constructed routes are Performance
Tested to assure the industry quality standards are met.
D. WATER SERVICE
1. SOURCE OF SUPPLY
CPAU’s primary source of Water is the Hetch Hetchy aqueduct system, managed by the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). CPAU wells also provide Emergency
supply. See Rule and Regulation 21, “Special Water Utility Regulation” regarding special
Service requirements.
2. QUALITY
Hardness generally varies between 1 and 4 grains per gallon depending on the source. An
analysis of the mineral content of the Water is available upon request from CPAU
Engineering.
3. PRESSURE
Water pressure varies from 30 to 125 pounds per square inch. CPAU maintains an average of
50 pounds per square inch, with the maximum and minimum pressures being experienced at
the lower and higher elevations of the Distribution System. CPAU assumes no responsibility
for loss or damage due to lack of Water pressure but agrees to furnish such pressures as are
available in its general Distribution System. If low Water pressure occurs due to additional
on-site development, it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to replace the
existing Water Service with a new Water Service designed for the current site. All costs of
the required new Service upgrade shall be borne by the property owner.
4. TREATMENT
CPAU currently does not treat Water supplied by the SFPUC. The pH of the Water supplied
is adjusted by the SFPUC to reduce its corrosive action.
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 11
5. SERVICE DOWNSTREAM OF METER
CPAU assumes no duty or liability for inspecting, validating or approving the safe operating
condition of the Customer’s Service, appliances, or equipment downstream of the Utility
Meter.
E. GAS
1. TYPES OF SERVICES
CPAU offers two general types of Gas Service: Full Service and Gas Direct Access Service.
Full Service includes Gas supply, transport, and Distribution Services. Gas Direct Access
Service is an unbundled Service where CPAU provides Distribution Services and outside
Gas Service Providers supply Gas-commodity and transport. In order to initiate Gas Direct
Access Service, Customers must complete a Gas Direct Access Service Request form. Gas
Service Providers will be required to execute a Gas Service Provider Agreement (GSPA).
Operational requirements as well as delivery specifications, administrative fees, security
deposits, Metering requirements and other requirements will be addressed in the GSPA.
2. KIND AND HEATING VALUE
CPAU purchases natural Gas from several/various natural Gas suppliers. The heating value
of natural Gas supplied varies depending upon the Gas fields being drawn upon. At times of
insufficient supply, some artificial Gas may be supplied or mixed with the natural Gas. The
average monthly heating value in British Thermal Units (Btu)-dry basis per cubic foot of the
natural Gas served may vary within the limits of 750 to 1150 Btu. This average heating
value is converted to a Therm factor for use as one of the factors used in calculating a
composite multiplier for billing purposes. The Therm factor will be based upon the heat
factor used by CPAU’s supplier of natural Gas for the preceding month.
Gas is supplied by CPAU either at standard “low pressure” or at “medium pressure”. Low
pressure Service is available at all points where Gas is supplied. Where available from
existing high pressure mains, at the option of CPAU, high pressure Service may be supplied.
However, CPAU reserves the right to lower the pressure or to discontinue the delivery of
Gas at high pressure.
The standard pressure for low pressure is seven inches of Water Column (WC), which is
approximately 1/4 pound per square inch (psi) above atmospheric pressure. In limited
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 12
circumstances, increased pressure may be provided for domestic use at 14” Water Column.
This increased pressure will only be provided for domestic use if the houseline size required
is greater than 2” diameter, or CPAU determines, based upon satisfactory information from
the manufacturer, provided by the Customer, that an appliance to be located in the residence
requires increased pressure at the inlet that cannot be obtained by resizing or relocating the
houseline. Increased pressure may be provided for commercial uses only if the use of the
houseline size required is greater than 4” diameter, or evidence as described above
establishes that equipment on the site requires increased pressure at the inlet that cannot be
obtained by resizing or relocating the houseline. For commercial uses, the available
pressures are 7” WC, 14” WC (approximately 1/2 psi), 1 psi, 2 psi and 5 psi.
All increased pressure above 7”WC requires review and approval of the Engineering
Manager, a plumbing permit and testing of the existing Gas piping with a building Inspector
present in accordance with the latest adopted version of the California Plumbing Code
See Rule and Regulation 22, “Special Gas Utility Regulations” regarding special Service
requirements.
3. DETERMINATION OF THERMS TO BE BILLED
The unit of measure for billing is the Therm which is defined as the quantity of Gas having a
heating value of 100,000 Btu. Gas Meters measure volume of Gas in ccf at ambient
temperature and pressure conditions. . Therms are derived from the metered data by
subtracting the Meter reading for the previous reading cycle from the current reading. The
difference (uncorrected ccf) is multiplied by the pressure factor required to convert the
measured consumption volume to a standard volume (at standard temperature and pressure
conditions). This standard volume, in pressure-corrected ccf, is then multiplied by the
Therm factor (a variable determined by periodic analysis of CPAU’s Gas supply) to produce
the final number of Therms billed. The composite correction factor (the product of the
Therm factor and the pressure correction factor) is shown on bills under the heading
“multiplier.”
4. SERVICE DOWNSTREAM OF METER
CPAU assumes no duty or liability for inspecting, validating or approving the safe operating
condition of the Customer’s Service, appliances, or equipment downstream of the Utility
Meter.
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 13
F. WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
1. COLLECTION
CPAU operates and maintains a Wastewater Collection System separate from the storm and
surface Water Collection System. A connection to the Wastewater Collection System is
required for all water users where wastewater service is available.
For the disposal of Wastewater from basements and floors below ground level, it will be
necessary for the Customer to provide pumps or ejectors for satisfactory drainage, as
approved by the Water-Gas-Wastewater Engineering Manager. If the elevation of the
basement floor is above the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole, Applicant shall
provide a survey by a licensed Civil Engineer indicating the elevations of the basement floor
and the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole. Submission of this survey and approval
by the Engineering Manager is required for exemption from the pump/ejector requirement.
2. REGULATION
Chapter 16.09 of the Municipal Code regulates the discharge into the Wastewater Collection
System of substances other than domestic Wastewater. See Rule and Regulation 23, “Special
Wastewater Utility Regulations” regarding special Service requirements.
3. TREATMENT
The collection system transports the Wastewater to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant for treatment. At this tertiary treatment plant, the City of Palo Alto processes
the Wastewater from Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Alto Hills, Stanford University, and
East Palo Alto Sanitary District, as well as its own. The treatment is performed in
accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit issued by the San
Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board before the treated water is
discharged into the San Francisco Bay Estuary.
4. LIMITATION OF SERVICE
CPAU reserves the right to limit the size of connection and the quantity of wastes disposed
and to prohibit the use of the sewer for disposal of toxic or hazardous wastes detrimental to
the Wastewater system or treatment plant.
G. REFUSE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 14
1. REGULATION
All solid waste and Recyclable Materials are governed by Chapter 5.20 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, regulations promulgated by the City Manager pursuant to Chapter 5.20,
these Rules and Regulations and the contract between the City and the City’s Collector. .
See Rule and Regulation 24, “Special Refuse and Recycling Regulations” regarding special
Service requirements.
2. REFUSE COLLECTION
The City’s Collector provides collection of solid waste, Recyclable Materials, compostables
and Yard Trimmings. A minimum of one collection per week of solid waste is required of all
occupied Premises. An occupied premise is one to which Water, Gas and/or Electric
Service is rendered.
The automatic solid waste Service level is one Standard Container for Residential Customers
and two Standard Containers for Commercial Customers. The minimum Service for
Residential Premises is one twenty gallon can or wheeled cart provided by the City’s
Collector.
The City’s Collector will provide wheeled carts at Customer’s request for curbside solid
waste collection, which are subject to the same rate structure and volume capacity as the
Standard Container. Customers opting for a wheeled cart must use one provided by the
City’s Collector-to ensure compatibility with collection vehicles. Contents of wheeled carts
shall not exceed a weight of 200 pounds.
Each Customer shall receive collection Service on a City specified day of each week.
Solid waste in excess of the Service level subscribed by the Customer will be removed by
the City’s Collector, for an additional Charge, upon Customer request or notification.
Customers exceeding their subscribed Service level repeatedly are required to subscribe to
additional collection Service at the City-established rates.
H. STORM AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE
1. RESPONSIBILITY AND PURPOSE
The City of Palo Alto Public Works Department is responsible for all Drainage Facilities in
the street and public right of way that collect storm and surface Water and convey it to the
DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES
RULE AND REGULATION 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 75-13-20132
Sheet No 15
major channels and creeks within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Palo Alto.
Examples include curbs and gutters, catch basins, pipelines, culverts, street, channels and
pumping stations. The purpose of the Storm and Surface Water control facilities is to
improve the quality of control, or protect life or property from any storm, flood or surplus
waters. See Rule and Regulation 25, “Special Storm and Surface Water Drainage
Regulations,” regarding special Service requirements.
2. STORM DRAINAGE FEE
A Storm Drainage fee shall be payable to the City monthly by the owner or occupier of each
and every developed parcel in accordance with Rule and Regulation 25.
(END)
SERVICE CONTRACTS
RULE AND REGULATION 5
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 5-13-20137-1-2012
Sheet No 1
A. TYPES OF SERVICE CONTRACTS
For all Utility Services provided, the City may require a written agreement for new or existing
Customers. Contracts may apply to standard, custom, or special Service offerings or custom or
special Services. The following is an illustrative list of special Services that may be the subject(s) of
a contract. Additional Services may require contracts at the discretion of the Director of Utilities.
1. Line Extensions
2. Temporary Service
3. Special Facilities
4. Utility equipment installed in limited access locations
45. Utility Service to special districts and institutions
56. Work performed for other agencies at their expense
67. Transporting Gas to Customers on behalf of Gas Service Providers (GSP)
87. Transmission service
89. Special Metering and/or Billing Services
910. Special Energy Services
1011. Long-term Service agreements greater than 3 years
1112. Loans and leases to Customers to finance efficiency improvements at a Customer’s site
123. Loans and leases or to improve power quality, power factor or reliability at a
Customers’ site
12134. Standby Service
13145. Reserve Electric Capacity
16. Purchase, lease, installation, connection or maintenance of on-site or distributed generation
17.1415. All Fiber Optic Services
16.Reserve Electric Capacity
B. CONTRACT APPLICATION PROCEDURES
1. Customers shall complete and execute applicable form(s) or letter(s), as necessary.
2. Depending on the type of Service contract and at the request of CPAU, Customers shall
request consideration for a special contractual agreement in writing to the Director of
Utilities and/or the Director of Public Works specifying their objectives, including the
desired terms and conditions of the contract.
3. Customers shall pay all applicable fees and deposits in accordance with the terms of the
contract..
4. Customers shall comply with the City’s insurance requirements.
SERVICE CONTRACTS
RULE AND REGULATION 5
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 5-13-20137-1-2012
Sheet No 2
C. CONTRACT PRICING GUIDELINES
For Electricity and Gas contracts, only the commodity portion of the rate will be established by
contract under custom commodity rates and fixed-term commodity rates. All other Rate Schedule
components and other non-bypassable Charges may be changed by Council action at any time.
(END))
UTILITY SERVICE CONNECTIONS
AND FACILITIES ON CUSTOMERS’ PREMISES
RULE AND REGULATION 18
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 56-13-2013-1-2010
Sheet No. 1
A. GENERAL
Rule and Regulation 18 outlines the general requirements for Utility Service Connections and
Facilities on Customer Premises in the City of Palo Alto. For rules specific to each type of Utility
Service, please refer to the following Special Utility Regulations:
Rule and Regulation 20 – Special Electric Utility Regulations
Rule and Regulation 21 – Special Water Utility Regulations
Rule and Regulation 22 – Special Gas Utility Regulations
Rule and Regulation 23 – Special Wastewater Utility Regulations
Rule and Regulation 24 – Special Refuse and Recycling Utility Regulations
Rule and Regulation 25 – Special Storm and Surface Water Drainage Utility Regulations
Rule and Regulation 26 – Special Fiber Optics Utility Regulations
B. SERVICE CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS
Upon an approved Application for a new Utility Service, CPAU will connect Utility Service Lines of
suitable capacity to the CPAU infrastructure at a Point of Service designated by CPAU, provided
that:
1. The property fronts on a public street, highway, alley, lane, or right-of-way along which
CPAU has or will install the appropriate infrastructure; or the property has a contiguous
easement or right-of-way along which CPAU has or will install Utility infrastructure.
2. CPAU has approved the Customer’s applicable: Utility Load sheetsService Application and
plans, Meter locations, Electric switchboard design and location, and Water backflow
prevention device type and location.
3. The Applicant has complied with CPAU and Building Department requirements for the
project and completed the installation in accordance with CPAU-approved plans submitted
by the Applicant.
4. The Applicant has installed all required Service equipment and facilities (e.g., Electric
Service equipment with Meter socket, main disconnect device, Water control valve,
UTILITY SERVICE CONNECTIONS
AND FACILITIES ON CUSTOMERS’ PREMISES
RULE AND REGULATION 18
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 56-13-2013-1-2010
Sheet No. 2
backflow preventer, Fiber demarcation cabinet, etc.) in accordance with the Special Utility
Regulations listed in section A. above.
5. The Applicant has paid all required connection Charges and fees.
6. The City’s Building Inspector has approved the installation authorizing the Customer to
activate the Service.
C. OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR SERVICE LINES
1. General
a. All materials and equipment installed by CPAU on the Customer’s Premises in the
construction or operation of CPAU Services will at all times be and remain the sole
property of CPAU and may be repaired, replaced, or removed by CPAU at any time.
CPAU will attempt to notify and coordinate material and equipment modifications
with Customers when possible and in non-emergency situations.
b. The Customer shall exercise reasonable care to prevent CPAU equipment on the
Customer’s Premises from being damaged or destroyed and shall refrain from
interfering with same. The Customer shall immediately notify CPAU upon the
discovery of any defect in CPAU equipment.
c. No rent or other Charge whatsoever shall be made by the Customer against CPAU for
placing or maintaining any necessary Meters, equipment, substations or other
facilities on the Customer’s Premises.
D. INSTALLATION OF SERVICE CONNECTION:
1. Only duly authorized employees of CPAU shall be allowed to connect the Customer’s
Electric, Gas, or Fiber Optic Service to, or disconnect the Service from, the CPAU
infrastructure.
UTILITY SERVICE CONNECTIONS
AND FACILITIES ON CUSTOMERS’ PREMISES
RULE AND REGULATION 18
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 56-13-2013-1-2010
Sheet No. 3
2. If the City allows the Customer to connect or disconnect the Water or Wastewater Service
from the City distribution/collection system, then the work shall be observed by a WGW
Utilities Inspector.
E. RELOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF SERVICE CONNECTIONS
The Customer is responsible for all costs associated with relocation or modification of Utility
Service.
(END)
SPECIAL ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 20
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 5-13-20136-1-2010
Sheet No. 1
A. GENERAL
In addition to the general requirements outlined in Rule and Regulation 18 for Utility Service
Connections and Facilities on Customers’ Premises, the following is required:
B. ELECTRIC SERVICE CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS
1. FACILITIES ON CUSTOMER PREMISES
a. The Customer is responsible for installing and maintaining all substructures on the
Customer’s Premises for CPAU to provide Electric Service. This will be at the
Customer’s expense and in accordance with the requirements, standards, and
specifications of CPAU. This substructure shall be owned and maintained by the
Customer for exclusive use by CPAU. The Customer shall be responsible for
repairing or replacing the substructure for any reason, including deterioration to the
extent that the existing conductors/cables cannot be removed.
b. The Customer is required to provide all substructure between the Customer’s Service
entrance equipment and the nearest available Point of Service connection, as
determined by CPAU. This Point of Service is typically a splice box located near
the street and may be in the Public Right-of-Way. In the case of rear easements, this
point is typically at a splice box or at the base of a pole riser.
c. Upon approval by CPAU of the substructure installed on the Customer’s Premises,
CPAU will install Primary Electric Service conductors and a transformer, if needed.
The Applicant/Customer is responsible for the cost of installation in accordance with
the applicable sections of CPAU’s Electric Service Connection Fees (Rate Schedule
E-15). CPAU will determine the type and size of the conductors to be installed by
CPAU.
d. CPAU will assume ownership and responsibility for maintenance of the underground
Electric Service lateral conductors, as defined in the National Electric Code Article
100, installed by the Customer if the Service meets CPAU specifications and it has
been approved and accepted by the Electrical Engineering Manager or his or her
designee. Where bus duct or extra flexible cable is required and used, CPAU’s
maintenance responsibility for conductors ends at the transformer secondary
SPECIAL ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 20
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 5-13-20136-1-2010
Sheet No. 2
terminals. The bus duct or extra flexible cable is considered to be the Service
entrance conductor for which CPAU assumes no responsibility.
2. MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE EQUIPMENT
a. CUSTOMER’S EQUIPMENT
1. All service switches, fuses, Meter sockets, Meter and instrument transformer
housing and similar devices, irrespective of voltage, required in connection
with service and Meter installation on the Customer’s Premises shall be
furnished, installed, owned and maintained by the Customer in accordance
with CPAU requirements.
2. The “service disconnect” is defined by the National Electric Code.
3. Applicant will provide a suitable means for CPAU to place its seal on covers
of service enclosures / troughs and instrument transformer enclosures which
protect un-metered live circuits installed by the Applicant. Such seals shall
be broken only by authorized CPAU representatives. Detailed information
will be furnished by CPAU on request.
b. CPAU’S EQUIPMENT
1. CPAU will furnish and install the necessary instrument transformers, test
facilities and Meters.
C. SERVICE CONFIGURATIONS
1. OVERHEAD OR UNDERGROUND
a. The standard service to single family Residential homes in existing overhead areas
shall be overhead. The Director of Utilities or his/her designee can require an
underground Service for single family Residential Service in areas where system
design requires underground Service, or would otherwise require the addition of
poles to the system.
b. All new Electric Utility Services to Commercial/ Industrial Customers and new
SPECIAL ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 20
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 5-13-20136-1-2010
Sheet No. 3
subdivisions shall be provided by underground facilities on the Customer’s Premises.
The on-site underground Electric Utility lines shall be provided by the Customer at
their expense and shall meet CPAU specifications.
2. NUMBER OF SERVICES PER BUILDING
Only one Electric Service line is allowed for a building or other Premises, except for
commercial properties where:
a. Two or more Electric Service Drops or laterals may be extended to a single building
provided they enter the building at least 150 feet apart (measured in a straight line)
and provided all wiring, other than metering conductors, supplied for each Service
has no common raceway, connection, or service area with wiring supplied by any
other such Service.
b. Two or more sets of Electric Service entrance conductors may be extended to a single
switch gear for the purpose of providing additional capacity or for backup protection.
Special Facilities and/or reserve capacity fees may apply.
3. SERVICES FOR TWO OR MORE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ON ONE PARCEL
Only one Electric Service line is allowed on a parcel with multiple commercial buildings
except where the Applicant requests CPAU to install multiple Service Lines, and CPAU
agrees to make such an installation. The additional costs, as estimated by CPAU, shall be
borne by the Applicant, including such continuing ownership costs as may be applicable.
See Special Facilities section below.
4. NUMBER OF ELECTRIC SERVICE PERISCOPES PER SERVICE DROP
Not more than two service periscopes may be served from a single overhead Service Drop.
Overhead service connections will not be installed where the Applicants main switchboard is
larger than 400 amp.
D. PROTECTIVE DEVICES
1. The Applicant is responsible for furnishing, installing, inspecting and keeping in good and
SPECIAL ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 20
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 5-13-20136-1-2010
Sheet No. 4
safe condition at Customer’s own risk and expense, all appropriate protective devices of any
kind or character, which may be required to properly protect the Applicant’s facility. CPAU
shall not be responsible for any loss or damage occasioned or caused by the negligence, or
wrongful act of the Applicant or any of the agents, employees or licensees of the property
owner in omitting, installing, maintaining, using, operating or interfering with any such
protective devices.
2. The Applicant is responsible for installing and maintaining approved protective devices as
may be necessary to coordinate properly with CPAU’s protective devices to avoid exposing
other Customers to unnecessary Service interruptions.
3. Applicants who request Primary voltage Service shall install, at a minimum, circuit breakers
with over-current and ground fault relays. Applicants must submit their planned protection
scheme to the City for approval prior to installing any equipment.
4. The Applicant is responsible for equipping three-phase motor installations with appropriate
protective devices, or using motors with inherent protective features, to completely
disconnect each motor from its power supply. Particular consideration must be given to the
following:
a. Protection in each set of phase conductors to prevent damage due to overheating in
the event of overload.
b. Protection to prevent automatic restarting of motors or motor-driven machinery
which has been subject to a service interruption and, because of the nature of the
machinery itself or the product it handles, cannot safely resume operation
automatically.
c. Open-phase protection to prevent damage in the event of loss of voltage on one
phase.
d. Reverse-phase protection where appropriate to prevent uncontrolled reversal of motor
rotation in the event of accidental phase reversal. Appropriate installations include,
but are not limited to, motors driving elevators, hoists, tramways, cranes, pumps, and
conveyors.
SPECIAL ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 20
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 5-13-20136-1-2010
Sheet No. 5
5. The Applicant is responsible for installing and maintaining service equipment rated for the
available short-circuit current at the Point-of-Delivery. This value varies from one location to
another, and can change over time. The Customer shall consult CPAU for the short-circuit
current at each Point-of-Delivery.
6. Any non-CPAU-owned Emergency standby generation equipment shall be installed by the
Applicant with suitable protective devices to prevent Parallel Operation with CPAU’s
system. The design must be fail-safe, such as with the use of a double-throw switch to
disconnect all conductors. Any exception must include a written agreement or service
contract with CPAU permitting such parallel operation.
7. Unprotected Service entrance conductors within a building must terminate at a disconnect
switch immediately after entering the building. Installation must comply with the National
Electrical Code section 230-70 concerning the location of the disconnect switch and section
230-6 for the definition of conductors considered outside a building.
E. INTERFERENCE WITH SERVICE
1. GENERAL
CPAU reserves the right to refuse to serve new Loads or refuse to continue to supply existing
Loads of a size or character that may be detrimental to CPAU’s operation or to the Service of
its Customers. Any Customer who operates or plans to operate any equipment such as, but
not limited to pumps, welders, saw mill apparatus, furnaces, compressors or other equipment
where the use of Electricity is intermittent, causes intolerable voltage fluctuations, or may
otherwise cause intolerable Service interference, must reasonably limit such interference or
restrict the use of such equipment upon request by CPAU. The Customer is required to
provide and pay for whatever corrective measures are necessary to limit the interference to a
level established by CPAU as reasonable, or avoid the use of such equipment, whether or not
the equipment has previously caused interference.
2. HARMFUL WAVEFORM
Customers shall not operate equipment that superimposes a current of any frequency or
waveform onto CPAU’s system, or draws current from CPAU’s system of a harmful
waveform, which causes interference with CPAU’s operations, or the service to other
SPECIAL ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 20
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 5-13-20136-1-2010
Sheet No. 6
Customers, or inductive interference to communication facilities. Examples of harmful
waveform include, but are not limited to:
a. Current drawn with high harmonic currents causing transformer or conductor
overheating, even if root-mean-square (RMS) loading is within normal limits.
b. Current drawn causing voltage distortion adversely affecting CPAU or other CPAU
Customers.
c. Harmonic currents which exceed the harmonic current distortion limits set in the
most recent IEEE Standard 519. In most cases, this equates to a maximum limit of
4% harmonic current on any individual odd harmonic or 5% total harmonic current.
3. CUSTOMER’S RESPONSIBILITY
Any Customer causing service interference to others must take timely corrective action.
Otherwise, CPAU, without liability and after giving five (5) days written notice to Customer,
will take corrective action. Corrective action could include discontinuing Electric Service
until a suitable permanent and operational solution is provided by the Customer, at
Customer’s expense.
4. MOTOR STARTING CURRENT LIMITATIONS
a. The starting of motors shall be controlled by the Customer as necessary to avoid
causing voltage fluctuations that will be detrimental to the operation of CPAU’s
distribution or transmission system, or to the Service of any of CPAU Customers.
b. If motor starting causes or is expected to cause detrimental Service to others, a
suitable means must be employed, at the Customer’s expense, to limit voltage
fluctuations to a tolerable level.
F. PHASE BALANCING
It is the Customer’s responsibility to maintain a balanced Load, as nearly as practical, between
supplied circuit phases. In no case shall the Load on one side of a three-wire single-phase service be
greater than twice that on the other. In no case shall the Load on any one phase of a polyphase
service be greater than twice that of any other.
SPECIAL ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 20
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 5-13-20136-1-2010
Sheet No. 7
G. POWER FACTOR CORRECTION
The Customer is required to provide, at Customer’s own expense, Power Factor correction
equipment. This equipment must be sized to improve the average Power Factor to at least the level
set forth in the applicable Rate Schedule with respect to avoiding a Power Factor penalty.
H. SERVICE DISCONNECT AND METER TEST DEVICES
1. All service disconnects and similar devices, irrespective of voltage, required by Law in
connection with a Service and Meter installation on Customer’s Premises must be furnished,
installed and maintained by the Customer. A “Service-disconnecting means”, as defined in
the NEC, must be installed adjacent to the meter(s). Metering equipment must be located on
the exterior of the building, unless approved by the Electric Engineering Manager.
2. When instrument transformers are required by CPAU as part of the Meter installation, CPAU
will install a Meter test bypass block on a mounting plate that must be furnished by the
Customer. When instrument transformers are not required by CPAU, the Customer is
responsible for providing the Meter test bypass block. Meter test bypass blocks furnished by
the Customer must be approved by CPAU in conjunction with Applicant’s plan submittal.
I. SPECIAL POWER SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
1. GENERAL
Where a Customer requires voltage control with less variance than what is specified in Rule
and Regulation 3, the Customer must reimburse CPAU for its cost to provide any special or
additional equipment to meet the Customer’s special needs.
2. NONSTANDARD OR EXCESSIVE CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS
a. In order to prevent damage to CPAU’s equipment and impairment of its service, the
Customer shall give CPAU notice before making any additions to the connected Load
so that CPAU, at its option, may provide such facilities as may be necessary for
SPECIAL ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 20
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 5-13-20136-1-2010
Sheet No. 8
furnishing the increased service.
b. If a Customer’s Load is of sufficient magnitude that it exceeds the capacity of
CPAU’s Distribution System, the Customer may be required to shift peak loading to
off-peak periods and/or receive service from CPAU’s 60 kilovolt sub-transmission
system.
J. SPECIAL FACILITIES
1. Special Facilities are facilities requested by an Applicant in addition to or in substitution for
standard facilities which CPAU would normally provide. Standard facilities are for delivery
of Service at one point, through one Meter, at one voltage class under its Rate Schedules.
2. CPAU normally installs only those standard facilities which it deems are necessary to
provide regular service in accordance with the Rate Schedules. Where the Applicant requests
CPAU to install Special Facilities and CPAU agrees to make such an installation, the
additional costs thereof, as estimated by CPAU, shall be borne by the Applicant, including
such continuing ownership costs as may be applicable. These costs will be calculated by
CPAU based on the net present value, and shall be paid by the Applicant in advance of
installation unless alternative payment arrangements are approved by the Director of
Utilities.
3. Unless otherwise provided by CPAU’s Rate Schedules, Special Facilities will be installed,
owned and maintained by CPAU as an accommodation to the Applicant only if acceptable
for operation by CPAU and the reliability of service to CPAU’s other Customers is not
impaired.
4. Installation of Special Facilities will require a contract between the Applicant and the City of
Palo Alto.
(END)
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
May 13, 2013
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the
Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2013
The Office of the City Auditor recommends acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report
as of March 31, 2013. At its meeting on April 9, 2013, the Policy and Services Committee
approved and unanimously recommended the City Council accept the report. The Policy and
Services Committee minutes are included in this packet.
Recommended Action: Accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2013.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Pelletier
City Auditor
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (April 9, 2013)
(PDF)
Department Head: Jim Pelletier, City Auditor
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
April 9, 2013
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Policy & Services Committee
Palo Alto, California
Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2013
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the City Auditor recommends the Policy and Services Committee review and
recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of
March 31, 2013.
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 on the third quarter for FY 2013.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Pelletier
City Auditor
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2013 (PDF)
Department Head: Jim Pelletier, City Auditor
Attachment A
Page 2
Attachment A
“Promoting honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable city government."
Attachment A
2
FY 2013 Third Quarter Update
Overview
The audit function is essential to the City of Palo Alto’s public accountability. The Office of the City Auditor’s
independence and accountability, mandated by the City Charter and Municipal Code, means the public, the Council, and
City staff can rely on us for objective information and practical advice. We thoroughly review and analyze City
performance to give you the information you need about complex and difficult issues. Taking action on our audit
recommendations will help the City to reduce risks and protect its good reputation.
Audits
Below is a summary of our Audit work for the third quarter of FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013):
Title Objective(s) Start
Date
End
Date
Status Results/Comments
Service Efforts &
Accomplishments
/ Citizen Centric
Report
To provide consistent,
reliable information on
the performance of City
services to assist users in
assessing whether the
City is achieving its goals
and objectives in an
efficient and effective
manner and to assist the
City in meeting its
responsibilities to be
publicly accountable in
the stewardship over
public resources.
7/2012 2/2013 Complete These reports provide
comprehensive and historical data
and analysis that is not available in
any other single report in the City.
The SEA and CCR are available
online or in hardcopy from the
OCA. This year’s report has been
redesigned from the ground up
with additional focus on
performance management.
Inventory
Management –
Utilities (formerly
Utilities Asset
Management)
Specific concerns regarding
the effective and efficient
safeguarding of certain
assets were identified
during the Risk Assessment
process. This audit will
follow up on those concerns
and assess the adequacy of
controls over Utilities assets
including compliance with
relevant policies and the
Municipal Code.
2/2013 7/2013 In Process TBD
Attachment A
3
Title Objective(s) Start
Date
End
Date
Status Results/Comments
SAM – Cash
Handling
This Special Advisory
Memorandum (SAM) is a
non-audit service being
provided by the City
Auditor’s Office. The Office
is working closely with ASD
staff and certain
departments to identify and
fix gaps on the City’s cash
handling policies and
procedures.
2/2013 4/2013 In Process TBD
Other Monitoring and Administrative Assignments
Below is a summary of Other Assignments as of the third quarter of FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013):
Title Objective(s) Status Results/Comments
Sales and Use Tax
Allocation Reviews
The OCA conducts sales and use
tax monitoring in-house and
also contracts with an outside
vendor.
Ongoing The OCA continues to submit
inquiries to the State Board of
Equalization. As of the end of the
third quarter, the City received
$98,220 in total Sales and Use Tax
Recoveries. Also, due to processing
lags at the State Board of
Equalization, there are 44 potential
misallocations waiting to be
researched and processed (21 from
OCA and 23 from the vendor).
Total Sales and Use Tax Recoveries:
FY 2013 ($34,548 from OCA
inquiries and $63,672 from vendor
inquiries).
Quarterly Reporting Each quarter, the OCA prepares
Quarterly Status Updates and
Sales Tax Digest Summaries for
Council review.
Ongoing N/A
Attachment A
4
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration
On August 16, 2012, we launched the City’s Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline. Below is a summary of Hotline Activity as
of the second quarter of FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013):
Complaint
Number
Category Status Action Taken
1 Inquiry Closed Inquiry answered – No Further Action
2 Improper Receipt of Gifts,
Favors, or Money
Closed Unsubstantiated - Closed
3 Substance Abuse Closed Unsubstantiated – Referred for Further
Action1
4 Bribery/Kickbacks Open Investigation in Progress
5 Policy Violation/Theft of Time Open Investigation in Progress
6 Bribery/Kickbacks, Theft, Inappropriate
Behavior
Open Investigation in Progress
1 While the allegations made in this case were found to be unsubstantiated, the Human Resources Department took action to clarify the related
policy.
Attachment A
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 1
Regular Meeting
April 9, 2013
Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2013.
Jim Pelletier, City Auditor, explained the City Charter required the City
Auditor’s office perform quarterly audit reports and present them to the
Council. In the Current Activities section of the Staff Report the Service
Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) repot was completed and previously
presented, the Inventory Management audit is in progress; the previous title
was Utilities Asses Management. Based on the preliminary survey, concerns
arose with the departments that stored assets at the Municipal Service
Center (MSC) as well as multiple offset locations. The Special Advisory
Memorandums (SAMS) involving cash handling where the Audit Department
was working closely with the Administrative Services Department (ASD) to
identify and repair gaps in the system was coming to a close.
The sales and use tax monitoring had registered a total of $98,000 in
recoveries by the end of the third quarter. There was a total of 44 percent of
misallocations waiting to be researched and processed by the state. The
Hotline had received six calls since its inception in August of 2012.
Council Member Price asked how a change in scope of particular audit
implicated the remainder of the scheduled work plan.
Mr. Pelletier stated in the event an audit altered the work plan, during the
mid-year Staff would bring forward budget modifications and request
planned audits of slighter importance may be pushed back.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to recommend the City Council accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly
Report as of March 31, 2013.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Attachment B
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
May 13, 2013
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the
Discussion of the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Pilot and the City
Auditor's Recommendation to Continue the Hotline Beyond the Pilot
Phase
The Office of the City Auditor recommends acceptance of the Discussion of the Fraud, Waste,
and Abuse Hotline Pilot and the City Auditor’s Recommendation to Continue the Hotline
Beyond the Pilot Phase. At its meeting on April 9, 2013, the Policy and Services Committee
approved and unanimously recommended the City Council accept the report. The Policy and
Services Committee minutes are included in this packet.
Recommended Action: Accept the Discussion of the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Pilot and
the City Auditor’s Recommendation to Continue the Hotline Beyond the Pilot Phase
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Pelletier
City Auditor
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Discussion of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Pilot and the City Auditor's
Recommendation to Continue the Hotline Beyond the Pilot Phase (PDF)
Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (April 9, 2013)
(PDF)
Department Head: Jim Pelletier, City Auditor
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
April 9, 2013
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Policy & Services Committee
Palo Alto, California
Discussion of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Pilot and the City
Auditor's Recommendation to Continue the Hotline Beyond the Pilot
Phase
RECOMMENDATION
The Policy and Services Committee (P&S) discuss the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Pilot
Phase and recommend to the City Council that the Hotline continue beyond the initial pilot
phase.
BACKGROUND
In 2008, the City Auditor’s Office issued an Audit of Employee Ethics Policies (Attachment A).
The audit recommended the City adopt an employee code of ethics, formalize an employee
ethics program, and also form a working group to implement a hotline to review complaints
involving fraud, waste, or abuse of City resources. The City Manager’s Office is responsible for
developing the code of ethics and a formalized ethics program.
In 2009, California approved Whistleblower legislation to allow City Auditors to establish and
manage hotlines and to provide provisions for auditors to maintain confidentiality of the
reporting parties. In November 2009, the P&S Committee reviewed the recommendation to
establish a hotline and confirmed its intention for the City Auditor’s Office to return with a
follow-up discussion on the formation of a hotline and how best to implement a hotline
program.
In July 2010, the City Auditor’s Office reported on various options to implement a Fraud, Waste,
and Abuse Hotline Program. The P&S Committee recommended the following:
The City Council should establish an employee-only hotline organized under the
Auditor’s Office on a 12-18 month pilot basis.
The Auditor’s Office should hire a contractor to receive and forward complaints.
The Auditor’s Office should establish policies and procedures prior to implementing the
hotline (See Attachment B for a copy of the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline
Administration Policy)
Attachment A
Page 2
In accordance with the P&S Committee’s direction, the City Auditor implemented, on a pilot
basis, an employee-only hotline in August 2012. The pilot phase will end in June 2013.
What is a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse hotline?
Fraud, waste, and abuse hotlines (also referred to as whistleblower hotlines) are an established
mechanism to receive complaints involving misuse of public resources. The hotline program
investigates complaints and determines whether the complaint is substantiated or not.
Examples of types of complaints include:
Theft of City resources
Accounting irregularities
Intentional misuse of City property or equipment
Contractor fraud
Record falsification
Payroll or timekeeping fraud
Kickbacks or bribes
Gross disregard of policy and procedural controls
Best Practices and Regulations Regarding Hotlines and Their Impact
Professional organizations and the California State Government Code include hotline programs
as a recommended method to prevent and deter fraud, waste, and abuse:
Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations
These guidelines were designed to encourage organizations to create effective ethics and
compliance programs. The guidelines provide strong incentives (i.e. reduced punishments) for
organizations that implement effective compliance and ethics programs. Among the many
components of an effective program included in the guidelines, is “to have and publicize a
system, which may include mechanisms that allow for anonymity or confidentiality, whereby
the organization’s employees and agents may report or seek guidance regarding potential or
actual criminal conduct without fear of retaliation.”
League of California Cities/Institute for Local Government (ILG)
According to the ILG, “confidential reports of misconduct from employees and others are one
of the most effective means of detecting fraud. Increasingly, local agency auditors are
establishing and operating ethics/fraud hotlines. Auditor operated hotlines are authorized by
state law. A requirement for auditors to protect the identity of callers helps encourage
reporting fraud and misconduct.”
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
GFOA recommends that each government establish a hotline “to permit the confidential,
anonymous reporting of concerns about fraud or abuse and questionable accounting or
auditing practices to the appropriate responsible parties. A government should regularly
publicize the availability of these mechanisms and encourage individuals who may have
Attachment A
Page 3
relevant information to provide it to the government.” GFOA also recommends governments
“make internal auditors (or their equivalent) responsible for the mechanisms used to report
instances of potential fraud or abuse and questionable accounting or auditing practices.”
State of California
Government Code Section 53087.6, adopted in 2008 and effective in 2009, implemented
Whistleblower legislation allowing local City Auditors to establish and manage hotlines. It also
provided provisions for auditors to maintain confidentiality of the persons providing the
information. In July 2010, the Governor approved Assembly Bill 1666 amending the legislation
to further define the auditor’s role to maintain the hotline and to provide copies of
substantiated reports to the appropriate parties.
The California Whistleblower Protection Act in Government Code Section 8547-8547.12
established requirements for the State. For example, Section 8547.1 established the
expectation that “state employees should be free to report waste, fraud, abuse of authority,
violation of law, or threat to public health without fear of retribution… and declares that public
servants best serve the citizenry when they can be candid and honest without reservation in
conducting the people's business.” Section 8547.4 requires the State Auditor to investigate
claims of improper governmental activities.
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE)
ACFE found that U.S. organizations lose an estimated 7% of annual revenue to fraudulent
activity. Their research indicates that in government over half of fraud cases were identified
through tips. Employees were the most common source of fraud tips. Based on their survey,
when a hotline was available, 50.3% of fraud tips came through the hotline and 63% of the
hotline reported fraud cases involved fraud by a manager or executive. According to ACFE,
“This data indicates that hotlines are a very effective fraud detection tool.”
ACFE also found that fraud hotlines and internal audit departments were the most effective
detection mechanism for corruption fraud cases (the most prevalent in the government sector).
According to the ACFE, this may be because many corruption schemes involve collusion and
internal control overrides that tend to diminish the effectiveness of traditional controls and
reviews. In a 2010 research report, the ACFE found that hotlines are an effective way to
encourage tips from employees who might otherwise not report misconduct. Organizations
with hotlines tended to detect fraud activity seven months earlier and lessened the financial
impact of fraud cases by as much as 60%. Overall, ACFE recommends that organizations
implement hotlines as a fraud reporting mechanism. ACFE also recommends the hotline
provide anonymity and confidentiality, and the organization should encourage employees to
report inappropriate activity without fear of reprisal.
Resources and Costs
Hotlines have two cost components - the cost to operate the hotline and the cost to review and
investigate complaints.
Attachment A
Page 4
Hotline operations
We found it to be cost-effective to contract the hotline operation to a third-party vendor that
provides a high level of service at a lower cost including:
24/7 availability and user friendly interfaces to file a complaint,
Anonymous reporting mechanisms with phone and web capabilities to ensure all
employees have the ability to report an incident without fear of reprisal
Reporting and analytical tools to create reports and track inquiries.
The annual cost to continue with the current hotline vendor is $2,940.
Fraud, Waste, & Abuse Complaint Investigations
The cost of reviewing and investigating complaints consists of staff time and resources needed
to review complaints, determine their disposition, and if necessary, conduct an investigation.
Options include:
Staff absorbs the additional workload generated from complaints (typical for larger
organizations)
Dedicated hotline staff is hired (when critical call/complaint mass is reached)
External experts are engaged on an “as needed” basis
A combination of any of the above
Summary of Hotline Activity During the Pilot Phase
Complaint
Number
Category Status Action Taken
1 Inquiry Closed Inquiry answered - No Further
Action
2 Improper Receipt of Gifts, Favors,
or Money
Closed Unsubstantiated - Closed
3 Substance Abuse Closed Unsubstantiated - Referred for
Further Action
4 Bribery/Kickbacks Open Investigation in Progress
5 Policy Violation/Theft of Time Open Investigation in Progress
6 Bribery/Kickbacks, Inappropriate
Behavior
Open Investigation in Progress
Key Points for Council to Consider
Although hotline programs have proven to be an effective method to detect and deter fraud,
waste, and abuse, they also require resources and staff time to effectively implement. The City
Attachment A
Page 5
Auditor, City Manager, and City Attorney share concerns about the significant time and
resources that could be involved in implementing an effective program.
Staff Time: Fraud investigations, in general, can involve a significant amount of staff
time to investigate, document, and if necessary, testify in court. During the
investigation, other department staff would also be required to provide information and
documentation. The City Attorney’s Office provides legal counsel and advice as needed.
Delays in other audit work: With three and a half auditor positions, the City Auditor’s
staff is not large enough to absorb the additional work involved in fraud investigations
without impacting the current workload. This results in delays of other audit work.
Availability of Expert Resources: The Office of the City Auditor currently has one
Certified Fraud Examiner. The number of calls as well as the complexity and risk
associated with each call could require additional expert resources currently not
available within the organization. It may become necessary to hire external experts to
manage complaints/investigations in a timely manner.
These impacts should be weighed against the benefits of detecting and/or deterring fraud,
waste, and abuse, including:
Hotlines help to uncover fraud, waste, and abuse by facilitating the transfer of critical
information from those who have it to those who need it.
Hotlines provide those reporting suspected wrongdoing with a means to do so without
fear of retribution or reprisal.
Research has shown that the most effective way to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse is
through the threat of detection.
Research has also shown that effective ethics and compliance programs, of which the
hotline is a key component, improve employee morale, increase productivity, and
positively impact employee relations.
Conclusion
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse hotlines are professionally recognized as a proven method and best
practice to deter and detect fraud, waste, and abuse. The City should weigh the benefits
against the costs associated with hotline programs as it considers values, goals, and policy
objectives for a comprehensive employee ethics program.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Pelletier
City Auditor
Attachment A
Page 6
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Audit of Employee Ethics Policies (PDF)
Attachment B: Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration Policy (PDF)
Department Head: Jim Pelletier, City Auditor
Attachment A
Page 7
Attachment A
- 1 -
City of Palo Alto
Office of the City Auditor
January 23, 2008
Honorable City Council
Attn: Policy and Services Committee
Palo Alto, California
AUDIT OF EMPLOYEE ETHICS POLICIES
Ethics is an important issue in public service. Many cities have adopted codes of ethics that
represent best practices. The objective of this audit was to review the City of Palo Alto’s
procedures for ascertaining and handling potential conflicts of interest among City employees,
and to assess the need for an employee ethics policy. While Palo Alto has a plethora of rules
and regulations, and many employees are members of professional organizations with codes of
ethics, the City does not have a formal employee code of ethics or employee ethics program.
In compliance with the State’s Political Reform Act of 1974 and Fair Political Practices
Commission regulations, Palo Alto designates certain staff positions for which state
conflict of interest regulations apply. The City’s conflict of interest code applies to about
24% of City employees. All of the 260 employees who were required to file disclosure
statements in fiscal year 2006-07 did so. However, being in a designated staff position means
more than just filing an annual form, and we recommend the City periodically provide or make
available training for employees in designated positions, and that department heads and
supervisors review employee Form 700s for potential conflicts of interest.
Existing rules and regulations are scattered and a centralized resource is needed. City
employees are subject to a number of state ethics regulations, Municipal Code conflict of
interest and ethics provisions, internal City policies and procedures that outline ethics rules in
further detail, and City merit system rules and regulations. We recommend that the City
develop a section on the City’s intranet site that employees can use to find the City or State
policies, procedures, laws, or regulations that may apply.
The City should adopt an employee code of ethics and formalize its employee ethics
program. While not even the best ethics code will substitute for good government or good
people, codes of ethics are commonly used to promote ethical values and help avoid problems.
While Palo Alto has a plethora of rules and regulations, and offers some ethics training for
employees, it does not have a formal employee code of ethics or employee ethics program. We
recommend the City adopt an employee code of ethics, formalize its ethics training, and
consider participating in the League of California Cities’ assessment of ethical culture.
The City should establish an employee hotline and whistleblower protection policy and
procedures. Many organizations have established hotlines and provide whistleblower
protections to ensure that employees have the opportunity to report fraud, waste, abuse, or
misconduct. These programs can be provided at minimal cost. Studies indicate that the City
Attachment A
- 2 -
could minimize potential losses by establishing a hotline and whistleblower policy and
procedures.
Our report includes a total of 7 recommendations to improve the City’s ethics program. Staff
has reviewed the information in this report and the City Manager’s response is attached. We
will be presenting this report to the Policy and Services Committee on January 23, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon W. Erickson
City Auditor
Audit staff: Edwin Young, Senior Auditor
Attachment A
- 3 -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover letter 1
INTRODUCTION 5
Background 5
Audit Scope and Methodology 6
FINDING 1: In compliance with the State’s Political Reform Act of 1974 and Fair
Political Practices Commission regulations, Palo Alto designates certain staff
positions for which state conflict of interest regulations apply
8
California FPPC disclosure requirements apply to about 24% of City
employees
8
Need for supervisory review of Form 700s 9
FINDING 2: Existing rules and regulations are scattered and a centralized
employee ethics policy is needed
10
City employees are subject to many state ethics regulations 10
The Municipal Code includes restrictions on employee behavior 11
Internal City policies and procedures outline ethics rules in further detail 12
City merit system rules and regulations define limits on some activities 14
A centralized resource is needed for employee reference 15
FINDING 3: The City should adopt an employee code of ethics and formalize its
employee ethics program
16
Ethics programs in other jurisdictions 16
Codes of ethics are meant to promote ethical conduct and to help avoid
problems
17
Why ethics training? 19
Ethics training in Palo Alto 19
The City should consider participating in the League of California Cities
assessment of ethical culture
21
FINDING 4: The City should establish an employee hotline and whistleblower
protection policies and procedures
22
Confidential employee hotlines and whistleblower protection programs have
been shown to reduce potential losses
22
Employees have whistleblower protection 23
Employee hotlines and whistleblower policy and procedures in other cities 24
CONCLUSION 25
Recommendations 25
CITY MANAGER’S RESPONSE 27
APPENDIX 1: GFOA Recommended Practice – Encouraging and Facilitating the 29
Attachment A
- 4 -
Reporting of Fraud and Questionable Accounting and Auditing
Practices (2007)
APPENDIX 2: San Mateo County Transit District Ethics Policy 31
APPENDIX 3: City of Portland Code of Ethics 33
APPENDIX 4: Principles of ethical conduct for executive branch officers and
employees
35
APPENDIX 5: New York City Code of Ethics 37
APPENDIX 6: City of Phoenix Integrity Line 38
Attachment A
- 5 -
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the fiscal year 2007-08 annual audit work plan, the City
Auditor’s Office has completed an audit of the City’s employee ethics policies and
procedures. The objective of this audit was to review procedures for ascertaining
and handling potential conflicts of interest among City employees, and to assess
the need for an employee ethics policy. The audit focused only on City
employees; it excluded elected officials and appointed members of the City’s
boards and commissions.
Background
The principles of public service ethics underlie trust in democratic institutions:
“Public service is a public trust. Citizens expect public servants to serve the
public interest with fairness and to manage public resources properly on a daily
basis. Fair and reliable public services inspire public trust. Public service ethics
are a prerequisite to, and underpin, public trust, and are a keystone of good
governance.”1 Nonetheless, attention to ethics is often scandal-driven and can
be short-lived.2
Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics defines ethics as
“standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many
situations in which they find themselves.”
The Government Finance Officers Association has recommended that “every
government establish policies and procedures to encourage and facilitate the
reporting of fraud or abuse and questionable accounting or auditing practices. At
a minimum, a government should do all of the following:
Formally approve, and widely distribute and publicize an ethics policy that
can serve as a practical basis for identifying potential instances of fraud
or abuse and questionable accounting or auditing practices.
Establish practical mechanisms (e.g., hot line) to permit the confidential,
anonymous reporting of concerns about fraud or abuse and questionable
accounting or auditing practices to the appropriate responsible parties. A
government should regularly publicize the availability of these
mechanisms and encourage individuals who may have relevant
information to provide it to the government…”3
California Government Code Section 53234 provides the following definition:
“Ethics laws include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Laws relating to personal financial gain by public servants, including, but
not limited to, laws prohibiting bribery and conflict-of-interest laws.
1 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Building Public Trust, Ethics Measures in
OECD Countries (September 2000) 2 Carol W. Lewis and Stuart C. Gilman, The Ethics Challenge in Public Service (2005) 3 See Appendix 1 for full text; also available online at http://www.gfoa.org/downloads/fraudandabuse.pdf.
Attachment A
- 6 -
(2) Laws relating to claiming prerquisites of office, including, but not limited
to, gift and travel restrictions, prohibitions against the use of public
resources for personal or political purposes, prohibitions against gifts of
public funds, mass mailing restrictions, and prohibitions against
acceptance of free or discounted transportation by transportation
companies.
(3) Government transparency laws, including, but not limited to, financial
interest disclosure requirements and open government laws.
(4) Laws relating to fair processes, including, but not limited to, common law
bias prohibitions, due process requirements, incompatible offices,
competitive bidding requirements for public contracts, and disqualification
from participating in decisions affecting family members.”
City of Palo Alto Mission and Values
The City has promulgated high standards of conduct for employees.
City of Palo Alto Mission and Values
The government of the City of Palo Alto exists to promote and sustain a superior
quality of life in Palo Alto. In partnership with the community, our goal is to
deliver cost-effective services in a personal, responsive, and innovative manner.
The City of Palo Alto’s Values:
Quality – Superior delivery of service.
Courtesy – Providing service with respect and concern.
Efficiency – Productive, effective use of resources.
Integrity – Straight-forward, honest and fair relations.
Innovation – Excellence in creative thought and implementation.
It’s a Matter of Pride!
Audit Scope and Methodology
We conducted this review in accordance with generally accepted governmental
auditing standards. To meet our audit objectives, we researched federal and
state conflict of interest codes and ethics guides; city and county ordinances,
regulations, and conflict of interest and ethics orientation materials; professional
and academic articles on conflicts of interest and ethics codes; and codes of
ethics adopted by several corporations and professional organizations.
We reviewed the Municipal Code, city policies and procedures, and conflicts of
interest and ethics orientation/training guides. We reviewed FPPC Form 700s
filed by individual Palo Alto employees in designated positions for fiscal years
2005-06 and 2006-07. We contacted the cities of Milpitas, Santa Clara,
Mountain View, San Jose, Phoenix, and Portland, to discuss their conflict of
interest and code of ethics programs. We contacted the City of Stockton and
Attachment A
- 7 -
two service providers that provide third party services for receiving and handling
hotline and whistleblower calls.
As part of our review, we searched more than 34 websites, including 4 federal
websites, 7 state websites, 4 county websites, 15 city websites, and 4
professional organization websites in California and throughout the nation. We
reviewed the codes of ethics developed by U.S. Government agencies, California
and other states, nearby cities and counties, and other cities. We compared
conflict of interest and ethics codes among the federal, state, city, and county
entities, and compared them with the Palo Alto conflict of interest and ethics
codes.
Attachment A
- 8 -
Finding 1: In compliance with the State’s Political Reform Act of 1974 and Fair
Political Practices Commission regulations, Palo Alto designates certain staff
positions for which state conflict of interest regulations apply
In compliance with the State’s Political Reform Act of 1974 and Fair Political
Practices Commission regulations, Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.09
requires the adoption by the City Council of a list of designated positions who
“are deemed to make or participate in the making of decisions which may
foreseeably have a material effect on a financial interest.” The code requires that
“each designated employee shall file statements of economic interests disclosing
his or her interest in investments, real property, and income designated as
reportable under the category to which the employee’s position is assigned.”
With some exceptions, this section also applies to consultants hired by the City.
California FPPC disclosure requirements apply to about 24% of City employees
In November 2006, the City Council adopted the current conflict of interest code
amending the list of designated positions and disclosure categories (Resolution
No. 8671). The conflict of interest code incorporates by reference the applicable
provisions of the Political Reform Act and regulations promulgated by the Fair
Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
Designated employees are filing Form 700s
In practice this means that employees in designated positions are required to file
disclosure annual statements (FPPC Form 700, Statement of Economic
Interests) of economic interests detailing investments, income, assets, business
entities, trusts, real property, income, loan, business positions, gifts, travel
payments, advances, and reimbursements.
For example, in fiscal year 2006-07, 260 of the City’s 1,080 employees were
required to file disclosure statements for the previous calendar year. The City
Clerk’s Office notified designated employees of the filing requirements, followed
up with those employees to ensure that Form 700s are filed, and retained the
forms in the Clerk’s Office. During our review, we verified that each designated
employee did in fact file a Form 700.4
California laws and regulations govern the conduct of employees holding
designated positions
As stated above, the City Clerk’s efforts are focused on alerting designated
employees that they are required to submit a Form 700, and following up with
employees to ensure the forms are submitted. What is less clear is whether
4 For purposes of this review, we verified that all designated employees had filed the Form 700. We did
not verify the accuracy of those forms.
Attachment A
- 9 -
those designated employees understand that being in a designated position
means that certain restrictions apply. For example, designated employees may
not understand how state requirements for disqualification apply to them, or that
state revolving door provisions5 and certain restrictions on honoraria, travel, and
loans also apply to them. The issues can be complex.
RECOMMENDATION #1: The City should periodically provide (or make
available) ethics training targeted for designated employees, and remind
employees that the FPPC is available to answer questions.
Need for supervisory review of Form 700s
During our review of Form 700s filed by employees in designated positions, we
noted that several employees own stocks or have spouses who work for
companies that may do business with the City of Palo Alto. This could result in
conflicts of interest if the employee were in a position to make decisions or
recommendations that involved those businesses.
Once a year, designated employees fill out their Form 700 and return the form to
the City Clerk’s Office. In our opinion, it is important that the City have a process
to identify and refer potential conflicts of interest to the appropriate supervisor.
We believe this would be most easily done by simply having supervisors and
department heads review completed Form 700s (which are public documents)
before they are submitted to the City Clerk’s Office, so that supervisors and
department heads can be alert to any potential conflicts of interest in their work
group.
RECOMMENDATION #2: Department heads and supervisors of employees in
designated positions should review, and initial, employee Form 700s before the
forms are filed with the City Clerk.
5 California law (Government Code Section 87406) imposes restrictions on local officials for one year after
they leave office. The one year restrictions prohibit certain local officials from being paid to act as an
agent or to represent other persons by appearing or communicating with the City in an attempt to
influence decisions that involve making rules, permits, licenses, contracts, or transactions with the City.
This regulation may apply to designated City employees (i.e. employees on the designated positions list
who file Form 700s).
Attachment A
- 10 -
FINDING 2: Existing rules and regulations are scattered and a centralized
resource is needed
The State of California has adopted a number of ethics laws, and City of Palo
Alto has a number of policies and procedures related to ethics issues. Applicable
State laws are on the web, and many of the City’s policies and procedures are
available on the City’s intranet. However, a City employee might have to
research at least 9 policies, 2 Municipal Code sections, and 3 sections of the
merit system rules to find the City’s ethics rules and regulations pertaining to a
particular situation, or to determine what they should do when a conflict of
interest situation exists. To determine what California rules allow, the answer
might be in one of at least 12 California Government Code sections or in a
number of court cases.
City employees are subject to many state ethics regulations
California regulations include at least 13 major requirements addressing conflict
of interest and ethics issues. Four laws are widely known, such as the laws
related to open meetings (the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950),
bribery (Penal Code Section 68), access to public records (Government Code
Section 6250), and non-discrimination and anti-harassment. At least 9 other
ethics laws address items such as (1) ethics training, (2) conflicts of interest in
contracts, (3) leaving office, (4) gifts, (5) honoraria bans, (6) misuse of public
funds, (7) prohibitions against gifts of public funds, (8) free or discounted
transportation, and (9) common law conflicts.
Some of these regulations apply only to designated local government employees
(as discussed in Finding 1), and some apply to all local government employees.
State ethics laws include:
Laws prohibiting bribery: California Penal code Section 68 specifies that any
employee who asks, receives, or agrees to receive any bribe is punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years; payment of a
restitution fine; and is forever disqualified from holding any office, employment, or
appointment in the state.
Laws prohibiting conflicts of interest: California Government Code Section
87100 specifies that “no public official at any level of state or local government
shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position
to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know
he has a financial interest.” In addition, California Government Code Section
1090 specifies that city employees shall not be financially interested in any
contract made by them in their official capacity. Neither can employees be
suppliers or purchasers at any sale or purchase made by them in their official
capacity.
Attachment A
- 11 -
Disclosure of confidential information for financial gain: Government Code
Section 1098 forbids disclosure by employees for financial gain of confidential
information acquired in the course of official duties. It states that any employee
who willfully and knowingly discloses for financial gain to any other person,
confidential information acquired in the course of their official duties, or uses any
such information for financial gain, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Misuse of public funds: California Penal Code Section 8314 makes it unlawful
for any employee “to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign
activity or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.”
Prohibitions against gifts of public funds: Article 16 Section 6 of the
California constitution prohibits the gift of any public money or thing of value to
any individual or corporation.
Brown Act: The intent of the Brown Act (California Government Code Section
54950-54963) is to ensure that the actions of California’s public agencies be
taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. It prescribes that
all meetings of legislative bodies shall be open and public and provide
opportunity for public comment. It prescribes public posting of agendas.
California Public Records Act: The Public Records Act (California
Government Code Section 6250-6270) defines public records as “any writing
containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared,
owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form
or characteristics.” The Act defines records that are exempt from disclosure, and
prescribes timely access to records or copies of records. The City has adopted a
Public Records Requests policy and procedures in compliance with the Public
Records Act.6
AB 1234 training requirements: In May 2006, the City Council adopted the
AB1234 compliance program. In compliance with state law, the plan requires
ethics training for City Council members and members of City boards and
commissions. Palo Alto’s compliance plan requires biannual ethics training for
department heads and staff liaisons to City boards and commissions.
The Municipal Code includes restrictions on employee behavior
Conflict of interest: As discussed in Finding 1, the conflict of Interest code
(Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.09 and City Council Resolution 8671)
applies to designated employees.
Ethics in contracting: Municipal Code section 2.30 states that “City employees
shall discharge their duties impartially so as to assure fair competitive access to
city contracting opportunities by responsible contractors.” The section includes
restrictions relating to contracts and relationships with contractors doing business
with the City. It prohibits City employees from participating directly or indirectly in
6 City of Palo Alto Policy and Procedures 1-43/CLK
Attachment A
- 12 -
a City contract when the employee knows that the employee or a relative has a
financial or economic interest in the contract, such as potential employment. It
prohibits employees from soliciting or accepting gratuities, discounts, or offers of
employment in connection with a City contract.
City policy against arbitrary discrimination: Municipal Code section 9.73.010
provides that “it is the policy of the city of Palo Alto to affirm, support and protect
the human rights of every person within its jurisdiction. These rights include, but
are not limited to, equal economic, political, and educational opportunity; equal
accommodations in all business establishments in the city; and, equal service
and protection by all public agencies of the city… It is the policy of the city of
Palo Alto to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of every person to be
free from arbitrary discrimination on the basis of their race, skin color, gender,
age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing
status, marital status, familial status, weight or height.”
Post-employment regulations (revolving door policy): Palo Alto Municipal
Code section 2.07 provides that City employees whose appointment requires
confirmation by the City Council shall not represent for pay another person or
entity for the purpose of influencing any action, permit, purchase of goods, etc.,
for one year after the employee has left City employment.7
Internal City policies and procedures outline ethics rules in further detail
City policies and procedures further define restrictions on employee activity. City
employees are expected to understand and comply with these policies: “Failure
to comply with certain policies stating mandatory legal requirements and/or City
prescribed standards of conduct may result in employment and/or legal
consequences.”8 These policies include:
Prohibition on acceptance of gifts and gratuities: The City’s policy on gifts
and gratuities9 states “it is contrary to the City of Palo Alto’s ethical standards and
merit system for any city employee to accept gifts or gratuities from any
individual, business, or organization doing business, or seeking to do business,
with the City or who is seeking permits or other entitlements from the City. It is
the City’s policy to provide impartial and excellent customer service. To accept
gifts can convey an appearance of favoritism and conflict of interest. Gifts can be
perceived as attempts to influence City operations or as compensation for
7 It should be noted that this is an instance where Palo Alto requirements appear to be less stringent than
some other jurisdictions. For example, New York City’s conflicts of interest law prohibits public servants
from discussing possible future employment with a firm that the employee deals with in their City job. It
also forbids any employee who leaves City service from communicating with their former agency on
behalf of a private firm for one year after they leave City service, or from ever working on a matter that
they personally and substantially worked on while with the City (see APPENDIX 5). In another example,
Santa Clara County requires former county employees to wait one year before lobbying the county on any
issue that was within his or her responsibility as a county employee. Furthermore, the former employee
may never lobby the county on a matter in which he or she personally participated as a county employee. 8 City of Palo Alto Policy and Procedures 1-01/MGR (revised December 2002) 9 City of Palo Alto Policy and Procedures 2-21/HRD – Gifts and Gratuities
Attachment A
- 13 -
services rendered and can erode the public confidence in the impartiality of
decisions made by City officials.” The policy cites as additional references: Gift
limitations of the Political Reform Act of 1974, City of Palo Alto Merit System
Rules and Regulations 1301, and the City of Palo Alto Purchasing Manual.10
Restrictions on outside employment: The City’s Policy on outside
employment11 states that “unless otherwise indicated, when a person accepts
employment with the City of Palo Alto, it is assumed that the employment is to be
his/her primary job. If the person undertakes supplemental work, such work is
assumed to be secondary in importance and is subject to the approval of the
City… Outside employment will be reviewed on a basis of compatibility with the
proper discharge of employee’s official City duties and tendency, if any, to impair
employee’s independence of judgment or action in performance of his official
duties… The use for purposes of outside employment of City property,
equipment, supplies and records is prohibited.” In addition, Section 1302 of the
Merit System Rules and Regulations requires regular City employees who wish
to engage in outside employment to obtain departmental approval for such
employment according to procedures established by the City Manager.
Misuse of City computer and information resources: The City policy
regulating employee use of computer resources such as the internet, intranet, e-
mail, passwords and other information resources, specifies that computer
resources are provided to Palo Alto employees “for uses related to municipal
business… Only incidental and occasional personal use is permitted…
Inappropriate, unauthorized or excessive work time spent utilizing the Internet
and any violation of this policy may be cause for disciplinary action.”12
Fair and equal treatment of employees: The City’s policy on equal
employment opportunity13 states that “the City’s policy on equal opportunity
conforms to applicable State and Federal law. Employment and promotion by
the City of Palo Alto shall be based on merit and fitness, free of personal and
political considerations, and shall not be affected or influenced by race, religious
creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, sexual orientation, sex
and disability, as protected by law.”
Anti-harassment policy: The City’s anti-harassment policy14 states that “the
City of Palo Alto is committed to providing a work environment free from all forms
of harassment… Because the City is committed to a workplace free from
harassment of any kind, the City’s policy sets a higher standard for behavior than
is set by law. Under both federal and state law, illegal harassment occurs when
it is based on a person’s protected class (race, color, religion, national origin,
10 On the other hand, gifts to the City are encouraged, and are covered under a separate policy (Policy
and Procedures 1-18 – Gifts to the City) which states that “gifts accepted by the City become the property
of the City of Palo Alto and are to be used for public benefit.” 11 City of Palo Alto Policy and Procedures 2-05/HRD – Outside Employment 12 City of Palo Alto Policy and Procedures 1-40/ASD, Employee Computer Use Policy: Password,
Internet, Intranet, E-Mail and Information Resources 13 City of Palo Alto Policy and Procedures 2-12/HRD – Equal Employment Opportunity 14 City of Palo Alto Policy and Procedures 2-13/HRD – Anti-Harassment Policy
Attachment A
- 14 -
ancestry, disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or
age) and the harassment reaches a level that is sufficiently severe and pervasive
to alter a person’s working conditions. However, the City’s policy against
harassment covers all harassing behaviors based on a person’s protected class
whether or not it would be found to be illegal. This policy reflects the City’s
desire to maintain work environments that are harmonious and productive.
Those found to have violated the City’s policy will be subject to discipline, which
is commensurate with the severity of the offense… Retaliation against a person
bringing a complaint or against a person participating in an investigation of a
complaint is strictly prohibited. Those engaging in retaliatory behavior will be
subject to discipline up to and including termination.”
Public records: In conformance with State law, “It is the policy of the City to
facilitate an efficient and timely response to all requests for access to, or copies
of, public information within reasonable limitations imposed by workload and
pursuant to the Public Records Act.”15
Confidential records: On the other hand, protection of confidential records is
also a staff responsibility. For example, the Interim Guidelines and Procedures
for Protecting Confidential Utilities Information16 protect individual customer
privacy, as well as information about corporate customers’ proprietary
operations.
City merit system rules and regulations define limits on some activities
The City’s merit system rules and regulations apply to all City employees and
prescribe ethical limits for employees regarding nepotism, conflicts of interest,
misuse of city property, and others. Violations of these rules can be cause for
disciplinary action. The objective of the Merit System Rules and Regulations,
approved by the City Council and administered by the City Manager, is “to
facilitate effective and economical services to the public and to provide for a fair
and equitable system of personnel management in the municipal service. These
rules set forth in detail those procedures which insure similar treatment for
employees, and define the obligations, rights, privileges, benefits and prohibitions
placed upon all employees in the service of this City.”
The merit system rules address:
Nepotism (section 302). “No employee… shall employ, appoint,
recommend for appointment or in any other manner participate or attempt
to participate in the hiring, promotion, demotion, termination or discipline
of any member of his or her immediate family.”
Inexcusable neglect of duty, offensive treatment of the public or another
employee, misuse of city property, theft, or conflict of interest are all
causes for disciplinary action (section 1002).
15 City of Palo Alto Policy and Procedures 1-43/CLK 16 City of Palo Alto Policy and Procedures 1-35/UTL
Attachment A
- 15 -
Gratuities (section 1301) – “No officer or employee of the City shall solicit
or accept any gratuity for services rendered.”
Conflicts of interest (section 1305) – “No employee, whether paid or
unpaid, shall engage in any business transaction or shall have a financial
interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge
of his/her official duties in the public interest or would tend to impair
his/her independence of judgment or action in the performance of his/her
official duties… No employee shall fail to comply with the provision of
Chapter 2.09 of the Palo Alto Municipal code relating to the filing of
statements of economic interest and disqualification from making or
participating in decisions affecting the employee’s financial interest.”
A centralized resource is needed for employee reference
This plethora of rules and regulations that govern employee behavior is,
apparently, not unusual. According to a 1998 California Research Bureau study,
“At a minimum, public officials need to know and understand the ethics laws that
direct their behavior. Yet the CRB survey found that California local government
ethics standards are frequently scattered among an assortment of state laws and
local ordinances, guidelines, policies and departmental administrative
regulations. They are rarely drawn together into a coherent package.”17
Some cities, like San Francisco, Phoenix, and Portland, Oregon, provide a
central resource that employees can use to review their employer’s code of
ethics, check related laws and regulations, review related policies and
procedures, and determine if they are complying with their employer’s
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION #3: The City should develop a section on the City’s
intranet site that links city employees to the City or State policy, procedure, law,
or regulation that addresses each of the major requirements for avoiding conflicts
of interest and for acceptable and ethical behavior.
17 Simmons, Roland, and DeWitt, Local Government Ethics Ordinances in California (California Research
Bureau, California State Library, March 1998). Available at www.library.ca.gov/crb/98/02/98002.pdf.
Attachment A
- 16 -
Finding 3: The City should adopt an employee code of ethics and formalize its
employee ethics program
Not even the best ethics code will substitute for good government or good
people.18 Nonetheless, codes of ethics are commonly used to promote ethical
values and help avoid problems. While Palo Alto has a plethora of rules and
regulations, and offers some ethics training for employees, it does not have a
formal employee code of ethics or employee ethics program.
Ethics programs in other jurisdictions
Many cities have adopted codes of ethics that represent best practices. Federal
government codes of ethics provide additional examples of best practices. These
codes of ethics are designed to facilitate recognition of potential conflicts of
interest and help employees avoid violations of ethics laws. For example,
The goals of the City of Santa Clara’s code of ethics are to build mutual
respect and trust and to promote the highest standards of personal and
professional conduct. The code of ethics require representatives of the city to
be trustworthy, truthful, impartial, fair, and to extend equal opportunities and
due process to all parties. They are to show respect and to be professional,
service oriented, fiscally responsible, organized, communicative, collaborative,
and progressive. The City of Santa Clara won an award for its code of ethics.
The City of Phoenix, Arizona, vision and values statements are dedicated to
serving the city’s customers; valuing and respecting diversity; working as a
team; and orienting employees to doing all that they can. The values include
striving to learn, change and improve; focusing on results; and working with
integrity. Over 1,000 city employees participated in the development of the
city’s vision and values. The vision and values were augmented with an
ethics policy that calls for the city to uphold, promote, and demand the highest
standards of ethics from its employees and officials. Accordingly, all city
employees are expected to maintain the utmost standards of personal
integrity, truthfulness, honesty, and fairness in carrying out their public duties.
They are to avoid improprieties in their roles as public servants and never to
use their position or powers for improper personal gain.
The City and County of San Francisco and the City and County of Los
Angeles provide additional models of codes of ethics that are enforced by
formal ethics commissions.
The U.S. Government Office of Ethics provides oversight for standards of
ethical conduct for employees of the executive branch. Each federal agency
is required to develop codes of ethics that apply to all employees. The
Government Office of Ethics standards address gifts from outside sources,
18 Carol W. Lewis and Stuart C. Gilman, The Ethics Challenge in Public Service (2005)
Attachment A
- 17 -
gifts between employees, conflicting financial interests, impartiality in
performing official duties, seeking employment, misuse of positions, and
outside activities. In determining whether an employee’s conduct is improper,
the agency applies 14 principles that include conflicts of financial interest,
improper use of government information to further private interest, gifts from
parties doing business with the government, unauthorized commitments or
promises, impartiality or preferential treatment, and outside employment and
activities.
In addition, many professional organizations have long established professional
standards and codes of ethics for their members. Many City staffers are
members of these organizations and comply with their codes of ethics.
Codes of ethics are meant to promote ethical conduct and to help avoid problems
The recent scandals involving many public companies and government entities
have resulted in mandates for codes of ethics to be developed. For example, the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has implemented the internal
control provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and has required companies to
establish and adopt ethics standards.
Many professional organizations and best practices cite the importance of
developing codes of ethics. In October 2007, the Government Finance Officers
Association recommended that “at a minimum, a government should formally
approve, and widely distribute and publicize an ethics policy that can serve as a
practical basis for identifying potential instances of fraud or abuse and
questionable accounting or auditing practices.”19
According to the Josephson Institute, a dynamic program built of ethics includes
using public office as a trust for advancing public interest and not for personal
gain; and making decisions on merit free from conflicts of interest. The
Josephson Institute further adds that government should be conducted openly,
efficiently, equitably, and honorably so that officials are held accountable; the
letter and spirit of the laws should be observed; public confidences should be
safeguarded and the integrity of the government should be protected by avoiding
the appearances of improper and unbefitting conduct.
Governments at all levels have developed codes of ethics. Many federal
agencies, as mandated by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, have developed
codes of ethics. The California State Government through the FPPC, the State
Attorney General, the League of California Cities, the Institute of Local
Government, and other agencies has promoted the importance of codes of
ethics. Some examples include:
At the federal level, executive order 12674 outlines principles of ethical
conduct for executive branch officers and employees (see APPENDIX 4).
19 See full text in Appendix 1.
Attachment A
- 18 -
The San Mateo County Transit District’s Personnel Policies and Procedures
Manual includes an ethics policy that outlines expected standards of conduct
in a brief 1-1/2 pages (see APPENDIX 2).
The City of Portland’s code of ethics is written into the Municipal Code (see
APPENDIX 3). The code of ethics addresses the four broad areas of trust,
objectivity, accountability, and leadership.
The City of Milpitas adopted a code of ethics to foster public trust and public
confidence and to promote and maintain the highest standards of conduct. To
gain and keep the people’s confidence and trust, the city’s code of ethics
addresses six areas – honesty, respect, fairness, teamwork, stewardship, and
accountability. Staff members are required to sign the code of ethics.
The League of California Cities’ Institute for Local Government provides
numerous examples of codes of ethics adopted by other agencies online at
http://www.cacities.org/trust.
Codes of ethics in the private sector
AT&T, the largest telecommunications company in the United States, has
adopted a Code of Business Conduct to help employees make responsible and
ethical decisions. At least once a year, employees must sign an agreement
stating that they understand and will adhere to the code, both in letter and in
spirit. Violations are considered a serious matter and may result in disciplinary
action, including dismissal.
AT&T Code of Business Conduct20
Employees are expected to comply with all applicable laws, regulations,
court and commission rulings governing our business in every country in
which we operate.
Employees must avoid activities that create a conflict of interest or even
the appearance of a conflict.
Employees must treat our customers with courtesy and respect, and they
must maintain and respect customers’ privacy, as required by law.
Employees are expected to provide full and accurate disclosure of
corporate data, including financial results. Furthermore, they must ensure
that company property is used appropriately and only for the benefit of
AT&T, its customers and stockholders.
Employees are required to adhere to federal securities laws and to refrain
from buying or selling AT&T stock and the stock of any other company
based on information that is not yet disclosed to the public.
Like the above cited codes, “the best public codes focus on prohibited conduct
and a clear set of values to guide public servants to principled behavior.”21 Some
20 AT&T, 2006 Social Responsibility Report. 21 Carol W. Lewis and Stuart C. Gilman, The Ethics Challenge in Public Service (2005), p. 192
Attachment A
- 19 -
companies require that new employees read critical policies and procedures
upon hire, and sign an acknowledgment form. It should be noted that adoption of
a citywide employee ethics policy may be subject to meet and confer.
RECOMMENDATION #4: The City should develop a code of ethics that
employees can use as a guidepost for avoiding conflicts of interest, for ethical
behavior, for deciding what actions are needed when conflicts of interest occur,
and for making decisions. Employees should be required to read and sign an
acknowledgment of the policy.
Why ethics training?
Adopting a code of ethics and providing useful guidance about where to find
applicable rules and regulations will help ensure that Palo Alto has done due
diligence with regards to ethics. Ethics training is also an important component
of most ethics programs.
According to a study by the California Research Bureau, “Lack of training leaves
agency officials at risk of unintentionally violating ethics standards, thereby
undermining the agency’s substantive work and exposing officials to bad
publicity, investigation and possible prosecution.”22 Recognizing that public
officials frequently face complex ethical issues, the Office of Government Ethics
provides ethics training classes for 400,000 to 600,000 federal officials a year.
It is also important to acknowledge that “Ethics training is not a once-in-a-lifetime
inoculation. It is perishable. People forget, change jobs, get promoted, and face
different ethics challenges. And regulations and laws change. For these
reasons regular ethics training is a key systemic component.”23
Ethics training in Palo Alto
The City has offered ethics training classes through the citywide training program
administered by the Human Resources Department. The sample curriculum for
one course titled “Everyday Ethics” included the following:
Ethical decision making as a city employee requires knowledge of the
applicable state and local rules on such matters as conflict of interest,
disclosure and disqualification, Government Code Section 1090, and the
City policies on gratuities and contracting with commission members. It
can also require courage. What are those basic rules, where can we find
them on the web, how do we create a climate in which ethical conduct is
the ‘natural’ thing to do? How can we deal with internal conflicts on the
22 Simmons, Roland, and DeWitt, Local Government Ethics Ordinances in California (California Research
Bureau, California State Library, March 1998). Available at www.library.ca.gov/crb/98/02/98002.pdf.
23 Carol W. Lewis and Stuart C. Gilman, The Ethics Challenge in Public Service (2005), p. 203
Attachment A
- 20 -
right course of action? When and how do you need to take a problem up
the chain of command? When is it whistle-blowing and when is it
insubordination?
The City has also offered training sessions as part of its Management Academy.
