Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-11 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO Regular Meeting CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers July 11, 2011 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting. 1 July 11, 2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Call to Order Study Session 1.Joint Meeting With the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) Regarding Policy Issues Coming Before the UAC and City Council in Fiscal Year 2012 and Other Potential Issues for UAC Review 2.Study Session for Update of the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Special Orders of the Day 3.Community Partners Non-Profit Presentation: Friends of the Palo Alto Library City Manager Comments Oral Communications Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval Consent Calendar Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 4.Approval of a Gas Enterprise Fund Contract with HydromaxUSA, LLC in the Total Amount of $3,523,950 for Professional Services for the Cross-bore Investigation by CCTVing Sanitary Sewer Laterals and Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Amendment to Utilities Rule and Regulation 23 (B and C) Pertaining to Special Wastewater Utility Regulations 2 July 11, 2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 5.City Council Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report for the Period Ending June 30, 2011 6.Approval of a Renewed Public/Private Partnership Agreement with West Bay Opera for the Cooperative Use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre 7.Adoption of a 1) Budget Amendment Ordinance Creating a New General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project for Replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek; Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Program Supplement with the California Department of Transportation to Receive Highway Bridge Program Grant Funds for the Replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek; Acceptance of Local Matching Funds in Approximate Amount of $42,000 from the Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority for the Replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek; and Approval of the Scope of Work for Engineering Design/Environmental Planning Consultant for Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project 8.Approval of Amendment No. 4 to Service Order S07121018 with Invers Mobility Systems for the Purchase of an Automated Pool Vehicle Reservation/Key Manager System in the Amount of $86,665 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. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 9.Update of SB 375/Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and Direction on City’s Preliminary Response to Regional Agencies, and Update of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Process 10.Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Reorganization of an Approximately .65 Acre Territory Designated “Major Institution/University Lands” Located in the County of Santa Clara and Second Reading for the Adoption of Two Ordinances: (1) Amendment of Title 18 of the PAMC to add a new Chapter 3 July 11, 2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 18.36 (Hospital District), adding Section 8.10.95 (Tree Removal in HD Zone) to Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations) of Title 8 (Trees and Vegetation) and amending Section 16.20.160(a)(1) (Special Purpose Signs) of Chapter 16.20 (Signs) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) and amending Section 18.08.010 (Designation of General Districts) and Section 18.08.040 to Chapter 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts) and (2) Approval of a Development Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford Hospital and Clinics; Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford; and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University; and Update on Efforts to Address Comments Made by Parents of Students at the Stanford Arboretum Childrens Center 11.Council Consideration of Draft Letter of Interest to Foothill DeAnza Community College Including Options to Sell or Long-term Lease the City owned 8 acres at Cubberley Community Center and a Request to Palo Alto Unified School District for Support and Possible Collaboration with Foothill College Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful. 4 July 11, 2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Standing Committee Packets from the City Clerk Standing Committee Packets from the City Manager Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings from the City Clerk Action Agenda Action Agenda from the City Clerk Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda from the City Clerk Informational Report Palo Alto Library Projects May 2011 Report Public Letters to Council Supplemental Information Public Letter to Council Public Letters to Council from the City Clerk City of Palo Alto (ID # 1850) City Council Staff Report Report Type:Study SessionMeeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 1850) Summary Title: Agenda for Joint Council/UAC Meeting Title: Joint Meeting With the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) Regarding Policy Issues Coming Before the UAC and City Council in Fiscal Year 2012 and Other Potential Issues for UAC Review From:City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Joint Meeting –Palo Alto City Council and Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) July 11, 2011 –6pm Agenda I.Review policy issues coming before the UAC and City Council in Fiscal Year 2012 II.Discuss other potential issues for UAC review I.Review policy issues coming before the UAC and City Council in Fiscal Year 2012 The following issues are already planned to come before the UAC and the Council in the coming year. There are several policy issues that the Council has recently, or soon will, take up related to Utilities. In March 2011, Council approved the Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP) and the Long- term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) and, on July 18, Council will consider the new Utilities Strategic Plan. In addition, the Council recently adopted updated long-term gas and electricity energy efficiency goals and the Urban Water Management Plan with updated water savings goals. These plans contain several tasks and initiatives that will come before the UAC and the Council in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012: 1.Renewable Energy and/or Carbon Goal:The City’s goal, as articulated in the LEAP, is for renewable energy sources to supply 33% of the City’s electric needs by 2015 while limiting the rate impact to 0.5 cents/kWh. Renewable supply acquisitions since 2003, in addition to aggressive energy efficiency goals and programs to reduce energy demands, are expected to allow the City to achieve the LEAP goal in the near future. The City’s renewable energy supplies, along with its hydroelectric contracts, result in a very “clean” (low carbon) electric portfolio. In November, the UAC is scheduled to review revisions to the goals in the broader context of achieving the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals articulated in the July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 1850) City’s Climate Protection Plan. A LEAP initiative requires staff to evaluate the establishment of a GHG goal for the electric supply portfolio. This discussion will include consideration of the State’s activities to develop regulations to implement a cap-and-trade system for GHG emissions. By the end of the fiscal year, the UAC will consider another LEAP task to review the advisability of continuing the award-winning voluntary PaloAltoGreen program as the portfolio’s carbon-free resource content climbs. 2.Gas Purchasing Strategy:At its July 20 meeting, the UAC will consider staff’s new proposal to implement a major change to the way the City purchases natural gas. The change would lead to gas retail rates which change monthly based on the market price of gas. Following the UAC’s review, the Finance Committee and the Council will be asked to provide policy direction on this strategy. 3.Fiber Optic Fund:City Council directed staff to explore the use of the Fiber Optics Fund reserve (approximately $11 million by the end of FY 2012) to independently proceed with a phased build-out of the existing fiber optic backbone network. In June, the UAC reviewed recommendations prepared by consultants retained to develop a business plan for the Citywide Ultra High-Speed Broadband System Project. The two primary components of the business plan are: 1) evaluation of potential fiber network extensions; and 2) preparation of a phased “conceptual plan” for Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP). The UAC and Council will review the business plan in the fall of 2011. 4.Calaveras Reserve: Reviewing the purpose and use of this reserve is an initiative in the proposed Utilities Strategic Plan. The UAC is scheduled to consider a change to the current reserve guidelines at its July 20 meeting. 5.Test Bed/Innovation Fund:This fall, the UAC is set to take up the question of how much money the City is willing to allocate to promote emerging technologies. 6.Recycled Water Project:Staff is evaluating the expansion of the existing recycled water delivery system. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project is expected to be considered by the Council by the end of the year. After completion of the EIR, the project may be eligible for state and federal grants and loans, which will be required for the project to be cost effective. Staff estimates that a recommendation to proceed (or not) with the project may be developed by the end of FY 2012. 7.Electric Utilities Undergrounding: The underground program is continuing in areas that meet AT&T's criteria for full participation. AT&T's current criteria does not allow for undergrounding in most residential neighborhoods. The UAC is scheduled to discuss these constraints and the potential development of a new set of policies related to continuation of the undergrounding program. II.Discuss other potential issues for UAC review With the understanding that both the UAC and staff have workload and resource constraints, the UAC is interested in learning if there are additional issues or questions that should be priorities for the UAC in the coming year, but are not already on the work plan. Here are examples: 1.Water and Energy Efficiency: The City’s historic focus has been on incenting customers to save resources by offering a broad range of efficiency programs. In July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 1850) addition, recent updates to the building codes have increased water and energy efficiency requirements for new buildings and remodeling projects. The City could move to increase the requirements for existing buildings by taking a number of steps including: 1) mandating disclosure of a building’s past energy use upon change of title; 2) requiring property owners to implement specific measures to reduce energy and water use upon change of title; and 3) requiring commercial building owners to provide visibility of building energy use. These measures could result in significant energy and water savings since much of the community’s energy is used in homes and buildings. 2.Carbon content of the gas portfolio: Reducing the carbon content of the gas portfolio would increase costs (and rates) since renewable gas supplies cost significantly more than fossil-fueled based natural gas. Alternately, promotion of fuel-switching from gas to electric to reduce gas needs could achieve significant GHG reductions for the City since the electric portfolio is relatively clean (with a low carbon content). 3.Conservation Rates Guideline: Incorporation of conservation costs or incentives with rates for Utilities services. Prepared By:Marites Ward, Administrative Assistant Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 1657) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 6 (ID # 1657) Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine} Summary Title: Rail Corridor Study Plan Title: Study Session for Update of the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Purpose and Recommendation The purpose of this report is to inform the Council about the status of the Rail Corridor Study effort and progress of the Rail Corridor Task Force. Staff recommends that the Council discuss and provide input to staff, the task force, and the consultant regarding the effort. Executive Summary The City Council initiated a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study on June 12, 2010 to evaluate land use, transportation, and urban design elements of the corridor. The purpose of this agenda item is to provide a progress report on the Study, including Planning and Transportation Commission feedback from the June 8, 2011 hearing and to receive input from the City Council. The study, proposed to be completed in three phases, is currently in Phase I, developing context and a preliminary vision for the corridor. A Rail Corridor Task Force, authorized by Council and consisting of 17 representatives from various stakeholder groups, representing a variety of interests (residents, businesses, civic organizations, etc.), has also been convened to provide input into the process. The Task Force is to provide input to the study and solicit information from the broader community, as well as helping design study processes to insure maximum community engagement throughout the study. The first of two community workshops scheduled for this phase was held on May 19, 2011, at which about 20 members of the public identified issues and priorities for the rail corridor. July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 6 (ID # 1657) Background The City Council initiated the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study to evaluate land use, transportation and urban design elements of the rail corridor, particularly in response to potential improvements to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks. The study will analyze those elements in light of Caltrain upgrades, such as electrification and/or grade separations, and/or the potential options for the High Speed Rail project. Although the High Speed Rail project provides important context, it was not intended to be the focus of this study. It is unknown at this point what the future holds for either High Speed Rail or Caltrain. The intent of the study effort is to generate a community vision that would provide land use and transportation policies to guide development under a variety of scenarios, allowing Palo Alto to be proactive in advance of changes to the rail system. The boundaries of the corridor include, at a minimum, the area between Alma Street on the east to El Camino Real on the west, from the Menlo Park city limits on the north to the Mountain View city limits on the south. The study area also includes sufficient adjacent land to encompass those areas most directly affected by potential land use, transportation and urban design changes. The plan and implementation measures will ultimately be incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan, either as part of the document or by reference. Council authorization was granted on July 26, 2010 for the formation of a Task Force to assist in the preparation of the study and to provide a forum for public input. The 17-member Task Force is made up of several different stakeholder groups, including residents and business owners, and representatives of the school district, a non-profit housing venture, environmental groups, and Stanford University, as well as a Caltrain rider. BMS Design Group The City Council authorized the selection of BMS Design Group on February 14, 2011 as the consultant for the preparation of the Rail Corridor Study. BMS Design Group has had extensive experience in rail corridor planning and transit oriented development across the Bay Area. The July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 6 (ID # 1657) firm has also been recently hired by the City of Sunnyvale to prepare a station area plan for the Lawrence Area Station Plan. The BMS team also includes two subconsultants: EPS as the economic subconsultant and Fehr and Peers as the transportation subconsultant. Scope of Work The Rail Corridor Study is comprised of three phases and is expected to be completed in approximately twelve to fourteen months, likely during the first quarter of 2012. Following the completion of the document, it would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as appropriate. The adopted Scope of Work is included as Attachment D. The phases outlined in the scope consist of the following components: 1.Phase I: “Context and Vision” will establish the constraints, opportunities and a preliminary vision for the Corridor. 2.Phase II: “Alternatives and Analysis” will focus on the development and analysis of two or three alternatives and an urban design framework. 3.Phase III: “Plan Preparation” will involve the refinement of the alternatives and feedback from the Task Force, Commission, Council and the public. The ultimate goal is to develop a document that would be implemented and become part of the Comprehensive Plan. Multiple public meetings are proposed to maximize public outreach. Each phase includes three to four Task Force meetings, two community meetings, two Commission hearings and two City Council hearings. The consultant will also attend any Council Rail Committee or similar committee meetings as needed. Discussion The format of the study session will include a presentation by BMS consultants of the primary activities and findings to date of the project (Attachment G), comments from some of the Task Force members, and then questions and comments from the Council. Staff and the consultants and the Task Force ask the Council for guidance regarding: 1) Council input on the key issues or opportunities identified to date (connectivity and land use), 2) key issues or opportunities that have not been included in work to date, and 3) input on the scope and process as the study moves forward. Task Force Since its formation, the Task Force has met eight times since February. The Task Force, which is subject to the Brown Act, has met once to twice a month with staff and the consultant. Meetings are scheduled for the first and third Thursdays of the month. The focus of the first five meetings was to provide the Task Force members with background information, including an introduction to the consultant, BMS Design Group, a review of the status of High Speed Rail and Caltrain planning efforts, and overviews of the Comprehensive Plans and related area plans, bicycle and pedestrian planning, and the Grand Boulevard Initiative. The sixth and seven meetings provided an opportunity for the members to identify specific issues and ideas regarding corridor connectivity and transportation/circulation. July 11, 2011 Page 4 of 6 (ID # 1657) Community Workshop The first of the two community workshops planned for the first phase was held on May 19, 2011 at the Lucie Stern Community Center. The purpose of this workshop was to provide an introduction to the public and to identify the audience’s issues and priorities for the study area. The turnout was light (about 10-12 public plus most of the Task Force), but the interaction was still informative. Questions outlined to participants are included as Attachment F. The second workshop was scheduled for July 7, 2011, to discuss the preliminary vision statement, but has now been postponed until September. The Task Force and staff believe this will allow for a) the development of preliminary alternatives that may elicit greater citizen engagement, b) better attendance given the workshop will occur after the summer recess, and c) more opportunity for public outreach in advance of the meeting. Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session The first Planning and Transportation Commission study session on the Rail Corridor Study was held on June 8, 2011. Staff and the consultant, BMS Design Group, provided a detailed introduction and an update on the Rail Corridor Study and Task Force. Following the presentation, three members of the Task Force, Tom Vlasic, Irwin Dawid and Phil Burton, spoke to the Commission about their thoughts on their efforts. The three members agreed that the Task Force meetings had been very productive and felt that the members would have a lot to contribute to the process. Beth Bunnenberg, the Historic Resources Board liaison to the Task Force, spoke next. She requested that the Task Force and Study also identify and study the potential impacts to the historic structures, such as El Palo Alto, within the study area. The last speaker, a Palo Alto resident, expressed his concern about public outreach. The Commission provided extensive input regarding the study. The following are the items raised by the Commission: ·Increase public outreach to encourage participation, especially at the Community Workshop ·Explore relationship of and coordinate the study with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, including California Avenue Concept Plan. ·Consider connectivity within and connections to the corridor from the outside. ·Discuss more about density. ·Consider needs for services. ·Consider importance of Alma Street. ·Consider both increasing density and lower density development pattern. ·Alma Street needs more neighborhood supporting uses, such as retail. ·Would like more certainty about scenarios being studies, like whether Bus Rapid Transit would be implemented. ·Consider use of conditional language to cover the various possible scenarios. ·Study how to increase cross connectivity and slow down traffic on Alma Street. ·Connectivity in south Palo Alto is very important. July 11, 2011 Page 5 of 6 (ID # 1657) The Commission staff report and minutes of the June 8 meeting are enclosed as Attachments B and C. Next Steps Upon direction from the Council, staff will proceed to work with the Task Force and consultant to complete Phase I of the Study. A second Community Workshop is tentatively scheduled for July 21st. The Task Force will continue its evaluation and identification of issues and opportunities, the development of a preliminary vision, and further engagement with the community. Subsequent sessions will be held with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council to discuss the vision prior to moving on to the development of alternatives in Phase II. Resource Impacts The City Council authorized $200,000 for consultant services for this study.A total of $90,000 was included in the current fiscal year (2010-11) and the remaining $110,000 was to be allocated in the 2011-12 budget. This funding appears adequate to accommodate the consultant costs through the project, unless additional public meetings are required. Staff resources have also been devoted to the effort so that one Senior Planner is spending approximately 20% of her time on the effort. Some staff hours for the Planning Director and support services have also been required. The study will include some basic economic analysis regarding the potential fiscal implications of the various alternatives and the preferred plan. Policy Implications The study will rely on the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other land use transportation policies to guide the effort for the corridor. The other work components of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, including the California Avenue/Fry’s Area Plan and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, will be considered in coordination with this study. Environmental Review The Study proposal and scope of work do not constitute a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff anticipates that environmental review for the Rail Corridor Study will be completed as part of the Comprehensive Plan. ATTACHMENTS: ·Attachment A: Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Area (PDF) ·Attachment B: June 8, 2011 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (PDF) ·Attachment C: Planning and Transportation Commission June 8, 2011 Draft Excerpt Minutes (PDF) ·Attachment D: Scope of Work (PDF) ·Attachment E: Project Schedule (PDF) ·Attachment F: Community Workshop 1 Open House Questions (PDF) ·Attachment G: Study Session Presentation Slides by BMS (PDF) July 11, 2011 Page 6 of 6 (ID # 1657) Prepared By:Elena Lee, Senior Planner Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager To provide a broad range of public feedback and input, the City Council authorized the fonnation of a Task Force for the Rail Corridor Study. The 17 -member Task Force is made up of several different stakeholder groups including residents and business owners, representatives of the school district, a non-profit housing venture, environmental groups and Stanford University, as well as a Caltrain rider. Scope of Work The Rail Corridor Study is proposed to be completed. in three phases and over an approximately twelve to fourteen month timeframe. It is anticipated that the project would be completed in the first quarter of 2012. Following the completion of the docunlent, it would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as appropriate. The adopted Scope of Work is included as Attachment A. The first and current phase is the "Context and Vision" component. The goal of this phase is to establish the background and context for the rail corridor in order to begin developing a preferred vision. Phase I would identify the constraints, Oppol1unities and vision for the study area. The consultant will study the land use, transportation, design and economic parameters. This phase includes the first step towards updating goals and policies and identifying the desired land use and transportation changes. BMS would also consult with other agencies, such as the High Speed Rail Authority and Caltrain, as needed. Phase II of the Rail Corridor Study is the "Alternatives and Analysis" section. After obtaining infonnation in Phase I, BMS will prepare urban design, land use and transportation concepts for the study area. Phase II will center on the analysis of these different alternatives. The intent is to narrow the focus to two or three alternatives and to develop an urban design framework. This phase will also include preliminary evaluation of potential environmental impacts and economic costslbenefits associated with the alternatives. The final Phase III of the study is "Plan Preparation". BMS will continue to refine the alternatives and obtain feedback from the Task Force, Commission, Council and the public. The goal is to develop a document that would be implemented and become part of the Comprehensi ve Plan. The Scope of Work includes multiple public meetings. Each phase includes three to four Task Force meetings, two Commission hearings and two City Council hearings. The consultant will also attend any Council Rail Committee or similar committee meetings as needed. As discussed above, there are also two community workshops planned for each phase. The purpose of this study session on the Rail Corridor Study is to provide infonnation on the progress during this first phase and obtain input and comments from the Commission. The fonnat of the study session will consist of the following: 1. Staff introduction 2. Presentation by BMS Design Group, including the findings of the first community workshop 3. Comments from the Task Force members. 