The curriculum for the session on ethics included:
This session starts with an exercise to get us thinking about the source of
our own personal ethical values – our families, our friends, our
professional standards, religion, and the law. What are the ethical
standards that govern our conduct as public employees and citizens, and
how do we put best practices into action? Knowing and obeying the rules
and standards that govern us is a form of ‘self care’, as well as an
obligation to others. In settings where there is pressure to break rules, or
where rules have broken down, what can and should we do?
In 2005, the City offered a series of “Ethics in the workplace” trainings for Utility
employees. The curriculum for those trainings included:
What do we mean by Ethics in the Workplace?
Personal and City of Palo Alto ethics.
Ethical workplace behavior
Ethical dilemma resolution process
In June 2006, to comply with California Government Code Section 53234-53235
(AB 1234), the City Attorney’s Office provided ethics training to City Council
members, members of boards and commissions and their staff liaisons, and
executive staff. The City Attorney’s Office has scheduled the next round of
training for January 2008.
Finally, to comply with California Government Code Section 12950 (AB 1825), all
city supervisors are required to take two hours of violence and harassment
training at least once every two years. The City offers this training periodically.
As a result of these efforts, many employees already have been exposed to
ethics training. However, the city does not have a comprehensive policy outlining
who needs to take what ethics training, and does not keep training records for all
employees who attend these sessions. In our opinion, a regular program
clarifying and reminding employees about City ethics policies would help protect
the City and its employees from misconduct. Documentation should be retained
to ensure that all employees have reviewed relevant ethics policies and have
attended required training.
RECOMMENDATION #5: The City should formalize its policy on ethics training
and ensure that employees attend periodic training updates.
Attachment A
- 21 -
The City should consider participating in the League of California Cities’ assessment of
ethical culture
The League of California Cities’ Institute for Local Government has developed an
assessment survey to enable local agencies to self-check their ethical culture.
The assessment is meant to “either provide reassurance that the agency’s ethical
house is in order, or as an indication of potential ethical blind spots that, if left un-
addressed, could lead to embarrassment or worse down the road.” The
assessment is an employee survey that could be administered online.
RECOMMENDATION #6: The City should survey employees using the League
of California Cities’ Institute for Local Government’s ethical culture assessment
tool.
Attachment A
- 22 -
FINDING 4: The City should establish an employee hotline and whistleblower
protection policies and procedures
Many organizations have established hotlines and provide whistleblower policies
and procedures to ensure that employees have the opportunity to report fraud,
waste, abuse, or misconduct. These programs can be provided at minimal cost.
Studies indicate that the City could minimize potential losses by establishing an
employee hotline and whistleblower protection policies and procedures.
Confidential employee hotlines and whistleblower protection programs have been shown
to reduce potential losses
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires corporations to establish confidential
mechanisms for reporting complaints. As a result, many corporations have
implemented telephone hotlines which provide caller anonymity, confidentiality,
and facilitate data collection for follow-up investigations. The City does not have
a hotline for reporting fraud, waste, abuse, or misconduct.
A recent “Internal Auditor” article about whistleblower hotlines indicated an
average of 14.9 incidents reported per 1,000 employees. Sixty-five per cent of
the incidents reported were serious enough to warrant an investigation, and 46%
of those resulted in corrective actions.
A study by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners reports that 479
organizations that had fraud hotlines or other anonymous reporting mechanisms
were compared with 581 organizations that did not have fraud hotlines.
Organizations with hotlines had a median loss of $100,000 per scheme and
detected the frauds within 15 months of inception. By contrast, organizations
without hotlines suffered median losses of $200,000 and took 24 months to
detect the frauds. The loss ranged from $71,000 to $17 million and 34.2% of the
frauds were detected by tips from employees, customers, vendors, and
anonymous calls.
In October 2007, the Government Finance Officers Association recommended
that every government agency “establish practical mechanisms (e.g., hot line) to
permit the confidential, anonymous reporting of concerns about fraud or abuse
and questionable accounting or auditing practices to the appropriate responsible
parties. A government should regularly publicize the availability of these
mechanisms and encourage individuals who may have relevant information to
provide it to the government.”24
The hotlines may be internally operated by the corporation or externally
outsourced to independent third parties that receive, follow up, or refer the
information to designated entities for further investigation, follow-up action, and
reporting of the hotline call results. For example, third party vendors, such as
24 See full text in Appendix 1
Attachment A
- 23 -
Ethics Point and The Network, provide hotlines that are outsourced so that
complainants can anonymously file complaints and provide information that is
passed on to designated city departments.
Employees have whistleblower protection
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 established a whistleblower protection program
for employees under Title VIII: Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act
of 2002. The whistleblower protection programs prohibit the employers from
taking certain actions against employees who lawfully disclose information
involving fraud.
To protect the whistleblowers, the federal and state of California governments
have established by law whistleblower programs that are applicable respectively
to federal and state employees. At the Federal level, the U.S. Office of Special
Counsel is responsible for protecting whistleblowers and enforcing 12 prohibited
personnel practices, including reprisals for whistleblowing.
The California Whistleblower Protection Act was written to protect employees
of state agencies who disclose activities that (1) violate state or federal laws or
regulations, (2) constitute economic waste, or (3) involve gross misconduct,
incompetence or inefficiency. The Bureau of State Audits is responsible for
receiving and investigating complaints of improper governmental activities. The
Whistleblower Protection Act defines an improper governmental activity as any
action by a state agency or employee during the performance of official duties
that violates any state or federal law or regulation; that is economically wasteful;
or that involves gross misconduct, incompetence, or inefficiency. The
Whistleblower Act authorizes the state auditor to investigate allegations of
improper governmental activities and to publicly report on substantiated
allegations. For example, in September 2007, the California State Auditor
reported the results of 9 investigations and updates on 4 previously reported
issues.25
The California Labor Code includes provisions to protect employees who report,
or refuse to participate in, potential violations of state or federal statutes, rules, or
regulations, or violations of fiduciary responsibility (California Labor Code Section
1102-1106).
The Local Government Disclosure of Information Act extends whistleblower
protections to the municipal level by encouraging local government employees to
disclose information regarding gross mismanagement, abuse of authority, or
dangers to public health and safety. (California Government Code Section
53296-53299).
The City does not have a formal whistleblower protection program, but state law
applies. To our knowledge, these protections have not been publicized.
25 California State Auditor, Investigations of Improper Activities by State Employees: February 2007
Through June 2007 (http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/I2007-2.pdf)
Attachment A
- 24 -
Employee hotlines and whistleblower policies and procedures in other cities
Other cities have established whistleblower programs and hotlines to facilitate
reporting of improper activity. For example, the City of Phoenix has established
the “Integrity Line” (see APPENDIX 6) for employees to report concerns about
violations of laws or regulations, fraud, loss, or waste.
The City of Stockton recently installed a hotline and adopted a whistleblower
policy and procedures. The purpose of the hotline is to give employees a means
to report possible misconduct, violations of City policy, theft, waste, or misuse of
City assets.26 For about $3,000 per year, Stockton contracts with an outside
vendor that provides employees with the ability to file an anonymous report 24
hours a day, 7 days a week using a secure website or by dialing a toll-free
number provided by the vendor.
RECOMMENDATION #7: The City Manager should form a working group to (1)
establish policies and procedures for handling employee complaints of waste,
fraud, and abuse through normal supervisory channels; (2) establish and monitor
a hotline for anonymously reporting fraud, waste and abuse; (3) develop
procedures for reporting, investigating, handling, and following-up on hotline
reports; and (4) develop whistleblower policies and procedures.
26 Issues related to harassment, discrimination, and grievable labor issues are filed with the Stockton
Human Resources Department, not the hotline.
Attachment A
- 25 -
CONCLUSION
While the City of Palo Alto has a plethora of rules and regulations prescribing
employee ethics, it does not have a code of ethics or formal ethics program.
With full knowledge that not even the best ethics code will substitute for good
government or good people, we make several recommendations to foster
appropriate employee behavior.
Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION #1: The City should periodically provide (or make
available) ethics training targeted for designated employees, and remind
employees that the FPPC is available to answer questions.
RECOMMENDATION #2: Department heads and supervisors of employees in
designated positions should review, and initial, employee Form 700s before the
forms are filed with the City Clerk.
RECOMMENDATION #3: The City should develop a section on the City’s
intranet site that links city employees to the City or State policy, procedure, law,
or regulation that addresses each of the major requirements for avoiding conflicts
of interest and for acceptable and ethical behavior.
RECOMMENDATION #4: The City should develop a code of ethics that
employees can use as a guidepost for avoiding conflicts of interest, for ethical
behavior, for deciding what actions are needed when conflicts of interest occur,
and for making decisions. Employees should be required to read and sign an
acknowledgment of the policy.
RECOMMENDATION #5: The City should formalize its policy on ethics training
and ensure that employees attend periodic training updates.
RECOMMENDATION #6: The City should survey employees using the League
of California Cities’ Institute for Local Government’s ethical culture assessment
tool.
RECOMMENDATION #7: The City Manager should form a working group to (1)
establish policies and procedures for handling employee complaints of waste,
fraud, and abuse through normal supervisory channels; (2) establish and monitor
a hotline for anonymously reporting fraud, waste and abuse; (3) develop
procedures for reporting, investigating, handling, and following-up on hotline
reports; and (4) develop whistleblower policies and procedures.
Attachment A
- 26 -
Attachment A
- 27 -
CITY MANAGER’S RESPONSE
Attachment A
- 28 -
Attachment A
- 29 -
APPENDIX 1
Attachment A
- 30 -
Attachment A
- 31 -
APPENDIX 2
SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT ETHICS POLICY
Attachment A
- 32 -
Attachment A
- 33 -
APPENDIX 3
CITY OF PORTLAND CODE OF ETHICS
(Municipal Code Section 1.03)
1.03.010 Definitions.
A. "City official" means any elected official, employee, appointee to a board or
commission, or citizen volunteer authorized to act on behalf of the City of Portland,
Oregon.
B. "Ethics" means positive principles of conduct. Some ethical requirements are
enforced by federal, state, or local law; others rely on training, or on individuals' desire to
do the right thing. The provisions of this Chapter which are not elsewhere enforced by
law shall be considered advisory only.
1.03.020 Trust. The purpose of City government is to serve the public. City officials treat their
office as a public trust.
A. The City's powers and resources are used for the benefit of the public rather than any
official's personal benefit.
B. City officials promote public respect by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.
C. Policymakers place long-term benefit to the public as a whole above all other
considerations, including the concerns of important individuals and special interests.
However, the public interest includes protecting the rights of under-represented
minorities.
D. Administrators implement policies in good faith as equitably and economically as
possible, regardless of their personal views.
E. Whistle-blowing is appropriate on unlawful or improper actions.
F. Citizens have a fair and equal opportunity to express their views to City officials.
G. City officials do not give the appearance of impropriety or personal gain by accepting
personal gifts.
H. City officials devote City resources, including paid time, working supplies and capital
assets, to benefit the public.
I. Political campaigns are not conducted on City time or property.
1.03.030 Objectivity. City officials' decisions are based on the merits of the issues. Judgment is
independent and objective.
A. City officials avoid financial conflict of interest and do not accept benefits from people
requesting to affect decisions.
B. If an individual official's financial or personal interests will be specifically affected by a
decision, the official is to withdraw from participating in the decision.
C. City officials avoid bias or favoritism, and respect cultural differences as part of
decision-making.
D. Intervention on behalf of constituents or friends is limited to assuring fairness of
procedures, clarifying policies or improving service for citizens.
1.03.040 Accountability. Open government allows citizens to make informed judgments and to
hold officials accountable.
A. City officials exercise their authority with open meetings and public records.
Attachment A
- 34 -
B. Officials who delegate responsibilities make sure the work is carried out efficiently
and ethically.
C. Campaigns for election allow the voters to make an informed choice on appropriate
criteria.
D. Each City employee and appointee is encouraged to improve City systems by
identifying problems and proposing improvements.
E. City government systems are self-monitoring, with procedures in place to promote
appropriate actions.
1.03.050 Leadership.
A. City officials obey all laws and regulations.
B. City officials do not exploit loopholes.
C. Leadership facilitates, rather than blocks, open discussion.
D. Officials avoid discreditable personal conduct and are personally honest.
E. All City bureaus and work teams are encouraged to develop detailed ethical
standards, training, and enforcement.
F. The City Auditor will publish a pamphlet containing explanations and examples of
ethical principles.
Source: http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=bced&c=cggfd#code
Attachment A
- 35 -
APPENDIX 4
PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES (EXECUTIVE ORDER 12674)
"Part I Principles of Ethical Conduct
"Section 101. Principles of Ethical Conduct. To ensure that
every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the
Federal Government, each Federal employee shall respect and adhere to
the fundamental principles of ethical service as implemented in
regulations promulgated under sections 201 and 301 of this order:
"(a) Public service is a public trust requiring employees to
place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles
above private gain.
"(b) Employees shall not hold financial interests that conflict
with the conscientious performance of duty.
"(c) Employees shall not engage in financial transactions using
nonpublic Government information or allow the improper use of such
information to further any private interest.
"(d) An employee shall not, except pursuant to such reasonable
exceptions as are provided by regulation, solicit or accept any gift
or other item of monetary value from any person or entity seeking
official action from. doing business with, or conducting activities
regulated by the employee's agency, or whose interests may be
substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the
employee's duties.
"(e) Employees shall put forth honest effort in the performance of
their duties.
"(f) Employees shall make no unauthorized commitments or promises
of any kind purporting to bind the Government.
"(g) Employees shall not use public office for private gain.
"(h) Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential
treatment to any private organization or individual.
"(i) Employees shall protect and conserve Federal property and
shall not use it for other than authorized activities.
"(j) Employees shall not engage in outside employment or
activities, including seeking or negotiating for employment, that
conflict with official Government duties and responsibilities.
"(k) Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption
to appropriate authorities.
"(l) Employees shall satisfy In good faith their obligations as
citizens, including all just financial obligations, especially
Attachment A
- 36 -
those such as Federal, State, or local taxes-that are imposed by law.
"(m) Employees shall adhere to all laws and regulations that
provide equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap.
"(n) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the
appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards
promulgated pursuant to this order.”
Attachment A
- 37 -
APPENDIX 5
NEW YORK CITY CODE OF ETHICS
The City’s Conflicts of Interest Law prohibits public servants from using or appearing to
use their City positions for their own personal benefit. To comply with the law, you
cannot:
Use your City position to gain any private advantage for yourself, a close family member, or
anyone with whom you have a financial relationship.
Use City resources for any non-City purpose, or disclose confidential City information to any
private person or firm.
Accept any valuable gift from someone doing business with any City agency, or anything
from anyone for performing your City job.
Take a second job with a firm, or own all or part of a firm, that has business with any City
agency, unless you receive approval from the Board and your agency.
Enter into any kind of private financial relationship with a superior or subordinate.
Ask a subordinate to work on a political campaign or make a political contribution.
Take part in a not-for-profit organization’s business dealings with any City agency.
Discuss possible future employment with a firm you are currently dealing with in your City
job.
Communicate with your former agency on behalf of a private firm for one year after you
leave City service, or ever work on a matter you personally and substantially worked on
while with the City.
__________________________________________________
For information or to get advice on the City’s Ethics Law, call the Conflicts of Interest Board at
212-442-1400 (calls are confidential)
or visit our website at http://nyc.gov/ethics
This material is intended as a general guide. It is not intended to replace the text of the law (Charter §
2604). For more particular information or answers to specific questions, please write or call the Board.
Also, bear in mind that individual agencies may have additional restrictions on the acceptance of gifts,
moonlighting, and other issues. Contact your agency counsel for more information.
1/05
Source: www.nyc.gov/html/conflicts/downloads/pdf/ethicsguide.pdf
Attachment A
- 38 -
Integrity
Line
602-261-8999
Integrity
Line
602-261-8999
APPENDIX 6
CITY OF PHOENIX INTEGRITY LINE
Do you know where to report inappropriate employee conduct?
The recommended course of action is to report it to your supervisor or department head. But in cases where you do
not feel comfortable doing this, there are other options. The table below can guide you:
Issue Refer issue to
Hiring process, recruitments, employee
qualifications, performance evaluations
Department Personnel Officer or
Personnel Department @ (262-6609 or 261-8687 (TdD)
Sexual Harassment (A.R. 2.35A) or Protected
Category Harassment (A.R. 2.35B)
Department Personnel Officer or
Equal Opportunity Department’s Compliance and
Enforcement Division @ 262-7486 or 534-1557 (TDD)
Discrimination / denial of equal employment
opportunities (A.R. 2.35)
Department Personnel Officer or
Personnel Department @ (262-6609 or 261-8687 (TDD)
For all other types of issues, call the Integrity Line (formally referred to as the MAC line) at 261-8999 or 534-5500
(TDD). The types of concerns that can be reported to the Integrity Line include, but are not limited to:
violations of laws or regulations
embezzlement
contract fraud
vendor kickbacks
loss or waste of city money or property
falsified documents
specific danger to public health or safety
To find out more about the Integrity Line, go to http://inphx:8000/AUDITOR/integrty.html. You will find out how the
process works and what information you should have when you call. It even gives you the option to report a problem
via the computer.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration Policy
Page 1 of 7
City Employee
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration
Policy
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration Policy
Page 2 of 7
Table of Contents
1. Objective ......................................................................................................................... 3
2. Structure ......................................................................................................................... 3
3. Hotline Review Committee ............................................................................................. 3
4. Case Management .......................................................................................................... 3
5. Case Dissemination ......................................................................................................... 4
6. Escalation ........................................................................................................................ 5
7. Reporting......................................................................................................................... 5
8. Prohibition Against Retaliation ....................................................................................... 5
9. Terms and Definitions ..................................................................................................... 5
10. Security of Incident Reports and Associated Reports, Working Papers, and Other Related
Documents .......................................................................................................................... 6
11. Custody of Investigation Documents ................................................................... 6
12. Public Requests for Information Regarding All Incident Reports ............................. 6
13. Filing of Malicious Complaints ............................................................................ 7
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration Policy
Page 3 of 7
1. Objective
The primary objective of the City of Palo Alto Fraud, Waste, or Abuse Hotline (“Hotline”) is to provide an
anonymous mechanism for employees to report fraud, waste, or abuse by City employees.
City employees who have specific information that other City employees have engaged in fraud, waste,
or abuse are encouraged to report such information through the normal chain of command which
includes their immediate supervisor, manager, department head, Human Resources, and the City
Manager’s Office (CMO). However, there may be certain circumstances where an employee believes it is
necessary to remain anonymous. The Hotline provides an anonymous method of reporting such
incidents over the phone to a third-party interviewer or via an anonymous web form. The City believes
that anonymity is a last resort and should only be used after other reporting methods have been
attempted or when the employee has a reasonable good faith belief that it is necessary. All reports
made regarding fraud, waste, or abuse should be made seriously and with due professional care.
2. Structure
The Hotline is hosted by an independent, third-party provider (vendor) contracted by the City. The
vendor provides the option for callers to provide information over the Hotline anonymously. The vendor
issues an Incident Report for each call and submits the Incident Reports for review and referral. The
vendor provides offsite hotline coverage 24/7/365 and live interviewers who obtain the information
deemed necessary to verify and process the complaints. This information is then transcribed into an
Incident Report, housed in a case management system.
3. Hotline Review Committee
The Hotline Review Committee (“Committee”) is composed of the following members or their
designees: the City Auditor, the City Manager, and the City Attorney. The Committee meets as needed
to review all activity related to the Hotline. The objectives of the Committee are to review all Incident
Reports, determine whether an Incident Report should be investigated, assign Incident Reports to the
appropriate department or unit for investigation, ensure that Incident Reports that are assigned for
investigation are adequately investigated, and address any trends in activity or weaknesses in City
policies requiring corrective action to be taken. Duplicate reports or reports that do not suggest fraud,
waste, or abuse may be closed without further investigation.
4. Case Management
The online case management system allows for all Hotline reports to be recorded, updated and tracked
in one centralized system to ensure that all reports are addressed appropriately and that the outcomes
are consistent. All Incident Reports are maintained in the secured case management system and are
periodically updated with the status of the investigation by the specified department case management
users and the OCA. Case management users include staff of the OCA who act as administrators of the
case management system, and one or more members of management from each department who will
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration Policy
Page 4 of 7
be assigned to respond to incidents within their departments. User access is limited to cases assigned to
them.
Additionally, the CMO will be provided certain administrative functions in the case management system
in order to create a check-and-balances system to ensure that the OCA is not investigating reports that
could be a conflict of interest for OCA employees.
5. Case Dissemination
After a call has been entered as an Incident Report and logged into the case management system by the
vendor, the report is sent electronically to the appropriate contacts at the OCA for preliminary review
within 24 hours. The OCA will triage the report to determine if immediate action may be necessary. If
immediate action appears necessary, the OCA will contact the Hotline Review Committee who will
decide whether to initiate an investigation. Incident Reports requiring immediate action include those
involving possible fraud, waste, or abuse by City executives, or other incidents based on the judgment of
the Hotline Review Committee. All other cases will be referred to the Hotline Review Committee in their
scheduled meetings.
If an Incident Report involves one or more members of the Hotline Review Committee, those individuals
shall be excluded from any decisions or activities related to the review and/or investigation of that
Incident Report. If this occurs, a Senior Performance Auditor, Assistant City Manager, and/or Senior
Assistant City Attorney, if needed, will act as members of the Hotline Review Committee to ensure there
are a minimum of two officials providing oversight of the review and investigation of the Incident
Report.
Because the members of the Hotline Review Committee are appointed by the City Council, the Hotline
will not accept incidents involving members of the City Council. Employees reporting these types of
complaints will be referred to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the District Attorney’s
Office, or other appropriate outside agency, depending upon the nature of the complaint.
Each department will have one or more dedicated contacts who will receive the Incident Report from
the Hotline Review Committee, disseminate it to the appropriate staff within their department, and
access the Report in the case management system to either assign it to another user in their department
to manage the case or make updates as to the case disposition themselves. The dedicated department
contact will complete the preliminary case closure before the Hotline Review Committee reviews and
formally closes an Incident Report.
As the Hotline Administrator, the OCA will be responsible for:
Monitoring of all Incident Reports referred to other departments or units for investigation, and
their outcomes,
Conducting an independent investigation of reported incidents when appropriate,
Monitoring the timeliness of department responses based on timeframes established by the
Hotline Review Committee, and
Closing Incident Reports after the final review of the Hotline Review Committee.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration Policy
Page 5 of 7
6. Escalation
An incident is designated for escalation if there is an imminent or significant threat of actual harm to
employees, customers, or operations. When a report is designated for escalation by the vendor, they
shall immediately call the appropriate designated contact(s) provided by the City. Escalation contacts
include the members of the Hotline Review Committee and their designees.
7. Reporting
The case management system allows for customized reporting of incidents reported to the Hotline.
Users may sort information and run reports on cases assigned to them, and administrators may create
reports on case dispositions, status, corrective action taken, and other trends. The OCA will provide a
quarterly summary report of complaints received by the Hotline to the City Council as an Information
Item. The form and content of the quarterly report shall be at the discretion of the City Auditor, will be
presented to and reviewed by the Hotline Review Committee, and will generally include the following:
The number of reports made to the Hotline,
The general types of complaints received,
Any trends in the types of complaints received, and
Any corrective action taken by City management as a result of a complaint received.
8. Prohibition Against Retaliation
No department or employee shall take any adverse action or retaliate against any employee for making
a report to the Hotline (except as provided in “Filing of Malicious Complaints,” below). Additionally, no
reprisal shall be taken against any employee who participates in any manner in the investigation and
disposition of a Hotline Incident Report.
This Prohibition Against Retaliation is a statement of City policy. It is not intended to and shall not
create a private right of action enforceable in state or federal court on behalf of any person, against the
City or any employee, for equitable relief or damages.
9. Terms and Definitions
Under California law, the term, "fraud, waste, or abuse" means:
Any activity by a local agency or employee that is undertaken in the performance of the employee's
official duties, including activities deemed to be outside the scope of his or her employment, that:
Is in violation of any local, state, or federal law or regulation relating to:
o Corruption,
o Malfeasance,
o Bribery,
o Theft of government property,
o Fraudulent claims,
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration Policy
Page 6 of 7
o Fraud,
o Coercion,
o Conversion,
o Malicious prosecution,
o Misuse of government property, or
o Willful omission to perform duty,
Is economically wasteful, or
Involves gross misconduct.
10. Security of Incident Reports and Associated Reports, Working Papers, and
Other Related Documents
Incident Reports, associated reports, working papers, and other documents referring to or
describing Incident Reports, which are received either through the Hotline, by mail, or e-mail shall
remain confidential to the extent allowed by law.
Incident Reports and associated case numbers shall only be provided to individuals who are
responsible and essential for conducting the investigation or reviewing of the Incident Report. These
individuals are required to hold such information in confidence, to the extent allowed by law.
The confidentiality of all Incident Reports, associated reports, working papers, and other documents
shall be maintained at all times by the City Auditor and investigating/reviewing departments, who
shall take such measures as they determine are reasonable and necessary to maintain the
confidentiality of such information and documents, to the extent allowed by law.
City Staff responsible for reviewing/investigating Incident Reports can make investigative disclosures
of information contained in an Incident Report to the extent necessary for obtaining additional
information relevant to the investigation.
The Hotline Review Committee is authorized to determine the distribution or release of any Incident
Reports, associated reports, working papers, other documents and correspondence associated
thereto, in accordance with the California Public Records Act and other applicable law.
The City Council may, at their discretion, authorize the release of information relative to
substantiated incident reports.
11. Custody of Investigation Documents
The City Auditor shall maintain custody of Incident Reports, associated reports, working papers, emails,
and all other pertinent information regarding any investigations of Incident Reports. Other parties
involved in the investigation shall also retain their own documentation. All such documents shall be
retained and or disposed of in accordance with applicable document retention policies of the City.
12. Public Requests for Information Regarding All Incident Reports
All requests for information concerning any Incident Report shall be directed to the City Auditor for a
response. The City Auditor, with the guidance of the Hotline Review Committee, shall respond to such
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration Policy
Page 7 of 7
requests as permissible and in accordance with applicable state law and City policy, rules and
regulations.
Departments shall notify the City Auditor of any Public Records Act or other requests for information or
documents regarding Incident Reports received through the City Auditor or the Hotline.
13. Filing of Malicious Complaints
The City will not tolerate malicious complaints. The processing of a complaint/concern requires staff
time and attention regardless of its appropriateness. Complaints/concerns will not be considered
malicious merely because they are determined to be unsubstantiated. A malicious complaint/concern is
one that is made in bad faith or with knowledge that the complaint entirely lacks any factual basis.
Malicious complaints may result in disciplinary action in accordance with applicable City policies and
procedures, up to and including termination from employment.
Attachment A
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 3
Regular Meeting
April 9, 2013
Discussion of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Pilot and the City Auditor's
Recommendation to Continue the Hotline Beyond the Pilot Phase.
Jim Pelletier, City Auditor, provided background on how and why the Hotline
came to be. Staff recommended the Hotline be continued beyond that of the
pilot phase. The Hotline was a program the provided callers with an
anonymous mechanism for reporting fraud waste and abuse in the City. He
provided best practices and guidelines for Hotlines and their impact. He
reviewed the Federal sentencing guidelines for organizations.
Chair Kniss asked if other cities had Hotline Programs.
Mr. Pelletier said yes, according to the National Business Ethics Survey,
based on a 2011 survey; 82 percent of corporations and 91 percent of
governments had written Codes of Ethics and 77 percent of corporations and
85 percent of governments had a mechanism for anonymous reporting in
place. The two cost components of a Hotline were the cost to operate the
line itself and the cost to review and investigate. Staff found the hotline
portion to be cost effective to contract with a third party vendor. The key
considerations for Council would be the amount of Staff time and resources
necessary to adequately investigate all calls weighed against the benefits of
having a hotline in place.
Chair Kniss believed a Hotline may deter people from unethical behavior.
Mr. Pelletier noted studies have shown those organizations with Codes of
Ethics and a program to detect fraud had a lower ratio of observed poor
behavior and increased productivity of staff.
Council Member Holman asked for clarification on one of the incidents listed
in the report; it was not noted as a benefit.
Mr. Pelletier apologized for the footnote not being complete and clarified for
that particular call, the allegation was unsubstantiated but Staff recognized
the policy needed to be improved for clarification.
Attachment B
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 2 of 3
Policy and Services Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt Minutes 04/09/13
Council Member Holman asked if the Auditor or City Attorney had received
feedback from Staff regarding their appreciation of the hotline being
available.
Mr. Pelletier had not received direct notification although receiving calls
proved to him there were those employees who appreciated the ability to
speak out.
Council Member Klein was surprised there was an outside contractor hired
for the Hotline investigations. He asked what the cost of their contract was.
Mr. Pelletier stated when the policy for the Hotline was administered the
process was the allegation would be brought to the City Auditor, City
Attorney and City Manager(the Human Resources Director is also informed)
which formed a committee. The committee collaborated and given the
nature, complexity and multitude of the complaints it was determined an
outside consultant would be better suited.
Council Member Klein asked what the expected estimate would be for their
services.
Mr. Pelletier said the consultant would be working in phases. Each phase
would be reviewed by the committee to determine the next steps. At that
the expected cost was a couple thousand dollars for the initial information.
Council Member Klein said the report was reflective of six complaints over
eight months. He asked how that number compared to other organizations
of similar size.
Mr. Pelletier said based on research it was fairly typical for government
agencies to have a small number. In Palo Alto there was not a Code of Ethics
in place so the employees did not have a reference to go by on whether or
not to report an item.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member Klein
to recommend the City Council continue the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
Hotline Program.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Council Member Price asked the status of the earlier recommendation for a
Code of Ethics training and Compliance Program developments. They appear
to be key elements to the Hotline utilization.
Attachment B
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 3 of 3
Policy and Services Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt Minutes 04/09/13
Mr. Pelletier acknowledged his office would be happy to support the
development of the program.
Council Member Price believed the City Manager’s office had begun some
effort in this area with an outside consultant.
Pamela Antil, Assistant City Manager, stated the City Manager’s office would
provide a separate report on the full efforts; however, they did terminate
their consultant.
Council Member Holman asked if there was a possible timeframe on the
report.
Ms. Antil volunteered to provide an Informational Report at the next
Committee meeting.
Council Member Price asked if both departments would be working in
partnership on the Code of Ethics training and program development.
Mr. Pelletier stated yes, and he would include the City Attorney’s office for
legal input.
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3747)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Contract Amendment with RBF Consulting
Title: Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract with RBF Consulting to add
$134,088 for a Total Not To Exceed $484,088 for Design Services for the
California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Improvements Project
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute
Amendment No. Two (Attachment A) with RBF Consulting for the California Avenue Transit Hub
Corridor Streetscape Improvements Project to add an additional $134,088 for additional design
services, for a total contract amount not to exceed $484,088.
Background
The City initiated the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Project in the Fall of
2010. The design contract was then awarded to the RBF/David Gates & Associates consultant
team on July 25, 2011. Sidewalk widening and additional landscaping opportunities were
requested by the City Council during initiation of the project and a preferred street alignment
was approved on July 23, 2012. Several minor street alignment modifications were made as a
result of the community outreach meetings to help respond to merchant requests for improved
customer access and overall corridor circulation.
On March 4, 2013, the Council reviewed the street lighting options and provided direction to
staff to include replacement of the exiting street lighting for the California Avenue Transit Hub
Corridor Streetscape Project. A Contract Amendment with RBF Consulting is required to
complete the additional sidewalk widening and lighting design for the project.
Discussion
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Additional funding is required for the design of the sidewalk widening element of the project
which includes extra curb and gutter removal , storm drain improvements, streetscape and site
amenties plan, and provisions for outreach with the business merchants and the community.
Funding is also required to implement additional lighting analysis required for the replacement
of the streetlights on California Avenue as directed by Council.
The increased design budget will also accommodate coordination of the New Founatin Design
at the Park Boulevard Plaza. The original scope included coordination with the founatin
sculpture, however additional scope is required to fully integrate construction into the
improvement plans.
Timeline
The City anticipates continuing the detailed design phase of the project through the Spring
2013, to allow opportunities for community feedback and allow for formal review by the
Architectural Review Board and Parks & Recreation Commission for the design of the Park
Boulevard Plaza.
Project design should be completed by the end of Spring of 2013. Staff will return to Council
late Spring for final approval prior to advertising the project for bids. The City anticipates
advertising the project for competitive bids in the Summer of 2013, with construction beginning
in the Fall 2013.
Resource Impacts
Funding for the amendment to the Contract for additional design services is included in the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project PL-11002- California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor
Streetscape Project. Council has already approved the CIP to fund the design phase in the
amount of $550,000 on the February 14, 2011 Council meeting.
Policy Implications
The City’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City enhance the California Avenue
streetscape by upgrading the visual quality of the street to attract additional business and
visitors to the area. Consistent with those Comprehensive Plan goals, the proposed streetscape
and place-making improvements along California Avenue should ensure continued vitality of
the California Avenue Business District. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages a mix of
residential and non-residential uses at a scale of development that is comfortable for
pedestrian use. The Plan encourages improving the appearance of the street while preserving
its “hometown” character. Also, Program L-18 specifically calls for street improvements that
City of Palo Alto Page 3
could make a substantial contribution to the character of Commercial Centers, including
narrowing travel lanes.
Environmental Review
A preliminary Initial Study and the Negative Declaration - CEQA (California Environmental
Quality Act) checklist for the project were completed, circulated for public review in December
2010 and approved by Council on February 14, 2011. The Negative Declaration concluded that
the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts and may be reviewed online
at www.cityofpaloalto.org/calave.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Amendment to Contract with RBF (PDF)
AMENDMENT NO.2 TO CONTRACT NO. S11140691
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
RBF CONSULTING
This Amendment No.2 to Contract No. S 11140691 ("Contract") is entered into on
XX May, 2013, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal
corporation ("CITY"), and RBF CONSULTING, a California corporation, located at SOO Ygnacio
Valley Road, Walnut Creek, California 94612 ("CONSULTANT").
REC ITALS:
WHEREAS, the City intends to reactivate the contract from the expiration date of
July 1,2012 and extend the contractterm to December 31,2014 and increase the compensation from
a total not to exceed of$350,OOO.00, by $134,088.00, to a new total not to exceed of$484,088.00 for
additional work as specified in EXHIBIT "AI" Additional Scope of Work.
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract;
NOW., THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and
provisions ofthis Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section 2 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 2. TERM. The term ofthis Agreement shall be from the date of its full
execution through December 31, 2014 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this
agreement"
SECTION 2. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Four Hundred Two Thousand
FOllr Hundred Twenty Six Dollars ($402,426.00). In the event Optional services $36, I 00.00 as
outlined in Exhibit "A" or use of Additional Services in the amount of $45,562.00 are authorized,
the total compensation for these services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $81,662.00
Dollars. Therefore the value of this agreement shall not exceed Four Hundred Eighty Four Thousand
Eighty Eight Dollars ($484,088.00) The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in
Exhibit "C-l ", entitled "HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part of
this Agreement.
Optional Services or Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject
to the provisions of Exhibit "C". CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Optional
Services or Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Optional
Services or Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for
the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services
Revision July 25, 2012
Sidewalk Widening Design
EXHIBIT "AI"
ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK
This Scope of work shall include additional design, survey and coordination required to provide
construction bid documents (Plans, Specification & Estimate) for California Avenue sidewalk
widening concept approved by City Council on July 23, 2012.
TASK 1-FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS &c ESTIMATE
Task 1.01-Revise Approved 15% Concept Plan
The City Council approved the 15% sidewalk widening conceptual plan on 7/231 2012.
CONSULTANT'S staff met with the City on 8/30/2012 to get authorization to proceed with the
final PS&E based on this approved conceptual plan. The City staff requested major revisions to
the sidewalk widening alignment. CONSULTANT'S project team revised the alignment and met
with the City staff again on 9/1112012 to get approval of the revised alignment. The
CONSULTANT'S project team has since prepared geometries and cost estimates for 4 sidewalk
widening alternatives to assist the City in value engineering. The four alternatives evaluated are:
I) construction of trench drain; 2) construction of grate on top of existing gutter; 3) construction
of valley gutter in place of trench drain; and 4) construction of flush curb.
Task 1.02 -Additional Field Survey
Design topographic map per original scope of work was completed in September 2011. The
CONSULTANT'S project team shall provide an additional field survey due to sidewalk
widening to survey all conform area, edge of pavement where sidewalk widening is extended to,
as well as locating all existing thru sidewalk roof drains so new connection can be provided.
Task 1.03 -60% PS &E
Based on the approved revised 15% sidewalk widening concept plan, and using Alternative One
cross section (use of new trench drains), the CONSULTANT'S project team shall prepare 60%
improvement plans that will incorporate the sidewalk widening. The plan sheets (Exhibit
shall be expanded from the original scope of work to include the design of sidewalk widening
along with the associated improvement it will require.
• l.03a: Plan & Profile Street Improvement Plans
Original Scope of work assumed the existing face of curb would remain in place except
at few intersection bulb-outs. The proposed sidewalk shall removal of
existing curb and gutter and sidewalk in some locations, and construction of new curb
and gutter to conform to existing pavement elevation. New curb profiles will need to be
designed to assure proper drainage and conform for the sidewalk widening locations.
• l.03b: Storm Drain Improvement Plans
The sidewalk widening shall require removal of curb, gutter and sidewalk in
some locations. Proper attention shall be given to the design so sidewalk widening
will not cause ponding of water. Trench drain or a concrete channel shall be designed at
the interface of existing curb with the new sidewalk in order to pick up the surface water
Page lof5
EXHIBIT "AI"
ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK
from the eXlstmg and proposed sidewalk, as well as to provide new connection for
existing thru sidewalk roof drains. The Storm Drain design shall require additional plan
and profiles sheets as well as associated stann drain details.
• l.03c: Demolition Plan
The demolition plan included in the original scope of work shall be expanded to include
the sidewalk widening design, as well as the additional intersection bulb-outs.
• 1.03d: Construction Details / Cross Sections
Additional cross sections and construction details shall be prepared and included on the
bid set at the sidewalk widening locations.
• 1.03e: Traffic Control Plans
The traffic control plans included in the original scope of work shall be expanded to
allow for the construction of the sidewalk widening and a more complicated traffic
phasing assuring access to businesses during construction.
• 1.03f:Planting & Irrigation expansion
The new sidewalk widening design shall allow for additional landscaping and pot
planting. This shall result in expansion of the original planting and irrigation scope.
• l.03g: Streetscape element / site amenities plan
The new sidewalk widening design shall allow for additional streetscape element and site
amenities. This shall result in expansion of the original scope of work.
• 1.03h: Specifications expansion
CONSULTANT shall provide written specifications for the additional improvements
specified due to sidewalk widening design such as trench drain, roof connections, etc.
• 1.03 i: Cost Estimate
CONSULTANT shall provide an engineer's estimate of probable construction costs for
all additional civil, streetscape, planting and irrigation improvements due to proposed
sidewalk widening.
Task 1.04 -90% Contract Documents
The CONSULTANT'S project team shall prepare 90% improvement plans that implement City
and community comments to the 60% improvement plans. The 90% improvements shall be
considered the Draft Final Bid Set for final review and approval by the City.
Task 1.05 -100% Contract Documents
Upon receipt of the E-76 from Caltrans, the CONSULTANT shall submit 100% stamped
engineer's plans on mylar, specifications, and engineer's estimate details for bidding by the City
for selection of a construction contractor.
Page2of5
EXHIBIT" AI"
ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK
TASK 2 -MEETINGS
The proposed sidewalk widening design will require additional graphic materials, preparation of
additional cross sections for the power point presentations, additional coordination with city staff
and additional discussions at the community meetings as well as the advisory board meetings.
Task 2.01 -Community Meetings
An additional fee has been included for preparation of additional cross sections, power point
slides and discussions due to proposed sidewalk widening design.
Tasl{ 2.02 -Advisory Board Meetings
An additional fee has been included for preparation of additional cross sections, power point
slides and discussions dye to proposed sidewalk widening design.
Task 2.03 -Meetings with City Project Team
An additional fee has been included to account for discussions and coordination for the sidewalk
widening design.
This Scope of Work assumes Alternative One noted in above Task J.Ol (construction of new
trench drain as presented to Public Works Department on 3/18/2013) will be the cross section
used for proposed sidewalk widening. Any revisions to the proposed Alternative One cross
section for Sidewalk Widening Design are not included in this Scope of Work.
TASK 3 -WORK PRODUCT SUB MITT AL
The proposed sidewalk widening will require additional plans sheets to incorporate the design
into the original scope of work plan set. The CONSULTANT shall provide both reproducible
and electronic sets of plans at 60%, 90% and lOO% (Final) to the City for reproduction.
TASK 4 -CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES
The original scope of work will be expanded to include responding to Request for Infonnation
during both the Project Bid and Construction phases of the project due to sidewalk widening
design.
Task 4.01 -Bid Support Services
The original Scope of work shall be expanded to include response to any questions during
bidding due to sidewalk widening design. Services will be provided on a time and material basis
within the budget established under the fee section.
Page 3 of 5
EXHIBIT "AI"
ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK
Task 4.02 -Construction Support Services
The original Scope of work shall be expanded to include preparation of responses to RFI's
including any necessary Plan Revisions to clarifY construction process for or to address any
design changes identified during construction for the proposed sidewalk widening. Services shall
be provided on a time and material basis within the budget established under the fee section and
includes:
• 4.02a: Shop Drawing Review
• 4.02b: Construction Plan Interpretation
• 4.02c: Construction Meetings & Observation
• 4.02d: Punch List, Approval & Close Out
• 4.02e: Final Record Drawings
Fountain Design Coordination
The CONSULTANT'S project team shall provide the following additional services for the
proposed fountain design at the Plaza at California Avenue.
Fountain Design -The original scope included coordination with the fountain sculpture
artist Mike Szabo for general layout of the fountain to be included in the plaza design.
This additional scope is to provide more detailed coordination and to complete peer
review of Mike Szabo's drawings and specifications to be included in CONSULTANT'S
project team contract bid document set The specific Scope of Work includes:
TASK 4.03 -Coordination with Fountain Sculpture Artist
• Review artist's plan
• Coordinate on the lighting for the sculptural fountain
• Review grading around the fountain
• Coordinate with artist on the fountain equipment
• Review artist bid documents
l'hotometric Analysis and l'reliminary Design for California Ave Street and Pedestrian
Lights
CONSULTANT'S project team shall provide a photometric analysis to establish the pole
heights, fixture wattages, and number of poles required to provide lighting levels in compliance
with City provided foot-candle requirements. If the City does not possess foot-candle
requirements, lighting levels will be provided in accordance with ANSI/IESNA RP-8-00. The
analyses shall include the maximum, minimum, and average lighting levels and the
maximum/minimum and average/minimum ratios.
Page4of5
EXHIBIT "AI"
ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall submit the completed photometric analysis to the City for approval as a
basis of design document prior to completing the electrical plan drawings, Preliminary Design
shall include the spacing and type of preferred street and pedestrian lights,
This Scope of Work does not include final design and preparation of Plan and Specifications for
the California Avenue Street and Pedestrian Lights,
Page50f5
EXHIBIT "c"
COMPJ;~NSA nON
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule
attached as Exhibit Col
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in "A" {"Services"} and reimbursable expenses shall not
$285,828.00 dollars as set forth in the fee schedule attached as Exhibit "C2". The
compensation to paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in
Exhibit "AI" ("Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $116,598,00 dollars as
set forth in the fee schedules attached as ,Exhibits "cr, "C4" and "C5". CONSULTANT
agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the
event CITY authorizes any Optional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed
$36,100.00 dollars. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum
compensation shall not exceed $45,562.00 dollars. Any work performed or expenses incurred
for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation
set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. The total Not-To-Exceed value of this
agreement is $448,088.00 dollars,
OPTIONALAND ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide optional andlor additional services only by advanced
written authorization from the City.
The scope for any Optional services authorized shall be as set forth in Exhibit "A"
For Additional Services, the CONSCLTANT, at the City's project manager's request, shall
submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule,
level of effort, and CONSCLTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including
reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-I. The
additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and
agreed to in writing by the City's Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to
commencement of the services. Payment additional services is subject to all requirements
and restrictions in this Agreement.
TASK DESCRIPnON
Projeel
Man~ger
~
I
EXHIBIT C4
ESTIMA TED FEE
California Avenue Corridor Enhancement Project
Fountain Design Coordination
I I I
RBF-CONSULTING
Seniol Llcen&ed PrincipaL
En.glneet .~. 1-manCrew Surveyor
I I
GATES .... ASSOClA:rES
Final Hoof'S FiNiI
'" Projecl Total Total
Manager Irrigation CildiGrilphtn
!§
"."'"
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3759)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Plan Bay Area City Response
Title: City of Palo Alto Response to Plan Bay Area Final Draft and
Environmental Impact Report
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends a Council MOTION to approve the attached letters (Attachments A and B) to
the regional agencies presenting the City of Palo Alto’s response and comments to the final
draft Plan Bay Area documents and the related Environmental Impact Report.
Background
On March 22, 2013, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) released the Final Draft Plan Bay Area, the regional planning
document required by State law pursuant to Senate Bill 375 (2008). The Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the document was released on April 2, 2013. The agencies have
requested comments on the two documents by not later than May 16, 2013, and adoption of
the Plan Bay Area and EIR are scheduled for July by the ABAG and MTC executive boards.
In May of 2012, the agencies adopted a “Preferred Scenario” for the Sustainable Communities
Strategy for the region, and subsequently initiated environmental review for that scenario and
four alternative scenarios. The Final Draft Plan Bay Area is virtually identical to the Preferred
Scenario, emphasizing new housing and employment near Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
and transit stations and corridors, accompanied by expected major improvements in transit
infrastructure. The Plan accommodates an estimated increase of 2.1 million residents, 1.1
million jobs, and 660,000 housing units in the Bay Area over the 2010-2040 timeframe.
Substantial additional background on the overall Plan Bay Area (also referred to as One Bay
Area) effort is available online on the ABAG/MTC project website at:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
http://www.onebayarea.org/.
Regional Housing Mandate Committee Review
Staff met with the Regional Housing Mandate Committee on April 11, 2013, to review the latest
plan and DEIR and a suggested approach to respond to the documents at the Committee
meeting. The Committee voted to support staff’s recommendation to reiterate the comments
made by the City in March of 2012, and to request that low, high and “most likely” forecasts be
included and studied. The Committee also agreed to focus DEIR comments at a high level on
the City’s preference for a particular alternative or alternatives, again related to a range of
demographic and economic forecasts. The Committee further suggested that the DEIR
comments should note that localized impacts are not addressed, and should request an
alternative that addresses greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions through other means. Committee
members also asked that, if possible, staff identify other cities with similar situations to
effectuate a concerted response. The changes suggested to the letters were incorporated.
The Committee is scheduled to review and recommend the letters to Council on May 9, 2013,
subsequent to the release of this report and Council packet. Staff will report to the Council the
Committee’s action and recommended changes to the letters, if any.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
On May 1, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended (5-0, with two
commissioners absent) that the Council approve the two letters to be sent to the regional
agencies. The PTC discussed the Plan Bay Area process for two hours, generally in a study
session format as an update for the newest commissioners. There was no discussion, however,
of the letters, and no changes suggested. The draft PTC minutes have therefore not been
attached.
Discussion
The Final Draft Plan Bay Area and the Draft Environmental Impact Report are available online
at: http://onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan-bay-area/draft-plan-bay-area.html. An
overview of the Plan is included as Attachment C to this report. The housing units and job
projections for Palo Alto and other cities were provided separately (Attachment D). The
projections are identical to the Preferred Scenario projections.
Staff is aware that some of the Commission members have not had extensive background
regarding this issue previously. The best sources of information are probably the staff reports
(and attachments) to City Council on February 21, 2012 (available online at:
http://archive.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=30288) and on March 5,
City of Palo Alto Page 3
2012 (available online at:
http://archive.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=30448). The March 5,
2012 Council action approved the City’s comments regarding the Preferred Scenario
(Attachment F).
The Draft EIR evaluates the proposed plan and four alternative scenarios with regard to their
impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as a number of other environmental and
equity criteria. Staff had provided initial input to ABAG/MTC regarding alternatives that should
be considered (Attachment G), though none of the alternatives directly follows from or
responds to the City’s suggestions.
Staff has developed draft responses to the Final Draft Plan Bay Area and to the Draft EIR, as
discussed below.
City of Palo Alto Response to Final Draft Plan Bay Area
A draft letter (Attachment A) is provided to respond to the Final Draft Plan Bay Area document.
The letter generally restates and updates the May 2012 letter to ABAG regarding the Preferred
Scenario. The key components of the letter include the following:
The Regional Forecast of jobs and housing overstate future growth in the Bay Area, and
are inconsistent with statewide forecasts of the Department of Finance.
Palo Alto’s allocation of jobs and housing units is highly unrealistic and excessive relative
to historical growth trends and development capacity.
The land use changes contemplated in the Final Draft Plan Bay Area have a
proportionately small contribution to achieving AB32/SB375 GHG reduction targets.
The City of Palo Alto has been a national leader in implementing policies and programs
that reduce GHG emissions.
The primary changes from the March 2012 letter are updating the forecast section to discuss
the Department of Finance’s most recent forecasts and suggesting that the forecasts include
high, low and “most likely” scenarios and evaluate the impacts of each.
City Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) comprises over 1,300 pages of materials. The
Executive Summary section of the EIR is attached (Attachment E) if Commission members
prefer not to peruse the entire document. Staff believes the key component of the EIR is the
Alternatives section, which outlines a “No Project” Alternative, the Proposed Plan, and three
City of Palo Alto Page 4
other alternatives. The impact analysis is conducted at a regional level, so that no local impacts
to Palo Alto or other jurisdictions are evaluated, though some (traffic congestion, land use
impacts) are acknowledged as “significant and unavoidable.” Also of critical importance is the
Key Assumptions section, particularly the assumption that the growth forecasts are based on
the documents prepared by the regional agencies, to which the City has consistently objected.
Staff does not believe that it is productive for the City to conduct an in-depth review of the
Environmental Impact Report. Instead, staff has prepared a letter response (Attachment B) that
focuses on: a) objecting to the Key Assumption regarding population growth, b) requesting an
alternative that is a hybrid of the current trends (No Project) alternative and the Proposed Plan,
c) requesting an alternative that addresses other means of reducing greenhouse gases (GHG),
and d) objecting to Alternatives Three, Four and Five, as one (Enhanced Network of
Communities) projects even higher population and housing growth regionally than the
Proposed Plan, and the other two (Transit Priority and Equity) focus greater housing growth and
burdens on suburban job centers such as Palo Alto.
Conclusion
Staff believes that the proposed letters reflect the City of Palo Alto’s continued objections to
the Plan Bay Area effort, particularly the singular and overstated population, housing and
economic projections. Staff expects that, at this point in the process, comments on the Plan
and DEIR are unlikely to result in modifications, but that it remains important to comment to: 1)
be “on the record” of concern and opposition to some of these issues, in the event litigation or
other challenges are subsequently raised, and 2) counter arguments by other stakeholders who
may argue for even increased allocations to cities like Palo Alto, such as the potential DEIR
alternatives.
Timeline
The deadline for comments to the agencies, for both the Plan and the DEIR, is May 16, 2013.
Upon Council approval, staff will forward the letters to the regional agencies. The boards of
ABAG and MTC are scheduled to consider the Plan and EIR for adoption in July.
Resource Impact
There are no expected resource impacts from the preparation of the letters to the agencies,
other than staff time devoted to preparing staff reports and attending Commission, Committee,
and Council meetings.
Policy Implications
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The City’s response represents Council policy regarding growth and development, as expressed
in previous comments on regional planning and housing efforts.
Environmental Review
No environmental review is required to comment on the Plan and DEIR.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Response to Final Draft SCS (DOCX)
Exhibit 1: "Demographic Forecasting in California," prepared by Councilmember Greg
Schmid, November, 2011 (PDF)
Exhibit 2: "Demographic Forecasts for Plan Bay Area: Why Aren't They More Helpful,"
prepared by Councilmember Greg Schmid, May, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment B: Response to Final Draft SCS DEIR (DOCX)
Attachment C: Final Draft Plan Bay Area Overview (PDF)
Attachment D: Palo Alto Housing and Employment Projections 2010-2040 (PDF)
Attachment E: Executive Summary of Draft Environmental Impact Report (PDF)
Attachment F: March 5, 2012 Palo Alto Response to Preferred Scenario (PDF)
Attachment G: July 11, 2012 Palo Alto Response to EIR Notice of Preparation (PDF)
City of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
ATTACHMENT A
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax
May 13, 2013
Mr. Mark Luce, President
Association of Bay Area Governments Joseph P. Bort Metro Center
P.O, Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94607-4756
Re: City of Palo Alto Comments on Final Draft Plan Bay Area
Dear Mr, Luce:
The City of Palo Alto has reviewed the proposed Final Draft Plan Bay Area (Plan) and the
associated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The City has previously reviewed and
commented on the Preferred Scenario tentatively adopted by the agencies in May of 2012,
and on prior alternative scenarios.
This letter provides the City of Palo Alto's (City) comments regarding the Plan, while a
separate letter will be provided outlining comments on the DEIR. In summary, the City's
concerns are as follows:
The regional forecasts of jobs and housing being considered as part of the Plan overstate
future growth in the Bay Area and are inconsistent with the most recent Department of
Finance projections. ABAG should recognize the distinct possibility that actual growth
rates in the Bay Area over the next 30 years may be lower and should evaluate a range of
growth potential and phase job and housing allocations and implementation accordingly.
Palo Alto's allocation of jobs and housing units under the Plan is excessive by reference to
its historical growth trends and development capacity; these allocations should more
accurately consider policy constraints, market feasibility, and the high infrastructure costs
and local fiscal impacts of such intensive redevelopment.
The land use changes contemplated in the SCS Alternative Scenarios have a
proportionately small contribution to achieving AB32/SB375 GHG reduction targets and
there are very limited differences shown between the scenarios considered; the
substantial effort and investment needed to effect these land use changes should be re-
directed to more cost-effective regional and local GHG reduction measures.
Page 2 of 6
The City of Palo Alto has been a national leader in implementing policies and programs
that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the effectiveness of these efforts
should be considered as a part of the SCS and achieving regional GHG emission reduction
targets.
The following items elaborate on the summary points listed above.
1. The Regional Forecast of jobs and housing overstate future growth in the Bay Area
and are inconsistent with the most recent Department of Finance forecasts.
The regional forecast of jobs and housing for the region substantially overstates growth for
the overall Plan period (through 2040), implying greater RHNA (Regional Housing Needs
Assessment) housing allocations for cities through that period. Significantly, the overall
regional allocation continues to ignore the updated demographic forecasts of the State’s
Department of Finance (DOF). Whereas the Plan Bay Area estimates an increase of 2.1
million population from 2010-2040, DOF projects only a 1.3 million increase, approximately
40% less. This creates an unrealistic scenario for long-term planning, potentially creating
unreasonable and unachievable housing mandates and infrastructure needs. Although the
SCS process does allow for adjustment of long-term growth projections on a periodic basis,
the City encourages ABAG to regain public confidence of its numbers by working with the
Department of Finance to reduce the 2010-2040 projections to reflect the adaptations
already made by the Department of Finance to the changing State of California
demographics. Furthermore, current and future projections should be adjusted so they are
more consistent with historical growth patterns and/or a range of projections should be
adopted that reflect meaningful planning scenarios in response to market changes over time.
The City suggests that the agencies should adopt “low,” “high,” and “most likely” forecasts for
planning. An analysis of the inadequacy of the current long-range projections, authored by
Palo Alto Councilmember Greg Schmid, was submitted to ABAG during the Preferred
Scenario evaluation process and is attached to this letter. A more recent analysis prepared by
Councilmember Schmid, specifically focused on the Plan Bay Area Final Draft, is also
attached.
a. Jobs. Regarding the ABAG jobs forecast, a comparison with the last 20 years is noteworthy.
Average job increases between 1990 and 2010 approximated 10,000 net new jobs annually.
Excluding the three years that included the Great Recession where substantial jobs losses
occurred (i.e. 2008-2010), the Bay Region added jobs at an average annual rate of 25,200
between 1990 and 2007. The ABAG jobs forecast used for the Plan assumes that the Region
will add an average of over 33,000 jobs annually from 2010 to 2040, a 32% increase over the
pre-recession trend line. The method used to arrive at the jobs forecast assumes a "shift-
share" of a national jobs growth forecast that itself is subject to question. As a part of
revisions to the regional jobs forecast, ABAG should consider a more fundamental economic
assessment that identifies the key industries in the Bay Area that will drive job growth and
also the distinct possibility that future jobs and housing may be closer to recent historical
growth trends.
Page 3 of 6
b. Housing. Regarding the ABAG housing forecast used for the Plan, an additional 660,000
households are shown added to the Bay Area between 2010 and 2040 - an annual average
growth of 22,000 households. Until very recently, the Bay Area, like much of the United
States, was mired in a weak housing market characterized by very limited new development,
low pricing, slow sales of existing homes, tight credit, and an oversupply of homes resulting
from a historically high number of foreclosed and distressed properties. These conditions
are improving, but it may be several more years until the existing inventory is reduced and
substantial improvement in the job market and related increases in household income
occurs. In any event, the Bay Area will need to be in "catch-up" mode, meaning even higher
additional households per year must be realized to meet the SCS forecast growth rates, once
more normal housing market conditions emerge. Moreover, ABAG's regional housing
forecast is based on a “shift-share” model of a national employment forecast prepared by
the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics. The forecast also presumes that international in-
migration (primarily of Asian and Hispanic peoples) would continue and comprise
approximately 80 percent of all population growth nationwide, well in excess of migration
trends documented by others.
c. Housing Affordability. In addition to questions regarding job growth (the ultimate cause of
housing demand) there are a number of other questions regarding ABAG's housing forecast
including those related to affordability. A presentation made by Karen Chapple of UC
Berkeley at the ABAG's January Regional Advisory Working Group (RAWG) suggested
that given likely wages paid by the new jobs expected, over 70 percent of all new
households formed in the 2010 to 2040 period will be "moderate" income or below. In
many Bay Area locations, especially the inner Bay Area urbanized areas that are the focus of
growth under the SCS Alternative Scenarios, such "affordable" housing units must be
subsidized in one fashion or another, either as "inclusionary" units burdened upon the
market rate units constructed or by public subsidies such as (now eliminated)
redevelopment agency funding and federal tax credits. Given the loss of redevelopment
powers and funding and recent court cases affecting inclusionary programs (Palmer,
Patterson) there is no assurance that adequate housing subsidy funding will be available.
Accordingly, given all of these concerns, the City strongly recommends that the jobs and
housing forecasts for the Preferred Scenario be reduced to more accurately reflect the most
recent Department of Finance projections and historical trends. Developing a more realistic jobs
and housing forecast would reduce the implied need to intensify land uses, reduce projected
GHG emissions by lowering energy consumption, congestion and single occupancy vehicle trips,
and require less costly transit and highway infrastructure investments. The SCS effort is to be
revisited and updated every four years, so that there would be future opportunities to re-
evaluate whether a higher forecast is appropriate and adjustments would be needed.
2. Palo Alto's allocation of jobs and housing units under the proposed Plan is highly
unrealistic and excessive relative to historical growth trends and development
capacity.
Page 4 of 6
Santa Clara County dominates all other Bay Area counties in the allocation of ABAG's regional
forecast of jobs and housing, absorbing 33 percent of the regional job forecast and 36 percent
of the regional housing forecast. Palo Alto is allocated 29,650 new jobs and 7,870 new
households through 2040. These allocations have been made without regard to existing
development capacity in Palo Alto (use of remaining vacant land and redevelopment of existing
developed areas), the likely match between new household affordability and local housing
prices, or a range of other potential local costs for achieving the required high density
development.
a. Jobs. The City presently contains approximately 89,370 jobs, according to ABAG. During
the past decade (2000 to 2010), Palo Alto experienced a 14 percent decline in employment
reflecting the combined effect of the "dot-com" bust and the Great Recession. While
economic conditions are improving, there have been structural changes in technology
industries that have driven growth in the Silicon Valley over the past 50 years that portend
only modest growth. The proposed Plan, however, assumes that Palo Alto's job growth by
2040 will increase over the 2010 estimate by 33 percent.
b. Housing. The housing projections in the Alternative Scenarios represent a 30 percent
increase in housing units from 2010-2040, up to approximately 262 new units per year. The
City has in the past 40 years (1970-2010) produced an average of 148 units per year. To
increase that annual output by more than 50% in a relatively built-out city is again entirely
unrealistic and using such an assumption as the basis for growth scenarios and
transportation investments will likely result in failure of the planning effort.
c. Constraints. The City of Palo Alto is highly built out, and the existing limited number of
vacant sites and redevelopment opportunity sites severely limit how the households and
jobs allocated to Palo Alto in the SCS Alternative Scenarios could be accommodated, The
proposed Plan clearly does not appear to consider the many constraints to new
development in Palo Alto, including limited school capacity and funding for infrastructure.
Accordingly, the City requests that the allocations of jobs and housing units in Palo Alto
should be lowered substantially to more accurately consider policy constraints, market
feasibility, and infrastructure and local fiscal impacts of such intensive redevelopment.
3. The land use changes contemplated in the proposed Plan contribute a
proportionately small contribution to achieving AB32/SB375 GHG reduction targets.
The AB32/SB375 target for California is a reduction to 85 million equivalent metric tons per
year by 2050, an 80 percent reduction from current levels. To return to 1990 levels of 427
million tons, an 80 million ton reduction of projected 2020 levels is required. Of this 80
million ton reduction, approximately 96 percent is proposed to be achieved from improved
fuel standards, energy efficiency, industrial measures, and other methods needed to curb
emissions from the construction, manufacturing, and agricultural sectors. Only four percent,
however, or 3.2 million tons, would be achieved by altering land use patterns.
Page 5 of 6
a. Regional Transportation Pricing and Policies: The MTC analysis of various transportation
pricing and policy changes (e.g., telecommuting, electric vehicle strategies, parking
pricing) may account for at least a 6.5% further reduction in GIG emissions, considerably
more significant than the differences between the land use patterns in the Plan
Alternatives in the EIR.
b. Cost Effectiveness. Given the numerous challenges associated with fundamental changes
in the way that Bay Area land use patterns would otherwise evolve, including wholesale
changes to land use regulations, presuming changes in market characteristics and
preferences of homebuyers, and the need for substantial public investments and
subsidies, we question the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the proposed Plan.
Regarding cost-effectiveness, the comparable costs (mostly borne by local jurisdictions)
of implementing the Plan or the various alternatives may be far higher than other
alternatives for achieving comparable GHG emission reductions.
Accordingly, the City of Palo Alto recommends that a performance-based approach, involving
establishing GHG reduction targets for the local jurisdictions along with a menu of options for
achieving these targets (including feasible and realistic alterations in land use policy) should
become the basis of the proposed Plan Bay Area.
4. The City of Palo Alto has been a national leader in implementing policies and
programs that reduce GHG emissions.
Over the past decade, the City of Palo Alto has adopted a range of policies, programs and
projects to reduce GHG emissions, focused upon improving energy efficiency, enhancing
multimodal transportation alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle, and creating walkable,
mixed-use districts. Implementing these policies, programs, and investments, the City has
become a national leader in reducing GHG emissions. Examples of key City sustainability
programs include an aggressive Climate Action Plan, the provision of clean energy to Palo
Alto customers via the City owned and operated electric utility, various utility programs to
reduce emissions, leadership in Green Building and sustainable design, affordable housing
programs, higher density land uses near transit, and numerous “complete streets” oriented
policies and projects.
In particular, the City’s Climate Protection Plan, adopted by the City Council in December
2007, includes goals for the reduction of CO2 from a 2005 baseline level as a result of
changes in City operations and from CO2 reduction efforts within the community.
• GHG reductions for City operations have been reduced by 53% below 2005 levels, as
compared to a goal of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2012.
• GHG reductions for the City and the community have been reduced by 22% below
2005 levels, as compared to a goal of a 20% reduction by 2020.
Page 6 of 6
Accordingly, the City of Palo Alto requests that ABAG consider the effectiveness of these local
GHG emission reduction efforts, incorporate them as a part of the Plan and related regional
GHG reduction targets, and provide "credits" to those jurisdictions that have demonstrated
implementation of meaningful GHG reduction measures.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the City of Palo Alto suggests that the proposed Plan Bay Area for the
Sustainability Communities Strategy should include:
A range of forecasted growth, outlining “low,” “high”, and “most likely” scenarios and
transportation networks for each, to be updated every four years.
A focus on GHG emission reductions, with the flexibility for each city and county to
provide for a reasonable minimum amount of housing plus options for other
commitments to GHG emission reductions;
Realistic housing forecasts limited to each upcoming 8-year RHNA cycle, with review
every four years to update projections; and
Longer range projections that are not allocated to cities and counties, but are used to
provide context for regional transportation investments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Final Draft Plan Bay Area. If you
have questions or need additional information, please contact Curtis Williams, the City’s
Director of Planning and Community Environment, at (650) 329-2321 or
curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
H. Gregory Scharff
Mayor
City of Palo Alto
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: November 15, 2011 Memorandum: “California Demographic Forecasts: Why are
the Numbers Overestimated”, prepared by City of Palo Alto Councilmember Greg Schmid
Exhibit 2: May 6, 2013 Memorandum: “Demographic Forecasts for Plan Bay Area: Why
aren’t they More Helpful”, prepared by City of Palo Alto Councilmember Greg Schmid
cc: Adrienne J. Tissier, Chair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Ezra Rapport, Association of Bay Area Governments
Miriam Chion, Association of Bay Area Governments
Ken Kirkey, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Palo Alto City Council
1
California Demographic Forecasts: Why are the numbers over
estimated?
Prepared by City of Palo Alto
November 15, 2011
Actual California Population growth
Over the last decade, the state of California added 3.4 million people, to reach a total of 37.3 million.
This was an increase of 10% over the decade. This growth rate follows the gradual slowing that started
after 1990, down dramatically from the very high rates of the post‐World War II era. Note that the
Department of Finance’s (DOF) 2007 projections reflect a very high growth perspective. The DOF
numbers are currently used as the population forecasts for all state and local projects—they are not
scheduled to be revised until 2013.
Table 1. California’s population growth over the last five decades
(average growth from census to census)
Census Dept of Finance Projections (2007)
1960s 29.2
1970s 18.5
1980s 25.7
1990s 13.8
2000s 10.0 14.8
2010s 12.8
2020s 11.6
2030s 10.2
Source: US Census Bureau actual Census numbers; California Department of Finance 2007 Projections.
2
Recent State forecasts have been consistently overestimated
Even after the sharp decline in growth during the 1990s, forecasters consistently tended to be overly
optimistic about population growth rates through the 2000s. In 2005, the Public Policy Institute of
California issued a report (“California 2025: Taking on the Future”) that included the population
projections of all the key demographic forecasters. The consensus forecast from this group was some
40% higher than the actual outcome for the state:
Table 2. California Population Forecasts for 2010 made before 2005
(Percentage growth expected from 2000‐2010)
California Dept of Finance 15.2
USC Population Dynamics 11.6
UC Berkeley (Lee, Miller) 13.9*
Public Policy Institute of CA 15.2*
CCSCE 17.2
UCLA Anderson Forecasting 16.6
Average of six 2005 forecasts 15.0
*=center point of band
Source: Public Policy Institute of California, “California 2025: Taking on the Future”, 2005, Page 29.
The consensus forecast was some 50% above the actual numbers. The only forecaster who produced a
number below the actual 10% growth was the UC Berkeley group who stated that there was a 5%
chance that the growth rate would be lower than 7.1%. The 2005 PPIC Report stated that “Recent trends
make population projections for California especially difficult…For these reasons, planners should
consider alternative population scenarios … as useful alternatives for planners.” (PPIC, 2005, pages 27‐
28)
Even as late as the end of 2009, on the eve of the decennial census, estimates by the California Dept. of
Finance (the organization responsible for the numbers that are used for all state allocation formulas)
remained strikingly high at 14.1% which was 1.5 million or 44.7% above the above the
contemporaneous and more accurate Census Bureau’s Current Population Estimates.
3
Critical Components of Change and the Future
The Census data provide a nice detailed perspective on the actual components of change during the
decade. While the 3.1 million people added through natural increase (births minus deaths) were the
largest single growth factor, the 2 million net gain from foreign immigration was important in
overcoming a net outflow of 1.6 million from native born emigration, primarily to other states.
Table 3. Components of Population Change in California, 20002010
(millions of people)
Births +5.45
Deaths ‐2.35
Net Domestic migration ‐1.63
Foreign immigration +2.58
Foreign emigration ‐0.59
Military, etc ‐0.07
TOTAL +3.38
Source: USC, Population Dynamics Research Group, “What the Census would show”, February 2011.
The challenge for projecting change in the future is the dramatic shifts in some of these base categories.
With the aging population, we know that, even with slight increases in longevity, the aging population in
California will raise the annual number of deaths in California from 271K in 2011 to 462K in 2039, while
the number of births will rise slightly from 532K in 2011 to 551 in 2039. The natural increase will fall
from some 260K today to 90K in 2040.
Thus, over time any increase in California’s population will increasingly rely on migration. Since net
domestic migration has averaged a net outflow of some 160K per year since the early 1990s, any growth
in population will be increasingly dependent on foreign migration. (Source: USC, Population Dynamics
Groups, April 2011).
There is little reason to see a major shift in domestic migration with California’s high cost and high
unemployment rate. That leaves foreign migration as the critical component source of long‐term
population growth. The most dynamic source for California’s growth has been immigration from Mexico,
both legal and illegal. All observers (The Dept of Homeland Security, the Pew Charitable Trust Hispanic
Center, and the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton) agree that net immigration from Mexico has
been down dramatically in recent years with the stricter enforcement of border crossing and the
prolonged recession in the US. Pew estimates that the illegal immigrant population in the US fell by
some 7% between 2007 and 2010. The important debate about the future is whether this is a business
cycle phenomenon or part of a longer term trend.
The group that has the best data source and takes the longer term look is the Mexican Migration Project
at Princeton. For decades they have been tracking migration patterns from Mexico and doing annual
surveys of thousands of families from migration centers in Mexico. They found that the percent of first
time immigrants from the Mexican communities of highest immigration fell from 1.2% of adults in 2000
to 0.6% in 2005 to zero in 2010. They identify that the changes are due to Mexican demographic and
4
economic factors as much as from U.S. conditions. They identified five internal factors of change in
Mexico:
• Fertility rates are falling dramatically from 6.8 births per women in 1970 to 2.8 in 1995 to 2 in
2010 (replacement level).
• The number of young people entering the labor market has fallen from one million a year in the
1990s to 700K today and demographic factors will bring that down to about 300K in 2030, not
enough to meet local job needs.
• The rate of college attendance and college completion has doubled over the last decade, raising
the career path of an increasing share of young workers.
• The wage disparity between Mexico and the U.S. is narrowing sharply with average wage gaps
falling from 10:1 in the 1960s to some 3.7:1 in the early 2000s.
• The cost of migration has risen dramatically for illegal entrants, further narrowing the earnings
gap.
All of these factors point to the need, at the least, of looking at alternative scenarios of population
growth in California that are more sensitive to possible underlying changes in migration patterns.
5
Sources of Demographic projections about California
US Bureau of the Census (responsible for the decennial census and does updated estimates each year of
state populations—has been much closer to actual numbers than the Cal Dept. of Finance)
California Department of Finance (responsible for state population estimates between the Census
years—forecasts used as key source for state government planning). Statewide estimates for 2010
(made in 2009) were 41% higher than the 2010 Census numbers for the state, 83% over for the nine Bay
Area counties and 137% higher for the three West Bay counties.
Ronald Lee, UC Berkeley, Center for Economics and Demographics of Aging, “Special Report: The
Growth & Aging of California’s Population”, 2003 (an important report that identified the detailed
assumptions that went into the Department of Finance’s long‐term projections).
Hans Johnson, Public Policy Institute of California, “California 2025: Taking on the Future”, Chapter 2
‘California’s Population in 2025’ (a report that gathered projections from eight academic and
government sources). Johnson concluded that “population projections for California are especially
difficult…In addition to overweighting contemporary trends, forecasters are notoriously bad at
predicting fundamental demographic shifts... For these reasons, planners should consider alternative
population scenarios.” Pages 27‐28.
John Pitkin & Dowell Myers, USC Population Dynamics Research Group, “The 2010 Census Benchmark
for California’s Growing and Changing Population”, February 2011; “Projections of the Population of
California by Nativity and Year of Entry to the U.S.”, April 2, 2011. (Pitkin and Myers had the lowest of
the forecasts in the 2005 study—though still overestimating growth by 16%. They are working with the
California Department of Finance on components for a new longer‐term forecast; they are still assuming
a net immigration number of 160,000 holding steady in the future.)
Steve Levy, Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy
UCLA Anderson Forecasting Project
Greg Schmid
October 2011
1
Demographic Forecasts for Plan Bay Area: Why Aren’t They More Helpful?
May 6, 2013
ABAG Mission Statement:
ABAG is committed to enhancing the quality of life in the San Francisco Bay Area by leading
the region in advocacy, collaboration, and excellence in planning, research, and member
services.
As local officials, we need to be able to think and talk through options that deal with the very
real problems we face. California is in the midst of a sometimes troubling demographic transition
and we look to regional agencies like ABAG to help local communities explore the
consequences of these changes. As presented to us, Plan Bay Area does not allow us to discuss
the most important of these issues.
The stated goal of the Plan is to help local communities chart a course to accommodate change
while “fostering an innovative, prosperous and competitive economy; preserving a healthy and
safe environment; and allowing all Bay Area residents to share the benefits of vibrant,
sustainable communities.” (Plan Bay Area, Page 1). But, the Plan presents and imposes on each
local community only a single long-term demographic projection. This severely limits our ability
to plan effectively for a changing future.
Plan Bay Area’s Demographic Forecast
Plan Bay Area asserts a single demographic view of the future, what it calls the “the best picture
we have of what the Bay Area may look like in 2040” (Draft Plan Bay Area, March 2013, Page
5). It projects a population growth of 2.1 million people in the Bay Area in the period 2010-2040
(Page 6). This demographic assertion is the starting point for each and every public discussion of
the Plan. But, this ‘best picture’ projection is some 60% higher than the forecast of the state’s
official demographer—the Department of Finance's Demographic Research Unit. That group
projects a Bay Area population increase of only 1.3 million by 2040. (Population Projection P-1,
Demographic Research Unit, California Department of Finance, January 2013).
Up until 2012, ABAG had relied on the Department of Finance’s population projections as the
basis of their own forecast. But it moved away from that when the 2010 Census showed a rather
dramatic slowdown in California’s, and the Bay Area’s, population growth. In early 2012, a
detailed analysis of California’s population slowdown during the 2000’s led the Department of
Finance to revise its longer term projections in the area of births, domestic migration and
international migration. Instead of leading a public discussion of the implications of these
important demographic shifts, ABAG turned to an entirely new model based on a US
Department of Labor forecast. The Labor Department forecast selected not only didn’t show a
decrease in projected population following the official Census Report, they rather posited a
substantial increase (US Department of Labor, Monthly Labor Review, November 2006 and
October 2012). This was not just a phenomenon of taking a national perspective rather than a
2
local one: the US Census Bureau (which carries the federal responsibility for population
estimates) made the same types of adjustments on birth rates and migration rates that California’s
Department of Finance did (reducing their national population projections for 2040 by some
34%). In fact, the Census Bureau actually published a short paper explaining why their longer
term projection had changed so dramatically between 2008 and 2012, “What a Difference Four
Years Make: US Population Projected to Grow at a Slower Pace” (US Census Bureau Blog,
December 12, 2012).
The Consequences of Demographic Shifts
In fact, most professional demographers are projecting a slower pace of population growth in
coming decades at both the national and state level as they re-examine birth rates, domestic
migration and international migration. Yet ABAG is ignoring the possibility of change. While
there is room for disagreement and alternate scenarios, it would certainly be helpful for ABAG in
their role of fostering excellence in local planning to help local communities explore some of the
reasoning behind those changed projections and the consequences for decisions local officials
make.
Let me mention a few of the most important of those shifting trends that might have significant
impact on the longer-term decisions local governments make:
--Over the last ten years, California has averaged a net domestic out-migration of over 150,000
people per year. That adds up to a loss of over a million and a half California residents over the
decade. Who are these migrants? According to the Department of Finance, the largest outflows
are those aged between 30 and 45; the next largest group is young kids under 10 years of age.
These are young families leaving the state. About two-thirds of the adults leaving have gone to
California colleges. These are middle class young families.
--Because of the dramatic loss of young families, California is the only state west of the
Mississippi that has a declining number of children under the age of 10.
--San Francisco is a special case with the share of children between the ages of 5 and 17 the
fastest declining age group.
--The high cost of property in California has not only contributed to the out-migration of young
families but it has sharply curtailed international immigration to the state over the last decade.
Most demographers agree that net immigration from Mexico is currently close to zero.
--The absolute number of California residents admitted to the UC system has been falling for the
last two years.
As elected officials, we are confronted with a state that faces a shrinking young middle class.
These are our children, our grandkids, that are leaving.
3
Demographics and Local Decision Making
Responding to demographic changes requires investments by local communities. We would like
to create affordable housing and jobs that keep our young middle class families in the
community. We need to invest in schools and day care centers and parks and recreation programs
and libraries that form an affordable and attractive community. At the same time we need to
maintain streets and sidewalks and our aging public buildings. Yet, you are asking us to invest
more of our funds in building homes in Priority Development Areas to meet a possible influx of
new residents. While it makes sense to assure that our communities remain diverse, each
‘affordable’ house carries a substantial subsidy in our high priced communities. As an example,
each new low income housing unit in Palo Alto carries a public subsidy of between $100,000
and $400,000. And this is without the additional public funds needed for infrastructure support
for things like schools and parks and roads and security.
As Council Members we are facing severe demands on our existing budgets. We are willing to
spend to build affordable housing and needed infrastructure. But, we are struggling to pay rising
benefits and pensions to our workers who provide basic services and it is difficult to find new
funds to invest in our existing schools and child care facilities. At the same time we are
confronted with a constrained tax system. Our main source of local revenue, property tax, grows
slower than the California economy under Prop 13. A key element of that slower growth is the
fact that each year businesses’ share of property tax payments declines because of a special Prop
13 exemption. The second main source of revenue is sales tax. But that tax excludes services
which are taking an increasing share of consumer spending each year.
How Can ABAG help?
When we draw the ‘best picture’ of our demographic future, it is imperative that we make sure
that we include the best thinking of the many professional demographers available to help us sort
through our options and choices. It doesn’t help us to be presented with only the most aggressive
growth scenario and to hear at the beginning of each public meeting “By statute, the Regional
Housing Needs Determination cannot be changed”.
If existing statutes stand in the way of exploring realistic demographic change, please help us
change the statutes. If Prop 13 constrains all the choices we have, identify it as a problem for us.
Help us explore the full range of demographic shifts we face and what options we have to use
our scarce resources so that we can truly excel in “planning, research and services” to our
constituents.
Greg Schmid
May 2013
City of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
ATTACHMENT B
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax
May 13, 2013
Mr. Mark Luce, President
Association of Bay Area Governments Joseph P. Bort Metro Center
P.O, Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94607-4756
Re: City of Palo Alto Comments on Plan Bay Area Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Luce:
Thank you for providing an opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the Final Draft Plan Bay Area. The City of Palo Alto has reviewed the Draft and has
several concerns about the basic assumptions, the inadequacy of the alternatives, and the lack
of analysis of local impacts and associated mitigation measures.
1. The Key Assumptions include an overstated forecast of future population, jobs, and
housing.
One of the stated Key EIR Assumptions is that:
“The total amount of growth projected for the Bay Area through 2040 is based on ABAG’s
Plan Bay Area Forecast of Jobs, Population and Housing…this amount of growth is
assumed in the proposed Plan, which identifies a land use pattern to accommodate the
projected growth.”
The City of Palo Alto believes that the regional forecast of jobs and housing for the region
substantially overstates growth for the overall Plan period (through 2040). Most significantly,
the overall regional allocation continues to ignore the updated demographic forecasts of the
State’s Department of Finance (DOF), with population estimates in excess of 40% more
(ABAG: 2.1 million v. DOF: 1.3 million) than the 2012 DOF projections. This creates an
unrealistic scenario for long-term planning, potentially creating unreasonable and
unachievable housing mandates and infrastructure needs and overstating impacts, including
greenhouse gas reduction. A range of projections should be evaluated that reflect meaningful
planning scenarios in response to market changes over time. The City suggests that the
agencies should adopt “low,” “high,” and “most likely” forecasts for planning and impact
Page 2 of 4
analysis. An analysis of the inadequacy of the current long-range projections, authored by
Palo Alto Councilmember Greg Schmid, was submitted to ABAG during the Preferred Scenario
evaluation process and is attached to this letter. A more recent analysis by Councilmember
Schmid, specific to Plan Bay Area, is also attached.
2. Alternatives are inadequate in that no alternatives consider demographic forecasts
less than the overstated projections and no alternatives provide for alternative
approaches to greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction.
The alternatives proposed include the No Project Alternative, and three alternatives that
result in either greater population, housing and jobs projections or a somewhat different
distribution of the future development. Again, no alternatives are proposed that would
evaluate lower and more realistic growth projections for the region. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires evaluation of alternatives that would lessen
environmental impacts, but none of those evaluated would have that effect. Another means
of lessening impacts could include allowing flexibility or mandates for cities to take measures
to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through local energy conservation, building design
or transportation measures. An alternative should be developed to provide for and evaluate
local GHG reduction measures. The City suggested these type of “hybrid” alternatives in our
July 11, 2012 response to the Notice of Preparation (attached).
3. The Alternatives proposed (other than the No Project Alternative) all would result in
greater environmental impacts on the City of Palo Alto, in that the allocation of new
housing and employment would increase above that proposed in the Final Draft Plan
.
The alternatives proposed include the No Project Alternative and three alternatives that result
in either greater population, housing and jobs projections or a somewhat different
distribution of the future development. Alternative 3 (Transit Priority Focus) would increase
impacts on the City and similar cities near transit, even though those areas are often already
heavily built out and congested already. Alternative 4 (Enhanced Network of Communities)
would assume increased population and housing forecasts and would further exacerbate
unrealistic demands and impacts on cities like Palo Alto. Alternative 5 (Environment, Equity
and Jobs) is not only more impactful on Palo Alto, but is a highly infeasible option, relying on
social engineering functions that will not be supported by the jobs and housing markets and
will likely be counterproductive to the regional effort.
4. Lack of analysis of local impacts and potential for mitigation.
The DEIR identifies many impacts at a regional level, and implies that there are significant
unavoidable impacts in some impact categories, such as traffic congestion and land use character
and compatibility. However, mitigation for many of these measures is assumed to be the
responsibility of the “implementing agency,” assumed to be the local jurisdiction. The City
questions the use of “Statements of Overriding Considerations” by a regional agency when the
Page 3 of 4
impacts are most heavily felt on local agencies. Mitigation should be offered by the regional and
state agencies for many such impacts, and again alternatives should be considered with a lesser
growth assumption to minimize those impacts on local agencies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the City of Palo Alto suggests that the Draft EIR be modified to:
Include alternatives that assume lesser growth projections than proposed, at least
midway between the Department of Finance projections and ABAG’s;
Include an alternative that provides for flexibility for cities to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions at a local level, reducing the reliance on the land use-transportation
connection;
Reject all proposed alternatives to the Plan as infeasible; and
Provide regional or state-funded mitigation for potential “significant unavoidable”
impacts to local agencies.
The City also takes exception to the EIR’s characterization of alternatives 4 and 5 as
“Enhanced Network of Communities” and “Environment, Equity and Jobs.” These terms are
clearly stylized to sound positive while they are actually alternatives developed by active
interest groups, including the building industry (Alternative 4) and social/environmental
advocacy groups (Alternative 5). The inclusion of these titles for the alternatives creates a
highly biased appearance to the Alternatives analysis, if not the document as a whole.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. If you have questions or
need additional information, please contact Curtis Williams, the City’s Director of Planning
and Community Environment, at (650) 329-2321 or curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
H. Gregory Scharff
Mayor
City of Palo Alto
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: “Demographic Forecasting in California,” prepared by Councilmember Greg Schmid;
November 15, 2011
Exhibit 2: “Demographic Forecasts for Plan Bay Area: Why Aren’t They More Helpful?”
prepared by Councilmember Greg Schmid, May 6, 2013
Exhibit 3: July 11, 2012 City of Palo Alto Response to Notice of Preparation
Page 4 of 4
cc: Adrienne J. Tissier, Chair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Ezra Rapport, Association of Bay Area Governments
Miriam Chion, Association of Bay Area Governments
Ken Kirkey, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Palo Alto City Council
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region i
Strategy for a
Sustainable
Region
Draft
March 2013
Association of
Bay Area
Governments
Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission
ii Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region iii
Draft Plan Bay Area
Table of Contents
Introducing Plan Bay Area Strategy for a Sustainable Region 1
Chapter 1 Setting Our Sights 17
Chapter 2 The Bay Area in 2040 29
Chapter 3 Where We Live, Where We Work 41
Chapter 4 Investments 61
Chapter 5 Performance 95
Chapter 6 A Plan to Build On 121
What’s Next for Plan Bay Area?135
Appendix 1 Supplementary Reports and Additional Resources 137
Appendix 2 Maps 139
iv Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
Mountain View
Dublin
Emeryville
Los Gatos
Danville
San Carlos
Gilroy
San Pablo
Belmont
Colma
Sebastopol
Campbell
Burlingame
Woodside
Fairfax
Windsor
Los Altos
Hillsborough
Morgan Hill
Pacifica
Atherton
Mill Valley
San Bruno
El Cerrito
American Canyon
San Anselmo
Clayton
Calistoga
Yountville
Sausalito
Monte Sereno
Suisun City
Newark
Belvedere
Portola Valley
Larkspur
Cotati
Millbrae
Sonoma
Saratoga
Orinda
Oakley
Lafayette
Rohnert Park
CorteMadera
Ross
Piedmont
Benicia
Foster City
Albany
Hercules
Tiburon
Healdsburg
Pleasant Hill
Moraga
Dixon
East Palo AltoHalf Moon Bay
Rio Vista
Brisbane
Cloverdale
MenloPark
Los Altos Hills
Pinole Martinez
Cupertino
Pittsburg
San Ramon
Sunnyvale
Milpitas
Brentwood
Redwood City
Livermore
Palo Alto
SouthSan Francisco
PleasantonSan Leandro
Vallejo
Concord
Napa
SanMateo Hayward
Santa Clara
Union City
Novato
Antioch
Vacaville
Walnut Creek
SantaRosa
Berkeley
Alameda
SanRafael
Petaluma
Fremont
Faireld
Richmond
Daly City
OaklandSanFrancisco
San Jose
580
238
101
101
101
101
101 505
80
780
580
880
580
205
680
680
280
280
580
680
80
80
29
29
29
121
121
37
24
37
12
12
12
12
113
116
13
4
9
35
35 130
23782
1
25
152
152
17
35
92
23892
84
84
84
4
41
116
128
128
128
116
1
87
85
Minor Road
SanFranciscoLegend
Freeway
Major Road
ROADS
> 350,000
50,000–350,000
<50,000
Oakland
Novato
Pacifica
2010 POPULATION
Altamont Corridor Express
Amtrak
BART
Caltrain
Light Rail (Muni & VTA)
Cable Car (Muni)
RAIL SYSTEM
Urbanized area
Open space
Priority Development Area (PDA)
Priority Conservation Area (PCA)
San Francisco Bay Area - Transportation and Land Uses | 3.20.13
0
0
10 20 30
10 20 30 40
Miles
Kilometers
SantaClaraSanMateo
Alameda
ContraCosta
Marin
Sonoma Napa
SolanoSan Francisco
Bay Area:
Transportation
and Land Uses
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 1
Introducing Plan Bay Area:
Strategy for a Sustainable RegionMost of us living in the nine counties that touch San Francisco Bay are accustomed to saying we live in “the Bay Area.” This simple phrase speaks volumes — and underscores a shared regional identity. The 7 million of us who call the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area home have a strong interest in protecting the wealth of features that make our region a magnet for people and businesses from around the globe.The Bay Area is, after all, the world’s 21st-largest economy. The natural beauty of San Francisco Bay and the communities surrounding it, our Mediterranean climate, extensive system of interconnected parks and open space, advanced mass transit system, top-notch educational institutions, and rich cultural heritage continue to draw people who seek better opportunities. Yet we cannot take for granted that we will be able to sustain and improve our quality of life for current and future generations. With our region’s population projected to swell to some 9 million people by 2040, Plan Bay Area charts a course for accommodating this growth while fostering an innovative, prosperous and competitive economy; preserving a healthy and safe environment; and allowing all Bay Area residents to share the benefits of vibrant, sustainable communities connected by an efficient and well-maintained transportation network.
“The Bay Area has made
farsighted regional planning a
top priority for decades.”
2 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
A Legacy of LeadershipPlan Bay Area, while comprehensive and forward-reaching, is an evolutionary document. The Bay Area has made farsighted regional planning a top priority for decades. Previous genera-tions recognized the need for a mass transit system, including regional systems such as BART and Caltrain that have helped make our region the envy of other metropolitan areas. Our transbay bridges add cohesion to the regional transportation system by connecting communities across the bay. Likewise, we owe our system of parks and open space to past genera-tions of leaders who realized that a balance between urbanized areas and open space was essential to a healthy environment and vibrant communities.Plan Bay Area extends this legacy of leadership, doing more of what we’ve done well while also mapping new strategies to face new challenges. Among the new challenges are the requirements of California’s landmark 2008 climate law (SB 375, Steinberg): to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks, and to accommodate all needed housing growth within our nine counties. By coordinating future land uses with our long-term transportation investments, Plan Bay Area meets these challenges head on — without compromising local control of land-use decisions. Each of the Bay Area’s nine counties and 101 cities must decide for themselves what is best for their citizens and their communities.
Building Upon Local Plans and Strategies For over a decade, local governments and regional agencies have been working together to en-courage the growth of jobs and production of housing in areas supported by amenities and in-frastructure. In 2008, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) created a regional initiative to support these local efforts called FOCUS. In recent years, this initiative has helped to link local community development aspirations with regional land use and transportation planning objectives. Local governments have identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), and these form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area.PDAs are areas where new development will support the day-to-day needs of residents and workers in a pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit. While PDAs were originally established to address housing needs in infill communities, they have been broadened to advance focused employment growth. Local jurisdictions have defined the character of their PDAs according to existing conditions and future expectations as regional centers, city cen-ters, suburban centers or transit town centers, among other place types. PCAs are regionally significant open spaces for which there exists broad consensus for long-term protection but
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 3
California Senate Bill 375: Linking Regional Plans to
State Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals
Plan Bay Area grew out of “The California Sustainable Com-
munities and Climate Protection Act of 2008” (California Sen-
ate Bill 375, Steinberg), which requires each of the state’s 18
metropolitan areas — including the Bay Area — to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Signed
by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the law requires
that the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) promote
compact, mixed-use commercial and residential development. To meet the goals of SB 375, Plan
Bay Area directs more future development in areas that are or will be walkable and bikable and
close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation and other amenities. Key elements
of SB 375 include the following.
• The law requires that the Bay Area and other California regions develop a Sustainable Com-
munities Strategy (SCS) — a new element of the regional transportation plan (RTP) — to
strive to reach the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target established for each region by
the California Air Resources Board. The Bay Area’s target is a 7 percent per capita reduction
by 2020 and a 15 percent per capita reduction by 2035. Plan Bay Area is the region’s first
RTP subject to SB 375.
• In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the
land use and housing assumptions for the SCS, which adds three new elements to the RTP:
(1) a land use component that identifies how the region could house the region’s entire
population over the next 25 years; (2) a discussion of resource and farmland areas; and (3) a
demonstration of how the development pattern and the transportation network can work
together to reduce GHG emissions.
• Extensive outreach with local government officials is required, as well as a public participa-
tion plan that includes a minimum number of workshops in each county as well as three
public hearings on the draft SCS prior to adoption of a final plan.
• The law synchronizes the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) process — adopted in
the 1980s — with the regional transportation planning process.
• Finally, SB 375 streamlines the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for housing and
mixed-use projects that are consistent with the SCS and meet specified criteria, such as
proximity to public transportation.
nearer-term development pressure. PDAs and PCAs complement one another because promot-ing development within PDAs takes development pressure off the region’s open space and agricultural lands. Building upon the collaborative approach established through FOCUS, local input has driven the set of alternative scenarios that preceded and informed the development of Plan Bay Area.
4 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
The non-profit and business communities also played a key role in shaping the plan. Business groups highlighted the need for more affordable workforce housing, removing regulatory bar-riers to infill development, and addressing infrastructure needs at rapidly growing employ-ment centers. Environmental organizations emphasized the need to improve transit access, retain open space, provide an adequate supply of housing to limit the number of people com-muting into the region from nearby counties, and direct discretionary transportation funding to communities building housing in PDAs. Equity organizations focused on increasing access to housing and employment for residents of all income categories throughout the region, and establishing policies to limit the displacement of existing residents as PDAs grow and evolve. All of these diverse voices strengthened this plan.
Setting Our SightsDeveloping a long-range land use and transportation plan for California’s second-largest met-ropolitan region, covering about 7,000 square miles across nine Bay Area counties, is no simple task. We set our sights on this challenge by emphasizing an open, inclusive public outreach process and adopting objective performance standards based on federal and state require-ments to measure our progress during the planning process.
Reaching OutWe reached out to the people who matter most — the 7 million people who live in the region. Thousands of people participated in stakeholder sessions, public workshops, tele-phone and internet surveys, and more. Befitting the Bay Area, the public outreach process was boister-ous and contentious. Key stakehold-ers also included the region’s 101 cities and nine counties; our fellow regional agencies, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; community-based organizations and advocacy groups, and some three dozen regional transportation partners. (See “Plan Bay Area Prompts Robust Dialogue on Transportation and Housing,” in Chapter 1.)
Establishing Performance TargetsBefore proposing a land use distribution approach or recommending a transportation invest-ment strategy, planners must formulate in concrete terms the hoped-for outcomes. For Plan Bay Area, performance targets are an essential means of informing and allowing for a discus-sion of quantitative metrics. After months of discussion and debate, ABAG and MTC adopted 10 targets in January 2011, reflecting input from the broad range of stakeholders engaged in the process.
No
a
h
B
e
r
g
e
r
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 5
Two of the targets are not only ambitious; they are also mandated by state law. The first man-datory target addresses climate protection by requiring the Bay Area to reduce its per-capita CO2 emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 15 percent by 2040. The second mandatory target addresses adequate housing by requiring the region to house 100 percent of its project-ed population growth by income level. Plan Bay Area achieves both these major milestones.The eight voluntary targets seek to promote healthy and safe communities by reducing pre-mature deaths from air pollution, reducing injuries and fatalities from collisions, increasing the amount of time people walk or cycle for transportation, and protecting open space and agricultural lands. Other targets address equity concerns, economic vitality and transporta-tion system effectiveness. Plan Bay Area meets some, but not all, of the voluntary targets. (See Chapter 1, Table 1 for a summary of all the Plan Bay Area performance targets.)
Planning Scenarios Take Aim at Performance TargetsTaken together, the Plan Bay Area performance targets outline a framework that allows us to better understand how different projects and policies might affect the region’s future. With the targets clearly identified, MTC and ABAG formulated possible scenarios — combinations of land use patterns and transportation investments — that could be evaluated together to see if (and by how much), they achieved (or fell short of) the performance targets. An iterative pro-cess of scenario-testing begun in 2010 yielded preferred alternatives, both for transportation investments and a land use strategy. Adopted by the boards of MTC and ABAG in May 2012, they form this draft Plan Bay Area.
Looking Toward the FutureABAG and MTC track and forecast the region’s demographics and economic trends to inform and guide Plan Bay Area investments and policy decisions. The forecasts reflect the best pic-ture we have of what the Bay Area may look like in 2040, so that today’s decisions may align with tomorrow’s expected transportation and housing needs. These forecasts form the basis for developing the regional land use plan for Plan Bay Area’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and, in turn, the region’s transportation investment strategy.
Taking Equity Into Account
About one-fifth of the Bay Area’s total population lives in areas with large
numbers of low-income and minority populations. Promoting these people’s
access to housing, jobs and transportation not only advances Plan Bay Area’s
objective to advance equity in the region, it also increases our chances of meet-
ing the other performance targets. MTC and ABAG adopted five Equity Analysis
measures to evaluate equity concerns: housing and transportation affordability,
potential for displacement, healthy communities, access to jobs, and equitable
mobility. (See Chapter 1, Table 2: “Plan Bay Area Equity Performance Measures.”)MT
C
A
r
c
h
i
v
e
s
6 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
Projections in three main areas informed development of the plan: population, employment and housing. Here are some highlights of each.
• Population: By 2040 the San Francisco Bay Area is projected to add 2.1 million people, increasing total regional population from 7.2 million to 9.3 million, an increase of 30 percent or roughly 1 percent per year. This growth means the Bay Area will continue to be California’s second-largest population and economic center.
• Employment: The number of jobs is expected to grow by 1.1 million between 2010 and 2040, an increase of 33 percent. This is a slower rate of job growth than previous forecasts.
• Housing: During this same time period the number of households is expected to in-crease by 27 percent to 700,000, and the number of housing units is expected to in-crease by 24 percent to 660,000. The demographic implications of these topline numbers are far-reaching, and some trends in particular weighed heavily in the development of Plan Bay Area. These are touched on below and examined in greater detail in Chapter 2.
Project-Level Performance Assessment of
Transportation Projects
By developing the preferred land use and transportation investment strategies, ABAG and MTC
were able to answer many big picture questions about the Bay Area’s future. For example, should
the region focus on expanding the transportation system or on maintaining what we have already
built? And should the Bay Area invest more in transit for future generations or emphasize highway
projects to improve the commutes of today’s drivers? And how should our transportation invest-
ments support future growth in employment and housing?
Plan Bay Area also is based on a commitment to evaluate individual transportation projects to make
sure dollars are being allocated to the most cost-effective projects. In order to take a closer look at
major transportation projects, MTC performed a project performance assessment, examining bil-
lions of dollars of potential transportation projects to identify the highest-performing investments
across the region. This enabled funding prioritization for the highest-performing projects. Most
of them focused on leveraging existing
assets and improving their efficiency, while
supporting future development. Notable
projects include BART Metro, which will
increase service frequencies on the highest-
demand segment of the BART system, and
San Francisco’s congestion pricing initia-
tives. (See Chapter 5 for a list of high-per-
forming projects.)No
a
h
B
e
r
g
e
r
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 7
Aging Baby Boomers Expected to Change
Travel and Development PatternsThe U.S. Census Bureau defines baby boomers as people who were born between 1946 and 1964 during the post-World War II baby boom. By 2040 the oldest baby boomers will be in their 90s and the youngest will be in their 70s. Today, people who are 65 and over represent 12 percent of the Bay Area’s total population, but by 2040 the number of seniors will increase to 22 percent. That’s more than 1 in 5 people in our region. It is expected that many of these seniors will relocate to smaller homes in more urban locations to have easier access to essential services and amenities and the Bay Area’s extensive transit system.Mobility will be a special challenge for seniors who lose their ability to drive. MTC’s Lifeline Transportation Program supports projects that address mobility and accessibility needs of low-in-come and disabled people throughout the region. Between 2006 and 2012, roughly $172 million was invested to support about 220 projects. Closely related are MTC programs that provide funding to sustain and improve mobility for elderly and disabled persons in accordance with and even beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These types of projects have included travel training, sidewalk and bus stop improvements, supportive ride programs and other com-munity initiatives. Plan Bay Area reaffirms the importance of Lifeline and Elderly & Disabled programs by adding over $800 million in discretionary funding for the Lifeline program, and almost $240 million for the Elderly & Disabled programs over the 28-year period of the plan.
Increased Racial and Ethnic Diversity Will
Increase Demand for Multifamily HousingThe Bay Area and California are at the forefront of one of the greatest demographic changes in our nation’s history: growth in the Latino population. In January 2013 the California Depart-ment of Finance projected that the state’s Hispanic population will equal the non-Hispanic
J
o
y
c
e
B
e
n
n
a
0%
50%
20402010
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
To
t
a
l
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Pacific Islander and American Indian
MultiraceAfrican-AmericanAsianLatinoWhite
Figure 1 Share of Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2010 and 2040
Sources: 2010 Census, California Department of Finance, ABAG
8 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
white population by mid-2013. By early 2014 it expects that California’s Hispanic population will have become a plurality for the first time in state history.This state forecast aligns with Plan Bay Area’s projection that by 2040 the Bay Area population will become substantially more racially and ethnically diverse. Latinos will emerge as the larg-est ethnic group, increasing from 23 percent to 35 percent of the total population. The number of Asians also will increase, growing from 21 percent to about 24 percent of the population. Both population groups have demonstrated an historic preference for multifamily housing, and they form multigenerational households at a higher rate than the general population. This is expected to drive higher demand for multifamily housing, in contrast to the historic devel-opment pattern of building primarily single-family homes. Likewise, many Latinos and Asians rely more on public transit than non-Hispanic whites. This, too, is expected to increase demand for a robust transit system that makes it easier for people who don’t own cars to commute, shop and access essential services.
Demand for Multi-Unit Housing in Urban Areas Close to Transit
Expected to IncreaseSingle-family homes represent the majority of housing production in recent decades, but recent trends suggest that cities once again are becoming centers of population growth. Construction of multifamily housing in urban locations in the Bay Area increased from an average of 35 percent of total housing con-struction in the 1990s to nearly 50 percent in the 2000s. In 2010 it represented 65 percent of all housing construction.As discussed above, demand for multifamily housing is projected to increase as seniors downsize and seek homes in more urban locations. The growing numbers of Latino and Asian households will create a similar shift in the housing market. Finally, population growth of those aged 34 and younger is expected to have a similar effect, as this demographic group also demonstrates a greater preference for multifamily hous-ing. All told, the number of people per Bay Area household is expected to increase from 2.69 in 2010 to 2.75 in 2040. Market demand for new homes will tilt toward townhomes, condomini-ums and apartments in developed areas near transit, shops and services.
Building a Development Pattern That Aligns
With Where We Live and WorkPlan Bay Area provides a vision for how to retain and enhance the qualities that make the Bay Area a great place to live, work, and play. It builds on the legacy of leadership left to us by previous generations. In fact, many of the attributes that make the Bay Area special — a strong
MT
C
A
r
c
h
i
v
e
s
The Crossings, Mountain View
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 9
economy, protected natural resources, a network of diverse neighborhoods — would not have been possible without our predecessors’ forward-thinking actions.Looking ahead to the growth expected in the Bay Area over the next several decades, we face many similar problems as past generations, while also confronting new challenges that threaten the region’s economic vitality and quality of life. Our economy is still recovering from the Great Recession of 2007-2009, which has resulted in uneven job growth throughout the region, increased income disparity, and high foreclosure rates. At the same time, housing costs have risen for renters and, to a lesser degree, for home buyers close to the regions’s job centers. Finally, Bay Area communities face these challenges at a time when there are fewer public re-sources available than in past decades for investments in infrastructure, public transit, afford-able housing, schools and parks.
A More Focused FutureThe planning scenarios and land use and transportation investment strategies developed during the Plan Bay Area process seek to address the needs and aspirations of each Bay Area jurisdiction, as identified in locally adopted general plans and zoning ordinances. They also aim to meet the Plan Bay Area performance targets and equity performance standards. The framework for developing these scenarios consisted largely of the Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) recommended by local governments. The preferred land use scenario identified in Chapter 3 is a flexible blueprint for accommodating growth over the long term. Pairing this development pattern with the transportation invest-ments described in Chapter 4 is what makes Plan Bay Area the first truly integrated land use transportation plan for the region’s anticipated growth.
Pe
t
e
r
B
e
e
l
e
r
Richmond Transit Village
10 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
2040 Employment Distribution HighlightsPlan Bay Area’s distribution of jobs throughout the region is informed by changing trends in the locational preferences of the wide range of industry sectors and business place types in the Bay Area. These trends capture ongoing geographic changes, as well as changes in the labor force composition and workers’ preferences. The employment distribution directs job growth toward the region’s larger cities and Priority Development Areas with a strong existing em-ployment base and communities with stronger opportunities for knowledge-sector jobs.
Table 1 SF Bay Area Total Job Growth 2010-2040, Top 15 Cities
Rank Jurisdiction
Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth
2010 2040 Total Growth
Percentage
Growth
1 San Francisco 568,720 759,470 190,740 34%
2 San Jose 375,360 522,050 146,680 39%
3 Oakland 190,250 275,490 85,240 45%
4 Santa Clara 112,460 145,560 33,100 29%
5 Fremont 89,900 119,870 29,970 33%
6 Palo Alto 89,370 119,030 29,650 33%
7 Santa Rosa 75,460 103,930 28,470 38%
8 Berkeley 77,020 99,220 22,210 29%
9 Concord 47,520 69,310 21,790 46%
10 Hayward 69,100 89,900 20,800 30%
11 Sunnyvale 74,610 95,320 20,710 28%
12 San Mateo 52,930 73,460 20,530 39%
13 Redwood City 58,340 77,830 19,490 33%
14 Walnut Creek 41,650 57,300 15,650 38%
15 Mountain View 47,800 63,380 15,570 33%
Source: Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, ABAG, 2012Almost 40 percent of the jobs added from 2010 to 2040 will be in the region’s three largest cities — San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland — which accounted for about one-third of the region’s jobs in 2010. Two-thirds of the overall job growth is anticipated to be in PDAs throughout the region. Due to the strength of the knowledge sector, nine of the 15 cities expected to experience the greatest job growth are in the western and southern part of the region surrounding Silicon Valley. The remaining communities expecting high levels of job growth are in the East Bay and North Bay, owing to their strong roles in the current economy, diverse employment base, and their proximity to a large base of workers. The 15 cities expected to experience the most job growth will account for roughly 700,000 jobs, or just over 60 percent of the new jobs added in the region by 2040. (See Table 1 above.)
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 11
2040 Housing Distribution HighlightsThe Plan Bay Area housing distribution is guided by the policy direction of the ABAG Executive Board, which voted in July 2011 to support equitable and sustainable development by “maxi-mizing the regional transit network and reducing GHG emissions by providing convenient access to employment for people of all incomes.” This was accomplished by distributing total housing growth numbers to: 1) job-rich cities that have PDAs or additional areas that are PDA-like; 2) areas connected to the existing transit infrastructure; and 3) areas that lack sufficient affordable housing to accommodate low-income commuters. The housing distribution directs growth to locations where the transit system can be utilized more efficiently, where workers can be better connected to jobs, and where residents can access high-quality services.
Table 2 SF Bay Area Total Housing Unit Growth 2010-2040, Top 15 Cities
Rank Jurisdiction
Total Housing Units 2010-2040 Housing Unit Growth
2010 2040 Total Growth
Percentage
Growth
1 San Jose 314,040 443,210 129,170 41%
2 San Francisco 376,940 469,350 92,410 25%
3 Oakland 169,710 221,200 51,490 30%
4 Sunnyvale 55,790 74,780 18,990 34%
5 Concord 47,130 65,170 18,040 38%
6 Fremont 73,990 91,610 17,620 24%
7 Santa Rosa 67,400 83,420 16,020 24%
8 Santa Clara 45,150 58,920 13,770 30%
9 Milpitas 19,810 32,430 12,620 64%
10 Hayward 48,300 60,580 12,290 25%
11 Fairfield 37,180 48,280 11,100 30%
12 San Mateo 40,010 50,180 10,160 25%
13 Richmond 39,330 49,020 9,690 25%
14 Livermore 30,340 40,020 9,670 32%
15 Mountain View 33,880 43,270 9,390 28%
Source: Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, ABAG, 2012Substantial housing production is expected on the Peninsula and in the South Bay, where eight of the top 15 cities expected to experience the most housing growth are located. Two-thirds of the region’s overall housing production is directed to these 15 cities, leaving the more than 90 remaining jurisdictions in the region to absorb only limited growth. This development pattern preserves the character of more than 95 percent of the region by focusing growth on less than 5 percent of the land. (See Table 2 above.)
12 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
Transportation Investments Plan Bay Area structures an infrastructure investment plan in a systematic way to sup-port the region’s long-term land use strat-egy, relying on a performance assessment of scenarios and individual projects. The plan makes investments in the region’s transporta-tion network that support job growth and new homes in existing communities by focusing the lion’s share of investment on maintaining and boosting the efficiency of the existing transit and road system. Plan Bay Area also takes a bold step with strategic investments that provide support for focused growth in Priority De-velopment Areas, including the new One Bay Area Grant program.Plan Bay Area transportation revenue forecasts total $289 billion over the 28-year period. Over two-thirds (68 percent) of these funds are from regional and local sources, primarily dedicated sales tax programs and bridge tolls. Making up the remainder of the pie are state and federal revenues (mainly derived from fuel taxes). Of the total revenues, $57 billion are “discretionary,” or available for assignment to projects and programs through Plan Bay Area.The plan invests those discretionary funds via six key investment strategies, as shown in Figure 2 and presented in greater detail in Chapter 4. (See Table 3 for a look at the “big-ticket” plan in-vestments, overall.) The first two discretionary strategies merit special mention.
Maintain Our Existing SystemThough its fund sources are many and varied, Plan Bay Area’s overriding priority in invest-ing those funds can be stated quite simply: “Fix It First.” First and foremost, this plan should help to maintain the Bay Area’s transportation system in a state of good repair. Plan Bay Area’s focus on “fix it first” ensures that we maintain existing transportation assets, primarily con-centrated in the region’s core, which reinforces the plan’s focused growth strategy. Build
Next Generation
Transit
($5 Billion)
9%
Boost Freeway andTransit Ecienc y($4 Billion)7%
Protect Our
Climate
(<$1 Billion)
<1%
Reserve
($2 Billion)
3%
Maintain ExistingSystem
($15 Billion)
26%
Support
Focused Growth:
One Bay Area
Grant Program
($14 Billion)
25%
County
Investment
Priorities
($16 Billion)
29%
Figure 2 Plan Bay Area — Discretionary
Investment Summary
(in year-of-expenditure $)
Jo
h
n
B
e
n
s
o
n
Caltrain Baby Bullet train
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 13
In total, Plan Bay Area dedicates 87 percent of all available funding (committed and discre-tionary) to sustaining the existing transportation network. Given the age of many major assets — BART turned 40 last year and S. F. Muni turned 100 — this should come as no surprise.
Support Focused Growth — One Bay Area Grant ProgramThe OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Program is a new funding approach that better integrates the region’s transportation funding program with SB 375 and the land use pattern outlined in Chapter 3. The OBAG program rewards jurisdictions that focus housing growth in Priority De-velopment Areas (PDAs) through their planning and zoning policies, and actual production of housing units. The OBAG program allows flexibility to invest in a community’s transportation infrastructure by providing funding for Transportation for Livable Communities, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning activities, while also providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes to Schools projects and Priority Conservation Areas.
Plan Bay Area Achieves Key Performance Targets As described earlier, Plan Bay Area was developed within a framework of objective perfor-mance standards, both mandatory and voluntary or aspirational. As has been the case in past long-term transportation plans, no single strategy is able to achieve all the plan’s performance targets. An analysis of the 10 main targets and five sub-targets (for a total of 15 performance measures) clearly bears this out. Specifically, the draft plan meets or exceeds six targets, including the statutory greenhouse gas emissions and housing targets, narrowly misses three targets, falls well short of two targets and unfortunately moves in the wrong direction on four of the targets. In other words, the draft plan makes great progress on nine of 15 performance
“Top 10” Plan Bay Area Investments, by Project
(includes Committed and Discretionary funds)
Table 3 Ten Largest Plan Bay Area Investments
Rank Project
Investment
(YOE*
Millions $)
1 BART to Warm Springs, San Jose, and Santa Clara $8,341
2 MTC Regional Express Lane Network $6,657
3 Transbay Transit Center/Caltrain Downtown Extension (Phases 1 and 2)$4,185
4 Integrated Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI)$2,259
5 Presidio Parkway/ Doyle Drive US 101 seismic replacement $2,053
6 Caltrain Electrification and Service Frequency Improvements $1,718
7 SF MUNI Central Subway: King St to Chinatown $1,578
8 Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Express Lane Network $1,458
9 San Jose International Airport Connector $753
10 Hunters Point and Candlestick Point: New Local Roads $722
* YOE = Year of Expenditure
14 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
measures, which represents a solid first effort. The region will need to focus future attention on conceptualizing breakthrough strategies to achieve the four targets where we are falling behind. For a more detailed discussion of the plan’s performance as measured against each individual target, please see Chapter 5.
A Plan to Build On Plan Bay Area is a work in progress that will be updated every four years to reflect new ini-tiatives and priorities. It builds upon the work of previous initiatives, complements ongoing work and lays the groundwork for closer examination of certain critical issues that can further prepare the region to meet the future head-on. The plan highlights the relationship between transportation investments and land use planning, and represents the region’s newest effort to position itself to make the most of what the future will bring. No single level of government can be expected to address all the critical components needed to create a stronger and more resilient Bay Area. It will take a coordinated effort among diverse partners to promote regional economic development, adapt to climate change, prepare for natural disasters, get creative about how to provide affordable housing for all Bay Area resi-dents, ensure clean and healthy air for our communities, and prepare for emerging technolo-gies that will change the way people work and get around. Further steps will be needed to fully realize the Plan Bay Area vision and implement some of its forward-looking plans and policies. (See Chapter 6 for a discussion of some needed “next steps.”)But we have made a strong start. Look closely at Plan Bay Area, and you will see a plan that takes great strides toward:
Tackling problems that cross boundaries and require regional solutions Housing, air quality, traffic, jobs, economic development, open space preservation — the list is a long one.
Embodying local visions Priority Development Areas were recommended by local governments, and land use and transportation strategies are linked to local input and priorities; different kinds of investments and development are envisioned for different parts of the region.
Helping to ensure a vibrant and healthy region for our children and grandchildren Cleaner air, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, more housing options, improved infra-structure, better access to jobs, and access to open space and recreation — these are the building blocks of a better future.
Making Bay Area businesses more competitive A well-constructed, sustainable regional plan can help us attract private sector invest-ment and compete for federal and state funding.
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 15
Providing a range of housing and
transportation choices A greater variety of multifamily and single family housing will be available in places with better transit access, and improved walking conditions and local services.
Stretching tax revenues through
smart investments By making the most of existing infra-structure, using a performance-based approach to transportation investments and coordinating the location of future housing and jobs with major transporta-tion investments, we can get more bang for our buck in public expenditures.
Preserving open spaces, natural resources,
agriculture and farmland By developing in existing downtowns, main streets and neighborhoods, we don’t need to develop on open spaces or in places that over-utilize our water supply, energy resources and road capacity.
Helping to create healthy communities More people will be able to live in neighborhoods where they can walk to shops, transit and local parks because of the groundwork laid in this plan.Plan Bay Area cannot guarantee these outcomes, of course, but we believe it can greatly boost the region’s odds of achieving them. For surely we must work together as a region to promote sustainability, and to leave a better Bay Area for our children and grandchildren. By helping to harmonize local decision-making and regional goals, by better integrating transportation in-vestment and land use planning, by more closely aligning our policies with our vision — in short, by creating a strategy for a sustainable region — Plan Bay Area gives us a chance to do that.
MTC and ABAG welcome your comments on this draft Plan Bay Area. An extensive
outreach eff ort is planned during the spring of 2013 to provide ample opportunity
for the region’s residents to make their views known. Please see “What’s Next for
Plan Bay Area” at the end of this plan for details, or visit http://onebayarea.org
Ka
r
l
N
i
e
l
s
e
n
16 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction
Santa Clara County
Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 2040 2010-2040 % Growth
Campbell 27,230 35,050 7,820 29%
Central Redevelopment Area Transit Neighborhood 7,880 10,220 2,340
Cupertino 25,990 33,350 7,360 28%
Gilroy 17,600 21,900 4,300 24%
Downtown Transit Town Center 2,370 3,600 1,230
Los Altos 14,700 18,160 3,460 24%
Los Altos Hills 3,580 4,440 860 24%
Los Gatos 23,580 28,980 5,390 23%
Milpitas 45,060 57,640 12,580 28%
Transit Area Suburban Center 5,240 9,560 4,320
Monte Sereno 450 570 120 27%
Morgan Hill 17,520 22,080 4,560 26%
Downtown Transit Town Center 1,660 3,000 1,340
Mountain View 47,800 63,380 15,570 33%
Downtown Transit Town Center 9,410 10,250 850
East Whisman Employment Center 8,710 12,380 3,670
El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 5,770 6,630 850
North Bayshore Suburban Center 7,390 15,070 7,690
San Antonio Center Transit Town Center 3,150 4,330 1,180
Whisman Station Transit Neighborhood 650 1,210 560
Palo Alto 89,370 119,030 29,650 33%
California Avenue Transit Neighborhood 3,370 5,030 1,660
San Jose 375,360 522,050 146,680 39%
Bascom TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 11,520 12,910 1,390
Bascom Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 1,700 2,660 960
Berryessa Station Transit Neighborhood 6,140 12,180 6,040
Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 880 1,720 840
Camden Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 5,600 7,630 2,030
Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Mixed-Use Corridor 2,340 5,580 3,250
Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Suburban Center 4,070 7,060 2,990
Communications Hill Transit Town Center 3,940 5,650 1,710
Cottle Transit Village Suburban Center 2,550 3,040 490
Downtown "Frame"City Center 26,760 31,090 4,330
East Santa Clara/Alum Rock
Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor 9,950 13,380 3,430
Greater Downtown Regional Center 27,950 55,970 28,020
International Business Park Employment Center 11,650 19,730 8,080
North San Jose Regional Center 84,290 130,190 45,900
Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban
Village
Suburban Center 5,430 9,700 4,270
Old Edenvale Employment Center 6,900 14,690 7,790
Saratoga TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,520 5,520 2,000
Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 5,680 8,020 2,340
West San Carlos & Southwest
Expressway Corridors
Mixed-Use Corridor 8,940 15,600 6,660
Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Suburban Center 3,440 5,230 1,790
Winchester Boulevard TOD
Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor 4,040 6,820 2,780
Santa Clara 112,460 145,560 33,100 29%
El Camino Real Focus Area Mixed-Use Corridor 4,390 6,980 2,590
Santa Clara Station Focus Area City Center 10,020 12,750 2,740
Saratoga 11,870 14,500 2,630 22%
Sunnyvale 74,610 95,320 20,710 28%
Downtown & Caltrain Station Transit Town Center 3,750 5,660 1,910
East Sunnyvale Urban Neighborhood 8,050 9,240 1,180
El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 13,190 16,390 3,200
Lawrence Station Transit Village Transit Neighborhood 4,160 5,380 1,220
Moffett Park Employment Center 11,420 18,890 7,470
Peery Park Employment Center 5,980 7,920 1,940
Reamwood Light Rail Station Employment Center 3,050 3,720 680
Tasman Station ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 1,540 2,530 980
Santa Clara County Unincorporated 39,060 47,800 8,740 22%
Valley Transportation Authority
Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas Mixed-Use Corridor 90,770 118,380 27,610
JOBS
97
Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction
Santa Clara County
Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 2040 2010-2040 % Growth 2010 2040 2010-2040 % Growth
Campbell 16,950 19,990 3,040 18% 16,160 19,430 3,270 20%
Central Redevelopment Area Transit Neighborhood 1,340 2,820 1,470 1,260 2,750 1,490
Cupertino 21,030 25,820 4,790 23% 20,180 25,050 4,870 24%
Gilroy 14,850 17,570 2,710 18% 14,180 17,040 2,860 20%
Downtown Transit Town Center 980 2,900 1,930 880 2,820 1,940
Los Altos 11,200 12,300 1,100 10% 10,750 11,840 1,100 10%
Los Altos Hills 3,000 3,100 100 3% 2,830 2,940 110 4%
Los Gatos 13,050 13,820 770 6% 12,360 13,220 860 7%
Milpitas 19,810 32,430 12,620 64% 19,180 31,680 12,500 65%
Transit Area Suburban Center 790 7,870 7,080 750 7,720 6,970
Monte Sereno 1,290 1,370 80 6% 1,210 1,290 80 7%
Morgan Hill 12,860 16,690 3,830 30% 12,330 16,150 3,820 31%
Downtown Transit Town Center 570 1,990 1,420 510 1,930 1,420
Mountain View 33,880 43,270 9,390 28% 31,960 41,790 9,830 31%
Downtown Transit Town Center 5,240 6,390 1,150 4,790 6,030 1,240
East Whisman Employment Center 720 720 0 690 690 0
El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 9,190 11,150 1,960 8,740 10,830 2,090
North Bayshore Suburban Center 360 1,790 1,420 350 1,750 1,410
San Antonio Center Transit Town Center 3,590 6,350 2,760 3,420 6,180 2,770
Whisman Station Transit Neighborhood 670 1,670 1,010 650 1,640 990
Palo Alto 28,220 35,620 7,410 26% 26,490 34,360 7,870 30%
California Avenue Transit Neighborhood 800 1,650 850 750 1,600 850
San Jose 314,040 443,210 129,170 41% 301,370 431,910 130,550 43%
Bascom TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 680 2,240 1,560 650 2,190 1,540
Bascom Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 1,780 2,590 810 1,670 2,520 850
Berryessa Station Transit Neighborhood 1,880 7,990 6,110 1,850 7,850 6,000
Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 640 1,720 1,080 610 1,680 1,070
Camden Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 490 1,480 1,000 480 1,460 980
Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Mixed-Use Corridor 860 7,100 6,240 820 6,960 6,140
Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Suburban Center 1,090 3,340 2,250 1,060 3,270 2,210
Communications Hill Transit Town Center 6,810 10,140 3,340 6,540 9,910 3,360
Cottle Transit Village Suburban Center 0 3,580 3,580 0 3,510 3,510
Downtown "Frame"City Center 18,120 28,210 10,090 16,980 27,410 10,440
East Santa Clara/Alum Rock
Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor 7,180 13,370 6,200 6,750 12,980 6,230
Greater Downtown Regional Center 4,590 19,750 15,150 3,670 19,310 15,640
International Business Park Employment Center 200 200 0 190 190 0
North San Jose Regional Center 10,880 43,730 32,850 10,420 42,820 32,400
Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban
Village
Suburban Center 1,910 9,200 7,300 1,790 9,020 7,240
Old Edenvale Employment Center 150 150 0 140 140 0
Saratoga TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,430 3,550 1,120 2,340 3,460 1,130
Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,620 7,800 5,170 2,500 7,620 5,120
West San Carlos & Southwest
Expressway Corridors
Mixed-Use Corridor 11,150 20,960 9,810 10,320 20,410 10,100
Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Suburban Center 850 3,340 2,490 800 3,270 2,480
Winchester Boulevard TOD
Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor 4,850 6,850 2,000 4,630 6,690 2,050
Santa Clara 45,150 58,920 13,770 30% 43,020 57,240 14,220 33%
El Camino Real Focus Area Mixed-Use Corridor 1,840 5,400 3,560 1,650 5,220 3,580
Santa Clara Station Focus Area City Center 480 3,880 3,410 450 3,800 3,350
Saratoga 11,120 11,750 630 6% 10,730 11,350 620 6%
Sunnyvale 55,790 74,780 18,990 34% 53,380 72,760 19,380 36%
Downtown & Caltrain Station Transit Town Center 1,840 3,810 1,980 1,730 3,710 1,980
East Sunnyvale Urban Neighborhood 1,020 4,270 3,260 950 4,170 3,220
El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 10,990 15,400 4,410 10,350 14,940 4,590
Lawrence Station Transit Village Transit Neighborhood 1,660 5,210 3,550 1,560 5,100 3,540
Moffett Park Employment Center 20 20 0 20 20 0
Peery Park Employment Center 130 130 0 110 120 10
Reamwood Light Rail Station Employment Center 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tasman Station ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 1,440 3,270 1,830 1,390 3,200 1,810
Santa Clara County Unincorporated 29,690 32,490 2,800 9% 28,080 31,060 2,980 11%
Valley Transportation Authority
Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas Mixed-Use Corridor 48,380 67,690 19,300 46,070 65,750 19,680
HOUSING UNITS HOUSEHOLDS
103
Draft Strategy for a
Sustainable
Region
Environmental Impact Report
Plan Bay Area
Draft
State Clearinghouse No. 2012062029
April 2013
Association of
Bay Area
Governments
Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission
PLAN BAY AREA
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012062029
Prepared for
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
Association of Bay Area Governments
by
In association with
Environmental Science Associates and AECOM
April 2013
Table of Contents
Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................. G-1
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ ES-1
MTC, ABAG, and Plan Bay Area........................................................................................................ ES-1
Introduction to the EIR ....................................................................................................................... ES-2
EIR Organization ................................................................................................................................... ES-3
Plan Bay Area Regional Setting ....................................................................................................... ES-5
Plan Bay Area Overview ..................................................................................................................... ES-5
Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................ ES-7
Key EIR assumptions ........................................................................................................................... ES-8
Plan Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... ES-9
Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................................... ES-9
Areas of Known Controversy ........................................................................................................ ES-11
Issues to be Resolved ....................................................................................................................... ES-12
Summary Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... ES-12
Part One: Introduction and Study Approach
1.1 Introduction and Study Approach ....................................................................... 1.1-1
MTC, ABAG, and Plan Bay Area....................................................................................................... 1.1-1
Purpose of the EIR ............................................................................................................................... 1.1-2
Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping ................................................................................. 1.1-2
EIR Scope ................................................................................................................................................ 1.1-4
EIR Organization .................................................................................................................................. 1.1-7
EIR Approach ........................................................................................................................................ 1.1-9
Future Environmental Review ..................................................................................................... 1.1-12
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ii
1.2 Overview of the Proposed Plan Bay Area ............................................................ 1.2-1
Regional Setting .................................................................................................................................. 1.2-1
Project Background ............................................................................................................................ 1.2-8
Plan Development Process ........................................................................................................... 1.2-15
Description of Plan Bay Area: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Community Strategy ....................................................................................................................... 1.2-21
Part Two: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
2.0 Introduction and Study Approach ....................................................................... 2.0-1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2.0-1
General Methodology and Assumptions ................................................................................... 2.0-1
Types of Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 2.0-2
Impact Significance ............................................................................................................................ 2.0-3
Mitigation .............................................................................................................................................. 2.0-3
2.1 Transportation ...................................................................................................... 2.1-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.1-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.1-22
2.2 Air Quality.............................................................................................................. 2.2-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.2-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.2-17
2.3 Land Use and Physical Development .................................................................. 2.3-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.3-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.3-31
2.4 Energy .................................................................................................................... 2.4-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.4-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.4-16
2.5 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases ............................................................. 2.5-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.5-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.5-41
Adaptation Strategies .................................................................................................................... 2.5-76
Table of Contents
iii
2.6 Noise ...................................................................................................................... 2.6-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.6-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.6-19
2.7 Geology and Seismicity ........................................................................................ 2.7-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.7-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.7-20
2.8 Water Resources ................................................................................................... 2.8-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.8-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.8-20
2.9 Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 2.9-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.9-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.9-52
2.10 Visual Resources ................................................................................................. 2.10-1
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 2.10-2
Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 2.10-14
2.11 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 2.11-1
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 2.11-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.11-9
2.12 Public Utilities and Facilities .............................................................................. 2.12-1
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 2.12-1
Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 2.12-46
2.13 Hazards ................................................................................................................ 2.13-1
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 2.13-1
Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 2.13-26
2.14 Public Services and Recreation .......................................................................... 2.14-1
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 2.14-1
Impact Analysis .........................................................................................................................................11
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
iv
Part Three: Alternative and CEQA-Required Conclusions
3.1 Alternatives to the Proposed Plan ....................................................................... 3.1-1
Alternatives Screening ...................................................................................................................... 3.1-2
Approach to Assessing Alternatives............................................................................................. 3.1-3
Alternatives Analyzed in this EIR ................................................................................................... 3.1-4
Comparative Impact Analysis of Alternatives ........................................................................ 3.1-19
Summary of All Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 3.1-120
Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................................................................... 3.1-146
3.2 CEQA Required Conclusions ............................................................................... 3.2-21
4.1 Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.2 EIR Preparers ....................................................................................................... 4.2-12
Appendices
Appendix A: Notice of Prepartion
Appendix B: Scoping Comments Received
Appendix C: Transportation Projects in Each EIR Alternative
Appendix D:Scoping Comments on Alternatives
Appendix E:Air Quality Analysis Methodolgy
Appendix F: Geology
Appendix G: Water Resources
Appendix H: Biological Resources Special Status Species Table H-1
Appendix I: Hazards
List of Figures
v
List of Figures
Figure 1.2-1: Regional Location .................................................................................................................................. 1.2-3
Figure 1.2-2: Priority Development Areas and Priority Conservation Areas.............................................. 1.2-27
Figure 1.2-3: Urbanized Land in 2010 and 2040 ................................................................................................. 1.2-29
Figure 1.2-4: Regional Transit System Improvements ...................................................................................... 1.2-41
Figure 1.2-5: Local Transit Improvements............................................................................................................. 1.2-43
Figure 1.2-6: Road Pricing Improvements ............................................................................................................ 1.2-45
Figure 1.2-7: Highway System Improvements .................................................................................................... 1.2-47
Figure 1.2-8: Major Transportation Projects in Alameda County .................................................................. 1.2-57
Figure 1.2-9: Major Transportation Projects in Contra Costa County .......................................................... 1.2-61
Figure 1.2-10: Major Transportation Projects in Mario and Sonoma Counties ........................................... 1.2-65
Figure 1.2-11: Major Transportation Projects in Napa and Solano Counties ............................................... 1.2-67
Figure 1.2-12: Major Transportation Projects in San Francisco and San Mateo Counties ....................... 1.2-73
Figure 1.2-13: Major Transportation Projects in Santa Clara County ............................................................. 1.2-75
Figure 1.2-14: Change in PDA Housing Density, 2010-2040, Alameda and Contra Costa ...................... 1.2-79
Figure 1.2-15: Change in PDA Housing Density, 2010-2040, Marin and Sonoma ..................................... 1.2-81
Figure 1.2-16: Change in PDA Housing Density, 2010-2040, Solano and Napa ......................................... 1.2-83
Figure 1.2-17: Change in PDA Housing Density, 2010-2040, San Francisco and San Mateo ................. 1.2-85
Figure 1.2-18: Change in PDA Housing Density, 2010-2040, Santa Clara ..................................................... 1.2-87
Figure 1.2-19: Change in PDA Job Density, 2010-2040, Alameda and Contra Costa ................................ 1.2-89
Figure 1.2-20: Change in PDA Job Density, 2010-2040, Marin and Sonoma ............................................... 1.2-91
Figure 1.2-21: Change in PDA Job Density, 2010-2040, Solano and Napa ................................................... 1.2-93
Figure 1.2-22: Change in PDA Job Density, 2010-2040, San Francisco and San Mateo ........................... 1.2-95
Figure 1.2-23: Change in PDA Job Density, 2010-2040, Santa Clara .............................................................. 1.2-97
Figure 2.1-1: Major Road Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 2.1-3
Figure 2.1-2: Transit Lines & Areas Served by Transit .......................................................................................... 2.1-7
Figure 2.1-3: Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................................................... 2.1-11
Figure 2.2-1: Air Basin Boundaries ........................................................................................................................... 2.2-15
Figure 2.2-2: Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Projects Corridors .................................. 2.2-21
Figure 2.2-3: Communities of Concern and CARE .............................................................................................. 2.2-25
Figure 2.2-4: San Francisco Bay Area ...................................................................................................................... 2.2-43
Figure 2.2-5: Northern Alameda County ............................................................................................................... 2.2-45
Figure 2.2-6: Eastern Alameda County ................................................................................................................... 2.2-47
Figure 2.2-7: Southern Alameda County ............................................................................................................... 2.2-49
Figure 2.2-8: Western Contra Costa County ......................................................................................................... 2.2-51
Figure 2.2-9: Central Contra Costa County ........................................................................................................... 2.2-53
Figure 2.2-10: Eastern Contra Costa County ........................................................................................................... 2.2-55
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
vi
Figure 2.2-11: Northern Marin County ..................................................................................................................... 2.2-57
Figure 2.2-12: Southern Marin County ..................................................................................................................... 2.2-59
Figure 2.2-13: Napa County .......................................................................................................................................... 2.2-61
Figure 2.2-14: Northern Santa Clara County ........................................................................................................... 2.2-63
Figure 2.2-15: Central Santa Clara County .............................................................................................................. 2.2-65
Figure 2.2-16: Southern Santa Clara County .......................................................................................................... 2.2-67
Figure 2.2-17: San Francisco County ......................................................................................................................... 2.2-69
Figure 2.2-18: Northern San Mateo County ............................................................................................................ 2.2-71
Figure 2.2-19: Southern San Mateo County ............................................................................................................ 2.2-73
Figure 2.2-20: Southern Solano County ................................................................................................................... 2.2-75
Figure 2.2-21: Sonoma County .................................................................................................................................... 2.2-77
Figure 2.3-1: Urbanized Land and Open Space ..................................................................................................... 2.3-3
Figure 2.3-2: Farmlands ................................................................................................................................................. 2.3-9
Figure 2.3-3: Williamson Act Lands ......................................................................................................................... 2.3-13
Figure 2.3-4: Regional Parks and Open Space ..................................................................................................... 2.3-17
Figure 2.3-5: Priority Development Areas ............................................................................................................. 2.3-29
Figure 2.5-1: 2007 Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, as a Percent of
Total Emissions ....................................................................................................................................... 2.5-6
Figure 2.5-2: Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends by Major Source ............................................... 2.5-6
Figure 2.5-3: 24-Inch Sea Level Rise at Mean Higher High Water ................................................................. 2.5-13
Figure 2.5-4: Levees and Non-Engineered Berms .............................................................................................. 2.5-17
Figure 2.5-5: Number of Days Exceeding the 8-Hour Ozone Standard and 99 Degree Weather....... 2.5-21
Figure 2.5-6: Comparative Inundation by Scenario ........................................................................................... 2.5-47
Figure 2.5-7: Per Capita Emissions Car and Light Duty Truck Emissions .................................................... 2.5-58
Figure 2.5-8: Total Emissions by Sector and Linear Trajectory, Annual MTCO2e ..................................... 2.5-59
Figure 2.6-1: Decibel Scale and Common Noise Sources .................................................................................. 2.6-3
Figure 2.6-2: Point Source Spreading with Distance ........................................................................................... 2.6-5
Figure 2.6-3: Line Source Spreading with Distance ............................................................................................. 2.6-6
Figure 2.6-4: Wind Effects on Noise Levels ............................................................................................................. 2.6-7
Figure 2.6-5: Effects of Temperature Gradients on Noise .................................................................................. 2.6-8
Figure 2.6-6: FTA Noise Impact Criteria .................................................................................................................. 2.6-14
Figure 2.6-7: Typical Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria .......................................................................... 2.6-18
Figure 2.7-1: Principal Active Faults in the San Francisco Bay Area ............................................................... 2.7-7
Figure 2.7-2: Liquefaction Hazards in San Francisco Bay Area ....................................................................... 2.7-11
Figure 2.7-3: Landslide Hazards in the San Francisco Bay Area ..................................................................... 2.7-15
Figure 2.8-1: Major Rivers, Creeks, and Other Water Bodies ............................................................................. 2.8-5
Figure 2.8-2: Current TMDL Projects in San Francisco Bay Area ..................................................................... 2.8-9
Figure 2.8-3: Flood Hazard Areas ............................................................................................................................. 2.8-11
Figure 2.9-1: CNDDB Documented Sensitive Biological Resources: North Bay ........................................ 2.9-17
Figure 2.9 -2: CNDDB Documented Sensitive Biological Resources: East Bay ........................................... 2.9-19
Figure 2.9-3: CNDDB Documented Sensitive Biological Resources: Peninsula ........................................ 2.9-21
Figure 2.9-4: CNDDB Documented Sensitive Biological Resources: South Bay ....................................... 2.9-23
Figure 2.9-5: Critical Habitat: North Bay................................................................................................................. 2.9-27
List of Figures
vii
Figure 2.9-6: Critical Habitat: East Bay .................................................................................................................... 2.9-29
Figure 2.9-7: Critical Habitat: South Bay ................................................................................................................ 2.9-31
Figure 2.9-8: Critical Habitat: Peninsula ................................................................................................................. 2.9-33
Figure 2.9-9: Essential Connectivity Areas ............................................................................................................ 2.9-37
Figure 2.10-1: Major Bay Area Scenic Resources ................................................................................................... 2.10-3
Figure 2.10-2: State Designated and Eligible Scenic Highways .................................................................... 2.10-11
Figure 2.10-3: Proposed Major Transportation Projects .................................................................................. 2.10-19
Figure 2.12-1: Major Local Watersheds in the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region .............................. 2.10-3
Figure 2.12-2: Bay Area Water Use by Supply Source .......................................................................................... 2.12-9
Figure 2.12-3: Bay Area Groundwater Basins ...................................................................................................... 2.12-11
Figure 2.12-4: Major Water Infrastructure Serving the Bay Area .................................................................. 2.12-17
Figure 2.12-5: Population and Water Demand Trends .................................................................................... 2.12-21
Figure 2.12-6: Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Bay Area........................................................................ 2.12-31
Figure 2.13-1: Naturally Occurring Asbestos and Ultramafic Rocks ............................................................... 2.13-7
Figure 2.13-2: Airports ................................................................................................................................................. 2.13-11
Figure 2.13-3: Fire Hazards ........................................................................................................................................ 2.13-15
Figure 3.1-1: Change in Per Capita Car and Light Duty Truck CO2 Emissions, by Alternative ............. 3.1-63
Figure 3.1-2: Total Annual Regional GHG Emissions (MTCO2e), by Alternative ........................................ 3.1-64
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
viii
This page intentionally left blank.
List of Tables
ix
List of Tables
Table ES-1: Total Projected Growth for the Bay Area, 2010-2040 ................................................................. ES-6
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation .............................................................................................. ES-13
Table 1.1-1: Requirements for CEQA Streamlining Related to an SCS ....................................................... 1.1-14
Table 1.2-1: Projected Regional Growth by 2040 ............................................................................................... 1.2-6
Table 1.2-2: Year 2040 Performance Targets for Plan Bay Area ................................................................... 1.2-22
Table 1.2-3: Housing Growth by County ............................................................................................................. 1.2-32
Table 1.2-4: County Proportion of Regional Housing ..................................................................................... 1.2-32
Table 1.2-5: Job Growth by County ....................................................................................................................... 1.2-33
Table 1.2-6: Jobs-Household Ratios by County ................................................................................................. 1.2-34
Table 1.2-7: Household Growth in PDAs .............................................................................................................. 1.2-34
Table 1.2-8: Job Growth in PDAs ........................................................................................................................... 1.2-36
Table 1.2-9: Major Transportation Investments in the Bay Area .................................................................. 1.2-38
Table 1.2-10: Transportation Investments of Plan Bay Area vs. RTP 2035 .................................................. 1.2-50
Table 1.2-11: Major Transportation Investments for Alameda County ....................................................... 1.2-54
Table 1.2-12: Major Transportation Investments for Contra Costa County ................................................ 1.2-59
Table 1.2-13: Major Transportation Investments for Marin and Sonoma Counties ................................ 1.2-63
Table 1.2-14: Major Transportation Investments for Napa and Solano Counties .................................... 1.2-64
Table 1.2-15: Major Transportation Investments for San Francisco and San mateo Counties ............ 1.2-69
Table 1.2-16: Major Transportation Investments for Santa Clara County ................................................... 1.2-70
Table 2.1-1: Major Limited-Access Highways in the Bay Area ........................................................................ 2.1-2
Table 2.1-2: Major Public Transit Operators in the Bay Area ........................................................................... 2.1-5
Table 2.1-3: Bay Area Travel Behavior, 2010 ....................................................................................................... 2.1-10
Table 2.1-4: Typical Weekday Daily Person Trips by Purpose, 2010 ........................................................... 2.1-14
Table 2.1-5: Average One-Way Commute Distance (in Miles) by County, 2010 ..................................... 2.1-14
Table 2.1-6: Bay Area Resident Workers Categorized by Means of Transportation to Work,
1990-2010.............................................................................................................................................. 2.1-15
Table 2.1-7: Bay Area Resident Commute Mode Shares by County, 2010 ............................................... 2.1-16
Table 2.1-8: Average Travel Time to Work, 1990 - 2010 ................................................................................. 2.1-16
Table 2.1-9: Bay Area Resident Workers Commute Patterns by County, 1990 - 2007 .......................... 2.1-18
Table 2.1-10: Bay area Demographic Forecasts (2010-2040) .......................................................................... 2.1-25
Table 2.1-11: Transportation System Capacity (2010-2040) ............................................................................ 2.1-27
Table 2.1-12: Bay Area Travel Behavior, 2010-2040 ............................................................................................ 2.1-28
Table 2.1-13: Typical Weekday Daily Person Trips, by Mode ........................................................................... 2.1-29
Table 2.1-14: Per-Trip Commute Travel Time, by Mode .................................................................................... 2.1-31
Table 2.1-15: Per-Trip Non-Commute Travel Time, by Mode .......................................................................... 2.1-32
Table 2.1-16: Per-Capita Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel by Level of Service (2010-2040) ......................... 2.1-33
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
x
Table 2.1-17: Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Capita (2010-2040) ............................................................... 2.1-35
Table 2.1-18: Utilization of Public Transit Systems, by Mode (2010-2040) ................................................. 2.1-37
Table 2.2-1: Bay Area Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status as of 2012 .................... 2.2-4
Table 2.2-2: Ten-Year Bay Area Air Quality Summary (2002-2011) ............................................................... 2.2-6
Table 2.2-3: Days Exceeding the California 1-Hour Ozone Standard (1998-2010) .................................. 2.2-7
Table 2.2-4: Days Exceeding the National 8-Hour Ozone Standard (1998-2010) .................................... 2.2-8
Table 2.2-5: Travel Data ............................................................................................................................................. 2.2-18
Table 2.2-6: Proposed Plan Investments and Policies that Support Implementation
of 2010 CAP Control Measures ........................................................................................................ 2.2-29
Table 2.2-7: Emission Estimates for Criteria Pollutants using EMFAC2011 Emission
Rates (tons per day) ............................................................................................................................ 2.2-36
Table 2.2-8: Emission Estimates for Criteria Pollutants using EMFAC2011 Emission Rates
(tons per day) ........................................................................................................................................ 2.2-37
Table 2.2-9: Emission Estimates for Toxic Air Contaminants Pollutants (kilograms per day) ............ 2.2-38
Table 2.2-10: Distance Recommendation from Sensitive Receptors ............................................................ 2.2-80
Table 2.2-11: Percent Change in On-Road Mobile Source Exhaust Emissions, Years 2010 - 2040 ..... 2.2-84
Table 2.2-12: Percent Change in On-Road Mobile Source Total PM Emissions, Years 2010–2040 ..... 2.2-85
Table 2.3-1: 2010 Employment, Housing, and Population, by County ........................................................ 2.3-2
Table 2.3-2: Net Housing Supply and Demand by Building Type, 2010 – 2040 ....................................... 2.3-5
Table 2.3-3: Bay Area Agricultural Lands, 2010 ................................................................................................... 2.3-7
Table 2.3-4: Bay Area Agricultural Lands, 1954 and 2007 ................................................................................ 2.3-8
Table 2-3.5: Williamson Act Contracts in the Bay Area, 2006........................................................................ 2.3-12
Table 2.3-6: Bay Area Parks and Open Space ..................................................................................................... 2.3-15
Table 2.3-7: Household Density by Priority Development ARea ................................................................. 2.3-36
Table 2.3-8: Employment Density by Priority Development Area .............................................................. 2.3-37
Table 2.3-9: Types of Projects Potentially Disrupting Existing Land Use .................................................. 2.3-38
Table 2.3-10: Priority Development Area and BCDC Priority Use Area Acres of Overlap ...................... 2.3-43
Table 2.3-11: Farmland Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Development, by
County and Type ................................................................................................................................. 2.3-45
Table 2.3-12: Williamson Act Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Development,
by County ............................................................................................................................................... 2.3-46
Table 2.3-13: Protected Open SPace Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Development,
by County ............................................................................................................................................... 2.3-47
Table 2.3-14: Bay Area Urban Growth Boundaries and County-wide Land Use Measures ................... 2.3-48
Table 2.3-15: Farmland Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Transportation Projects,
by County and Type ............................................................................................................................ 2.3-49
Table 2.3-16: Williamson Act Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Transportation Projects,
by County ............................................................................................................................................... 2.3-50
Table 2.3-17: Protected Open SPace Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Transportation
Projects, by County ............................................................................................................................. 2.3-51
Table 2.3-18: Forest and Timberland Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Development,
by County ............................................................................................................................................... 2.3-54
Table 2.4-1: Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption in the San Francisco Bay Area, 2010 ............... 2.4-5
List of Tables
xi
Table 2.4-2: Gasoline and Diesel Consumption in the San Francisco Bay Area, 2010 and
2011 (1,000 gallons) .............................................................................................................................. 2.4-7
Table 2.4-3: Energy Factors of Transit Service ...................................................................................................... 2.4-8
Table 2.4-4: Direct Land Use Energy Consumption Factors .......................................................................... 2.4-17
Table 2.4-5: InDirect Land Use Energy Consumption Factors ...................................................................... 2.4-18
Table 2.4-6: InDirect Transportation Project Energy Consumption Factors ............................................ 2.4-18
Table 2.4-7: Annual Direct Land use Energy Use in the Bay Area ................................................................ 2.4-20
Table 2.4-8: Estimated Indirect Land Use Energy Consumption (in BnBTUs) .......................................... 2.4-21
Table 2.4-9: Daily Direct Transportation Energy Use in the Bay Area ........................................................ 2.4-22
Table 2.4-10: Estimated Daily Indirect Transportation Energy Consumption (In Billion Btus)........... 2.4-23
Table 2.4-11: Daily Per Capita Energy Use (BTUS per PERSON) ...................................................................... 2.4-23
Table 2.5-1: 2007 Bay Area CO2e Emissions by Pollutant ................................................................................. 2.5-5
Table 2.5-2: CO-CAT (2010) Sea Level Rise Projections using 2000 as the Baseline .............................. 2.5-10
Table 2.5-3: NRC (2012) Regional Sea Level Rise Projections near San Francisco, CA .......................... 2.5-10
Table 2.5-4: Bay Area Cities with Completed GHG Emissions Inventories or CLimate
Action Plans ........................................................................................................................................... 2.5-38
Table 2.5-5: Plan Bay Area Climate Policy Initiatives and Reductions ........................................................ 2.5-43
Table 2.5-6: ARB Scoping Plan Reductions for Electricity and Natural Gas Sectors .............................. 2.5-45
Table 2.5-7: Total and Per Capita Passenger Vehicle and Light Duty Truck CO2 Emissions................ 2.5-50
Table 2.5-8: Existng and forecasted Annual Land Use GHG Emissions (MTCO2e).................................. 2.5-53
Table 2.5-9: Exisitng and forecasted Annual TransPortation GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) ..................... 2.5-55
Table 2.5-10: Total Regional Annual GHG Emissions ......................................................................................... 2.5-56
Table 2.5-11: Proposed Transportation Projects Within Midcentury Sea Level Rise
Inundation Zone .................................................................................................................................. 2.5-62
Table 2.5-12: Proposed Transportation Projects Within Midcentury Low-Lying Hydraulically
Disconnected Zone ............................................................................................................................. 2.5-65
Table 2.5-13: Total Population Within PDA and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone ............ 2.5-69
Table 2.5-14: Total Population Within TPP and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone ............. 2.5-70
Table 2.5-15: Total Population Within County and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone ...... 2.5-70
Table 2.5-16: Total Employment Within PDA and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone ........ 2.5-73
Table 2.5-17: Total Employment Within TPP and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone ......... 2.5-73
Table 2.5-18: Total Employment Within County and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone .. 2.5-74
Table 2.5-19: Total Households Within PDA and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone .......... 2.5-74
Table 2.5-20: Total Households Within TPP and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone ........... 2.5-75
Table 2.5-21: Total Households Within County and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone .... 2.5-75
Table 2.5-22: Asset Types and Shoreline Types of Proposed Transportation Projects Within Sea
Level Rise Inundation Zone .............................................................................................................. 2.5-83
Table 2.5-23: Asset Types and Shoreline Types of Proposed Transportation Projects Within
Low-Lying Hydraulically Disconnected Zone ............................................................................ 2.5-84
Table 2.6-1: Approximate Relationship Between Increases in Environmental Noise Level
and Human Perception ........................................................................................................................ 2.6-4
Table 2.6-2: Typical Noise Levels From Demolition/ Construction Equipment Operations ............... 2.6-11
Table 2.6-3: Summary of FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria ........................................................................... 2.6-13
Table 2.6-4: FTA Ground-Borne Vibration (GVB) Impact Criteria for General Assessment ................. 2.6-15
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
xii
Table 2.6-5: Summary of FTA Construction Noise Criteria (Guidelines) .................................................... 2.6-16
Table 2.6-6: Noise Levels By Roadway Type (Roadway Miles) ..................................................................... 2.6-29
Table 2.7-1: Active Faults in The Bay Area ............................................................................................................. 2.7-5
Table 2.7-2: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale ...................................................................................................... 2.7-9
Table 2.7-3: Priority Development Areas (PDAs) Located in Fault Rupture Zones ................................ 2.7-23
Table 2.8-1: Average Monthly Precipitation, Selected Bay Area Sites ......................................................... 2.8-2
Table 2.8-2: Flood Hazard Zone Classification ................................................................................................... 2.8-13
Table 2.9-1: Critical Habitat in the Bay Area ....................................................................................................... 2.9-25
Table 2.10-1: California State Scenic Highway System Officially Designated (OD) and
Eligible (E) Routes in the Bay Area .................................................................................................. 2.10-9
Table 2.10-3: Urbanized Land By County ............................................................................................................ 2.10-17
Table 2.10-4: Types of Projects Potentially Disrupting Visual Resources ................................................. 2.10-21
Table 2.10-5: Household Density by Priority Development Area ............................................................... 2.10-26
Table 2.11-1: Recorded Archaeological and Historical Sites in the Bay Area ............................................. 2.11-4
Table 2.11-2: Urbanized Land By County ............................................................................................................ 2.11-14
Table 2.12-1: Watersheds of the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region ...................................................... 2.12-2
Table 2.12-2: Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand (AF/Year) ....................................................... 2.12-20
Table 2.12-3: Projected Service Area Population of Major Bay Area Water Agencies.......................... 2.12-22
Table 2.12-4: Year of Projected Water Shortages (Single Dry Year) ........................................................... 2.12-23
Table 2.12-5: Flow and Capacity of Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the Region ........................... 2.12-24
Table 2.12-6: Active Bay Area Landfills ................................................................................................................ 2.12-35
Table 2.12-7: Active Bay Area Transfer/Processing Facilities ........................................................................ 2.12-37
Table 2.12-8: Projected Flow vs. Existing Capacity of Wastewater Treatment at a County
Level (dry weather, mgD) ............................................................................................................... 2.12-51
Table 2.13-1: Description of regulatory agency Databases ............................................................................. 2.13-4
Table 2.13-2: List of Public Use Airports and Military Airfields in the San Francisco Bay Area .......... 2.13-10
Table 2.14-1: Bay Area Public Schools and Enrollment by County, 2010-2011 ......................................... 2.14-2
Table 2.14-2: Bay Area Parks and Open Space ..................................................................................................... 2.14-5
Table 2.14-3: Bay Area Parks and Open Space and Acreage Per 1,000 Residents, by County .......... 2.14-15
Table 3.1-1: Policy Measure Comparison ............................................................................................................... 3.1-8
Table 3.1-2: Bay area Demographic Forecasts (2010-2040) .......................................................................... 3.1-11
Table 3.1-3: Year 2040 Households by County .................................................................................................. 3.1-14
Table 3.1-4: Year 2040 Jobs by County................................................................................................................. 3.1-14
Table 3.1-5: Total Households and Household Growth By Share in PDAs ............................................... 3.1-15
Table 3.1-6: Total Jobs And Job Growth By Share in PDAs ............................................................................ 3.1-16
Table 3.1-7: Transportation System Capacity (2010-2040) ............................................................................ 3.1-18
Table 3.1-8: Bay Area Travel Behavior, 2010-2040 ............................................................................................ 3.1-24
Table 3.1-9: Per-Trip Commute Travel Time, by Mode .................................................................................... 3.1-26
Table 3.1-10: Per-Trip Non-Commute Travel Time, by Mode .......................................................................... 3.1-27
Table 3.1-11: Per-Capita Daily Vehicle Miles Of Travel by Level Of Service (2010-2040) ....................... 3.1-28
Table 3.1-12: Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Capita (2010-2040) ............................................................... 3.1-29
Table 3.1-13: Percent Utilization of Public Transit Systems, by Technology (2010-2040) ..................... 3.1-30
Table 3.1-14: Travel Data ............................................................................................................................................. 3.1-38
List of Tables
xiii
Table 3.1-15: Emission Estimates for Criteria Pollutants using EMFAC2011
Emission Rates (tons per day) .......................................................................................................... 3.1-39
Table 3.1-16: Emission Estimates for Toxic Air Contaminants Pollutants (kilograms per day) ............ 3.1-40
Table 3.1-17: Exhaust Only PM2.5 with Road-Dust Percent Change 2010 - 2040 ...................................... 3.1-41
Table 3.1-18: Total PM2.5 with Road Dust Percent Change 2010 - 2040 ....................................................... 3.1-42
Table 3.1-19: Exhaust Diesel PM Percent Change 2010 - 2040 ....................................................................... 3.1-43
Table 3.1-20: Exhaust Benzene Percent Change 2010 - 2040 ......................................................................... 3.1-44
Table 3.1-21: Exhaust 1, 3 Butadiene Percent Change 2010 - 2040 .............................................................. 3.1-45
Table 3.1-22: VMT Percent Change 2010 - 2040 .................................................................................................. 3.1-46
Table 3.1-23: Potential Farmland Conversion in acres, by type and Alternative ...................................... 3.1-50
Table 3.1-24: Williamson Act Acres Potentially Affected in acres, by Alternative .................................... 3.1-51
Table 3.1-25: Potential Open Space Conversion in acres, by Alternative ................................................... 3.1-52
Table 3.1-26: Potential Forest and Timberland Conversion in Acres, by Alternative .............................. 3.1-53
Table 3.1-27: Total Energy Use Per Capita in the Bay Area by Alternative .................................................. 3.1-56
Table 3.1-28: Total and Per Capita Passenger Vehicle and Light Duty Truck CO2
Emissions, by Alternative .................................................................................................................. 3.1-59
Table 3.1-29: Comparative Annual Land Use GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) ..................................................... 3.1-61
Table 3.1-30: Proposed Transportation Projects within Mid-Century Sea level Rise
Inundation Zone .................................................................................................................................. 3.1-65
Table 3.1-31: Proposed Transportation Projects within Mid-Century Low-Lying zone ......................... 3.1-66
Table 3.1-33: Residents Within TPPs and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone ........................ 3.1-69
Table 3.1-34: Residents Within Counties and Mid-Century Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone .............. 3.1-70
Table 3.1-35: Residents Within PDAs and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone ................................................... 3.1-71
Table 3.1-36: Residents Within TPPs and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone .................................................... 3.1-71
Table 3.1-37: Residents Within Counties and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone ............................................ 3.1-72
Table 3.1-38: Employment Within PDAs and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone ................ 3.1-73
Table 3.1-39: Employment Within TPPs and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone ................. 3.1-74
Table 3.1-40: Employment Within Counties and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone ......... 3.1-75
Table 3.1-42: Employment Within TPPs and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone .............................................. 3.1-76
Table 3.1-43: Employment Within Counties and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone ...................................... 3.1-77
Table 3.1-44: Households Within PDAs and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone .................. 3.1-78
Table 3.1-45: Households Within TPPs and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone ................... 3.1-78
Table 3.1-46: Households Within counties and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone ............ 3.1-79
Table 3.1-47: Households Within PDAs and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone ............................................... 3.1-80
Table 3.1-48: Households Within TPPs and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone ................................................ 3.1-80
Table 3.1-49: Households Within Counties and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone ........................................ 3.1-81
Table 3.1-50: Roadway Directional Miles > 66 dBA NAC Level, and Total Directional Miles,
by Roadway Type and County ......................................................................................................... 3.1-88
Table 3.1-51: Transportation Projects, by Alternative .................................................................................... 3.1-101
Table 3.1-52: Alternative 1 Aggregate Projected Flow vs. Existing Capacity of Wastewater
Treatment (dry weather, mgD) .................................................................................................... 3.1-108
Table 3.1-53: Alternative 3 Aggregate Projected Flow vs. Existing Capacity of Wastewater
Treatment (dry weather, mgD) .................................................................................................... 3.1-110
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
xiv
Table 3.1-54: Alternative 4 Aggregate Projected Flow vs. Existing Capacity of Wastewater
Treatment (dry weather, mgD) .................................................................................................... 3.1-112
Table 3.1-55: Alternative 5 Aggregate Projected Flow vs. Existing Capacity of Wastewater
Treatment (dry weather, mgD) .................................................................................................... 3.1-114
Table 3.1-56: Summary of Alternatives Comparison to the Proposed Plan ............................................ 3.1-121
Table 3.2-1: Total Projected Growth for the Bay Area, 1990-2040 ................................................................ 3.2-5
Table 3.2-2: Forecasted Growth by Age Group as a Percent of the Total (2010-2040) .......................... 3.2-6
Table 3.2-3: 2010 Median Income in the Bay Area By County ........................................................................ 3.2-6
Table 3.2-4: Auto Ownership Per Household in the Bay Area, 2000 and 2010 ......................................... 3.2-7
Table 3.2-5: 2010 Employment by County – Net Importers/Exporters of Workers
and Jobs/Housing Balance ................................................................................................................. 3.2-8
Table 3.2-6: 2010 & 2040 Employed Residents and Jobs by County and Net
Importers/Exporters of Workers ..................................................................................................... 3.2-12
Table 3.2-7: Urbanized Land By County .............................................................................................................. 3.2-13
Table 3.2-8: 2010 & 2040 Job Growth in Counties and PDA’s ...................................................................... 3.2-15
Table 3.2-9: 2010 & 2040 Employed Resident Growth in Counties and PDA’s ....................................... 3.2-16
Glossary of Terms
AB 32 Assembly Bill 32 – Law that requires that the State’s global warming emissions be reduced to
1990 levels by 2020
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments – The regional agency responsible for assigning hous-
ing allocations and performing demographic analysis
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Bay Area The nine-county region adjacent to the San Francisco Bay and the area covered by Plan Bay
Area and this EIR
BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission
BMP Best Management Practice
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board – State agency responsible for attaining and maintaining
healthy air quality through setting and enforcing emissions standards, conducting research,
monitoring air quality, providing education and outreach, and overseeing/assisting local air
quality districts
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act – State law requiring review of physical environmental
impacts potentially caused by plans and projects
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMAs Congestion Management Agencies - County-level transportation agencies tasked with man-
aging and reducing traffic congestion on major regional roadways
GHG Greenhouse Gases – Components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse ef-
fect. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities
are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases
GIS Geographic Information System – Mapping software that links spatial information to quanti-
tative and qualitative attributes
HOT High Occupancy Toll – An HOV lane that single-occupant drivers can pay to drive in
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle – A lane restricted to vehicles with a certain number of occupants to
encourage carpooling
JHCS Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy - The land use development strategy developed by ABAG
that is the preferred approach employed in the proposed Plan
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the transportation agency for the Bay Area
NOP Notice of Preparation
Plan Bay Area 2040 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Public Review Draft Environmental Report
G-2
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - A federal program that regulates the
amount and quality of discharge into bodies of water
OBAG OneBayArea Grant – Program of grants distributed to local jurisdictions by MTC and ABAG to
pay for planning and infrastructure investments in accordance with Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area The name given to the SCS developed by MTC and ABAG. It also serves as the Bay Area’s Re-
gional Transportation Plan through the year 2040.