4. Commission comments and questions. City of Palo Alto Page 2 of6 DISCUSSION BMS Design Group Following the Council's authorization to begin the process of hiring a consultant, BMS Design Group (BMS) was awarded the contract to assist staff and the Task Force in the preparation of the study. BMS is a Bay Area planning consulting group that provides professional services in urban design, land use planning, landscape architecture and community outreach. The firm is headed by two partners, Barbara Maloney and Michael Smiley, who each have over 30 years of urban design and planning experience for both public and pri vate sector clients. BMS has extensive experience across the Bay Area on a variety of rail and transit oriented development projects and plans. Their list of relevant projects include the Diridon/ Arena Strategic Development Plan in San Jose, the San Leandro BART Station Pedestrian Interface Plan, the San Francisco Embarcadero Waterfront Transit and Streetscape Improvements, the San Francisco Third Street Light Rail Urban Design Improvements, the San Mateo Hayward Park Station Area Improvements and most recently, the Sunnyvale Lawrence Area Station Plan. BMS also has two subconsultant groups working with them on this project. EPS is the econonlic consultant. EPS was also hired by the City to provide economic analysis for the City's High Speed Rail efforts. The proposal originally included Kimley Hom as the transportation subconsultant. However, changes in personnel at Kimley Hom have resulted in Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers taking on the transportation consultant role. Rail Corridor Task Force A seventeen member Task Force was appointed by the City Council to provide input and serve as a voice for the community. The Task Force group represents a broad array of interests that would be directly impacted by land use anp transportation decisions along the corridor. The members are intended to reflect a variety of personal interests, professional skills, as well as a broad geographic distribution throughout the corridor and City. The n1errlbers were chosen to serve as a conduit and a voice for not only their specific stakeholder groups, but also for other interested members of the public. The Task Force will act as an additional and very important channel for the public to get involved in the process, including those who cannot or prefer not to participate directly. The Task Force members consist of the following groups: 1. Neighborhood Representatives • Southgate (Tom Vlasic) • Downtown North (Martin Sommer) • Charleston Meadows (Ellen Hartog) • Greenmeadow (Carolyn Dobervich) • South of Midtown (Phil Burton) • Palo Alto Neighborhood (PAN) group (Norman Beamer/Crescent Park) 2. Business Representatives • Chamber of Commerce (Jim Rebosio/Sheraton) • Silicon Valley Board of Realtors (Leannah Hunt) • Propertylbusiness owner (John Tarlton/owner, developer and Feeta Bishop/CAADA) • ArchitectlDesigner (Tony Carrasco) City of Palo Alto Page 3 of6 3. Other Agencies and Interest Groups • Stanford University (Charles Carter) • Palo Alto Unified School District (Barb Mitchell) • Environmental Organization (Tom Jordan and Irvin DawidJSierra Club) • Social Service/Affordable Housing (Candice GonzalezlPalo Alto Housing Corp) • Caltrain rider (Evan Goldin) Staff has also requested various City boards and commissions to appoint a liaison to attend and represent their respective groups, including the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Architectural Review Board, Utilities Advisory Commission, the Histotic Resources Board and the Bicycle Advisory Committee. The role of the liaisons is to attend these meetings on behalf of and provide updates to their representative boards. Liaisons are not participating as task force members. Additionally, staff has invited representatives from the adjacent cities of Mountain View and Menlo Park and Caltrain to appoint liaisons to attend the meeting. Task Force Meetings The Task Force has met seven times since November 2010. Meetings, which are subject to the Brown Act,are scheduled on the first and third Thursdays of the month at the Lucie Stern Community Center. The Task Force has met once to twice a month, depending on the need. The focus of the first three meetings (November 9, Decelnber 9 and January 20) was to provide the Task Force with background information, including the status of the various rail projects and to discuss organization and logistics. Staff presented information on the Brown Act and other City endeavors. Rob Braulik and Richard Hackmann of the City Manager's office spoke on the High Speed Rail project and on the City's participation in those efforts. Sara Armstrong of Californians Advocating for Responsible Rail Development (CARRD) also spoke to the Task Force about the group's efforts and the role of public participation in the High Speed Rail project. The February 17 meeting was the first Task Force meeting with BMS Design Group, the project consultant. The Task Force was provided with an introduction to BMS and a review of the scope, schedule and outreach process at the fourth meeting. The Task Force also discussed the goals and issues of the study area. The fifth meeting was held on March 17. Staff presented other City efforts relevant to the Rail Corridor Study, including the Comprehensive Plan Anlendnlent, the California Avenue Concept Plan, the Grand Boulevard Initiative and the Bike and Pedestrian Plan Update. A process and schedule update was also outlined. The sixth and seventh meetings included small working,groups to identify specific issues and ideas. The sixth meeting, held on April 7, focused on corridor connectivity. BMS offered a presentation on existing, potential and additional connections across the rail lines and impacts on neighborhoods. High Speed Rail and Caltrain alternatives were reviewed. The Task Force was divided up into several snlall groups to discuss concepts for destinations and possible connections, including bike lanes. A Caltrain representative attended the meeting and gave an update on the Caltrain budget and operations status. The seventh and latest meeting, held on May 5t\ focused on transportation and circulation analysis. The consultant spoke about land use and urban design and transportation and circulation issues in Palo Alto. The Task Force was City of Palo Alto Page 4 of6 then divided up into small groups to discuss and identify land use and transportation/circulation issues and priorities. The next Task Force meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 16. First Community Workshop The project will include six Community Workshops, two in each of the three phases of the project. The first Community Workshop was held on May 19,2011 at the Lucie Stem Community Room. Approximately 25 people attended (most of whom were Task Force members). The meeting began with a project overview, including the schedule and process. BMS reviewed land use, transportation and circulation issues, previously discussed with the Task Force. The remainder of the nleeting was held in an open house format. Fourteen stations were set up along the perimeter of the room to solicit the attendees' issues and priorities related to the corridor area. The questions focused on the individual's vision of the future of the corridor, preferred uses in specific areas, view of the role of the corridor and priorities regarding transportation improvements. The list of questions is provided as Attachment D. The public was also able to provide other comnlents that did not necessarily fit into any of the preset categories. The second Community Workshop is tentatively scheduled to be held on July 7,2011. The purpose of this workshop is to discuss the public's initial visions for the project area building upon the information obtained from the first workshop. BMS will present the findings from the workshop at the June 8th Commission hearing. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The study will rely on the City's Comprehensive Plan and other land use transpor.tation policies to guide the effort for the corridor. Current Comprehensive Plan and area plan efforts, including the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update, will be considered in conjunction with the Rail Corridor Study. ' ENVIRONNIENTAL REVIEW: A study session is not considered a project under the Califonlia Environmental Quality Act. Environmental review for the.Rail Corridor Plan will be completed, likely, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report. PUBLIC OLTTREACH: To solicit public feedback, a website and email address has been established for the project. Notices for all meetings are posted on the City's website in the Know zone (http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglknowzone/agendas/rail corridor task force.asp) and the City Hall Notice Board. Additional background information is also provided on the webpage. Staff has been maintaining an email distribution list of interested individuals and has used the list to send out meeting notices and updates. An email address, railcorridorstudy@cityofpaloalto.org, has been established for public outreach purposes. A separate detailed website, www.paloaltorailcorridor.org, has been made available to provide as much information as possible for the publio, similar to the one developed for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Task Force meetings are also recorded and available for viewing at the Community Media Center website. Members of the public have attended and participated in the Task Force meetings. City of Palo Alto Page 5 of6 ATTACHMENTS: A. Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Scope of Work B. Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Project Timeline. C. Palo Alto Rail Conidor Study Boundary Map D. Community Meeting #1 Questions for Open House Segment COURTESY COPIES: BMS Design Group Rail Corridor Study Task Force Prepared by: Elena Lee, Senior Planner DepartmentlDivision Head Approval: ---C~Aj::01\d.kl-=',",------=------,\""",,bJ--->IIoo<.~ ~~~"~~:;..a.~ ___ _ Curtis Williams, Director City of Palo Alto Page 6of6 Planning and Transportation Commission 1  2  3  4  5  6  Verbatim Minutes June 8, 2011 DRAFT EXCERPT Rail Corridor Study Session: Study session to receive P&TC’s input to staff and consultants on the preparation of the Rail Corridor Study. 7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  With that we will go to our second order of business which is the Rail Corridor Study Session. It is a study session to receive PTC input to staff and consult on the preparation of the rail corridor study. Before I introduce Elena Lee to introduce the item I am going to briefly give an idea as to what the order of the presentation is going to be. You are going to make a staff presentation followed by BMS making their presentation. After that I am going to ask for members of the Rail Corridor Task Force if they wish to make their comments before the public hearing and then the public will be able to speak to the item and then we will return to the commission. So, with that, if there are any members of the public or members of the Rail Commission that wish to speak to this item please fill out a card and submit it to one of the staff members and I’d appreciate it if you would put on the corner of the card that you are a member of the Rail Corridor Task Force so I can distinguish which cards are from the public and which are from the task force members. Thank you, Elena. Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair Lippert members of the commission. We are here tonight to provide an introduction and an update to the Rail Corridor Study Project. The Rail Corridor Study was initiated by City Council last year to develop a land use urban design and transportation division along the Rail Corridor. To facilitate the project, an urban design consultant, BMS Design Group, has been hired to help prepare the study. The consultant will make a presentation following the stats report. BMS has had extensive experience with transit oriented development as well as transit planning in various Bay Area cities including San Francisco, San Jose, San Mateo and San Leandro, and most recently the city of Sunnyvale. Public process is an important component of this Rail Corridor 3 phase project. The Rail Corridor Work Study program is proposed to be completed in three phases to be completed in the first quarter of 2012. The study is currently in Phase 1, the vision and context phase. This project will include multiple hearings before the commission, the City Council as well as community workshops. A task force was also formed to provide feedback to the staff in development of the study. The task force is made up of various stakeholder groups including residents, business owners, property owners, non-profit groups, as well as a transit writer. The task force was intended to be a voice for the community at large. Task force meetings are open to the public and held once or twice a month depending on need. Each phase will also include multiple public hearings and two community workshops per phase. The first community workshop was held on May 19th requesting feedback from the public about what they thought the priorities were in context of the area. The next workshop is tentatively scheduled for July 7th. A website, paloaltorailcorridor.org, and a task force page on the city’s website have been set up to provide information to the public. As for places for the commissioner and the public, staff has provided copies of the map and work products of the work groups held at the 6th and 7th task force meeting as well as a community workshop. Also emailed earlier today and put at places was an email from Commissioner Keller with his questions about what he thought should be the 22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46   Page 1  focus of some of these alternatives. That information will also be forwarded to the task force members. Again, all of this information will be available online as well as the maps you see on the board. BMS will now make a presentation and discuss the outcome of both the workshop and task force meetings in detail and so BMS for this project consists of Barbara Maloney and Michael Smiley, principals of BMS Design Group. 1  2  3  4  5  6  Barbara Maloney: Thank you Elena and thank you Commission for inviting us to talk to you today. What we would like to do today is quickly go through an overview of the project how we see it. We are going to talk a bit about our thoughts about how we are approaching this with the task force and the community because it is a unique project and its complexity and many serious issues warrants a particularly careful and thoughtful approach. We will also talk about what we have heard from the task force and the community thus far, we’ll share that with you. And then we have some questions we would like to entertain, any discussion and questions you have and we specifically have a few questions that we would love to get some feedback on. 7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  As Elena mentioned, we are leading the project, BMS Design Group, in San Francisco. My partner and I have had this business for 15 years now and we specialize in transportation related projects including TOD projects, streetscape, public environment projects, as well as a number of other kinds of work. Joining us on the team is Fehr and Peers for transportation planning out of San Francisco and EPS who are real estate economists out of Berkeley. When we began the project we looked at the various background information that we could get our hands on and we were particularly interested and paid note of the council’s direction to staff upon authorizing and initiating this project and that has been something that has been guiding us as we go forward on this. It is noted on here, and I won’t read all of it, but what we took away from this is this is a plan for the corridor. It is not just about high speed rail. In fact it is not first and foremost about high speed rail, it is about a rail corridor and what the future for land use, transportation, and urban design for that corridor should be and of course we know there are a number of possible futures for that corridor but we want to look first at the corridor itself and really focus on what it could be and on what the vision for that place should be. As was reiterated in the staff’s direction to us of what they wanted to see, they wanted a vision for land use, transportation and urban design for the corridor. The outcome of this process will be to develop a rail corridor plan, a plan for that corridor which will be incorporated into the comprehensive plan for the city so we’ve made part of that policy document. As Elena mentioned, this is a three phase project and we are actually getting fairly close to the end of the first phase so it’s an opportune time to be speaking to you about this. There are essentially three primary components to this phase of this work. The first was the analysis which has been in large part an opportunity for us to get up to speed and understand the background documents, what other projects are going on in the area that we need to be aware of and that should inform what we’re thinking, obviously learning more about high speed rail in Palo Alto and the policy and political issues relating to that, but also generally what other issues are that relate to the corridor – traffic problems, land use issues and all the things the community and task force has been able to advise us about. What we are embarking on now, and we have two meetings scheduled to discuss this, is encouraging the task force in the community to work with us to articulate a first vision for the corridor. That’s not a specific plan, not specific solutions to individual issues or problems but it  Page 2  is a first articulation of what the vision, what the future of the corridor could be within the next 5, 10 or 25 years. So that is what we are hoping to get some additional guidance from you about. Phase 2, once we complete that, and that will start in July, will actually develop alternative plans for the corridor and we’ll evaluate those and then the final phase of the project will be to develop the actual plan document itself. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  We’ve had 7 task force meetings. For some reason there are only 6 listed on this. There were 3 task force meetings that occurred before we were actually involved in the project. They started in November and the third was in January and it was getting the task force up to speed on what their role was, what the project was and also the status of the high speed rail project. When we became involved in February, and there had been four meetings subsequent to that, we explained our approach to the project. We asked the city staff and they gave us a briefing of other projects going on that were relevant such as the California Avenue Study and studies of El Camino and so on. The third meeting we had we had a first working session with the task force about connectivity and we’ll talk to you a little more about what we got out of that and then we had the 7th meeting relating to some initial land use and transportation discussions. That last meeting was in May. We’ve also had one community meeting as Elena mentioned and that was on May 19th. We’ve got some exhibits on that and we’ll tell you what we heard at that. We have two meetings coming up as I mentioned. There is a final task force meeting for this phase that’s going to be held on June 16th and a second community meeting that will be held on July 7th and those as I said are going to be about vision. So with that I will hand it over to my partner Michael Smiley. He is going to talk about how we’ve been handling the project and our approach to it. Michael Smiley: Thank you very much. What I’d like to do is talk just a little bit about how we’ve sort of viewed the project really from the beginning. To a certain extent there has been, as Barbara and Elena mentioned, there has been a considerable amount of input that we are receiving that helps us get up to speed from the task force and the community. There are also certain factors, sort of a planning approach and I’d like to talk to you about some of the thoughts we’ve had about the planning approach to this. We were asked to share this with you because this really goes back to one of the first discussions we had with the task force about how to think about this corridor and again reminding everyone if it is not entirely clear, the corridor includes all the land across the entire city from Menlo Park to Mountain View and from El Camino to Alma so it is much more than just the rail tracks. It does affect things like El Camino, the cross town streets that cross across these areas as well. So when we think about this we need to start thinking about this as much as any other kind of urban design plan we would do for a district, as just about a plan that happens to have high speed rail or happens to have Caltrain and some of the other things in it. So, here you see a reference to 8 key considerations as we think about planning and urban design for the corridor. In some ways they overlap and in other ways they are different. 