PM Particulate Matter – A mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air
Proposed Plan The preferred alternative (#2) of Plan Bay Area evaluated in this EIR
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation – Quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdic-
tion of a region based on population growth projections. ABAG assigns these targets within
the Bay Area. Communities then address this need through the process of completing the
housing elements of their general plans
PCA Priority Conservation Area - Regionally significant open spaces for which there exists broad
consensus for long-term protection
PDA Priority Development Area - Existing neighborhood served by transit and nominated by its
local jurisdiction as a location to focus future development
RTP Regional Transportation Plan – Federally required 20-year plan prepared by metropolitan
planning organizations and updated every four or five years. Includes projections of popula-
tion growth and travel demand, along with a specific list of proposed projects to be funded.
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant – Air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortali-
ty or in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health
TIS Transportation Investment Strategy – The transportation strategy developed by MTC that is
the preferred approach employed in the proposed Plan
TPP Transit Priority Project – A land use development that, based on its type and location, may be
eligible for CEQA streamlining under SB 375
SB 375 Law that requires CARB to set regional targets for per-capita GHG emission reduction targets
and mandates the SCS
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy - An integrated regional transportation and land use plan
that must hit State mandated GHG emissions reductions targets while also accommodating
anticipated population growth
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled – A measurement of the total miles traveled by all vehicles in the area
for a specified time period
Executive Summary
This program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared on behalf of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This EIR analyzes the potential
significant impacts of the adoption and implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area (proposed Plan),
which is the update to the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the new Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) for the San Francisco Bay Area.
MTC, ABAG, and Plan Bay Area
MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county San
Francisco Bay Area (which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties). Created by the State Legislature in 1970, MTC functions as
both the regional transportation planning agency (RTPA)—a state designation—and for federal
purposes, as the region’s metropolitan planning organization (MPO).
As required by State legislation (Government Code Section 65080 et seq.) and by federal regulation (Title
23 USC Section 134), MTC is responsible for preparing the RTP for the San Francisco Bay Area Region.
An RTP is a long-range plan that identifies the strategies and investments to maintain, manage, and
improve the region’s ground transportation network. In 2009, MTC adopted its most recent RTP, known
as the Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. Development and environmental
analysis of regional airport and seaport plans occur in separate processes.
ABAG is a joint powers agency formed in 1961 pursuant to California Government Code §§ 6500, et
seq., and is the council of governments (COG) for the San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG conducts regional
population and employment projections and the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) processes
(Government Code Section 65584 et seq.). Plan Bay Area is a joint effort led by MTC and ABAG and
completed in partnership with the Bay Area’s other two regional government agencies, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC). It meets the requirements of the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008,
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375; Steinberg, 2008), which requires California’s 18 metropolitan planning
organizations to develop an SCS as a new element of their federally mandated RTP. The SCS
demonstrates how the region will meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets established by the
California Air Resources Board (ARB) through integrated land use, housing and transportation planning,
a planning effort requiring the authority and powers vested in both MTC and ABAG.
Plan Bay Area, which covers the period through 2040, is the first Bay Area RTP that is subject to the
requirements of SB 375. SB 375 requires that the SCS be integrated into the MPO’s RTP and once
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-2
adopted will be reviewed by ARB to determine whether it would, if implemented, achieve the GHG
emission reduction target for its region. If the combination of measures in the SCS will not meet the
region’s target, the MPO must then prepare an alternative planning strategy (APS) that will do so.
Plan Bay Area is the region’s first integrated long-range land use and transportation plan. Plan Bay Area
calls for focused housing and job growth around high-quality transit corridors, particularly within areas
identified by local jurisdictions as Priority Development Areas (PDAs). This land use strategy is intended
to enhance mobility and economic growth by linking housing/jobs with transit, thus offering a more
efficient land use pattern around transit and a greater return on existing and planned transit investments.
The proposed Plan specifies the strategies and investments to maintain, manage, and improve the
region’s transportation network – which includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities, local streets and roads,
public transit systems, and highways. The Plan proposes a set of transportation projects and programs
that will be implemented with reasonably anticipated revenue available for the planning period. The
proposed Plan must be updated every four years, ensuring a constantly evolving plan through regular
updates throughout the planning period.
Introduction to the EIR
PURPOSE
This environmental assessment of the proposed Plan Bay Area—which may also be referred to as the
“proposed Plan” throughout this document—has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines. It is designed to:
Analyze the potential environmental effects of the adoption and implementation of the proposed
Plan;
Inform decision-makers, responsible and trustee agencies, and members of the public as to the
range of the environmental impacts of the proposed Plan;
Recommend a set of feasible measures to mitigate any significant adverse impacts; and
Analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Plan.
The EIR process also provides an opportunity to identify environmental benefits of the proposed Plan
that might balance some potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The final EIR will include
a Mitigation Monitoring Program that identifies who will be responsible for implementing the measures.
As the joint lead agencies for preparing this EIR, MTC and ABAG will rely on the EIR analysis of
potential environmental effects in their review of the proposed Plan prior to taking action on Plan Bay
Area.
SCOPE
This is a program EIR, defined in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines as: “[An EIR addressing a]
series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) Geographically;
(2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) In connection with the issuance of rules,
regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) As
Executive Summary
ES-3
individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having
generally similar environmental impacts which can be mitigated in similar ways.”
Program EIRs can be used as the basic, general environmental assessment for an overall program of
projects developed over a multi- year planning horizon. A program EIR has several advantages. For
example, it provides a basic reference document to avoid unnecessary repetition of facts or analysis in
subsequent project-specific assessments. It also allows the lead agency to consider the broad, regional
impacts of a program of actions before its adoption and eliminates redundant or contradictory
approaches to the consideration of regional and cumulative impacts.
As a programmatic document, this EIR presents a region-wide assessment of the potential impacts of the
proposed Plan Bay Area. It focuses on the entire set of projects and programs contained in the proposed
Plan. Individual transportation and development project impacts are not addressed in detail, although the
impacts of some possible projects are discussed as appropriate; rather the focus of this EIR is to address
the impacts of a program of projects, which, individually or in the aggregate, may be regionally
significant. However, it does not evaluate subcomponents of the proposed Plan nor does it assess
project-specific impacts of individual projects. For example, the general physical impacts of major
regional transportation expansion projects are addressed, while potential impacts on specific wetlands or
a specific species habitat by an individual interchange reconstruction project is not discussed, unless
information currently exists or it can be surmised that the effect would be large or otherwise regionally
significant. This approach does not relieve local jurisdictions of the responsibility for evaluating project-
specific, locally significant impacts. All impacts of individual projects will be evaluated in future
environmental review, as relevant, by the appropriate implementing agency as required under CEQA
and/or NEPA prior to each project being considered for approval, as applicable.
This EIR evaluates potentially significant environmental impacts, and cumulative impacts, and includes
mitigation measures to offset potentially significant effects. This EIR provides the basis for subsequent
tiered CEQA documents for project-specific or site-specific environmental reviews that will be
conducted by implementing agencies as land use and transportation projects in the proposed Plan are
more clearly defined and more detailed studies prepared. Specific analysis of localized impacts in the
vicinity of individual projects is not included in this program level EIR.
EIR Organization
The EIR is organized into four parts, outlined below. This Executive Summary outlines the proposed
Plan and alternatives and includes a review of the potentially significant adverse regional environmental
impacts of the proposed Plan Bay Area and the measures recommended to mitigate those impacts. The
executive summary also indicates whether or not those measures mitigate the significant impacts to a less
than significant level. The executive summary also identifies the environmentally superior alternative
among the alternatives analyzed.
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Part One includes two chapters. Chapter 1.1 describes the relationship between the proposed Plan Bay
Area and the EIR, the organization of the EIR, and the basic legal requirements of a program level EIR.
It discusses the level of analysis and the alternatives considered as well as how this EIR is related to other
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-4
environmental documents and the EIR’s intended uses. Chapter 1.2 introduces the purpose and
objectives of the proposed Plan Bay Area and summarizes specific information to describe the proposed
Plan and complete the EIR analysis. This includes a description of the existing regional setting, an outline
of the Bay Area’s projected population and employment growth rates and proposed development
patterns through the 2040 planning horizon year, and all proposed transportation projects and programs.
State and federal planning regulations guiding the development of the RTP and SCS are also described.
PART TWO: SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Part Two describes the existing physical and regulatory settings for each of the environmental issue areas
analyzed in the EIR, the potential impacts of the proposed Plan on these environmental issue areas, and
measures to mitigate the potential impacts identified. Each issue area is analyzed in a separate chapter.
Each chapter is organized as follows:
Physical Setting;
Regulatory Setting;
Impact Significance Criteria;
Method of Analysis;
Summary of Impacts; and
Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
PART THREE: ALTERNATIVES AND CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS
Part Three includes a description of the alternatives to the proposed Plan and an assessment of their
potential to achieve the objectives of the proposed Plan while reducing potentially significant adverse
regional environmental impacts. Part Three also includes a comparison summary table of regional
environmental impacts associated with the alternatives. As required by CEQA, an environmentally
superior alternative is identified. Finally, Part Three includes an assessment of the impacts of the
proposed Plan and alternatives in several subject areas required by CEQA, including:
Significant irreversible environmental changes;
Significant unavoidable impacts;
Growth-inducing impacts;
Cumulative impacts; and
Impacts found to be not significant.
PART FOUR: BIBLIOGRAPHY AND APPENDICES
Part Four includes a bibliography and the EIR appendices. Appendix A includes the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) of this EIR and Appendix B provides reference to the comments received on the
NOP and at the scoping meetings (a full set of comments can be found on the project website,
www.onebayarea.org). Appendix C includes detailed lists of the transportation projects included in the
proposed Plan and the alternatives studied in the EIR. Appendix D summarizes scoping comments
received on the alternatives. Appendix E outlines the Air Quality analysis methodology and mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-5
measure effectiveness. Appendices F through I include detailed supporting data on impact analyses for
geology, water, biology and hazards, respectively.
Plan Bay Area Regional Setting
The Bay Area region consists of nine counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San
Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. In a ranking of Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs), the San
José-San Francisco-Oakland CSA population was the sixth largest in the nation in 2010, behind New
York-Newark-Bridgeport, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City,
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, and Boston-Worcester-Manchester CSAs.1 In 2010, the San
Francisco Bay Area population was nearly 7.2 million according to the 2010 Census. According MTC, as
of 2010 only about 18 percent of the region's approximately 4.4 million acres of land has been developed.
The Bay Area transportation network includes interstate and state freeways, county expressways, local
streets and roads, bike paths, sidewalks, and a wide assortment of transit technologies (heavy rail, light
rail, intercity rail, buses, trolleys and ferries).
Plan Bay Area Overview
The proposed Plan Bay Area meets the requirements of SB 375 by developing an integrated
transportation and land use plan and attains the per-capita GHG emission reduction targets of -7 percent
by year 2020 and -15 percent by year 2035 from 2005 levels. Under the proposed Plan, emission
reductions continue on a downward trajectory through 2050. The proposed Plan reinforces land use and
transportation integration per SB 375 and presents a vision of what the Bay Area’s land use patterns and
transportation networks might look like in 2040. The adopted goals of the proposed Plan are:
Climate Protection
Adequate Housing
Healthy and Safe Communities
Open Space and Agricultural Preservation
Equitable Access
Economic Vitality
Transportation System Effectiveness
The Plan objectives are reflected in the following performance targets that measure the region’s progress
towards meeting these goals and are consistent with the requirements of SB 375:
Reduce per-capita CO2 emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 15 percent.
1 Census 2010. A Combined Statistical Area is a census defined metropolitan region that consists of two or more adjacent Core
Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) that have substantial employment interchange. The CBSAs that combine to create a CSA
retain separate identities within the larger CSA.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-6
House 100 percent of the region’s projected 25-year growth by income level without displacing
current low-income residents.
These goals and performance targets are more fully explored in Chapter 1.2. An alternative that performs
substantially worse than the proposed Plan with respect to meeting the plan goals and these performance
targets would not achieve even the basic objectives of the proposed Plan.
FORECASTED GROWTH
Looking ahead to 2040, the horizon year for the proposed Plan, it is forecast by ABAG that the Bay
Area’s population will grow another 30 percent from the 2010 level (over 2.1 million more residents) and
employment will increase by 33 percent (over 1.1 million additional jobs). To house the future
population, it is estimated that 660,000 new housing units would be built in the same timeframe.
Forecasted growth from 2010 through 2040 is shown in Table ES-1.
TABLE ES-1: TOTAL PROJECTED GROWTH FOR THE BAY AREA, 2010-2040
2010 2040
Growth
2010 - 2040 % Change
Annual Growth
Rate
Population 7,151,000 9,299,000 2,148,000 30% 0.9%
Households 2,608,000 3,308,000 700,000 27% 0.8%
Housing Units 2,786,000 3,446,000 660,000 24% 0.7%
Jobs 3,385,000 4,505,000 1,120,000 33% 1.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, revised May 16,
2012.
LAND USE STRATEGY
To plan for this future growth, the proposed Plan calls for focused housing and job growth around high-
quality transit corridors, particularly within areas identified by local jurisdictions as Priority Development
Areas (PDAs). Opportunities for focused growth development in Transit Priority Project (TPP)-eligible
areas, as defined by SB 375 in Public Resources Code section 21155, which often overlap with PDAs, are
also encouraged and facilitated by the proposed Plan. This land use strategy enhances mobility and
economic growth by linking housing/jobs with transit and existing transportation infrastructure, thus
offering a more efficient land use pattern around transit and a greater return on existing and planned
transit investments. Beyond the emphasis on transit-oriented development, the proposed Plan’s land use
strategy broadly calls for new housing and jobs in locations that expand existing communities and build
off of all existing transportation investments.
TRANSPORTATION
The proposed Plan includes a financially constrained transportation investment plan as required by State
and federal planning regulations. It includes transportation projects and programs that would be funded
through existing and future revenues that are projected to be reasonably available to the region over the
timeframe covered by the proposed Plan. A total of $289 billion in revenues is available for the financially
constrained Plan Bay Area. That is, the proposed Plan and alternatives evaluated in the EIR are
financially constrained to be within the $289 billion envelope.
Executive Summary
ES-7
A more detailed description of the proposed Plan is included in Chapter 1.2: Overview of the Proposed Plan
Bay Area.
Alternatives
A full description of the alternatives analyzed in this EIR and the alternative selection process is provided
in Part 3. The alternatives are as follows:
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT
The No Project alternative consists of two elements: (a) the existing 2010 land uses plus continuation of
existing land use policy as defined in adopted general plans, zoning ordinances, etc. from all jurisdictions
in the region and (b) the existing 2010 transportation network plus highway, transit, local roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian projects that have either already received full funding or are scheduled for full
funding and received environmental clearance by May 1, 2011.
ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED PLAN
Alternative 2 is the proposed Plan analyzed in this EIR. This alternative assumes a land use development
pattern that concentrates future household and job growth into Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
identified by local jurisdictions. It pairs this land development pattern with MTC’s Preferred
Transportation Investment Strategy, which dedicates nearly 90 percent of future revenues to operating
and maintaining the existing road and transit system. A more detailed overview of the proposed Plan is in
Chapter 1.2.
ALTERNATIVE 3: TRANSIT PRIORITY FOCUS
This alternative includes the potential for more efficient land uses in Transit Priority Project (TPP) areas,
as defined by Senate Bill 375 (PRC section 21155), and would be developed at higher densities than
existing conditions to support high quality transit. The transportation investment strategy in this
alternative tests a slightly reduced express lane network that focuses on HOV lane conversions and gap
closures, as well as increased funding for the implementation of recommendations from the
Comprehensive Operations Analysis of BART and AC Transit above what is included in the Preferred
Transportation Investment Strategy. This alternative also includes a Regional Development Fee based on
development in areas that generate high levels of vehicle miles travelled, and a higher peak period toll on
the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
ALTERNATIVE 4: ENHANCED NETWORK OF COMMUNITIES
This alternative seeks to provide sufficient housing for all people employed in the Bay Area with no in-
commuters from other regions and allows for more dispersed growth patterns than the proposed Plan,
although development is still generally focused around PDAs. The transportation investment strategy is
consistent with the Preferred Transportation Investment Strategy, also used in the proposed Plan, and
includes a higher peak period toll on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-8
ALTERNATIVE 5: ENVIRONMENT, EQUITY AND JOBS
This alternative seeks to maximize affordable housing in opportunity areas in both urban and suburban
areas through incentives and housing subsidies. The suburban growth is supported by increased transit
service to historically disadvantaged communities and a reduced roadway network. This alternative
includes imposing a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax and a higher peak period toll on the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to fund transit operations.
Key EIR assumptions
The following key assumptions were used in the impact analysis:
The base year or existing conditions for the land use and transportation impact analysis is 2010,
as this year provides the most recent best data available for land use, transportation, and
demographics. The only exception appears in Chapter 2.5: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change,
which uses a 2005 baseline per the CARB target setting process to determine impacts under
Criterion 1 related to achieving the requirements of SB 375.
The total amount of growth projected for the Bay Area through 2040 is based on ABAG’s Plan
Bay Area Forecast of Jobs, Population and Housing (the forecasts used to develop the Jobs-
Housing Connection) that is available for review on the project website
(http://www.onebayarea.org); this amount of growth is assumed in the proposed Plan, which
identifies a land use pattern to accommodate the projected growth.
This analysis does not consider phasing of improvements or interim stages of the proposed Plan
Bay Area between 2010 and 2040, as the purpose of the analysis is to evaluate the Plan as a
whole. The one exception to this approach appears in Chapter 2.5: Greenhouse Gases and Climate
Change, which includes an examination of impacts in 2020 and 2035 as compared to a 2005
baseline per the ARB target setting process to determine impacts relating to achieving the
statutory requirements of Senate Bill 375.
As a program-level EIR, individual project impacts are not addressed; rather, this analysis focuses
on the aggregate impacts of the proposed Plan that may be regionally significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSUMPTIONS
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts
that are individually limited but cumulatively significant. CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or
more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or
increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines § 15355). “‘Cumulatively considerable’ means
that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects”
(CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(3)). This means that cumulative impacts can result from individually minor
but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
Plan Bay Area, which includes region-wide transportation improvements and land use development
patterns in the Bay Area to accommodate projected regional growth through 2040, is a cumulative plan
by definition. As such, the environmental analysis included in this EIR throughout Part Two is a
Executive Summary
ES-9
cumulative analysis compliant with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore,
this EIR contains analysis of cumulative regional impacts, as differentiated from more generalized
localized impacts for every identified impact area.
Plan Impacts
The analysis emphasizes the impacts of the proposed Plan Bay Area as a complete program, rather than
as detailed analysis of the individual transportation improvements and land use strategy included in the
proposed Plan. Individual improvements and development projects must still independently comply with
the requirements of CEQA. As required by CEQA, this EIR identifies three types of impacts:
Short-term impacts;
Long-term impacts; and
Cumulative impacts.
The EIR addresses regional impacts as well as generalized localized impacts. It also, to the extent feasible,
distinguishes between impacts caused by transportation improvements and impacts related to proposed
land use patterns.
Table ES-2 summarizes the impact conclusions and recommended mitigation measures identified in this
EIR. The impacts are organized by environmental impact issue area in the order in which they appear in
Part Two.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines require each EIR to identify the environmentally superior alternative among the
alternatives analyzed. If the No Project alternative is identified as the environmentally superior
alternative, then the EIR must identify another alternative from among the alternatives analyzed.
According to the analysis in Chapter 3.1, Alternative 5 would result in the lowest level of environmental
impacts, but only marginally lower, as compared to all alternatives (including the proposed Plan), and
therefore is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 3 results in similar impacts
to the proposed Plan, and Alternative 4 and the No Project alternative have mixed environmental
outcomes. Overall, variations in environmental impacts among alternatives are minor. This determination
does not factor in other benefits of the proposed Plan outside of environmental effects. More
specifically:
In Transportation, Alternative 3 has the least environmental impact as it features shorter
commute travel times (three percent shorter than the proposed Plan) and a lesser amount of
congested VMT (14 percent fewer VMT at LOS F as compared to the proposed Plan) and the
least potential for transit vehicle crowding (30 percent utilization of public transit systems, the
same as the No Project alternative, and three percent less than the proposed Plan). These results
are due to shifting regional growth to the Transit Priority Project eligible areas, with the greatest
emphasis on growth in the urban core close to high-frequency transit.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-10
In Air Quality, Alternative 5 has the least environmental impact as it results in the lowest criteria
pollutant emissions (1.7 percent fewer criteria pollutant emissions as compared to the proposed
Plan) as well as lowest TAC emissions of all of the alternatives (1.9 percent fewer TAC emissions
as compared to the proposed Plan). This is a result of placing a greater emphasis than the other
alternatives on aligning compact land use development with transit service and increasing transit
capacity.
In Energy, Alternative 4 would result in the lowest per capita energy use (3.3 percent less than
the proposed Plan and 2.7 percent less than Alternative 5), and would therefore have the least
environmental impact.
In Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed Plan and Alternative 5 perform equally in regard
to meeting SB 375 emission reduction targets in 2035 (both achieving a 16.4 percent reduction,
one percent better than Alternative 3, 1.6 percent better than Alternative 4, and 9.6 percent
better than the No Project alternative). Alternative 5 performs slightly better in terms of total
emissions reductions (achieving a 17 percent reduction from 2010 to 2040, one percent better
than Alternative 3 and two percent better than the proposed Plan).
In Sea Level Rise, the No Project alternative includes the fewest transportation projects
exposed to midcentury sea level rise inundation (the No Project alternative includes 15 projects,
Alternative 5 includes 21 projects, and the proposed Plan, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4
include 32 projects exposed to midcentury sea level rise inundation). Alternative 5 includes the
fewest residents (12 percent less than the proposed Plan), and new residential development (10
percent less than under the proposed Plan) exposed to midcentury sea level rise inundation
because it distributes growth to areas farther from the Bay.
In Land Use (conversion of agricultural and forest land), Alternative 4 results in the fewest
acres of important agricultural and open space land converted to urbanized use, as well as the
fewest acres of forest and timberland converted to urbanized use.
In Noise the No Project alternative has the fewest environmental impacts since it results in the
lowest number of roadway miles exposed to noise levels at or above 66 dBA. It also includes the
fewest transit extension projects, resulting in the smallest increase in transit noise and vibration
compared to other alternatives.
In Biological Resources, Water Resources, Cultural Resources, and Visual Resources,
Alternative 5 combines compact development with low transportation infrastructure
development, resulting in fewer physical impacts tied to these resources. It is noted that in terms
of land use development-related impacts alone (excluding transportation projects), the proposed
Plan is the most compact and would have the least impact on these resources.
In Geology, Public Utilities, Public Services, and Hazardous Materials, Alternatives 1, 2
(proposed Plan), 3 and 5 are comparable and have fewer impacts than Alternative 4. Alternative
4 includes the most growth, thereby inherently exposing the most people to geologic and hazards
risks, and resulting in the greatest impacts on existing public service, recreation, and utility
systems. One exception to this is in regard to wastewater treatment, where Alternative 4 has the
least impact because of limited growth in San Francisco, which has likely inadequate wastewater
treatment capacity under all other alternatives.
For Historic Resources and Land Use (community disruption or displacement, alteration
and separation), all alternatives perform similarly. Since all alternatives include growth in
Executive Summary
ES-11
urbanized areas where historic resources are likely to exist, impacts on historic resources would
be similar. For land use, impacts related to community disruption or displacement and alteration
and separation would be highly localized and similar across the alternatives.
While Alternative 5 is the environmentally preferred alternative due to its overall GHG emissions
reductions and estimated reduction in criteria and TAC emissions, the proposed Plan does include some
benefits over Alternative 5. For instance, the proposed Plan results in the lowest VMT per capita (the
same as Alternative 4), with one percent fewer daily VMT per capita than Alternative 5. Alternative 5 also
exhibits congested VMT levels 18 percent higher in the AM peak, seven percent higher in the PM peak,
and 11 percent higher over the course of a typical weekday as compared to the proposed Plan. Finally,
the proposed Plan results in fewer acres of agricultural and open space conversion as compared to
Alternative 5 (though more than Alternative 4), and the fewest acres of important farmland (excluding
grazing land) of all alternatives.
Another important consideration is that the proposed Plan was developed through extensive
coordination with local jurisdictions. Alternative 5 assumes residential growth at levels that some local
jurisdictions may be unlikely to implement, since it includes growth in areas that local jurisdictions have
not planned for or do not currently anticipate.
In addition, there are some important unanswered questions about the feasibility of Alternative 5 that the
ABAG Board and the MTC Commissioners will address during deliberations on this EIR. Specifically,
implementation of the VMT tax, which is a key component of Alternative 5, may prove to be infeasible
because it would require legislative approval and, in light of Proposition 26 (the “Stop Hidden Taxes”
initiative), may require approval by a two-thirds supermajority vote of the Legislature. While there is
currently a large majority of Democrats in the Legislature, and authorizing legislation may therefore be
easier to achieve at this time, the difficulty of predicting whether new legislation will actually be enacted
may make Alternative 5 infeasible.
Policy makers will be required to judge the relative importance of the various issue areas in making their
final decision.
Areas of Known Controversy
Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify areas of controversy which are
known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. Areas of controversy
associated with the proposed Plan are made known through comments received during the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) process, as well as input solicited during public scoping meetings and an
understanding of the community issues in the study area. Some areas of known controversy, including
issues raised by some members of the community, related to the proposed Plan Bay Area and EIR
include:
Whether the proposed Plan’s assumptions of future land use development patterns are feasible
given that MTC and ABAG cannot regulate land uses at a regional or local level.
Concerns about whether the degree and scale of growth proposed within existing communities
would alter their appearance, quality of life, and affordability, and whether it would conflict with
the existing plans and regulations of the local jurisdiction.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-12
Determining whether the proposed Plan’s emphasis on maintaining and sustaining the existing
regional transportation system will be adequate to serve the Bay Area’s anticipated population
and employment growth.
Assessing whether the proposed transportation investment strategy can reduce GHG emissions
and exposure to air pollutants even as the region’s population and economic base continue to
grow.
Determining whether and where sea level rise impacts will occur and how best to minimize those
impacts.
Concerns that increased concentrations of population in focused areas would overwhelm
existing public services and utilities, such as parks, police and fire services, water supply, etc.
This EIR acknowledges these known controversies as reported during the NOP scoping period and
ongoing agency consultation. To the extent these areas of controversy relate to environmental impacts,
they are analyzed at the regional level in Part Two of this EIR.
Issues to be Resolved
CEQA Guidelines section 15123(b)(3) requires that an EIR contain a discussion of issues to be resolved
and whether or how to mitigate significant effects. Issues to be resolved include:
How to address potential impacts from the proposed land development pattern that must be
mitigated by the local land use authority, since neither MTC nor ABAG have jurisdiction over
land use regulations.
The degree to which MTC and ABAG can provide adequate incentives for implementation of
changes to land use policy.
How best to require mitigations that can be enacted by project sponsors and/or implementing
agencies in a manner to ensure CEQA streamlining for qualifying projects, per SB 375, can
occur.
When adopting the proposed Plan Bay Area, the MTC Commission and ABAG Board must decide
whether specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project
outweigh the significant environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided or substantially reduced
through implementation of feasible mitigation or alternatives. If so, they would adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
Summary Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-2 summarizes impacts, mitigation measures, and significance conclusions after mitigation (far
right column), by issue area. Note that implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall consider
implementation of mitigations measures including but not limited to those identified in the table below.
For more details, please see Part Two: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
Executive Summary
ES-13
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Transportation
2.1-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a substantial increase in per-trip travel
time for commute travel by any mode over
existing conditions. A substantial increase in per-
trip travel time is defined as greater than 5
percent.
None required.Less than Significant
2.1-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a substantial increase in per-trip travel
time for non-commute travel by any mode over
existing conditions. A substantial increase in per-
trip travel time is defined as greater than 5
percent.
None required.
Less than Significant
2.1-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a substantial increase in per capita VMT
on facilities experiencing level of service (LOS) F
compared to existing conditions during AM peak
periods, PM peak periods, or during the day as a
whole (LOS F defines a condition on roads where
traffic substantially exceeds capacity, resulting in
stop-and-go conditions for extended periods of
time). A substantial increase in LOS F-impacted
per capita VMT is defined as greater than 5
percent.
2.1(a) MTC, in its role as the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA), shall
pursue an additional peak period bridge toll on the San Francisco
Oakland Bay Bridge to discourage vehicle travel during weekday
peak periods, shifting travelers to other times of day or other modes.
2.1(b) MTC and the BAAQMD shall proceed with implementation of
the region’s commute benefit ordinance authorized by Senate Bill
1339, which affects all major employers (with more than 50
employees), and discourages auto-based commute travel.
2.1(c) MTC shall pursue a policy that requires the implementation of
ramp metering throughout the region's highway network as a
condition of discretionary funding.
Significant and
Unavoidable
2.1-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a substantial increase in per capita VMT
compared to existing conditions. A substantial
increase in per capita VMT is defined as greater
than 5 percent.
None required.No Adverse Impact
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-14
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.1-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in increased percent utilization of regional
transit supply resulting in an exceedance of
transit capacity at AM peak hours, at PM peak
hours, or for the day. An exceedance is defined
as passenger seat-mile demand for any transit
technology being greater than 80 percent of
passenger seat-miles supplied by transit
operators.
None required.No Adverse Impact
Air Quality
2.2-
1(a)
Implementation of the proposed Plan could
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
primary goals of an applicable air quality plan.
None required.Less than Significant
2.2-
1(b)
Implementation of the proposed Plan could
conflict with or obstruct implementation of
applicable control measures of an applicable air
quality plan.
None required.Less than Significant
2.2-1(c) Implementation of the proposed Plan could
conflict with or obstruct implementation of any
control measures in an applicable air quality
plan.
None required.Less than Significant
2.2-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a substantial net increase in
construction-related emissions.
2.2(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to best management practices (BMPs), such as the
following:2
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
2 Adapted from BAAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (May 2011)
Executive Summary
ES-15
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Construction Best Practices for Exhaust
The applicant/general contractor for the project shall submit a
list of all off-road equipment greater than 25 hp that will be
operating for more than 20 hours over the entire duration of the
construction activities at the site, including equipment from
subcontractors, to BAAQMD for review and certification. The list
shall include all of the information necessary to ensure the
equipment meets the following requirement:
All off-road equipment shall have: 1) engines that meet or
exceed either USEPA or ARB Tier 2 off-road emission
standards; and 2) engines are retrofitted with an ARB Level 3
Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS), if one is
available for the equipment being used.3
Idling time of diesel powered construction equipment and trucks
shall be limited to no more than two minutes. Clear signage shall
be provided for construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly
tuned in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.
Portable diesel generators shall be prohibited. Grid power
electricity should be used to provide power at construction sites;
or propane and natural gas generators may be used when grid
power electricity is not feasible.
Construction Best Practices for Dust
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two
times per day. For projects over 5 acres of size, soil moisture
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
3 Equipment with engines meeting Tier 4 Interim or Tier 4 Final emission standards automatically meet this requirement, therefore a VDECS would not be required.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-16
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
should be maintained at 12 percent. Moisture content can be
verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-
site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall
be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least
once per day. The use of dry power sweeping should be done in
conjunction with thorough watering of the subject roads.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadway, driveway, and sidewalk paving shall be completed
as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as
possible after grading.
All construction sites shall provide a posted sign visible to the
public with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. The recommended
response time for corrective action shall be within 48 hours.
BAAQMD’s Complaint Line (1-800 334- 6367) shall also be
included on posted signs to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be
suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the
windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction.
Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass
seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and
watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
Executive Summary
ES-17
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and
ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at
any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce
the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed
off prior to leaving the site.
Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall
be treated with a six- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips,
mulch, or gravel.
Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to
prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope
greater than 1 percent.
2.2-
3(a)
Implementation of the proposed Plan could
cause a net increase in emissions of criteria
pollutants ROG, NOx, CO, and PM2.5 from on-road
mobile sources compared to existing conditions.
None required.No Adverse Impact
2.2-
3(b)
Implementation of the proposed Plan could
cause a net increase in emissions of PM10 from
on-road mobile sources compared to existing
conditions.
2.2(b) MTC and ABAG, in partnership with BAAQMD, and other
partners who would like to participate, shall work to leverage
existing air quality and transportation funds and seek additional
funds to continue to implement BAAQMD and ARB programs aimed
at retrofits and replacements of trucks and locomotives.
2.2(c) MTC and ABAG, in partnership with BAAQMD and the Port of
Oakland, and other partners who would like to participate, shall
work together to secure incentive funding that may be available
through the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment
Program to reduce port-related emissions.
Mitigation Measures 2.1 (a), 2.1(b), and 2.1 (c) (included in Chapter
2.1, Transportation) as well as 2.2 (d) and 2.2 (e) (included below
Significant and
Unavoidable
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-18
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
under Impacts 2.2-5(b) and 2.2-6) could help reduce the increase in
PM10.
2.2-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
cause a cumulative net increase in emissions of
diesel PM, 1,3-butadiene, and benzene (toxic air
contaminants) from on-road mobile sources
compared to existing conditions.
None required.No Adverse Impact
2.2-
5(a)
Implementation of the proposed Plan could
cause a localized net increase in sensitive
receptors located in Transit Priority Project (TPP)
corridors where TACs or fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) concentrations result in a cancer risk
greater than 100/million or a concentration of
PM2.5 greater than 0.8 μg/m.3
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.2(d) under Impact 2.2-5(b).Significant and
Unavoidable
2.2.5(b) Implementation of the proposed Plan could
cause a localized net increase in sensitive
receptors located in Transit Priority Project (TPP)
corridors within set distances (Table 2.2-10) to
mobile or stationary sources of TAC or PM2.5
emissions.
2.2(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to best management practices (BMPs), such as the
following:
Installation of air filtration to reduce cancer risks and PM
exposure for residents, and other sensitive populations, in
buildings that are in close proximity to freeways, major
roadways, diesel generators, distribution centers, railyards,
railroads or rail stations, and ferry terminals. Air filter devices shall
be rated MERV-13 or higher. As part of implementing this
measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the building’s HVAC
air filtration system shall be required.
Phasing of residential developments when proposed within 500
feet of freeways such that homes nearest the freeway are built
last, if feasible.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Executive Summary
ES-19
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Sites shall be designed to locate sensitive receptors as far as
possible from any freeways, roadways, diesel generators,
distribution centers, and railyards. Operable windows, balconies,
and building air intakes shall be located as far away from these
sources as feasible. If near a distribution center, residents shall
not be located immediately adjacent to a loading dock or where
trucks concentrate to deliver goods.
Limiting ground floor uses in residential or mixed-use buildings
that are located within the set distance of 500 feet to a non-
elevated highway or roadway. Sensitive land uses, such as
residential units or day cares, shall be prohibited on the ground
floor.
Planting trees and/or vegetation between sensitive receptors
and pollution source, if feasible. Trees that are best suited to
trapping PM shall be planted, including one or more of the
following: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritima), Cypress (X
Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid popular (Populus deltoids X
trichocarpa), and Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens).
Within developments, sensitive receptors shall be separated as
far away from truck activity areas, such as loading docks and
delivery areas, as feasible. Loading dock shall be required
electrification and all idling of heavy duty diesel trucks at these
locations shall be prohibited.
If within the project site, diesel generators that are not equipped
to meet ARB’s Tier 4 emission standards shall be replaced or
retrofitted.
If within the project site, emissions from diesel trucks shall be
reduced through the following measures:
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-20
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Installing electrical hook-ups for diesel trucks at loading
docks.
Requiring trucks to use Transportation Refrigeration Units
(TRU) that meet Tier 4 emission standards.
Requiring truck-intensive projects to use advanced exhaust
technology (e.g. hybrid) or alternative fuels.
Prohibiting trucks from idling for more than two minutes as
feasible.
Establishing truck routes to avoid residential neighborhoods or
other land uses serving sensitive populations. A truck route
program, along with truck calming, parking and delivery
restrictions, shall be implemented to direct traffic activity at non
permitted sources and large construction projects.
2.2-5(c) Implementation of the proposed Plan could
cause a localized net increase in sensitive
receptors located in Transit Priority Project (TPP)
corridors where TACs or fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) concentrations result in noncompliance
with an adopted Community Risk Reduction
Plan.
None required.Less than Significant
2.2-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a localized larger increase or smaller
decrease of TACs and or PM2.5 emissions in
disproportionally impacted communities
compared to the remainder of the Bay Area
communities.
2.2(e) MTC/ABAG shall partner with BAAQMD to develop a program
to install air filtration devices in existing residential buildings, and
other buildings with sensitive receptors, located near freeways or
sources of TACs and PM2.5.
2.2(f) MTC/ABAG shall partner with BAAQMD to develop a program
to provide incentives to replace older locomotives and trucks in the
region to reduce TACs and PM2.5.
In addition, Mitigation Measures 2.1 (a), 2.1(b), and 2.1 (c) (included
in Chapter 2.1, Transportation) and 2.2 (d) (included under Impact
Significant and
Unavoidable
Executive Summary
ES-21
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.2-5(b)) could help reduce TAC and PM2.5 emissions.
Land Use and Physical Development
2.3-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in residential or business disruption or
displacement of substantial numbers of existing
population and housing.
2.3(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Regulating construction operations on existing facilities to
minimize traffic disruptions and detours, and to maintain safe
traffic operations.
Ensuring construction operations are limited to regular business
hours where feasible.
Controlling construction dust and noise. See “Construction Best
Practices for Dust” under Mitigation Measure 2.2(a) in Chapter 2.2:
Air Quality.
Controlling erosion and sediment transport in stormwater runoff
from construction sites. See “Construction Best Practices for
Dust” under Mitigation Measure 2.2(a) in Chapter 2.2: Air Quality.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
reduce short-term disruption and displacement.
Mitigation Measure 2.2(a) in Chapter 2.2: Air Quality includes
additional applicable measures related to this impact, and is
included here by reference.
2.3(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-22
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Developing pedestrian and bike connectors across widened
sections of roadway;
Using sidewalk, signal, and signage treatments to improve the
pedestrian connectivity across widened sections of roadway;
Using site redesign or corridor realignment, where feasible, to
avoid land use disruption; and
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
reduce long-term disruption and displacement.
2.3(c) Through regional programs, such as MTC/ABAG’s Priority
Development Area (PDA) Planning Program, MTC/ABAG shall
continue to support the adoption of local zoning and design
guidelines that encourage pedestrian and transit access, infill
development, and vibrant neighborhoods.
2.3-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in permanent alterations to an existing
neighborhood or community by separating
residences from community facilities and
services, restricting access to commercial or
residential areas, or eliminating community
amenities.
2.3(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. All new transportation projects shall be
required to incorporate design features such as sidewalks, bike
lanes, and bike/pedestrian bridges or tunnels that maintain or
improve access and connections within existing communities and to
public transit. Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors
to comply with existing local regulations and policies that exceed or
reasonably replace measures that reduce community separation.
2.3(e) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. New development projects shall be
required to provide connectivity for all modes such that new
development does not separate existing uses, and improves access
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-23
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
where needed and/or feasible, by incorporating ‘complete streets’
design features such as pedestrian-oriented streets and sidewalks,
improved access to transit, and bike routes where appropriate.
Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with existing local regulations and policies that exceed or
reasonably replace measures that reduce community separation.
2.3(f) Through regional programs such as the OneBayArea Grants
(OBAG), MTC/ABAG shall continue to support planning efforts for
locally sponsored traffic calming and alternative transportation
initiatives, such as paths, trails, overcrossings, bicycle plans, and the
like that foster improved neighborhoods and community
connections.
Mitigation Measures 2.3(a), 2.3(b), and 2.3(c) outlined for Impact 2.3-
1 would also reduce community separation impacts.
2.3-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
conflict substantially with the land use portion of
adopted local general plans or other applicable
land use plans, including specific plans, existing
zoning, or regional plans such as coastal plans or
the Bay Plan.
None required.Less than Significant
2.3-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
convert substantial amounts of important
agricultural lands and open space or lands under
Williamson Act contract to non-agricultural use.
2.3(g) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Requiring project relocation or corridor realignment, where
feasible, to avoid farmland, especially Prime Farmland;
Acquiring conservation easements on land at least equal in
quality and size as partial compensation for the direct loss of
agricultural land;
Significant and
Unavoidable
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-24
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Maintain and expand agricultural land protections such as urban
growth boundaries;
If a Williamson Act contract is terminated, a ratio greater than 1:1
of land equal in quality shall be set aside in a conservation
easement, as recommended by the Department of Conservation;
Instituting new protection of farmland in the project area or
elsewhere in the County through the use of less than permanent
long-term restrictions on use, such as 20-year Farmland Security
Zone contracts (Government Code Section 51296 et seq.) or 10-
year Williamson Act contracts (Government Code Section 51200
et seq.);
Assessing mitigation fees that support the commercial viability
of the remaining agricultural land in the project area, County, or
region through a mitigation bank that invests in agricultural
infrastructure, water supplies, marketing, etc.;
Minimizing severance and fragmentation of agricultural land by
constructing underpasses and overpasses at reasonable intervals
to provide property access;
Requiring agricultural enhancement investments such as
supporting farmer education on organic and sustainable
practices, assisting with organic soil amendments for improved
production, and upgrading irrigation systems for water
conservation;
Requiring berms, buffer zones, setbacks, and fencing to reduce
use conflicts between new development and farming uses and
to protect the functions of farmland; and
Requiring other conservation tools available from the California
Department of Conservation’s Division of Land Resource
Protection.
Executive Summary
ES-25
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Requiring compliance with existing local regulations and policies
that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures
that reduce farmland conversion.
2.3(h) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Requiring project relocation or corridor realignment, where
feasible, to avoid protected open space.
Requiring conservation easements on land at least equal in
quality and size as partial compensation for the direct loss of
protected open space.
Maintain and expand open space protections such as urban
growth boundaries.
Requiring compliance with existing local regulations and policies
that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures
that reduce open space conversion.
2.3-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in the loss of forest land, conversion of
forest land to non-forest use, or conflict with
existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land, timberland, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production.
2.3(i) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by implementing
agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible based on project-
and site-specific considerations include, but are not limited to:
Requiring project relocation or corridor realignment, where
feasible, to avoid timberland or forest land.
Requiring conservation easements on land at least equal in
quality and size as partial compensation for the direct loss of
timberland or forest land.
Requiring compliance with existing local regulations and policies
that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures
that reduce forest land conversion.
Significant and
Unavoidable
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-26
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Energy
2.4-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in an increase in per-capita direct and
indirect energy consumption compared to
existing conditions.
None required.Less than Significant
2.4-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could be
inconsistent with adopted plans or policies
related to energy conservation.
None required.No Adverse Impact
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
2.5-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could fail
to reduce per capita passenger vehicle and light
duty truck CO2 emissions by 7 percent by 2020
and by 15 percent by 2035 as compared to 2005
baseline, per SB 375.
None required.No Adverse Impact
2.5-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a net increase in direct and indirect GHG
emissions in 2040 when compared to existing
conditions.
None required.No Adverse Impact
2.5-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
substantially impede attainment of goals set
forth in Executive Order S-3-05 and Executive
Order B-16-2012.
None required.Less than Significant
Executive Summary
ES-27
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.5-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
substantially conflict with any other applicable
plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
None required.No Adverse Impact
2.5-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan may result
in a net increase in transportation investments
within areas regularly inundated by sea level rise
by midcentury.
2.5(a) MTC and ABAG shall continue coordinating with BCDC, in
partnership with the Joint Policy Committee and regional agencies
and other partners who would like to participate, to conduct
vulnerability and risk assessments for the region’s transportation
infrastructure. These assessments will build upon MTC and BCDC’s
Adapting to Rising Tides Transportation Vulnerability and Risk
Assessment Pilot Project focused in Alameda County. Evaluation of
regional and project-level vulnerability and risk assessments will
assist in the identification of the appropriate adaptation strategies to
protect transportation infrastructure and resources, as well as land
use development projects, that are likely to be impacted and that
are a priority for the region to protect. The Adaptation Strategy sub-
section found at the end of this section includes a list of potential
adaptation strategies that can mitigate the impacts of sea level rise.
In most cases, more than one adaptation strategy will be required to
protect a given transportation project or land use development
project, and the implementation of the adaptation strategy will
require coordination with other agencies and stakeholders. As MTC
and ABAG conduct vulnerability and risk assessments for the
region's transportation infrastructure, the Adaptation Strategy sub-
section should serve as a guide for selecting adaptation strategies,
but the list should not be considered all inclusive of all potential
adaptation strategies as additional strategies not included in this list
may also have the potential to reduce significant impacts.
2.5(b) MTC and ABAG shall work with the Joint Policy Committee to
create a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy for the Bay Area.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-28
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall consider
implementation of mitigations measures including but not limited
to those identified below.
2.5(c) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. The project sponsors and implementing
agencies shall coordinate with BCDC, Caltrans, local jurisdictions
(cities and counties), and other transportation agencies to develop
Transportation Asset Management Plans (TAMPs) that consider the
potential impacts of sea level rise over the asset’s life cycle.
2.5(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Executive Order S-13-08 requires all
state agencies, including Caltrans, to incorporate sea level rise into
planning for all new construction and routine maintenance projects;
however, no such requirement exists for local transportation assets
and development projects. Implementing agencies shall require
project sponsors to incorporate the appropriate adaptation strategy
or strategies to reduce the impacts of sea level rise on specific
transportation and land use development projects where feasible
based on project- and site-specific considerations. Potential
adaptation strategies are included in the Adaptation Strategy sub-
section found at the end of this section.
Executive Summary
ES-29
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.5-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan may result
in a net increase in the number of people
residing within areas regularly inundated by sea
level rise by midcentury.
Implement Mitigation Measures 2.5(b) and 2.5(d).Significant and
Unavoidable
2.5-7 Implementation of the proposed Plan may result
in an increase in land use development within
areas regularly inundated by sea level rise by
midcentury.
Implement Mitigation Measures 2.5(b) and 2.5(d).Significant and
Unavoidable
Noise
2.6-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in exposure of persons to or generation of
temporary construction noise levels and/or
groundborne vibration levels in excess of
standards established by local jurisdictions or
transportation agencies.
2.6(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Implementing agencies shall require
one or more of the following set of noise attenuation measures
under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant:
Restricting construction activities to permitted hours as defined
under local jurisdiction regulations;(e.g.; Alameda County Code
restricts construction noise to between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm on
weekdays and between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm on weekends)
Properly maintaining construction equipment and outfitting
construction equipment with the best available noise
suppression devices (e.g. mufflers, silencers, wraps);
Prohibiting idling of construction equipment for extended
periods of time in the vicinity of sensitive receptors;
Locating stationary equipment such as generators, compressors,
rock crushers, and cement mixers as far from sensitive receptors
as possible;
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-30
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Erecting temporary plywood noise barriers around the
construction site when adjacent occupied sensitive land uses are
present within 75 feet;
Implementing “quiet” pile-driving technology (such as pre-
drilling of piles and the use of more than one pile driver to
shorten the total pile driving duration), where feasible, in
consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and
conditions;
Using noise control blankets on building structures as buildings
are erected to reduce noise emission from the site; and
Using cushion blocks to dampen impact noise from pile driving.
2.6(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following vibration attenuation measures under
the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant if pile-driving
and/or other potential vibration-generating construction activities
are to occur within 60 feet of a historic structure.
The project sponsors shall engage a qualified geotechnical
engineer and qualified historic preservation professional and/or
structural engineer to conduct a pre-construction assessment of
existing subsurface conditions and the structural integrity of
nearby (within 60 feet) historic structures subject to pile-driving
activity. If recommended by the pre-construction assessment, for
structures or facilities within 60 feet of pile-driving activities, the
project sponsors shall require groundborne vibration monitoring
of nearby historic structures. Such methods and technologies
shall be based on the specific conditions at the construction site
such as, but not limited to, the pre-construction surveying of
Executive Summary
ES-31
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
potentially affected historic structures and underpinning of
foundations of potentially affected structures, as necessary.
The pre-construction assessment shall include a monitoring
program to detect ground settlement or lateral movement of
structures in the vicinity of pile-driving activities and identify
corrective measures to be taken should monitored vibration
levels indicate the potential for building damage. In the event of
unacceptable ground movement with the potential to cause
structural damage, all impact work shall cease and corrective
measures shall be implemented to minimize the risk to the
subject, or adjacent, historic structure.
2.6(c) To mitigate pile-driving vibration impacts related to human
annoyance, the implementing agency shall require project sponsors
to implement Mitigation Measure 2.6(a) above where feasible based
on project- and site-specific considerations.
2.6-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in increased traffic volumes that could
result in roadside noise levels that approach or
exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria.
2.6(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Adjustments to proposed roadway or transit alignments to
reduce noise levels in noise sensitive areas. For example, below-
grade roadway alignments can effectively reduce noise levels in
nearby areas.
Techniques such as landscaped berms, dense plantings,
reduced-noise paving materials, and traffic calming measures in
the design of their transportation improvements.
Contributing to the insulation of buildings or construction of
noise barriers around sensitive receptor properties adjacent to
the transportation improvement;
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-32
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Use land use planning measures, such as zoning, restrictions on
development, site design, and buffers to ensure that future
development is noise compatible with adjacent transportation
facilities and land uses;
Construct roadways so that they are depressed below-grade of
the existing sensitive land uses to create an effective barrier
between new roadway lanes, roadways, rail lines, transit centers,
park-n-ride lots, and other new noise generating facilities; and
Maximize the distance between noise-sensitive land uses and
new noise-generating facilities and transportation systems.
2.6-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in increased noise exposure from transit
sources that exceed FTA exposure thresholds.
2.6(e) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. When finalizing a development
project’s site plan, the implementing agency shall require that
project sponsors locate noise-sensitive outdoor use areas away from
adjacent noise sources and shield noise-sensitive spaces with
buildings or noise barriers whenever possible to reduce the
potential significant impacts with regard to exterior noise exposure
for new sensitive receptors.
2.6(f) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. When finalizing a land use
development’s site plan or a transportation project’s design, the
implementing agency shall ensure that sufficient setback between
occupied structures and the railroad tracks is provided.
2.6(g) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
Significant and
Unavoidable
Executive Summary
ES-33
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
not limited to the following. Prior to project approval, the
implementing agency for a transportation project shall ensure that
the transportation project sponsor applies the following mitigation
measures to achieve a site-specific exterior noise performance
standard as indicated in Figure 2.6-6 at sensitive land uses, as
applicable for rail extension projects:
Using sound reduction barriers such as landscaped berms and
dense plantings;
Locating rail extension below grade;
Using methods to resilient damped wheels;
Using vehicle skirts;
Using under car acoustically absorptive material; and
Installing sound insulation treatments for impacted structures.
2.6-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in increased vibration exposure from
transit sources that exceed FTA exposure
thresholds.
2.6(h) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. When finalizing a development or
transportation project’s site plan, the implementing agency shall
ensure that sufficient setback between occupied structures and the
railroad tracks is provided. To meet the 72 VdB limit for the
maximum measured train vibration level, residential buildings
should be setback a minimum of 65 feet from the center of the
nearest track. Alternatively, a reduced setback may be attainable if
the project sponsor can demonstrate a project-specific vibration
exposure meeting a performance standard of 72 VdB. Depending on
specific project conditions, this standard may be attainable without
additional mitigation measures or may require applied mitigation
such as use of elastomeric pads in the building foundation.
Significant and
Unavoidable
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-34
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.6(i) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by implementing
agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible based on project-
and site-specific considerations include, but are not limited to the
following. Prior to project approval the implementing shall ensure
that project sponsors apply the following mitigation measures to
achieve a vibration performance standard of 72 VdB at residential
land uses, as feasible, for rail extension projects:
Using high resilience (soft) direct fixation fasteners for
embedded track;
Installing Ballast mat for ballast and tie track.
2.6-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in increased noise exposure from aircraft
or airports.
None required.Less than Significant
Geology and Seismicity
2.7-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
expose people or structures to substantial risk of
property loss, injury or death related to fault
rupture.
2.7(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce impacts related to fault
rupture, implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to
comply with provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act (Act) for project
sites located within or across an Alquist-Priolo Hazard Zone. Project
sponsors shall prepare site-specific fault identification investigations
conducted by licensed geotechnical professionals in accordance
with the requirements of the Act as well as any existing local or
Caltrans regulations and policies that exceed or reasonably replace
any of the Act requirements. Structures intended for human
occupancy (defined as a structure that might be occupied a
minimum of 2,000 hours per year) shall be located a minimum
distance of 50 feet from any identified active fault traces. For the
purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means consistent
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-35
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related to
development in an Alquist-Priolo Hazard Zone.
2.7-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
expose people or structures to substantial risk
related to ground shaking.
2.7(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce impacts related to ground
shaking, implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to
comply with the most recent version of the California Building Code
(CBC). Proposed improvements shall comply with Chapter 16,
Section 1613 of the CBC which provides earthquake loading
specifications for every structure and associated attachments that
must also meet the seismic criteria of Associated Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) Standard 07-05. In order to determine seismic
criteria for proposed improvements, geotechnical investigations
shall be prepared by state licensed engineers and engineering
geologists to provide recommendations for site preparation and
foundation design as required by Chapter 18, Section 1803 of the
CBC. Geotechnical investigations shall also evaluate hazards such as
liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides, and expansive soils in
accordance with CBC requirements and Special Publication 117A,
where applicable. Recommended corrective measures, such as
structural reinforcement and replacing native soils with engineered
fill, shall be incorporated into project designs. For the purposes of
this mitigation, less than significant means consistent with federal,
state, and local regulations and laws related to building
construction.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.7-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
expose people or structures to substantial risk
from seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.7(b). Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-36
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.7-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
expose people or structures to substantial risk
related to landslides.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.7(b). Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.7-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan may result
in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
2.7(c) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce the risk of soil erosion,
implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Construction Permit requirements. Implementing agencies
shall require project sponsors, as part of contract specifications with
contractors, to prepare and implement best management practices
(BMPs) as part of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that
include erosion control BMPs consistent with California Stormwater
Quality Association Handbook for Construction. For the purposes of
this mitigation, less than significant means consistent with federal,
state, and local regulations and laws related to construction
practices.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.7-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
locate a subsequent development project on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable, contains
expansive properties, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.7(b). Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-37
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Water Resources
2.8-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
violate water quality standards or waste or
stormwater discharge requirements.
2.8(a) To reduce the impact associated with potential water quality
standards violations or waste or stormwater discharge requirement
violations, implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to
comply with the State, and federal water quality regulations for all
projects that would alter existing drainage patterns in accordance
with the relevant regulatory criteria including but not limited to the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program,
Provision C.3, and any applicable Stormwater Management Plans.
Erosion control measures shall be consistent with NPDES General
Construction Permit requirements including preparation and
implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and final
drainage plans shall be consistent with the San Francisco Regional
MS4 NPDES permit or any applicable local drainage control
requirements that exceed or reasonably replace any of these
measures to project receiving waters from pollutants.
Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to commit to
best management practices (BMPs) that would minimize or
eliminate existing sources of polluted runoff during both
construction and operational phases of the project. Implementing
agencies shall require projects to comply with design guidelines
established in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
Association’s Using Start at the Source to Comply with Design
Development Standards and the California Stormwater Quality
Association’s California Stormwater Best Management Practice
Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment to minimize
both increases in the volume and rate of stormwater runoff, and the
amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system. For the
purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means consistent
with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related to water
quality or stormwater management.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-38
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Mitigation measures that shall be considered by implementing
agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible based on project-
and site-specific considerations include, but are not limited to:
Construction
Limiting excavation and grading activities to the dry season
(April 15 to October 15) to the extent possible in order to reduce
the chance of severe erosion from intense rainfall and surface
runoff, as well as the potential for soil saturation in swale areas.
Regulating stormwater runoff from the construction area
through a stormwater management/erosion control plan that
may include temporary on-site silt traps and/or basins with
multiple discharge points to natural drainages and energy
dissipaters if excavation occurs during the rainy season. This
control plan should include requirements to cover stockpiles of
loose material, divert runoff away from exposed soil material,
locate and operate sediment basin/traps to minimize the amount
of offsite sediment transport, and removing any trapped
sediment from the basin/ trap for placement at a suitable
location on-site, away from concentrated flows, or removal to an
approved disposal site.
Providing temporary erosion control measures until perennial
revegetation or landscaping is established and can minimize
discharge of sediment into receiving waterways.
Providing erosion protection on all exposed soils either by
revegetation or placement of impervious surfaces after
completion of grading. Revegetation shall be facilitated by
mulching, hydroseeding, or other methods and initiated as soon
as possible after completion of grading and prior to the onset of
the rainy season (by October 15).
Executive Summary
ES-39
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Using permanent revegetation/landscaping, emphasizing
drought-tolerant perennial ground coverings, shrubs, and trees.
Ensuring BMPs are in place and operational prior to the onset of
major earthwork on the site. The construction phase facilities
shall be maintained regularly and cleared of accumulated
sediment as necessary.
Storing hazardous materials such as fuels and solvents used on
the construction sites in covered containers and protected from
rainfall, runoff, and vandalism. A stockpile of spill cleanup
materials shall be readily available at all construction sites.
Employees shall be trained in spill prevention and cleanup, and
individuals should be designated as responsible for prevention
and cleanup activities.
Operation
Designing drainage of roadway and parking lot runoff, wherever
possible to run through grass median strips which are contoured
to provide adequate storage capacity and to provide overland
flow, detention, and infiltration before runoff reaches culverts, or
into detention basins. Facilities such as oil and sediment
separators or absorbent filter systems should be designed and
installed within the storm drainage system to provide filtration of
stormwater prior to discharge and reduce water quality impacts
whenever feasible.
Implementing an erosion control and revegetation program
designed to allow re-establishment of native vegetation on
slopes in undeveloped areas as part of the long-term sediment
control plan.
Using alternate discharge options to protect sensitive fish and
wildlife populations in areas where habitat for fish and other
wildlife would be threatened by transportation facility discharge.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-40
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Maintenance activities over the life of the project shall include
use of heavy-duty sweepers, with disposal of collected debris in
sanitary landfills to effectively reduce annual pollutant loads
where appropriate. Catch basins and storm drains shall be
cleaned and maintained on a regular basis.
Using Integrated Pest Management techniques (methods that
minimize the use of potentially hazardous chemicals for
landscape pest control and vineyard operations) in landscaped
areas. The handling, storage, and application of potentially
hazardous chemicals shall take place in accordance with all
applicable laws and regulations.
2.8-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
substantially interfere with or reduce rates of
groundwater recharge due to the increased
amount of impervious surfaces, such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the groundwater table.
None required.Less than Significant
2.8-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
increase erosion by altering the existing
drainage patterns of a site, contributing to
sediment loads of streams and drainage
facilities, and thereby affecting water quality.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.8(a) Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.8-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
increase non-point pollution of stormwater
runoff due to litter, fallout from airborne
particulate emissions, or discharges of vehicle
residues, including petroleum hydrocarbons and
metals that would impact the quality of
receiving waters.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.8(a) Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-41
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.8-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
increase non-point-source pollution of
stormwater runoff from construction sites due to
discharges of sediment, chemicals, and wastes to
nearby storm drains and creeks.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.8(a) Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.8-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
increase rates and amounts of runoff due to
additional impervious surfaces, higher runoff
values for cut-and-fill slopes, or alterations to
drainage systems that could cause potential
flood hazards and effects on water quality.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.8(a) Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.8-7 Implementation of the proposed Plan may place
within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flows.
2.8(b) To reduce the impact of flood hazards, implementing
agencies shall conduct or require project-specific hydrology studies
for projects proposed to be constructed within floodplains to
demonstrate compliance with Executive Order 11988, the National
Flood Insurance Program, National Flood Insurance Act, Caltrans
Highway Design Manual, Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management
Act, as well as any further Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) or State requirements that are adopted at the local level.
These studies shall identify project design features or mitigation
measures that reduce impacts to either floodplains or flood flows to
a less than significant level such as requiring minimum elevations for
finished first floors, typically at least one foot above the 100-year
base flood elevation, where feasible based on project- and site-
specific considerations. For the purposes of this mitigation, less than
significant means consistent with these federal, State, and local
regulations and laws related to development in the floodplain. Local
jurisdictions shall, to the extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent
with local policies, prevent development in flood hazard areas that
do not have demonstrable protections.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-42
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.8-8 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving flooding (including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam),
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
None required.Less than Significant
Biological Resources
2.9-1a Implementation of the proposed Plan could
have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on species
identified as candidate, sensitive, or special-
status in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2.9(a) Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to
prepare biological resources assessments for specific projects
proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, habitat for special-
status plants and wildlife. The assessment shall be conducted by
qualified professionals pursuant to adopted protocols and agency
guidelines. Where the biological resources assessment establishes
that mitigation is required to avoid direct and indirect adverse
effects on special-status plant and wildlife species, mitigation shall
be developed consistent with the requirements of CEQA, USFWS,
and CDFW regulations and guidelines, in addition to requirements
of any applicable and adopted HCP/NCCP or other applicable plans
developed to protect species or habitat. Mitigation measures that
shall be considered by implementing agencies and/or project
sponsors where feasible based on project-and site-specific
considerations include, but are not limited to:
In support of CEQA, NEPA, CDFW and USFWS permitting
processes for individual Plan Bay Area projects, biological surveys
shall be conducted as part of the environmental review process
to determine the presence and extent of sensitive habitats
and/or species in the project vicinity. Surveys shall follow
established methods and shall be undertaken at times when the
subject species is most likely to be identified. In cases where
impacts to State- or federal-listed plant or wildlife species are
possible, formal protocol-level surveys may be required on a
species-by-species basis to determine the local distribution of
these species. Consultation with the USFWS and/or CDFW shall
Significant and
Unavoidable
Executive Summary
ES-43
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
be conducted early in the planning process at an informal level
for projects that could adversely affect federal or State candidate,
threatened, or endangered species to determine the need for
further consultation or permitting actions. Projects shall obtain
incidental take authorization from the permitting agencies as
required prior to project implementation.
Project designs shall be reconfigured, whenever practicable, to
avoid special-status species and sensitive habitats. Projects shall
minimize ground disturbances and construction footprints near
sensitive areas to the extent practicable.
Where habitat avoidance is infeasible, compensatory mitigation
shall be implemented through preservation, restoration, or
creation of special-status wildlife habitat. Loss of habitat shall be
mitigated at an agency approved mitigation bank or through
individual mitigation sites as approved by USFWS and/or CDFW.
Compensatory mitigation ratios shall be negotiated with the
permitting agencies. Mitigation sites shall be monitored for a
minimum of five consecutive years after mitigation
implementation or until the mitigation is considered to be
successful. All mitigation areas shall be preserved in perpetuity
through either fee ownership or a conservation easement held
by a qualified conservation organization or agency,
establishment of a preserve management plan, and guaranteed
long-term funding for site preservation through the
establishment of a management endowment.
Project activities in the vicinity of sensitive resources shall be
completed during the period that best avoids disturbance to
plant and wildlife species present (e.g., May 15 to October 15
near salmonid habitat and vernal pools) to the extent feasible.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-44
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Individual projects shall minimize the use of in-water
construction methods in areas that support sensitive aquatic
species, especially when listed species could be present.
In the event that equipment needs to operate in any watercourse
with flowing or standing water, a qualified biological resource
monitor shall be present at all times to alert construction crews
to the possible presence of California red-legged frog, nesting
birds, salmonids, or other aquatic species at risk during
construction operations.
If project activities involve pile driving or vibratory hammering in
or near water, interim hydroacoustic threshold criteria for fish
shall be adopted as set forth by the Interagency Fisheries
Hydroacoustic Working Group, as well as other avoidance
methods to reduce the adverse effects of construction to
sensitive fish, piscivorous birds, and marine mammal species.
Construction shall not occur during the breeding season near
riparian habitat, freshwater marshlands, and salt marsh habitats
that support nesting bird species protected under the
Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or California
Fish and Game Code (e.g., yellow warbler, tricolored blackbird,
California clapper rail, etc.).
A qualified biologist shall locate and fence off sensitive resources
before construction activities begin and, where required, shall
inspect areas to ensure that barrier fencing, stakes, and setback
buffers are maintained during construction.
For work sites located adjacent to special-status plant or wildlife
populations, a biological resource education program shall be
provided for construction crews and contractors (primarily crew
and construction foremen) before construction activities begin.
Executive Summary
ES-45
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Biological monitoring shall be particularly targeted for areas near
identified habitat for federal- and state-listed species, and a “no
take” approach shall be taken whenever feasible during
construction near special-status plant and wildlife species.
Efforts shall be made to minimize the negative effects of light
and noise on listed and sensitive wildlife.
Compliance with existing local regulations and policies,
including applicable HCP/NCCPs, that exceed or reasonably
replace any of the above measures protective of special-status
species.
2.9-1b Implementation of the proposed Plan could
have substantial adverse impacts on designated
critical habitat for federally listed plant and
wildlife species.
2.9(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Informal consultation with the USFWS and/or NMFS shall be
conducted early in the environmental review process to
determine the need for further mitigation, consultation, or
permitting actions. Formal consultation is required for any
project with a federal nexus.
Project designs shall be reconfigured to avoid or minimize
adverse effects on the primary constituent elements of
designated critical habitats when they are present in a project
vicinity.
Compliance with existing local regulations and policies,
including applicable HCP/NCCPs. that exceed or reasonably
replace any of the above measures protective of critical habitat.
Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 2.9(a), above,
which includes an initial biological resource assessment and, if
Significant and
Unavoidable
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-46
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
necessary, compensatory mitigation for loss of habitat, is expected
to reduce impacts on critical habitat.
2.9-1c Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in construction activities that could
adversely affect non-listed nesting raptor species
considered special-status by CDFW under CDFW
Code 3503.5 and non-listed nesting bird species
considered special-status by the USFWS under
the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and by
CDFW under CDFW Code 3503 and 3513.
2.9(c) Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to
conduct a pre-construction breeding bird surveys for specific
projects proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, habitat
for nesting birds. The survey shall be conducted by appropriately
trained professionals pursuant to adopted protocols agency
guidelines. Where a breeding bird survey establishes that mitigation
is required to avoid direct and indirect adverse effects on nesting
raptors and other protected birds, mitigation will be developed
consistent with the requirements of CEQA, USFWS, and CDFW
regulations and guidelines, in addition to requirements of any
applicable and adopted HCP/NCCP or other applicable plans
developed to protect species or habitat. Mitigation measures that
shall be considered by implementing agencies and/or project
sponsors where feasible based on project-and site-specific
considerations include, but are not limited to:
Perform preconstruction surveys not more than two weeks prior
to initiating vegetation removal and/or construction activities
during the breeding season (i.e., February 1 through August 31).
Establish a no-disturbance buffer zone around active nests
during the breeding season until the young have fledged and are
self-sufficient, when no further mitigation would be required.
Typically, the size of individual buffers ranges from a minimum of
250 feet for raptors to a minimum of 50 feet for other birds but
can be adjusted based on an evaluation of the site by a qualified
biologist in cooperation with the USFWS and/or CDFW.
Provide buffers around nests that are established by birds after
construction starts. These birds are assumed to be habituated to
and tolerant of construction disturbance. However, direct take of
nests, eggs, and nestlings is still prohibited and a buffer must be
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-47
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
established to avoid nest destruction. If construction ceases for a
period of more than two weeks, or vegetation removal is
required after a period of more than two weeks has elapsed from
the preconstruction surveys, then new nesting bird surveys must
be conducted.
Comply with existing local regulations and policies, including
applicable HCP/NCCPs, that exceed or reasonably replace any of
the above measures protective of nesting birds.
2.9-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
have a substantial adverse effect on riparian
habitat, federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including
but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.), or other sensitive natural communities
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means.
2.9(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to prepare
biological resource assessments for specific projects proposed in
areas containing, or likely to contain, jurisdictional waters and/or
other sensitive or special-status communities. The assessment
shall be conducted by qualified professionals in accordance with
agency guidelines and standards. The assessment shall identify
specific mitigation measures for any impact that exceeds
significant impact thresholds and said measures shall be
implemented. Mitigation measures shall be consistent with the
requirements of CEQA and wetland permitting agencies, and/or
follow an adopted HCP/NCCP or other applicable plans
promulgated to protect jurisdictional waters or other sensitive
habitats.
In keeping with the “no net loss” policy for wetlands and other
waters, project designs shall be configured, whenever possible,
to avoid wetlands and other waters and avoid disturbances to
wetlands and riparian corridors in order to preserve both the
habitat and the overall ecological functions of these areas.
Significant and
Unavoidable
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-48
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Projects shall minimize ground disturbances and construction
footprints near such areas to the extent practicable.
Where avoidance of jurisdictional waters is not feasible, project
sponsors shall minimize fill and the use of in-water construction
methods, and only place fill with express permit approval from
the appropriate resources agencies (e.g., Corps, RWQCB, CDFW,
BCDC, and CCC) and in accordance with applicable existing
regulations, such as the Clean Water Act or local stream
protection ordinances.
Project sponsors shall arrange for compensatory mitigation in
the form of mitigation bank credits, on-site or off-site
enhancement of existing waters or wetland creation in
accordance with applicable existing regulations and subject to
approval by the Corps, RWQCB, CDFW, BCDC, and CCC. If
compensatory mitigation is required by the implementing
agency, the project sponsor shall develop a restoration and
monitoring plan that describes how compensatory mitigation
will be achieved, implemented, maintained, and monitored. At a
minimum, the restoration and monitoring plan shall include clear
goals and objectives, success criteria, specifics on
restoration/creation/enhancement (plant palette, soils, irrigation,
etc.), specific monitoring periods and reporting guidelines, and a
maintenance plan. The following minimum performance
standards (or other standards as required by the permitting
agencies) shall apply to any wetland compensatory mitigation:
Compensation shall be provided at a minimum 1:1 ratio for
restoration and preservation, but shall in all cases be
consistent with mitigation ratios set forth in locally applicable
plans (e.g., general plans, HCP/NCCPs, etc.), or in project-
specific permitting documentation. Compensatory mitigation
may be a combination of onsite
restoration/creation/enhancement, offsite restoration,
Executive Summary
ES-49
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
preservation and/or enhancement, or purchase of mitigation
credits. Compensatory mitigation may also be achieved
through Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP)
banking, as deemed appropriate by the permitting agencies.
In general, any compensatory mitigation shall be monitored
for a minimum of five years and will be considered successful
when at least 75 percent cover (or other percent cover
considered appropriate for the vegetation type) of installed
vegetation has become successfully established.
In accordance with CDFW guidelines and other instruments
protective of sensitive or special-status natural communities,
project sponsors shall avoid and minimize impacts on sensitive
natural communities when designing and permitting projects.
Where applicable, projects shall conform to the provisions of
special area management or restoration plans, such as the Suisun
Marsh Protection Plan or the East Contra Costa County HCP,
which outline specific measures to protect sensitive vegetation
communities.
If any portion of a special-status natural community is
permanently removed or temporarily disturbed, the project
sponsor shall compensate for the loss. If such mitigation is
required by the implementing agency, the project sponsor shall
develop a restoration and monitoring plan that describes how
compensatory mitigation will be achieved, implemented,
maintained, and monitored. At a minimum, the restoration and
monitoring plan shall include clear goals and objectives, success
criteria, specifics on restoration/creation/enhancement (plant
palette, soils, irrigation, etc.), specific monitoring periods and
reporting guidelines, and a maintenance plan. The following
minimum performance standards (or other standards as required
by the permitting agencies) shall apply to any compensatory
mitigation for special-status natural communities:
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-50
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Compensation shall be provided at a minimum 1:1 ratio for
restoration and preservation, but shall in all cases be
consistent with mitigation ratios set forth in locally applicable
plans (e.g., general plans, HCP/NCCPs, etc.) or in project-
specific permitting documentation. Compensatory mitigation
may be a combination of onsite
restoration/creation/enhancement, offsite restoration,
preservation and/or enhancement, or purchase of mitigation
credits. Compensatory mitigation may also be achieved
through Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP)
banking, as deemed appropriate by the permitting agencies.
In general, any compensatory mitigation shall be monitored
for a minimum of five years and will be considered successful
when at least 75 percent cover (or other percent cover
considered appropriate for the vegetation type) of installed
vegetation has become successfully established.
Compliance with existing local regulations and policies,
including applicable HCP/NCCPs. that exceed or reasonably
replace any of the above measures protective of jurisdictional
wetlands or special-status natural communities.
2.9-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridor, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites.
2.9(e) Mitigation measures to reduce impacts on wildlife corridors
that shall be required by implementing agencies where feasible
based on project- and site- specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Implementing agencies shall require
project sponsors to prepare detailed analyses for specific projects
affecting ECA lands within their sphere of influence to determine
what wildlife species may use these areas and what habitats those
species require. Projects that would not affect ECA lands but that are
located within or adjacent to open lands, including wildlands and
agricultural lands, shall also assess whether or not significant wildlife
corridors are present, what wildlife species may use them, and what
Significant and
Unavoidable
Executive Summary
ES-51
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
habitat those species require. The assessment shall be conducted by
qualified professionals and according to any applicable agency
standards. Mitigation shall be consistent with the requirements of
CEQA and/or follow an adopted HCP/NCCP or other relevant plans
developed to protect species and their habitat, including migratory
linkages.
Mitigation measures that shall be considered by implementing
agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible based on project-
and site-specific considerations include, but are not limited to:
Constructing wildlife friendly overpasses and culverts;
Fencing major transportation corridors in the vicinity of
identified wildlife corridors;
Using wildlife friendly fences that allow larger wildlife such as
deer to get over, and smaller wildlife to go under;
Limiting wildland conversions in identified wildlife corridors; and
Retaining wildlife friendly vegetation in and around
developments.
Compliance with existing local regulations and policies,
including applicable HCP/NCCPs. that exceed or reasonably
replace any of the above measures protective of jurisdictional
wetlands or special-status natural communities.
2.9-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
conflict with adopted local conservation policies,
such as a tree protection ordinance, or resource
protection and conservation plans, such as a
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other
adopted local, regional, or state habitat
2.9(f) Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to
prepare biological resources assessments for specific projects
proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, protected trees or
other locally protected biological resources. The assessment shall be
conducted by qualified professionals in accordance with adopted
protocols, and standards in the industry. Mitigation shall be
consistent with the requirements of CEQA and/or follow applicable
ordinances or plans developed to protect trees or other locally
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-52
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
conservation plan. significant biological resources. Mitigation measures that shall be
considered by implementing agencies and/or project sponsors
where feasible based on project-and site-specific considerations
include, but are not limited to:
Mitigation shall be implemented when significance thresholds
are exceeded. Mitigation shall be consistent with the
requirements of CEQA and/or follow applicable ordinances orb
plans developed to protect trees or other locally significant
biological resources.
Implementing agencies shall design projects such that they
avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts to protected
trees and other locally protected resources where feasible.
At a minimum, qualifying protected trees (or other resources)
shall be replaced at 1:1, or as otherwise required by the local
ordinance or plan, in locally approved mitigation sites.
As part of project-level environmental review, implementing
agencies shall ensure that projects comply with the most recent
general plans, policies, and ordinances, and conservation plans.
Review of these documents and compliance with their
requirements shall be demonstrated in project-level
environmental documentation.
2.9(g) During the design and CEQA review of individual projects
under Plan Bay Area, implementing agencies and project sponsors
shall modify project designs to ensure the maximum feasible level of
consistency with the policies in adopted HCPs, NCCPs, or other
approved local, regional, or state conservation plans, in areas where
such plans are applicable. These measures apply to projects covered
by the plans in question (i.e., projects assessed during plan
environmental review), as well as non-covered projects within the
Plan area. Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
Executive Summary
ES-53
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
If the project results in impacts on covered species habitat, or
other habitat protected under the plan, the project sponsor shall
coordinate with USFWS, CDFW, and the appropriate local agency
to provide full compensation of acreage and preserve function.
Projects shall follow adopted procedures to process an
amendment to the conservation plan(s) if necessary. In addition,
all habitat based mitigation required by the conservation plans
shall be provided at ratios or quantities specified in the plans.
Project design and implementation shall minimize impacts on
covered species through implementation of Mitigation Measures
2.9(a), 2.9(b), 2.9(c), 2.9(d), and 2.9(e).
Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for covered
species, consistent with adopted HCP and/or NCCPs, shall also be
implemented as specified during project-specific environmental
review and permitting. Avoidance and minimization measures to
covered species and their habitats shall include adherence to
land use adjacency guidelines as outlined in adopted HCP and/or
NCCPs.
2.9(h) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Implementing agencies and project
sponsors whose projects are located within the Coastal Zone or
within BCDC jurisdiction shall carefully review the applicable local
coastal program or San Francisco Bay Plan for potential conflicts, and
involve the California Coastal Commission or BCDC as early as
possible in the project-level EIR process.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-54
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Visual Resources
2.10-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
affect visual resources by blocking panoramic
views or views of significant landscape features
or landforms (mountains, oceans, rivers, or
significant man-made structures) as seen from a
transportation facility or from public viewing
areas.
2.10(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Reduce the visibility of construction staging areas by fencing and
screening these areas with low contrast materials consistent with
the surrounding environment, and by revegetating graded
slopes and exposed earth surfaces at the earliest opportunity.
Site or design projects to minimize their intrusion into important
viewsheds.
Use see-through safety barrier designs (e.g. railings rather than
walls) when feasible.
Develop interchanges and transit lines at the grade of the
surrounding land to limit view blockage wherever possible.
Design landscaping along highway corridors in rural and open
space areas to add significant natural elements and visual
interest to soften the hard edged, linear travel experience that
would otherwise occur.
Identify, preserve, and enhance scenic vistas to and from hillside
areas and other visual resources.
Comply with existing local regulations and policies that exceed
or reasonably replace any of the above measures that protect
visual resources.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2.10-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
affect visual resources by substantially damaging
scenic resources (such as trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings) that would
2.10(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Significant and
Unavoidable
Executive Summary
ES-55
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
alter the appearance of or from state- or county-
designated or eligible scenic highways.
Project sponsors and implementing agencies shall complete
design studies for projects in designated or eligible State Scenic
Highway corridors. Implementing agencies shall consider the
“complete” highway system and design projects to minimize
impacts on the quality of the views or visual experience that
originally qualified the highway for scenic designation.
Contouring the edges of major cut and fill slopes to provide a
more natural looking finished profile that is appropriate to the
surrounding context, using natural shapes, textures, colors, and
scale to minimize contrasts between the project and surrounding
areas.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace measures that protect visual
resources where feasible based on project- and site-specific
considerations
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2.10(a) shall also be
considered to reduce impacts on scenic highways.
2.10-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
affect visual resources by creating significant
contrasts with the scale, form, line, color, and/or
overall visual character of the existing
community.
2.10(c) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Designing projects to minimize contrasts in scale and massing
between the project and surrounding natural forms and
development.
Requiring that the scale, massing, and design of new
development provide appropriate transitions in building height,
bulk, and architectural style that are sensitive to the physical and
visual character of surrounding areas.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-56
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Contouring the edges of major cut and fill slopes to provide a
finished profile that is appropriate to the surrounding context,
using shapes, textures, colors, and scale to minimize contrasts
between the project and surrounding areas.
Ensuring that new development in or adjacent to existing
communities is compatible in scale and character with the
surrounding area by:
Promoting a transition in scale and architecture character
between new buildings and established neighborhoods; and
Requiring pedestrian circulation and vehicular routes to be
well integrated.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
reduce visual contrasts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2.10(a) shall also be
considered to reduce impacts on visual resources created by
significant contrasts in community visual character.
2.10-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
affect visual resources by adding a visual
element of urban character to an existing rural or
open space area or adding a modern element to
a historic area.
2.10(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Ensuring that new development in or adjacent to rural or historic
areas is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding
area by:
Promoting a transition in scale and architecture character
between new buildings and established neighborhoods; and
Requiring pedestrian circulation and vehicular routes to be
well integrated.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-57
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Using soundwall construction and design methods that account
for visual impacts as follows:
Use transparent panels to preserve views where soundwalls
would block views from residences.
Use landscaped earth berm or a combination wall and berm
to minimize the apparent soundwall height.
Construct soundwalls of materials whose color and texture
complements the surrounding landscape and development.
Design soundwalls to increase visual interest, reduce
apparent height, and be visually compatible with the
surrounding area.
Landscape the soundwalls with plants that screen the
soundwall, preferably with either native vegetation or
landscaping that complements the dominant landscaping of
surrounding areas.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
reduce visual impacts on rural and historic areas.
2.10-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
adversely affect visual resources by creating new
substantial sources of light and glare.
2.10(e) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Designing projects to minimize light and glare from lights,
buildings, and roadways facilities.
Minimizing and controlling glare from transportation projects
through the adoption of project design features that reduce
glare. These features include:
Planting trees along transportation corridors to reduce glare
from the sun;
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-58
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Landscaping off-street parking areas, loading areas, and
service areas; and
Shielding transportation lighting fixtures to minimize off-site
light trespass.
Minimizing and controlling glare from land use and
transportation projects through the adoption of project design
features that reduce glare. These features include:
Limiting the use of reflective materials, such as metal;
Using non-reflective material, such as paint, vegetative
screening, matte finish coatings, and masonry;
Screening parking areas by using vegetation or trees; and
Using low-reflective glass.
Imposing lighting standards that ensure that minimum safety
and security needs are addressed and minimize light trespass
and glare associated with land use development. These
standards include the following:
Minimizing incidental spillover of light onto adjacent private
properties and undeveloped open space;
Directing luminaries away from habitat and open space areas
adjacent to the project site;
Installing luminaries that provide good color rendering and
natural light qualities; and
Minimizing the potential for back scatter into the nighttime
sky and for incidental spillover of light onto adjacent private
properties and undeveloped open space.
Executive Summary
ES-59
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
reduce light and glare impacts.
2.10-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan could cast
a substantial shadow in such a way as to cause a
public hazard or substantially degrade the
existing visual/aesthetic character or quality of a
public place for a sustained period of time.
2.10(f) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Implementing agencies shall require
project sponsors to conduct shadow studies for buildings and
roadway facilities to identify and implement development strategies
for reducing the impact of shadows on public open space. Study
considerations shall include, but are not limited to, the placement,
massing, and height of structures, surrounding land uses, time of
day and seasonal variation, and reflectivity of materials. Study
recommendations for reducing shadow impacts shall be
incorporated into the project design as feasible based on project-
and site-specific considerations. Further, implementing agencies
shall require project sponsors to comply with existing local
regulations and policies that exceed or reasonably replace the above
measure that reduces shadow impacts where feasible based on
project- and site-specific considerations.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Cultural Resources
2.11-1 The proposed Plan could have the potential to
cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historic resource such that the
significance of the resource would be materially
impaired.
2.11(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Realign or redesign projects to avoid impacts on known historic
resources where possible.
Requiring an assessment by a qualified professional of structures
greater than 45 years in age within the area of potential effect to
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-60
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
determine their eligibility for recognition under State, federal, or
local historic preservation criteria.
When a project has been identified as potentially affecting a
historic resource, a historical resources inventory should be
conducted by a qualified architectural historian. The study
should comply with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b), and, if
federal funding or permits are required, with section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 U.S.C. § 470
et seq.). Study recommendations shall be implemented.
If avoidance of a significant architectural/built environment
resource is not feasible, additional mitigation options include,
but are not limited to, specific design plans for historic districts,
or plans for alteration or adaptive re-use of a historical resource
that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
protect historic resources.
2.11-2 The proposed Plan could have the potential to
cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource.
2.11(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65351 and 65352, in-
person consultation shall be conducted with Native American
tribes and individuals with cultural affiliations where the project
is proposed to determine the potential for, or existence of,
cultural resources, including cemeteries and sacred places, prior
to project design and implementation stages.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-61
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Prior to construction activities, project sponsors shall retain a
qualified archaeologist to conduct a record search at the
appropriate Information Center of the California Archaeological
Inventory to determine whether the project area has been
previously surveyed and whether resources were identified.
When recommended by the Information Center, project
sponsors shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct
archaeological surveys prior to construction activities.
Preparation of a research design and testing plan should be
developed in advance of implementation of the construction
project, in order to efficiently facilitate the avoidance of cultural
sites throughout the development process.
If record searches and field surveys indicate that the project is
located in an area rich with archaeological resources, project
sponsors should retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor any
subsurface operations, including but not limited to grading,
excavation, trenching, or removal of existing features of the
subject property.
Written assessments should be prepared by a qualified tribal
representative of sites or corridors with no identified cultural
resources but which still have a moderate to high potential for
containing tribal cultural resources.
Upon “late discovery” of prehistoric archaeological resources
during construction, project sponsors shall consult with the
Native American tribe as well as with the “Most-Likely-
Descendant” as designated by the Native American Heritage
Commission pursuant to PRC 5097.
Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating
impacts on archeological sites because it maintains the
relationship between artifacts and the archeological context, and
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-62
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
it may also avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of
groups associated with the site. This may be achieved through
incorporation within parks, green-space, or other open space by
re-designing project using open space or undeveloped lands.
This may also be achieved by following procedures for capping
the site underneath a paved area. When avoiding and preserving
in place are infeasible based on project- and site-specific
considerations, a data recovery plan may be prepared according
to CEQA Section 15126.4. A data recovery plan consists of: the
documentation and removal of the archeological deposit from a
project site in a manner consistent with professional (and
regulatory) standards; the subsequent inventorying, cataloguing,
analysis, identification, dating, and interpretation of the artifacts;
and the production of a report of findings.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
protect archaeological resources.
2.11-3 The proposed Plan could have the potential to
destroy, directly or indirectly, a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
2.11(c) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Prior to construction activities, project sponsors should retain a
qualified paleontologist to conduct a record search using an
appropriate database, such as the UC Berkeley Museum of
Paleontology to determine whether the project area has been
previously surveyed and whether resources were identified. As
warranted, project sponsors should retain a qualified
paleontologist to conduct paleontological surveys prior to
construction activities.
Preparation of a research design and testing plan should be
developed in advance of implementation of the construction
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-63
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
project, in order to efficiently facilitate the avoidance of cultural
sites throughout the development process.
If record searches and field surveys indicate that the project is
located in an area rich with paleontological, and/or geological
resources, project sponsors should retain a qualified
paleontologist to monitor any subsurface operations, including
but not limited to grading, excavation, trenching, or removal of
existing features of the subject property.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
protect paleontological or geologic resources.
2.11-4 The proposed Plan could have the potential to
disturb human remains, including those interred
outside formal cemeteries.
2.11(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Under Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, as
part of project oversight of individual projects, project sponsors
can and should, in the event of discovery or recognition of any
human remains during construction or excavation activities
associated with the project, in any location other than a
dedicated cemetery, cease further excavation or disturbance of
the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent human remains until the coroner of the county in which
the remains are discovered has been informed and has
determined that no investigation of the cause of death is
required.
Under California Public Resources Code 5097.98, if any
discovered remains are of Native American origin:
The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage
Commission in order to ascertain the proper descendants
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-64
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
from the deceased individual. The coroner should make a
recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible
for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of,
with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any
associated grave goods. This may include obtaining a
qualified archaeologist or team of archaeologists to properly
excavate the human remains; or
If the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to
identify a descendant, or thedescendant failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by
thecommission, the landow ner or their authorized
representative shall obtain a Native American monitor, and
an archaeologist, if recommended by the Native American
monitor, and rebury the Native American human remains and
any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity, on the
property and in a location that is not subject to further
subsurface disturbance where the following conditions occur:
The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to
identify a descendent;
The descendant identified fails to make a
recommendation; or
The landowner or their authorized representative rejects
the recommendation of the descendant, and the
mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission
fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
For the purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means
consistent with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related
to human remains.
Executive Summary
ES-65
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Public Utilities and Facilities
2.12-1 The proposed Plan could result in insufficient
water supplies from existing entitlements and
resources to serve expected development.
2.12(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Implementing water conservation measures which result in
reduced demand for potable water. This could include reducing
the use of potable water for landscape irrigation (such as
through drought-tolerant plantings, water-efficient irrigation
systems, the capture and use of rainwater) and the use of water-
conserving fixtures (such as dual-flush toilets, waterless urinals,
reduced flow faucets).
Coordinating with the water provider to identify an appropriate
water consumption budget for the size and type of project, and
designing and operating the project accordingly.
Using reclaimed water for non-potable uses, especially landscape
irrigation. This strategy may require a project to be located in an
area with existing reclaimed water conveyance infrastructure
and excess reclaimed water capacity. If a location is planned for
future reclaimed water service, projects should install dual
plumbing systems in anticipation of future use. Large
developments could treat wastewater onsite to tertiary
standards and use it for non-potable uses onsite.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
reduce demand for potable water.
2.12(b) MTC shall require the construction phase of transportation
projects to connect to reclaimed water distribution systems for
non-potable water needs, when feasible based on project- and site-
specific considerations.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-66
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.12(c) MTC shall require transportation projects with landscaping
to use drought-resistant plantings or connect to reclaimed water
distribution systems for irrigation and other non-potable water
needs when available and feasible based on project- and site-
specific considerations.
2.12-2 The proposed Plan could result in inadequate
wastewater treatment capacity to serve new
development.
2.12(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Undertaking environmental assessments of land use plans and
developments to determine whether sufficient wastewater
treatment capacity exists for a proposed project. These
environmental assessments must ensure that the proposed
development can be served by its existing or planned treatment
capacity, and that the applicable NPDES permit does not include
a Cease and Desist Order or any limitations on existing or future
treatment capacity. If adequate capacity does not exist, the
implementing agency must either adopt mitigation measures or
consider not proceeding with the project as proposed.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace the above measure in a manner
that reduces impacts on wastewater treatment capacity.
Implementing agencies shall also require compliance with
Mitigation Measure 2.12(a), and MTC shall require implementation of
Mitigation Measures 2.12(b), and/or 2.12(c) listed under Impact 2.12-
1, as feasible based on project- and site-specific considerations,
which will help reduce water usage and, subsequently, wastewater
flows.
Transportation projects could only cause impacts on wastewater
treatment capacity in the case of excess stormwater runoff into a
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-67
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
combined wastewater/stormwater conveyance system. Therefore,
mitigation of stormwater drainage system capacity impacts will also
mitigate wastewater treatment capacity impacts. Mitigation for
stormwater runoff into wastewater systems from transportation
projects is discussed under Impact 2.12-3; mitigation measures
2.12(f) and 2.12(g) will mitigate these impacts.
2.12-3 Development under the proposed Plan could
require and result in the construction of new or
expanded stormwater drainage facilities, which
could cause significant environmental impacts.
2.12(e) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Complying with all existing applicable federal and State
regulations, including Provision C.3 of the EPA’s Interpretive
Policy Memorandum on Reapplication Requirements for
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, NPDES permit
requirements, the submission of and adherence to a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan, Water Quality Control Policy for Siting,
Design, Operation, and Maintenance of onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems, and/or other relevant current State Water
Resource Control Board policy adopted for the purpose of
reducing stormwater drainage impacts.
For projects less than one acre in size, reducing stormwater
runoff caused by construction by implementing stormwater
control best practices, based on those required for a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan.
To the extent possible, siting or orienting the project to use
existing stormwater drainage capacity.
Constructing permeable surfaces, such as stormwater detention
facilities, playing fields, landscaping, or alternative surfaces
(vegetated roofs, pervious paving).
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-68
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Modeling and implementing a stormwater management plan or
site design that prevents the post-development peak discharge
rate and quantity from exceeding pre-development rates.
Capturing rainwater for on-site re-use, such as for landscape
irrigation or inside non-potable uses such as toilet flushing.
Capturing and infiltrating stormwater runoff on site with rain
gardens, vegetated swales, constructed wetlands, etc.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures in
reducing impacts on stormwater drainage facilities.
2.12(f) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Transportation projects shall
incorporate stormwater control, retention, and infiltration features,
such as detention basins, bioswales, vegetated median strips, and
permeable paving, early into the design process to ensure that
adequate acreage and elevation contours are planned.
Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with existing local regulations and policies that exceed or
reasonably replace measures that reduce stormwater drainage
impacts.
2.12(g) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. All transportation projects constructed,
operated, or funded by MTC shall adhere to Caltrans’ Stormwater
Management Plan, which includes best practices to reduce the
volume of stormwater runoff and pollutants in the design,
construction and maintenance of highway facilities.
Executive Summary
ES-69
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.12-4 Development under the proposed Plan could
require and result in the construction of new or
expanded water and wastewater treatment
facilities, which could cause significant
environmental impacts.
2.12(h) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. For projects that could increase
demand on water and wastewater treatment facilities, project
sponsors shall coordinate with the relevant service provider to
ensure that the existing public services and utilities could be able to
handle the increase in demand. If the current infrastructure servicing
the project site is found to be inadequate, infrastructure
improvements for the appropriate public service or utility shall be
identified in each project’s CEQA documentation. The relevant
public service provider or utility shall be responsible for undertaking
project-level review as necessary to provide CEQA clearance for new
facilities.
All of the mitigation measures listed under Impact 2.12-1 and Impact
2.12-2 will help reduce water demand and wastewater generation,
and subsequently help reduce the need for new or expanded water
and wastewater treatment facilities. The mitigation measures listed
under Impact 2.12-3 will also help mitigate the impact of additional
stormwater runoff from land use and transportation projects on
existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2.12-5 Development under the proposed Plan could
exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the RWQCBs.
None required.Less than Significant
2.12-6 The proposed Plan could result in insufficient
landfill capacity to serve new development while
complying with applicable regulations.
2.12(i) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Countywide Integrated Waste
Management Plans and Source Reduction and Recycling Elements
shall take the growth patterns projected by the proposed Plan into
account in their evaluation of landfill disposal capacity and
determination of strategies to implement to enhance capacity.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-70
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.12(j) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Providing an easily accessible area that is dedicated to the
collection and storage of non-hazardous recycling materials,
where feasible.
Maintaining or re-using existing building structures and
materials during building renovations and redevelopment,
where feasible.
Using salvaged, refurbished or reused materials, to help divert
such items from landfills, where feasible.
Diverting construction waste from landfills, where feasible,
through means such as:
The submission and implementation of a construction waste
management plan that identifies materials to be diverted
from disposal.
Establishing diversion targets, possibly with different targets
for different types and scales of development.
Helping developments share information on available
materials with one another, to aid in the transfer and use of
salvaged materials.
Applying the specifications developed by the Construction
Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) to assist contractors and
developers in diverting materials from construction and
demolition projects, where feasible.4
Significant with
Mitigation
4 The CMRA specifications are available on the CalRecycle website at: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/conDemo/specs/CMRA.htm
Executive Summary
ES-71
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures in
reducing impacts on landfills.
Hazards
2.13-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials.
2.13(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce the impacts associated with
the routine transit, use, or disposal of hazardous materials,
implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Title 22 of the
California Code of Regulations, California Hazardous Waste Control
Law, Cal/EPA requirements, HAZMAT training requirements, and any
local regulations such as city or county Hazardous Materials
Management Plans regulating the generation, transportation,
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste.
For the purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means
consistent with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related
to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.13-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
2.13(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce the impacts associated with
the release of hazardous materials into the environment,
implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with Senate Bill 1889, Accidental Release Prevention Law/California
Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) regulating the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous materials and waste. In addition, project sponsors shall
comply with United States Department of Transportation
regulations regarding the transport of hazardous materials and
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-72
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
wastes such that accidental upset conditions are minimized. For the
purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means consistent
with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related to upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment.
2.13-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in hazardous emissions or handling of
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school.
2.13(c) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce the impacts associated with
handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools,
implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with DTSC School Property Evaluation and Cleanup Division
regulations regarding the cleanup of existing contamination at
school sites and requirements for the location of new schools that
would minimize potential exposure of hazardous emissions to
students, staff, and visitors to existing and planned school sites. For
the purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means
consistent with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related
to hazardous materials near schools.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.13-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in projects located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
2.13(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Determining whether specific land use and transportation
project sites are listed as a hazardous materials and/or waste site
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Requiring preparation of a Phase I ESA in accordance with the
American Society for Testing and Materials’ ASTM E-1527-05
standards for any listed sites or sites with the potential of residual
hazardous materials and/or waste as a result of location and/or
prior uses. For work requiring any demolition or renovation, the
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-73
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Phase I ESA shall make recommendations for any hazardous
building materials survey work that shall be done.
Implementing recommendations included in a Phase I ESA
prepared for a site.
If a Phase I ESA indicates the presence or likely presence of
contamination, the implementing agency shall require a Phase II
ESA, and recommendations of the Phase II ESA shall be fully
implemented.
For work requiring any demolition or renovation, the Phase I ESA
shall make recommendations for any hazardous building
materials survey work that shall be done.
Requiring construction contractors to prepare and implement
soil management contingency plans which provide procedural
guidance on the handling, notification, and protective measures
to be taken in the event of encountering suspected
contamination or naturally occurring asbestos.
2.13-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the planning area for projects located
within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport.
2.13(e) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce the impacts associated with
people residing or working in the planning area for projects located
within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with any applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
requirements as well as any Federal Aviation Administration (14 CFR
Part 77) requirements. Projects shall not be approved by local
agencies until project design plans have been reviewed and
approved by the Airport Land Use Commission such that proposed
projects would not adversely affect subject airport operations. For
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-74
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
the purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means
consistent with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related
to development near a public airport.
2.13-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the planning area for projects within
the vicinity of a private airstrip.
2.13(f) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce impacts associated with
people residing or working in the planning area for projects within
the vicinity of a private airstrip implementing agencies shall require
project sponsors to comply with any applicable local land use
regulations and federal aviation guidelines as well as any Federal
Aviation Administration (14 CFR Part 77) requirements applicable to
projects located within two miles of a private airstrip. Projects shall
not be approved by local agencies until project design plans can
demonstrate compliance with subject airstrip, local and federal
aviation requirements. For the purposes of this mitigation, less than
significant means consistent with federal, state, and local regulations
and laws related to development near a private airstrip.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.13-7 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
None required.Less than Significant
2.13-8 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands.
2.13(g) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce wildland fire impacts,
implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with safety measures that minimize the threat of fire as stated in the
California Fire Code as well as compliance with Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations, Division 1.5 to minimize exposing
people and structures to loss, injury, or death and damage. Projects
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-75
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
shall not be approved by local agencies until project design plans
can demonstrate compliance with fire safety requirements. For the
purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means consistent
with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related to wildfire
hazards.
Public Services and Recreation
2.14-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in the need for expanded facilities, the
construction of which causes significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
adequate schools, emergency services, police,
fire, and park and recreation services.
2.14(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Ensuring that adequate public services, and related infrastructure
and utilities, will be available to meet or satisfy levels identified in
the applicable local general plan or service master plan prior to
approval of new development projects.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace measures that reduce public
service impacts.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2.14-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in increased use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated.
2.14(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Ensuring that adequate parks and recreational facilities will be
available to meet or satisfy levels identified in the applicable
local general plan or service master plan prior to approval of new
development.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace measures that reduce impacts on
recreational facilities.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-76
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3692)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability
Summary Title: Solar Water Heating Program
Title: Approval of Solar Water Heating Incentive Program Services Contract
with the Center for Sustainable Energy California
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council
a) Approve, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute, the
attached contract with the California Center for Sustainable Energy
(Attachment A) in the amount of $75,000 for the first year, not to exceed
$300,000 over a five year period to provide for Solar Water Heating Incentive
Program services.
b) Authorize the City Manager to extend the contract annually for up to four
additional years, subject to Council approval of sufficient funds.
Executive Summary
The State Legislature enacted California’s Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007 (AB
1470) in October 2007, which requires natural gas utilities to implement and fund solar water
heating incentive programs. The City hired California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSD) in
2008 to provide turnkey program administration services of the Palo Alto Solar Water Heating
program. To date, 40 residential and 2 nonresidential systems have been installed. The current
contract with CCSE expires May 30, 2013. In January 2013, the City issued a Request for
Proposals (RFP) seeking responses from organizations interested in providing comprehensive
Solar Water Heating (SWH) program administrative services. Of the two respondents, the
review team found that CCSE was the most qualified and cost-effective of the two options. The
cost to administer the SWH program is not to exceed $300,000 over five years.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Background
The State Legislature enacted California’s Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007 (AB
1470) in October 2007, which requires natural gas utilities, including the three publicly-owned
gas utilities, Palo Alto, Long Beach, and Coalinga, to implement and fund solar water heating
incentive programs. The proposed contract is intended to ensure effective and successful
design and implementation of a solar water heating program in order to meet the goals
described in the City’s Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Portfolio Plan and to fulfill the statutory
requirements described in AB 1470.
A “solar water heating system” as defined in AB 1470 is a solar energy device with the primary
purpose of reducing demand for natural gas through water heating, space heating, or other
methods of capturing energy from the sun to reduce natural gas consumption in a home,
business, or any building receiving natural gas that is a utility retail customer that meets or
exceeds certain eligibility criteria. CPAU’s estimated proportionate share of the State-wide
goal to install 200,000 solar water heating systems by 2017 is approximately 500. The City hired
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSD) in 2008 to provide turnkey program
administration services of the Palo Alto Solar Water Heating program. To date, 40 residential
and 2 nonresidential systems have been installed. The current contract with CCSE expires May
30, 2013.
Discussion
In January 2013, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking responses from
organizations interested in providing comprehensive Solar Water Heating (SWH) program
administrative services. The RFP was sent to eight consulting firms known to offer relevant
services (of these two responded to the RFP). Of the two respondents, the review team found
that CCSE was the most qualified and cost-effective of the two options.
The California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE) is a highly qualified non-profit organization
with demonstrated capability to perform the work. CCSE has been managing California Solar
Water Heating programs for over six years for the customers of both City of Palo Alto Utilities
and San Diego Gas and Electric. CCSE will provide services in the following areas:
1. Review and update the current SWH program design
2. Develop and implement a SWH Program Marketing Plan
3. Provide SWH program training and customer education
4. Provide turnkey SWH program implementation
5. Explore innovative SWH program enhancements to work to enhance customer adoption
of this technology
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Resource Impact
The total budget impact by fiscal year is shown below:
Contract
Allowance
Per Year
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Contract
Not-to-Exceed
$75,000 $65,000 $60,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000
Note that these costs are for program development and implementation. Customer rebates
will be paid out of the natural gas funds for alternative supply. Funds for FY 2014 and FY 2015
are included in the Gas Fund proposed budgets. Funds for subsequent years will be subject to
appropriation of funds in subsequent budgets.
Policy Implications
The proposed contract supports the Council-approved Gas Utility Long-Term Plan, the Ten-year
Energy Efficiency Portfolio Plan, and Comprehensive Plan Goal N-9. Implementation of the solar
water heating incentive program supports greenhouse gas reduction goals identified in the Palo
Alto Climate Protection Plan as well as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB
32) and meets the statutory requirements of California’s Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act
of 2007 (AB 1470 ).
Environmental Review
The provision of these services do not constitute a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the
California Public Resources Code, thus no environmental review under CEQA is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Contract No. C13148473 (PDF)
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C13148473
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR SUST AINA8LE ENERGY
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this 31 st day of May, 2013, ("Agreement") by and
between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"), and
CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, a California corporation, located at 9325
Sky Park Court, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92123 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to provide a solar water heating incentive program ("Project") and desires to
engage a consultant to provide a turnkey solution in connection with the Project ("Services").
B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
qualifications, and capability. and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the
Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, this
Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perfonn. the Services described in
Exhibit "A" in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance of all Services shaH be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
SECTION 2. TERM.
The tenn of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution tJu'ough May 30, 2018 unless
tenninated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFOR1\1ANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of
Services under tlus Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the tenn of this
Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and made a part
of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for perfonnance are not specified in this
Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULT ANT in a reasonably prompt and
timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT.
CITY's agreement to extend the term or the schedule for perfonnance shall not preclude recovery of
Pmfessional SelVices
Rev. June 2. 2010
damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Ninety Five
Thousand One Hundred Sixty Three Dollars ($295,163). In the event Additional Services are
authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Three
Hundred Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Nine Dollars ($324,679). The applicable
rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-l", entitled "HOURLY RATE
SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit "C" . CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is
determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of Sen/ices described in Exhibit "A".
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and
reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C-I ").
If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The
information in CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY.
CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in
Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of
receipt.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
perfonned by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents
that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required
by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perfonn the Services
assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and sub consultants, ifpermitted,
have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications,
insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill eugaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar
circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and
in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may
affect in any manner the Project or the perfonnance of the Services or those engaged to perform
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSUL TANTshall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to CONSULTANT. If CONS UL TANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design
documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors,
omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project.
This obligation shall survive tennination of the Agreement.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of
design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (l 0%)
of the CITY's staled construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the
CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved
reconunendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in perfonning
the Services under this Agreement CONSULT ANT, and any person employed by or contracted with
CONSULTANT to furnish Jabor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or
transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the perfonnance of any of CONSUL TANT' s obligations
hereunder without the prior wrilten consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not
be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval
of the city manager will be void.
SECTION n. SUBCONTRACTING.
CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement
without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsuJtants only with the plior approval of
the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign 10rdanDiGiorgio
as the Senior Program Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the perfonnance, progress, and
execution of the Services to represent CONSULT At'JT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If
circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key
personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any
key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's project
manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do
not perfonn the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the
adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safely of persons or property.
The City's project manager is Llndsay Joye, Utilities Department, Marketing Division, 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone (650)329-2680. The project manager will be
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the
Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees
that all copyrights which arise from creation ofthe work pursuant to tlus Agreement shall be vested
in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual
property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, ifany, shall make
any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval
of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the
work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time
during the telm of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records
pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULT ANT further agrees to maintain and
retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier tennination of this
Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fullest extent pennitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect,
indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents
(each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any
nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all
costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disbursements ("Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to perfonnance or
nonperfonnance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be const.rued to
require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active
negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's servjces and duties by CITY shall not
operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section J 6 shall survive
the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not
be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of
any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision,
ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1 . CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full
force and eITect dW"ing the tenn ofthis Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D".
ProCessional Services
Rev. JW1e 2.2010
CONSULT ANT and its contractors, if any. shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an
additional insured under any general liability Of automobile policy or policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through caniers
with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to
transact insurance business in the State of Califol11ia . Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect
during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional
insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insw'ance shall be filed with CITY concurrently
with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk
Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the
Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation Of modification,
CONSULT ANT shall be responsible for ensuring that cunent certificates evidencing the insurance
are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be
construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions
of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be
obligated for the full and tOlal amount of any damage, injury, or toss caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Services perfonned under this Agreement, including such damage, iJ1jury, or loss
arising after the Agreement is tenninated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMlNATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1 . The City Manager may suspend the perfolmance of the Services, in whole or
in part, or tenninate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written
notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately
discontinue its performance of the Services.
19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of
the Services by giving th.i11y (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of
a substantial failure of perrormance by CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and
other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CO NSUL T ANT or its contractors, if any, or given
to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will
become the propeliy of CITY.
19.4. Upon such suspension or tennination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid
for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on
or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or tennination; provided,
however, if this Agreement is suspended or tenninated on account of a default by CONSULT ANT,
CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's
services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such detennination may be made by
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion. The following Sections will
survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4,20, and 25 .
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box l0250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULTANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21 .1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement,
it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT
certifies that no person who has or will have any fmancial interest under this Agreement is an officer
or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California.
21.3. lfthe Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as
that tenn is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Conunission, CONSULTANT
shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure docwnents required by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Refonn Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.5\ 0, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status,
weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE
REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City's Envirorunenlally Preferred
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
Purchasing policies which are available at the City's Purchasing Department, incorporated by
reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City's Zero Waste Program. Zero
Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third,
recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste
requirements:
• All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal
computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices,
reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a
minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved
by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional
printing company shall be a minimum 0[30% or greater post-consumer material and
printed with vegetable based inks.
• Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in
accordance with the City's Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not
limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.
• Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional
cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from
the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.
SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION
24.1 . This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a)
at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,
or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of
the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take
precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision 0 f this
Agl."eement.
SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial ofsuch action
will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fail" market value of
legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third
parties.
25.4. This document represents me entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instTUment, which is signed by the parties.
25.5 . The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply
to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the
parties.
Professional SCI"jces
Rev. June 2. 2010
25.6. If a coul1 of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any
duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be
deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with
CONSULTANT personal information as defmed in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d)
about a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and
appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall infonn City
immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the
security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct
marketing purposes without City's express written consent.
25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they
have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized
representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF P ALO ALTO
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Executive Director
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A":
EXHIBIT "B":
EXHIBIT "C":
EXHIBIT "C~l":
EXHIBIT "D":
SCOPE OF WORK
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
COMPENSATION
SCHEDULE OF RATES
INSURANCE REQUIRE:M.ENTS
Professional Services
Rev. June 2,2010
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CCSE's work plan has two key components:
I. Continue to update and administer the current CPAU SWH program
2. Investigate innovative measures to increase program participation
We have organized this work plan to be responsive to the scope of services (RFP Attaclunent B).
Below we repeat the tasks as listed in the RFP scope of services (in italics) followed by a narrative
describing our approach to accomplishing that task.
Task 1. Review and Update Current SWH Program Design
Monitor legislative and reglliatory activities that impact the CPAU SWH Program. and adapt the
Program Handbook on an as needed basis to reflect changes or updates to statutory or policy-driven
requirements. Program shall match the CSI-Thermal program where applicable. Program
documents include:
a) Program handbook
b) Installation checklists
c) Program reservation and claimforms
d) Contractor participation forms
CCSE has a team of policy analysts and program administrators who are tasked with keeping current
regarding solar water heating legislation, regulation and programmatic changes. As previously
stated our team also administers the CSI-Thermal program and therefore has extensive knowledge of
upcoming program changes and can anticipate changes and evaluate the appropriateness for the
CPAU program.
We will meet with CPAU staff to review program history, and discuss program cbanges to remain
consistent with CSI-T and any suggested changes in the handbook, checldists and forms.
We will then update the Program handbook, checklists, and foons as weB as provide website update
content. At a minimum we anticipate incorporating the latest changes in tbe CSI-T program
regarding solar thermal heating and cooling (combi-systems) and swimming pool heating for both
commercial and multifamily residential applications.
Task 2. Develop and Implement a SWH Program Marketing PLan
Marketingplan should be tailored/or CPAU customers to increase the number ofSWH
installations.
a) Develop program marketing collateral
b) Provide website content
c) Develop marketing campaign for cllstomers and contractors
In our contract kick-off meeting with CP AU we will discuss past and ongoing marketing activities,
ProCessional Services
Rev. June 2. 2010
and make recommendations on needed marketing activities to infonn stakeholders of any program
changes and updates. As a result of the meeting we will develop an interim marketing plan to serve
until further marketing activities are developed under Task 5. The interim marketing plan will
develop collateral, provide website content, and we will develop a marketing campaign for
stakeholders. Marketing changes directed to cause an increase in the rate of program application are
covered under Task 5 as described in detail in Chapter 5.
Task 3. Provide SWH Program Training and Customer Education
a) Provide trainingfor City staff contractors and cllstomers
b) Provide SWH expertise and consultation on al1 as needed basis for specific
projects
CCSE SWH tearn will brief or train city staff as appropriate as program changes are made. We have
been providing homeowner workshops and plan to continue providing one per year. Given the
similarity of the CPAU SWH program and the CSI-Thcnual we have been able to leverage the CSI-
Thermal eligibility workshops for contractors. We have budgeted for one contractor workshop in the
event the CP AU program is significantly changed from the CSI-Thermal Program. Additional
support for participating contractors will be provided by direct communication via phone and email
and through online training sessions presented via webinar.
CCSE SWH staffwiH continue to be available by phone and email to CPAU conb'actors, customers,
and staff on an as needed basis. The program will continue to be supported by an expel1 staff energy
engineer who has 35 years of technical experience in solar water heating. In addition, we have
knowledgeable administrative staff with years of experience on the CPAU SWH Program and CSI-T
Program.
Task 4. Provide SWH Program Implementation
a) Manage applications, mailings and rebates
b) Maintain a cllstomer toll free telephone cal! center
c) Maintain eligible contractors list
d) Conduct compliance inspections on a sample ofinstallatioJ1s
e) Maintain a database of Program participants, reservations, and payments, to which Oty
staff has access .
./) Provide all data, analyses, and information to CPAU to support Program evaluation and
reporting requirements, including, but not limited to:
J) Installation technical and cost details,
2) Estimated energy and demand savings, and
3) Other requirements as required by ABJ470 or as subsequently amended.
4) Monthly summQlY reports listing allllew. pending, and completed applications.
5) Quarterly reports summarizing the program status and projections 011 both a
Calendar Year (January 1 to December 31) and Fiscal Year (July 1 to June 30)
basis. Prepare and independent verification report to be submilted to the California
Professional SeIVices
Rev. June 2, 2010
Energy Commission.
CCSE has and will continue to:
• Promptly processes applications and inform CPAU staffwhen a rebate payment is required.
Applications are managed through an online database and all backup documentation is filed
appropriately. Provide a dedicated CPAU SWH toll free nwnber which comes directly to a SWH
staff member to answer any questions customers or contractors may have.
• Work in conjunction with CPAU staff to update the list of eligible contractors and keep it
current on the CPAU SWH website.
• Subcontract with SolGrid Energy, a qualified and independent inspector, to complete
program inspections
• Maintain a complete database of program infonnation and share it with City staff monthly
and as requested.
• Provide CPAU with data, analyses and information on installation details, energy and
demand savings, and other AB 1470 requirements.
The infonnation required from the quarterly report is and will continue to be included in the monthly
program rep011.
Task 5. Explore Innovative Program Enhancements
Evaluate program enhancements to lower installation cost and increase number of SWH
installations. Options may include group buy, solar lease and other innovative program ideas.
Exploring innovative program enhancements is a key part of CCSE's proposal. We have detailed
our approach in Chapter 5.
Professional Services
Rev. June 2,2010
Proposed Innovations
CCSE will investigate and consult with the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department on iIUlovative and
creative measW"es that can be implemented to help improve program participation. Such creativity is
critically needed to increase program participation. The low price of natural gas does not make solar
water heating attractive from an economic perspective and is the prime reason participation rates are
low in both the California Solar Initiative (CSI~T) SWH and City of Palo Alto SWH Program.
It is unfortunate that the financial economics are not more attractive since solar water heating has
great potential in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and helping to address climate change
as envisioned in AB-1470. Figure 1 below clearly indicates that solar water solar has the largest
residential natural gas reduction potential.
W IQf t'balor Bbnl< t
Ce4Ing h:5 ulalion
£n ,gy SV:U Otsh W h
1'£ Wal , H&aler
Floor h:5 uloa 1IOn
t-W AC l tJng & Alpail
Duct A:!paI
Low Flow ShOW or au
Prog~ Th&tm;)3tal
D.Jc: I h:5 ulallOn
B<*( Cbn:rob
HEBo*J,
nf .l~ Roduc;.1ioo
t-E CIoIhel! Dr)! e<'
o
Figure 1
200 400 600 800 1.000
MIllions of ThermSIY. r R.malnlng Po btntlal
Source: KEMA CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY
POTENTIAL STUDY, April 2003
CCSE is in a unique position to effectively investigate numerous potential approaches to address the
dilemma that solar water heating has great potential to reduce GHGs but is not currently perceived to
have an attractive value proposition. We will leverage the experience, knowledge, and lessons
learned from managing and administering a significant number of relevant solar and solar thennal
programs and studies. More detail on these programs is covered in Chapter 3: Finn Qualifications.
The CSI-Thennal Program $4.5 million dollar statewide marketing campaign is one initiative
particularly relevant to this issue. This marketing campaign conducted by Fraser Communications at
the direction of the CSI -T program administrators over the last year and a half was designed for
customers making non-price-motivated decisions, targeting consumers inclined to make consumer
Proressional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
choices based on environmental concerns-framing SWH as another step on the consumer's "green
routine." The marketing techniques employed by Fraser are listed in Appendix Attaclunent C.
Figure 2 below shows CSI-T application rates in PG&E territory based on current CSI-T program
data, and demonstrates no marked increase in applications received since the launch of the Fraser
statewide marketing campaign in April 2012. The increase in applications in April 2012 can be
attributed to the launch of the low-income portion of the program, and the slight increase in
applications in October 2012 is most likely due to an increase in incentive rates. However, the rate
of pa11icipation has consistently dropped back down after a brief launch spike [or each of these
events.
Figure 2
~
.~ NlrU
40
l'
IG
a
10
1\
10
o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v v v ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y v v ~ y ~ v ~ ~ ~ §' ,-¥ ., </,' d" ;I" rF ,# .lI.tJ,..t· -I',~ ,1' +<;( cF ~. rF -i -!' # ~ .... # ,.I' ,~ ,1' # cF . <Jf ,~ I -~I...,.tr"'_"11oII -Mu"'"' ........ _I0.>1"'''''''''''''''''' "~;I_t,""...,.."" lawln<OlTlO -lot.>IPr';"'h -Poly I' Pr0l.d,)
This graph demonstrates that:
• Economics playa key role in the decision-making process of potential applicants
• Incentive levels have not been sufficient to overcome low natural gas prices
• Innovative programs and creative marketing and outreach approaches are needed
CCSE proposes to investigate several areas of innovation with potential to increase program
participation:
I. Cost Reduction
2. Packaging/Combining Programs
3. Financing
4. Creative marketing and outreach
Cost Reduction
Since SWH technology is lacking the economies of scale benefit and commensurate uptake rates of
photovoltaic (PV) systems, CCSE proposes addressing ways to decrease the cost of SWH. CCSE
believes that there are potential cost reductions tbat can be made through contractorlinstaller
efficiencies and in addressing the soft costs involved in permitting and processing. CCSE will bring
its knowledge and expertise gained in administedng the SunShot Program for the Department of
Energy that looks at similar reduction of "soft costs" for PV.
CCSE will also investigate the economics of new technologies that have been added to the CSl-T
program and should likely be added to CPAU program as weJI. One area of opportunity is to
investigate the econom.ics ofSWH systems when combined with solar thermal heating and cooling
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
(combi-systems) and swimming pool heating for both commercial and multifamily residential
applications. In addition, CCSE is paLt of a proposal to DOE, along with Lawrence Berkeley Lab, to
investigate SWH as an energy efficiency measure. In this proposed study, CCSE will examine
combining solar thermal systems for water heating, space heating and cooling, with high efficiency
heat exchangers that tap the energy in water supply system and geothermal in the surrounding earth.
If selected we will be able to leverage that DOE study to the benefit of the CPAU SWH Program.
1. Packaging/Combining Programs
A second area of proposed innovation is packaging the SWH program with other renewable energy
and demand reduction programs. Driven by separate legislation and/or financing sources, energy
program tends to be mutually exclusive of each other. As a result, the homeowner is presented with
separate programs, rules and marketing efforts for solar electric, solar water heating, energy
efficiency and electric vehicles. Moreover, the value proposition for each is presented separately.
Thus, home and building owners who are interested are often left confused, overwhelmed, and
choosing not to participate. By ofTering bundled solutions, CP AU could simplify its marketing and
better clarify the value proposition for sustainable energy solutions by customer type. Based on such
an approach, a homeowner could be looking at the economics of a combined program rather than
SWH by itself. This approach could also lead to less confusion and may accelerate adoption among
consumers of all programS. It could also include a more integrated approach by completely
integrating and simplifying the programs and/or adding an additional incentive that increases as
more programs are implemented. By working with CCSE on such an innovation, CPAU could lead
the state in truly providing integrated demand side management offerings to its customers.
2. Financing
Financing is the third proposed innovation area CCSE would investigate. A SWH system is a
significant investment. The burst in the housing bubble eliminated a significant portion of home
equity that could have been tapped to finance SWH at reasonable interest rates resulting in fewer
people who have the up front disposable cash for an outright purchase. Innovative financing options
we propose to look at include:
• Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) -A property lien serves as the collateral
• Leasing ~ Eliminates up front cost and issues of ownership
• GrouplNeighborhood Buying -Reduces cost through volume and/or move in/move
costs for installers
3. Creative marketing and outreach
There is more to the value proposition thanjust the cost of the system and the length of the payback
period. There is comfort value. For example radiant floor heating is one of the most comfortable
forms of space heating and can be combined with SWH collectors. There is also social "green"
value in doing the "right thing" to reduce GHG's and participating in addressing climate change and
global wanning. This is especially tme when one's neighbors are already participating or involved
in group buys. We plan to investigate these social influences of the value proposition and marketing
techniques to communicate and demonstrate these areas.
Two specific marketing areas we plan to investigate are experiential marketing and community
based social marketing (CBSM). CCSE will investigate creative and innovative experiential
marketing ideas to engage the public with solar water heating in a personal and entirely new way.
Unlike typical advertising measures, experiential marketing is accessible to consumers at the local
Professional Services
Rev. JWle 2,2010
level and is particularly effective with lesser known technologies. CBSM is designed to target
specific barriers prohibiting action and showcase benefits to combat each barrier. This well studied
approach makes use of social norms and influencers to change behavior and understanding instead
of merely promoting a product, spreading awareness or conveying a certain piece of infonnatiofl.
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULT ANT shall perfolm the Services so as to complete each ~nilestone within the number of
days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by
mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work
is completed within the tel1ll of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of
work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed.
Milestones
1. Review and Update Current SWH Program Design
2. Develop and Implement a SWH Program Marketing Plan
3. Provide SWH Program Training and Customer Education
4. Provide SWH Program Implementation
5. Explore Innovative Program Enhancements
Completion
No. of Days/Weeks
From NTP
On going
On going
On going
On going
On going
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services perfonued in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget
schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached
as exhibit C-l up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$295,163. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the
maximum compensation shall not exceed $324,679. Any work perfonned or expenses
incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of
compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY's Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts
between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic
Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $295,163 and the total
compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $29,516.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $11,737
(Review and Update Current SWH Program Design)
Task 2 $21,152
(Develop and Tmplemenr a SWH Program Marketing Plan)
Task 3 $20,044
(Provide SWH Program Training and Customer Education)
Task 4 $181,060
(Provide SWH Program Implementation)
Task 5 $30,409
(Explore Innovative Program Enhancements)
Sub-total Basic Services $264,402
Reimbursable Expenses $30,761
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $295,163
ProfessioMJ Services
Rev June 2. 2010
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $29,516
Maximum Total Compensation $324,679
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insw-ance and other ordinary business expenses are included
witbin the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:
A Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto's policy for reimbw-sement of travel
and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
infonnation. Any expense anticipated to be more than $100 shall be approved in advance by
the CITY's project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULT ANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written
authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request,
shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services,
schedule. level of effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including
reimbmsable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-J • The
additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and
agreed to in writing by the CITY's Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to
commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements
and restrictions in this Agreement
Professional Se",ices
Re\' June 2, 20 I 0
T cuk J. R.""""'" ud UpdQ.~ CwT~1II S WH Ubor C:lIe~<>ry E.llim~tcd
Pr~lt'" MOun
O"",dor 1
St. ~Wuge<' 6
~tv-i'«>f 10
1\bn.i;g,oi:'r 35
. .\nociate SO
TOULS
T,ak 2. D~wlop & brtpl~lfte.lIc 11 SWlf Enimat.c Ubor ~'?~ [y V aT/wiltS Pf.cJ! H~IlC'5
Oir*tor 1 s.r. M~,, __ 10
S~....". 0
~.l.2.u1l"'" 60
A..oc~te 160
TOBLS
Tt:t.tk 3. Provid. SWH Pr~c,.. TUIl~ llJtd UOOt C4.t"~ory c,tim>lod
C=:o~,. Etbu:aIiqll Ho~.
Diro:lQ>{ 4
j St. lI.ianagC1" S , S-open-isor 65
i\tm.g.~ -15
A .. ox:i.u, 65
TOBLS
T~ .( Prt»idd SWH ~ u hru" Cat"-fOtY E'.trinut;;<!
iLwPLr ""UUD.Ji.o" Houn
Dit""tor 10
Sr. M~g<1' 100
Supen-iJor 100
~Wu.g~1" 500
A....oci:lt~ 1225
TOULS
TaP< 5. Explor"I""tn.'t1IiJJ<! P~ogTC1ft Lt.!>e>f Cat <-gltl)! &tim.ued
E""aJl.c~"'eIt~ H01.ln
L.~OR
Direct01 4
Sr.~~'" 12
Sup<:r-.oor so
~.I.11U~"'" 1~5
Aaociale 45
TOT.US
PROGR:\,M TOTAI.
Hourly Eotiautcd Labor
R...t~ CMt
SIS! $362
SJ30 SiSO
SHl ~1.110
SIll $3,885
$70 $5 600
~11.737
Hourly E..tinutod Labor
illl~ ~.t
5196 S392
5140 Si,400
SI20 SO
S120 $'1,200
S76 SI~,l60
S,21,152
HC'urly e:.timaled U~()f
illl .. Co"St
SI96 5784
$140 SI,120
S120 SH OO
S120 $5,400
S76 $4,940
$20,0-4-4
Honrly f.uinu.~ b oor
R~t;: Cm!
S196 $1 ,960
5140 ':)14,000
SJ20 S12,OOO
S120 560,000
S76 S93,lOO
S181,06()
HOljrty Eotiauted u bor
fW:e Cost
S181 1724
S130 Sl,560
SI ll $8,880
S1I1 $16,095
$70 S3,150
,30,409
264.402.00
Ex~3e' T2!kTot..t
$465 $12,202
Ex~ T .. ,k Tot ... 1
:$312 $21,464
Ex""' ....... TukToral
$3,758 $23,802
Expe:r "" T3.k Tol;ol
$25,010 $206.D70
E..,=Pi'I' ~. T:nI.:Tot.ll
S1.216 $3"t625
30,760.78 235,162.78
Professional Services
Rev June 2, 2010
EXHIBIT "C-l ')
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
CCSE proposes to complete the work plan described in this proposal for a sum representing actual
time spent at our hourly labor rates plus direct costs, not to exceed $300,000. Our hourly labor rates
are as follows:
Table 1. Annual Labor Rates by Labor Category
Calendar Year
Labor
Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Director 181.00 188.00 196.00 204.00 212.00
Sr. Manager 130.00 135.00 140.00 146.00 152.00
Supervisor 111.00 115.00 120.00 125.00 130.00
Manager 111.00 liS.OO 120.00 125.00 130.00
Associate 70.00 73.00 76.00 79.00 82.00
Our labor rates in Table 8-1 above reflect 4% annual increases. Our cost estimates assume that work
will occur in all tasks each year with the exception of Task 5 which we assume will be completed in
2013, Consequently we have used 2013 rates for Task 5 and 2015 rates as an average for all years in
Tasks 1 through 4.
Table 8-2 on the following page swrunarizes, by work plan task, the budgeted amounts. Tables 8-3
through 8-7 provide ftn1her detailed cost estimates by task
ProfeSSional Services
Rev June 2, 20 JO
EXHIBIT "D"
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT
OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPAN[ES wrw AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A·: VlI, OR HI GIl ER, LICENSED OR AUTHORlZED TO TRANSAcr [NS U RANCE BUSINESS IN
THE STATE OF CALI FORN[A.
AWARD [S CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE W[TH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIF[ED BELOW' -
MINIMUM LIMITS
REQUIRED TYPE. OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH
YES
YES
YES
ns
YES
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
PROPERTY DAtvlAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND F[RE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE S 1,000,000 S 1,000,000
LiABILITY COMBINED.
BOOll Y INJURY 51,000,000 SI,OOO,OOO . EACH PERSON S 1,000,000 SI,OOO,OOO . EACH OCCURRENCE S 1.000,000 $1,000,000
AUTOMOBILE LlABlLlTY,INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON·OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE SI ,OOO,OOO SI,OOO,OOO
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY SI,OOO,OOO SI,OOO,OOO
DAMAGE, COMBINED
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE),
AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
THE CITY OF PALO ALl'O IS TO BE NAMEO AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED, CONTRA('TOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE,
SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT
AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE I'JEREIN OESCR}BED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS,
IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL
INSURANCE, NAM[NG AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRIITEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LLABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING rNSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVIS[ONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS"
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS AR[SING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLlCY [S PRIMARY AND [S NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER
INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFJT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
8. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORA TION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL
ProressioJl~ I Services
Rev June 2,2010
NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS
ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING Of MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF
THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLA T[ON
I. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXP[RA TION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER
THAN TH E NON·P A Y M ENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSU ING COMP ANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY
AT LEAST A H-URlY (30) DAY WR[TTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
CANCELLATION.
2. JFTHE POLICY [S CANCELED BEFORE [TS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON·PAYMENT
OF PREMIUM, THE [SSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DA Y
WRITTEN NOT[CE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLA TlON_
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITV OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
Professional SelVlces
Rev June 2, 2010
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3689)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval of Police/Fire/Park Ranger Uniform Contract
Title: Approval of Contract with Summit Uniforms for Five Years for an
Amount Not to Exceed $520,000 for the Purchase of Police, Fire, and Park
Ranger Uniforms and Related Equipment
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to enter into a contract with
Summit Uniforms for five years for an amount not to exceed $520,000 for the purchase
of Police, Fire, and Park Ranger uniforms and related equipment.
Discussion
The City is responsible for collectively outfitting more than 220 Police, Fire, and Park
Ranger personnel with uniforms and related apparel and equipment. Summit Uniforms
has been the City’s sole provider of police and fire uniforms and police equipment for
nearly 25 years. The City has had several existing blanket purchase orders in place for
police and fire uniforms which expire in September 2013. The intent is to create a new,
consolidated contract that will cover Police, Fire and Park Ranger personnel. The price
lists for each personnel group are attached. Staff anticipates minimal changes in these
lists for the duration of the agreement.
Almost all of the public safety agencies in Santa Clara County contract with Summit for
their uniform needs. Summit is the only resource in the county that offers the
uniforms, tailoring and equipment to meet all our requirements (police, fire, park
rangers, community service officers, animal services, and support services staff). There
are no vendors in Santa Clara County that offer the complete range of uniforms and
equipment needed for daily operations.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
In addition, there are a number of other benefits from continuing to contract with
Summit. In particular Summit offers free, life-time, personalized fitting to ensure
uniforms fit properly with associated equipment like ballistic vests (other vendors
typically charge per piece) and Summit has a convenient, central location in Downtown
San Jose, near the jail and other county facilities, and in close proximity to a large
number of employee residences. It’s also closest to the City’s police academies in
South San Jose and Morgan Hill. Staff conducted research to identify other possible
vendors and was unable to find a vendor in the surrounding area that offered the
breadth of uniforms and equipment that Summit offers.
Summit has specific knowledge of the City’s needs and has been a reliable business
partner. When the Police and Fire Departments issued a request for proposal three
years ago, Summit submitted the only response. Any potential savings from a new
vendor would likely be quickly absorbed in the re-work and training of a new vendor, as
well as increased travel time and the necessity to establish additional contracts for any
equipment not provided by a new vendor.
Resource Impact
The annual cost for police and fire uniforms and related equipment is budgeted for in
the Department’s operating budget. The proposed contract amount does not represent
an increase from prior years as costs have remained relatively consistent in recent
years.
Policy Implications
The recommendations in this report do not represent a change in City policies.
Environmental Review
The recommendations in this report do not constitute a project requiring review under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
C14149903 SUMMIT FINAL CONTRACT (PDF)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3823)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: AT&T DAS Appeal - 3704 Carlson Circle
Title: Appeal of and Recommendation to Uphold Director’s Architectural
Review Approval of the Co-location by AT&T Mobility LLC of One Pole-
Mounted Wireless Communication Antenna and Associated Equipment Boxes
on the Existing Utility Pole Within the City’s Public Utility Easement on 3704
Carlson Circle.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
The above referenced project was approved by the City Council on the Consent Calendar on
May 6, 2013. In preparation for the Council meeting, however, staff inadvertently overlooked
informing the appellants of the May 6 Council date. Due to this staff oversight, the project has
been re-scheduled for May 13, 2013 to provide the appellants the opportunity to speak during
the Consent Calendar items to inform Council personally of their concerns regarding the AT&T
DAS project.
Attachments:
Attachment: Council Report - May 6, 2013 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3745)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/6/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: AT&T DAS Appeal - 3704 Carlson Circle
Title: Appeal of and Recommendation to Uphold Director’s Architectural
Review Approval of the Co-location by AT&T Mobility LLC of One Pole-
Mounted Wireless Communication Antenna and Associated Equipment Boxes
on the Existing Utility Pole Within the City’s Public Utility Easement on 3704
Carlson Circle.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A),
upholding the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve the
Architectural Review application for the AT&T Distributed Antenna System (DAS) installation
within a public utility easement on 3704 Carlson Circle (part of the Phase 3 AT&T DAS project),
based upon the findings and conditions of approval described in the Record of Land Use Action.
Executive Summary
On January 28, 2013, Council approved AT&T’s application for Architectural Review of the
Phase 3 DAS project to allow 20 wireless communication facilities (WCFs) collocated on utility
poles within City rights-of-way and jointly owned by the City and Pacific Bell Telephone
Company dba AT&T of California (City Manager’s Report (CMR) #3435, attachment G). The
installations included one antenna placed on a pole extension at the top of each pole, and
equipment cabinets placed lower down on the pole (between 10 feet and 20 feet above grade).
At that time, one site was excluded (“3706 Carlson Circle”) from the approval to allow
additional time for staff, AT&T and the residents to fully understand the issues and explore
feasible alternatives for site placement. Staff recommended the exclusion as the project
entailed relocation of the pole to the street right-of-way in a neighborhood with no poles at the
street (all are located in easements in the side or rear yards). Residents in the neighborhood
objected to this aesthetic intrusion at the street, and staff concurred that a further review was
warranted.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
On March 6, 2013, staff hosted a meeting with AT&T and the appellants of the “3706 Carlson
Circle” (the correct address is 3704 Carlson Circle) installation. Several alternatives were
explored, but most were discounted as being inaccessible to AT&T or not optimal for the
network. Staff suggested placing the equipment on the existing pole in the utility easement
rather than moving it to the street, which would be minimally visible, while restricting the noise
to the more stringent “residential” standard of the code. One other site on Redwood Circle
(also in a side yard easement), however, was considered “technically feasible.” Staff and AT&T
explored the placement of the DAS equipment at this location and made the determination
that it was not a better location than the proposed Carlson Circle location. On March 28, 2013,
the Director’s decision to approve the Carlson Circle placement on the existing pole was issued
and the appeal of that decision was filed on April 11, 2013. Staff notes that the owners of the
property on which the pole stands did not file the appeal, but they do concur with the appeal
and signed the petition.
The appellants of this decision had also appealed the original Phase 3 Architectural Review
approval. The reasons cited in the recent appeal were concerns regarding the close proximity of
the equipment to the existing homes; noise; and that the adjacent neighbors spend the
majority of their time at home. Topics such as health, aesthetics, noise, and property value
impacts were raised in the Phase 1 through Phase 4 appeals that Council reviewed and
approved in 2012 and 2013.
Background
There are four phases of AT&T’s citywide DAS project, for a total of 75 installations. These four
phases are a part of AT&T’s build-out to provide adequate coverage and/or additional capacity
for wireless communications. AT&T is subject to a license agreement that allows AT&T to
collocate the DAS antennas and equipment on the City’s portion of the utility poles. The Council
approved the standard license agreement on July 25, 2011 (CMR #1756).
In January 2012, the Council, on appeal, reviewed the Phase 1 DAS project for 20 installations
and upheld the Director’s decision to approve the project sites (CMR #2393). At that time, the
issues raised by the appellants focused on the need for a wireless master plan for the entire
city, and concerns for aesthetic impacts, potential health risks, noise, impacts on property
value, type of technology proposed, and the safety and reliability of the actual installations.
These issues were discussed in the associated CMR and can be viewed online for additional
details. The Council approved all of the applications.
On November 5, 2012, the Phase 2 DAS project approval was forwarded to Council for
consideration of an appeal filed by resident Tony Kramer, who cited concerns about the
City of Palo Alto Page 3
project’s compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. The City Council did not remove it from
the Consent Calendar and voted to uphold the Director’s decision to approve the 15 project
sites (CMR #3239).
On January 28, 2013, Phases 3 and 4 were forwarded to Council on appeal. The City Council did
not remove these projects from the Consent Calendar and voted to uphold the Director’s
decision to approve them (CMR #3435 & #3436). For Phase 3, the approval excluded the “3706
Carlson Circle” installation so staff could work with AT&T and the appellants to study potential
alternative placements for the DAS equipment.
On March 6, 2013, the Planning Director met with the appellants and AT&T staff to discuss the
project and placement. At that meeting, a feasible (technologically) alternative site was
identified at 3716 Redwood Circle. This location had similar conditions as Carlson Circle, with
the existing utility pole located within a public utility easement (PUE) along the side yard and
set back deeper into the property.
On March 28, 2013, the Director’s decision to approve the DAS equipment on the existing utility
pole located within a PUE on 3704 Carlson Circle was issued. This decision was based upon the
fact that the alternative location at 3716 Redwood Circle was not a better solution,
aesthetically or otherwise. Within the prescribed timeframe to appeal the decision, an appeal
was filed by the same appellants that appealed the earlier Phase 3 decision.
Review Process
The standard procedure for the review of an appealed Architectural Review application is for
placement on the Council Consent Calendar within 30 days of the filing of an appeal. Section
18.76.020(b)(3)(D) of the Zoning Code specifies that wireless communication facilities are
considered “minor projects” to be reviewed by staff. Section 18.77.070(b)(5) of the Zoning Code
specifically requires consideration by the Council on appeal of a staff approval of such a facility,
rather than hearing before the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Council may decide to pull
the item off Consent only if at least three Councilmembers concur, and then the project is
scheduled for a future public hearing date (PAMC 18.77.070(f)). The Council meeting on June 3,
2013 has been targeted for this public hearing, if Council votes to conduct a hearing.
Project Description
The proposed project includes the installation of an 8’-6” pole extension above the existing 33’-
6” tall utility pole and equipment cabinets approximately 10 feet above grade. The equipment
proposed on the pole face is the same for all the poles and is comprised of (1) a power
disconnect box located nine feet above grade; (2) a remote prism cabinet (52.4”H x 12.15”W x
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Figure 1: Proposed Location
10.125”D) located approximately 11’-0” above grade; (3) a back-up battery cabinet (27”H x
22”W x 18”D) located approximately 15’-11” above grade; (4) an optical network interface box
(13”H x 13”W x 3.75”D) located approximately 19’ above grade; and (5) related wiring. At the
top of the pole extension, one antenna radome (24”H x 16” Base Diameter) would be placed in-
line with the pole.
The proposed location has an existing private tree that
would provide screening for the equipment boxes, as
shown in Figure 1.
Discussion
The approval decision for this installation was appealed
by Roger Petersen (3719 Carlson Circle) and John
Hamburger (3700 Carlson Circle). The appellants
indicate they represent 22 concerned neighbors, as
evidenced in a signed petition included as Attachment C.
The appeal submitted by Mr. Petersen in January 2013
included the same signed petition submitted in April
2013. This DAS installation was one of the two proposed
pole relocations in Phase 3 that would move the existing
utility pole approximately 22 feet away from the current
location, which is approximately four feet away from the
garage at 3704 Carlson Circle, out toward the street. The
concern Mr. Petersen cited in his original appeal is that relocation of the utility pole out onto
the street would be unattractive, since there currently are no utility poles located along Carlson
Circle.
The City’s direction to AT&T has been to avoid location of antennas and equipment on poles in
PUEs, given their proximity to homes and potential visual and noise concerns. This street,
however, does not have existing utility poles on the street and the residents identified some
alternatives (including in PUEs) that staff and AT&T evaluated.
In the effort to come up with a compromise, the recent approval of the Carlson Circle
installation did not require the utility pole to be relocated to the sidewalk, and in so doing, the
existing street character would be maintained. An existing tree also provides screening of the
equipment from the two adjacent homes.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The newly submitted appeal from Messrs. Petersen and Hamburger raise the following three
points:
“The 3706 Carlson Circle location is less than 6 feet from each of (the) two homes on our
circle. This couldn’t be what the Architectural Review Board has in mind.”
“The equipment would tower over the patio and family room of a well-respected,
longtime Palo Alto couple who spend the majority of their time at home.”
“The Carlson location is a quiet cul-de-sac with no through traffic, and minimal ambient
noise.”
Health Impacts and Property Value
The Federal Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996 limits the City’s authority in the review of
wireless telecommunications projects. The City may only focus on the aesthetic and zoning
code aspects of a project and, by law, may not consider potential health issues and any
perceived related consequences (e.g. drop in property value). Under federal law, a local
agency’s wireless facility siting decisions may not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
wireless service or unreasonably discriminating among wireless service providers. Further, a
utility is required to provide any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to
its utility poles. Under federal law, the City may not regulate the placement, construction or
modification of wireless communications facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of
radio frequency (RF) emissions, so long as the facilities comply with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions. Staff additionally
has seen no information that indicates an identifiable loss of property value from such
installations.
Noise
This project is required to meet the residential noise standards, as outlined in PAMC Section
9.10.030, and cannot exceed six dB above the local ambient (40 dBA minimum) at the property
plane. This standard differs from other project approvals, since it is located in a PUE on private
property, rather than in the public right-of-way. To further address and monitor the noise
concern, staff has included the following Conditions of Approval:
The applicant shall submit a sound analysis of an operating installation within two months
of the project installation/operation. The analysis shall clearly delineate how the installation
complies with the previously listed condition regarding noise. Applicant may be required to
submit these reports periodically for the life of the project, as determined by the Director of
Planning.
Aesthetics
City of Palo Alto Page 6
The Carlson Circle installation follows the same design concepts that were reviewed by the ARB
and approved by the City Council in January 2012. A fairly large tree is located between the two
homes and should provide significant screening for the equipment. The pole and equipment is
not adjacent to primary living or bedroom areas of the homes, but is adjacent to a carport and a
patio. Staff believes that relocation to the Redwood Circle site would have at least similar
aesthetic impacts and would not be preferable to the approved location. In addition, the
location is just as likely to encounter similar levels of neighborhood opposition.
Policy Implications
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no
other substantive policy implications. The project is supported by the following Comprehensive
Plan Policies: (B-13) Support the development of technologically-advanced communications
infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging
telecommunications industries; and (B-14) Work with electronic information network providers
to maximize potential benefits for Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences, and other potential
users.
Resource Impacts
The costs of project review by all staff and consultants is recovered by Architectural Review
application fees paid by AT&T. Pursuant to the City’s standard license agreement, AT&T will pay
the City $270 per year per installation.
Environmental Review
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (DOC)
Attachment B: Location Map (PDF)
Attachment C: Petersen Appeals (PDF)
Attachment D: Comment Letters (PDF)
Attachment E: Architectural Review Approval Letter, March 28, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment F: Applicant's Submittal Information (PDF)
Attachment G: City Council Report #3435 Appeal of AT&T DAS Phase 3 without
Attachments (PDF)
Attachment H: Project Plans (Councilmembers and Libraries only) (PDF)
1
DRAFT
ACTION NO. 2013-05
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR AT&T DAS PROJECT LOCATED AT 3704 CARLSON CIRCLE (PART OF
PHASE 3): ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 12PLN-00127
(AT&T, APPLICANT)
On May 6, 2013, the Council upheld the Director of Planning
and Community Environment’s March 28, 2013 decision to approve the
Architectural Review of the co-location by AT&T of (Distributed
Antenna System, a.k.a. DAS) wireless communications equipment on an
existing utility pole on 3704 Carlson Circle 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 January 28, 2013, the City Council approved AT&T’s
Architectural Review application for the co-location of wireless
communications equipment (Distributed Antenna System) on 19 utility
poles located within City rights-of-ways near the following
locations excluding the installation at 3704 Carlson Circle
requiring the pole relocation to the back of sidewalk. Staff would
continue to work with AT&T and the appellants to determine the most
appropriate placement of the DAS equipment. The action is contained
in the CMR #3435.
B. On March 28, 2013, following staff review, the
Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved
the DAS equipment location on the existing utility pole (relocation
not required) located within the public utility easement on 3704
Carlson Circle, amending the Architectural Review (AR) application
for Phase 3. Notices of the Director’s decision were mailed
notifying neighbors of the decision. The action is contained in the
CMR #3745.
D. Within the prescribed timeframe, one appeal of the
Director’s decision was filed by Palo Alto residents Petersen and
Hamburger.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This project is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings.
1. The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the project, as conditioned,
incorporates a more streamlined design that conforms with policies
Attachment A
2
that encourage quality development that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces. The project is also
supported by the following Comprehensive Plan Policies: (B-13)
Support the development of technologically-advanced communications
infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the
growth of emerging telecommunications industries; (B-14) Work with
electronic information network providers to maximize potential
benefits for Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences, and other
potential users.
2. The design is compatible with the immediate environment
of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the proposed design, as conditioned, blends with the existing
utility poles that are located within various residential
neighborhoods within the City.
3. The design is appropriate to the function of the project.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the design of
the equipment is not excessive for the intended utility use and has
been improved with the required conditions of approval to
streamline the design with the back-up battery cabinet placed above
the prism and elimination of one antenna.
4. In areas considered by the board as having a unified
design character or historical character, the design is compatible
with such character. This finding is not applicable to this
project.
5. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between different designated land uses. This
finding is not applicable to this project.
6. The design is compatible with approved improvements both
on and off the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative
in that the project, as conditioned, is compatible with the
existing utility poles.
7. The planning and siting of the various functions and
buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide
a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general
community. This finding is not applicable to this project.
8. The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate
to the design and the function of the structures. This finding is
not applicable to this project.
9. Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support
the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with
3
the project’s design concept. This finding is not applicable to
this project.
10. Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe
and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. This finding
can be made in the affirmative in that the circulation under and
around the utility pole is not impacted.
11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and
integrated with the project. This finding is not applicable to this
project.
12. The materials, textures, colors and details of
construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the
design and function. This finding can be made in the affirmative,
see Findings 2, 3, and 4 above.
13. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by
the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms
and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional
environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the Phase 3 DAS project, as conditioned, will be required to plant
some additional street trees at some locations. The placement and
selection of the street trees will be reviewed and approved by
Public Works and Utilities to assure the plantings will be
consistent with City standards.
14. Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site,
capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a
variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to reduce
consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. This
finding can be made in the affirmative, see Finding 13. All City
street trees are regularly maintained and will use only the
required amount of water needed for establishment and maintenance.
15. The project exhibits green building and sustainable
design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and
nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content
materials. This finding is not applicable to this project. The
scope of the project is small and there is limited opportunity to
incorporate green building design into the sign installations.
16. The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose
of architectural review as set forth in subsection 18.76.020(a).
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project
design, as conditioned, promotes visual environments that are
integrated into the aesthetics of the immediate environment of an
industrial utility facility.
4
SECTION 4. Architectural Review Approval Granted.