25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  There are different ways of thinking about and planning for an area that is really quite large and really quite complex as an urban place. One of the first things that we feel is very important is to get our arms around what is the role of this corridor, this very large area in the city, and we will go through that in a minute. Also, the whole question defining the difference between conservation and development areas. We know that there are some areas that we want to  Page 3  conserve and protect. We know there are other areas that could be opportunity areas in various ways and we need to get to that working with the community. Then there is a whole other way of thinking about this and that is as you break an area this large down breaking it down into various districts. We have residential districts, commercial districts. Another way of thinking about it is you also have transit districts. Now transit districts can be both a residential district and a commercial district and if you think of the California Avenue area for instance that is both a residential district, a commercial district and a transit district, so thinking about it as districts or sub districts, it is just another way of putting a different set of goggles on in the way we look at it. Then there is the whole question of transit oriented development. Now with the assumption that there is no high speed rail station here then transit related components of a station for high speed rail isn’t an issue but we still have three stations that affect Palo Alto that are places that we need to think of as transit oriented development areas and of course you have within your zoning a very clear pedestrian transit oriented development type district where you’ve already started to address that. Then we break down into what are the elements of the plan specifically. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  Caltrain and high speed rail are very definitely a component of this. They are kind of the elephant in the living room but the way we need to think about it is they are a piece of the plan, not the plan itself. And then of course assessing how we deal with the various impacts of which there are many different types and finally implementing the vision meaning how do we implement all of this. I would like to touch on some of these things in a little more detail. The role of the corridor in the city, one of the things I find very fascinating about this is that when you map out the existing land uses in this area which is what this map shows, yellow and as you know, the yellows and browns tend to be residential at lower to high densities and reds and purples tend to be commercial type uses and blue are more civic and educational. One of the things that really strikes about this area is compared to other parts of the city it has amazing amounts of diversity. Its got the kind of diversity, particularly right in this corridor bound by Alma on this side and El Camino on this side, an incredibly diverse area and it raises questions about how we think about this and the kinds of services, the kinds of things that happen in this very diverse area. It presents a lot of opportunity to do things that would be a little different from the way you would think about an area that really has a common kind of use and purpose, the single family areas and even the vast areas where we have a university and that sort of thing. That kind of diversity is what we really need to think about as we go forward. Are there things that can make it more diverse, more interesting, and satisfy a lot of things that make for a very interesting and diverse core of the city? Your comprehensive plan reinforces that in the way it speaks to that diversity as well and it’s not surprising that the comprehensive plan and the existing uses tend to mirror each other and strengthen each other. The question of course after we get finished with all this study is are there things that can be done to make this an even more interesting place and consequently the comprehensive plan would be reformulated or amended to reflect the kinds of things we would like to see there. The assumption is that no place in any city I’ve ever worked, particularly in an area this large, is perfect the way it is. We know there are things that we can always do to improve it and that is really what we need to be thinking about. Now one of the first things that we did and one of the things to think about as we plan an area like this is defining conservation areas. This happens to be a very early sketch so its not as  Page 4  accurate as some of the mapping we’ve been doing more recently but it was an effort to identify in a very conceptual way a few factors, yellow being residential areas under the assumption that residential areas are places we want to conserve and protect. What that does is when you think of it from a yin and yang point of view that then the areas that are non-residential and perhaps they aren’t things such as a hospital or a high school might be opportunity areas where we can start to think about opportunities for land use change or improvements that could better serve the district and those tend to be certainly the white areas and also could be the red areas where we are identifying some of the major pedestrian destinations, the major attractors that exist along this corridor. So it is really simplified down, the ideas of what this corridor is to conservation and non-conservation areas if you’d like to put it that way. By the way we did add a couple of these. This was done way back at the beginning. In fact, we prepared this for the interview when we interviewed for this project and began to talk about it. We also showed opportunities to cross the existing Caltrain tracks. As you know, there aren’t many. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  Let’s talk about districts. I mentioned there are a variety of ways to think about districts and I won’t repeat that but I think that this is something that we really do need to, as we go forward, think about how the districts are arranged. Do they have boundaries, gateways, edgers, buffers? There are of course single use districts and mixed use districts and one way to think of this is to say, well, California Avenue for instance that area is a mixed use district and the residential area next to it is not. Another way to think about it is to raise ourselves up about 500 feet and say the whole area is a mixed use district. It is a mix of residential of various densities, it’s a mix of various commercial services to serve that residential , its got parks, its got educational facilities, its got one of the best museums in the entire Bay Area that is just across the street, its got great transportation opportunities, so the entire corridor really is this bottom line here. And how do you create a really diverse mixed use district while you’re also making sure you’re protecting the neighborhoods that are within and adjacent to that district and make them an effective part of it? We also have these transit districts I mentioned to you and of course I know we have the three stations, Downtown University, California Avenue and San Antonio on the Caltrain line but we also have the germ of an idea right now, the planning for bus rapid transit that will come down El Camino Real and there are potential station locations that have been preliminarily identified. So that will provide another transportation opportunity and we can start to think of those as transit districts as well. And so when you think of that then the notion of transit oriented development and the notion of what you do in service as transportation serves those neighborhoods and vice versa as those neighborhoods support transit it starts to expand the opportunities within this overall corridor and how we think about planning it. Now what is transit oriented development since you are of course a commission that deals with planning in the city I’m sure you’ve heard this many times but I’d like to just touch on it because really there is a lot of discussion about what is transit oriented development, what are the components and so on. We like to think of it as four key components. First of all and most fundamentally you need an accessible urban framework and that is the pattern of streets and blocks that allow all modes of travel to actually get to transit and if you don’t have that then both the neighborhoods and so on can’t use transit effectively and the transit system itself is not well supported. Second you need supportive land uses and there are a few land uses that definitely support transit and there are other land uses that do not. Generally speaking, and I’ll use a local example, and not that I’m trying to push them out, but generally speaking, a store like Fry’s does  Page 5  not support transit. You don’t ride transit to pick up the kinds of things that they sell there or a Costco or big box retail or those kinds of things. Also, industrial does not support transit because the population densities within those kinds of uses are very low. The types of uses that do support transit are residential and of course the higher the density the better. We don’t want to be Manhattan but you can look to a place like New York and you can see with those kinds of densities why they have no cars on the street except taxis of course and this very busy transit system. So residential densities uses and office uses as well generate a significant amount of transit ridership. So those are two particular uses that depending upon the types of densities that are acceptable to the community then we want to fit them in and we can actually support our transit system and that of course is going to help keep Cal Tran alive during time. That gets us to the third point of supportive densities. And finally we need an attractive public environment. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  The thing that I like to talk about the most is actually the transit vehicles themselves are quite nice. The transit agencies spent a lot of time and a lot of effort and a lot of money getting good buses, good trains, nice seats, and once you’re in the vehicle it is a nice ride. The problem with transit is the trip from home to the vehicle and that’s where we urban designers come in and planners and those we commission. If you think about this is if I feel unsafe getting there, if its an uncomfortable environment while I’m waiting, its rainy, I don’t know when the bus or train is coming, I don’t have real time information, then I might be inclined to say I’m driving because it is too much of a hassle to get to that train even though it may not be that far away. That’s why we need to be thinking about the public environment that becomes an integral part of transit oriented development and of that transit system. I think that’s very important in this corridor area because there are a lot of places in this corridor that have supporting uses, supporting densities, but it is not easy to get to the train station. Ultimately to get to the BART station and the other stations that are along El Camino Real. Elements of the plan, another way of thinking about what we want to do here, is ultimately we need a plan that spells out some of the key components and that of course involves having a vision of what we want in the first place and that is sort of the stage we are trying to get through now and once we do that developing this framework with streets and blocks, establishing a circulation system with land use and density patterns, open space, and then city design, all the various pieces that infill back into the plan and infill back into the vision and the framework. I’d like to just mention about that framework and take us now to Palo Alto. One of the things we all know is of course one of the biggest problems with cross town circulation is the current rail tracks and to a certain extent, high speed rail maybe can make it better but it may not change it depending on the alternative that they select. One of the things that we can see is that when you look at this pattern, the existing urban pattern, the residential areas on the North East side, North is not north and west is not West in Palo Alto I know, but let’s use the drawing as North. So north is up on the drawing. The neighborhoods north of the tracks and into downtown have this very walkable and accessible urban framework. That framework falls apart along El Camino Real and sort of the south side around the campus area and some of the large institution uses and so on that we have. That framework of course we have this long wide band where this entire framework ends. Of course Alma is part of the problem and the tracks are the other part of the problem, so a lot of what we need to think about as we go forward in this project and in this process is how we can improve on this urban framework that exists through here. And even within the corridor area we are looking at, what can we do to make that work and function better  Page 6  so it provides, a) better circulation and so on and, b) functions better for this amazingly diverse neighborhood that already exists. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  One of the things we’ve done is we’ve looked at the types and places where there might be circulation framework opportunities for just crossing that one corridor and this diagram is a little hard to read but essentially what you’ll see from these dots here is we’ve mapped where the existing vehicular crossings are, the yellow ones, and we’ve marked where the existing pedestrian and bike crossings are, non-vehicular, and so those are down through Homer at California Avenue and then we said, well, where are the potential vehicular crossings? This is today. Forget about high speed train. This is today. Where else could we cross when we wanted to? The interesting thing about it is there aren’t many places that we can cross that don’t have anything to do with the train because for instance, right along this area, along Charleston, all these residential areas back up against the existing tracks. So unless we want to remove somebody’s house, we can’t cross anywhere. That removes this entire area as potential crossing locations for pedestrian or bicycle. Same is true down here. So by deductive means we are able to find that there are actually land use patterns and a variety of other reasons why we can’t make the crossings anyway. High speed train will have nothing to do with that and to a certain extent Caltrain will have nothing to do with that unless of course we can get everything down below grade and then maybe we can have more crossings. Then of course we have cost considerations but it doesn’t mean it is an impossible thing to do. Now the places we can do that are the white circles. You can see right near downtown there are several places where we could make that crossing, into the hospital area, crossings into where the park is, into the high school. We wouldn’t want vehicular crossings into the high school but we could have a bike connection there. That’s the kind of land use on the other side of the tracks that could accept a crossing but single family residential cant. So its pretty interesting because you find regardless of what is going on with the trains themselves, we have land use constraints that limit what we can do and how we cross that corridor. Finally I do think we need to talk about the train itself. I don’t want to just completely not mention that. I think that one of the things our approach has been on this, the first start has been, what do we know about the train. We know a lot of details about what they’re thinking but what we know for sure is they are looking at three alternatives. One of those is a sort of below grade, or at least a cut, and the other two are combinations of surface, below grade, and aerial viaduct. So we know they are looking at three alternatives and at this point we know what those alternatives are and presumably you have seen those as well. We don’t know if the high speed train is even coming for sure. We don’t know whether it will even look like any of those three alternatives so our sense has been, and this is partly what I’m trying to get at in this whole conversation and as Barbara started, is that we feel that what’s most important, and we believe this is what the council directive is all about, is we need to plan this area anyway. And we need to plan it of which the high speed train, in any configuration it may take, yes, as a consideration we need to think about it but we aren’t even sure it is going to arrive. So let’s plan and get a vision for this area to start to address a lot of the things I was already talking about, how we can make a better and greater neighborhood in this area. That includes identifying the visions which we are trying to do now and preparing alternatives and preparing this corridor plan. Then, as we are going through this we can circle back around and say this is what we want. What among the various high speed rail alternatives, or among what high speed train is doing, how can we use  Page 7  that to help us implement our goal? If it never comes, we can still continue to implement our goal for this area because we have one. We have a goal and it is embodied in your comprehensive plan. With that I am going to turn it back over to Barbara and she can talk a little bit about it further. 1  2  3  4  5  Barbara Maloney: To wrap up our presentation part of the study session here I just want to briefly talk to you about what we have heard from the task force and the community relating to many of these things we have been talking about. We have a number of ways we have been reaching out. There is a project website and we have had task force meetings. As I mentioned there have been seven of those, the eighth is coming up next week. They are doing a good job representing neighborhoods, businesses and other stakeholders in the area who have an interest in this and we are encouraging them to reach out to their constituents to not only get to the community meetings but talk to them about what is going on and reflect their concerns in our meetings. We have been actually getting pretty good attendance from the public at those task force meetings as well. As far as the community meetings, the City has done a good job of noticing those meetings. There is the web page and we are having two community meetings in each phase of the project. This is the website which is up and running. It has been up and running for a few weeks now so we are providing information as we go along and posting material to that. Two of the task force meetings that we had that were the most interesting for us and for the task force in terms of beginning to start getting our teeth into what the various issues are and starting to get our teeth into the project. The first one we had which was the third meeting that we had with the task force, we called a connectivity discussion and it sprang from the drawing that Michael just showed you which showed the whole corridor, showed where the crossings of the tracks and the rail area is for vehicular crossings, pedestrian crossings and so on and we basically provided that drawing to the task force members, broke everybody up into small groups and asked them to consider these questions. How can we make better connections? Where should they be? Can we do pedestrian connections, bike connections, and if the trench were covered if the train were in a trench configuration, it is our understanding from the engineers that there is probably going to be an opportunity in that scenario for there to be coverings for that trench as much as 800 feet long as long as there is 1400 feet left between coverings because they need that for emergency purposes to get access to the trains themselves should there be a problem. There are these opportunities for 800 feet covers. I’m not clear who pays for those or how those would be implemented but if there were those, where might locations for those be and how might those be used. So that was the topic of our first working session for the task force and they enthusiastically jumped into this dialogue. We’ve got on the left side there the long drawings on the middle of the wall there on the left and they represent two of the tables that were working on that, about 6 or 8 people per table. They came up with a lot of interesting things. You can see it either on the wall or the slide, the blue strips represent locations where people were suggesting there might be cover over the trench and if they were covered that would be a good location because they could envision uses that might work there like park space or a crossing of some kind or another that might be both vehicular and ped and bike and so on. Places where there could just be plazas, places where there could be an enhanced train station whether that’s for Caltrain or not. The red dots were also very important they found in that they defined destinations and those are places people want to get to from one side or another so those were places as we move forward I think will be very helpful to us as we go along. So we’ve got some really very helpful information out of that and these are two of the 6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46   Page 8  other drawings. Some folks got really excited about the coverings down around University Avenue and others were focused on some other areas in the project. Some of the yellow lines you see on there were suggestions about where some bike facilities should be improved for bike access along the corridor. We did find a lot of enthusiasm and support for bicycle access through the corridor and for Palo Alto as a whole. So some of the things we heard, just to summarize some of them, a lot about connectivity, reinforcement as Michael was saying, protecting those residential neighborhoods, particularly the single family neighborhoods and a lot of thought about the different kinds of crossing improvements. We also were asking them to identify particular intersections, vehicular intersections where there are pedestrian problems, conflicts, safety concerns, that kind of thing and those will be useful for us also as we move forward. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  The second working meeting we had with the task force was relating to some land use and transportation questions. I won’t go through this whole list of questions but we had some that had to do about what the future of the corridor might be, this corridor area. Is it an area that might have higher intensity and be more downtown like perhaps in some ways, more TOD oriented? Was it a place where more moderate intensity changes are more appropriate or is it an area where there shouldn’t be any change? Little or no change? Also, if intensification is feasible, where would that be? We also asked accompanying transportation question. What should El Camino do? What should the land along El Camino, how can that be supportive? If there are traffic problems where are they and how can the street network be improved? We used as a basis for this, Michael showed this earlier, this is essentially a drawing that we’ve done from your zoning that indicates sites that are currently zoned for housing or mixed use in proximity to transit and services. And so, using that as a base to suggest areas where there might be opportunities, you can see the groups were beginning to look at things like the red blocks that people were putting on the maps indicate areas where there could be an intensification of retail uses, service uses. They were certainly clustered in most cases down at the southern end of El Camino in the study area, particularly south of Cal Ave. Some of the bike and pedestrian improvements were the yellow ones, it’s kind of hard to read the scale. You can see also there were ideas about new public spaces that are shown. The retail is shown in the red, the yellow, I don’t know what all the colors are going forward but you can see again on this one there was a lot of interest in the University Avenue area and how development could be reinforced. There were opportunities both with the cover ideas as well as on sites that adjoin University Avenue for intensification of uses which might be commercial uses or residential uses, any number of things. The yellow squares are higher density residential uses. And then we had our first community meeting and I just wanted to summarize a few of the findings on this, you’ll see on the easels on the left the selection, it’s not all of the questions we asked and the answers we receiving from the community. But we did a voting exercise that we could kind of begin to get a sense of people’s preferences on some different questions. We thought it was pretty interesting in the first question, what do you think the most important role of the study area is? There was a lot of support for residential uses in the corridor. There was support also of course for services, work, and cultural events but there was also almost equally strong support for residential and for all of the above so there seemed to be good confirmation of the idea, as Michael was saying, that this is a mixed use corridor and it should continue to remain and be reinforced as a mixed use corridor. The biggest problems? Poor connections to the rest of the city is clearly an issue but lack of services was seen as an important one as well. How important is increasing the use of alternate travel modes in the city and in the study area? Very, very important. Are there areas where land uses should be changed or intensified to improve the area? Clearly the three top vote getters in  Page 9  that regard are probably pretty obvious. University Avenue, Park Blvd., El Camino, Fry’s, California Avenue area but there were questions and concerns about how that would work in the southern part of El Camino down in the vicinity of Charleston and questions have come up about that in the task force meeting and in the community meeting. Then finally, what new uses would be desirable in each of those areas? University Avenue, mixed use and retail and office. California Avenue, mixed use and retail. Park Blvd., El Camino, Fry’s, mixed use, residential and the other uses and El Camino near Charleston, retail certainly, mixed use and to some degree residential. So we feel as though we’ve gotten quite good direction from both the task force and the community from this and based on that overview we’d love to answer your questions and have any kind of a dialogue that you would like to have. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Chair Lippert: Director Williams. 12  13  Curtis Williams, Planning Director: Thank you Commissioners. I just wanted to apologize that the presentation was late this afternoon. We got it up for your viewing but we didn’t have time to make copies before the meeting so Elena has just delivered those to you. We will have that up on the website tomorrow as well so you or others can take a look at that. Thank you. 14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Chair Lippert: Thank you and thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you very much for members of the Rail Corridor Task Force members showing up this evening, I really appreciate it. I’m going to make an opportunity for members of the Rail Task Force if they wish to speak individually simply fill out a speaker card and I’ll just take them in the order that we receive them then I’ll have members of the public speak so with that we’ll begin with Tom Vlasik. Tom you have three minutes and you can add any additional comments and information you have and that will be followed by Irvin Dawid. Mr. Tom Vlasik: Thank you Commissioners. I am the Southgate representative to the task force and I appreciate very much being able to represent my neighborhood but also the greater community and the appointment to the task force by the Council. The task force efforts started out somewhat slow but I think they’ve dramatically improved as we focused on the opportunities and constraints under the guidance of the consultants and I very much appreciate the framework that they put forth tonight and the opportunity they’ve had to share that with the task force and starting at the community meetings. It is a rough process to start and to take the diversity we have on the task force and put it into a form where the people are up to speed on the simple planning tools let alone the diverse issues we are coming to grips with. We are still in this early vision process but I very much appreciate the efforts that have been made over the last several meetings to guide us in a way so we could come together and put this vision into some form. I also appreciate that we are not stressing high speed rail, that it is not the driving force and I think that fundamentally, at least from my perspective, we appreciate the need to address the housing element requirements that may be able to be solved with some of the growth focused on this area but also there is a great deal of feeling on the part of the task force members that whatever we come up with, recognizing that we have to come to grips with a lot of factors. We do not want to come up with a plan that dramatically changes the character of the community. I see it as a community plan, not an urban design plan. In our community, Palo Alto is a significant place for us to live and do all of the things we find important so I think the committee is frustrated a bit because of the daunting task of putting these elements together but you do have a good group of 26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45   Page 10  people who really are seriously bringing diverse opinions together and I really appreciate the work of the consultants and look forward to your input too. 1  2  Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. Next we’ll have Irvin Dawid followed by Phil Burton. 3  4  Mr. Irvin Dawid: Yes thank you Mr. Lippert and members of the Planning and Transportation Commission. My name is Irvin Dawid. I’m one of two appointees from the Sierra Club. We are the so-called environmental contingent. Just for the record the Sierra Club had, there were several of us that applied, there is no “Sierra Club” position here, just coming from the environmental community. My colleague Tom Jordan, sometimes I think he was appointed to counteract my own more smart growth type of attitudes. Unfortunately the biggest thing I have to say is some of the negative and that is that I was not there for our first community workshop. I was in San Luis Obispo for a Sierra Club California meeting. I very much regretted that but I never regret the opportunity to go to San Luis Obispo. I would urge everybody to do that. It is the most bike friendly community that I know of that I go to. As Tom indicated, the role of the consultants were really helpful and we were slow in getting started. Once the consultants came on, and they really changed everything. It was like putting a car or bicycle into a more fast moving gear and we started breaking out into work groups and as a whole we started becoming more productive. The biggest hurdle that, and Tom also mentioned this, was to overcome you could call it the high speed rail perspective. We had members of the public come and they would use the public common just to talk about high speed rail. It is very clear the name of this task force is rail corridor, not high speed rail corridor. In fact, even rail corridor is a bit of a misnomer. As the consultants indicated, there are actually three corridors we are actually discussing although one of them gets very little attention and that is the tracks themselves and Alma Street. Speaking of that last corridor I would just say we’ve also had liaisons come regularly and they have played a crucial role. Lee is one of them, Judith Wasserman from ARB is another one, Paul Goldstein from the Bicycle Advisory Committee is another one and he made a comment that I should have made. He pointed out that on Alma Street right by the Homer Tunnel that he constantly sees people walking on the dirt path that is as narrow as a podium because they are walking to get to the train station so the liaisons have played a crucial role and I think we’re coming together now. Thank you. 5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Chair Lippert: Phil Burton, and if we have any other members from the rail corridor task force that wish to speak, this is the time for them to do so. 32  33  34  Phil Burton: Good evening. My name is Phil Burton and I represent the midtown south. I am going to try to be very brief. First item to report on is that yesterday evening I had a meeting with the steering committee of the midtown resident’s association. They were very interested to learn more about the process, the results so far in terms of what the process is doing. I think the most immediate outcome is that they want to become more aware of events like community outreach and I will do my part to make sure they have that information so there can be greater community participation. The second thing I want to mention is that I was not at the first community meeting because of a family medical emergency. I was actually back in New York City. I had a chance to ride the New York City subway system and yes, it is amazing how many people they move in a very limited amount of space but it is a very different urban environment, nothing we can ever achieve her or would necessarily want to. Thank you. 35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46   Page 11  Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. With that we’ll have Beth Bunnenberg followed by Bill Cutler. Beth, like myself, is a liaison or representative to the task force. 1  2  3  Beth Bunnenberg: Thank you, Beth Bunnenberg, 2351 Ramona Street. As has been stated, I am a liaison to the task force. I would like to at this point request some notice be given to the historic structures along the rail corridor. Thus far the study has not seemed to address the very special structures. Some of the samples are the Palo Alto tree with its roots that wrap around the old railroad bridge there at San Francisquito Creek, the 1941 Streamline Motor and University Avenue train station. Numerous business buildings along Alma Street that are on our city’s historic inventory, the Southgate possible national register district, and the green meadow national register district so I hope that as time progresses we will get some chance to put those in. Thank you. 4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. With that we’ll have the first member of the public speaking, that’s Bill Cutler, and if there are any other members of the public that wish to speak to this item, now is the time to hand in a card. 14  15  16  17  Mr. Bill Cutler: My name is Bill Cutler. I live at 4114 Park Blvd. First I have a comment and a question on process. What the consultants have shown us looks to me like a very effective and responsive process but I have one concern and that is the degree to which it can demonstrate that the entire community of stakeholders are really being engaged and the stakeholders important interests are being folded in. There is a tool called stakeholder audit which enumerates who the stakeholders are either by individual, group or by type and then identifies what the interests are for each of these stakeholder groups and the idea would be to demonstrate by some measure that the process is really reaching all of the stakeholders. Personally, I think it is not effective to just put up notices, bang a notice up on the telephone pole saying you all come, people like me who like to shoot off their mouths will show up. The other people who are a lot more quiet will not show up until late into the study when they get irate at the fact that their interests have been ignored and I would like to see some kind of process that would get these people out and into the process. The other comment I wanted to make was I realize in watching the presentation tonight that there is an opportunity for study and development in the El Camino Way area. There are a number of restaurants and there have been a couple of restaurants that were my favorites that have left and I think there is an opportunity for the neighborhood village along the El Camino Way alignment that would have restaurants the are interesting and shops that would be interesting to the people who lived in the neighborhood. With the density of residential that is adjacent to that both within the corridor study area and across El Camino on the west side, I’m wondering if that area might have the potential of being developed and have enough clientele to support something there that would be really interesting. So I wanted to call that to your attention and perhaps have that given some focus in the study. 18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak to this item? Ok with that I’m going to close the public hearing and we will return to the commission. Commissioners, if you turn to the last page of the presentation there is PTC discussion items. This is actually an excerpt or it’s actually an abbreviated version of some questions that were asked at your community meeting number one. So with that what I’d like to do is return to the Commission. I’ll give each Commissioner five minutes, we’ll go down and 41  42  43  44  45  46   Page 12  look for lights here. And if you could focus your comments or questions on the discussion items I think it would be very helpful in terms of giving the consultants some feedback as well as any other items that are appropriate. Do I have lights? I guess we’re done, no, I guess what we’ll do is I’ll just begin down the line. Do you mind leading off Commissioner Martinez? 1  2  3  4  5  Commissioner Martinez: Ok. First to the planning director, my sources in Sacramento tell me that there is a bill in the Senate to transfer the responsibility for high speed rail to Cal Trans. I know it’s kind of speculative but how does that affect the process that we are going through right now, if any? 6  7  8  9  10  Curtis Williams, Planning Director: Well, it does not affect the process we are going through now but it may have implications for high speed rail and providing a different sort of oversight for the high speed rail function in that its currently the authority as is an independent group that has come under a lot of criticism for the way they’ve handled things so establishing them within Cal Trans… I can probably make some untowards comments about the length of time it takes anything to get through Cal Trans, it might be further delayed, but we don’t really know how that would in and of itself would probably just be some initial delay at a minimum just to change the bureaucracy kind of and move it in Cal Trans but how the substance of the alternatives they are looking at and how those kinds of things would change or if they would, we don’t really know. 11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Commissioner Martinez: Only that our liaison in high speed rail would change to perhaps different state representatives. I wanted to thank Beth about her comment about the historic structures. I wanted to add one more and that’s Caltrain itself. Putting it underground or putting it above, its kind of part of Palo Alto’s history so I want to make sure we preserve that. Question to our consultants, I wanted to thank you. I’ve really enjoyed listening to you and it’s the second time I’ve gotten to do that. Can you provide a little bit more substance in why the corridor study includes El Camino Real? Why has it been expanded that way? 21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Barbara Maloney: We were presented as part of our scope of work that the study area extended the full length of the study and then from Alma to El Camino and I think that’s because as one of the task force members said, there are three corridors in this area and its clear that El Camino plays a critically important role in transportation and circulation and land use throughout this area. The study was slightly ill defined when we got there and what we’ve said is we should actually look at properties outward of both El Camino and Alma so we get the envelope around each of those rights of way as well as for the study area. Curtis do you want to expand on that? 29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Curtis Williams, Planning Director: No I think that is generally well put and if you look at the train stations and particularly University and California Avenue train stations certainly the walkable area to those train stations extends to El Camino and both of those locations we do anticipate bus rapid transit on El Camino at some point in the future and so all these connections in terms of the transit and walkability issues I don’t think we can look at the corridor without being inclusive in that way and also we do show on the east side the line actually going east of Alma for several blocks just to acknowledge that there are impacts certainly on the residents, whatever the alternatives are for this corridor, the Cal Tran corridor. There are some impacts there that will accrue to those residents on that side of Alma that we need to also be aware of as we go through the study. 37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46   Page 13  1  Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. One last question though. I understand that the sphere of influence does extend both across Alma and to El Camino but is it the intention or the direction of the study to propose developments in areas towards El Camino other than the transit where we are proposing infrastructural changes or looking at that kind of work that impacts the corridor study itself? 2  3  4  5  6  7  Curtis Williams, Planning Director: My guess is, and it is still to be defined by the task force and by the consultants and their joint work but my guess is that we’re not going to real specifically define land uses out to El Camino. Probably the closer you are to Caltrain the more specific we’ll be. There may be some opportunity sites or a few locations in this corridor though where it makes sense to focus and say this is an area that probably has potential for some redevelopment that might range from A to C but we are not going to get down to the point of saying that it should be a park or it should be a commercial retail space and FAR should be increased to such and such a point. We are not getting to the level of specificity even in the California Avenue area plan for instance. So again, I think that needs to be determined to some extent but just in terms of general land use patterns in these areas of opportunity that may exist within the corridor, I think that’s what we hope can be defined in this process and consistent in conjunction with the other plans that are going on. 8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Chair Lippert: Commissioner Garber. 21  22  Commissioner Garber: For the consultant, when you speak of mixed as a land use what do you mean? 23  24  25  Barbara Maloney: We typically mean either one of two things – that can be mixed in a building, retail under residential or retail under office or under office or residential so it could be mixed use within building configuration but it could also be side by side mixed use where we would have areas that would have retail projects and housing projects and even office projects in close proximity. Thank you. 26  27  28  29  30  31  Michael Smiley: There was an interesting comment that came from the task force that I thought was very good actually. I can’t remember which meeting it was but one of the task force members spoke to me and asked me that same question and the answer, typically as professionals we’ll say, well yes its mixing uses, in a building or next to each other but actually it goes back to what I said in the beginning and that is mixed use also in the context of this kind of planning includes parks, open space, cultural facilities and a broad array of things that are about the mix of this district and so mixed use, if we’re talking about a specific site, might be a building that has retail on the ground floor and then residential but if we’re talking about a district and I thought Mr. Cutler got a kind of interesting idea. That there is El Camino Real is a place that might have a more interesting array of things going on as a district. I’m not necessarily endorsing it but I’m saying we can also think of this as a place that has everything from churches to retail. It’s a real community mix of things going on. 32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  Commissioner Garber: Understand, thank you. For staff, how does this particular study fold into the Fry’s area study? How will they relate to each other? 45  46   Page 14  1  Curtis Williams, Planning Director: Well we are trying to inform both processes of what is happening in the other so we did have a meeting in the task force where we presented a number of different ongoing planning activities including Cal Avenue Fry’s area, plan to show what’s happening in that effort, also the bicycle master plan and other comprehensive planned activities so that they got a bigger picture of the activities going on so as we move forward we’ll do that and the same thing on the Cal Avenue side we’ll consider what that means and we’ll have to bring those two things closer together and I think right now we’ve delayed the Cal Avenue plan coming back to you in some respects because we want to see how this effort proceeds and if there is a closer alignment or an alignment of the two studies. 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Commissioner Garber: Thank you. A couple of general comments and if we have a chance to go through maybe I’ll add some more at another time. It seems to me for the consultants it might be interesting/helpful to understand how this particular corridor operates as a feeder for the city. We know the statistics about how many people come in and off of the train itself but I’m interested in seeing that in context against for instance how 101 and 280 support the city and I think understanding how those numbers inform the use of the city will help us put into perspective some of the uses that are going to have to occur and occur today along that corridor. 12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  I am reassured by the thoughtfulness that your study is undertaking here. In particular I like some of the thought experiments you are going through to look at what would happen if you were simply in particular to remove the train. And to recognize in fact that there is still the residual issues that are separating the city. I know from a variety of other communities, in order to stitch communities back together you have to put roadways back through areas where that fabric is not allowed or has been taken away. This is a topic that we’ve spoken about specifically in regards to the Fry’s area plan and the Cal Ventura area plan. What’s important there, at least in one commissioner’s view, is adding streets back in to take that area and stitch it back into our community. Looking at opportunities to cross that rail corridor as it existed I think there is a long way to trying to find ways to stitch the community back and forth but that raises a significant other issue and that is there are benefits to the existing condition. Someone can get from north to south in Palo Alto very quickly by diverting their path and going down Alma and then diverting back to wherever it is that they are going. If you were to fundamentally change a lot of those intersections along there you are fundamentally changing the likelihood of Alma operating that way. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, I’m just saying that the actual experiential differences can have impacts and beginning to try to find a way to quantify to understand what those things are will help us to make a decision as to what sort of vision we should be embracing or at least if we do embrace one we know what the consequences are. Chair Lippert: Commissioner Fineberg 39  40  Commissioner Fineberg: I’d like to start with the back page of the PTC discussion items, the second bullet point that we were to consider was, and this is per your working groups I guess, was can it be a location for higher density, greater height and where. I’m a bit perplexed that this is a question that either the PTC or the task force or members of the public are being asked to answer because I have not heard a discussion publicly in this community about whether we are looking for sites that have higher density, greater height and where they should be. There are 41  42  43  44  45  46   Page 15  some people that think there should be and some that think they shouldn’t be and we have not made any policy decisions so to start the conversation with can it be a location before there is an articulation of whether there should be locations, I find a little bit of the assumptions driving the outcomes, rather than there being a full and fair conversation of what’s the vision of where we want to end up and then how you get there. Consistent with that, I am concerned that I’m seeing a little bit of discrepancy between the consultants have described there being meetings of community members that were well attended yet at our staff report on page 5 it says the first community workshop had about 25 members or people attending, most of which are members of the task force, 17. To me, there were less than 10 members of the public that have been at the one workshop and unless I am mistaken and I was not able to attend that I don’t consider less than 10 people a good show, a good amount of input from the members of the public. We’ve had one today, Mr. Cutler, and I have to acknowledge his comment. If there is a tool, stakeholder audit, that he mentioned that we can use to track the feedback we are getting and who the feedback is coming from, I think that would go to greatly inform us about where the inputs are coming from and how we are reaching our conclusions. The process we have right now is maybe not encompassing full public input with many representations of different ideas and different approaches. Also, Mr. Williams, you said that we are delaying the work on Cal Ave. so that the process can happen simultaneously with this. In a perfect world, I think it’s fantastic that we not plan one piece and ignore another piece. So there is a side of you that says good but there is another side of me that says our old comp plan reached the end of its life in 2010. We were supposed to update it. Right now the work program was 2010 and any delays we have along the way, any expansion of scope, leave us with more time where we are not getting guidance from a comprehensive plan that isn’t based on traffic data from the mid 1980s, that isn’t based on things that are so old, that isn’t based on conversations happened one or two decades ago. We need to do whatever it is to get a new comprehensive plan before the next one is due in 2020. We keep not operating with a vision of what we want to be that we’ve defined. I applaud the work of the rail corridor task force, thank you to everyone who is on it. Spending of your time and giving of yourselves, please keep doing that. We have to make sure that it moves along with but doesn’t delay getting a new comp plan update and then staff obviously is going to have to figure out how to stage that. I want to acknowledge Commissioner Keller’s comments, make sure they get entered into the record with whatever public format they’re supposed to and just to characterize them. He’s just breaking down the scenarios of the five different things that could possibly happen, focusing on the train, whether there are no changes to Caltrain, under grounding, above grounding, and that’s kind of not too much of the focus of today’s conversations. I want to echo Beth Bunnenberg’s comments from the HRB about this process must recognize historic resources. My guess is that might come along when there is more detail review, things like identifying sensitive receptors along the corridor and many other things but that is a big one that needs to be considered early on in a significant manner and if I could have one more please, or second round. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Chair Lippert: We’ll do a second round if you have those and if not you can do it now and that will be it. Commissioner Tanaka. 41  42  43  Commissioner Tanaka: I wanted to thank the task force as well as the staff and consultants. It looks like a lot of work has happened and a lot of discussion has happened. I definitely want to commend the various task force members that have gone out to the community, midtown and 44  45  46   Page 16  other resident associations to reach out and I actually view although maybe the attendance of the general public wasn’t as high, I think by having a large task force, 17 members, and having each task force member reaching out to their own channels and own neighborhoods, we do get a good voice of Palo Alto so thank you for reaching out and doing that. I think you guys are bringing up the right questions and right issues. This is a good discussion for us to have. In regards to the three questions that were posed to us, I think in terms of the role of the corridor for the city, I think the survey was right. It’s pretty much all of the above. To say its only one or a couple would be very hard to argue and so I think that to me is maybe obvious to most but the one thing I do have to say about this, and its probably how the task force got to this level, but while it is probably going to be a mixed use of a bunch of these different uses, some uses there are better to be adjacent to high traffic areas than others so for instance, having a retail shop or a restaurant near a busy street is far better than having a single family house for instance. While I understand the consultants point of view in terms of having residential next to retail on street level, perhaps what works a lot better is having residential above versus side by side, especially on busy streets so those are some things that could be considered although I don’t know if that’s within the scope of the task force. In general, I think it is smart planning of these various uses and their compatibility to the various locations they are in. In regard to the second question, can it be a location for a higher density? 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  I agree with my colleague, that we need to have more discussion and I think this is part of that discussion we are having and if we want to have higher density where should it be and if we want to have higher density. That’s also a very good question as well. Some of this, ABAGS is trying to push upon Palo Alto and it is of course for our city to have the discussion ourselves to figure out if that makes sense but in terms of this question itself, University Avenue I think is pretty well developed. It is doing quite well as far as I can tell. Its pretty well developed, it has had a lot of planning already. The California Avenue, Fry’s area we actually have a plan underway as we have this discussion here. I think there’s actually quite a bit of opportunity for improvement and to actually optimize the area better than it is perhaps done today so thinking about that in context to how the rail corridor is going to be changing over the next few decades or so is important. In terms of the El Camino South area we all know there has been a lot of new housing in South Palo Alto and this can facilitate growth in services for those new residential units. Now realize new residential units aren’t necessarily near El Camino South but certainly having some services closer would make sense so I’m not sure it needs more housing along El Camino South or even along El Camino but certainly having more services would make a lot of sense to me. Finally, on the last question, what does the corridor need to create a better urban place and I think the first thing the task force seems to be doing extremely right is we are kind of moving from a very reactive model where things are coming down and we need to react to them to be more proactive and that’s the formation of the task force and the thinking of the task force today to kind of get ahead of things versus reacting to when projects are proposed or when things are handed down from various agencies whether it be Caltrain or high speed rail or whoever. It’s actually really good that this kind of thinking is happening and I really think the task force is doing something that probably should have been done a while back but its essential that it is being done and I think as the task force continues to meet and tries to tackle these hard problems, one thing to think about is there are a lot of problems posed, a lot of goals trying to be achieved but perhaps one thing to think about is while it is 17 people, all these programs are very large, just getting the connectivity, the crossings, fixing those existing issues, whether we have high  Page 17  speed rail or the electrification of Caltrain, just think about a few big problems rather than 10 big problems, just a few and thinking about how those problems can be solved in various scenarios be it high speed rail or Caltrain electrified or whatever the scenario might be but practically thinking about how we solve these problems. One big part of this besides just finding the right location and right configuration is also thinking about how do you fund it? How does it get funded? There has been some discussion about having some covers, if the train is going to be put underground in a trench. There is going to be some opportunity to perhaps monetize some of that land that is created above and perhaps that can be a funding source but I think that is something that has to be part of the thinking of the task forces, thinking about a few big problems and then possible solutions according to what scenario might actually happen as well as how you fund it and if the task force does that I think it is going to be greatly indebted so thank you for all your work. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Chair Lippert: First of all, Commissioner Keller could not be with us this evening but he submitted some comments and I’ve asked Director Williams and Elena Lee to share those with the task force along with our comments this evening so you’ll be receiving those. 14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  With regard to my comments, first of all I want to commend the working group. I think I’ve done that a couple of times but not in this forum here. You’ve done a tremendous job, the amount of work you’ve done in a very brief period of time has really been great and I know that it took a while to get off of the high speed rail and get focused on the land use and it really shows in the work that you’ve done so far and I think the conclusions that you come to in Phase 1 will be very gratifying not only for yourself but for this community. With regard to some feedback on the specific material that you’ve brought forward this evening, first of all, I think Alma Street is a very important street in Palo Alto. It is really a spine to the city and what I mean by that is it is a place where everybody in the city goes but it is not a destination by itself. I think Commissioner Garber outlined it pretty well which is that it is really the way people get around the city. It is our own private expressway. I live over in downtown north over toward Middlefield Road but I would never go down Middlefield road to get to midtown. I scoot over to Alma Street and I go down Alma Street and cut through on Colorado to midtown and that’s how I get there. I use it several times a day and so with the plan that you have with regard to looking at land use along there, right now I would never look at that as being a mixed use corridor. I would never look at that as being by itself along Alma Street, being destinations that people are looking to get to for community services but I think perhaps with what Commissioner Garber alluded to which is with some of these crossings and some of the reinforcement of the connections from East to West is going to begin to make that street slow down and maybe operate a lot like Middlefield Road or maybe El Camino Real. And then, as a natural progression, maybe there could be some mixed use uses on there. Maybe there could be some sort of retail or office space with residential above it. One thing that I’m very reluctant to do is to sort of jump forward and say, oh, this is the way I see Alma Street and what I see this group doing is actually going through the process of beginning to think about these parts and pieces and how they operate and a lot of the ideas I had many many years ago are beginning to take form, but as I look at other elements the group is being asked to look at, for instance the crossings how we knit together the fabric of the streets in this community, Alma takes on a whole different complexion and so I can see higher density development along there but with it being a corridor or being a spine, I don’t see that yet. Maybe  Page 18  in 25 years from now, if we get some of those connections across Alma Street, we could go for higher density development and I do see an opportunity for higher density development actually while we think of height as being a barrier or wall could actually be a buffer to the single family residences and what I’m thinking of is again, it depends on the configuration of the high speed rail or what form electrification of Caltrain takes. If it is a trench there then naturally we can sort of knit together that city as almost a seamless piece of fabric. If we end up having an elevated railway along there and grade separation, how do you buffer the R1 communities on both sides? How do you begin to make it so that they’re not having to be subject to the sound of the train coming by every 8 minutes? And so buildings can actually begin to work and heights can begin to work as those kinds of buffers along the street. One last thing I wanted to say is that there are very few cities in the street where I drive down and I really observe the quality and the surroundings and Alma Street is one of them, another is Middlefield Road. El Camino Real I don’t look at it in terms of a visual asset to this community but there are certain aspects to Alma Street which visually have a very appealing visual quality to it and then I realize that I’m just looking at weeds running along the railroad tracks so I think there is an opportunity here to actually enhance and improve the visual quality of Alma Street. So with that, we’ll go to one more round of comments, begin with Commissioner Martinez and we’ll do three minutes apiece. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Commissioner Martinez: Ok. I want to take a bit of a contrary position here. I was at a community meeting in a little rural community last night in which we had a site for a town center and the community said, no, we need to look at a larger area. We need to look at the areas on both sides. And I said no, no, no lets just focus on what we have. And I want to say that to our group tonight as well. The real issue is the Caltrain corridor. We can be in a state of denial and say no, the corridor is really much larger but what is looming is the high speed rail, whether it is coming or not. If it comes we need to sort of be ready to address it. If it doesn’t come, maybe our project just goes away and nothing happens. The rest of it might be speculative about what could happen on El Camino or what happens on California Avenue but what we can do on the Cal Trans corridor itself can be a great benefit for what happens in our future regardless of the rail situation. I’d like to ask our consultants and our task force, when you get to Phase 2 where you’re looking at the alternatives to look at two very distinct alternatives. Grant those that want to see higher density development around this corridor but also take care and look at a civic low density open space intensive alternative because the corridor itself is one of our historic resources, the open space, you build five story buildings on it and it becomes something else. I would like us to have the option to look at this as being a civic connector to support what Commissioner Garber has said. One last point to support what Commissioner Fineberg said about community outreach, I totally agree that whether it is twelve or ten community members present, if it is less than 100 or more it is not a significant sampling regardless of how hard we try to outreach. Those percentages, 35%, believe this is 20% thought this was a better option, don’t mean very much when you have ten people that you are sampling so I would like to ask staff to really look at how we can do outreach in a more effective manner. Hold it here at the council chambers, do more communications to our neighborhood associations, put a big article in the paper, whatever we have to do to get that significant number up. 19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Chair Lippert: What about ten or twelve people with 25 opinions each? Commissioner Garber. 44  45   Page 19  Commissioner Garber: So struggling a little bit with the concept of the corridor. Perhaps this shares something with some of the words Commissioner Martinez has just spoken about. The pattern of development in the city in terms of how we remember the experiences of the city is an east west direction. It is University Ave., it is California Ave., it is San Antonio. It could be some of these other connections that you’re beginning to explore. But it’s in lines that are perpendicular to the corridor itself. So it is very difficult for me to say well, the corridor should have this character or the corridor that we’ve defined here should all be high or should be a place where we work or it should be whatever because I don’t think of it that way. I think of that line as simply a line that constrains my ability to stitch the city together east west and that is why I come back to the exercise which is, if that line were not there and the city were to have been allowed to grow without that, what would have changed? And I am using that as a thought exercise to understand the gap between what we have now and where we would like to be. For example, if you did not have the rail, and let’s put aside the reality that if we didn’t have the rail we wouldn’t have Palo Alto as we know it today because we wouldn’t have people coming here but just pretend it wasn’t there on University Avenue. Where would Stanford be relative to University Avenue? There is a gulf right at the moment where the city ends at Alma Street and then there is this no man’s land of railroad track on El Camino, Bridge and Gateway and then you go through the forest and then you’re at Stanford. But if those things were not there, Stanford would be a much different experience than the city. It would be more like presumably some of the other great urban campuses throughout the country that are much more interrelated with their communities. So, is that something that, if we were to look at using the rail corridor, that area in a different way, would be beneficial for us? Is that something we want to be able to change in order for that sort of an experience to occur? Is the city better not having this divide in some of the places? I’m just trying to get my hands around the benefits, one way or the other, what the values are and using some of these exercises as ways to expose the values that we think are precious. I think I’m going to have to leave it like that for the moment with my three minutes. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Chair Lippert: Commissioner Fineberg followed by Tanaka. 29  30  Commissioner Fineberg: I want to talk about the first question, what is the role of the corridor in the city. I think corridor might be the best word in there. As our consultants talked about, the corridor, they intersperse the wording also mixed use district and I kind of struggle thinking of Alma as a district because as a resident, to me, its many many neighborhoods with a really fast road running down the middle of it and everything is relative. When I used to live further east near the bay it took me a long time to get to Alma so I almost never used Alma. Now I live in Green Meadow . It is really easy to get to Alma and compared to going up Lewis or Greer because I avoid Middlefield, Alma is really fast but it is still not a true highway. And we have an issue in the city, especially in the southern part of the city that many residents talk about getting in their cars because it is a suburban model of the street layouts and there isn’t walkable neighborhood serving retail. There aren’t little villages except for at Charleston Center and our residents south get in their cars and drive to Mountain View to do all their shopping and all their sales tax dollars leave Palo Alto. If we break the function of a thoroughfare that works as a thoroughfare, we’ll simply have more of that. It might sound like a regressive way of planning but the reality is, if we just increase density along a corridor and leave the suburban neighborhoods without any urban core, it is just going to break things. So, if the balance 31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46   Page 20  somehow provides things that are daily needs, grocery stores, retail, I can see that it might enhance things rather than just break things, but if there can be some attention to that, focusing on Alma as a mixed use district though I think is a bit of a misnomer because it is really made up of many districts. If you start in the south and look on the east, it is the first little bit of it, which most people don’t even think of is Palo Alto. Mayfield Mall which is an abandoned shopping center, soon to be converted to medium density housing, continue north for quite a while, at least maybe a mile, it’s R1. 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Then there is a little bit of Alma Plaza retail and will eventually be medium density housing and a little bit of retail. Keep going north and it is mixed multifamily and single family until you get to downtown and that to me is a pretty consistent face of you driving north and the right side of the road is all houses. Left side is industrial but you can’t see it through the bushes. If I could finish up on just the last thing then, I think also in the start of your presentation, you talked about some assumptions that were made in how we go forward with planning and you said that we have three stations. We don’t. San Antonio has a very high probability of being closed. How one plans for these unknowns is the million dollar question. We need to be careful how we measure the likelihood of having the bus rapid transit stations. I would encourage you to take a look at how VTA defines the probability of that when they evaluate specific projects and they define it as there being funding sources identified and/or approved and/or how near term funds will be received. The idea that there is a vision and a concept that maybe in twenty years there might be something, I don’t think we should change our comprehensive plan on a vision when the reality is VTA is cutting funding and eliminating bus routes now? So, I think before we recommend changing comp plan and then following up with ZOUs there needs to be a degree of certainty or the correct conditional language to have those assumptions be accepted as having any likelihood of happening and the last thing is, given the uncertainty with what’s happening with Caltrains and the high speed rail, I think there has to be conditional wording in many of the things that if this happens, then this happens. If this doesn’t happen, then this shouldn’t because if, for instance, we end up with no high speed rail, then why build houses where there is no station. If we do get high speed rail, then something else makes sense. That will be it. Thank you. Chair Lippert: Commissioner Tanaka. 