Architectural Review 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 AT&T titled
Palo Alto ODAS – 3706 Carlson Circle, consisting of 3 pages, and
received April 29, 2013, 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 project shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved plans and related documents received April 29, 2013,
except as modified to incorporate these conditions of
approval.
2. All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover
sheet of the plan set submitted to obtain any permit through
the Building Inspection Division.
3. All conditions of approval associated with the AT&T Phase 3
approval (RLUA 2013-03)are applicable to this project, except
as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval
4. Any modifications/additions to the approved plans shall be
approved by Planning prior to construction and installation.
5. 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.
6. For all pole installations, the backup battery cabinet shall
be placed above the prism box.
7. For the life of the project, the size of the battery cabinet
shall be reduced as technology improves so as to maintain the
smallest battery cabinet needed.
8. The antenna, cabinet boxes, and pole extension shall be
painted either “Rock Brown” or “Sand Brown”, with a matte
5
finish, to match the existing color and finish of the utility
pole, and all other equipment (i.e. wiring and related
hardware) shall be painted with a matte finish to blend in
with the background material/color of the pole.
9. The project shall be reviewed by the Utilities Department to
determine if the pole is feasible for the placement of the
proposed equipment and antennas. If the Utilities department
does not support the placement of the equipment on the pole,
the applicant shall submit a new Architectural Review
application to the Planning Division for review of proposed
alternative pole selection.
10. For sites that require new street tree installations, the
applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Tree
Division, Utilities Department, and Transportation Division
to gain approval for the placement and selection of tree
type. If the City departments do not support the placement of
a city tree for screening purposes for the identified
locations, then that site is no longer approved for the
equipment installation and the applicant shall be required to
submit a new Architectural Review application to the Planning
Division for review of proposed alternative pole selection.
11. The applicant, in coordination with City departments, shall
(1) analyze all proposed sites to determine whether new
street trees can be added in the immediate vicinity for
screening purposes and (2) add additional trees where
feasible.
12. The preferred selection for new street trees shall be
evergreen trees, as deemed appropriate by Public Works and
the Utilities department.
13. Unless the City agrees to a modification of this condition,
the requirements to install new street trees shall be 100%
the responsibility of the applicant and shall be completed
prior to the installation of pole equipment.
14. Pole 12/Node P2N13A (3704 Carlson Circle) installation shall
be installed on the existing utility pole located within the
public utility easement. This installation shall have the
equipment boxes facing toward the street; and shall not
exceed the residential noise standards as specified in PAMC
9.10.030 of 6dB above the ambient noise level, measured at
the property line.
15. For installations in the City right-of-way, the Applicant
shall endeavor to minimize the noise at the property line
6
boundary with adjacent residential property, and shall
attempt to keep such noise below 6dB above the ambient level
most of the time, when fans are running at their normal
setting. If such a standard is not reasonably achievable for
a site, then the Applicant voluntarily agrees to use
commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that the noise
level does not exceed 6 dB above the ambient noise level at
the nearest location of a residential structure. Under no
circumstances shall the noise exceed the noise standard in
Municipal Code 9.10.050 (i.e., +15dB over ambient at 25
feet).
16. The applicant shall submit a sound analysis of an operating
installation within two months of the project
installation/operation. The analysis shall clearly delineate
how the installation complies with the previously listed
condition regarding noise. Applicant may be required to
submit these reports periodically for the life of the
project, as determined by the Director of Planning.
17. The applicant shall perform a radio frequency (RF) analysis
for each of the twenty installations to document the RF
emissions for the installed and operating equipment. This
analysis shall be submitted to the City within two months of
the project installation/operation. Applicant may be required
to submit these reports periodically for the life of the
project, as determined by the Director of Planning.
18. If for any reason the project requires modification from the
approved plans in any way, the applicant shall contact
Planning staff for a determination on whether the change
requires a new application for Architectural Review and
Historic Review, if applicable, to be submitted.
19. All cost recoverable charges related to this Planning
entitlement process, per the cost recovery agreement, shall
be paid in full and in a timely manner; these include charges
for two consultants hired for peer review of this project.
Non-payment may result in the withholding of other city
required permits and or approvals required for the project to
move forward to the construction phase.
Fire Department
20. The applicant shall submit a completed copy the document
entitled “Optional Checklist for Local Government to
Determine Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded.” If
the applicant is required to submit an Environmental
7
Assessment (EA) to the FCC, please indicate if it has been
submitted and the date submitted.
Electric Utility
21. Electric Utility shall not perform any operations and/or
engineering until a Master License Agreement is signed
between AT&T and the City of Palo Alto. AT&T shall not attach
any equipment on the City's portion of any utility pole until
the Master License Agreement is signed by both parties. The
Master License Agreement will determine the procedures,
policies, fees and responsibilities for DAS work on joint
utility poles.
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.
SECTION 8. Term of Approval. Architectural Review
Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the
original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.77.090.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
8
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by AT&T titled Palo Alto ODAS – 3706 Carlson
Circle, consisting of 3 pages, and received April 29, 2013.
Phase 3 - Palo Alto oDAS
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
N25A
N38A
P2N7A
P2N6A
P2N52AP2N51A
P2N36A
P2N34B
P2N33A
P2N32A
P2N31A
P2N28A
P2N27A
P2N24A
P2N21A
P2N20AP2N15B
P2N13A
P2N11A
P2N10B
A
L
M
A
M
I
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
PAGE
M
I
L
L
EMBARCADERO
CHAR
L
E
S
T
O
N
OREG
O
N
FOO
T
H
I
L
L
CHUR
C
H
I
L
L
J
U
N
I
P
E
R
O
S
E
R
R
A
SAND
H
I
L
L
PAL
M
AR
B
O
R
E
T
U
M
RE
N
G
S
T
O
R
F
F
GALVEZ
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
£¤101
Legend
kj N25A, 1772 Hamilton Ave
kj N38A, 109 Lois Ln
kj P2N10B, 3524 Waverly St
kj P2N11A, 747 Loma Verde Ave
kj P2N13A, 3706 Carlson Cir
kj P2N15B, 3284 Cowper St
kj P2N20A, 3412 Ross Rd/3374 Ross Rd
kj P2N21A, 3132 David Ave
kj P2N24A, 3415 Greer Rd
kj P2N27A, 3757 Corina Way
kj P2N28A, 3915 Louis Rd
kj P2N31A, 631 E Meadow Dr
kj P2N32A, 3901 Middlefield Rd
kj P2N33A, 3539 Louis Rd
kj P2N34B, 412 Ferne Ave
kj P2N36A, 3945 Nelson Dr
kj P2N51A, 2385 Waverly St
kj P2N52A, 3094 Greer Rd
kj P2N6A, 390 El Dorado
kj P2N7A, 452 Loma Verde Ave ³
AT&T Proprietary (Internal Use Only)
Not for use or disclosure outside the AT&T companies except under written agreement.
Telco proprietary data is not to be disclosed to siloed employees.
From: Thomas A. Vician <tvician@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 2:52 PM
To: Campbell, Clare
Cc: 'Ashwinee Khaladkar on Nextdoor'
Subject: AT&T DAS on Carlson Circle
Clare,
I am strongly opposed to placing the AT&T DAS on the pole between 3716 and 3718 Redwood Circle. I
strongly support placing the DAS on the proposed site on Carlson Circle. I support the original location
on the basis that the AT&T engineers chose it as the most appropriate location for sending a strong
wireless signal to the geographic area relevant to the placement of their other DAS installations.
I am prepared to address the City Council on Monday night if the issue is being decided then. Please,
inform me of the next step in this process.
Best wishes,
Thomas A. Vician, Ph.D.
3718 Redwood Circle
From: Bhushan Khaladkar [mailto:bhushan@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:43 PM
To: Ashwinee Khaladkar
Cc: Campbell, Clare
Subject: Re: AT&T DAS location
Dear Ms. Campbell,
My name is Bhushan Khaladkar, resident of 3716 Redwood Circle. I wanted to submit my
comments about the location of the AT&T DAS antenna.
1. The characteristics of Redwood Circle are identical to Carlson circle, so changing would not
have any additional benefits.
2. We already receive good AT&T coverage at our location so there will no benefit by putting
the Antenna at the Redwood circle location.
3. We already have 2 electric utility poles on our property which are a huge eye sore, adding
another pole will significantly impact our property appeal and will put disproportionate burden
of the poles on our property.
4. We are also greatly concerned about the noise and EMF signals and its impact on children,
especially given that we have small children.
Given these considerations, we are strongly against putting the AT&T DAS antenna at the
Redwood circle location and hopefully would consider more appropriate locations like
Charleston which would be more useful to the community.
Thanking you,
Bhushan Khaladkar,
3716 Redwood Circle,
Palo Alto.
MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP
220 SANSOME STREET, 14TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000
FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010
April 30, 2013
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mayor Gregory Scharff
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd
Council Members Patrick Burt, Marc Berman,
Karen Holman, Larry Klein, Gail Price,
Greg Schmid and Liz Kniss
City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Re: AT&T’s Response to Appeals of AT&T DAS Project
Phase III, 3706 Carlson Circle
City Council Consent Calendar May 6, 2013
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Shepherd and Council Members:
We write to you on behalf of our client AT&T Mobility (“AT&T”) to urge that you
uphold the well-reasoned decision of the Planning Division to approve the AT&T
distributed antenna system (“DAS”) node at 3706 Carlson Circle (the “Approval”). The
Approval represents the last node of 75 AT&T DAS nodes approved in Palo Alto in four
phases over the last two years. The appeal of Roger Petersen and John Hamburger (the
“Appellants”) seeks to re-open unsupported aesthetic concerns regarding design and site
placement that have been thoroughly reviewed by both AT&T and the City. The appeal
simply raises no new concerns that justify removing the Approval from the Council’s May
6, 2013, consent calendar.
The Approval represents years of exhaustive analysis by Planning Division staff,
Utilities Department staff, the City arborist, the City’s outside consultants, the
Architectural Review Board (the “ARB”) and the Council of both the design and the site
locations of the AT&T DAS project. Notwithstanding this careful analysis, staff withdrew
the 3706 Carlson Circle facility from its December 18, 2012 Phase III approval to allow
further review of Appellants’ aesthetic concerns. After months of reevaluation that
included meeting with Appellants and a review of numerous alternatives, staff re-issued the
Approval on March 28, 2013 which places the facility on the existing utility pole at 3706
Carlson Circle. In sum, Staff’s findings in support of the Approval are well-reasoned,
Palo Alto City Council
April 30, 2013
Page 2 of 3
supported by substantial evidence and represent years of analysis and re-analysis. In
addition, both state and federal law compel the City to affirm the Approval.
I. The Thoughtful Design and Careful Placement of AT&T DAS Node Facilities
on Existing Utility Poles Create No Aesthetic Impacts.
Since early 2010, AT&T has worked with the City of Palo Alto to design and locate
its DAS nodes to minimize aesthetic impacts on the Palo Alto community while providing
needed wireless service. Based upon ARB review, the aesthetic profile of AT&T’s DAS
nodes has been nearly eliminated by streamlining antennas to a single pole-top attachment,
raising battery boxes above a narrow radio cabinet, and rotating all equipment toward the
street and away from residential views. The benefits of this streamlined design and site
placement are well-demonstrated in the approved node at 3706 Carlson Circle that is now
being appealed. As shown in the attached photosimulation, the approved node only
minimally increases the profile of the existing utility pole.
Closely following rigorous location guidelines established by the ARB, AT&T
conducted an Alternative Aesthetics Fielding Analysis evaluating and initial five existing
utility poles to identify the Carlson Circle location. This included consideration of block
placement to identify locations away from street corners in order to minimize public views
and in-between property lines to avoid impacts on individual views, as well as identifying
poles where existing foliage would best camouflage DAS equipment. AT&T’s aesthetic
review was re-analyzed and adjusted by Planning Division staff and again over the last
month through meetings with AT&T, Appellants and Planning Division staff. This
extensive review has confirmed that the final pole location represents the least aesthetic
impacts to individuals and the community to be served. In sum, the design and pole
selection guidelines have been thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Division staff, the
ARB and the Council. Further, the 3706 Carlson Circle node has been twice reviewed and
compared to identified alternatives by the City’s Director of Planning and Community
Environment following consultation with Appellants and does not require further public
hearings or review.
II. The Appeal Does Not Warrant Further Council Review.
In their appeal, Appellants argue that AT&T has failed to fully evaluate alternatives
to the 3706 Carlson Circle node and that inadequate time has been devoted to reviewing
alternatives. In reality, and as confirmed by Appellants in their appeal, AT&T and
Planning Division staff have devoted over a year to evaluating alternatives to the Carlson
Circle node, and in particular have identified and evaluated those nodes that Appellants
claim need further evaluation. Over the last month, AT&T has worked with City staff,
including meeting with the Appellants, to re-review and reevaluate at least seven
alternatives, including those identified by Appellants. The result of this reevaluation,
which included all alternatives identified by Appellants, is the Approval which appears on
Palo Alto City Council
April 30, 2013
Page 3 of 3
the May 6, 2013 consent calendar. Under the Approval, the existing utility pole at 3706
Carlson Circle will be used, which addresses the concern regarding the aesthetic impact of
relocating the utility pole to the street. Appellants’ claims that alternatives have not been
thoroughly evaluated or that adequate time has not been devoted to evaluating alternatives
are simply unfounded.1
III. Federal Law Compels Council Affirmation of the Approval.
AT&T has worked diligently with the City of Palo Alto over the last three years to
identify the least intrusive means to provide wireless service to an identified significant gap
in coverage. This effort has resulted in the approval of 75 AT&T DAS nodes including this
final component of all four phases of the DAS network. Failure to affirm the Approval
would run afoul of limitations under the Telecommunications Act which preempt any local
decision that would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services or that
would unreasonably delay approvals for such service.2 For these reasons, federal law
compels Council affirmation of the Approval on May 6, 2013.
Conclusion
The Approval that appears on the May 6, 2013, Council consent calendar represents
the culmination of years of design and aesthetic review, including a second look by
Planning Division staff earlier this year. That process has resulted in the ideal facility
design and locations to best serve the Palo Alto community with the least impacts upon
residents. The City Council should not permit the narrow, unfounded concerns of a few
individuals to further delay this well-designed project, which represents the extensive
efforts of both the City and AT&T. We encourage you to affirm the Approval as part of
the Council’s consent calendar without further hearing.
Very truly yours,
Paul B. Albritton
cc: Curtis Williams
Cara Silver, Esq.
Attachment
1 Appellants’ claims of the adverse impacts of the node on their homes is also in error. As demonstrated by
submittals provided by AT&T, the existing utility pole where the DAS node is to be located is over 25 feet
from exterior walls of adjacent homes.
2 See 47 U.S.C. §332 et seq.
MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP
220 SANSOME STREET, 14TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000
FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010
January 23, 2013
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mayor Gregory Scharff
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd
Council Members Patrick Burt, Marc Berman,
Karen Holman, Larry Klein, Gail Price,
Greg Schmid and Liz Kniss
City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Re: AT&T’s Response to Appeals of AT&T DAS Project
Phase III, 12PLN-00127 Architectural Review
Phase IV, 12PLN-00258 Architectural Review
City Council Consent Calendar January 28, 2013
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Shepherd and Council Members:
We write to you on behalf of our client AT&T Mobility (“AT&T”) to urge that you
adopt the findings and decision of the Planning Division to approve AT&T’s distributed
antenna system (“DAS”) Phase III and Phase IV (the “Approvals”). Staff’s findings in
support of the Approvals are well-reasoned, supported by substantial evidence and
represent years of exhaustive review by Planning Division staff, Utilities Department staff,
the City arborist, the City’s outside consultants, the Architectural Review Board (the
“ARB”) and the Council. In addition, both state and federal law compel the City to affirm
the Approvals. There is no reason to remove the Approvals from the Council’s January 28,
2013, consent calendar.
As described below, all but one of the appeals are filed by residents whose homes
are next to existing poles. These appeals simply seek to re-open unsupported aesthetic,
noise, health or property value concerns, while the remaining appeal challenges the City’s
implementation of its noise regulations with arguments that were rejected by the Council in
its approval of Phase II of the AT&T DAS project. The concerns raised in all of the
appeals have been thoroughly reviewed and previously addressed by the ARB and the
Council and are not worthy of further review, as follows.
Palo Alto City Council
January 23, 2013
Page 2 of 2
I. The Thoughtful Design and Careful Placement of AT&T DAS Node Facilities
on Existing Utility Poles Create No Aesthetic Impacts.
Since early 2010, AT&T has worked with the City of Palo Alto to arrive at an
aesthetically acceptable design and pole site selection process that will minimize aesthetic
impacts on the Palo Alto community while providing needed wireless service. Based upon
ARB review, the aesthetic profile of AT&T’s DAS nodes has been nearly eliminated by
streamlining antennas to a single pole-top attachment, raising battery boxes above a narrow
radio cabinet, and rotating all equipment toward the street and away from residential views.
Closely following rigorous location guidelines established by the ARB, AT&T
conducted a rigorous Alternative Aesthetics Fielding Analysis evaluating 150 existing
utility poles to identify the 38 approved pole locations in Phase III and Phase IV, which
represents the fewest poles feasible to provide necessary wireless coverage. Block
placement was evaluated to identify locations away from street corners in order to
minimize public views and in-between property lines to avoid impacts on individual views.
Poles were also selected to maximize the benefit of existing foliage to camouflage DAS
equipment. AT&T’s aesthetic review was re-analyzed and adjusted by Planning Division
staff and again by the City’s independent consultant to arrive at final pole locations with
the least aesthetic impacts to individuals and the community to be served. In sum, the
design, pole selection guidelines and final pole selection have been thoroughly reviewed by
the Planning Division staff, its independent consultants, the ARB and the Council and do
not require further public hearings for review.
II. Presently Operating DAS Nodes Confirm Compliance with Noise Ordinance.
Notwithstanding repetitious appeals, there is simply no question that the AT&T
DAS project complies with Palo Alto Municipal Code §9.10 (the “Noise Ordinance”). Just
two months ago, in November 2012, the Council, following the recommendation of
Planning Division staff and the City Attorney, completely rejected a similar appeal based
upon a tortured interpretation of the Noise Ordinance. As part of its obligations under the
Phase I approval, and submittal requirements for its Phase II approval, AT&T has provided
the City with a post-installation noise analysis by independent consultants Hammett &
Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers. This report, which was included in the Council’s
approval of Phase II of the AT&T DAS project, measured the sound from an operating
AT&T DAS facility in Palo Alto and confirmed that AT&T’s Palo Alto DAS design fully
complies with the Noise Ordinance. Based upon this information and the prior decisions of
the Council, further appeals raising noise concerns are simply frivolous and do not warrant
any further hearings.
III. Health Concerns and, by Extension, Property Value Concerns Are Unfounded,
Preempted by Federal Law and May Not Be the Basis of Further Hearings.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 bars local jurisdictions from denying an
application for a wireless telecommunications facility based on the environmental effects of
Palo Alto City Council
January 23, 2013
Page 3 of 3
radio frequency emissions1 where, as here, AT&T has demonstrated full compliance with
Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) emissions guidelines. The statements
submitted by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, confirm that all of the AT&T
DAS facilities will operate well within, and indeed far below, applicable public exposure
limits allowed under FCC guidelines. The federal preemption of radio frequency emissions
issues applies whether local decisions are directly based on emissions or indirectly based on a
proxy such as property values. Thus, “concern over the decrease in property values may not
be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is based on
concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions.” AT&T Wireless Services of
California LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1159 (S.D. Cal. 2003).
IV. Federal and State Law Compel Council Affirmation of the Approvals.
AT&T has worked diligently with the City of Palo Alto over the last three years to
identify the least intrusive means to provide wireless service to an identified significant gap
in coverage. This effort has resulted in the Approvals that appear on the January 28, 2013
Council consent calendar. Failure to affirm the Approvals on that date would run afoul of
limitations under the Telecommunications Act which preempt any local decision that
would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services or that would
unreasonably delay approvals for such service.2 Similarly, the Council may not act in a
manner that would deny AT&T the right to place its facilities in the public rights-of-way
under the statewide franchise granted to AT&T under California Public Utilities Code.3
For these reasons, both state and federal law compel Council affirmation of the Approvals
on January 28, 2013.
Conclusion
The Phase III and Phase IV AT&T DAS Approvals that appear on the January 28,
2013 Council consent calendar represent years of design and aesthetic review to arrive at
the ideal facility design and locations to best serve the Palo Alto community with the least
impacts upon residents. The City Council should not permit the narrow, unfounded
concerns of a few individuals to further delay this well-designed project, which represents
the extensive efforts of both the City and AT&T. We encourage you to affirm the
Approvals as part of the Council’s consent calendar without further hearing.
Very truly yours,
Paul B. Albritton
cc: Curtis Williams
Cara Silver, Esq.
1 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
2 See 47 U.S.C. §332 et seq.
3 See California Public Utilities Code §7901 et seq.
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
Application for
Development Review Permit
Outside Distributed Antenna System (DAS)
City of Palo Alto
March 23, 2012
3
Project Description
AT&T is interested in deploying an outside “distributed antenna
system” (DAS) to bolster voice and data capacity in areas of the City of
Palo Alto. DAS is comprised of a network of small, low power antennas,
usually placed on poles, which are connected to common radio
equipment within a limited geographic area. This system would fill
coverage and capacity gaps within areas of the City that are
experiencing high density demand for mobile wireless services.
The DAS proposed by AT&T would support the development of
technologically advanced communications infrastructure that will
facilitate the growth of emerging wireless telecommunications
industries in the City of Palo Alto.
In addition, residents as well as public safety are increasingly reliant on
mobile devices. Data suggests as much as 70% of all mobile calls are
made inside buildings and 50% of all calls to 911 are made on mobile
devices.1 The Police Department reminds residents to know where their
phones are to help report crimes. Also, in the event of disasters, first
responders and affected residents rely on their cell phones. The DAS
system thus will help improve service coverage and reliability and thus
help enhance public safety efforts within the City.
AT&T’s DAS technology is capable of serving multiple carriers with very
minimal equipment installation. It is AT&T’s intent that its DAS will not
only meet the existing demand but also provide the infrastructure for
deployment of future 4G demands.
1 National Emergency Numbers Association - “It is estimated that of the 240+ million calls that were
made to 9-1-1 in 2006, at least 100 million of them were made by wireless telephone users—that’s 50
percent. This is a huge increase from nearly 4.3 million wireless 9-1-1 calls just 10 years ago, and it is
anticipated that the number will continue to rise, both due to cellular and IP-based WiFi and WiMAX
forms of wireless service.”
4
Scope of Work
This application is for a Development Review Permit and is being
proposed for the construction of the 20 of approximately 80 DAS nodes
on existing utility poles within the City of Palo Alto. The initial and 2nd
group applications of 35 nodes has already been submitted to the City.
This 3rd group of nodes will provide wireless service in the area of
southeastern Palo Alto west of Oregon Expressway and east of El
Camino. The exact locations of the 20 proposed nodes are depicted on
exhibit of this application. The remaining node locations will be applied
for on separate applications to address the remaining coverage needs
within the City of Palo Alto.
Under Section 1.1307(b)(1) of the Federal Communication
Commission’s rules; the proposed low powered wireless facilities are
“categorically excluded” as they are fully compliant with FCC
requirements for limiting human exposure to radio frequency (RF)
energy and are identified as unlikely to cause exposure in excess of the
FCC’s guidelines. Please see the attached Federal Communications
Commission – Local and State Government Advisory Committee
Checklist. The facility also will comply with California Public Utility
Commission General Orders - 95 and 170.
AT&T intends to utilize its existing infrastructure within the City to
minimize the impact of deploying DAS on residents of the City of Palo
Alto.
The DAS system will primarily use existing underground fiber to connect
the DAS nodes to the DAS radio equipment hub which is located inside
the local AT&T central switching office.
5
AT&T Mobility will purchase local fiber transport from AT&T California.
If AT&T California does not have fiber to any node location, it will be
necessary to place new fiber and in a few instances new conduit. In
these instances, new conduit will be necessary only from the nearest
manhole or pole to the node; generally, this should be between 50 to
250 feet. If fiber or power is not already located in the manhole, it
generally can be pulled through existing conduit without the need for
additional trenching or new conduit. In an effort to minimize trenching,
power and fiber can share the same trench where feasible.
All of the DAS nodes will be located within the public ROW on existing
utility poles or within existing Public Utility Easement (PUE).
Replacement of a utilities pole will be necessary if the pole is found to
be noncompliant with General Orders - 95 and 170. For utility poles
that must be replaced, it will remain at the existing height unless a
change is requested by AT&T California or Palo Alto Utilities.
On August 4th, 2011 AT&T attended a preliminary study session for this
DAS project with the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. As a result
each node locations were reviewed and aesthetics guidelines from the
ARB panel were adhered to where possible. The battery cabinets were
moved higher on the pole to avert it from line of sight. And where
applicable, nodes were moved to avoid being in front of second story
windows. Also, nodes locations were reassessed to account for
maximum screening with the available foliage.
The DAS nodes consist of a remote prism antenna (which is 24 inches
tall with a 16-inch diameter) that is mounted on top of the
existing/replacement poles. The antenna is mounted at the top of a 6
feet tall fiber glass extension that is mounted to the top of the pole. In
total, the extension will be 8 feet above the top of the utility pole in
order to maintain GO95 separation. This is shown on page.
6
For a utility pole mounted cabinet design, a 10 inches high by 5.5 inches
wide by 5 inches deep quick disconnect, a 11 inches high by 4 inches
wide by and 3/8 inches deep ground bus bar mounted 9 feet above the
ground line. Above that sits a Tyco remote cabinet that is 52.4 inches
tall by 12.2 inches deep by 11.2 inches wide. And above that is the
Alpha battery cabinet that is 27 inches high by 22 inches wide by 18
inches deep. Lastly, above that is a demark box that is 13 inches tall by
13 inches wide by 3.75 inches deep. This is shown on page 30. All the
attached equipment is configured such that it blends into the width of
the pole.
Equipment is tan/beige, and designed to blend in with equipment
usually found in the streetscape.
Two of the cabinets produce measureable acoustical results. Both have
theoretical maximum acoustical performance of 46dB, without isolating
ambient noise from the environment, at a distance of 20 feet, which is
a rough approximation of the typical distance from a user on the
ground. AT&T Mobility expects the actual acoustical performance of
the cabinet to be quieter than these theoretical maximums.
Description of Construction
The antenna structure installation may involve the removal and
replacement of the utility poles. A new foundation will be excavated
(size dependent on soil conditions), and conduits containing coaxial
cables (from the Remote cabinet), and power. Trenching will typically
extend to a depth of 36 inches below grade. The following is a
description of the work involved in the installation of the Myers cabinet
and ground mounted remote. The typical sequence for construction of
these nodes will be as follows:
7
· Remote & Myers cabinet excavation and trenching -- An excavation
will be made via backhoe to accommodate the proposed concrete
slab for the equipment/meter cabinet with trenching from the
cabinet location to the pole(s) and/or power connection point, as
necessary. An additional trunk will haul and hold supplies.
Excavated material will be exported from the site using a dump
truck. Backhoe and dump truck will be manned and idling
throughout the excavation process and then turned off; generator
on truck will run during construction.
· Utility pole replacement -- The existing foundation will be removed
and replaced with new foundation adequate for new pole
installation.
· Electrical Installation -- Once conduit and cabinet are in place,
cables will be installed to connect the new cabinet to the serving
manhole. The power panel will be set by an electrical contractor.
SCE will then be called to set the power meter.
· Testing -- Final testing of cabinet equipment and antennas will be
performed after electrical power is provided to the site.
· Duration and Estimated Personnel -- Typical duration for active
construction of each node will be 10 days with 2 trucks and 1-3
workers, with traffic control and Department of Transportation
approvals required for lane closures associated with trenching,
excavation of pad and caisson foundations, and setting of the pole.
8
NORTH PALO ALTO Polygon2 Existing Coverage
In-Building Service
In-Transit Service
Outdoor Service
Legend
Existing Site
City Boundary
9
NORTH PALO ALTO Polygon2 Proposed (Top) Coverage
In-Building Service
In-Transit Service
Outdoor Service
Legend
Existing Site
City Boundary
10
Palo Alto Phase 3 Nodes
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
N34B
37.41379
-122.10791
N38A
37.44575
-122.136509
N7A
37.426463
-122.126148
N6A
37.428466
-122.132264
N51A
37.431927
-122.13638
N36A
37.41718
-122.111271
N31A
37.42379
-122.115742
N28A
37.42315
-122.106521
N21A
37.433803
-122.11966
N25A
37.449747
-122.132666
N52A37.437177
-122.117219
N33A
37.430394
-122.111908
N32A
37.420137
-122.109488
N27A
37.427621
-122.107027
N24A
37.432914
-122.111599
N20A
37.429212
-122.116544
N15B
37.425283
-122.122644
N13A
37.418163
-122.117285
N11A
37.429938
-122.121374
N10B
37.421091
-122.120513
L
O
U
I
S
U
S
H
W
Y
1
0
1
M
I
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
L
M
A
C
O
W
P
E
R
G
R
E
E
R
W
A
V
E
R
L
E
Y
R
O
S
S
SEAL
E
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
B
S
T
E
R
LOMA V
E
R
D
E
P
A
R
K
COLORA
D
O
FA
B
I
A
N
NE
W
E
L
L
R
A
M
O
N
A
ELYBAR
R
O
N
C
L
A
R
A
LEGH
O
R
N
GARCIA
CALIF
O
R
N
I
A
LOW
E
L
L
B
Y
R
O
N
MARI
O
N
TENN
Y
S
O
N
AME
S
LOS
R
O
B
L
E
S
AMA
R
I
L
L
O
H
I
G
H
MELV
I
L
L
E
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
OLIV
E
E
M
E
R
S
O
N
OREG
O
N
N
E
L
S
O
N
GE
N
G
MATA
D
E
R
O
LA P
A
R
A
HARKE
R
ILIM
A
MA
R
I
N
E
2
N
D
GRA
N
T
GARL
A
N
D
MORE
N
O
W
I
L
K
I
E
WYA
N
D
O
T
T
E
SUTT
E
R
CO
R
I
N
A
HAN
S
E
N
COLE
R
I
D
G
E
IRIS
BIR
C
H
BICYC
L
E
JOS
I
N
A
WALKW
A
Y
WILT
O
N
CHIM
A
L
U
S
PAU
L
G
R
O
V
E
EDLE
E
HOPKI
N
S
KING
S
L
E
Y
PARKIN
S
O
N
LAM
B
E
R
T
CAS
E
Y
O
R
M
E
F
U
L
T
O
N
MAY
B
E
L
L
AMP
H
I
T
H
E
A
T
R
E
FLOR
A
L
E
S
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
WA
L
N
U
T
CUR
T
N
E
R
VIST
A
EL C
A
R
M
E
L
O
T
A
S
S
O
E
D
G
E
W
O
O
D
TALIS
M
A
N
FER
N
A
N
D
O
G
U
I
N
D
A
PARK
S
I
D
E
R
A
M
P
BRUCE
ELSI
N
O
R
E
CER
E
Z
A
GEO
R
G
I
A
MAR
G
A
R
I
T
A
SA
L
A
D
O
CREEKS
I
D
E
S
U
T
H
E
R
L
A
N
D
I
N
D
I
A
N
CARO
L
I
N
A
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
S
A
N
T
A
A
N
A
BRYSO
N
W
H
I
T
S
E
L
L
L
A
N
D
I
N
G
S
TER
M
I
N
A
L
SANT
A
R
I
T
A
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
E
M
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
TENN
E
S
S
E
E
MILI
T
A
R
Y
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
THA
I
N
CELIA
PEP
P
E
R
TU
L
I
P
CHE
S
T
N
U
T
VEN
T
U
R
A
WASH
I
N
G
T
O
N
SYCAMO
R
E
LAKE
ACAC
I
A
BLAIR
FIELD
I
N
G
W
R
I
G
H
T
T
A
N
L
A
N
D
STON
E
C
A
R
M
E
L
GRE
E
N
W
I
C
H
MOR
T
O
N
SI
E
R
R
A
SHA
U
N
A
MAC
L
A
N
E
MAUR
E
E
N
E
M
E
R
S
O
N
COLORA
D
O
OREG
O
N
R
A
M
O
N
A
U
S
H
W
Y
1
0
1
H
I
G
H
P
A
R
K
RAMP
DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
T
A
S
S
O
MORE
N
O
R
A
M
O
N
A
P
A
R
K
CHAR
L
E
S
T
O
N
MATA
D
E
R
O
R
A
M
P
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
A
R
K
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
B
Y
R
O
N
E
M
E
R
S
O
N
CALIF
O
R
N
I
A
Legend
PA_Phase_3Nodes
Name, Address
kj N10B, 3524 Waverly St
kj N11A, 747 Loma Verde Ave
kj N13A, 3706 Carlson Cir
kj N15B, 3314 Cowper St
kj N20A, 3412 Ross Rd
kj N21A, 3132 David Ave
kj N24A, 3415 Greer Rd
kj N25A, 620 Rhodes Dr
kj N27A, 3757 Corina Way
kj N28A, 3915 Louis Rd
kj N31A, 651 E Meadow Dr
kj N32A, 3901 Middlefield Rd
kj N33A, 3539 Louis Rd
kj N34B, 372 Ferne Ave
kj N36A, 3945 Nelson Dr
kj N38A, 109 Lois Ln
kj N51A, 2410 Waverly St
kj N52A, 3094 Greer Rd
kj N6A, Side of 2801 South Ct
kj N7A, 452 Loma Verde Ave
³
AT&T Proprietary (Internal Use Only)Not for use or disclosure outside the AT&T companies except under written agreement.Telco proprietary data is not to be disclosed to siloed employees.11
Palo Alto DAS
all forecasted Nodes 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 20.2
Miles
PALO ALTO
280
280
101
101
82
114
109
82
M
I
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
A
L
M
A
S
T
SAND
H
I
L
L
R
D
ORE
G
O
N
E
X
P
Y
EMBARCADERO RD
COU
N
T
Y
R
O
U
T
E
G
3
UNIV
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
W
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
R
D
J
U
N
I
P
E
R
O
S
E
R
R
A
B
L
V
D
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
E
X
P
Y
SAN
A
N
T
O
N
I
O
A
V
E
SAN
T
A
C
R
U
Z
A
V
E
FA
B
I
A
N
W
A
Y
G
A
R
C
I
A
A
V
E
PU
L
G
A
S
A
V
E
CHA
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
AMPHIT
H
E
A
T
R
E
P
K
W
Y
E
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
R
D
W
M
I
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
N S
H
O
R
E
L
I
N
E
B
L
V
D
ARA
S
T
R
A
D
E
R
O
R
D
OLD
M
I
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
E CHAR
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
W CH
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
BA
Y
S
H
O
R
E
P
K
W
Y
A
L
M
A
S
T
ORE
G
O
N
E
X
P
Y
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
E
X
P
Y
COU
N
T
Y
R
O
U
T
E
G
3
CHA
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
Legend
Polygon 1
Polygon 2
City Bounds
1212
!"#"$%&'()(*+$,$-.&/&012$&3!4$5&210$
"617*+$8&(7*$-&)1$9&:;*(&70$,$-;)&$!)*&<$=;)(>&.7(;$
!"#$%
&'()%"%*+%,%
4*;*1?17*$&>$@;??1**$#$A2(0&7<$B7:C<$=&70D)*(7E$A7E(711.0$
#-)% +./0% *+% 1'00)22% 3% 45.6*78% 97:;8% <*76=>2.7(% 47(.7))/68% -'6% ?))7% /)2'.7)5% *7% ?)-'>+% *+%
@#3#%!*?.>.2A8%'%B)/6*7'>%C./)>)66%2)>):*00=7.:'2.*76%:'//.)/8%2*%)D'>='2)%2-)%5.62/.?=2)5%'72)77'%
6A62)0%B/*B*6)5%2*%?)%5)D)>*B)5%.7%&'>*%@>2*8%<'>.+*/7.'8%+*/%:*0B>.'7:)%C.2-%'BB/*B/.'2)%(=.5)>.7)6%
>.0.2.7(%-=0'7%)EB*6=/)%2*%/'5.*%+/)F=)7:A%GHIJKL%)>):2/*0'(7)2.:%+.)>56;%
AF1:D*(G1$4D??;.+$
@#3#% B/*B*6)6% 2*% .762'>>% '7% *=26.5)% M.62/.?=2)5% @72)77'% NA62)0% G*M@NL% .7% &'>*% @>2*8%
:*76.62.7(%*+%'72)77'6%*7%2C)72A%=2.>.2A%B*>)6;%%#-)%B/*B*6)5%*B)/'2.*76%C.>>%:*0B>A%C.2-%2-)%
J<<%(=.5)>.7)6%>.0.2.7(%B=?>.:%)EB*6=/)%2*%IJ%)7)/(A;%
-.1G;()(7E$AF/&0D.1$4*;72;.20$
#-)% O;N;% <*7(/)66% /)F=./)6% 2-'2% 2-)% J)5)/'>% <*00=7.:'2.*76% <*00.66.*7% GHJ<<KL% )D'>='2)% .26%
':2.*76%+*/%B*66.?>)%6.(7.+.:'72%.0B':2%*7%2-)%)7D./*70)72;%%@%6=00'/A%*+%2-)%J<<P6%)EB*6=/)%>.0.26%
.6%6-*C7%.7%J.(=/)%";%%#-)6)%>.0.26%'BB>A%+*/%:*72.7=*=6%)EB*6=/)6%'75%'/)%.72)75)5%2*%B/*D.5)%'%
B/=5)72%0'/(.7%*+%6'+)2A%+*/%'>>%B)/6*768%/)('/5>)66%*+%'()8%()75)/8%6.Q)8%*/%-)'>2-;%%#-)%0*62%/)62/.:2.D)%
J<<%>.0.2%+*/%)EB*6=/)6%*+%=7>.0.2)5%5=/'2.*7%2*%/'5.*%+/)F=)7:A%)7)/(A%+*/%6)D)/'>%B)/6*7'>%C./)>)66%
6)/D.:)6%'/)%'6%+*>>*C6R%
%% S./)>)66%N)/D.:)%J/)F=)7:A%T'75% U::=B'2.*7'>%V.0.2% &=?>.:%V.0.2%%%%%
!.:/*C'D)%G&*.72W2*W&*.72L% X8YYYZ[Y8YYY%!1Q% X;YY%0S\:0
]% ";YY%0S\:0
]%
TIN%GT/*'5?'75%I'5.*L%]8^YY%X;YY%";YY%
@SN%G@5D'7:)5%S./)>)66L% ]8"YY%X;YY%";YY%
&<N%G&)/6*7'>%<*00=7.:'2.*7L% "8_XY%X;YY%";YY%
<)>>=>'/%[`Y%];_Y%Y;X[%
N!I%GNB):.'>.Q)5%!*?.>)%I'5.*L% [XX%];[X%Y;X`%
`YY%!1Q%`YY%];,Y%Y;,[%
a0*62%/)62/.:2.D)%+/)F=)7:A%/'7()b% cYZcYY%";YY%Y;]Y%
&*C)/%>.7)%+/)F=)7:.)6%G^Y%1QL%'/)%C)>>%?)>*C%2-)%'BB>.:'?>)%/'7()%*+%2-)6)%62'75'/568%'75%2-)/)%.6%
:*76.5)/)5% 2*% ?)% 7*% :*0B*=75.7(% )++):2% +/*0% 6.0=>2'7)*=6% )EB*6=/)% 2*% B*C)/% >.7)% '75% /'5.*%
+/)F=)7:A%+.)>56;%
13
14
!"#"$%&'()(*+$,$-.&/&012$&3!4$5&210$
"617*+$8&(7*$-&)1$9&:;*(&70$,$-;)&$!)*&<$=;)(>&.7(;$
!"#$%
&'()%*%+,%-%
.#/#% % %.01)00'%%%%%%%%%%%%%%!'23454%6'7857'1)9%:2;+<5=)%>)?)7%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
@+9)%A% % B31)%.99=)<<%C)3(D1% %%%%%%'1%E=+509%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%+0%#+;%F7++=%G)H+09%I3<1'08)%
@J.% KLM"%B+51D%6+5=1%-N!%,1% MOMM"K%4PQ84
K%MOMMK"%4PQ84K%K"%,1%
% +0%:7%I+='9+%% MOKRS%;5G738%% MO-*S%;5G738%
@T.% -RK%>+4'%$)=9)%.?)05)% R*% MOMM""%4PQ84
K% MOMM"L%4PQ84
K%KR%
% +0%U3;730(%B1=))1%% MOKKS%;5G738% MO*JS%;5G738%
@"MV% *RK-%P'?)=7H%B1=))1% -N!% MOMM"K%4PQ84
K%MOMMK"%4PQ84K%"L%
% +0%:'<1%!)'9+W%I=3?)% % MOKRS%;5G738
%% MO-*S%;5G738
%%
@"".% T-T%>+4'%$)=9)%.?)05)% R-!% MOMM"M%4PQ84
K%MOMM"J%4PQ84K% *M%
% 0)'=%#+==)H'%6+5=1%% MOK"S%;5G738%% MO**S%;5G738%
@"*.% *TMJ%6'=7<+0%63=87)% --!% MOMM"J%4PQ84
K%MOMM*M%4PQ84K% J%
% 0)'=%6'=7<+0%6+5=1%% MO**S%;5G738% MOJMS%;5G738%
@"RV% **"-%6+W;)=%B1=))1% -N!% MOMM"K%4PQ84
K%MOMMK"%4PQ84K% K*%
% 0)'=%B1O%67'3=)%I=3?)% % MOKRS%;5G738%% MO-*S%;5G738%
@KM.% *-"K%X+<<%X+'9%R-% MOMM""%4PQ84
K%MOMM"T%4PQ84K% *K%
% 0)'=%.4)<%.?)05)%% MOKKS%;5G738% MO*-S%;5G738%
@K".% *"*K%I'?39%.?)05)% -L!% MOMM"-%4PQ84
K%MOMMK*%4PQ84K% KJ%
% 0)'=%:7G=39()%P'H%% MOKTS%;5G738%% MO-JS%;5G738%
@K-.% *-"R%E=))=%X+'9%-N!% MOMM"K%4PQ84
K%MOMMK"%4PQ84K% "J%
0)'=%Y'038)%P'H%% MOKRS%;5G738% MO-*S%;5G738%
@KR.% JKM%XD+9)<%I=3?)% -N% MOMM"*%4PQ84
K% MOMMKK%4PQ84
K% "N%
0)'=%C'4371+0%.?)05)% % MOKJS%;5G738% MO-RS%;5G738%
@KT.% *TRT%6+=30'%P'H%-T!% MOMM"R%4PQ84
K%MOMMKR%4PQ84K% KR%
0)'=%>+53<%X+'9%% MOKLS%;5G738%% MO-NS%;5G738%
@KL.% *N"R%>+53<%X+'9%-L% MOMM"-%4PQ84
K%MOMMK-%4PQ84K% K-%
0)'=%E'37)=0%.?)05)% % MOKTS%;5G738%% MO-LS%;5G738%
@*".% JR"%:'<1%!)'9+W%I=3?)% -L!%% MOMM"-%4PQ84
K% MOMMK*%4PQ84
K% K"%
0)'=%!3997),3)79%X+'9% % MOKTS%;5G738% MO-JS%;5G738%
@*K.% *NM"%!3997),3)79%X+'9% R-!% MOMM"M%4PQ84
K%MOMM"J%4PQ84K% *M%
+0%:'<1%6D'=7)<1+0%X+'9% % MOK"S%;5G738%% MO**S%;5G738%
@**.% *R*N%>+53<%X+'9%-R% MOMM"J%4PQ84
K%MOMMKN%4PQ84K% --%
0)'=%E=))=%X+'9%% MO**S%;5G738%% MORLS%;5G738%
@*-V% *TK%F)=0)%.?)05)% -N%% MOMM"*%4PQ84
K%MOMMKK%4PQ84K% **%
0)'=%I'Z)%.?)05)%% MOKJS%;5G738%% MO-RS%;5G738%
@*J.% *N-R%@)7<+0%I=3?)% -N% MOMM"*%4PQ84
K%MOMMKK%4PQ84K% *K%
=)'=%+,%!3997),3)79%X+'9% % MOKJS%;5G738%% MO-RS%;5G738%
@*L.% "MN%>+3<%>'0)%RM% MOMM"K%4PQ84
K% MOMMK"%4PQ84
K% L%
0)'=%P'7051%I=3?)%% MOKRS%;5G738% MO-*S%;5G738%
@R".% K-"M%P'?)=7H%B1=))1% --% MOMM"T%4PQ84
K%MOMM*"%4PQ84K% *N%
0)'=%[=)(+0%:2;=)<<W'H% % MO*-S%;5G738%% MOJ*S%;5G738%
@RK.% *MN-%E=))=%X+'9%%-N!% MOMM"K%4PQ84
K%MOMMK"%4PQ84K% KJ%
+0%!'9952%I=3?)%% MOKRS%;5G738%% MO-*S%;5G738%
%
15
!"#"$%&'()(*+$,$-.&/&012$&3!4$5&210$
"617*+$8&(7*$-&)1$9&:;*(&70$,$-;)&$!)*&<$=;)(>&.7(;$
!"#$%
&'()%*%+,%*%
?1:&@@17212$%(*(A;*(&7$%1;0B.10$$
-.)%/+%/0)12%3+.4/14(%5+6'/1+478%/0)%9#:#%'4/)44'7%;+.5<%4+/%=)%'66)771=5)%/+%/0)%()4)2'5%>.=5168%
'4<%7+%4+%31/1('/1+4%3)'7.2)7%'2)%4)6)77'2?%/+%6+3>5?%;1/0%/0)%@AA%>.=516%)B>+7.2)%(.1<)514)7C%%%
#+%>2)D)4/%+66.>'/1+4'5%)B>+7.2)7%14%)B6)77%+,%/0)%@AA%(.1<)514)78%4+%'66)77%;1/014%*%,))/%<12)6/5?%14%
,2+4/%+,%/0)%9#:#%'4/)44'78%7.60%'7%31(0/%+66.2%<.214(%3'14/)4'46)%;+2E%+4%/0)%>+5)78%70+.5<%=)%
'55+;)<%;015)%/0)%='7)%7/'/1+4%17%14%+>)2'/1+48%.45)77%+/0)2%3)'7.2)7%6'4%=)%<)3+47/2'/)<%/+%)47.2)%
/0'/%+66.>'/1+4'5%>2+/)6/1+4%2)F.12)3)4/7%'2)%3)/C%%&+7/14(%)B>5'4'/+2?%;'2414(%71(47G%'/%/0)%'4/)44'7%
'4<H+2%+4%/0)%>+5)7%=)5+;%/0)%'4/)44'78%7.60%/0'/%/0)%71(47%;+.5<%=)%2)'<15?%D171=5)%,2+3%'4?%'4(5)%+,%
'>>2+'60% /+% >)27+47% ;0+% 31(0/% 4))<% /+% ;+2E% ;1/014% /0'/% <17/'46)8% ;+.5<% =)% 7.,,161)4/% /+% 3))/%%
@AAI'<+>/)<%(.1<)514)7C%%%
=&7:)B0(&7$
J'7)<% +4% /0)% 14,+23'/1+4% '4<% '4'5?717% '=+D)8% 1/% 17% /0)% .4<)271(4)<K7% >2+,)771+4'5% +>141+4% /0'/%
+>)2'/1+4%+,%/0)%+./71<)%-17/21=./)<%94/)44'%L?7/)3%'7%>2+>+7)<%=?%9#:#%!+=151/?%14%&'5+%95/+8%
A'51,+241'8%;155%6+3>5?%;1/0%/0)%>2)D'1514(%7/'4<'2<7%,+2%5131/14(%>.=516%)B>+7.2)%/+%2'<1+%,2)F.)46?%
)4)2(?%'4<8%/0)2),+2)8%;155%4+/%,+2%/017%2)'7+4%6'.7)%'%71(41,16'4/%13>'6/%+4%/0)%)4D12+43)4/C%%#0)%
01(0)7/%6'56.5'/)<%5)D)5%14%>.=5165?%'66)771=5)%'2)'7%17%3.60%5)77%/0'4%/0)%>2)D'1514(%7/'4<'2<7%'55+;%
,+2%)B>+7.2)7%+,%.45131/)<%<.2'/1+4C%%#017%,14<14(%17%6+4717/)4/%;1/0%3)'7.2)3)4/7%+,%'6/.'5%)B>+7.2)%
6+4<1/1+47%/'E)4%'/%+/0)2%+>)2'/14(%='7)%7/'/1+47C%
!B*C&.0C(/$
#0)% .4<)271(4)<% './0+2% +,% /017% 7/'/)3)4/% 17% '% F.'51,1)<% &2+,)771+4'5% M4(14))28% 0+5<14(% A'51,+241'%
N)(17/2'/1+4%O+7C%MI"PQRS%'4<%!IRQSTS8%;0160%)B>12)%+4%U.4)%PQ8%RQ"PC%%#017%;+2E%0'7%=))4%6'221)<%
+./%.4<)2%017%<12)6/1+48%'4<%'55%7/'/)3)4/7%'2)%/2.)%'4<%6+22)6/%+,%017%+;4%E4+;5)<()%)B6)>/8%;0)2)%
4+/)<8%;0)4%<'/'%0'7%=))4%7.>>51)<%=?%+/0)278%;0160%<'/'%0)%=)51)D)7%/+%=)%6+22)6/C%
%%VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV%
%W1551'3%@C%X'33)//8%&CMC%
%TQTHYYSIZRQQ%
!'260%"Y8%RQ"R%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
G%W'2414(%71(47%70+.5<%6+3>5?%;1/0%[M#ISZ%6+5+28%7?3=+58%'4<%6+4/)4/%2)6+33)4<'/1+47C%%A+4/'6/%14,+23'/1+4%
70+.5<%=)%>2+D1<)<%\!"#"8%'%/)5)>0+4)%4.3=)2]%/+%'22'4()%,+2%'66)77%/+%2)7/216/)<%'2)'7C%%#0)%7)5)6/1+4%+,%5'4(.'()\7]%
17%4+/% '4%)4(14))214(%3'//)28%'4<%(.1<'46)%,2+3% /0)%5'4<5+2<8%5+6'5%^+414(%+2%0)'5/0%'./0+21/?8%+2%'>>2+>21'/)%
>2+,)771+4'57%3'?%=)%2)F.12)<C%%L1(4'()%3'?%'57+%4))<%/+%6+3>5?%;1/0%/0)%2)F.12)3)4/7%+,%&_A%`[YZC%
16
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
FCC Guidelines
Figure 1
Frequency (MHz)
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105
Occupational Exposure
Public Exposure
PCS
CellFM
Po
w
e
r
De
n
s
i
t
y
(m
W
/
c
m
2)
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)
to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have
a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, “Biological
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” published in 1986 by the
Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (“NCRP”).
Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally
five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, “Safety
Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to
300 GHz,” includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and
are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or
health.
As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure
conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive:
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz)
Applicable
Range
(MHz)
Electric
Field Strength
(V/m)
Magnetic
Field Strength
(A/m)
Equivalent Far-Field
Power Density
(mW/cm2)
0.3 – 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100
1.34 – 3.0 614 823.8/ f 1.63 2.19/ f 100 180/ f2
3.0 – 30 1842/ f 823.8/ f 4.89/ f 2.19/ f 900/ f2 180/ f2
30 – 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2
300 – 1,500 3.54 f 1.59 f f /106 f /238 f/300 f/1500
1,500 – 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0
Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or
thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher
levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not
exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation
formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for
projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that
calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any
number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven
terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections.
17
RFR.CALC™ Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
Methodology
Figure 2
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to
adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a
significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC
(see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for
short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for
occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits.
Near Field.
Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip
(omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish
(aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in
the near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65
(August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones.
For a panel or whip antenna, power density S = 180
BW
0.1 Pnet
D2 h , in mW/cm2,
and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax = 0.1 16 Pnet
h2 , in mW/cm2,
where BW = half-power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, and
Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts,
D= distance from antenna, in meters,
h= aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and
= aperture efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5-0.8).
The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of power density.
Far Field.
OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source:
power density S = 2.56 1.64 100 RFF2 ERP
4 D2 , in mW/cm2,
where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts,
RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and
D= distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters.
The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a
reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole
relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of
power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location
on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual
radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to
obtain more accurate projections.
18
Alternative Aesthetics Fielding Analysis 3/20/12
Seq
Design
Status
Node
Number Latitude Longitude
Pole
_Ht
PA_
Pole
_no Locations Fielding Notes
1 in-design P2N10B 37.421091 -122.120513 38' 6" 3954 3524 Waverly St on E Meadow Dr
Feasible - Deciduous tree against pole to rt (NE). No
street tree opportunity.
alternate P2N10B 37.421339 -122.120306 3453
3524 Waverly St
W corner of Waverly and E
Meadow Dr on E Meadow
Feasible - Corner pole. Trees behind. No street trees or
opporunity for. Equipment streetside on E Meadow?
alternate P2N10B 37.421250 -122.120140 2311
Rear of 3546 South Ct on E
Meadow Dr - South Corner of
Waverly and E Meadow
Feasible - Corner pole. No tree screening, except for
tree behind (S) pole. Middle School across Waverly St.
alternate
not
feasible P2N10B 37.420980 -122.120384 223?
Side of 3535 South Ct. on E
Meadow Dr
Not feasible - No room on pole. Pole number obscured.
Can't read last digit.
alternate P2N10B 37.420852 -122.120743 3955
Side of 3527 South Ct on E
Meadow
Feasible - Evergreen tree to rt (NE) and deciduous to
left (SW). Cable box on pole at 17.j Equipment could
be located under cable box.
2 in-design P2N11A 37.429938 -122.121374 43' 6" 3289 747 Loma Verde Ave
Feasible - Decid tree to left (W) on property line. 2nd
story window, but distant, offset and screened. Room
for street tree to right (E).
alternate
not
feasible P2N11A 37.429793 -122.121713 3288 737 Loma Verde Ave
Not feasible - Decid tree to rt (W) and Euc behind. Euc
would block 130 AZM.
alternate P2N11A 37.429766 -122.121515 3290 734 Loma Verde Ave
Feasible if replaced. Power step down pole. No AT&T.
Not tall enough. Evergreen trees to rt and left.
alternate P2N11A 37.430177 -122.121133 3291 761 Loma Verde Ave
Feasible - Euc for screening to rear. Possible to add
street tree to right. 2nd story windows behind
eucalyptus tree.
3 in-design P2N13A 37.418163 -122.117285 33' 6" 2255 3706 Carlson Cir
Feasible - PUE not ROW. Deciduous yard tree to 5'
from top. Pole within 6' of garage. No 2nd story.
alternate P2N13A 37.418982 -122.117042 n/a 3716 Redwood Cir
Feasible - Evergreen shrubs 10' up pole. No 2nd story.
Pole number covered by foliage. 3 spans north of
primary. PUE.
alternate
not
feasible P2N13A Not AvailableNot Available n/a 3704 Calson Cir
Not feasible - Rear yard no access. N of primary 1
span.
alternate
not
feasible P2N13A Not AvailableNot Available n/a 3709 Carlson Cir
Not feasible - Rear yard no access. S of primary 1
span. End pole.
alternate
not
feasible P2N13A Not AvailableNot Available n/a 3719 Redwood Cir
Not feasible - Rear yard no access. N of primary 2
spans.
4 in-design P2N15B 37.425283 -122.122644 39' 6" 3993 3314 Cowper St
Feasible - No 2nd story window. Magnolia tree to far
left (SE). Decid tree to far right (NW). No trees
immediately adjacent and no room for street trees.
alternate P2N15B 37°25'31.68"N122° 7'22.76"W 3992 3304 Cowper St
Feasible - Large pine to rear. Magnolia tree to left (SE).
Place equipment to left. 2nd story window to rt.
alternate P2N15B 37°25'32.70"N122° 7'24.25"W 3991 3284 Cowper St
Feasible - Large decid tree to right of and around pole.
Across street from school. Equipment streetside.
alternate P2N15B 37°25'29.69"N122° 7'19.58"W 3994 3352 Cowper St.
Not feasible unless replaced. End pole. Too short. Guy
pole only. No tree screening.
5 in-design P2N20A 37.429212 -122.116544 43' 3368
3412 Ross Rd - border of YMCA
property and 3374 Ross Rd
Feasible - Large cypress behind pole. No 2nd story
window
alternate P2N20A 37.428626 -122.115709 3371 3412 Ross Rd - YMCA
Feasible - surrounded by deciduous trees. No 2nd story
window. Equipment streetside. 2 spans SE of primary.
alternate P2N20A 37.428848 -122.116042 3370 3412 Ross Rd - YMCA
Feasible - surrounded by deciduous trees. No 2nd story
window. Equipment streetside. 1 span SE of primary
alternate P2N20A 37.429433 -122.117015 3367 3370 Ross Rd
Feasible - No 2nd story window. Topped redwood
behind pole to screen. Equipment streetside. 1 span
NW of primary.
6 in-design P2N21A 37.433803 -122.119660 37' 6" 3268 3132 David Ave
Feasible - No 2nd story window. Good evergreen and
decid screening behind pole. Mature decid tree to right
(NW). No room for new street trees.
alternate
not
feasible P2N21A Not AvailableNot Available n/a 3135 David Ct.Not Feasible - 1 span to the NE. Rear yard, no access.
alternate
not
feasible P2N21A Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a All other poles within 2 spans are rear yard.
alternate P2N21A 37.433971 -122.120905 3258 3055 Stelling Dr
Feasible if not too far for RF - Alternate pole located
approx 250' W of primary. No 2nd story. Decid tree to rt
(SW). Possible new street tree to left (NE).
Page 1 of 3
19
Alternative Aesthetics Fielding Analysis 3/20/12
Seq
Design
Status
Node
Number Latitude Longitude
Pole
_Ht
PA_
Pole
_no Locations Fielding Notes
7 in-design P2N24A 37.432914 -122.111599 38' 6" 2917 3415 Greer Rd
Feasible - No 2nd story window. Birch tree behind.
Equipment on rt (S) to avoid streetlight on separate
pole in front of utility pole. No room for new street tree.
alternate
not
feasible P2N24A Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a No other feasible candidates. All poles rear yard
8 in-design P1N25A 37.449747 -122.132666 38' 4490 Side of 620 Rhodes Dr (borders 1772 Hamilton Ave)
Feasible - Screen from SW by evergreen trees.
Equipment on E side of pole. No 2nd story window. Set
back from street in PUE.
alternate
Not
feasible P1N25A Not AvailableNot Available n/a Back of 1765 Hamilton Ave Not feasible - Pole in yard. No access.
alternate
Not
feasible P1N25A Not AvailableNot Available n/a Back of 660 Rhodes Dr Not feasible - Pole in yard. No access.
alternate
Not
feasible P1N25A Not AvailableNot Available n/a Back of 580 Rhodes Dr Not feasible - Pole in yard. No access.
9 in-design P2N27A 37.427621 -122.107027 36' 6" 3660 3757 Corina Way
Feasible - No 2nd story. Mature decid tree to right
(SW). No tree and no room for new tree on left.
alternate
not
feasible P2N27A Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a No other feasible candidates. All poles rear yard
10 in-design P2N28A 37.423150 -122.106521 37' 3571 3915 Louis Rd Feasible - No 2nd story. Mature decid tree to left (N).
alternate P2N28A 37.424167 -122.106458 3672 3891 Louis Rd
Feasible - No 2nd story. Mature decid tree to left (N)
Transformer. Equipment streetside. Adjacent to Adobe
Creek.
alternate
not
feasible P2N28A Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a No other feasible candidates. All poles rear yard
11 in-design P2N31A 37.423790 -122.115742 3620 651 E Meadow Dr
Feasible - No 2nd story windows. Equipment
streetside. No screening. No room for street tree.
alternate P2N31A 37.424176 -122.114924 37' 6" 3623
691 E Meadow Dr at Middlefield
Rd
Feasible - Corner pole.Guy pole only. Evergreen olive
tree screening from behind. Decid tree to rt (NW).
alternate P2N31A 37.424085 -122.114782 3622 3600 Middlefield Rd
Feasible - Corner pole. PA Fire Dept. No 2nd story.
Equipment facing E Meadow Dr. Note there is a
flagpole cell tower at the Fire station.
alternate P2N31A 37.423846 -122.115236 3618
Side of 3600 Middlefield Rd (on E
Meadow)
Feasible - No 2nd story. Bet church and Fire Station.
No screening. No opportunity for street tree. Equipment
on N side.
alternate
not
feasible P2N31A 37.423980 -122.115377 36??681 E Meadow Dr Not feasible - Pole full. Pole number obscured.
alternate
not
feasible P2N31A 37.424111 -122.115140 3261 691 E Meadow Dr
Feasible only if tree is pruned and pole replaced with
taller pole. Pole is approx. 30' high. No 2nd story, not
corner. Support pole and drop.
12 in-design P2N32A 37.420137 -122.109488 43' 6" 2167
3901 Middlefield Rd on E
Charleston Rd
Feasible - Large oaks on both sides. 2nd story only
across E Charleston. End pole. None further W.
alternate P2N32A 37.420236 -122.109198 2166
3901 Middlefield Rd on E
Charleston Rd (further NE)
Feasible - Large oak on east side and street tree to
west. 2nd story window across E Charleston.
alternate P2N32A 37.420365 -122.108862 2165 706 E Charleston
Feasible - Tree (deciduous) on west side only. No 2nd
story window.
13 in-design P2N33A 37.430394 -122.111908 23' 6978 3539 Louis Rd
Feasible - At Eichler Swim Club. Support pole only. 23'
AGL. Will need replacement. Only fully accessible pole
candidate. Adjacent to creek.
alternate P2N33A 37.430645 -122.111546 2975 3539 Louis Rd
Feasible - Pole located inside Eichler Swim and Tennis
Club. There is gate access to utility easement. Feasible
if ATT can get access to that gate as a utility. Redwood
alternate
not
feasible P2N33A Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a No other feasible candidates. All poles rear yard
14 in-design P2N34B 37.413790 -122.107910 38' 1980 372 Ferne Ave
Feasible - No 2nd story. Evergreen shrub to 10' up
pole. Equipment facing driveway (SW). PUE not ROW.
alternate
not
feasible P2N34B 37.414412 -122.107422 1998 412 Ferne Ave Not feasible - Tree behind that interferes with 170 AZM.
alternate
not
feasible P2N34B Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a No other feasible candidates. All poles rear yard
Page 2 of 3
20
Alternative Aesthetics Fielding Analysis 3/20/12
Seq
Design
Status
Node
Number Latitude Longitude
Pole
_Ht
PA_
Pole
_no Locations Fielding Notes
15 in-design P2N36A 37.417180 -122.111271 38' 1951
3945 Nelson Dr rear of 4000
Middlefield Rd
Feasible - Evergreen screening behind (E) and left (N).
On border or Cubberly Community Center. No 2nd
story window.
alternate
not
feasible P2N36A Not AvailableNot Available n/a
Rear of 3962 Nelson Dr
First pole W of primary Not feasible - Rear yard no access.
alternate
not
feasible P2N36A Not AvailableNot Available n/a
Rear of 3960 Nelson Dr
2nd pole W of primary Not feasible - Rear yard no access.
alternate
not
feasible P2N36A Not AvailableNot Available n/a
Rear of 3945 Nelson Dr
First pole E of primary Not feasible - Rear yard no access.
alternate
not
feasible P2N36A Not AvailableNot Available n/a
Rear of 3929 Nelson Dr
2nd pole E of primary Not feasible - Rear yard no access.
16 in-design P1N38A 37.445750 -122.136509 39' 5048 109 Lois Ln near Walnut Dr
Feasible - Setback 10' from sidewalk in front yard. No
2nd story. No tree screening but could plant one at
street. Equipment will be within 10' of 2 houses. PUE.
alternate
Not
feasible P1N38A Not AvailableNot Available n/a
Back of 109 Lois Ln near Walnut
Dr (first pole to NW of primary)
alternate
Not
feasible P1N38A Not AvailableNot Available n/a
Back of 108 Lois Ln (first pole to
SE of primary)
alternate
Not
feasible P1N38A Not AvailableNot Available 5029
108 Walter Hayes Ln (2nd pole to
SE of primary)
alternate
Not
feasible P1N38A Not AvailableNot Available 5058
Side of 1547 Walnut (on Stanley)
(2nd pole to NW)
17 in-design P2N51A 37.431927 -122.136380 33' 2575 2410 Waverly St.
Feasible - 2nd story window. End pole. Last pole to SE.
Large evergreen mature tree to SE. No street tree
opportunity.
alternate
not
feasible P2N51A 37.432257 -122.136955 4863 2398 Waverly St
Not feasible - No space available without interfering
with climbing. 30' from corner. Street tree behind.
alternate P2N51A 37.432539 -122.137175 4862 2385 Waverly St
Feasible - 2nd story window approx 80' back. Decid
trees to rt (SE) and behind. Comm, no power.
alternate P2N51A 37.432440 -122.137248 4861 2380 Waverly St
Feasible - 2nd story window behind on house next
door. Small decid tree to rt (NW). Larger decid street
trees 20' each side of the pole.
18 in-design P2N52A 37.437177 -122.117219 38' 6" 2355 3094 Greer Rd on Maddux Dr
Feasible - No 2nd story. Redwood behind. Decid trees
to rt and left. Equipment streetside.
alternate P2N52A 37.437595 -122.117177 2379 3095 Greer Rd
Feasible - No 2nd story window. In side yard, adjacent
to garage, not house. Matadero Creek to left. No
screening. Tree could be added in yard?
alternate
not
feasible P2N52A Not AvailableNot Available n/a n/a No other feasible candidates. All poles rear yard
19 in-design P2N6A 37.428466 -122.132264 39' 6" 2669
Side of 2801 South Ct on El
Dorado
Feasible - Magnolia tree rt (NE) and decid tree to left
(SW). No 2nd story window. Shrubs growing up pole to
ht of 5'.
alternate P2N6A 37.428179 -122.132552 2668
Side of 2800 South Ct on El
Dorado
Feasible - Deciduous tree to left (NE) and rt (SW). No
2nd story window.
alternate P2N6A 37.428693 -122.132072 2670
Side of 2801 South Ct on El
Dorado (NE of Primary)
Not feasible - Surrounded by trees for screening, but
tall redwood across street in 360 AZM.
20 in-design P2N7A 37.426463 -122.126148 42' 4002 452 Loma Verde Ave on Kipling St
Feasible - No 2nd story. Equipment streetside. Birch to
rt and behind.
alternate P2N7A 37.426713 -122.126467 3972
Side of 3149 Waverly St (on Loma
Verde)
Feasible - No 2nd story. Shrubs to rear. No room for
street tree to left(W). Mature dec street stree to ft (E).
alternate P2N7A 37.426443 -122.126879 3970
Side of 3149 Waverly St (on Loma
Verde)
Feasible - Grace Lutheran Church. No 2nd story. Dec
street trees to rt and left. Equipment streetside.
alternate P2N7A 37.426347 -122.126785 3971
Side of 3157 Waverly St (on Loma
Verde)
Feasibility to be determined by RF. Decid street tree to
left (E). Possible new tree to rt (W). No 2nd story.
Height might be an issue as this is a short pole.
Page 3 of 3
21
PRISM REMOTE
INSTALLATION
******PROPRIETARY INFORMATION******
NOT FOR USE OR DISCLOSURE OUTSIDE OF ADC
TELECOMMUNICATIONS OR THEIR CUSTOMERS
50
'
-
0
"
6'
6
"
43
'
-
6
"
21
'
-
1
0
"
12
'
-
4
"
12
'
-
4
"
2'-0"
1'
-
0
"
4" U GUARD
EXOTHERMIC (CAD) WELD TO
GROUND ROD
10'-0"
9'
-
0
"
20
'
-
8
7
/
8
"
QUAD BAND/ QUAD BAND
BATTERY CABINET- ALPHA MMOE
24
'
-
1
/
8
"
24
'
-
1
1
7
/
8
"
DUAL BAND X-POL TRI-SECTOR
ANTENNA
23
!"#"$%&'()(*+$,$-.&/&012$3(0*.('4*12$!5*1556$7+0*18$
-6)&$!)*&9$:6)(;&.5(6$
!"#$%!
!!&'()!*!+,!*!
'!-.%/*000!1&2!3'456)7!+6!78)!9+:);!+;!<5(87!9+<)!4)<+:!78)!'67)66'=!'7!)'38!>?2!6+@)!56!&'<+!
?<7+A!B'<5,+;65'C!!
7*42+$<104)*0$
>'7'!9;+D5@)@!4E!FG!B+66)375D57E!56@53'7)=H!78'7!78)!I'J5IKI!3'<3K<'7)@!6+5=)!<)D)<=!,;+I!785=!
)LK59I)67!'7!'!@5=7'63)!+,!*M!,))7!';)!'=!,+<<+:=N!
!O5(87! -;+67! P),7! Q'3R!!
!S0C0! S*C*! S0CT! UVCM!@Q?!
?@@56(! 78)=)! <)D)<=! 7+! 78)! =7'7K7+;E! I565IKI! <+3'<! 'I45)67! +K7@++;! <)D)<! +,! S0! @Q?! (5D)=! 78)!
,+<<+:56(!;)=K<7=N!
!! O5(87! -;+67! P),7! Q'3R!!
B+I456)@!F+7'<! SUC0! SSC*! SUCT! S*CW!@Q?!
X+5=)!Y63;)'=)! ZUC0! Z*C0! ZUC0! ZUCU!@Q?!
?<<!+,!78)!6+5=)!563;)'=)=!';)!:)<<!4)<+:!78)!B57E[=!'<<+:)@!<)D)<A!4E!3+I9<5'63)!I';(56=!56!)J3)==!+,!
T0!@Q?C!
:&5=)40(&5$$
Q'=)@!+6!78)!56,+;I'75+6!'6@!'6'<E=5=!'4+D)A!57!5=!78)!K6@);=5(6)@[=!9;+,)==5+6'<!+9565+6!78'7!78)!!
?F\F!@5=7;54K7)@!'67)66'!=E=7)I!6+@)=!9;+9+=)@!7+!4)!<+3'7)@!'7!D';5+K=!<+3'75+6=!56!&'<+!?<7+A!
B'<5,+;65'A!:5<<!3+I9<E!:578!78'7!357E[=!=7'6@';@=!<5I5756(!'3+K=753!6+5=)!)I5==5+6!<)D)<=C!
!4*>&.0>(/$
F8)! K6@);=5(6)@! 'K78+;! +,! 785=! =7'7)I)67! 5=! '! LK'<5,5)@! &;+,)==5+6'<! G6(56));A! 8+<@56(! B'<5,+;65'!
O)(5=7;'75+6!X+=C!G/TU0*#!'6@!%/*0#]#A!:8538!)J95;)!+6!^K6)!U0A!*0TUC!!F85=!:+;R!8'=!4))6!3';;5)@!
+K7!K6@);!85=!@5;)375+6A!'6@!'<<!=7'7)I)67=!';)!7;K)!'6@!3+;;)37!+,!85=!+:6!R6+:<)@()!)J3)97A!:8);)!
6+7)@A!:8)6!@'7'!8'=!4))6!=K99<5)@!4E!+78);=A!:8538!@'7'!8)!4)<5)D)=!7+!4)!3+;;)37C!!
!!!_____________________________________!
!`5<<5'I!-C!a'II)77A!&CGC!
!]0]bVV#/M*00!
X+D)I4);!TA!*0TT!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
H!!Q'=)@!+6!I)'=K;)I)67=!'7!'!@5=7'63)!+,!M!,))7C!
24
!"#$%&'%(%)&*+),-)+.#"/&0%.1"2")"34&
!"#$%&'&(&)*!
!+,)-.#!/!
"&0$!1-2,3,45(,$,#0!52'!&$%#.!5)#23,#0!04#3,6*!2&,0#!(,1,$0!,2!
-2,$0! &6! '789! :%,3%! ,0! ,2$#2'#'! $&! 1,1,3! $%#! .#'-3#'!
.#3#4$,;,$*! &6! $%#! %-152! #5.! $&! <&-2'! =.#00-.#! >?@=AB! 5$!
45.$,3-(5.(*!(&:!&.!%,)%!6.#C-#23,#0D!!E%,0!6.#C-#23*F0#20,$,;#!
6,($#.!0%54#9!0%&:2!,2!$%#!).54%!$&!$%#!.,)%$!50!'#6,2#'!,2!$%#!
G2$#.25$,&25(!H(#3$.&$#3%2,35(!I&11,00,&2!<$52'5.'!J&D!/KL9!
$%#!81#.,352!J5$,&25(!<$52'5.'0!G20$,$-$#!<$52'5.'!J&D!MD/9!
52'! ;5.,&-0! &$%#.! 0$52'5.'09! ,0! 5(0&! ,23&.4&.5$#'! ,2$&! 1&0$!
35(,N.5$#'!6,#('!$#0$!#C-,41#2$!6&.!1#50-.,2)!2&,0#!(#;#(0D!!!
E%#!'78!-2,$0!&6!1#50-.#!5.#!.#6#.#23#'!$&!5!4.#00-.#!&6!!!!!!!
OP!!=5!>1,3.&45035(0B9!:%,3%!,0!$%#!$%.#0%&('!&6!2&.15(!
%#5.,2)D!!8($%&-)%!2&,0#!(#;#(0!;5.*!).#5$(*!N*!(&35$,&2!
52'!2&,0#!0&-.3#9!.#4.#0#2$5$,;#!(#;#(0!5.#!0%&:2!,2!$%#!
N&Q!$&!$%#!(#6$D!
!
"52-653$-.#.0! &6! 152*! $*4#0! &6! #C-,41#2$9! 0-3%! 50! 5,.! 3&2',$,&2#.09! )#2#.5$&.09! 52'!
$#(#3&11-2,35$,&20! '#;,3#09! &6$#2! $#0$! $%#,.! 4.&'-3$0! ,2! ;5.,&-0! 3&26,)-.5$,&20! $&! '#$#.1,2#! $%#!
53&-0$,35(!#1,00,&20!5$!3#.$5,2!',0$523#0D!!E%,0!'5$59!2&.15((*!#Q4.#00#'!,2!'78!5$!5!R2&:2!.#6#.#23#!
',0$523#9!352!N#!-0#'!$&!'#$#.1,2#!$%#!3&..#04&2',2)!0&-2'!4.#00-.#!(#;#(!5$!52*!45.$,3-(5.!',0$523#9!
0-3%!50!5$!5!2#5.N*!N-,(',2)!&.!4.&4#.$*!(,2#D!!E%#!0&-2'!4.#00-.#!'.&40!50!$%#!0C-5.#!&6!$%#!,23.#50#!,2!
',0$523#9!533&.',2)!$&!$%#!6&.1-(5S!!
!:%#.#!@=!,0!$%#!0&-2'!4.#00-.#!(#;#(!5$!',0$523#!T4!52'!!
!@U!,0!$%#!R2&:2!0&-2'!4.#00-.#!(#;#(!5$!',0$523#!TUD!!
G2',;,'-5(!0&-2'!4.#00-.#!(#;#(0!5$!5!45.$,3-(5.!4&,2$!6.&1!0#;#.5(!',66#.#2$!2&,0#!0&-.3#0!3522&$!N#!
3&1N,2#'!',.#3$(*!,2!-2,$0!&6!'78D!!V5$%#.9!$%#!-2,$0!2##'!$&!N#!3&2;#.$#'!$&!035(5.!0&-2'!,2$#20,$*!
-2,$0!,2!&.'#.!$&!N#!5''#'!$&)#$%#.9!$%#2!3&2;#.$#'!N53R!$&!'#3,N#(!-2,$09!533&.',2)!$&!$%#!6&.1-(5S!
:%#.#!@E!,0!$%#!$&$5(!0&-2'!4.#00-.#!(#;#(!52'!!
@/9!@O9!#$3!5.#!,2',;,'-5(!0&-2'!4.#00-.#!(#;#(0D!
I#.$5,2!#C-,41#2$!,20$5((5$,&20!15*!,23(-'#!$%#!4(53#1#2$!&6!N5..,#.0!52'W&.!5N0&.4$,;#!15$#.,5(0!$&!
.#'-3#!$.5201,00,&2!&6!2&,0#!N#*&2'!$%#!0,$#D!J&,0#!V#'-3$,&2!IB,3,#2$0!>?JVIAB!5.#!4-N(,0%#'!6&.!
152*!',66#.#2$!15$#.,5(09!#Q4.#00#'!50!-2,$(#00! 4&:#.!653$&.09!:,$%!P!N#,2)!4#.6#3$!.#6(#3$,&2!52'!!!!!!!!!
/!N#,2)!4#.6#3$!5N0&.4$,&2D!!X245,2$#'!3&23.#$#!N(&3R9!6&.!,20$523#9!352!%5;#!52!JVI!50!%,)%!50!PDYMD!!
Z&:#;#.9!5!N5..,#.[0!#66#3$,;#2#00!'#4#2'0!&2!,$0!04#3,6,3!3&26,)-.5$,&29!50!:#((!50!$%#!15$#.,5(0!-0#'!
52'!$%#,.!0-.653#!$.#5$1#2$D!
@=!\!@U!]!OP!(&)>TUWT=B9!
!!YP!'78! (,N.5.*!
!!^P!'78! .-.5(!N53R).&-2'!
!!MP!'78! &66,3#!0453#!
!!_P!'78! 3&2;#.05$,&2!
!!KP!'78! 35.!.5',&!
!!`P!'78! $.566,3!3&.2#.!
!!LP!'78! (5:21&:#.!
@E!\!/P!(&)!>/P@/W/P!]!/P@OW/P!]!aB9!
25
e-mail: bhammett@h-e.com
Delivery: 470 Third Street West • Sonoma, California 95476
Telephone: 707/996-5200 San Francisco • 707/996-5280 Facsimile • 202/396-5200 D.C.
WILLIAM F. HAMMETT, P.E.
DANE E. ERICKSEN, P.E.
STANLEY SALEK, P.E.
ROBERT P. SMITH, JR.
RAJAT MATHUR, P.E.
KENT A. SWISHER
ANDREA L. BRIGHT ___________
ROBERT L. HAMMETT, P.E.
1920-2002
EDWARD EDISON, P.E.
1920-2009
BY E-MAIL JD3235@ATT.COM
July 27, 2012
John di Bene, Esq.
AT&T Mobility
4430 Rosewood Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
Dear John:
As you requested, we have visited the AT&T Mobility oDAS node recently installed at
255 North California Avenue in Palo Alto, California, in order to assess the noise levels from
that installation and to evaluate those actual levels against both the city's noise limit and the
projected levels.
On the morning of June 6, 2012, using one of our Quest Technologies Type 2200 Sound Level
Meters (Serial No. SBF110001, under current calibration by the manufacturer), we observed a
minimum* noise level of 44.5 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the pole. That is the distance
specified for compliance with the city's municipal code Section 9.10.050, which limits an
increase in noise to 15 dBA, measured at 25 feet, for facilities not located on private property.
The ambient reading at that location with the AT&T node shut off was 42.1 dBA, so the actual
increase was 2.4 dBA, well below the 15 dBA allowed by the code.
Removing† the 42.1 dBA ambient level from the 44.5 dBA level with the AT&T equipment
turned on indicates that the equipment by itself produced noise at 25 feet of approximately
40.8 dBA. This compares well with the manufacturer's data, given in our report dated
November 1, 2011, which averaged 40.9 dBA to the front and sides.
Therefore, we conclude from these measurements that noise from the AT&T Mobility oDAS
nodes has been accurately represented by the manufacturer and that, indeed, the noise increase
easily meets the Palo Alto limits. Please let us know if any questions arise on these
measurements or this analysis.
Sincerely yours,
William F. Hammett
* Intended to represent the noise from continuous, fixed sources, separate from the varying levels due to
intermittent sources including traffic, wind, voices, and planes.
† Using appropriate mathematical conversions.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3435)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/28/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Appeal of AT&T DAS Phase 3
Title: Appeal of Director’s Architectural Review Approval of the Co-location
by AT&T Mobility LLC of Pole-Mounted Wireless Communications Equipment
and Associated Equipment Boxes on 20 Existing Utility Poles Within City
Rights-of-Ways Near the Following Locations: 747 Loma Verde Ave; 3284
Cowper; 3412 Ross/ 3374 Ross Rd; 3132 David Ave; 3415 Greer Rd; 3539
Louis Rd; 2385 Waverley; 3094 Greer Road on Maddux; 390 El Dorado Ave;
452 Loma Verde; 3524 Waverly on E. Meadow; 3706 Carlson Circle; 3757
Corina Wy; 3915 Louis Rd; 631 E. Meadow; 3901 Middlefield Rd; 412 Ferne;
3945 Nelson Ave.; 1772 Hamilton Ave.; 109 Lois Lane - AT&T DAS Phase 3
Project
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council: 1) uphold the Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s decision to approve the Architectural Review application for the Phase 3 project
based upon the findings and conditions of approval described in the Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment A), excluding the proposed installation adjacent to 3706 Carlson Circle; and 2)
direct staff to work with AT&T and residents to evaluate alternative locations/options for the
3706 Carlson Circle installation.
Executive Summary
AT&T’s application is for Architectural Review of 20 wireless communication facilities (WCFs)
collocated on utility poles within City rights-of-way and jointly owned by the City and Pacific
Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T of California, known as the Palo Alto Outdoor DAS
(Distributed Antenna System) project Phase 3. The 20 installations propose one antenna placed
on a pole extension at the top of each pole, and equipment cabinets placed lower down on the
pole (between 10 feet and 20 feet above grade). The pole locations were reviewed regarding
City of Palo Alto Page 2
their aesthetic impacts and consistency with the Phase 1 design approval by Council on January
23, 2012, and on December 18, 2012 the staff level Architectural Review approval was issued
for the project. Staff received five appeals of this decision from residents who cited concerns
regarding impacts to property values, aesthetics, noise, health, AT&T’s procedures for site
selection, and the City’s review process. These are topics similar to those that have been raised
in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 appeals that Council reviewed and approved in 2012. Staff believes
the Director’s decision is appropriate for all of the sites, with the exception of the 3706 Carlson
Circle site, which involves relocation of the utility pole from a public utility easement (PUE) to
the street frontage. Staff recommends that this request be referred back to staff and AT&T to
work with the residents to evaluate alternative sites. A subsequent decision on that particular
site would then be issued and would again be appealable to Council.
Background
On March 29, 2012, AT&T submitted an application for Architectural Review for the Phase 3
DAS installations at 20 locations. The project was determined to be a collocation project and,
according to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110, requires approval of an
Architectural Review application, followed by the issuance of encroachment permits. The use
itself is considered a permitted use, such that no Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is needed.
In January 2012, the Council, on appeal, reviewed the Phase 1 DAS project for 20 installations
and upheld the Director’s decision to approve the project sites (CMR #2393). At that time the
issues that were raised by the appellants focused on the need for a wireless master plan for the
entire city, and concerns for aesthetic impacts, potential health risks, noise, impacts on
property value, type of technology proposed, and the safety and reliability of the actual
installations. These issues were discussed in the associated CMR and can be viewed online for
additional details. The Council approved all of the applications.
On November 5, 2012, the Phase 2 DAS project approval was forwarded to Council on appeal to
consider (on the Consent Calendar) at their meeting. An appeal was filed by Mr. Tony Kramer, a
resident, citing concerns about the project’s compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. The
City Council did not remove it from the Consent Calendar and voted to uphold the Director’s
decision to approve the 15 project sites (CMR #3239).
There are a total of four phases in AT&T’s citywide DAS project, including a total of 75
installations. The Phase 3 and 4 projects were both approved on December 18, 2012. Phase 1 is
nearing completion of construction and Phase 2 installations are nearing construction. These
four phases are a part of AT&T’s build-out to provide adequate coverage and/or additional
capacity for wireless communications. AT&T is subject to a license agreement that allows AT&T
to collocate the DAS antennas and equipment on the City’s portion of the utility poles. The
Council approved the standard license agreement on July 25, 2011 (CMR #1756).
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Following the Council’s decision on the Phase 1 application, subsequent Architectural Review
(AR) applications for DAS installations, following the same prototype design as the approved
design, were to be reviewed at staff level and be subject to public notice and Council appeal,
but ARB public hearings were not required, according to the Zoning Code. Neighbor notification
is provided and public comments are reviewed by staff for each location. Actions by the
Director of Community Environment on the applications are posted on the City’s website and
courtesy notices of the actions are mailed to neighbors within 300 feet of each pole. The
Director’s decisions on staff level AR applications are also noted on the next available ARB
meeting agenda.
Review Process
The standard procedure for the review of an appealed Architectural Review application is for
placement on the Council Consent Calendar within 30 days of the filing of an appeal. Section
18.76.020(b)(3)(D) of the Zoning Code specifies that wireless communication facilities are
considered “minor projects” to be reviewed by staff. Section 18.77.070(b)(5) of the Zoning Code
specifically requires consideration by the Council on appeal of a staff approval of such a facility,
rather than hearing before the ARB. Council may decide to pull the item off Consent only if at
least three Councilmembers concur, and then the project is scheduled for a future public
hearing date (PAMC 18.77.070(f)). The Council meeting on March 4, 2013 has been targeted for
this public hearing, if Council determines to set a hearing.
Project Description
The approved design for the DAS installations is shown in the attached plans (Attachment G).
The existing utility poles range in height from 28 to 52 feet and the pole top extension, on
average, is about 8.25 feet. The equipment proposed on the pole face is the same for all the
poles and is comprised of (1) a power disconnect box located nine feet above grade; (2) a
remote prism cabinet (52.4”H x 12.15”W x 10.125”D) located approximately 10’-5” above
grade; (3) a back-up battery cabinet (27”H x 22”W x 18”D) located approximately 15’-9” above
grade; (4) an optical network interface box (13”H x 13”W x 3.75”D) located approximately 19’
above grade; and (5) related wiring. At the top of the pole extension, one antenna radome
(24”H x 16” Base Diameter) would be placed in-line with the pole.
The Phase 3 DAS project includes two sites where the existing poles, which are within a PUE
and located close (3-5 feet) to the existing residential buildings, are proposed to be relocated
out to the sidewalk right-of-way. With this pole relocation, the DAS installation would be
consistent with the other sites throughout the city.
Discussion
City of Palo Alto Page 4
There were five appeals filed for this project and these are included as Attachment C. With the
exception of one (Kramer), the appellants all requested that another location for the DAS
equipment be considered, other than the sites indicated in their appeal request.
1. The first appeal, submitted by Dorianne and Roy Moss, was directed at the proposed
installation near 747 Loma Verde. This installation is over 150 feet away from the Moss’
rear property line, and is separated by a street and one single-family property. The
concerns that were raised in the appeal were the potential impacts to property value
and AT&T’s lack of consideration (in determining the equipment location) of the
project’s impacts to their second-story master bedroom window view.
2. The second appeal was filed by Scott and Elaine Keller and focused on the installation
adjacent to their home at 3945 Nelson Drive. This installation is at least 35 feet away
from the rear of the house. The Kellers raised concerns about the project’s noise
impacts and the design aesthetics.
3. The third appeal, submitted by Bala Ganesh and Albert Ovadia, was specific to the DAS
installation on the pole adjacent to 631 E. Meadow Drive. The installation is
approximately 18 feet away from Mr. Ganesh’s garage and 25 feet away from Mr.
Ovadia’s home. The appeal stated their concern was about the potential health impacts
from the installation and the possible reduction in property value due to aesthetics.
4. The fourth appeal, submitted by Tony Kramer, was directed at the entire project. Mr.
Kramer stated that he is appealing the decision because “AT&T has not met all the
conditions of the Planning Department’s Notice of Incomplete”, dated April 27, 2012,
and therefore should not be approved. This is in regards to the City requiring AT&T to
submit an updated noise study for the DAS equipment. There is no DAS installation
proposed adjacent to Mr. Kramer’s home.
5. The fifth appeal, submitted by Roger Petersen, was specific to the installation near 3706
Carlson Circle. This DAS installation is one of the two proposed pole relocations in Phase
3 and would move the existing utility pole approximately 22 feet away from the current
location (that is approximately four feet away from the garage at 3704 Carlson Circle)
out toward the street. This site also has a condition of approval that requires the
installation of a new street tree for future screening. The concern that Mr. Petersen
cites in his appeal is that the relocation of the utility pole out onto the street would be
unattractive, since there currently are no utility poles located along Carlson Circle.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Staff Responses to Appeal Issues
Property Value and Health Impacts
The Federal Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996 limits the City’s authority in the review of
wireless telecommunications projects. The City may only focus on the aesthetic and zoning
code aspects of a project and, by law, may not consider potential health issues and any
perceived related consequences (e.g. drop in property value). Under federal law, a local
agency’s wireless facility siting decisions may not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
wireless service or unreasonably discriminating among wireless service providers. Further, a
utility is required to provide any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to
its utility poles. Under federal law, the City may not regulate the placement, construction or
modification of wireless communications facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of
radio frequency (RF) emissions, so long as the facilities comply with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions. Staff additionally
has seen no information that indicates an identifiable loss of property value from such
installations.
Noise
As outlined in PAMC Section 9.10.050, the public property noise limit specifies that no person
shall produce on public property a noise level more than 15 dB above the local ambient at a
distance of 25 feet or more from the source. The definition of local ambient means the lowest
sound level repeating itself during a six-minute period as measured with a precision sound level
meter; the code specifies that the minimum sound level shall be 40 dBA when determining
noise levels outside (not inside a structure), and therefore, noise production in excess of 55 dBA
at a distance of 25 feet away from the source would violate the noise ordinance. The noise
requirements for residential properties, as set forth in PAMC 9.10.030, is that noise levels
cannot exceed six dB above the local ambient (40 dBA minimum) at the property plane.
According to AT&T, the two pieces of equipment that would produce sound are the back-up
battery cabinet and the prism remote. All other elements proposed (antenna and wiring) do not
produce noise. On June 6, 2012, Hammett & Edison Inc. performed a noise analysis at a
powered installation in front of 255 N. California Avenue. The results of this study state that the
noise level produced by the equipment, including the ambient noise, is approximately 44.5 dBA
at a distance of 25 feet away from the pole. Based on this data, the conclusion is that the
equipment is compliant with the Noise Ordinance. The details of the noise analysis are outlined
in Attachment D.
Staff does believe that, as indicated in the noise measurements at 255 N. California Avenue,
lower noise levels (nearer the residential standard) can be readily achieved and that every
City of Palo Alto Page 6
effort should be made to attain the lowest level reasonable. To further address the noise
concern, therefore, staff has included the following two Conditions of Approval:
For installations in the City right-of-way, the Applicant shall endeavor to minimize the
noise at the property line boundary with adjacent residential property, and shall
attempt to keep such noise below 6dB above the ambient level most of the time, when
fans are running at their normal setting. If such a standard is not reasonably achievable
for a site, then the Applicant voluntarily agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts
to ensure that the noise level does not exceed 6 dB above the ambient noise level at the
nearest location of a residential structure. Under no circumstances shall the noise
exceed the noise standard in Municipal Code 9.10.050 (i.e., +15dB over ambient at 25
feet).
The applicant shall submit a sound analysis of an operating installation within two
months of the project installation/operation. The analysis shall clearly delineate how the
installation complies with the previously listed condition regarding noise. Applicant may
be required to submit these reports periodically for the life of the project, as
determined by the Director of Planning.
AT&T has agreed to the above conditions and has stated that it will make all feasible attempts
to minimize the noise production from their installations. AT&T has completed several DAS
installations, including 255 North California, 464 Churchill, 1720 Webster, 370 Lowell, and 1345
Webster. Council members may wish to visit one or more of these sites to assess the noise
impacts from a layperson’s standpoint. Staff has visited the sites and believes that the noise is
minimal adjacent to the pole and barely audible from 25 feet away.
Aesthetics
The Phase 3 installations follow the same design concepts that were reviewed by the ARB and
approved by the City Council in January 2012.
Carlson Circle Relocation to Street Right-of-Way
Several residents in the vicinity of the 3706 Carlson Circle site have objected to the relocation of
the pole from a public utility easement (PUE) to the street right-of-way. The City’s direction to
AT&T has been to avoid location of antennas and equipment on poles in PUEs, given their
proximity to homes and potential visual and noise concerns. This street, however, does not
have existing utility poles on the street and the residents have identified some alternatives
(including in PUEs) that might be viable. Staff recommends that the Council direct staff and
AT&T to work with the residents to evaluate the alternative sites and re-issue an approval
letter. AT&T concurs with the staff recommendation. The subsequent action would be
appealable to Council if any neighbor objected. The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A)
has been prepared excluding this site from the Council approval at this time (condition #25).
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Other Objections
Staff also notes that some property owners objected (Attachment F) to the location and
installations of four other sites near their properties, but those residents did not formally
appeal the decision. Nevertheless, the entire Phase 3 project is one application, so the Council
may act on those or any other proposal in the package. Staff believes that the objections fall
into similar categories related to health impacts or visual concerns, as addressed above.
Conclusion
Staff believes that all of the site requests, other than 3706 Carlson Circle, are consistent with
City criteria and federal and state law for such installations, and the Director’s decisions should
be upheld. The approvals are reflected in the Record of Land Use Action.
Citywide Wireless Communications Facilities Study
In association with the Phase 1 DAS project, many residents requested the City to consider the
development of a city-wide master plan for wireless facilities. On May 16, 2011, Council
sponsored a study session to review issues related to wireless communications facilities (cell
towers and antennas). Consultants to the City and staff presented an overview of the need for
and technology related to such facilities, health issues, and relevant federal, state, and Palo Alto
regulations. The Council asked that staff continue the dialogue with the community to provide
better understanding for the public and the wireless industry. Council directed staff on July 2,
2012 to issue a request for proposal for a consultant/vendor to prepare a citywide wireless
communications facilities plan. The RFP was released on October 2, 2012. Staff has interviewed
four firms for the study and is finalizing its selection. A contract is expected to be awarded in
February.
Alternatives to Staff Recommendation
The Council may also consider the following alternatives rather than approval as proposed:
A. Council may remove the project from Consent to schedule and conduct a Public Hearing for
one or more of the specific DAS locations; OR
B. Council may remove the project from Consent to schedule and conduct a Public Hearing for
all of the proposed DAS locations.
Staff has targeted March 4, 2013 as a potential hearing date, given the wireless
communications “shot-clock” processing requirements. (AT&T has stipulated to a shot-clock
extension to accommodate the Council’s hearing schedule, if necessary.)
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Policy Implications
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no
other substantive policy implications. The project is supported by the following Comprehensive
Plan Policies: (B-13) Support the development of technologically-advanced communications
infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging
telecommunications industries; and (B-14) Work with electronic information network providers
to maximize potential benefits for Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences, and other potential
users.
Resource Impacts
The costs of project review by all staff and consultants is recovered by Architectural Review
application fees paid by AT&T. Pursuant to the City’s standard license agreement, AT&T will pay
the City $270 per year per installation, or a total of $4,050 per year for the 15 sites.
Environmental Review
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (DOC)
Attachment B: Location Map (PDF)
Attachment C: Appeals (PDF)
Attachment D: Hammett and Edison Noise Memo, July 27, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment E: Applicant's Submittal Information (PDF)
Attachment F: Public Comments (PDF)
Attachment G: Project Plans (Councilmembers and Libraries only) (TXT)
PLACEHOLDER
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3742)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Long Range Financial Forecast for Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023
Title: Acceptance of Long Range Financial Forecast for Fiscal Years 2013 to
2023
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review, comment on, and accept the attached forecast
of revenues and expenses.
Motion
I move to accept the Fiscal Year 2013 to 2023 Long Range Financial Forecast as staff’s latest
projection of the City’s revenue and expenditure picture given current and projected
developments.
Executive Summary
The City’s General Fund Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) for the next ten years is based on
a variety of assumptions (See pages 6-19 of Attachment A). It is a portrait of the City’s financial
condition painted at one point in time.
The LRFF was presented to the Finance Committee on December 18, 2012. Staff was directed to
return with a forecast based on specific, revised assumptions and comments provided by the
Committee. In addition, some revenues and expenditures were changed based on additional
data and information that came to light after December 2012. The revised ten year forecast
was brought back to the Finance Committee on March 5, 2013, with discussion continuing on
March 19, 2013.
Again, after the March 19, 2013 Finance Committee meeting, new developments occurred
City of Palo Alto Page 2
which altered staff’s calculations of revenues and expenditures for 2014 and beyond. This
latest version of the Forecast shows a ten-year cumulative shortfall of $34.8 million.
Table 1 is a Summary of the Base Model of the Forecast.
Background
On December 18, 2012, the Finance Committee directed staff to return with a revised Forecast
addressing the issues and information requests cited below. Staff updated the forecast given
these requests and incorporated other information that came to light since December.
Discussion
Finance Committee Point 1: Historical Revenue Trends
Staff was asked to review 20 year and 10 year historical growth rates for economically sensitive
revenue sources and consider adjusting the forecasted growth rates to more closely match the
historical rates. Staff believes that the 20-year historical rates provide a more meaningful
reference point since that period incorporated two dramatic economic cycles (dot.com boom
and bust and the Great Recession).
Staff analyzed 20-year revenue growth rates for combined General Fund tax revenues,
combined Total General Fund revenues, and for each of the five major tax categories: property,
sales, documentary transfer, transient occupancy, and utility user taxes. Staff controlled the
calculations for extrinsic developments such as the State’s intermixing of Vehicle License Fees
with property taxes beginning 2004, and the 2 percent TOT rate increase in January 2007.
The table below shows historical growth rates over the 10-year and 20-year historical periods;
and the rates used in the Forecast versions presented December 2012, March 2013, and today.
The term “CAGR” refers to Compound Annual Growth Rate, or an average annual rate of
growth over the given period of time.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
*Documentary Transfer Tax was available beginning in 1993 so a 19 year CAGR is displayed in the 20 year category.
Comparing the 20-year CAGR for the five major tax revenue sources (4.1 percent) with the
CAGR of the current version of the forecast (4.13%) shows the forecast is fairly consistent with
historical growth rates. However, individual tax growth rates show some variations. Sales tax in
the last 20 years grew at an anemic 2.07 percent growth rate, slightly below staff’s projected
2.30% annual growth. On the other hand, the Utility Users Tax grew an average 3.79% over the
last 20 years; staff is projecting just 2.85% growth for the next ten.
Finance Committee Point 2: Overall Change in 10-Year Cumulative Budget Shortfall
The Finance Committee asked for a breakdown of what caused the change from last year’s
(May 2012) Forecasted $88 million shortfall over ten years to the current Forecast’s ten-year
shortfall, now at $35 million. It will help to look at the same ten-year period: FY 2013 to FY
2022. For that period the current Forecast shows a combined shortfall of $26.5 million. Why
the $61 million improvement?
The main reason is an improved revenue outlook. Tax revenues were projected last May at
$916 million for the ten years; now staff projects $968 million in combined tax revenues from
FY 2013-FY 2022 – an increase of $52 million over the ten years. The main sources of the
increase were Documentary Transfer Tax ($59 million more), Property Taxes ($28 million more);
and TOT ($24 million more); offset somewhat by more conservative outlooks for Sales Tax ($12
million less) and UUT ($48 million less).
Category 20-yr CAGR
(1992-2012)
10-yr CAGR
(2002-2012)
Dec 2012 LRFF
CAGR (2013-
2023)
Feb 2013
LRFF CAGR
(2014-2023)
May 2013
LRFF CAGR
(2014-2023)
Property Tax 4.67% 4.88% 4.29% 4.97% 4.97%
Sales Tax 2.07% 0.98% 3.96% 3.38% 2.30%
Transient Occupancy
Tax
4.88% 1.99% 4.50% 4.58% 4.79%
Doc. Transfer Tax* 7.30%* 5.31% 4.58% 5.56% 7.42%
Utility User Tax 3.79% 5.31% 2.80% 2.85% 2.85%
Total of All 5 Major
Taxes (adjusted)
4.10% 3.12% 4.04% 4.23% 4.13%
Total Revenues (all) 4.56% 2.55% 3.14% 3.32% 3.27%
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Non-tax revenues also look better – by $38 million – in this Forecast than in last year’s. This is
partly offset by an $18 million hit to Operating Transfers-In, due to a recent change in the
Equity Transfer methodology (discussed below).
On the expense side, pension rates are higher than they looked last year. After a March 18,
2013 CalPERS Board meeting, two assumption changes will be implemented: changing the
smoothing period from 15 to 5 years, and using a closed-end amortization period. These
changes are estimated to add 8.5 percent to Miscellaneous group pension rates over five years,
and 14 percent over five years for Safety. These rate increases, along with other likely changes
in the next 2-3 years, are incorporated into the Forecast.
Note that from the March 2013 version of the Forecast to the current version, PERS assumption
changes described above as well as others projected in the near future have caused a
significant increase in projected pension rates. For Miscellaneous, the increase averages 3.5
percent per year for the ten years of the Forecast, and for Safety, the increase averages 8.7
percent per year. In dollar terms, the combined ten-year projected pension expense in this
version of the Forecast is about $23 million more than that projected in the March version.
These pension increases are a significant factor in the shortfalls shown in the Forecast
beginning in FY 2016. The City has two years in which to restructure and prepare for these
changes.
Substantive Changes To Revenue and Expense Since December 2012 Forecast
Since the December 2012 presentation of the LRFF to the Finance Committee, new data and
information have prompted staff to make adjustments to revenue and expenses both in FY
2013 and in future years. These are outlined below:
Recent activity for tax revenues has resulted in an upward revision to FY 2013 revenues
of $1.7 million
Because of a decrease in PG&E’s rate of return by the California Public Utilities
Commission which affects a key component of the City’s equity transfer formula, the
transfer from the City’s Electric and Gas Enterprise Funds is decreasing by $0.7 million in
FY 2014 (More information on equity transfer is provided on page 14 of Attachment A)
Salary and benefit projections in FY 2014 were changed based on the City’s Service
Employees International Union (SEIU) contract.
Tentative decisions that were made at the March 18, 2013 CalPERS Board meeting
impact projected pension rates from FY 2016 onwards. These changes are discussed in
City of Palo Alto Page 5
detail in the LRFF report (pages 15-16 of Attachment A).
Lastly, the Cost of Services Study is nearing completion, with results expected to Council this
summer. Following that, staff is planning a review of City non-fee services as well as of
administrative operations to further inform any upcoming structural changes.
As with all forecasts, revenues and expenses are moving targets that change with circumstance
and time. Nevertheless, the forecast serves as a critical tool in developing the FY 2014 budget
and in identifying the City’s most pressing, future challenges.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Long Range Financial Forecast Fiscal Years 2013-2023, Council Version
dated May 13, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment B: CMR ID# 3618 - Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023 Long Range Financial Forecast
(Continued) (PDF)
Attachment C: Excerpt Minutes from Finance Committee Meeting 03-05-13 (PDF)
Attachment D: Excerpt minutes from Finance Committee meeting 03-19-13 (PDF)
LONG
RANGE
FINANCIAL
Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023
FORECAST
Council Version—May 13, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
II. ECONOMIC OUTLOOK 3
III. UPDATED MODEL 6
CHARTS:
- 2013-2023 BASE MODEL 20
- PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN BASE MODEL 22
IV. RESERVES 24
V. ALTERNATE SCENARIO 25
VII. APPENDIX 28
VIII. ENDNOTES 30
VI. CHALLENGES & CONCLUSIONS 26
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This forecast summarizes the General Fund outlook for Fiscal Years (FY) 2013 through 2023. Rather than a
predicƟon or commitment, a forecast is a financial snapshot based on a number of assumpƟons. This Long
Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) is a tool to allow staff and Council members to see the longer‐term results
of choices made to date, and idenƟfy issues that must be addressed in the near term in order to improve
the City’s long‐term outlook.
The naƟonal and state economies conƟnue to show improvement, and for the City, FY 2011 and 2012 end‐
ed with net posiƟve results. FY 2011 ended with a $3.2 million General Fund surplus, and FY 2012 financial
results included a $4.5 million surplus.
The LRFF Base Model shows a conƟnuing posiƟve trend. FY 2013 is projected to end with a $3.1 million sur‐
plus. In the LRFF Base Model, the combined shorƞall for FY 2014 to 2023 (ten years) is $34.8 million. The
Base Model can be found on page 20 of this report. Table 1, below, summarizes the Base Model.
The Base Model includes increased pension rates due to impending changes in CalPERS methodologies as
well as possible addiƟonal rate increases in the future. One impending change is a switch from a fiŌeen‐
year smoothing period for recouping PERS porƞolio gains and losses down to a five‐year period. A second is
due to increased life expectancy among reƟrees, and the third is the likely lowering of the assumed dis‐
count rate on the PERS porƞolio from 7.5 percent to 7.25 percent. In addiƟon, staff has added an addiƟonal
1 percent per year beginning in FY 2017 for unforeseen pension cost increases.
Staff included an alternate scenario that assumes the discount rate declines by 0.5 percent rather than 0.25
percent—adding an addiƟonal $14.5 million in costs over the eight‐year period from FY 2016‐2023.
Staff will be hiring and working with an actuary in the coming months to help validate the cost esƟmates
and assumpƟons discussed in this report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
Note: The forecast does not include the savings from the new third pension Ɵer implemented as of January
2013 as part of the California Public Employees’ Pension reform Act (see page 26). At the moment, the dollar
impact of this legislaƟon is unknown, and staff will provide Council with updates as new informaƟon emerges.
The Base Model also includes savings from the recent agreements with the Palo Alto Police Officers’ Associa‐
Ɵon (PAPOA), the Service Employees InternaƟonal Union (SEIU) and the Management/Professional group.
The savings from these three agreements add to $2.7 million in FY 2013.
AddiƟonal assumpƟons incorporated into the Base Model are detailed beginning on page 6.
The following pages of this report provide a summary of the naƟonal, state, and local economic outlook; a
detailed look at the ten‐year Forecast; the alternate scenario with higher pension rates; and a discussion of
the challenges and conclusions derived from the Forecast.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
Economic growth – on naƟonal, state, and local levels ‐ has begun to look more robust in the past year. The
following indicators contribute to the impression that the economy is on a more stable fooƟng:
NaƟonal
The naƟonal unemployment rate was 7.6 percent in March, down from 7.9 percent in January 2013 and
8.2 percent in March 2012.1
Beacon Economics is expecƟng the U.S. economy to grow by 3% through 2013, and the unemployment
rate to drop to 7% by the end of the year.2
According to Beacon Economics:
“OpƟmism for the rest of 2013 is being partly driven by a resurgent housing market. Home prices
have been climbing at a significant pace and will conƟnue to rise through this year and 2014, at a
minimum. The reason for the jump in prices is simple—Ɵght inventories and incredible affordabil‐
ity.
“Overall, the US economy is on the mend. But there are many longer‐term issues the naƟon must
address including working through changes to the naƟonal healthcare system and tackling funda‐
mental issues related to underfunded Federal enƟtlements and state and local pesnions.”2
State
The state’s unemployment rate fell to 9.6 percent in February—its lowest level in over four years.
The median price of exisƟng single‐family homes sold in March was $313,000, up 8.3 percent from Febru‐
ary and 24.7 percent from March 2012.
The Bay Area median home price was $436,000 in March, up 7.7 percent from February and 21.8 percent
from March 2012.3
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
From The Weekly Update, State Treasurer’s Office, April 15, 2013
“One bright spot in the February jobs report from the Employment Development Department was
the decline in long‐term unemployment over the past year. Californians out of work for a year or
longer dropped both in number and as a share of the unemployed more than any other category of
jobless duraƟon.
In February, 617,000 Californians were jobless for 52 weeks or longer, compared to 728,000 in
February 2012. That’s a decline of 111,000, or 15.2 percent.
Over the same period, as a share of total unemployed, workers jobless for 52 weeks or longer
fell from 34.7 percent to 32.8 percent.4
4
Chart Source: State Treasurer’s Office staff, The Weekly Update, April 15, 2013
Local
Caltrain Annual Passenger Counts show a 15.7% increase in ridership to Palo Alto between Feb‐
ruary 2011 and February 2012.5
Palo Alto is seeing a noƟceable increase in commercial acƟvity, as evidenced by the opening of
several new retail stores, and a renewed dearth of parking capacity, with Council and staff now
weighing a range of soluƟons.
The last two years have been a period of steady growth in revenues for local hotels, and five
hotels are in the pipeline, including:
Hilton Garden Inn: 175 Rooms. Expected opening: 2014
Hilton Homewood Suites: 138 Rooms, Expected opening, 2014
Casa Olga: 86 rooms. Approved July 23, 2012. RenovaƟons are currently under con‐
strucƟon. Expected opening, summer 2013.
Mings (1700 Embarcadero): 147 Rooms. Council approval requires that building permits
must be obtained and construcƟon commence must start by April 2014.
WesƟn annex (711 El Camino Real) (Clement): 23 room expansion. Preliminary architec‐
tural review occurred in May 2012. No formal applicaƟon has been received.
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
5
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
IMPACT OF ECONOMIC OUTLOOK ON ASSUMPTIONS USED IN MODEL
As a result of the factors discussed above, the Forecast includes relaƟvely healthy growth in sales, property,
transient occupancy and documentary tax revenues. The following chapter discusses each revenue source in
detail.
State & Local Unemployment Rates, January 2012‐2013
Source: EDD Labor Market InformaƟon Division, April 9, 2013
Jan. 2012 Jan. 2013
Palo Alto Civilian Unemploy‐
ment Rate
4.8% 4.2%
Santa Clara County Unemploy‐
ment Rate
9.0 8.0%
CA Unemployment Rate
11.0% 9.8%
6
ASSUMPTIONS INCLUDED IN THE MODEL
The following describes factors assumed in the Base Model.
The FY 2013 revenues and expenditures include a number of one‐Ɵme expenditures and savings. The Base
Model excludes these one‐Ɵme items from the succeeding years, beginning in FY 2014:
$1.3 million in salary savings due to frozen posiƟons (increasing FY 2014 expenditures)
$0.2 million in one‐Ɵme, non‐salary costs, including $80,000 for a Police Service Study; $50,500 for Com‐
prehensive Plan funding; and $70,000 for an organizaƟonal study of the Planning and Community Envi‐
ronment department (decreasing FY 2014 expenditures)
The payback of a $4.9 million loan to the Technology Fund. The last payment of $1.2 million on this loan
was completed in FY 2013 (decreasing FY 2014 expenditures)
In addiƟon to these items, the FY 2014 projected budget assumes a one‐Ɵme net decrease in revenues of
$1.4 million for the Golf Course ReconfiguraƟon project. The enƟre ten‐year period includes $1 million in ad‐
diƟonal annual operaƟonal expenses aƩributable to the Library renovaƟons.
Recent agreements with the Palo Alto Police Officers’ AssociaƟon (PAPOA), the Police Management Associa‐
Ɵon (PMA), Service Employees InternaƟonal Union (SEIU), and the Management/Professional group – re‐
sulƟng in a combined savings of $1.9 million in FY 2013 – are included in the Base Model.
Total revenues are projected to grow at annual rates ranging from 1.7 to 4.7 percent over the next ten years.
Although this is a sign of improved city resources, looming pension and reƟree medical obligaƟons and infra‐
structure needs exceed available resources. The most recent valuaƟon report from CalPERS increased the FY
2014 City pension rates, resulƟng in $1.9 million in addiƟonal General Fund expense for FY 2014 compared to
FY 2013. Furthermore, the General Fund’s reƟree medical obligaƟon is $9.1 million in the coming fiscal year
and is expected to grow 3.25 percent annually.
Staff performed an analysis on revenue growth going back to 1992, reviewing overall General Fund revenues
as well as growth rates in the five major tax categories (Property Tax, Sales Tax, Documentary Transfer Tax,
Transient Occupancy Tax, and UƟlity User Tax). To ensure that the compound annual growth rates (CAGR)
for each analysis reflected real changes rather than re‐categorizaƟons, adjustments to prior year actual col‐
lecƟons were made where appropriate.
A historical twenty‐year CAGR analysis for all General Fund revenues shows average annual growth of 4.56
percent. Within that figure, there are significant variances between the CAGRs for each of the tax categories.
For instance, the 20 year CAGR for Property Tax (the largest tax category) is 4.67 percent, while the CAGR for
Sales Tax (the second largest tax category) is 2.07 percent.
UPDATED MODEL
7
In the Base Model, the CAGR for projected overall General Fund revenues is 3.27 percent, well below the ad‐
justed 20‐year historical CAGR of 4.56 percent. One of the primary reasons for the decrease is a $0.7million
reducƟon in the equity transfer.
As recommended by the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) report (December, 2011), and ap‐
proved by Council beginning in FY 2013, the Base Model incorporates an addiƟonal $2.2 million in annual
capital operaƟng and maintenance funding (“keep‐up”). The IBRC report recommended that an addiƟonal
$4.2 million be contributed annually towards the City’s infrastructure “catch‐up” needs and that funding be
found for other project and construcƟon needs totaling approximately $210 million. These needs, including a
new Public Safety Building and rebuilding the Municipal Service Center, and the “catch‐up” funding are not
included in the Base Model.
REVENUES
Tax revenues in Palo Alto have improved markedly since the beginning of the Great Recession and are ex‐
pected to continue their upward trend in the near future. Since the December forecast presented to the Fi‐
nance Committee, several tax revenue categories have been adjusted for FY 2013 and in out years. These
changes are based on data available since the December forecast and on the alignment with historical
growth rate trends.
Sales Tax
This economically sensiƟve revenue source is bouncing back from its recession low of $18.0 million in FY
2010. Receipts rose to $20.7 million in FY 2011 and to $22.1 million in FY 2012. Staff is currently projecƟng
sales tax revenues of $23.4 million in FY 2013, nearly $0.8 million above the adopted budget. Receipts in the
first quarter of FY 2013, which are 6.7 percent above the prior year’s first quarter, support this change. Ro‐
bust economic segments include electronic equipment, apparel stores, restaurants, and service stations.
Weak performers include furniture/appliance stores and business services. Staff’s forecast is in line with that
of the City’s sales tax consultant, Muni‐Services, for the next two years. As a consequence of recent data,
estimated revenues for FY 2014 were raised $0.5 million above projected FY 2013 revenues.
The sales tax growth rate used for the next ten years at 2.3 percent is slightly more optimistic than the 20
year historical growth rate of 2.07 percent. While there are many challenges to sales tax growth, such as
growing Internet sales, the proliferation of big box stores outside City limits, and the rise of consumer ser‐
vices (not subject to tax), the City’s efforts in economic development (e.g. Tesla auto sales) and maintaining
high profile retailers could boost the future growth rate. Sales tax growth must be monitored carefully since
this revenue source represents 14 percent of General Fund resources.
UPDATED MODEL
8
Property Tax
Unlike many California jurisdictions, Palo Alto’s property taxes did not take a material “hit” as a consequence
of the Great Recession. Revenues have remained relatively stable as shown below:
For the past several years, staff has primarily relied on County estimates to develop its property tax budget.
The County has regular meetings to inform cities and school districts on assessment roll growth and events
that can impact revenues (e.g. appeals from commercial and residential properties). Based on recent County
data, it is likely that receipts will exceed the FY 2013 adopted budget of $27.3 million by some $0.6 million.
As stated in the previous chapter, housing values in Silicon Valley are rising at a faster rate than the rest of
California and the country. According to a November “Intero Real Estate Services” update, “While the rest of
the country has been recovering…the Bay Area housing market has exploded over the last 18 to 24 months.
Most lisƟngs are selling with mulƟple offers and considerably over list price.” This prognosis for the Palo Alto
real estate market will likely translate into higher documentary transfer and property taxes. For FY 2014,
property tax revenue is projected at $29.1 million, a $1.2 million or 4.3 percent increase above the current
fiscal year esƟmate of $27.9 million.
UPDATED MODEL
Fiscal Year Property Tax Revenues
2009 $25.4 million
2010 $26.0 million
2011 $25.7 million
2012 $26.5 million
$22,194
$22,623
$20,089
$17,991
$20,746
$22,132
$23,364
$15,000
$17,000
$19,000
$21,000
$23,000
$25,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Sales Tax (Thousands, FY 2013 Projected)
Fiscal Year
9
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Since declining to $6.9 million in FY 2010 due to the Great Recession, TOT revenues have steadily risen. In FY
2011 receipts totaled $8.1 million and in FY 2012 they moved to $9.7 million. Staff now estimates they will
increase to $10.4 million in FY 2013 and to $11.5 million in FY 2014. Average occupancy and daily rates, re‐
spectively, have surged from 66 percent and $139 per day in FY 2010 to 85 percent and $174 in the first quar‐
ter of FY 2013. With increased business activity and visitors to Palo Alto, staff will adjust the FY 2013 budget
upward by approximately $0.8 million. The out years of the Forecast include a CAGR of 4.79 percent.
Note that the forecast includes future revenues from the Casa Olga hotel, expected to open this winter. Rev‐
enues from other hotels in the planning stages are not included.
Documentary Transfer Tax (DTT)
This revenue source is based on the number and value of commercial and residential property sales. In the
last decade, revenues have averaged $4.8 million per year. During the recession period, DTT revenues fell to
$3.1 million in FY 2009 and to $3.7 million in FY 2010. Results for FY 2011 and 2012 were $5.2 million and
$4.8 million, respectively. With revenue stabilizing in the last two fiscal years, the rising value of commercial
and residential transactions in the first quarter of FY 2013, and several extraordinary remittances, staff is pro‐
jecting receipts in FY 2013 of $6.8 million, or $1.7 million higher than Adopted Budget. Due to the unusual
stream of transactions this fiscal year, a more realistic $5.7 million for FY 2014 is projected.
UƟlity Users Tax (UUT)
FY 2013 UUT revenues are expected to be the same as actual FY 2012 revenues, or around $10.8 million. The
uƟlity‐generated UUT projecƟons are based on the most recent rate and projected revenue informaƟon from
the UƟliƟes department. These numbers could change as the department discusses its proposed rate plan
with the UƟliƟes Advisory Commission and the Council. Telephone‐generated revenues conƟnue their down‐
ward decline, due to decreased landline usage.
Other Taxes & Fines
The large part of this category is comprised of Parking ViolaƟon revenue, which staff is esƟmaƟng to be $1.6
million in FY 2014. Other revenue items such as traffic violaƟons, administraƟve citaƟons, and library fines
and fees have conƟnued to grow over the past five years. Another component of this revenue category is the
Vehicle‐in‐Lieu Fee (VLF). In FY 2012, the state legislature suspended its allocaƟons to local agencies in order
balance the State budget. UnƟl the legislature takes acƟon to restore it, staff is not projecƟng any VLF re‐
ceipts in this forecast. Staff expects that FY 2014 revenue will end at the same level as FY 2013, which is $2.1
million.
Charges for Services
Total revenues in this category are projected to be $0.5 million higher in FY 2014 than in Adopted FY 2013.
This is due to two factors: first the Golf Course ReconfiguraƟon project will begin later than originally anƟci‐
pated, resulƟng in less of a hit to Golf Course fee revenue in FY 2014 but more of a hit on FY 2015. Second,
plan check revenues are expected to increase by $2.2 million in FY 2014, more than compensaƟng for the
Golf Course‐related loss. AŌer the Golf Course project is completed and that revenue normalizes, the Fore‐
cast assumes an annual increase in the Charges for Services category of between 2.6 and 3.7 percent be‐
tween FY 2017 and FY 2023.
UPDATED MODEL
10
Stanford Fire and Dispatch Services
The City currently is under agreement with Stanford University to provide Fire Response and Dispatch ser‐
vices. Stanford is charged 30.3 percent of the Fire Department’s net cost and 16 percent of the Police Depart‐
ment’s CommunicaƟon and Dispatch Division. With the excepƟon of pension, healthcare, and reƟree medical
obligaƟon cost increases, the FY 2014 base does not assume any significant changes for the Fire Department
and Police CommunicaƟon and Dispatch Services budgets. Stanford fire and dispatch revenue is esƟmated to
increase by $0.2 million in FY 2014 due to pension, healthcare, and reƟree medical cost increases. The Base
Model assumes that revenue from this agreement will increase 3.5 percent annually.
Currently, the City is in negoƟaƟons with Stanford for the Fire Services component of the contract. The FY
2013 budget includes a total of $8.2 million of revenue from Stanford for Fire and Dispatch Services. In the
best case scenario, the final determinaƟon of a new reimbursement agreement could result in $1.4 million in
addiƟonal revenue; in the worst case scenario the agreement could be terminated enƟrely. The agreement
requires the University to give 12 months’ noƟce of terminaƟon. Assuming that negoƟaƟons are concluded in
FY 2014, a modest increase of 3.5% has been built into the outer years to account for staffing and other de‐
partment cost increases.
UPDATED MODEL
11
Permits and Licenses
Revenue from permits and licenses rose significantly in FY 2011 and 2012 due primarily to increased acƟvity
at the Development Center. Budgeted revenue in FY 2013 decreased because the City implemented a
citywide Technology Enhancement Fee and these revenues, which had previously been charged only to some
development permits, were moved from the General Fund to the Technology Fund. This revenue category is
projected to decrease slightly due to two factors: (a) internal street cut fees, which are based on UƟliƟes ac‐
ƟviƟes, are reduced by $0.11 million to reflect planned project acƟviƟes; and (b) permit acƟvity is assumed to
slow by 2 percent per year through FY 2018 based on historic acƟvity, followed by 3.5 percent annual growth
in subsequent years.
Return on Investment
General Fund interest earnings have declined 71 percent from FY 2009 to projected FY 2013 levels as higher‐
yielding maturing investments are re‐invested in a historically low interest rate environment. The Federal
Open Market CommiƩee remains commiƩed to keeping interest rates at excepƟonally low levels through
mid‐2015 to sƟmulate the economy and boost job growth. This acƟon will keep downward pressure on the
City’s porƞolio yield in FY 2014. Interest earnings are projected to gradually increase by 1.3 percent in FY
2015 growing to 3.0 percent in FY 2023. It is expected that FY 2013 revenue will be below the adopted budg‐
et by $0.2 million, totaling $0.8 million. In FY 2014, return on investment revenue is esƟmated to remain level
at $0.8 million.
Rental Income
The largest source of rental income is the City’s Enterprise Funds and the Cubberley Community Center. The
rent from the Enterprise Funds declined $2.5 million with the closure of landfill, the Middlefield Well site, and
the former Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) site in FY 2013. FY 2014 rental income also reflects the parƟal
closure of restaurant and pro‐shop faciliƟes during the Golf Course Re‐ConfiguraƟon Project. For this fore‐
cast period, a 2.5 percent growth rate was assumed for all rental properƟes, except for the Refuse Fund rent,
which remains fixed unƟl FY 2021.The City is conducƟng an assessment of all General Fund properƟes which
might impact the rental income from Enterprise Funds during FY 2014 and beyond.
From Other Agencies
Revenue from Other Agencies includes income from Community Services Outreach theatre programs, Palo
Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) reimbursements, State of California grants for Police, Libraries and Com‐
munity Services, and donaƟons from Friends groups. Many of these are difficult to predict. For example, state
grants are reduced when the state experiences budget difficulƟes. Revenues over the past 4 years have
ranged from $0.08 million to $0.3 million. The Forecast assumes a zero growth rate from FY 2014 onwards.
Charges to Other Funds
Eighty‐six percent of this category is General Fund administraƟve cost plan allocaƟon charges to the Enter‐
prise Funds. For FY 2013, the projected amount is $10.9 million. In FY 2014 onward, forecasted increases are
around 2 percent.
UPDATED MODEL
12
UPDATED MODEL
13
UPDATED MODEL
Other Revenues
Major revenue sources in this category are Animal Services charges to Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, dona‐
Ɵons from non‐profits for City libraries, and revenues which do not belong to other categories. In FY 2013,
Other Revenues are projected at $1.2 million – the same level as in the Adopted Budget. Projected FY 2014
revenues of $2.0 million include a $0.7 million donaƟon from various non‐profits to libraries; a 2 percent an‐
nual increase is assumed throughout the Forecast period.
OperaƟng Transfers In
OperaƟng Transfers include the equity transfer from the Electric and Gas Funds, as well as transfers from the
University Ave Parking Permit Fund and the California Ave Parking Permit Fund. In accordance with a meth‐
odology approved by Council in June 2009, the equity transfer is calculated by applying a rate of return to
the capital asset base of the Electric and Gas Funds. This rate of return is based on PG&E's rate of return on
equity as approved by the California Public UƟliƟes Commission (CPUC). On December 26, 2012, the CPUC
issued its decision to lower PG&E's rate of return on equity. As a result, the equity transfer from the Electric
and Gas Funds is projected to decrease from $17.7 million in FY 2013 to $17.0 million in FY 2014. The City
AƩorney's Office will be providing Council with addiƟonal informaƟon regarding the equity transfer in light
of the provisions of ProposiƟon 218, which prohibits ciƟes from raising fees without voter approval, and
ProposiƟon 26, which prohibits ciƟes from raising taxes without voter approval.
EXPENSES
Salary
A 2 percent annual salary increase for SEIU and Management/Professional is assumed beginning in FY
2014. For all other labor groups, 2 percent annual increases are assumed beginning FY 2015. These as‐
sumpƟons are for forecasƟng purposes only and do not represent a commitment or recommendaƟon
from staff.
Unfreezing posiƟons frozen in FY 2013 added $1.3 million in salary costs to the FY 2014 base.
In addiƟon, the net FTE change from FY 2013 Adopted Budget to FY 2014 Proposed Budget is a 1.26 FTE
decrease.
14
UPDATED MODEL
The chart below shows how staffing has decreased in the GF since FY 2004, but Salary & Benefit cost has not.
The chart below indicates the degree to which General Fund FTE reductions are tempered by real‐
locations to other funds. While overall GF staff has decreased by 180.1 over the last ten years, 72
of those FTE have been transferred to other funds, leaving a net decrease of 108.2 FTE in the GF.
15
UPDATED MODEL
Benefits
Pension
The Forecast uses CalPERS’ esƟmated pension rates for FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016. The most recent rates
were received in November 2012. However, FY 2014 rates will increase slightly since the City opted not
to phase‐in an assumpƟon change, in order to reduce its costs over the long term.6
The CalPERS Board met on March 18, 2013 and tentaƟvely approved a set of assumpƟon changes pro‐
posed by their Chief Actuary. Specifically, the changes include transiƟoning from a 15‐year smoothing
method to a 5‐year smoothing method, and moving from an open to a closed amorƟzaƟon period. This
would add approximately 1.7% per year from FY 2016‐2020 for the Miscellaneous group, and 2.8% per
year for the Safety group.
In spring of 2012, Council directed that the forecast assume 3 percent annual increases in pension rates
beyond the 3 years projected in the annual CalPERS Actuarial report. In the December 2012 and March
2013 versions of the Forecast, staff had included those 3 percent increases. However, in this version of
the Forecast, staff has incorporated into the forecast a number of specific potenƟal rate increases and
subsƟtuted 1 percent addiƟonal annual increases rather than 3 percent. Staff believes that the intenƟon
of the 3 percent increases was to reserve against future changes in CalPERS assumpƟons and rate‐seƫng.
Given the certainty of smoothing and amorƟzaƟon changes, and the likelihood of the mortality increase
and a discount rate change, staff has instead incorporated these specific changes to CalPERS rates. These
changes offset most of the need for the 3 percent annual placeholder. (See page 16 for details.)
Staff has modified the alternate scenario to reflect a discount rate change of 0.5% rather than the 0.25%
change reflected in the Base Model. The CalPERS Board is expected to consider the discount rate change
in February 2014, so this change would not impact rates unƟl FY 2016.
StarƟng in January 2013, pension reform requires new members of CalPERS be enrolled into a new pen‐
sion plan that offers lower pension benefits. CalPERS is calculaƟng the actual cost for Palo Alto, so an es‐
Ɵmate is not available at this Ɵme. The Base Model does not include the potenƟal savings from a 3rd
pension Ɵer for new employees.
As a point of reference, the June 30, 2011 CalPERS Ac‐
tuarial ValuaƟon indicated that the City’s Miscellane‐
ous group’s Pension Funded raƟo (using Market Value
of Assets) was 69.5% ‐ up from 62.2% in the prior year.
The City’s Safety group’s Funded raƟo was 71.8%
(again using Market Value of Assets). The prior year’s
raƟo had been 64.8%.
Pension seems to be one of the largest variable among the
expense categories , with evolving rate changes over which
the City has liƩle control. Staff is staying in close contact
with PERS actuarial staff to stay up to date on all pending
changes.
16
The chart below details the components of the CalPERS rate projecƟons used in the Base Model Forecast.
CALCULATION OF PENSION RATES USED IN BASE MODEL
Health Care
ReƟree Annual Required ContribuƟons (ARC) are based on the January 1, 2011 actuarial study for FY
2012, 2013, and 2014, as amended by the Council DirecƟon of April 16, 2012. In seƫng the ARC, the actu‐
ary assumes it will increase each year by 3.25 percent, the presumed annual increase in payroll.
The forecast assumes a 10 percent annual increase in medical costs and a 4 percent annual increase in
dental and vision costs. This assumpƟon results in a $0.76 million increase between projected FY 2013
and 2014 costs. Over the next ten fiscal years (2014 through 2023), these healthcare cost will increase
from $9.5 million to $20.8 million, or 218 percent.
The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) has provisions which must be implemented in calendar year 2013
in preparaƟon for effecƟve dates in 2014. Staff is in the process of examining these requirements and
planning for their implementaƟon. The costs of this implementaƟon are not included in the forecast.
Contract Services
FY 2013 Projected Contract Services includes $80 thousand of one‐Ɵme contracts, such as the Police Organi‐
zaƟon study, and a placeholder of $0.5 million for assumed savings from the re‐organizaƟon of Palo Alto Ani‐
mal Services. The FY 2014 base removes these one‐Ɵme FY 2013 expenses and projected savings. The Ani‐
mal Services savings are allocated across various categories in the FY 2014 Budget.
Total expense for this category totals $10.7 million, a $0.4 million increase over the FY 2013 adopted budget.
In FY 2015 and beyond, contract expenses are projected to remain relaƟvely stable, with a 3.0 percent annual
growth rate throughout the forecast period.
UPDATED MODEL
17
UPDATED MODEL
Supplies & Materials
The base model assumes an increase in this category from $3.2 million in FY 2013 and $3.9 million in FY 2014,
mainly due to the purchase of books and other materials for the Mitchell Park Library. In FY 2015, Communi‐
ty Services will see a small increase of approximately $31,000 for Supplies & Materials at the Palo Alto Golf
Course. This is based on the NaƟonal Golf FoundaƟon esƟmates to maintain the newly redesigned golf
course. Costs will remain relaƟvely constant looking forward to outer years, with a consistent yearly increase
of 3.0 percent.
General Expense
The majority of General Expense includes categories like travel and meeƟngs, telephone and non‐city uƟli‐
Ɵes, conƟngency accounts, and debt service payments for the newly signed Golf Course Lease Agreement.
Projected FY 2013 expenses of $4.6 million reflect annual debt service which was originally budgeted as a
transfer to Debt Service Fund. In FY 2014, General Expense remains mostly flat, and from FY 2014 onwards,
annual increases of 2.5 to 3.0 percent are assumed.
18
Cubberley Lease
This category represents lease payments to PAUSD for the Cubberley facility. The Forecast assumes the lease
contract with PAUSD will conƟnue beyond 2014. Payments from FY 2014 onward are based on projected 3
percent annual CPI increases. The Cubberley lease expense in FY 2014 is esƟmated at $7.3 million.
Rents and Leases
Expansion of the Development Center increased this expense category by $0.2 million in FY 2013. Rent and
Lease expense for FY 2014 is esƟmated to remain at $1.2 million. From FY 2015 onwards, this expense is ex‐
pected to increase by 3 percent per year.
FaciliƟes and Equipment
An addiƟonal $0.2 million was added to FaciliƟes and Equipment during FY 2013 due to one‐Ɵme increases
for the Development Center upgrade. FaciliƟes and Equipment expense for FY 2014 is $0.5 million, increasing
by 5 percent in 2015, then 4 percent in 2016, and 3 percent per year for the remaining years of the Forecast.
Allocated Charges
Allocated charges represent expense allocaƟons by the City’s enterprise and internal services funds for ser‐
vices and products they provide to General Fund departments such as uƟliƟes usage, liability insurance, tech‐
nology costs, and vehicle replacement costs. The last year of the General Fund loan repayment to the Tech‐
nology Fund was in FY 2013; the FY 2014 base model is reduced by this amount to total $15.1 million. Beyond
FY 2014, the Base Model assumes a modest annual growth rate of 2 percent in Allocated Charges.
OperaƟng Transfers Out
OperaƟng Transfers Out includes transfers for Debt Service, Tech Fund, and the Airport Fund. Transfers out
is reduced by $0.5 million due to the refinancing of the Golf Course debt. The Golf Course debt will be paid
down by FY 2018. Funding for the Airport Fund from the General Fund conƟnues through FY 2014 and the FY
2013 projected base model assumes an addiƟonal $0.2 million will be transferred to the Airport Fund. The
Base Model assumes that the Airport Fund will be self‐sustaining in FY 2015.
Transfer to Infrastructure
In FY 2013, adopted and projected transfers to the capital project fund remain at $13.2 million. In FY 2014,
they are projected to remain at $13.2 million. Beginning in FY 2013, an addiƟonal $2.2 million per year is
added to fund the annual maintenance of exisƟng infrastructure or “keep‐up” needs as defined by the (IBRC)
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission Report. An addiƟonal $4.2 million per year will be required to fund
deferred maintenance or “catch‐up” needs as defined by the IBRC Report. This addiƟonal contribuƟon is not
included in the Base Model.
UPDATED MODEL
19
FACTORS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BASE MODEL
The allocated cost of various IT Department’s new iniƟaƟves such as migraƟon to cloud based technolo‐
gies, purchase of new equipment and related maintenance/support costs
The IBRC’s recommended $4.2 million per year increase in infrastructure expenditure
Any new revenue stream earmarked for infrastructure. Council may consider such a revenue source in
the future.
Possible TOT revenues from four of the five expected to open in the next two years (See details on page
4. Casa Olga revenues are included in the Forecast; the others are not.)
Savings from the PEPRA‐mandated 3rd pension Ɵer (2% at 62) for new employees
Costs of implemenƟng the Affordable Care Act, beyond the costs of extending coverage to dependents up
to age 26
UPDATED MODEL
20
BASE MODEL
GENERAL FUND LONG RANGE
BASE MO
FY 2013‐2
21
BASE MODEL
E FINANCIAL FORECAST
DEL
2023
22
BASE MODEL
GENERAL FUND LONG RANGE
BASE MODEL PERECENT
23
BASE MODEL
FINANCIAL FORECAST
TAGE CHANGES
24
RESERVES
RESERVES
FY 2012 ended with a Budget StabilizaƟon Reserve (BSR) totaling $28.1 million. Although the Base Model pro‐
jects surpluses in FYs 2013, 2014, and 2015, the next seven years of the Forecast include shorƞalls, with the
reserve balance dropping below the 18.5 percent minimum reserve level—to as low as 5.8 percent of pro‐
jected Budget in FY 2023.
The graph below illustrates the projected BSR levels as compared to the minimum reserve levels.
$12.0
$17.0
$22.0
$27.0
$32.0
$37.0
$42.0
Projected
Base Model: Projected BSR Compared Against
18.5% BSR Level
Budget Stabilization Reserve Actuals & Projection Minimum Reserve ‐ 18.5%
25
ALTERNATE SCENARIO
ALTERNATE SCENARIO
In this Alternate Scenario, it is assumed that in addiƟon to the smoothing, mortality, and the 1% assumed
addiƟonal increases beginning in FY 2017, PERS will reduce the discount rate by 0.5 percent rather than 0.2
percent, resulƟng in a 7 percent discount rate.
The addiƟonal 0.25% cut would cost the General Fund an extra $14.4 million over the period of the Forecast.
Alternate Scenario 1
26
CHALLENGES: PENSION REFORM
The California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) was enacted fall 2012 and has generat‐
ed increased aƩenƟon and quesƟons from CalPERS reƟrement system members and employers. The new law
includes a suite of changes to current reƟrement formulas, new members, employer/member contribuƟons,
and working aŌer reƟrement. PEPRA also establishes a cap on the amount of compensaƟon that can be used
to calculate the reƟrement benefit for all new CalPERS members. At this Ɵme, the dollar impact to the City of
this new legislaƟon is unknown. Staff will provide Council with updates as more informaƟon and data
emerge.
CONCLUSIONS
The LRFF shows beƩer “boƩom line” results than in last year’s presentaƟon. This is due to employee benefit
concessions, budget reducƟons, and higher revenues in evidence since last year’s (May 2012) forecast. Since
FY 2010, the City has realized $16.7 million in savings from structural changes, the fruit of Council’s and
staff’s “thinking different.” With benefit costs conƟnuing to increase at a faster pace than revenues, the City
must conƟnue to find addiƟonal structural savings.
In addiƟon to employee benefit obligaƟons, the City’s infrastructure needs – capital operaƟon and mainte‐
nance, project “catch‐up”, and other projects idenƟfied in the IBRC report – should be addressed and
planned for via this forecast.
The Cost of Service study is nearly complete and will allow the Council to thoroughly review the price of do‐
ing business and make decisions on what services can be provided and/or how they can be provided. The re‐
view will also idenƟfy services and back‐room operaƟons provided with no fees.
Although successful efforts have been made, the City must conƟnue to explore its benefit structure, alterna‐
Ɵve forms of service delivery, and more efficient operaƟons to realize a sustainable, long‐term, financial fu‐
ture.
CHALLENGES & CONCLUSIONS
27
28
APPENDIX
CONCESSIONS TO DATE
Since 2009, Council and staff completed the negoƟaƟon of agreements with labor groups to eliminate more
than $8.5 million in salary and benefit expense. The City is working with the Police Management AssociaƟon
(PMA) to negoƟate cost savings.
The following is a list of current labor contracts and agreements:
SEIU (current contract)
EsƟmated Savings: $0.55 million per year, or 0.76 percent of total compensaƟon
Created a second Ɵer to our reƟrement structure (2 percent at 60) for new employees hired or aŌer July
17, 2010.
ShiŌed full cost of employee PERS contribuƟon to employee.
Implemented the 90/10 medical cost sharing plan.
Decrease alternaƟve medical cash‐out benefit to a flat $284 per month, effecƟve October 1, 2012.
1.65 percent cost of living increase effecƟve first day of pay period including July 1, 2012
Reduced floaƟng holidays by three days. An addiƟonal floaƟng holiday will be eliminated aŌer June 30,
2013.
Management and Professional (current agreement)
EsƟmated Savings: $0.51 million per year, or 1.5 percent of total compensaƟon
Eliminated the Variable Management CompensaƟon plan as of FY 2009.
ShiŌed full cost of employee PERS contribuƟon to employee.
Implemented the 90/10 medical cost sharing plan.
Decrease alternaƟve medical cash‐out benefit to a flat $284 per month, effecƟve October 1, 2012.
Three percent salary increase to parƟally offset pension contribuƟon costs
Changes to the group’s professional development plan, including eliminaƟng use of professional develop‐
ment funds to purchase electronic technology and gym memberships and reducing the annual amount
per employee from $1,500 to $500. Gym members can be reimbursed through management excess bene‐
fit.
Eliminated car allowances for newly hired Department Directors.
InternaƟonal AssociaƟon of Fire Fighters (current contract)
EsƟmated Savings: $1.6 million per year, or 6.8 percent of total compensaƟon
Created a second Ɵer to our reƟrement structure (3 percent at 55) for new employees.
ShiŌed full cost of employee PERS contribuƟon to employee.
Eliminated minimum staffing requirements.
29
APPENDIX
Implemented the 90/10 medical cost sharing plan.
Cost‐of‐living freeze for FYs 2012‐2014.
Eliminated tuiƟon reimbursement program.
Fire Chiefs’ AssociaƟon (current agreement)
EsƟmated Savings: $91 thousand per year, or 9.8 percent of total compensaƟon
Created a second Ɵer to our reƟrement structure (3 percent at 55) for new employees.
ShiŌed full cost of employee PERS contribuƟon to employee. In March 2013, the city paid employee
reƟrement contribuƟon “resets” to 5.1 percent.
Eliminated the Variable Management CompensaƟon plan.
1.33 percent salary reducƟon.
Eliminated three holidays.
Implemented the 90/10 medical cost sharing plan.
Palo Alto Police Officers’ AssociaƟon (current contract):
EsƟmated Savings: $1.4 million per year, or 7.7 percent of total compensaƟon
Created a second Ɵer to our reƟrement structure (3 percent at 55) for new employees.
ShiŌed full cost of employee PERS contribuƟon to employee.
Eliminated tuiƟon and training benefit.
1.33 percent salary reducƟon.
Eliminated three holidays.
Implemented the 90/10 medical cost sharing plan.
Prior to 2009, between 2004 and 2006, the City implemented for all bargaining units:
20‐year vesƟng period to qualify for lifelong City‐paid health coverage
Highest cost health care plan opƟon eliminated, saving almost $10,000 per year for each employee
moved away from this opƟon.
The aforemenƟoned concessions and staffing reducƟons have been tough decisions that were not taken
lightly. Like the City, our employees face rising household costs and diminished asset values. Further‐
more, the impact of the posiƟon eliminaƟons is that our employees are stretched thin, and our ability to
take on new projects is reduced.
30
ENDNOTES
1. Bureau of Labor StaƟsƟcs, Economic News Release, April 5, 2013
2. Beaconomics, Spring 2013
3. “The Weekly Briefing, State Treasurer’s Office, April 22, 2013
4. “The Weekly Briefing, State Treasurer’s Office, April 15, 2013
5. MuniServices Economic Overview 3Q2012 News, page 14
6. In its November 2012 actuarial reports, CalPERS presented the opƟon to phase in an as‐
sumpƟon change over two years—resulƟng in the 2014 rates seen here on page 16—or to
adopt the changes right away. Turning down the phase‐in opƟon would result in about $0.6
million in addiƟonal General Fund pension costs in FY 2014, but about $1.2 million in savings
over the subsequent 19 years. The City opted to turn down the phase‐in.
Since this decision was made in recent weeks, the addiƟonal cost was incorporated into the
FY 2014 Proposed Budget, but the savings were not incorporated into the subsequent years
of this Forecast.
ENDNOTES
31
Visit our website at: www.CityofPaloAlto.org
AÃÙ®ÄÝ ó®ã« D®Ý®½®ã®Ý Aã Sãã‐
ÃÄã
Contributors ChrisƟne Paras
Amber Cameron
ScoƩ Jensen
Tarun Narayan
Sherry Nikzat
Lalo Perez
Joe Saccio
Dale Wong
In compliance with
Americans with DisabiliƟes Act (ADA) of 1990,
this document may be provided
in other accessible formats.
For informaƟon contact:
ADA Coordinator
City of Palo Alto
285 Hamilton Avenue
(650) 329‐2550
PrinƟng City of Palo Alto
Nancy Nagel
Tony Sandhu
32
The City of Palo Alto is located in northern Santa Clara County, approximately
35 miles south of the City of San Francisco and 12 miles north of the City of San Jose.
Spanish explorers named the area for the tall, twin‐trunked redwood tree they camped
beneath in 1769. Palo Alto incorporated in 1894 and the State of California
granted its first charter in 1909.
30% post‐consumer recycled
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3618)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/19/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: (Continued) Long Range Financial Forecast
Title: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023 Long Range Financial Forecast (Continued
From March 5, 2013)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee review and comment on the attached forecast
of revenues and expenses and provide direction on assumptions used in the forecast.
Motion
I move to accept the Fiscal Year 2013 to 2023 Long Range Financial Forecast and forward it to
the full Council for review and input.
Executive Summary
The City’s General Fund Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) for the next ten years is based on
a variety of assumptions. It is a portrait of the City’s financial condition painted at one point in
time.
Background
The LRFF was presented to the Finance Committee on December 18, 2012 (staff report ID
#3248). The Committee directed staff to revise the forecast to address the Committee’s
concerns and provide additional information. An updated draft of the LRFF was presented to
the Finance Committee on March 5, 2013 (staff report ID #3531). Due to the length of the
Committee’s agenda on March 5th, staff was directed to continue discussion of the forecast at
the next Finance Committee meeting. No motion was made to provide staff with additional
direction or to accept the LRFF and forward the forecast to Council.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Although the discussion of the forecast was tabled for future discussion and no motion was
made to formally provide staff with direction to update the forecast, the Finance Committee
raised a number of concerns and issues for staff to consider:
Related tax revenue associated with hotels currently under construction and earmark
revenue streams for infrastructure expense
Calculate the pension savings for 3rd Tier employees
Clarification of CalPERS pension rate estimates included in the base model and
alternative scenario
Reconsider having Utility Users’ Tax (UUT) revenue increase, specifically for the Electric
UUT revenue component
Reconsider sales and documentary transfer tax estimates
Staff is requesting a formal motion with direction on changes/additional clarification requested
by the Finance Committee so that the forecast can proceed to the Council for further
discussion.
Staff would point out that the Long Range Forecast serves as a guide and is expected to be
dynamic and subject to change. Additionally, with the mid-year review each year, the City is
able to adjust revenue estimates and expenditures based on actual experience and the mid-
year allows the Council the ability to make adjustments and spending decisions based on more
current facts. In other words, some conservatism in our forecasts provides valuable flexibility in
the course of any given year.
Finally, Staff would suggest that trends concerns and assumptions can be expressed as “Trends
to Watch” in the report, for example, without necessarily changing the Forecast itself going
forward.
FINANCE COMMITTEE
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 8
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Review of Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023 Long Range Financial Forecast.
Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst provided corrections to pages
476, 498, and 504. Economic improvements and the decreasing
employment rate were reflected in the December and current Long Range
Financial Forecasts (LRFF). Positive results for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 and FY
2012 allowed the City to transfer $7.6 million General Fund surplus funds to
the Infrastructure Reserve. The December LRFF included projected
surpluses over the next three fiscal years. The previous LRFF showed a
combined $4.2 million surplus in the base model over FY 2014-2023. That
was a turnaround from May 2012 when there was an $88 million budget gap
over ten years. When Staff presented the draft LRFF in December, the
Finance Committee (Committee) indicated a number of concerns and follow-
up items for Staff. The first one was addressing outer year projections and
how they seemed overly optimistic. The Committee asked Staff to rely on a
longer period of historical data to build projections for outer years. The
second item was the major factor that led to a ten-year budget surplus in
the last report, compared to the $88 million shortfall. In May 2012, Staff
began with a ten-year budget shortfall of $88 million. In December 2012,
Staff forecasted a $4.2 million surplus over the next ten years. Today the
LRFF showed a ten-year surplus of $500,000. The main drivers behind the
change were improved tax revenues and budget savings from miscellaneous
groups. The third item was an updated Utility User Tax (UUT) revenue. The
fourth item was the California Public Employees Retirement System
(CalPERS) smoothing methodology and mortality experience. The
Committee wanted a cumulative deficit-surplus total added to the forecast.
Finally, the Committee wanted Staff to show detail of true General Fund Full
Time Equivalent (FTE) reductions, rather than transfers between General
Fund and other funds. Staff updated the model and proposed changing a
number of items in the model. Changes resulted in a $500,000 hit to the
General Fund in FY 2014. Staff projected a $4.2 million increase in overall
revenue for FY 2013. $2.5 million of that increase was included in the LRFF
presented in December 2012. In FY 2014 Staff projected a minimal revenue
increase. Staff included in the FY 2013 numbers within the updated base
model an additional $1.7 million in tax revenue, resulting from a one-time
Documentary Transfer Tax receipt. The second item Staff changed in the
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 2 of 8
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Draft ExcerptMinutes 03‐05‐13
base model was a $1.3 million General Fund hit due to the change in equity
transfer calculation. Staff received rate updates in January 2013 regarding
the rate of return from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). The Utility Funds
were based on capital assets in those funds and tied to PG&E's rate of
return. The calculation of the equity transfer was updated for those lower
rates. The base model presented in December 2012 reflected a total $18.3
million equity transfer from Utilities. The base model now reflected a $17.4
million transfer from electric and gas. The third item included in the update
was the deferral of the Golf Course reconfiguration. The project was
deferred from July 2013 to April 2014, resulting in a savings of $700,000.
Joe Saccio, Assistant Director of Administrative Services recalled one of the
main concerns in the December 2012 Committee discussion was whether
Staff was overly optimistic in the LRFF. In addition, the Committee
suggested using historical and trends to forecast the future. Staff provided
the average ten-year and twenty-year compound annual growth rates
comparing the December 2012 LRFF and the current LRFF. The compound
annual growth rate over 20 years for the total five major taxes was 4.1
percent. The December 2012 LRFF was 4.04 percent, and the current LRFF
was approximately 4.23 percent. Property Tax was 4.97 percent; sales tax
was 2.07 percent over 20 years; Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) was 4.9
percent over 20 years; Documentary Transfer Tax over 20 years was 7.3
percent; and UUT was 3.8 percent. All revenues were 4.6 percent over 20
years. Overall Staff used 3.32 percent for all revenue. Revenue levels for
Property Tax were stable overall. Unlike some communities, Palo Alto
property taxes remained relatively stable. Approximately 300 homes under
$500,000 turned over during the last six years. Sales tax was a concern in
that it was growing at slightly more than two percent per year, less than the
rate of inflation. Staff projected 3.38 percent, because Palo Alto was
attracting and maintaining businesses. TOT projected revenues were
roughly in line. The volatility in the Documentary Transfer Tax caused Staff
to project a conservative figure. Staff did not include Casa Olga (new hotel)
in the LRFF, nor did they include other hotels in the next two or three years
of the LRFF. He conservatively estimated Casa Olga revenue at $450,000-
$500,000.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services explained TOT for new hotels
was not included in the LRFF because Staff recommended using the TOT for
Infrastructure.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff included Hewlett-Packard's
return to Palo Alto in sales tax projections.
Mr. Saccio reported Staff and the Utilities Department were waiting for that
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 3 of 8
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Draft ExcerptMinutes 03‐05‐13
to happen. Utilities did not see the expected increase in electric demand.
Mr. Perez indicated Staff was monitoring the situation.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if Staff had an explanation.
Mr. Perez noted Staff attempted to discuss it with Hewlett-Packard;
however, they were protecting their privacy.
Mr. Saccio reported Staff used information from the Utilities Department as
of February 11, 2013 to calculate the five percent growth in UUT. Ordinarily
revenues were 5 percent; however, some large users had a step-down in
terms of UUT depending on usage.
Mr. Perez reported the CalPERS chief actuary will be recommending that the
CalPERS Board lower the expected rate of return; the expected amount was
either 1/4 or 1/2 percent.
Council Member Schmid asked if CalPERS was currently using 7.5 percent.
Mr. Perez stated 7.5 percent was the current rate of return. The
recommendation will be presented to the CalPERS Board around February
2014, and the impact will occurr in FY 2016. The expected impact was an
approximate 2.5 percent increase for the Miscellaneous, and approximately
four percent for Safety. The three percent embedded in the base model
covered a 1/4 percent increase. If the rate of return increased 1/2 percent,
then the base model was not sufficient. The proposal in February 2014 was
to move from a 15 year smoothing period to a five year period. That
accounted for approximately $34 million of the impact in the alternative
scenario of $50.6 million in additional expenses. The mortality factor
accounted for approximately $17 million of the $50.6 million. If the CalPERS
Board acted on these three issues, the alternative scenario became part of
the base model. Staff proposed hiring an actuary to assist with the next
step. Pension reform went into effect in January 2013, and neither the base
model nor the alternative model showed the potential savings of the new
third tier of pension reform; the City was to have a $586,000 cumulative
surplus in that period for the base model. If the CalPERS Board acted on the
recommendations and impacts passed through to the City in FY 2016, the
City was to have a $50 million deficit.
Chair Burt inquired whether the $50 million deficit excluded consideration of
the third pension tier.
Mr. Keene asked where in the alternative scenario was the additional 1/4
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 4 of 8
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Draft ExcerptMinutes 03‐05‐13
percent.
Mr. Perez stated it was in the base model starting in FY 2017.
Chair Burt asked if the second 1/4 percent was included in the alternative
model.
Mr. Perez indicated it was not in the alternative model.
Mr. Keene reported that was an additional increment on top of the $50
million if that occurred.
Council Member Berman reiterated that the 1/4 percent was included in the
base and alternative models, but note the 1/2 percent.
Mr. Perez agreed. The base model contained the 1/4 percent. The potential
second 1/4 was not contained in either model.
Chair Burt asked how the alternative model was different from the base
model.
Mr. Perez explained the alternative model included the smoothing change
from 15 years to 5 years, in addition to the mortality experience.
Council Member Berman inquired whether Staff felt the CalPERS Board
wanted to take the recommended action.
Mr. Perez believed there was enough pressure from experts for the CalPERS
board to act. The third tier for pension generated some savings to offset
some of these impacts. The City had 2,000 employees either retired or
working for other agencies, which was a large number compared to the
number of active employees. Those 2,000 employees were not going to
move into the new tier. The question was how many of the 900 active
employees moved to the third tier once they were replaced. An expert was
necessary to determine the potential savings.
Mr. Keene felt many employees preferred to retire later in order to receive a
higher pension amount.
Mr. Perez reported another reason for the CalPERS Board to take action was
the cap in the Tier 3 was tied to the Social Security number.
Council Member Berman inquired whether the increase in retirement age
was mandated by State legislature.
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 5 of 8
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Draft ExcerptMinutes 03‐05‐13
Mr. Keene stated it was part of Governor Brown's plan. He inquired if there
was a sense of whether or not the CalPERS Board adopted either the 1/4 or
1/2 percent.