32  33  Commissioner Tanaka: I pretty much said all I needed to say last time but I’ll just wrap it up with one last thought and that is, as I’ve said before, I think this is a chance to help decide our fate. I think it is great we are being proactive. We should use the change that is going to happen as well as some of the potential big changes that are going to happen with potentially high speed rail and other things to fix problems that the city has had for a long time, all the connectivity problems, the grade separation problems. Try to proactively get ahead of the problems and see if there is a way to try and alleviate these problems given the change that is bound to happen. Thank you for all your work and we look forward to seeing more of it. Thank you. 34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Chair Lippert: I’m just going to follow up on a couple of comments that I made previously about being the spine to Palo Alto. If you are a pedestrian, the likelihood of you walking down Alma Street is practically nil. I see very few people walking on Alma Street. If you are a bicyclist you are never going to take Alma Street. It is the most dangerous street in the city we have now. If 43  44  45  46   Page 21   Page 22  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  you are a bus rider, you’re not going to take Alma Street. There aren’t any buses that go down Alma Street. You’re going to take El Camino Real down from the transit center down to California Avenue and beyond. My greatest concern is that if we don’t get some sort of cross connectivity and to sort of slow down the way Alma Street functions right now, there is just no way that any of those other aspects of how we get down Alma Street are going to come about and then perhaps by being able to have the cross connectivity, re-knitting the city fabric back together again and then being able to have actual places worth going to along Alma Street, you will begin to see pedestrians, you will begin to see bicyclists and maybe we’ll even get some bus service along there. With that, I’ve got a minute and thirty seconds left and I’ve promised Commissioner Garber that he can have the remainder of my time. Commissioner Garber: Most of my comments have really been about analysis. Let me talk real briefly. At the intersection of University Ave. and the rail line, the opportunity there is for civic identity. It’s really the only place in Palo Alto that has this lotus of university, of city, this large transit center, etc., etc. and really there is no place that celebrates that. The underlying infrastructure works against that sort of a read and if there is anyplace that needs to be able to bridge all those different competing ideas, that’s the place that that needs to happen and its one of the only places where Palo Alto really has that opportunity there. Cal Ave. is in tremendous need of revisioning. And that’s not just the responsibility of the rail corridor study. But the greatest opportunity to have an impact with simple changes and simple re-imagining are greatest there. In both, one could easily imagine a cultural center or civic center, sort of expression occurring on University Avenue, having that occur on California Avenue would be transformative for that part of the city. It would also create all sorts of other issues but there is tremendous opportunity at Cal Ave. We have talked about the area study that is going on just to the south and the opportunity to put office along Park and how that can feed what California Avenue is doing, having mixed use along that street as well as feeding into how you use the Fry’s site relative to both residential, be it high density, be it no density, however it happens. 12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Tremendous opportunity there and how the rail corridor operates to support that, I think can be key. Once you get further south, gosh as you’ve acknowledged and recognized in your framework diagram, extraordinarily difficult to create the stitching of the two pieces together. It would be great if you could find a way to bring Loma Verde through and create another sort of midway corridor that’s halfway between Oregon Expressway, California and San Antonio, but I think I will live at least a lifetime or so before I can actually imagine that actually happening. Are there opportunities for pedestrian crossways to occur or bicycle crossways? Probably more readily. But the constraints become significantly more difficult. Great opportunities to be able to find ways if the corridor is to continue and the rail is to continue to exist, for it to be not on the surface between University and California Ave., maybe what you do is at least one of the studies, what you’re really doing there is sort of emphasizing what you can do, what the positives are, and you exploit that as best you can. That’s it for me. Chair Lippert: Well again, thank you very much for your presentation and I hope you get some constructive feedback.  41  42  SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES PHASE 1: CONTEXT AND VISION (4 months) Task 1.1 Project Initiation The BMS Design Group team will meet with staff to finalize the work program, schedule and project budget. The work program will be used throughout the process to monitor progress; work products will be clearly defined. At this time the team will submit requests for data of varying types. At this time schedules and procedures for project communications will be identified. A preliminary schedule of High Speed Rail Committee, Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council meetings will be set. Task 1.2 Review Background Materials City Staff will provide GIS and Autocad data and mapping, reports, analyses and other data for relevant studies, city documents, and other materials including in progress plans. The BMS team will utilize the city’s data to prepare base maps suitable for analysis and plan preparation. The team will undertake a thorough review of site conditions, relevant documents and plans including documents relevant to corridor transportation and, in particular, documents produced by the HSR Authority related to alignment options and station information. Utilizing materials provided by the city, including policy and regulatory plans and ordinances, planned or proposed project information, site and aerial photos, and work by other consultants, the BMS team will assemble and review materials in preparation for subsequent tasks. The team will create a preliminary list of issues to be discussed with the Task Force and community. The BMS team and city staff will conduct a site tour of the project area. Task 1.3 Task Force Meeting 1 The preliminary Task Force meeting will serve to introduce the project work program and schedule. BMS Design Group will facilitate a discussion of goals for the project and issues that the Task Force considers essential to the outcome of the project. Task 1.4 Stakeholder Interviews The BMS team will conduct a limited number of individual or small group stakeholder interviews. These will provide key stakeholders with an opportunity to discuss issues of particular concern directly with the team. These meetings, if needed, will be conducted on the same days as other standing meetings such as Task Force. Task 1.5 Community Meeting 1 | Issues Charrette The BMS team will conduct the first project community meeting. The agenda for the meeting will include a review of the work program and schedule, as well as an update by city staff on any related HSR or city planning information. The BMS team will facilitate a discussion and prioritization of issues of concern to the community. These will become elements in the ultimate evaluation of project concepts and alternatives. Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 1 Task 1.6 Urban Design and Land Use Analysis – Issues and Opportunities Prepare Urban Design and Land Use Analysis The BMS team will collect a range of information regarding the existing nature of the study area and its short and long term opportunities. Information to be compiled and considered will include: • Existing land use patterns • Existing facilities, including public and community uses such as schools, parks, community facilities, etc. • Neighborhood/district context – neighboring uses and districts, areas of influence • Community scale and character • Architectural and landscape character • Distinguishing features such as landmarks, entries and edges • Relationship of facilities and uses to major and minor rights of way and circulation framework • Opportunity sites • Parcel configurations • Parcel ownership • Proximity to transit facilities Provide Market-Based Inputs to Issues and Concepts Making use of existing data and studies as much as possible, EPS will conduct a high-level market review to assess potential development opportunities in the study area. Utilizing area demographic and employment trends, development patterns, competitive supply, and project performance, EPS will characterize the market support for various types of development along the Corridor. The results of EPS’s market review will be incorporated as the land use alternatives are developed. EPS will work with the rest of the consultant team to shape the land use alternatives by attending the task force meeting described in Task 1.7 to provide perspective on the implications of each alternative in terms of its capitalization on market opportunities, its projected buildout timeframe, and the comparative value being created for property owners. Preliminary Identification of Implementation Constraints The BMS Team will work with City staff, rail agency representatives, and other important stakeholders to understand the potential parameters of each party’s participation in the implementation of the Corridor plan. Issues to discuss will include the entities’ legal and administrative obligations and constraints, the amount of and competition for financial resources, etc. For example, do changes to existing regulations or programs require popular elections? What funding sources are available and how much have been pledged to other projects or programs? Do the by-laws of various entities’ formation prevent or require certain actions? This review will help to ensure that the parties involved and the community-at-large understand the “ground rules” for evaluating the viability of alternative planning concepts. Task 1.7 Task Force Meeting 2 The second Task Force meeting will focus on reviewing and discussing the urban design and land use analysis. The meeting will be facilitated by BMS to ensure that the Task Force can review and comment on all the various element of analysis that are presented. The focus will be on confirming the team’s analysis and identifying key issues and opportunities. Task 1.8 Transportation and Circulation Framework Analysis – Issues and Opportunities BMS and subconsultants will summarize and describe key transportation parameters associated with the HSR alignment options and station location including potential impacts, obstructions to connectivity, multi-modal access, Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 2 infrastructure requirements, and costs. BMS and subconsultants will also summarize transportation-related issues as identified in the analysis, and as discussed by staff, city leaders, the Task Force and community. Working with the BMS team, the transportation subconsultants will discuss land use, urban design and transportation opportunities associated with the study area and future infrastructure improvements. BMS and the subconsultants will provide a comparative assessment of existing and future constraints to the integration of HSR into the Rail Corridor and the constraints created by implementation of the HSR. They will also summarize the transportation-related opportunities for expediting the integration of HSR as well as the potential for transit-oriented development. Task 1.9 Task Force Meeting 3 The third Task Force meeting will focus on reviewing and discussing the transportation and circulation analysis. The meeting will be facilitated by BMS to ensure that the Task Force can review and comment on all the various element of analysis that are presented. The focus will be on confirming the team’s analysis and identifying key issues and opportunities. Task 1.10 Community Meeting 2 | Vision Charrette The second community meeting will be a longer meeting to allow a full discussion of the issues and opportunities associated with urban design, land use, transportation and circulation elements. As part of the meeting, the BMS team will facilitate a small group brainstorming of initial visions for the project area, incorporating the opportunities identified by the analysis as well as others that community members will bring to the discussion. Task 1.11 Task Force Meeting 4 This Task Force meeting will review the work to date, including the results of the community meeting. Discussion will focus on confirming issues, opportunities and visions for the area. Task 1.12 Summary of Context and Preliminary Vision for Corridor The BMS team will prepare a brief summary of the work to date compiling materials prepared for and developed at the various meetings. The materials in this summary will be presented so as to lead directly into and form the basis for the analysis and tasks of Phase 2, especially the definition of alternatives. Meetings (maximum): Task Force: 4 • Goals and Issues • Urban Design and Land Use • Transportation and Circulation Analysis • Summary of Context and Vision High Speed Rail Committee - 1 Planning and Transportation Commission Progress Reports and Hearings – 2 City Council Progress Reports and Hearings – 1 Community: 2 • Issues Charrette • Vision Charrette Deliverables: Summary of Context and Vision Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 3 • Goals, Policies and Vision Statements • Issues and Opportunities PHASE TWO: ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS (5 months) Task 2.1 Urban Design, Land Use, and Transportation Concepts The BMS team will prepare urban design, land use and transportation concepts for the study corridor. These concepts will be integrated and coordinated with the transportation concepts, building upon one or several alternative urban design framework of streets and pathways, and parcels. The concepts will identify the creation of neighborhoods or districts within the corridor as well as the manner in which areas of the corridor may be better integrated into and connected with adjoining neighborhoods and districts. The concepts will explore the most relevant and feasible land uses and densities and opportunities for transit-oriented development. The concepts will be configured to illustrate a range of options that will lead to configuring alternatives combining urban design, land use and circulation elements. Task 2.2 Task Force Meetings 5 and 6 This Task Force meeting will be organized to allow a thorough review of the urban design, land use and transportation and circulation concepts. From the range of concepts presented, the Task Force and consultant team will identify preferred concepts that will be integrated into the plan alternatives. Task 2.3 Community Meeting 3 | Concept Review Workshop The community meeting will be conducted as small group work sessions, with facilitated discussion of the urban design, land use, circulation and transportation concepts. The discussions will be summarized with priorities among the range of concepts identified by the community. Voting for preferences and priorities may be one technique used to discern public preferences. Task 2.4 Preliminary Urban Design, Land Use and Transportation Alternatives Based on the feedback from the Task Force meeting and the community meeting, the team will prepare up to three plan alternatives. These will be configured to reflect three realistic alternatives that resolve issues and match community priorities and concerns. A variety of graphic materials and media will be used to depict the alternatives including plans, sketches, sections, photosimulations, and 3D models. Task 2.5 Task Force Meeting 7 The Task Force meeting will be the opportunity for members to review and propose modifications to the preliminary alternatives. Issues, further analysis, and additional concepts will also be discussed. Task 2.6 Refine Alternatives and Preliminary Evaluation Based on the Task Force meeting, the BMS team will refine the alternatives. At this time, working with city staff and select stakeholders, the BMS team will identify potential environmental impacts associated with the alternatives. These will focus on impacts to historic resources, visual and noise impacts. An overview of possible traffic impacts will be discussed but detailed analysis will not be conducted at this time. Task 2.7 Task Force Meeting 8 At this Task Force meeting, the BMS team will present the refined alternatives and provide information relevant to evaluating the alternatives, such as cost, phasing, feasibility of development options, and regulatory or policy hurdles. The team will facilitate a discussion with the Task Force to gain their insights into further evaluation of the plans. Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 4 Task 2.8 Community Meeting 4 | Alternatives Review Workshop The final community meeting of this phase will include a review of the alternatives, as modified by input from the Task Force as well as by the High Speed Rail Committee, Planning and Transportation Commission, and City Council. The facilitated discussions will focus on evaluation of the alternatives and any proposed modifications. Task 2.9 Summary of Alternatives and Evaluation A brief summary of the work of Phase 2, focusing on the alternatives, will be prepared. It will include discussion of the alternatives as well as their evaluation, including comments and input from the Task Force, community, and city policy-makers. Meetings (maximum): Task Force: 4 • Review Concepts • Review Preliminary Alternatives • Review Alternatives and Evaluations High Speed Rail Committee - 1 Planning and Transportation Commission Progress Reports and Hearings – 2 City Council Progress Reports and Hearings – 1 Community: 2 • Concept Review Workshop • Alternatives Review Workshop Deliverables: Summary of Concepts, Alternatives and Evaluations PHASE THREE: PLAN PREPARATION (3 months) Task 3.1 Task Force Meeting 9 - Charrette: Identify Preliminary Preferred Plan(s) Based on input from Phase 2, the BMS team will conduct a charrette with city staff and the Task Force. The purpose of the charrette will be to work intensively through the various alternatives identified and to determine those elements that most align with the issues and concerns of the community and that will provide the most beneficial framework for the future of this area of Palo Alto. If needed, options may remain on some components to provide flexibility or to illustrate certain policy decisions that will need to be made. Task 3.2 Refine Preferred Plan(s) The BMS team will refine the plans identified in the Task Force charrette, clarifying and outstanding issues and providing a range of illustrations such as 3D modeling, photosimulations and other hand- and computer-generated drawings that will illustrate the plan concepts. Task 3.3 Community Meeting 5 | Preferred Plan(s) Workshop The BMS team will facilitate a community meeting with the intent of reviewing, clarifying if needed, and confirming the preferred plans for the corridor as well as any remaining options for elements or particular issues. The meeting will be conducted with a combination of presentation, small group discussions and attendee input via voting, comments or other means. Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 5 Task 3.4 Identify Preliminary Implementation Issues and Strategies The BMS Team will identify the variety of regulatory changes, physical improvements, and programmatic approaches required to implement the preferred plan. Where investments in new public infrastructure are required, the BMS Team will work with city staff to estimate the costs of those improvements. Then, EPS will help to frame a financing strategy for those improvements by exploring the availability of existing funding sources as well as the potential capacity for new development to contribute to infrastructure costs through various means. In addition to state, federal, and rail agency funding, EPS will consider locally implemented funding sources such as Community Facilities Districts, development impact fees, tax increment, the City’s CIP, public private partnerships, transferable development rights, etc. While not resulting in specific cost burdens and financing mechanisms assigned to specific properties, this analysis will indicate whether the study area appears capable of carrying the burden for the new infrastructure, or if alternative funding sources are likely to be required. Also, it will be important to create a conceptual implementation schedule that aligns the phasing of improvements with the availability of funding from various sources. The implementation strategy will also account for the responsibilities allocated to various parties and stakeholders, including the City of Palo Alto and local property owners and developers in addition to the rail agencies and other levels of government. The team will also identify potential environmental issues associated with plan implementation. Task 3.5 Task Force Meeting 10 The Task Force will meet to review implementation issues and strategies identified by the BMS Design Group team. Task 3.6 Draft Rail Corridor Plan Based on input from all preceding tasks and from the summaries prepared at the conclusions of phases 1 and 2, the BMS team will prepare a draft corridor plan. It is expected that this plan will be a compilation of materials already prepared with additional commentary and illustrations as needed. The plan will be configured to correlate with other city policy documents to allow ready inclusion by staff. The draft plan will be provided to city staff for a preliminary review. Following receipt of any major comments, the team will provide a revised plan for distribution to the Task Force. Task 3.7 Task Force Meeting 11 The team will meet with the Task Force to receive comments on the draft plan. Following review by the Task Force and staff, the team will finalize the plan for presentation and distribution to city decision-makers. Task 3.8 Community Meeting 6 | Open House A community meeting will be held to review the Rail Corridor Plan. This community meeting will be held in an open house format, allowing the community to review and comment all elements of the plan. Task 3.9 Final Rail Corridor Plan Following presentations to the High Speed Rail Committee, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and City Council, the BMS Design Group team will finalize the Rail Corridor Plan. Meetings (maximum): Task Force: 3 • Preferred Plan Charrette • Implementation Issues and Strategies • Draft Plan Review Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 6 High Speed Rail Committee - 1 Planning and Transportation Commission Progress Reports and Hearings – 2 City Council Progress Reports and Hearings – 1 Community: 2 • Preferred Plan Workshop • Draft Plan Open House Deliverables: Draft and Final Rail Corridor Plan Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 7 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE The CONSULTANT shall complete all project tasks and services within the timeframes and schedule agreed upon between CITY and CONSULTANT. The BMS Design Group team will meet with staff to finalize the work program, schedule and project budget. The work program will be used throughout the process to monitor progress; work products will be clearly defined. At this time the team will submit requests for data of varying types. At this time schedules and procedures for project communications will be identified. A preliminary schedule of High Speed Rail Committee, Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council meetings will be set. Estimated Time Periods: Phase 1 - 4 months Phase II- 5 months Phase III- 3 months Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 8 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the CITY, as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Services, a not- to-exceed price for professional services of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00). Compensation will be paid for services provided as outlined below and as detailed in Exhibit C-2, Project Budget and Schedule Summary, based on the Hourly Rates provided in Exhibit C-1, Schedule of Rates. PHASE ONE - CONTEXT AND VISION Task Description Cost 1.1 Project Initiation $ 800 1.2 Review Background Materials $ 7,598 1.3 Task Force Meeting 1 $ 1,300 1.4 Stakeholder Interviews $ 0.00 1.5 Community Meeting 1 | Issues Charrette $ 3,200 1.6 Urban Design and Land Use Analysis | Issues and Opportunities $ 18,420 1.7 Task Force Meeting 2 $ 1.300 1.8 Transportation and Circulation Framework Analysis | Issues and Opps $ 7,444 1.9 Task Force Meeting 3 $ 2,300 1.10 Community Meeting 2 | Vision Charrette $ 3,200 1.11 Task Force Meeting 4 $ 2,300 1.12 Summary of Context and Preliminary Vision for Corridor $ 2,600 TOTAL Phase 1 $53,110 PHASE TWO - ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Task Description Cost 2.1 Urban Design, Land Use and Transportatin Concepts $ 24,080 2.2 Task Force Meetings 5 & 6 $ 3,600 2.3 Community Meeting 3 | Concept Review Workshop $ 5,170 2.4 Preliminary Urban Design, Land Use and Transportation Alternatives $ 14,544 2.5 Task Force Meeting 7 $ 2,300 2.6 Refine Alternatives and Preliminary Evaluation $ 10,090 2.7 Task Force Meeting 8 2.8 Community Meeting 4 | Alternatives Review Workshop $ 5,468 2.9 Summary of Alternatives and Evaluation $ 2,600 TOTAL Phase 2 $75,764 PHASE THREE – PLAN PREARATION 3.1 Task Force Charrette | Identify Preliminary Preferred Plan(s) $ 3,200 3.2 Refine Preferred Plan(s) $ 12,000 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 9 3.3 Community Meeting 5 | Preferred Plan(s) Workshop $ 3,200 3.4 Identify Preliminary Implementation Issues and Strategies $ 18,060 3.5 Task Force Meeting 10 $ 3,450 3.6 Draft Rail Corridor Plan $ 15,856 3.7 Task Force Meeting 11 $ 2,300 3.8 Community Meeting 6 | Open House $ 5,168 3.9 Final Rail Corridor Plan $ 3,820 TOTAL Phase 3 $69,106 Contingency $2,020.00 TOTAL PROJECT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. 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. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Reimbursables shall include, but are not limited to, the cost of copying plans, outreach materials, postage, signage or other items not included herein. Travel, computer and phone charges shall be considered as included in the CONSULTANT overhead costs. Any needed office spaces or related supplies shall be provided by CONSULTANT and shall be considered to be included in the Scope of Services above. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT 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 reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 10 EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES FIRM POSITION TITLE HOURLY RATE BMS Partner $200.00 BMS Sr. Planner $125.00 BMS Staff $90.00 KIMLEY-HORN Principal $250.00 KIMLEY-HORN Engineer $166.00 KIMLEY-HORN Analyst $114.00 KIMLEY-HORN Support Staff $94.00 EPS Principal $245.00 EPS Sr. Associate $165.00 EPS Associate $110.00 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 11 Exhibit C-2 Project Budget and Schedule Summary (Excel Spreadsheet Inserted Here) $2,020 s by Firm:$134,980 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 12 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 NO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, 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 HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 13 WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 14 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 15 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study SCHEDULE Updated 05.23.2011 Meeting Dates TASK ONE - CONTEXT AND VISION 1.1 Project Initiation 1.2 Review Background Materials 1.3 Task Force Meeting (1) 4 : Consultant and Project Introduction 02.17.2011 1.4 Stakeholder Interviews moved to task 2 1.6 Urban Design and Land Use Analysis | Issues and Opportunities 1.7 Task Force Meeting (2) 5 : Comp Plan & Other related Plans 03.17.2011 1.8 Transportation & Circ. Framework Analysis | Issues and Opps 1.9 Task Force Meeting (3) 6: Connectivity and HSR & Caltrain Overview 04.07.2011 1.11 Task Force Meeting (4) 7: Circulation, Access, Land Use and Issues 05.05.2011 1.5 Community Workshop 1 | Connectivity & Issues 05.19.2011 Planning and Transportation Commission 06.08.2011 *EX Task Force Meeting (5) 8: Vision 06.16.2011 City Council 06.27.2011 1.10 Community Workshop 2 | Vision 07.07.2011 1.12 Summary of Context and Preliminary Vision for Corridor * EX- Additional task force meeting exchanged for High Speed Rail Committee meeting TASK TWO - ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS 2.1 Urban Design, Land Use and Transportatin Concepts 2.2 Task Force Meeting (6) 9 1.4 Stakeholder Interviews 2.3 Community Meeting 3 | Concept Review Workshop 2.4 Preliminary Urban Design, Land Use and Transportation Alternatives 2.5 Task Force Meeting (7) 10 2.6 Refine Alternatives and Preliminary Evaluation 2.7 Task Force Meeting (8) 11 2.8 Community Meeting 4 | Alternatives Review Workshop 2.9 Summary of Alternatives and Evaluation TASK THREE - PLAN PREPARATION 3.1 Task Force Workshop (9) 12 | Identify Preliminary Preferred Plan(s) 3.2 Refine Preferred Plan(s) 3.3 Community Meeting 5 | Preferred Plan(s) Workshop 3.4 Identify Preliminary Implementation Issues and Strategies 3.5 Task Force Meeting (10) 13 3.6 Draft Rail Corridor Plan 3.7 Task Force Meeting (11) 14 3.8 Community Meeting 6 | Open House 3.9 Final Rail Corridor Plan MEETINGS TO INCLUDE IN PHASE ONE SCHEDULE MEETINGS TO INCLUDE IN PHASE TWO SCHEDULE MEETINGS TO INCLUDE IN PHASE THREE SCHEDULE 2 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 High Speed Rail Committee 1 High Speed Rail Committee 1 High Speed Rail Committee 1City Council 1City Council 1City Council 2 Community Meetings 2 Community Meetings 2 Community Meetings 4 Task Force Meetings 4 Task Force Meetings 3 Task Force Meetings ACTUAL MEETINGS IN PHASE ONE ACTUAL MEETINGS IN PHASE TWO ACTUAL MEETINGS IN PHASE THREE 1 Planning and Transportation Commission Planning and Transportation Commission Planning and Transportation Commission 0 High Speed Rail Committee High Speed Rail Committee High Speed Rail Committee 1 City Council City Council City Council 2 Community Meeting Community Meeting Community Meeting 5 Task Force Meetings Task Force Meetings Task Force Meetings TASK THREE - PLAN PREPARATION AUGUST NOVEMBER TASK ONE - CONTEXT AND VISION TASK TWO - ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS 2012 DECEMBER JANUARY 2011 FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY SEPTEMBER OCTOBER Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study | Community Workshop 1 Open House Questions | 1 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Community Meeting #1 Questions for Open House Segment What do you think is the most important role of the study area? a. A place to live b. A place to work c. A place to obtain services d. A place for cultural events e. All of the above How do you envision the future of the study area? a. High intensity/diverse urban core An area of high intensity with a mix of uses similar to downtown Palo Alto with some taller buildings (above 50 feet) b. Moderate intensity mix of uses An area of moderate intensity with heights under 50 feet c. Little to no change Are there areas where land uses should be changed and/or intensified to improve the area? a. University Avenue / Caltrain Station Area b. California Avenue Area c. Park Street / El Camino / Fry’s Area (South of Oregon Expressway) d. El Camino near Charleston Road (South end of study area) What new uses would be desirable in these areas? a. University Avenue / Caltrain Station Area i. Retail ii. Office iii. Residential (apartment) iv. Mixed use (retail under office or residential) v. Other (describe) b. California Avenue Area i. Retail ii. Office iii. Residential (apartment) iv. Mixed use (retail under office or residential) v. Other (describe) Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study | Community Workshop 1 Open House Questions | 2 c. Park Street / El Camino / Fry’s Area (South of Oregon Expressway) vi. Retail vii. Office viii. Residential (apartment) ix. Mixed use (retail under office or residential) x. Other (describe) d. El Camino near Charleston Road (South end of study area) xi. Retail xii. Office xiii. Residential (apartment) xiv. Mixed use (retail under office or residential) xv. Other (describe) What do you think is the biggest problem facing the neighborhoods that surround the study area? a. Traffic b. Lack of convenient services c. Poor connections to the rest of the city d. Other (describe) How important is increasing the use of alternative travel modes (transit, bicycling, walking) in Palo Alto? a. Very important b. Somewhat important c. Not important Improvements to which types of travel are most important to Palo Alto quality of life? a. Auto b. Rail c. Bus and Bus Rapid Transit d. Bicycling e. Walking Which of these connection improvements are of highest priority? a. Pedestrian connections across Alma and the rail tracks b. Bicycle connections across Alma and the rail tracks c. Vehicular connections across Alma and the rail tracks? Neighborhood Issues: Traffic (Map Exercise) Where are the vehicular issues in your neighborhood? a. Speeding b. Cut through traffic Neighborhood Issues: Pedestrian (Map Exercise) Where are the vehicular issues in your neighborhood? a. Inadequate or unsafe crosswalks b. Inadequate pedestrian amenities PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION |June 27, 2011 |1 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 City of Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 2 Agenda ƒWelcome and Introductions ƒProject Overview ƒPlanning Approach and Community Input to Date ƒDiscussion PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 3 The BMS Design Group Team CITY OF PALO ALTO BMS Design Group San Francisco, CA Project Management, Urban Design, Land Planning, Community Outreach Barbara Maloney Partner-in-Charge & Project Director Michael Smiley, AICP, ASLA Partner & Project Designer Fehr + Peers San Francisco, CA Transportation Planning EPS Berkeley, CA Market Analysis & Implementation Feasibility COMMUNITY TASK FORCE ADVISORS STAKEHOLDERS PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 4 Project Process and Guidelines July 10, 2010 ƒEvaluate land use, transportation and urban design elements of the corridor ƒGenerate a Community Vision for land use, transportation and urban design opportunities along the Caltrain corridor, particularly in response to proposed improvements to fixed rail services ƒHigh Speed Rail not intended to be the primary focus of this study ƒAuthorization of Task Force, a Brown Act Committee City Council Direction PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 5 Rail Corridor Work Program Phase 1: Context and Vision February – July 2011 ƒAnalysis (urban design, market, transportation) ƒIssues ƒPreliminary Vision for the Corridor Phase 2: Alternatives and Evaluation July 2011 – January 2012 ƒPlan Concepts ƒEvaluation Phase 3: Plan Preparation January – March 2012 ƒRefined Plans ƒImplementation Strategies ƒDraft and Final Rail Corridor Plan PLANNING APPROACH AND COMMUNITY INPUT Defining Issues, Setting Goals Preliminary Vision Statements and Concepts PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 7 Rail Corridor Planning Process Task Force Meetings (8) Nov 2010 – June 2011 Issues Studied •Purpose, Procedures •HSR Update •Role of the Task Force •Approach to the Project •Relevant City Projects •Connectivity Opportunities •Land Use and Circulation Opportunities •Preliminary Visions Community Meeting May 19, 2011 •Project Introduction, Issues and Priorities •Discussion PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 8 Task Force Meetings EXISTING CONDITIONS ƒUnderstanding Role of the Corridor in the City ƒAnalyzing Existing Conditions: Land Use and Circulation ƒDefining Conservation v. Development Opportunity Areas ƒDefining Districts (residential, commercial, transit) ƒReviewing Regulatory Considerations (Comp Plan, Zoning) RELEVANT PLANNING CONCEPTS ƒTransit-Oriented Development ƒMixed Use Development ƒComplete Streets ƒLayered Circulation Networks CURRENT PLANNING AND PROPOSED PROJECTS ƒCaltrain and High Speed Train Options ƒEl Camino Plans and BRT ƒCalifornia Avenue Concept Area Plan PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 9 Study Area with Station Areas PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 10 Existing Land Use PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 11 Task Force Meetings IDENTIFY PROTECTED RESOURCES ƒSingle family residential ƒOpen space ƒSchools ƒHistoric resources IDENTIFY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES ƒConnectivity Improvements ƒLand use and circulation ƒCorrect existing problems ARTICULATE PRELIMINARY VISION PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 12 Group Work Session Questions: ƒHow can there be better connections across the rail lines? Pedestrian / bicycle crossings? Vehicle crossings? ƒWhere are important destinations? ƒImagine the rail in an open-trench along the full corridor; where would you like the trench covered for open space or development? Cover can be a maximum of 800’ length with 1400’ minimum open trench between covered sections. ƒWhere are there troublesome intersections that should be improved for pedestrians and bicycles? ƒWhere can additional bicycle routes be provided? Connectivity Opportunities PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 13 Task Force Connectivity Exercise PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 14 Task Force Land Use and Circulation Exercise 1. How do you envision the future of this corridor? A. Highest Intensity/Diverse Urban Core. B. Moderate Intensity C. Little to No Change 2. Where are potential land use intensification areas located? 3. What kind of uses would be appropriate in those areas? PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 15 Task Force Land Use and Circulation Exercise 1. What are your goals and expectations for transportation and circulation in Palo Alto? 2. What is the role of El Camino Real within Palo Alto? 3. Where are the most problematic areas and intersections? PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 16 Community Meeting 1 | May 19, 2011 Agenda ƒProject Review ƒGeneral Discussion ƒOpen House Limited Community Participation 10 attendees + Task Force members Open House Questions What is the Role of the Study Area? What Uses Would be Desirable in: ƒUniversity Avenue / Caltrain Station Area ƒCalifornia Avenue Area ƒPark Street / El Camino / Fry’s Area ƒSouth El Camino Area Biggest Problems? Needed Improvements? PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 17 Community Meeting Open House Sample Questions PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 18 Community Meeting Open House Sample Questions PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 19 Task Force Vision Exercise PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 20 Task Force Vision Exercise Group 2 Plan and Overarching Concepts PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 21 Summary COMMON THEMES ƒProtect existing single family neighborhoods ƒImprove neighborhood services ƒConsider new development in select areas ƒImprove connections across rail corridor ƒImprove problem intersections ƒImprove pedestrian and bicycle circulation ƒAdd open space and recreation MORE DISCUSSION NEEDED ƒImplications of the rail alternatives ƒAppropriate land use mix and location ƒSpecific circulation improvements COMMUNITY CONCERNS ƒInfrastructure must keep pace with development ƒWill traffic congestion increase? ƒPotential impacts on existing neighborhoods PALO ALTO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY | CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2011 | 22 Community Outreach Summary ƒProject websites www.paloaltorailcorridor.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/rail_corridor_task_force.asp ƒTask Force meetings •Walking tour with Task Force ƒCommunity meetings ƒEvaluate additional outreach methods •Focus groups •Color mailings and posters •Newsletter •Press releases ƒNext Steps NEXT STEPS ƒStudy Preliminary Concepts July - September ƒTask Force meeting 9 August 4 ƒSecond PTC meeting August (TBD) ƒCity Council September (TBD) ƒCommunity Meeting September (TBD) DISCUSSION City of Palo Alto (ID # 1895) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 1 (ID # 1895) Summary Title: Friends of the Palo Alto Library Title: Community Partners Non-Profit Presentation: Friends of the Palo Alto Library From:City Manager Lead Department: Library See attachment Attachments: ·Friends of the Palo Alto Library Fact Sheet (PDF) Prepared By:Evelyn Cheng, Administrative Assistant Department Head:Monique Le Conge, Library Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager ___________________________ P.O Box 41 Palo Alto, CA 94302 www.friendspaloaltolib.org ___________________________ Board of Directors & Officers C. James Schmidt President Tom Wyman Vice President Martha Schmidt Secretary Edward Walker Treasurer Frank McConnell Assistant Treasurer Tom Clark Peter Dehlinger Gretchen Emmons President Emeritus Dick Grote Gerry Masteller Enid Pearson Gene O’Sullivan Barbara Silberling Steve Staiger Tisa Abshire Walker Pat Worthington Ellen Wyman President Emeritus FACT SHEET 1938 Established 1985 Monthly Book Sale @ Terman 2003 Book Sale Moved to Cubberley 2009 Assume JCC Lease @ Cubberley 2010 Fire Destroys Main Book Sale Space 2011 Main Book Sale Space Reopens Membership: 1300 including families Annual Budget: $130,000 Contributions to the Library: 2000-2010 > $2 million 2011 $270,000 Volunteers: > 10,000 hours/year City of Palo Alto (ID # 1615) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 1615) Summary Title: Crossbore Investigation and Rule 23 Amendment Title: Approval of a Gas Enterprise Fund Contract with HydromaxUSA, LLC in the Total Amount of $3,523,950 for Professional Services for the Cross-bore Investigation by CCTVing Sanitary Sewer Laterals and Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Amendment to Utilities Rule and Regulation 23 (B and C) Pertaining to Special Wastewater Utility Regulations From:City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation 1.Staff recommends that the Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached agreement with Hydromax USA, LLC. (Attachment A) for a not-to-exceed amount of $3,523,950 for Closed Circuit Television Inspection (CCTV inspection) and associated data processing services of wastewater laterals for the purpose of detecting gas cross-bores. 2.Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Hydromax USA, LLC for additional services that may be required during this project for unforeseen developments, the total value of which shall not exceed $276,050 or 8% of the proposal cost. 3.Staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution (Attachment B), approving an amendment to Utilities Rule and Regulation 23 (B and C), which will be effective upon the Council’s adoption of the resolution. Background Trenchless installation technology for utility service line installation has been employed since the 1970s. Trenchless installation techniques are less expensive and require minimal surface disruption in comparison to traditional open-cut construction methods. When gas pipe is installed by trenchless techniques and the existence of intersecting different utility lines are not verified by potholing or CCTV inspection, it is possible for the new pipe to be installed, resulting in the penetration of an existing pipe. This occurrence is known as a ‘cross-bore’. Since the 1970s, polyethylene gas service lines have been installed by the trenchless installation method. Gas pipes inadvertently installed in wastewater pipes can cause backups in the wastewater July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 1615) lines and efforts to clear these blockages with mechanical equipment, commonly used by plumbers, may damage cross-bored gas lines during the cleaning effort. Recently, industry has become aware of an increase in cross-bore incidents nationwide. The proposed agreement will enable the City to proactively identify and appropriately deal with cross-bores. Current work methods for the installation of gas lines require positive video verification of all adjacent wastewater lines, post gas service installation, prior to the introduction of gas into the new service line. This program will focus on wastewater laterals associated with gas lines that were installed before the current work methods were adopted. Mainlines will also be inspected. Staff issued a press release on April 26, 2011, informing Palo Alto gas utility customers of the cross-bore safety program. Additional information was provided by mail to our customers, detailing the program and informing them that, in the event of a sewer blockage, they should call the City before contacting a plumber (Call Before You Clear). Mailers were also sent to drain-cleaning firms and plumbers operating in the area, indicating the importance of contacting the City prior to undertaking any sewer cleaning efforts. Information about the program is posted to the Utilities section of the City’s webpage. Utilities Rule and Regulation 23 is being amended to allow the City to perform inspections of private laterals to determine if a cross bore has occurred and to make repairs if needed. In addition, the rule is being revised to provide an incentive to customers to allow the city to move the City’s clean out from the customers property to the edge of the Public Right-of-Way. The City will move the clean out at no expense to the customer. If the customer does not want to allow the City to move the clean out, the customer will be responsible for the lateral from the home to the main. This change is being made to limit the footage of City-owned laterals on customer property. Discussion On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 the City advertised the RFP. The scope and objectives were developed by the Utilities Department. A pre-proposal, non-mandatory teleconference was held on Tuesday, April 26, 2011, to review and discuss the proposal. Ten (10) parties participated in the teleconference. On Tuesday, May 10, 2011, eight (8) responses were received for the request for proposal. The Utilities Department staff evaluation team ranked the eight (8) proposals and conducted interviews with four (4) firms. The selection criteria for the firms, invited for oral interviews, were based on cost, experience, available resources, ability to comply with proposed schedule and quality control methods. Project Scope This project will determine whether cross-bores exist in wastewater laterals between the wastewater main and the structure it serves. Each lateral will be videoed and annotated to document whether the lateral is cross-bore-free. In the event that a cross-bore is detected, the City’s CCTV inspection contractor will secure the site and notify the City accordingly. Quality assurance and the tracking of the program’s progress are key components to assure that July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 1615) verification efforts identify all potential cross-bore locations. The City’s contractor will have three separate levels of in-house data checking prior to submission of information to the City. All inspected laterals will be tracked by the City through the enterprise GIS system. Lateral launching of video equipment from the wastewater main is a recently developed technology that minimizes the need to launch video equipment from private property. Lateral launching of CCTV equipment will be pulled through the wastewater main and then directed up each individual lateral to create images from the main to the structure served. The City’s contractor will also collect video images of the wastewater mains, thereby enhancing maintenance activities associated with these facilities. The principle objectives of this project are: 1.Verify the absence of gas cross-bores in both the City-owned and privately-owned components of the wastewater collection system. 