Mr. Perez stated the CalPERS Board was concerned about the impact on local
governments. A few agencies were in bankruptcy and had issues with
payments. He believes the CalPERS Board will adopt 1/4 percent, given the
impact to local governments.
Mr. Saccio reported Moody's and Standard &Poor’s had utilized a 5.75
percent return rate to evaluate the liabilities to cities, and that exerted
pressure on the CalPERS Board.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked Staff to explain why they used these numbers
when Staff knew they were wrong.
Mr. Perez suggested having the discussion with an expert. The Committee
needed to discuss options and plan for the potential impact. Using the
numbers provided an indication of the need to plan for the following two
years.
Chair Burt believed the 1/4 percent reduction was likely, and suggested
people assume another 1/4 percent reduction would occur in a few years.
Mr. Perez was comfortable including an additional 1/4 percent reduction in
the alternative scenario.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff included an incremental note in
the LRFF stating the monetary impact for each 1/4 percent incremental
change.
Mr. Perez agreed to add that if it worked mathematically.
Mr. Keene said he could provide a general number, because the specific
amount was to change, as the percentage changed.
Council Member Schmid believed CalPERS was in a position to take higher
risks to achieve higher rates of return, because any consequence fell to
cities. With benefits growing on the order of 6 1/2 to 7 percent per year,
and salaries growing at two percent, the City was in a long-term situation
where it was not be able to pay employees to keep up with the rate of
inflation.
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 6 of 8
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Draft ExcerptMinutes 03‐05‐13
Chair Burt asked if the Committee should continue the Agenda Item due to
the time.
Mr. Keene asked if the Committee had additional questions.
Mr. Perez noted the Agenda Items for the next meeting on March 19, 2013.
Chair Burt suggested continuing discussion of the LRFF.
Mr. Perez inquired whether Staff should prepare additional information for
the next discussion.
Chair Burt wanted the alternative scenario to become the base model.
Mr. Perez felt that would be assuming the CalPERS Board would approve the
change.
Chair Burt considered approval of the 1/4 percent change as the base model,
and not approving it is an alternative model.
Council Member Berman stated there was no analysis of the pension third
tier.
Chair Burt agreed that would need to be analyzed in order to have a realistic
LRFF.
Mr. Keene noted the information was evolving.
Chair Burt believed a placeholder was more accurate than pretending
nothing would occur; projection required the best thinking.
Mr. Perez said he could include a simple calculation; however, the calculation
would most likely be very complex.
Chair Burt suggested including a rough number in order to have a more
accurate forecast.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff needed to return once
information was more certain.
Chair Burt wanted Staff to return with updates based on the Committee's
feedback. Hotels under construction needed to be included in the long term
projection. He suggested the Committee earmark certain new revenue
streams for infrastructure; he said that could be done within the LRFF. He
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 7 of 8
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Draft ExcerptMinutes 03‐05‐13
encouraged Staff to reconsider the UUT increase and the anticipated gas and
water increases in coming years. He was skeptical of the anticipated high
sales tax; however, the Documentary Transfer Tax was probably
underestimated. He wanted to make the numbers as realistic as possible,
with the understanding that certain numbers were the best estimates given.
Mr. Keene reported Staff could prepare a LRFF over the next month, with the
qualification that it utilized best estimates. Until June, Staff needed to be
working on the Budget.
Council Member Berman suggested including Cubberley needs, and inquired
whether the $7.5 million lease payment was included.
Mr. Perez indicated the full amount was included, and Staff anticipated it
continue for the modeling.
Chair Burt requested Staff to explain the radical impact of changing
smoothing from a 15-year period to a 5-year period.
Mr. Perez was going to provide information he received at the finance officer
conference.
Chair Burt wanted to understand if CalPERS was restating an adjustment in
long term projections and burying it within a discussion of the shorter-term
smoothing.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff had enough direction to return
with updated information.
Mr. Keene answered yes.
Vice Mayor Shepherd noted the LRFF was utilized in Budget discussions, and
expressed concerns about changes in revenue forecasts.
Mr. Saccio suggested Staff utilize 20-year amounts into the future.
Chair Burt requested an explanation of the rationale to utilize data other
than the 20-year data.
Council Member Schmid felt the importance of the LRFF was context for the
Budget debate.
Mr. Keene stated the LRFF was used to inform Budget decisions. The
Committee did not think about this in terms of tradeoff implications.
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 8 of 8
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Draft ExcerptMinutes 03‐05‐13
Chair Burt said a reasonably accurate LRFF was an informed Budget
decision.
FINANCE COMMITTEE
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 7
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023 Long Range Financial Forecast (Continued From
March 5, 2013)
Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director wanted to provide Staff with
feedback to the Finance Committee's (Committee) comments at the end of
the prior discussion, and to receive input for discussion with the Council.
The Mayor indicated he wanted the Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) to
be an Action Item on the Council Agenda. The first comment concerned tax
revenue associated with hotels currently under construction, and earmarking
those funds as revenue streams for infrastructure expense; He said Staff
could include that in the LRFF. The second comment concerned calculating
the pension savings from the third tier pension benefits. Staff suggested
hiring an actuary firm to assist in calculating those savings because the
alternative scenario contained an approximate $50 million impact between
the years of 2017 and 2023. He remarked that the $50 million impact
should be offset by savings. The third comment requested further
clarification on the CalPERS pension rate estimates included in the base
model. Staff suggested utilizing the actuary firm to validate their application
of the CalPERS estimates. With regard to the fourth comment from the
previous meeting, Staff requested clarification. With regard to the fifth
comment, Staff was comfortable with their estimates for sales and
Documentary Transfer Taxes. If the Committee had concerns, Staff would
note them in documentation to the Council and in the model.
Chair Burt indicated the Committee needed to decide whether to make the
first comment a recommendation to the Council.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid to have Staff put the related tax revenue associated with hotels
currently under construction in the Long Range Financial Forecast.
Chair Burt noted the comment also contained a provision to earmark
revenue streams for infrastructure expense.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 2 of 7
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt Minutes 3/19/2013
Vice Mayor Shepherd did not want to earmark revenue for infrastructure
expense.
Council Member Schmid did not recommend earmarking funds at this time.
Chair Burt wanted to earmark funds for infrastructure. He asked if Staff
needed a Motion.
James Keene, City Manager suggested the Committee move the separate
items.
MOTION RECAPPED: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council
Member Schmid to include Transient Occupancy Tax for hotels currently
under construction in the Long Range Financial Forecast.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Burt moved to have Council
consider earmarking revenue streams for infrastructure expense.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND.
Vice Mayor Shepherd did not object to the Committee asking the Council to
hold a policy discussion regarding earmarking funds.
Chair Burt inquired whether the City had other definable new revenue
sources.
Mr. Perez could not recall any new revenue sources. There were some
implied such as the Utility Users Tax (UUT).
Chair Burt stated a change in the Cubberley lease could be a new revenue
source.
Vice Mayor Shepherd reported discussion from the Infrastructure Committee
meeting indicated a bond may not be needed.
Chair Burt suggested the Finance Committee recommend that full Council
consider whether discrete new revenue streams needed to be earmarked for
specific purposes such as infrastructure.
Vice Mayor Shepherd requested Chair Burt make a suggestion that was
separate from the Motion to prevent confusion.
Chair Burt agreed.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Berman Absent
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 3 of 7
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt Minutes 3/19/2013
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd
that the Finance Committee recommend the Council hold a discussion on
whether discrete new revenue streams be identified for specific purposes,
such as infrastructure use.
Council Member Schmid felt the Motion was a policy change when the
Committee was considering amendments to the LRFF.
Chair Burt explained potential new revenues would have a multi-year impact
on the LRFF.
Council Member Schmid believed defining new revenue sources for
infrastructure was separate from review and approval of the LRFF.
Chair Burt stated budgeting one or two new revenue streams was a part of
the LRFF.
Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated a Committee could hold a broader discussion.
She wanted the Infrastructure Committee to develop new revenue streams;
however, she thought this would be a good conversation for the Council.
MOTION PASSED: 2-1, Schmid no, Berman absent
Chair Burt recalled the next topic was calculation of the pension savings for
third tier employees. Staff wished to hire an actuary. He inquired whether
Staff needed a Motion for Staff to hire an actuary.
Mr. Perez answered no and said hiring an actuary was within the City
Manager's authority.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether this work was within the scope of
work for Bartel Associates.
Mr. Perez replied no. The previous work was regarding retiree medical.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if this work could be added to Bartel Associates'
scope of work for the next cycle.
Mr. Perez reported the City had not engaged Bartel Associates for pension
services. Given the significant impact of Staff estimates, it was beneficial for
an actuarial firm to validate Staff's calculations.
Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to understand the importance of the
information at the current time.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 4 of 7
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt Minutes 3/19/2013
Mr. Perez felt it was important because Staff wanted to ensure they were
making sound decisions based on sound information and said data was
based on actual demographics; however, some assumptions were based on
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) experience. He
said a pattern could develop in the next five to ten years that would shift
because the City will have savings from new employees moving into the
third tier.
Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to ensure Staff worked efficiently.
Chair Burt clarified that the actuary would project the number of employees
in the third tier and the point in time that would impact City liabilities.
Mr. Perez reported the actuary would make assumptions regarding
employees' retirement dates and the likelihood of employees being in tier
two, versus being in tier three.
Chair Burt inquired if the impact was many millions of dollars.
Mr. Perez answered yes. The unknown factor was when the impact would
occur.
Chair Burt acknowledged that the actuary could only provide a best
estimate. At the current time Staff did not include any estimate, and it was
a significant change.
Mr. Perez indicated Bartel Associates performed the same analysis for other
agencies.
Council Member Schmid stated the difference between tier two and tier three
was savings; however, CalPERS reform opened the possibility of losses for
the City.
Mr. Perez explained the two percent at age 60 could move to 2.418 percent
at age 63. In tier three, a cap on the maximum pension allowance an
employee could earn was tied to the Social Security limit. The question was
how many employees would go to in tier two.
Chair Burt stated the Committee did not need to take action on the request
to hire an actuary, and continued to the third topic.
Mr. Perez reported Staff was comfortable with their estimates. He said an
actuary could validate those estimates to ensure Staff's calculations were
sound.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 5 of 7
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt Minutes 3/19/2013
Vice Mayor Shepherd said she had no confidence in CalPERS' rate of return.
She hoped the LRFF would include the effect of each 1/4 percent rate
change.
Chair Burt did not believe this was a point of contention.
Mr. Keene indicated Staff could include a note and some calculations in the
LRFF.
Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to ensure that was included.
Chair Burt indicated the third topic required no action by the Committee.
With regard to the fourth topic, he was concerned about projecting the prior
anticipated utility increases for the future. While capital expenditures
continued to increase for various utilities, the commodity costs on gas and
electric might not rise at historic rates. Experts in the industry were
reexamining those historic trends and escalations, and suggesting the
escalations may not occur at the same rate. Renewables and non-
renewables were experiencing market changes, which could be new trends.
He requested Staff discuss with Utilities Staff any anticipated trends that
should be factored in.
Mr. Perez indicated Staff would do so.
Council Member Schmid agreed that Staff should review that.
Vice Mayor Shepherd noted Utilities did not provide the majority of
revenues.
Chair Burt inquired whether the Report included a breakdown of revenues
from different streams.
Joe Saccio, Assistant Director of Administrative Services reported the last
LRFF included a compound annual growth of approximately 2.9 percent for
UUT. The historical 20-year compound annual growth was 3.8 percent, and
the prior ten years was 5.3 percent.
Chair Burt suggested the adjustment was included.
Mr. Saccio noted Staff had lowered the projected annual growth. It was
incumbent on Utilities to explain their forecasts in terms of prices of
commodities and capital.
Chair Burt inquired about the percentage of the Budget.
Vice Mayor Shepherd stated the sales tax had been erratic.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 6 of 7
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt Minutes 3/19/2013
Chair Burt recalled the final topic was long-term projections for sales and
Documentary Transfer Taxes. The concern was that the 20-year
compounded growth was 2.07 percent, the 10-year compounded growth was
one percent, and the forward projection was 3.38 percent for sales tax.
Mr. Saccio explained Staff reviewed the forecast and assumptions. Those
were reasonable growth rates for the next few years. Comparing the four
quarters of calendar year 2012 to the four quarters of calendar year 2011
resulted in a 12.4 percent increase.
Chair Burt felt that information was not relevant in projecting a 10-year
forecast. He requested Staff's rationale for projecting 3.4 percent growth
when the prior growth was only one or two percent.
Mr. Saccio said Staff considered the first couple of years when preparing the
LRFF.
Chair Burt indicated the LRFF did not appear to include a recession.
Mr. Saccio recalled the Committee's prior instructions were to review the
prior 20 years and include all the recessions in those 20 years in order to
determine a rate of growth.
Chair Burt asked how Staff moved from 2.0 percent growth to a projected
3.38 percent growth.
Mr. Perez reported Staff was comfortable with the projected growth for the
next five years. Staff reviewed the final five years, and either made
adjustments or stated the Committee was uncomfortable with Staff's long-
term projections for sales tax.
Council Member Schmid felt the general economic outlook as stated on
pages three and four was optimistic. He thought it would be good to have a
section about persisting economic problems.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff relied on any new source of
sales tax.
Mr. Saccio responded no and said the Amazon tax would go to the
jurisdictions where warehouses were located.
Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated the Amazon tax would be ZIP code specific,
and was projected to provide $2.5 billion to the State of California.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 7 of 7
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt Minutes 3/19/2013
Mr. Saccio stated the State of California would receive its share of the sales
tax, but the one percent of sales tax for local jurisdictions went to the local
jurisdictions where the Amazon warehouse is located.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the City would receive funds from the Amazon
sales tax.
Mr. Saccio replied no. Staff relied on sales tax from Hewlett Packard;
however, that had not occurred.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff could resolve the higher
projection for sales tax.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would review the second of the five years of the LRFF
and would provide more detail. If Staff did not change their opinion, they
needed to provide an explanation.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if Staff preferred to present the LRFF to the
Council or if they preferred returning to the Committee.
Mr. Perez suggested that was preferable in light of Budget hearings
beginning in May.
Mr. Saccio noted that the major taxes over the past five years had a
cumulative growth rate of 4.1 percent. The forecast contained 4.2 percent
growth. Every year some taxes did not meet projections and others
exceeded projections. In totality, projections were close to the trend in
historical growth.
Chair Burt stated the LRFF should be as close to correct as possible. The
Amazon issue raised the question of how much Staff considered trends of
internet sales and their impact on 10 and 20-year trend. He noted that
changes in tax law could change that.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3824)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Discussion of Cubberley Final Report & Lease
Title: Council Discussion of the Cubberley Community Advisory Report and
Guidance Regarding Negotiations Related to the Cubberley Lease and
Covenant Not to Develop
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Background
This Action Item has been placed on the Council’s Agenda as directed by the City Council at its
meeting on April 22, 2013. The Council wanted to have a public discussion about the issue of
Cubberley and the City’s lease negotiations with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD).
The Council also continued its proposed Closed Session from April 22 to May 20, 2013.
Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report
Both the City Council and the School District received the Final Report and Recommendations of
the Community Advisory Committee (CCAC) at a special joint meeting on March 14, 2013. The
CCAC report was long and detailed and included reports from four subcommittees (School
Needs, Community Needs, Facilities, and Finance) and 17 Recommendations. As their report
stated, “The CCAC recommendations are of two kinds: (1) specific near term decisions that are
required as essential components of the long term solution which will serve the best interests
of the entire community, and (2) a number of decisions which we have identified as critical
steps down a path which will enable the community to ultimately achieve a solution.”
After the presentation of its final report, the CCAC’s work was completed. The Policy Advisory
Committee (PAC) composed of three Council Members and two School Board members was
also established concurrent with the CCAC, to serve as intermediaries between the respective
governing bodies and staff (supporting the CCAC ) and was expected to report back to the
Council and the Board as needed. The PAC’s role and timeline was established as concurrent
with the CCAC.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Given the completion of the work of those two committees, it is appropriate now for the City
Council to discuss how to review the CCAC report and how to move forward. Presumably the
School Board will have similar discussions. As the CCAC report itself indicated, there are longer
term issues that still will need to be addressed but “specific near term decisions that are
required as essential components of the long term solution”.
Discussion
Option to Renew the Lease
A critical near term decision is the Council’s conclusion on whether to renew the Lease and
Covenant Not to Develop (lease) between the City and the School District, which needs to occur
by the end of this calendar year. The Closed Session scheduled for May 20, 2013 is available for
the Council to give specific direction to the City negotiating team in exploratory lease renewal
discussions that must occur with adequate time, so that the Council can determine by
December 31, 2013 whether to exercise its option to extend the lease. Those negotiations
between the City and School District should begin soon.
The Council may want to talk about its perspectives regarding the current lease and potential
options for new terms, as well as other commentary related to the CCAC report. Staff would
note that much of the CCAC report does deal with long term issues that could require ongoing
effort into the future but that action on the lease question and establishment of principles or
positions on Cubberley that can inform the City’s negotiating position need to occur sooner
than later.
The staff has some recommendations regarding Cubberley that we will be happy to discuss with
Council but is holding those in abeyance to allow the Council discussion to unfold as you see
best at the meeting on May 13, 2013. Council has made it clear that you scheduled this
meeting to hear from the public and provide adequate time for the Council to discuss this most
important matter and potentially provide direction to staff.
Attachments
Staff has included a summary of the CCAC Report’s recommendations (Attachment A) but
Council Members may want to bring your full report copy to the meeting. After their report was
issued and provided to Council, the CCAC reached out to staff to issue a clarification to their
recommendations, which is included as Attachment B. Finally, the original staff report (CMR)
establishing the Cubberley committees and Guiding Principles is included as Attachment C.
Attachments:
Attachment A Summary of CCAC Report Recommendations (PDF)
Attachment B CCAC Final Report Errors & Omissions Addendum_5-8-2013(PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Attachment C Cubberley Guiding Principles CMR & Attachments_5-14-2012 (PDF)
Term of the lease renewal
While most CCAC votes on the issues considered were unanimous or close to unanimous,
the question of what term to recommend for the new lease always resulted in a roughly
evenly divided vote. The arguments for a shorter (5 year) lease typically revolved around
the need to create pressure to get the long term planning done in a timely manner ... it
was felt that a shorter lease would have the effect of “putting the collective feet of the City
and School District in the fire” with some advocating completion and approval of such a
long term plan as a condition for automatic extension of the lease beyond 5 years. Those
who supported a longer term (10 year) lease suggested that this approach would provide
needed stability for tenants, including making rental of available space (for example, when
Foothill College moves out) more easily accomplished and incentivize tenants to pay for
improvements to their space or to a maintenance fund; another argument for a 10 year
lease was the suggestion that it would likely be 10 years or more before major renovations
of the site would be undertaken. The pros and cons of these different lease periods should
be carefully considered as the City and School District negotiate the lease extension which,
regardless of period, we strongly believe should be accomplished. For example, a longer
lease term between the City and School District allows the City to enter into longer term
leases with their tenants, possibly producing higher rental rates.
The following questions and issues were put to a vote of the full CCAC, and are presented
as they were drafted during CCAC discussions and need to be considered in the context of
the discussions at the time (as presented in fuller detail later). The formal recommendations
are:
VOLUME 1 ... page 11
CCAC Report — Recommendations
A
B
It is the strong recommendation of the CCAC that the entire
Cubberley site become a joint / shared City / School District use facility.
Passed 17-0-0
The CCAC’s preferred option is, not just a shared parcel, but rather a truly
integrated use of the site
The City and School District should renegotiate a lease extension
option with additional conditions.
Passed 17-0-0
The conditions of the lease extension should reflect the changed circumstances
and economics since the original leases were signed.
VOLUME 1 ... page 12
CCAC Report — Recommendations
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
The current Covenant Not To Develop should be
removed from a Cubberley lease extension.
Passed 18-0-0
This recommendation should not be understood to imply deleting the dollars
associated with the covenant.
Child care should continue to be provided at school sites
and is important to the community.
Passed 18-0-0
This recommendation pertains to the overall existing Lease, not development of
the Cubberley site. The CCAC wanted to emphasize the importance of continuing
the arrangements for child care at school sites that currently exists.
Operating costs should not be shared in a five year window.
Passed 19-0-0
During the first five year lease period, all operations on site will be the City’s.
Facility upgrades beyond routine maintenance
should be negotiated.
Passed 19-0-0
Currently the City pays for routine maintenance as determined necessary by the
City. If the School District or City wants more extensive maintenance done, they
should discuss sharing the costs.
Capital expenses in the first five years of the lease
extension should be shared.
Passed 15-2-1
A site master plan needs to be developed in the first
five years of any lease extension.
Passed 18-0-0
In the first five years of any lease extension, there should be a
Community Needs Assessment developed with professional support.
Passed 17-0-1
J
K
L
CCAC Report — Recommendations
M
N
O
As a condition of any lease extension or renewal, an
MOU shall be developed within one year of its execution that
determines how a Community Needs Assessment and Master Plan
will be developed in the next five years.
Passed 19-0-0
The City and the School District shall explore the possibility of
expanding City / School District joint-use agreement models including
the expansion of joint-use at City and School District facilities.
Passed 20-0-0
Discussed in detail, it was agreed that it would be important for the City and
School District to explore this issue for the benefit of our community, but was not
suggested to be a part of the lease extension.
As a condition of any lease extension or renewal, within one
year of its execution near-term improvements to Cubberley shall be
identified that can serve most, if not all, current and potential
site uses (example: restrooms for playing fields).
Passed 20-0-0
Any new leasing of the space should be done in the context of
the MOU, Community Needs Assessment, and revised Master Plan
Passed 20-0-0
The City and School District should further investigate alternative
forms of governance and determine a governance structure
for the joint use of Cubberley.
Passed 14-0-0
A long-term master plan for Cubberley should not be a
part of a 2014 ballot measure.
Passed 20-0-0
It was generally agreed that the funding of site improvements at Cubberley is not
compatible with a 2014 bond measure for reasons of time constraints and general
uncertainties surrounding the project.
VOLUME 1 ... page 13
P
CCAC Report — Recommendations
VOLUME 1 ... page 14
Q
Phased construction should occur consistent with the
MOU and Master Plan to minimize disruption to existing users.
Passed 11-0-1
The City should not relinquish ownership of its 8 acres.
Passed 13-4-0
While the School District would like flexibility to use the full 35 acre site, the
CCAC’s work has demonstrated: (1) valued current use and likely increasing
need for community center space; (2) that the purchase of alternate space is cost
prohibitive and unlikely to enjoy the benefits of prime location and easy access
by walking, bicycling, or transit; (3) successful examples of shared use in other
communities and a variety of options for funding and governing a shared site; and
(4) the feasibility of accommodating community center needs while still providing
more, and more highly functional, space for school use than the entire current 35-
acre facility offers.Planning for co-location and joint use of the whole site offers
great potential for a win-win solution. Certainty about a long term City presence
on the site facilitates that planning.
——————
Please see Volume 3 for further insight to, and understanding of, these CCAC
recommendations as provided by the minutes of our discussions, which understanding will,
we believe, contribute to flexibility in the design and development of future phases.
May 8, 2013
CCAC Final Report Errors & Omissions Addendum
Although unintended, one error and one omission were identified in the CCAC Final
Report. The error and omission were identified by CCAC members following the
distribution of the CCAC Final Report.
Therefore, the CCAC, via email and at the direction of its leadership, decided that the best way to correct this is to do two things: 1) issue an addendum document that
identifies the changes; and 2) revise any impacted pages of the CCAC Final Report
posted online.
No further changes or corrections to the CCAC Final Report are anticipated.
The corrections are below:
1) Volume 1, Page 12, Recommendation C
Recommendation C is, “The current Covenant Not To Develop should be
removed from a Cubberley lease extension. Passed 18-0-0”
After the voted on recommendation language a sentence appears that
was neither approved nor voted on by the CCAC and should be removed.
The sentence to be removed is, “This recommendation should not be
understood to imply deleting the dollars associated with the covenant.”
2) Volume 1, Page 14
A voted-on recommendation from the January 30, 2013 CCAC meeting
was omitted from the Final Report and should be inserted on page 14 of
Volume 1 of the CCAC Final Report after Recommendation Q.
The new recommendation is labeled “Recommendation R” and follows
Recommendation Q.
Recommendation R reads as follows, “The City Council should include in
a 2014 bond measure the flexibility to include capital improvements necessary to maintain building life for 10 years at Cubberley. Passed 18-0-0”
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2861)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/14/2012
Summary Title: Cubberley Guiding Principles
Title: Council Approval of Guiding Principles for the Cubberley Policy
Advisory Committee and the City Manager and Superintendent Community
Advisory Committee
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Guiding Principles for the Cubberley
Policy Advisory Committee and the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) appointed by
the City Manager and PAUSD Superintendent.
Background and Discussion
On May 8, 2012, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) approved the draft
Guiding Principles without amendments. As Council is aware, the draft Guiding
Principles were revised and forwarded by Council to the Policy Advisory Committee
(PAC) composed of Council Members Yeh, Shepherd and Klein; and Board Members
Mitchell and Townsend. The PAC met on April 20, 2012 and prepared the draft
presented to the PAUSD School Board. The draft is now before the Council for final
approval and is as Attachment A.
The PAUSD School Board also suggested an additional member of the CAC in the “Other
Community Members” category. Brian Carilli was suggested to the City Manager and
Superintendent and has been added to the draft CAC list.
Timeline
Once Council approves the final Guiding Principles and all suggestions for the CAC
members have been made, Staff will poll the CAC for a convenient meeting time the 3rd
or 4th week of May.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Final Draft Cubberley PAC Guiding Principals (DOC)
Attachment B: PAUSD Board Packet 5.8.12 Action Item 9 (PDF)
Prepared By: Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager
Department Head: James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Attachment A
Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee
City Manager and PAUSD Superintendent Community Advisory Committee
Guiding Principles
Approved by the Board of Education Agenda May 8, 2012
Draft for the Palo Alto City Council May 14, 2012
The Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) consists of two Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD) Board members appointed by the School Board President and three
City Council members appointed by the Mayor. The PAC shall be the primary advisor to
the Council and the School Board on issues related to the lease and possible re-use or
joint use of the Cubberley campus.
The Cubberley Community Advisory Committee (CAC) is jointly appointed by the City
Manager and Superintendent, and shall represent a cross section of Cubberley,
neighborhoods, schools and citywide representatives. The CAC shall review Cubberley
background and history and provide the PAC with community input including but not
limited to possible re-use scenarios, alternative lease arrangements, site plan
configurations, possible funding plans, identification of joint use opportunities and
compatible standards.
1. The City and PAUSD recognize that our citizens have substantial investments, both
emotional and financial in the Cubberley Campus, and shall work to reach
decisions for the benefit of our entire community.
2. The Committees shall maintain open and transparent processes at all times, and
members of the public shall be invited to all meetings. The CAC shall complete a
final report. PAC and CAC meetings shall be audio-recorded with minutes
completed for the PAC, and notes completed for the CAC. (Costs of minutes shall
be cost-shared by the City and PAUSD).
3. Documents, architectural drawings and other written communication provided to
the Committees shall be made available to the general public as soon as possible.
4. The City and PAUSD recognize that Cubberley is a major cultural, educational,
recreational and non-profit resource, very important to the community’s health
and vitality.
5. Acknowledging that each entity has different regulations and governing legislation,
the City and PAUSD shall seek to work cooperatively to explore all practical joint-
uses of the Cubberley campus for both educational and community services.
6. The City and PAUSD have ownership interests in portions of the campus: PAUSD
owns 27 acres and the City owns 8 acres. The parties may consider relocation of
Attachment A
their ownership interests within the site to facilitate optimal site layout and
efficiency.
7. The City Manager and PAUSD Superintendent shall jointly prepare a project
budget for 2012/13, with costs shared equally between the City and PAUSD.
8. While the Policy Advisory Committee planning shall occur as cooperatively as
possible, the City Council representatives and the PAUSD Board Members shall
retain independent recommending authority should consensus not be reached.
9. Maintaining the quality of PAUSD schools is a significant community value, and
planning for a growing population is essential to maintaining educational
excellence and the overall health and well-being of our community.
10. Cubberley programs enrich the community and criteria shall be developed to
prioritize and/or retain existing uses as well as assess prospective new uses.
11. The City and PAUSD recognize that joint-use could result in stronger educational
and cultural programs provided more efficiently.
12. The City Council and PAUSD representatives on the Policy Advisory Committee
shall report, not less often than every other month, to their respective bodies on
Cubberley planning activities.
13. The City and PAUSD shall work to continue community access to Cubberley to the
extent possible. Recreation facilities provided at the Cubberley campus produce
important services benefitting the community at large.
14. The residential neighborhoods surrounding Cubberley shall be considered in
determining the compatibility of possible changes on the Cubberley campus.
15. Transportation issues and access to and within Cubberley shall be considered in
determining possible options including improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
16. All recommendations shall be mindful of the dynamic short-, mid-, and long-term
forces impacting the PAUSD and City.
BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Action 9
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 05.08.12
TO: Board of Education
FROM: Kevin Skelly, Superintendent of Schools
SUBJECT: Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Composition and Cubberley Policy Advisory
Committee Guiding Principles
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE
Governance and Communication
BACKGROUND
A process for discussing the Cubberley site began in November of 2011. The plan is to achieve consensus
on a vision for the future of the Cubberley site one year prior to the City's current lease expiration in
December 2014. The process involves forming three groups: a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) made
up of executive staff from PAUSD and the City; a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to be appointed
by the City Manager (with recommendations from the School Superintendent); and a Policy Advisory
Committee (PAC) composed of three City Council members (Yeh, Shepherd and Klein) and two PAUSD
members (Mitchell and Townsend).
Note: At the last meeting, conceptual site plans were presented and discussed. This part of the
item from the last meeting has been removed
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAG)
The CAC is intended to represent a cross section of Cubberley, neighborhoods, schools and city-wide
representatives. The members are appointed by the City Manager, with input by the Superintendent of
Schools. They will provide the PAC with community input. A listing of the proposed membership as of May
3, 2012 is attached. The Board is asked to approve this list for consideration by City Council on May 14,
2012.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
A draft set of Guiding Principles (GPs) for use by the PAC and CAC has been developed. The GPs are
intended to reflect community values of transparency ensuring that the public is invited to meetings and
offered opportunities to interact with both groups. In addition, the Guiding Principles set up very broad
objectives to clarify that the process is intended to be collaboration between the City and the School district,
emphasizing joint use of the facilities where possible . A discussion regarding these GPs took place at the
PAC meeting on Friday, April 20, 2012 and the PAUSD Board meeting on April 24, 2012. Staff has
provided an updated version of the Guiding Principles based on Board input and recommends approval.
These Guiding Principles are scheduled for consideration by the City Council at its May 14, 2012 meeting.
PROCESS AND TIME LINE
The City's Cubberley lease expires in December 2014. At that time, the lease may be extended an
additional 5 years upon mutual consent of the City and the District. The City's schedule assumes providing
the District notice of its intentions regarding renewal of the lease at the end of 2013 to provide the District
with one year's notice prior to the lease expiration. The first meeting of the CAC was anticipated to be in
early May and there will be approximately 12 months of meetings. As mentioned, the PAC had their first
meeting on Friday, April 20.
As discussed above, the CAC and PAC are scheduled to meet over the course of 2012 concluding their
recommendations in 2013. This timeline allows the Council to engage in lease negotiations with the School
District two years prior to the expiration of the lease in 2014. The timeline anticipates a decision on the
lease by the end of 2013, providing a one-year notice period if either party decides to not exercise the
5 year option to extend the lease.
RECOMMENDATION
The Guiding Principles and Citizen's Advisory Committee composition, as attached, are recommended for
approval.
Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee
City Manager and PAUSD Superintendent Community Advisory Committee
Guiding Principles
Draft for Board of Education Agenda May 8, 2012
The Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) consists of two Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD) Board members appointed by the School Board President and three
City Council members appointed by the Mayor. The PAC shall be the primary advisor to
the Council and the School Board on issues related to the lease and possible re-use or
joint use of the Cubberley campus.
The Cubberley Community Advisory Committee (CAC) is jointly appointed by the City
Manager and Superintendent, and shall represent a cross section of Cubberley,
neighborhoods, schools and citywide representatives. The CAC shall review Cubberley
background and history and provide the PAC with community input including but not
limited to possible re-use scenarios, alternative lease arrangements, site plan
configurations, possible funding plans, identification of joint use opportunities and
compatible standards.
1. The City and PAUSD recognize that our citizens have substantial investments, both
emotional and financial in the Cubberley Campus, and shall work to reach
decisions for the benefit of our entire community.
2. The Committees shall maintain open and transparent processes at all times, and
members of the public shall be invited to all meetings. The CAC shall complete a
final report. PAC and CAC meetings shall be audio-recorded with minutes
completed for the PAC, and notes completed for the CAe. (Costs of minutes shall
be cost-shared by the City and PAUSD).
3. Documents, architectural drawings and other written communication provided to
the Committees shall be made available to the general public as soon as possible.
4. The City and PAUSD recognize that Cubberley is a major cultural, educational,
recreational and non-profit resource, very important to the community's health
and vitality.
5. Acknowledging that each entity has different regulations and governing legislation,
the City and PAUSD shall seek to work cooperatively to explore all practical joint-
uses of the Cubberley campus for both educational and community services.
6. The City and PAUSD have ownership interests in portions of the campus: PAUSD
owns 27 acres and the City owns 8 acres. The parties may consider relocation of
their ownership interests within the site to facilitate optimal site layout and
efficiency.
7. The City Manager and PAUSD Superintendent shall jointly prepare a project
budget for 2012/13, with costs shared equally between the City and PAUSD.
8. While the Policy Advisory Committee planning shall occur as cooperatively as
possible, the City Council representatives and the PAUSD Board Members shall
retain independent recommending authority should consensus not be reached.
9. Maintaining the quality of PAUSD schools is a significant community value, and
planning for a growing population is essential to maintaining educational
excellence and the overall health and well-being of our community.
10. Cubberley programs enrich the community and criteria shall be developed to
prioritize and/or retain existing uses as well as assess prospective new uses.
11. The City and PAUSD recognize that joint-use could result in stronger educational
and cultural programs provided more efficiently.
12. The City Council and PAUSD representatives on the Policy Advisory Committee
shall report, not less often than every other month, to their respective bodies on
Cubberley planning activities.
13. The City and PAUSD shall work to continue community access to Cubberley to the
extent possible. Recreation facilities provided at the Cubberley campus produce
important services benefitting the community at large.
14. The residential neighborhoods surrounding Cubberley shall be considered in
determining the compatibility of possible changes on the Cubberley campus.
15. Transportation issues and access to and within Cubberley shall be considered in
determining possible options including improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
16. All recommendations shall be mindful of the dynamic short-, mid-, and long-term
forces impacting the PAUSD and City.
Cubberley Community Advisory Panel
Group First Name Last Name
Neighborhoods
Fair Meadow Tom Vician
Walnut Grove Tom Crystal
Green Meadow Lanie Wheeler
Greendell Michael Bein
Charleston Gardens Jean Wilcox
Midtown Sheri Furman
PAN Ken Allen
Commeroial Retail
Charleston Plaza Tenant
Village Properties Damian Cono
PTA's
Fairmeadow Elementary Claire Kirner
JLS Middle School John Markevitch
Gunn High School Tracy Stevens
Palo Alto High School Susan Bailey
Cubberley Tenants
Child Care Rachel Samoff
Artist Lessa Bouchard
Non Profit -Cardiac Therapy Jerry August
FOPAL Jim Schmidt
Community/Arts & Services Susie Thom
Park and Rec Commission
PT&C Greg Tanaka
Other Community Members Diane Reklis
Mandy Lowell
Brian Corilli
Acterra Michael Closson
PABAC William Robinson
City School Traffic Safety Penny Elison
Recreation and Sports League
Soft Ball Mike Cobb
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3716)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Restriction of Smoking in City Parks
Title: Transmittal of Policy and Services Committee Recommendation To
Council For The Adoption of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking
And Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish New
Smoking Restrictions for Parks Under Five Acres; Increase No-Smoking Buffer
Zones from 20 to 25 feet for Consistency with LEED Standards; and Make
Findings Regarding the Purpose of No-Smoking Regulations In City Parks
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
The Policy and Services Committee recommends that Council:
1) Adopt an ordinance to amend Chapter 9.14 (Smoking And Tobacco Regulations)
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, by adding Sections 9.14.005 and 9.14.035 and
amending Section 9.14.010, that would establish new smoking restrictions for
City parks and plazas under five acres in size; increase the no-smoking buffer
zones near public building entrances from 20 to 25 feet for consistency with
LEED standards; and make findings regarding the purpose of no-smoking
regulations (Attachment A); and
2) Refer the further investigation of the expansion of the new smoking restrictions
for City parks and open space areas five acres in size or larger to the Parks and
Recreation Commission, and direct the Commission to make recommendations to
the Policy & Services Committee for further consideration and action.
Background
At a presentation to the Policy and Services Committee on March 19, 2013 (Attachment
B; Staff Report 3528), staff informed the Committee that according to the United States
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
there are 443,000 deaths in the United States attributable to tobacco each year and an
estimated 49,000 of these deaths are attributed to exposure to second-hand smoke.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Also, numerous studies show that an overwhelming majority of people want more
restrictions on smoking in public places, parks and places of employment. For these
reasons, more and more cities and counties in the United States and in California
particularly, are adopting bans on smoking in outdoor public areas in an effort to reduce
exposure to the known hazardous and unwanted effects of second-hand smoke.
In 2008, the Santa Clara County Clean Air Task Force developed a grant to financially
assist municipalities with the adoption and implementation of ordinances and rules that
prohibit smoking. Since then, several Bay Area cities including San Jose, Campbell,
Cupertino, Mountain View, Saratoga, and Los Gatos have adopted ordinances that
prohibit smoking in certain public areas and parks.
Staff reported to the Committee that staff continues to receive numerous complaints
from residents and businesses regarding high levels of smoking activity, particularly in
urban parks such as Lytton Plaza and Cogswell Plaza. The complaints mainly concern
environmental quality, litter, fire safety, or a combination thereof. In response to the
complaints, staff met with the City Attorney, representatives of Community Services
Department and the Police Department, and devised an initial recommendation for the
adoption of an ordinance to ban smoking at three City parks (Lytton, Cogswell and
Wallis), as well as to increase the no-smoking buffer zone near public building
entrances for consistency with LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
certification standards.
Discussion
After making the staff presentation to the Policy and Services Committee, Committee
Chair Liz Kniss proposed adding Johnson Park to the list of the three parks proposed in
the draft ordinance because of Johnson Park’s size, proximity to Cogswell and Lytton
Parks, and because of the picnic, volleyball, playground and community garden
amenities in the park. Following that proposal, Council Member Karen Holman proposed
also adding Scott Park because of its size, basketball court and children’s playground.
Council Member Price then suggested that Briones Park on Arastradero Road also be
added to the list of parks because of its popularity with families.
The Committee listened to comments during oral communications from two members of
the business community who supported the enactment of the proposed smoking ban.
There was no disagreement from the Committee members about the dangers of
second-hand smoke to public health, the impacts to park cleanliness from smoking
materials, and the potential dangers from fire caused by smoking materials. The
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Committee also agreed with the rationale of increasing the no-smoking buffer zone near
public building entrances to comply with the certification standards of the LEED
program. A discussion amongst the Committee members ensued about the appropriate
criteria for determining which parks should be included under the ordinance. After some
discussion and a review of the relative size of the City’s parks, plazas and open space
areas, the Committee decided to recommend to Council the immediate ban of smoking
of all City parks under five acres in size because of the relative high user density of
these parks.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
recommend the City Council: 1) adopt an Ordinance amending and adding new
sections to Chapter 9.14 to establish new smoking restrictions in all parks that are 5
acres or less in size; 2) increase no-smoking buffer zones from 20 to 25 feet for
consistency with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards; and
3) direct the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider and make recommendations
regarding expanding a no-smoking regulation to possibly include other City parks and
open space areas within two to three months. (Passed 4-0-0)
The Committee unanimously passed the motion to recommend to Council to ban
smoking at the following twenty-four parks and plazas and to direct the Parks and
Recreation Commission to make further recommendations to the Committee for
smoking restrictions at parks or open space areas five acres in size or larger
(Attachment C; Minutes of the Committee Meeting, March 19, 2013).
John Boulware Park
Jerry Bowden Park
Juana Briones Park
Donaldina Cameron Park
Elinor Cogswell Plaza
El Palo Alto Park
Heritage Park
Herbert Hoover Park
Edith Eugenie Johnson Park
Kellogg Park
King Plaza
Lawn Bowling Green
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Lytton Plaza Park
Mayfield Park
Monroe Park
Alexander Peers Park
Don Jesus Ramos Park
Don Secundino Robles Park
Scott Park
Henry Seale Park
Sarah Wallis Park
Weisshaar Park
Werry Park
Anna Zschokke Plaza
Although the Motion to recommend to Council the adoption of an ordinance to prohibit
smoking at the twenty-four parks was unanimously adopted, since the Policy and
Services Committee public notice of the proposed ban on smoking only referred to three
specific parks, the City Attorney recommends that the action to adopt the proposed
ordinance be placed on the Council agenda as an Action Item in order to allow further
comment or discussion by Council members and the public.
Policy Implications
The adoption of the proposed ordinance would further Policy N-1, of the Natural
Environment element of the Comprehensive Plan which states, “manage existing public
open space areas …in a manner that meets… public safety concerns…”; as well as
Comprehensive Plan polices: Policy N-5: Clean, Healthful Air for Palo Alto; and Policy N-
6: An Environment Free of the Damaging Effects of Biological and Chemical Hazardous
Materials.
Resource Impact
This ordinance will have a minimal impact on ongoing City staff time and financial
resources depending on the level of enforcement and/or ongoing public information
required by its implementation. It is anticipated that Police Officers, Code Enforcement
Officers or Park Rangers will respond to violations of the ordinance on a complaint
basis. Staff anticipates providing public outreach to educate residents and businesses of
the newly adopted policies.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Educational materials and park signage costs, estimated at approximately $5000, could
be eligible for grant funding from the Santa Clara County Public Health Department and
other public and private agencies. If staff is not successful in securing grant funds, the
signage cost can be absorbed in the Open Space, Parks & Golf operating budget.
Timeline
If adopted by Council, the ordinace would require a second reading within thirty days.
The ordinance would go into effect thirty days after the passage of the second reading
of the ordinance.
If Council approves the recommendation to refer the investigation of the expansion of
the ordinance to other City parks and open space areas to the Parks and Recreation
Commission, the Commission would return to the Policy and Services Committee with
its findings and recommendations by September 2013.
Environmental Review
Provisions of this ordinance do not constitute a project under the Environmental Quality
Act because it can be seen with certainty that no significant environmental impact will
occur as a result of the amended ordinance.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B - Staff Report 3528 (PDF)
Attachment C - 03-19-13 P&S Excerpt Item 1 Smoking in Parks (DOC)
03-19-13 P&S Excerpt Item 1 Smoking in Parks (DOC)
** NOT YET APPROVED **
130326 sh 0140078 1
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking And Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code to Establish New Smoking Restrictions for Parks
Under Five Acres; Increase No-Smoking Buffer Zones from 20 to 25 feet
for Consistency with LEED Standards; and Make Findings Regarding the
Purpose of No-Smoking Regulations
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
(a) That the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary to protect the public
health, safety and welfare for each of the reasons set forth in amended section 9.14.005. The
purposes of this Ordinance are to ban smoking in Palo Alto parks under five acres in order to
protect visitors from the risks of second hand smoke, reduce litter and enhance enjoyment of
park facilities; increase no-smoking buffer zones from 20 to 25 feet, consistent with Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards; and make findings regarding the purpose
of no-smoking regulations.
SECTION 2. Chapter 9.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended
to add Section 9.14.005 Purpose:
9.14.005 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to:
(a) Protect the public health, safety and general welfare by prohibiting
smoking in certain public parks, public places, service locations, city pool cars, child day care
facilities, and some unenclosed eating establishments.
(b) Ensure a cleaner and more hygienic environment within the city, reduce
litter, and protect the City’s natural resources, including creeks and streams.
(c) Enhance the welfare of residents, workers, and visitors by reducing
exposure to second hand smoke, which studies confirm can cause negative health effects in
non-smokers.
(d) Balance the needs of persons who smoke with the needs of nonsmokers,
including children and youth, to be free from the discomforts and health threats created by
exposure to second-hand smoke.
** NOT YET APPROVED **
130326 sh 0140078 2
SECTION 3. Section 9.14.010 of Chapter 9.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.14.010 Definitions.
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter shall be
construed as defined in this section:
(a) "Bar" means an area which is devoted to serving alcoholic beverages and
in which serving food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages. "Bar" shall
include bar areas within eating establishments which are devoted to serving alcoholic
beverages and in which serving food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages.
(b) "City pool car" means any truck, van or automobile owned by the city and
operated by a city employee. City pool car does not include vehicles operated by the police
department.
(c) "Eating establishment" means a coffee shop, cafeteria, short-order cafe,
luncheonette, sandwich shop, soda fountain, restaurant, or other establishment serving food to
members of the public.
(d) "Employee" means any person who is employed by any employer in
consideration for direct or indirect monetary wages or profit.
(e) "Employee eating place" means any place serving as an employee
cafeteria, lunchrooms, lounge, or like place.
(f) "Employer" means any person who employs the services of an individual
person or persons.
(g) "Enclosed" means either closed in by a roof and four walls with
appropriate openings for ingress and egress or not open to the sky due to a cover or shelter
consisting of a tarpaulin, tent structure or other impermeable or semi-permeable materials or
fabric.
(h) "Motion picture theater" means any theater engaged in the business of
exhibiting motion pictures.
(i) "Public places" means enclosed areas within publicly and privately owned
buildings, structures, facilities, or complexes that are open to, used by, or accessible to the
general public. Public places include, but are not limited to, stores, banks, eating
establishments, bars, hotels, motels, depots and transit terminals, theaters and auditoriums,
enclosed sports arenas, convention centers, museums, galleries, polling places, hospitals and
other health care facilities of any kind (including clinics, dental, chiropractic, or physical therapy
** NOT YET APPROVED **
130326 sh 0140078 3
facilities), automotive service centers, general business offices, nonprofit entity offices and
libraries. Public places further include, but are not limited to, hallways, restrooms, stairways,
escalators, elevators, lobbies, reception areas, waiting rooms, indoor service lines, checkout
stations, counters and other pay stations, classrooms, meeting or conference rooms, lecture
rooms, buses, or other enclosed places that are open to, used by, or accessible to the general
public.
(j) "Service locations" means those enclosed or unenclosed areas open to,
used by, or accessible to the general public that are listed below:
(1) Bus, train and taxi shelters;
(2) Service waiting areas including, but not limited to, ticket or service lines,
public transportation waiting areas, and public telephones;
(3) Areas within twenty-five feet of the entrance or exit to an enclosed public
place, except when the public place is closed, between ten p.m. and six a.m., or when the
entrance or exit is for the exclusive use of employees and not accessible to the general public;
(4) Areas in dedicated parks or other publicly accessible areas that are within
twenty-five feet of bleachers, backstops, or play structures.
(k) "Smoking" means the combustion of any cigar, cigarette, tobacco or any
similar article.
(l) "Tobacco product" means any substance containing tobacco leaf,
including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, smoking tobacco, and smokeless tobacco.
(m) "Tobacco store" means a retail store utilized primarily for the sale of
tobacco products and accessories and in which the sale of other products is incidental.
(n) "Tobacco vending machine" means any electronic or mechanical device
or appliance the operation of which depends upon the insertion of money, whether coin or
paper bill, or other thing representative of value, which dispenses or releases a tobacco product
and/or tobacco accessories.
(o) "Workplace" means any enclosed area of a structure or portion thereof
used as a place of employment.
//
//
//
** NOT YET APPROVED **
130326 sh 0140078 4
SECTION 4. Chapter 9.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended
to add Section 9.14.035 Smoking Prohibited – Public Parks:
9.14.035 Smoking Prohibited – Public Parks.
Smoking is prohibited in all parks of less than 5 acres in area. These parks
include but are not necessarily limited to:
(a) John Boulware Park
(b) Jerry Bowden Park
(c) Juana Briones Park
(d) Donaldina Cameron Park
(e) Elinor Cogswell Plaza
(f) El Palo Alto Park
(g) Heritage Park
(h) Herbert Hoover Park
(i) Edith Eugenie Johnson Park
(j) Kellogg Park
(k) King Plaza
(l) Lawn Bowling Green
(m) Lytton Plaza Park
(n) Mayfield Park
(o) Monroe Park
(p) Alexander Peers Park
(q) Don Jesus Ramos Park
(r) Don Secundino Robles Park
(s) Scott Park
(t) Henry Seale Park
(u) Sarah Wallis Park
(v) Weisshaar Park
(w) Werry Park
(x) Anna Zschokke Plaza
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the provisions of this Ordinance do not
constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act because it can be seen with
certainty that no significant environmental impact will occur as a result of the amended
Ordinance.
//
//
//
** NOT YET APPROVED **
130326 sh 0140078 5
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3528)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 3/19/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Prohibition of Smoking in 3 Parks
Title: Consideration of a Recommendation to Council to Adopt an Ordinance
Prohibiting Smoking in 3 Public Parks
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Policy and Services Committee review Chapter 9.14 (Smoking and
Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and consider recommending that Council
adopt an ordinance (Attachment 1) amending section 9.14 to establish new smoking
restrictions for three parks in the Downtown and California Avenue commercial areas (Cogswell
Plaza, Lytton Plaza, and Sarah Wallis Park); increase no-smoking buffer zones from 20 to 25 feet
for consistency with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards; and
make findings regarding the purpose of no-smoking regulations.
Further, staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee recommend to Council that
the Council direct the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider and make
recommendations regarding expanding a no-smoking regulation possibly to include other City
parks and open space areas.
Background
According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, there are 443,000 deaths in the United States attributable to tobacco each year
and an estimated 49,000 of these deaths are attributed to exposure to secondhand smoke.
Also, numerous studies show that an overwhelming majority of people want more restrictions
on smoking in public places and places of employment. More information can be found at
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
For these reasons, more and more cities and counties in the United States and in California
particularly, are adopting bans on smoking in outdoor public areas in an effort to reduce
exposure to the known hazardous and unwanted effects of secondhand smoke.
This activity by local governments has also been prompted by the increasing recognition that
secondhand smoke is extremely toxic. In 2006, the California Air Resources Board officially
declared tobacco smoke a Toxic Air Contaminant. Also, the United States Surgeon General
(2006) issued a landmark report: The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco
Smoke concluding that “There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Breathing
even a little secondhand smoke can be harmful to your health.”
In 2008, the Santa Clara County Clean Air Task Force developed a grant to assist municipalities
with the adoption of ordinances and rules that prohibit Smoking. Since then, several Bay Area
cities including Campbell, Cupertino, Mountain View, Saratoga, and Los Gatos have adopted
ordinances that prohibit smoking in certain public areas. Although the funding for grants
sunsets in early March, 2013, there may be available resources from the County for signage or
other assistance
In October 2008, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted 5:2 to take no action on the
banning of smoking in City Parks and Facilities, citing their general satisfaction with local, state,
and regulation-level ordinances (Excerpt minutes is Attachment 2). Since that time, we have
had numerous complaints from residents and businesses regarding a high level of smoking
activity particularly in our small urban parks such as Lytton Plaza and Cogswell Plaza. The
complaints mainly involved environmental quality, litter, fire safety, or a combination thereof.
In response to the complaints, staff met with the City Attorney and reviewed our current
ordinance and regulations regarding smoking in public areas.
Discussion
Given the small size and urban context of Lytton Plaza, Cogswell Plaza, and Sarah Wallis Park,
staff recommends that a ban on smoking be implemented to protect the public health from
exposure to second-hand smoke. Such a ban is also expected to reduce litter, and enhance the
enjoyment of the park facilities for shoppers, visitors, and residents of the Downtown and
California Avenue commercial areas. There will also be a lessened risk of fire by un-
extinguished cigarettes/ cigars.
Staff also recommends that the Council direct the Parks and Recreation Commission to review
the current ordinance as well as Council rules and regulations regarding smoking and to make a
City of Palo Alto Page 3
recommendation to the Council regarding potential enhancements up to and including a ban on
smoking in all public parks and open spaces areas.
Lastly, staff recommends a minor change to the “buffer zones” required by Chapter 9.14,
section 3(j)(3-4) to increase the distance that smoking is prohibited from twenty to twenty-five
feet from publicly accessible entrances/exits, or areas in other dedicated parks that are play
structures, backstops, or bleachers. This change will provide consistency between the city
ordinance and other environmental guidelines, such as LEED. This policy has been discussed
and approved by the Downtown Business and Professional Association.
Timeline
If an ordinance takes effect, staff can produce and install signage in a matter of a few weeks for
the small downtown parks.
Resource Impact
This ordinance will have a minimal impact on ongoing City staff time and financial resources
depending on the level of enforcement and/or ongoing public information required by its
implementation. Staff anticipates public outreach to educate residents and businesses of the
newly adopted policies. Signage costs, expected to be around $500, could be eligible for grant
funding from the Santa Clara County Public Health Department.
Policy Implications
This ordinance is in line with Comprehensive Plan Policy N-1, which states, “manage existing
public open space areas …in a manner that meets… public safety concerns…” as well as polices:
N-5: Clean, Healthful Air for Palo Alto and
N-6: An Environment Free of the Damaging Effects of Biological and Chemical Hazardous
Materials
N-7 Reduce Volumes of Solid Waste; Solid Waste Disposed in an Environmentally Safe, Efficient,
Manner.
N-10 Protection of Life and Property From…Fire.
Environmental Review (If Applicable)
This is not considered a project under CEQA.
Attachments:
Attachement 1: Ord banning smoking in 3 parks (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Excerpt from P&R Oct08 Minutes (DOC)
** NOT YET APPROVED **
130123 sm 0140078 1
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking And Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code to Establish New Smoking Restrictions for Cogswell
Plaza, Lytton Plaza and Sarah Wallis Park; Increase No-Smoking Buffer
Zones from 20 to 25 feet for Consistency with LEED Standards; and Make
Findings Regarding the Purpose of No-Smoking Regulations
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
(a) That the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary to protect the public
health, safety and welfare for each of the reasons set forth in amended section 9.14.005. The
purposes of this Ordinance are to ban smoking in three parks in the Downtown and California
Avenue commercial areas (1) Cogswell Plaza, (2) Lytton Plaza and (3) Sarah Wallis Park in order
to protect visitors from the risks of second hand smoke, reduce litter and enhance enjoyment
of park facilities; increase no-smoking buffer zones from 20 to 25 feet, consistent with
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards; and make findings regarding
the purpose of no-smoking regulations.
SECTION 2. Chapter 9.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended
to add Section 9.14.005 Purpose:
9.14.005 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to:
(a) Protect the public health, safety and general welfare by prohibiting
smoking in certain public parks, public places, service locations, city pool cars, child day care
facilities, and some unenclosed eating establishments.
(b) Ensure a cleaner and more hygienic environment within the city, reduce
litter, and protect the City’s natural resources, including creeks and streams.
(c) Enhance the welfare of residents, workers, and visitors by reducing
exposure to second hand smoke, which studies confirm can cause negative health effects in
non-smokers.
(d) Balance the needs of persons who smoke with the needs of nonsmokers,
including children and youth, to be free from the discomforts and health threats created by
exposure to second-hand smoke.
** NOT YET APPROVED **
130123 sm 0140078 2
SECTION 3. Section 9.14.010 of Chapter 9.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.14.010 Definitions.
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter shall be
construed as defined in this section:
(a) "Bar" means an area which is devoted to serving alcoholic beverages and
in which serving food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages. "Bar" shall
include bar areas within eating establishments which are devoted to serving alcoholic
beverages and in which serving food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages.
(b) "City pool car" means any truck, van or automobile owned by the city and
operated by a city employee. City pool car does not include vehicles operated by the police
department.
(c) "Eating establishment" means a coffee shop, cafeteria, short-order cafe,
luncheonette, sandwich shop, soda fountain, restaurant, or other establishment serving food to
members of the public.
(d) "Employee" means any person who is employed by any employer in
consideration for direct or indirect monetary wages or profit.
(e) "Employee eating place" means any place serving as an employee
cafeteria, lunchrooms, lounge, or like place.
(f) "Employer" means any person who employs the services of an individual
person or persons.
(g) "Enclosed" means either closed in by a roof and four walls with
appropriate openings for ingress and egress or not open to the sky due to a cover or shelter
consisting of a tarpaulin, tent structure or other impermeable or semi-permeable materials or
fabric.
(h) "Motion picture theater" means any theater engaged in the business of
exhibiting motion pictures.
(i) "Public places" means enclosed areas within publicly and privately owned
buildings, structures, facilities, or complexes that are open to, used by, or accessible to the
general public. Public places include, but are not limited to, stores, banks, eating
establishments, bars, hotels, motels, depots and transit terminals, theaters and auditoriums,
enclosed sports arenas, convention centers, museums, galleries, polling places, hospitals and
** NOT YET APPROVED **
130123 sm 0140078 3
other health care facilities of any kind (including clinics, dental, chiropractic, or physical therapy
facilities), automotive service centers, general business offices, nonprofit entity offices and
libraries. Public places further include, but are not limited to, hallways, restrooms, stairways,
escalators, elevators, lobbies, reception areas, waiting rooms, indoor service lines, checkout
stations, counters and other pay stations, classrooms, meeting or conference rooms, lecture
rooms, buses, or other enclosed places that are open to, used by, or accessible to the general
public.
(j) "Service locations" means those enclosed or unenclosed areas open to,
used by, or accessible to the general public that are listed below:
(1) Bus, train and taxi shelters;
(2) Service waiting areas including, but not limited to, ticket or service lines,
public transportation waiting areas, and public telephones;
(3) Areas within twenty-five feet of the entrance or exit to an enclosed public
place, except when the public place is closed, between ten p.m. and six a.m., or when the
entrance or exit is for the exclusive use of employees and not accessible to the general public;
(4) Areas in dedicated parks or other publicly accessible areas that are within
twenty-five feet of bleachers, backstops, or play structures.
(k) "Smoking" means the combustion of any cigar, cigarette, tobacco or any
similar article.
(l) "Tobacco product" means any substance containing tobacco leaf,
including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, smoking tobacco, and smokeless tobacco.
(m) "Tobacco store" means a retail store utilized primarily for the sale of
tobacco products and accessories and in which the sale of other products is incidental.
(n) "Tobacco vending machine" means any electronic or mechanical device
or appliance the operation of which depends upon the insertion of money, whether coin or
paper bill, or other thing representative of value, which dispenses or releases a tobacco product
and/or tobacco accessories.
(o) "Workplace" means any enclosed area of a structure or portion thereof
used as a place of employment.
SECTION 4. Chapter 9.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended
to add Section 9.14.035 Smoking Prohibited – Public Parks:
** NOT YET APPROVED **
130123 sm 0140078 4
9.14.035 Smoking Prohibited – Public Parks.
Smoking is prohibited in:
(a) Cogswell Plaza – Bounded by Bryant Street, Ramona Street and Lytton
Avenue.
(b) Lytton Plaza – Bounded by University Avenue, Emerson Street and
Parking Lot P.
(c) Sarah Wallis Park – Bounded by Ash Street and Grant Avenue.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the provisions of this Ordinance do not
constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act because it can be seen with
certainty that no significant environmental impact will occur as a result of the amended
Ordinance.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
APPROVED
October 28, 2008 Draft Minutes 1
MINUTES
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
October 28, 2008
City Hall
250 Hamilton Ave
Commissioners Present: Deirdre Crommie, Carl King, Paul Losch, Pat Markevitch, Alex
Panelli, Daria Walsh ,Joel Davidson
Commissioners Absent:
Others Present: Council Liaison Jack Morton
Staff Present: Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Donald Piana
4. Review of Banning Smoking in City Parks and Facilities - Commissioner Walsh began
the discussion with asking for direction on how to proceed with this item. Staff de Geus
reminded the commissioners of their discussion from the last meeting. He said that the
commissioners were generally satisfied with the local, state and regulation level
ordinances. Staff Piana also provided feedback on what is enforceable at the parks. The
current ordinance covers the Foothill park trails only and there is no smoking at the
reserved picnic areas at parks. The ordinance allows for some flexibility during fire
seasons to prohibit smoking in additional locations by posting signage in designated
areas. Commissioner Losch requested from his fellow commissioners a better
understanding of where they stood on this issue. Chair Markevitch requested the
commissioners choose one of three alternatives A – Do nothing (satisfied with the
existing ordinances) B – Add the preserves to the existing ordinance or C – Ban smoking
at all parks. The commissioners voted as follows:
a. Do nothing - 4 (Commissioners Walsh, King, Losch, and Markevitch)
b. Add Preserves to the ordinance – 1 (Commissioner Panelli)
c. Ban smoking at all parks– 2 (Commissioners Davidson and Crommie)
Commissioner Walsh asked if there were any oral communications on this item. There
was not.
APPROVED
October 28, 2008 Draft Minutes 2
Council Liaison Morton commented on the fact that Arastradero was not included in the
current smoking ordinance because the preserve was added after the policy was in place.
He recommended that staff make a request to council to add the preserve to the policy.
After some further discussion on the topic a motion was made.
Motion: To take no action on the banning of smoking in City Parks and Facilities.
Approved 5:2 (Commissioners Crommie and Davidson)
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
EXCERPT
Policy & Services Meeting
March 19, 2013
Page 1 of 5
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
1. Consideration of a Recommendation to Council to Adopt an Ordinance
Prohibiting Smoking in Three Public Parks.
Chair Kniss wished to include Johnson Park, a small park used by many
children.
Council Member Holman suggested including Scott Park.
Chair Kniss inquired about the size of Johnson Park.
Greg Betts, Director of Community Services reported Johnson Park was
about 2.2 acres.
Council Member Klein noted Johnson Park was named after the first female
obstetrics/gynecology doctor in the Palo Alto area.
Chair Kniss stated two parks were added to the original three parks
proposed for a smoking ban.
Council Member Price suggested including Juana Briones Park, and asked if
the proposal would return to the Parks and Recreation Commission (P&RC)
for discussion.
Chair Kniss felt limiting the number of parks to six would not require P&RC
involvement.
Council Member Price proposed Juana Briones Park, because it was used by
all ages.
Chair Kniss believed few people opposed a smoking ban in parks.
Council Member Klein indicated the Policy and Services Committee
(Committee) was establishing a rule for parks.
Chair Kniss noted the City had 36 parks.
Excerpt
Page 2 of 5
Policy and Services Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt 3/19/2013
Council Member Klein recommended the Committee list all the parks that a
smoking ban did not apply to so that parks similar to the named parks were
not omitted. He inquired about the number of parks containing less than 10
acres.
Council Member Holman reported all parks in College Terrace contained less
than 10 acres.
Council Member Klein asked why the Committee wanted to distinguish
among similar parks.
Chair Kniss felt including that many parks required a discussion with the
P&RC. She was willing to double the number of parks included in a smoking
ban.
Council Member Klein suggested including all parks containing less than five
acres.
Chair Kniss inquired about the number of parks within the City that
contained less than five acres. She felt additional Staff work was needed to
phrase a recommendation in that manner. She inquired about the size of
Scott Park.
Council Member Holman felt it was probably 1/3 acre.
Council Member Price requested the number of parks containing five acres or
less.
Mr. Betts named off parks and preserves in Palo Alto: Mitchell Park,
Rinconada Park, Seale Park, Bayland’s Athletic Center, Esther Clark Nature
Preserve, Arastradero Preserve, Baylands Nature Preserve, and Foothills
Park.
James Keene, City Manager wondered why smoking was allowed in Foothills
Park when the City staffed a fire station in that area during fire season.
Council Member Price agreed with Council Member Klein's suggestion to
broaden the scope of a recommendation.
Chair Kniss wanted more information before moving in that direction, but
estimated between 20 and 25 of the 36 parks contained less than five acres.
Council Member Holman noted the Agenda Item was noticed for only three
parks, and expressed concern that the public objected because it was not
Excerpt
Page 3 of 5
Policy and Services Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt 3/19/2013
given an opportunity to provide input.
Mr. Keene indicated the Committee had two concerns: 1) broadening the
scope of the recommendation from three parks to many parks and 2) a
policy interpretation.
Molly Stump, City Attorney reported the Committee could make a
recommendation. There was a full hearing at the Council on the first
reading, and then a second reading was required but said the Committee
could direct Staff to broaden the Ordinance.
Chair Kniss noted another question was whether the Committee should
include all parks under a certain size. She noted Council Member Holman's
concern regarding public reaction, and inquired about the size of Juana
Briones Park.
Mr. Betts reported Juana Briones Park contained 4.1 acres.
Chair Kniss believed Juana Briones Park was the largest of the parks noted
for inclusion.
Ms. Stump stated the Committee could ban smoking in all parks or could
name selected parks. She suggested that Staff could draft reasonable and
supportable findings to ban smoking in all parks below five acres.
Chair Kniss felt incremental increases worked better politically.
Council Member Holman agreed with banning smoking in all parks; however,
banning smoking in Foothills and Arastradero Parks was logical because of
the fire hazard. She questioned the ability of the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) to expand an Agenda Item without
providing additional notice.
Ms. Stump explained P&TC was distinct from all other Commissions. The
Council was able to determine how to use its Commissions. Not all policy
matters were reviewed by Commissions. She said a policy item could be
handled by the Council, or by a Committee and then the Council. Under the
Brown Act, a full hearing was required with proper notice.
Council Member Holman inquired whether the P&TC was able to expand the
scope of an Agenda Item to be as broad as the Committee was asking.
Ms. Stump stated much of P&TC's work was quasi-adjudicative, which was
different. P&TC's work was governed by provisions of the Municipal Code,
and that did not apply to this discussion.
Excerpt
Page 4 of 5
Policy and Services Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt 3/19/2013
Mr. Keene stated Council policy allowed Council Members to place a
recommendation on the Council Agenda through a Colleagues Memo. A
Committee recommendation was not very different from a Colleagues Memo
regarding process and notice requirements.
Ms. Stump believed a smoking ban was in effect for Foothills Park.
Mr. Betts reported a smoking ban was placed on trails in Foothills Park, but
not on the meadow or in the picnic areas.
Chair Kniss suggested expanding the smoking ban for Foothills Park. She
viewed a smoking ban as a public health issue, and the Council was a
guardian of community health.
Mr. Betts reported Sarah Wallis Park contained 0.3 acres; Cogswell Plaza 0.5
acres; Lytton Plaza 0.5 acres; El Camino Park 12.2 acres; Eleanor Pardee
Park 9.6 acres; El Palo Alto Park 0.5 acres; Mayfield Park 1.1 acres; Mitchell
Park 21.4 acres; Monroe Park 0.55 acres; Rinconada Park 19 acres;
Cameron Park 1.1 acres; Boulware Park 1.5 acres; Bowden Park 2 acres;
Bowling Green Park 2 acres; Juana Briones Park 4.1 acres; Peers Park 4.7
acres; Ramos Park 4.4 acres; Bol Park 13.8 acres; Greer Park 22 acres;
Heritage Park 2.01 acres; Hoover Park 4.2 acres; Hopkins Creekside Park
12.4 acres; Edith Johnson Park 2.5 acres; Foothills Park 1,400 acres; Esther
Clark Preserve 22 acres; Pearson Arastradero Park 622 acres.
Chair Kniss estimated between 10 and 14 parks contained less than five
acres.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Price
to recommend the City Council: 1) adopt an Ordinance amending Section
9.14 to establish new smoking restrictions in all parks that are 5 acres or
less in size; 2) increase no-smoking buffer zones from 20 to 25 feet for
consistency with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
standards; and 3) direct the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider
and make recommendations regarding expanding a no-smoking regulation
to possibly include other City parks and open space areas within two to
three months.
Mr. Betts indicated 17 parks contained less than five acres of a total of 34
urban parks and four open space preserves.
Chair Kniss stated almost half the number of parks contained less than five
acres, but only a small percentage of total acreage.
Excerpt
Page 5 of 5
Policy and Services Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt 3/19/2013
Russ Cohen, Executive Director of Palo Alto Downtown Business and
Professional Association supported a smoking prohibition in the three parks
originally proposed for inclusion.
Herb Borock reported Hoover Park contained approximately 6.4 acres after
acquiring land from Hoover School. He noted that under the Brown Act, the
Committee could only act on the three parks noticed. The P&RC had to
make policy recommendations for parks. He suggested the Committee refer
the item to the P&RC.
Chair Kniss was comfortable with the City Attorney's statement that the
Committee could recommend more than three parks.
Mr. Betts revised his previous count to a total of 22 parks containing less
than five acres.
Council Member Holman requested Staff respond to Mr. Borock's comment
that Hoover Park was larger than reported.
Mr. Betts reported records indicated Hoover Park contained 4.2 acres.
Mr. Keene indicated the acreage of Hoover Park would be clarified prior to
the Ordinance being written.
Ms. Stump noted the Ordinance would enumerate the parks being affected
by the smoking ban.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
EXCERPT
Policy & Services Meeting
March 19, 2013
Page 1 of 5
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
1. Consideration of a Recommendation to Council to Adopt an Ordinance
Prohibiting Smoking in Three Public Parks.
Chair Kniss wished to include Johnson Park, a small park used by many
children.
Council Member Holman suggested including Scott Park.
Chair Kniss inquired about the size of Johnson Park.
Greg Betts, Director of Community Services reported Johnson Park was
about 2.2 acres.
Council Member Klein noted Johnson Park was named after the first female
obstetrics/gynecology doctor in the Palo Alto area.
Chair Kniss stated two parks were added to the original three parks
proposed for a smoking ban.
Council Member Price suggested including Juana Briones Park, and asked if
the proposal would return to the Parks and Recreation Commission (P&RC)
for discussion.
Chair Kniss felt limiting the number of parks to six would not require P&RC
involvement.
Council Member Price proposed Juana Briones Park, because it was used by
all ages.
Chair Kniss believed few people opposed a smoking ban in parks.
Council Member Klein indicated the Policy and Services Committee
(Committee) was establishing a rule for parks.
Chair Kniss noted the City had 36 parks.
Excerpt
Page 2 of 5
Policy and Services Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt 3/19/2013
Council Member Klein recommended the Committee list all the parks that a
smoking ban did not apply to so that parks similar to the named parks were
not omitted. He inquired about the number of parks containing less than 10
acres.
Council Member Holman reported all parks in College Terrace contained less
than 10 acres.
Council Member Klein asked why the Committee wanted to distinguish
among similar parks.
Chair Kniss felt including that many parks required a discussion with the
P&RC. She was willing to double the number of parks included in a smoking
ban.
Council Member Klein suggested including all parks containing less than five
acres.
Chair Kniss inquired about the number of parks within the City that
contained less than five acres. She felt additional Staff work was needed to
phrase a recommendation in that manner. She inquired about the size of
Scott Park.
Council Member Holman felt it was probably 1/3 acre.
Council Member Price requested the number of parks containing five acres or
less.
Mr. Betts named off parks and preserves in Palo Alto: Mitchell Park,
Rinconada Park, Seale Park, Bayland’s Athletic Center, Esther Clark Nature
Preserve, Arastradero Preserve, Baylands Nature Preserve, and Foothills
Park.
James Keene, City Manager wondered why smoking was allowed in Foothills
Park when the City staffed a fire station in that area during fire season.
Council Member Price agreed with Council Member Klein's suggestion to
broaden the scope of a recommendation.
Chair Kniss wanted more information before moving in that direction, but
estimated between 20 and 25 of the 36 parks contained less than five acres.
Council Member Holman noted the Agenda Item was noticed for only three
parks, and expressed concern that the public objected because it was not
Excerpt
Page 3 of 5
Policy and Services Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt 3/19/2013
given an opportunity to provide input.
Mr. Keene indicated the Committee had two concerns: 1) broadening the
scope of the recommendation from three parks to many parks and 2) a
policy interpretation.
Molly Stump, City Attorney reported the Committee could make a
recommendation. There was a full hearing at the Council on the first
reading, and then a second reading was required but said the Committee
could direct Staff to broaden the Ordinance.
Chair Kniss noted another question was whether the Committee should
include all parks under a certain size. She noted Council Member Holman's
concern regarding public reaction, and inquired about the size of Juana
Briones Park.
Mr. Betts reported Juana Briones Park contained 4.1 acres.
Chair Kniss believed Juana Briones Park was the largest of the parks noted
for inclusion.
Ms. Stump stated the Committee could ban smoking in all parks or could
name selected parks. She suggested that Staff could draft reasonable and
supportable findings to ban smoking in all parks below five acres.
Chair Kniss felt incremental increases worked better politically.
Council Member Holman agreed with banning smoking in all parks; however,
banning smoking in Foothills and Arastradero Parks was logical because of
the fire hazard. She questioned the ability of the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) to expand an Agenda Item without
providing additional notice.
Ms. Stump explained P&TC was distinct from all other Commissions. The
Council was able to determine how to use its Commissions. Not all policy
matters were reviewed by Commissions. She said a policy item could be
handled by the Council, or by a Committee and then the Council. Under the
Brown Act, a full hearing was required with proper notice.
Council Member Holman inquired whether the P&TC was able to expand the
scope of an Agenda Item to be as broad as the Committee was asking.
Ms. Stump stated much of P&TC's work was quasi-adjudicative, which was
different. P&TC's work was governed by provisions of the Municipal Code,
and that did not apply to this discussion.
Excerpt
Page 4 of 5
Policy and Services Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt 3/19/2013
Mr. Keene stated Council policy allowed Council Members to place a
recommendation on the Council Agenda through a Colleagues Memo. A
Committee recommendation was not very different from a Colleagues Memo
regarding process and notice requirements.
Ms. Stump believed a smoking ban was in effect for Foothills Park.
Mr. Betts reported a smoking ban was placed on trails in Foothills Park, but
not on the meadow or in the picnic areas.
Chair Kniss suggested expanding the smoking ban for Foothills Park. She
viewed a smoking ban as a public health issue, and the Council was a
guardian of community health.
Mr. Betts reported Sarah Wallis Park contained 0.3 acres; Cogswell Plaza 0.5
acres; Lytton Plaza 0.5 acres; El Camino Park 12.2 acres; Eleanor Pardee
Park 9.6 acres; El Palo Alto Park 0.5 acres; Mayfield Park 1.1 acres; Mitchell
Park 21.4 acres; Monroe Park 0.55 acres; Rinconada Park 19 acres;
Cameron Park 1.1 acres; Boulware Park 1.5 acres; Bowden Park 2 acres;
Bowling Green Park 2 acres; Juana Briones Park 4.1 acres; Peers Park 4.7
acres; Ramos Park 4.4 acres; Bol Park 13.8 acres; Greer Park 22 acres;
Heritage Park 2.01 acres; Hoover Park 4.2 acres; Hopkins Creekside Park
12.4 acres; Edith Johnson Park 2.5 acres; Foothills Park 1,400 acres; Esther
Clark Preserve 22 acres; Pearson Arastradero Park 622 acres.
Chair Kniss estimated between 10 and 14 parks contained less than five
acres.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Price
to recommend the City Council: 1) adopt an Ordinance amending Section
9.14 to establish new smoking restrictions in all parks that are 5 acres or
less in size; 2) increase no-smoking buffer zones from 20 to 25 feet for
consistency with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
standards; and 3) direct the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider
and make recommendations regarding expanding a no-smoking regulation
to possibly include other City parks and open space areas within two to
three months.
Mr. Betts indicated 17 parks contained less than five acres of a total of 34
urban parks and four open space preserves.
Chair Kniss stated almost half the number of parks contained less than five
acres, but only a small percentage of total acreage.
Excerpt
Page 5 of 5
Policy and Services Committee Regular Meeting
Excerpt 3/19/2013
Russ Cohen, Executive Director of Palo Alto Downtown Business and
Professional Association supported a smoking prohibition in the three parks
originally proposed for inclusion.
Herb Borock reported Hoover Park contained approximately 6.4 acres after
acquiring land from Hoover School. He noted that under the Brown Act, the
Committee could only act on the three parks noticed. The P&RC had to
make policy recommendations for parks. He suggested the Committee refer
the item to the P&RC.
Chair Kniss was comfortable with the City Attorney's statement that the
Committee could recommend more than three parks.
Mr. Betts revised his previous count to a total of 22 parks containing less
than five acres.
Council Member Holman requested Staff respond to Mr. Borock's comment
that Hoover Park was larger than reported.
Mr. Betts reported records indicated Hoover Park contained 4.2 acres.
Mr. Keene indicated the acreage of Hoover Park would be clarified prior to
the Ordinance being written.
Ms. Stump noted the Ordinance would enumerate the parks being affected
by the smoking ban.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0