2.Create video records and report condition of designated wastewater laterals and mains in the City. 3.Indentify the existence of cross-bores and provide notification to the City in order that appropriate action may be undertaken. 4.Document all inspections and track the project’s progress with the City’s GIS system. The deliverables include the following: 1.Provide individual video files of all wastewater laterals inspected. Lateral lines shall be cleaned using methods that will not damage potential cross-bores or the lateral to enable proper CCTV inspection. 2.Provide a digital map at monthly intervals during the course of the project for purposes of tracking the completed work, pending work, and work in-progress. 3.Provide video files of wastewater mains. Solicitation Process A summary of the request for proposal process is outlined below: Proposal Title CCTVing Sanitary Sewer Laterals to Investigate System Integrity Proposal Number 140966 Proposed Length of Contract One (1) year Number of Proposal Mailed 10; Proposal was also available online. Total days to Respond to Proposal 28 days July 11, 2011 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 1615) Pre-proposal Teleconference Date April 26, 2011 Number of Teleconference Participants 10 RFP Submittal Deadline May 10, 2011 Number of Proposals Received 8 Range of Cost of Proposals $2.9 M to $4.0 M Number of Companies Interviewed 4 Company Selected Hydromax USA, LLC Location (City, State)Chandler, IN Proposal Amount $3.2 M Attachment A, the Agreement, contains a complete description of the scope of service. Due to the specialized nature of this service, the equipment required to complete this project and the applicable critical quality assurance methods, it was determined that a contractor possessing these specialized skills and resources is required. Timeline This project is scheduled to start in late July 2011 and to be finished within 18 months or by January 2013. The project completion time in the RFP was specified as 12 months, however, during the selection process, it was determined that 18 months would be a more appropriate time period in which to successfully complete this project; this is consistent with the City’s publicly stated goal of completing this project by January 2013. Based on the City contractor’s resources required and in-house resources to fully address field issues, a decision was made to extend the contract term beyond the initial schedule in lieu of employing multiple contractors in order to complete the project within a shorter timeframe. This decision was also based on the desire to obtain consistant data and to minimize staff impact. Rule 23 (Special Wastewater Utility Regulations) establishes the City’s authority to inspect and temporarily take responsibility for the wastewater sewer lateral on the customer side of the cleanout in order to appropriately deal with a cross-bore that might have been created by the City. In the event a cross-bore is identified or a video camera becomes lodged in the privately- owned portion of a lateral, the City will be authorized to address the incident. Rule 23, as amended, confers upon the City the responsibility to appropriately address cross-bore incidents. Additionally, rule changes were made to define the limits of the City’s responsibility associated with laterals on private property. Attachment C is Utilities Rule and Regulation 23, as amended. A redlined version of Rule and Regulation 23, as amended, is available online. A paper redline copy is available for viewing in the Clerk’s Office. Resource Impact The funds for this project are included in the FY 2012 Utilities Operating Budget. This project will be managed by Utilities Department Staff. July 11, 2011 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 1615) Proposed changes to Rule and Regulation 23 has minimal resource impact. Policy Implications This recommendation is consistent with the Council approved Utilities Strategic Plan Key Strategy #2, “invest in utility infrastructure to deliver reliable service.” Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline Sections 15301 (b) repair, maintenance of existing facilities and 15302 (c) replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities. Attachments: ·Attachment A: Agreement -Hydromax C12140966 (PDF) ·Attachment B: Resolution -Rule and Regulation 23 (PDF) ·Attachment C: Rule and Regulation 23 Cross-bore issue (PDF) Prepared By:Robert Item, Project Engineer Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C12140966 GENERAl, SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 18~ day of July, 2011, by and between tbe CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California Chartered Muuicipal Corporation ("CITY"), and HYDROMAX USA, LLC, an Indiana corporation, located at 344 Inderrieden Road, Chandler, IN 47610, Telephone Number: (812) 925·3930 ("CONTRACTOR"). In consideration of tbeir mutual covenants, tbe ""rties hereto agree .s fullows: 1. SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services ("Services'') described in tbe Scope of Services, attached as Exhibit A. 2. EXIDBITS. The following exlubits are attached to and made a pllrt of this Agreement: I "A"· Scope of Services x uE" _ Schedule ofperformanee "e" -Compensation "D" -Insurance Requirements "E" -PerfoIDlllDce andior Payment Bond o "F" -Liquidated Da IllIlges CONTRACT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL EX1ll81TS ARE ATTACHED. 3. TERc'W. The term of this Agreement i. from July 18, 2011 to December 31, 2012 inclusive, subjecllo tbe provisions ofsuh_tion 3.(b) and Section Q and V oftbe General Tenns and Conditions. 4. SCHEDm.E OJ:' PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complele the Services within the Icon of this Agreement in " reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the cin:urnstances and direction communicated to CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with tbe scbedule set forth in the Scbedule of Performance, attached as Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement, 5. COMPE:>ISATION F'OR ORIGINAL TERc'W. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not to exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any: n n The total maximum lump sum compensation of doll.rs ($ );OR The SUlll of amount of dol1.rs ($ dol1ars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total TTWxirrll.lm compensation );OR A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit C, nollo exceed a total lllaxilllum cOlllpensation amount of Three Million Five Hundred Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty dollars ($3,523,950), COI\'TRACfOR agrees that it can perlorm the Services for an amount not to exceed tbe total maximum compensation set furtb above, Any hours worked or services perfonned by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a lotal exceeding the maximum amount of compensation sel forth above for perlonnance of the Se.,,,;ces shall be at no cost to CITY. ~ The City has set aside the sum of Two Hundred Seventy Six Thousond Fifty dollars ($276,050) for Additional Services. CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, ,,,ritten authorization from tbe City Manager or designee. CONTRACTOR, at tbe CITY' g request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of sCTvices, schedule, level of effort, and CONTRACTOR's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable Rev. January 11,2010 \\Cc~tcrra\s.haTed\ASD\PURCmSOLlC1T,\ TlONS\CURRENT BIJYER~CM FOLDERS\UTILITIES -CAROL YNN\RFPs\140966 CCTVing.Sewer\FINAL CONTRACT\C 12140966,doc expense, for such servic:es. Compens~tion shaH be based on the hourly rates set forth above or in Exhibit C (whichever is applicable), or if such rates are not applicable, a negotiated lump sum, CITY shall not authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not perform any Additional Services for which payment would exceed Ibe amount set forth above for Additional Services, Pa)ment for Additional Services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement, 6. COMPENSATION DURING ADDn10NAL TERMS. n CONTRACTOR'S compensation rates for each additional term shall be the same as the original term; OR r CONTRACTOR's compensation rates shaII be adjusted effective on the commencement of each Additional Tenn. The lump sum compensation amount, hourly rates, or fees, whichever is applicable as set forth in section 5 above, shall be adju..ted by a percentage equal to the change in the Consumer Price hldex for Urban Wage Earner" and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco- Oakland· San Jose area, published by the United States Department of Labor Statisties (CPl) which is published most immediately preceding the commencement of the applicable Additional Term, which shall be compared with the CPl published most immediately preceding the commencement date of the then expiring term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ill nO event shall CONTRACTOR's compensation rates be increased by Wl amount exceeding five percent of the rates effective during the immediately preceding term, Any adjustment to CONTRACTOR's compensation rates shall be reflected in a written amendment to this Agreement. 7. INVOICING. Send all invoices to the CITY, Attention: Project ~nager, The Project l\fanager is: Robert Item, Dept.: Utilities Engineering, Telephone: (650) 566-4513. Invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed. Invoices shall not he snbmitted mOTe frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of Services perfoTllled during the invoic.e period and are subject to verification by CITY. CI'IY shall pay the undisputed amount of invo;ce. wilhin 30 days of receipt. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. ACCEPTAl"lCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and condition., set forth in seCtiODS I Ilnough 6 above, these general terms and conditions and the attached exhibits. B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and qualifications to complete the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement, entitled "SERVICES," and lhat every indi,~dual charged with the performauce of Ibe services Wlder this Agreement hilS sufficient skill and experience and is duly licensed or certified, to the extent such licensing or'certifieation is required by law~ to perform the Services. CITY expressly relies on CONTRACTOR's representations regarding its skills, knowledge, and certifications. CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in ilCcordance with generally accepted business practices and perfonnance standards of the industry, including all federal, state, and local operation and safety regulations. C. INDEPENDENT COJl.'TRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent or employee of CITY, CONTRACTOR sball be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to complete the work required Imder this Agreement. D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perfonn any Services under this Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior written consent ofOTY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the work of approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontraL1:ors. E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CON1RACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CON1RACTOR's business. 2 Rev, January ll, 2010 \\('c-lerra\shal"Cd\ASD\PtjRCH.sOLlCIT,!>,'r! ONS\cURRENT BUYER-eM FOl.DERS\l1TILlTlES -CAROI ... YNN\R...FPs\ 140966 C'CTVing.&"wenFINAL CONTRACT\CI214G966.doc F. COMPLIk"lCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall in the performance of the Services comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders. G. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole expense, "''Pair in kind, or as the City Manager or designee ,hall direet, any damage to public or private property that occurs in connection with CONTRACTOR's perfonnance of the Services. CITY may decline to approve and may withhold payment in whole Or in pan to such extent as may be necessary to protect CITY from los< because of defective work not remedied or other damage to the CITY occurring in couuection with CONTRACTOR's pertonnance oflhe Services. CITY shall submit written documentation in support of such withholding upon CONTRACTOR', request. \\Then the grounds described above are removed, payment shall be made for amounts withheld because ofthem H. W ARRA."ITIES. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all services provided Mder this Agreement shall be pcrformed in a professional and workmanlike manller in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry and the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants ihat all materials, goods and equipment provided by CONTRACTOR uuder this Agreement shall be fit for ihe particular purpose intended, shall be free from defects, and shall conform to the requirements ofihis Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly replace Or correct any material or service not in compliance with these warranties, including incomplete, inaccurate, or defective material or service, at no further cost to CITY. The warranties set forth in ihis section shall be in effect tor a period of one year from completion of the Services and shall survive the completion of the Services or tennination of this Agreement. I. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor ihe Services performed under this Agreement to detennine whether CONI'RACTOR's work is completed in a satisfactory manner and complies with Ute provisions of this Agreement. .1. CITY'S PROPERTY. Any reports, information, data or oUter material (including copyright interests) devcl.oped, collected, ... sembled, prepared, or caused to be prepared Mder ihis Agreement wiU become Ute property of CITY wiihout restriction or Illnitation upon their use and will not be made available to any individual or organization by CONTR1\CTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without ihe prior written approval of the City Ylanager. K. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to pennit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable lime during ihe term of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the date of final payment, CONTRACTOR's records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain IlCCurilie books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least three (3) following the terms of this Agreement. L. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No·payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY shall operate as a waiver on Ihe part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. M. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at it. sole cast, shall pUIchase and maintain in full force during ihe tenn of ihis AgreeIIICII~ the insurance coverage described in Exlubit D. InsuraJ1ee must be provided by companies with a Best's Key rating of A-:VlI or higher and which arc otherwise acceptable to the City's Risk Manager. The City's Risk Manager must approve deductibles and self-insured retention.s. In addition, all policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders are subject to approval by the Risk Ylanager as to form and content. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a policy endorsement IWming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy. CONTRACTOR shall obtain an endorsement stating thnt Ihe insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or matLmlly reduced in covernge or limits unlil after providing JO days p"or written nolice of the cancellation or modification to the City's Risk Ylanager. CONTRACTOR shall provide certificates of such policies or other evidence of coverage satisfuctory to OTY's Risk Manager, together with the required endorsements and evidence of payment of premiums, to CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and shall ihroughout the' term of this Agreement provide current certificates evidencing the required insurance coverages and endorsements to the OTY's Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured under its pohcies or shall obtain and provide to CITY ""Parate certificates and endorsement, for each subcontractor that meet all the requirements of tllis .eclion. The procuring of such required pohcies of insurance shall not operate to limit CONTRACTOR's liability or obligation to indemnify CITY under this J Rev. January 11,2010 liCc·'orr'\;h."d\ASD~'URCH\SOLlCI1'A'n()NSiCURRENT BUYER·eM FOI,DERSIUTILITlES· CAROL YNNIRFP>\140966 CCTVing,Sewer\FINAL CONTRACT'lC12140966.dm: Agreement, N. HOLD HARMI,ESS. To the fullest extent permitted by Jaw and without limitation by the plOvisions of sucrion M relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold hannless CITY, illl Council mc:mbt..'TS? otTt~c:rs, c:mpJoyees and agents from and agairu;t any and all demands, claims, injuries, losses, or liahilities of any nature, including death or injury Ie any person, property damage or any other loss and including without limitation all damages, penalties. fines and judgments, associated investigation and administrative expenses and defense costs, including, but not Jiroited to reasonable attorney's fees, courts costs and costs of alternative di .. ;;pute resolution), arising out of, or lesulting in any way from O[ in connection with the performance of this Agreement, The CONTRACTOR's obligations under this Section apply regardless of whether or not a Iiahility is caused or contributed to by any negligent (passive 01 active) act or omission of C1lY, except that the CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify for liability atising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY. The acceptance of the S.'rVices by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification, The provisions of this Section survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Contract. O. NON-DISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Mwricipal Code section 2.30.510, CONTRACTOR certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin coloIJ gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestryl sexual orientation, housing statos, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person, CONTRACTOR acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Pa 10 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. P. WORKERS' COMPENSAll0N. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agrecment, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in liccordunce with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and during the performance ofthe Services. Q. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving ten (10) days' prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice of termination, Upon receipt of such notice of termination, CONTRACTOR shall immcdiately discontinue performance. CITY, CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective d.te of termination. If the termination if for cause, OTY may deduct from such payment the .mount of actu.l damage, if .ny, sustained by CITY duc to Contractor's failure to perform its material obligations under thi, Agreement. Upon temlination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver Ie the City Manager any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other maten.l or producL>;, whether Or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR or given to CONTRACTOR, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials shan become the property of CITY. R. ASSIGNMEI'i'TSiCHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors and assigns to nil covenants of this Agreement. This Ab'fcernent shall not be assigned Or transferred without the prior written consent of the CITY. No amcndments, changes or variations of any kind are authori7.ed without the written consent of the CrlY. S. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting tltis Agreement, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presenUy has no interest, and will not acqnire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with thc performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR further cOVenants that, in the performance of this Contract, it will not employ any person having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no City Officer, elDpIoyee, Or aud.orized representative has any fillllncial interest in the bu,iness of CONTRACrOR and that no person associated with contractor has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conilict with the faithful performance of this Conlnlct. CONTRACTOR agrees Ie advise CITY if any conllict arises. T. GOVERI"UNG LAW. This contract shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of California. 4 \\Cc-lerra\<;harcd\ASD\PURcmSOllCITA TIONS\CURRENT llUYER-CM FOLDERS\lJTlLlTlES • CA ROLY.t'\N\RI'Ps\140966 CClVing.Sewer\FINAL CONTRACncl21 4Q9I.16.doc U. ENTTRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement. including till exhibits. represents tile entire agreement behl'ecn the panies with :respect 10 the sen'ices thai may be the subject ofthls :\greement. Any variance ~n the exhibits does not atTect tbe validity of the Agre~ment and the Agreement itself ccnt~ols over any contlicting provisions in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes aU pricr agreement~ representations. stnte.ments, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written. V. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisidnS of the Charte'r o'fthe City of Palo Alto ond the Palo Alto Mun"icipal-Code. This :\greem~nt 'wiJI terminate without nny pen').lty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in lhe eve,nt t,hat fund's are not appro'priated for the following fiscal yeaf, ,:,r (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 Contract are no 10'nger available_. This Se,dion sha1l1ake precedence in the event ofa connict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Contract. W. ENVlRON~IENTALLY PREF'ERRIW PURCHASING AND ZMW WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONTR..<\CTOR'shall comply with the City's Environmentally Pre,rerred Purchasing policIes which are flvailable at the City·, Purchasing Department which are incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. COKTR.A.CTOH. shalt comply ,.,'jth waste reductron" reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City's Zcro Waste. l}rogram. Zero-Waste best pfllctice-s include first minimizing and reducing waste; ~econd. reusing waste and third. reeyeling or'eomposting wu,u'e. In p!lrticular, Contractor shall comply with the fol1owln~ zerq wan~ requirem~nl,s: AU printed materials 'provi,ded by Contractor to City generated trom a personal computer and printc.r includjng but not limited to~ proposals, quotes, invoices) 'reports, and pub'lic education mllter.ahi, shall be double-sided end printed on a minimuJJl of ~O% Dr greater post-consumer content peper, unless otharwise approved by the Citfs Project Mu"llger. Any submitted :materials printed by a profcssional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetllhle based inks. • Goods purchased hy Contrllctor on behalf of the City shall be putthased in accordanee with the CIty'S Envlronmentai ,'Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibilit~ requirements for produCts and packagrng. A eopy of this poHey is on file at the PurchaSing Office. • • Reusable/retumable pallets shall be taken back by-thc'Contractor, at no additional cosllo the City, for reuse or recycling. Contractor ~hall pro-vid~ documentation from the facility accepting the paIlets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. X. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement re-present and warrant tha( they have the legal capacity and authotity to do so on behalf of thC!ir re-spcctive lcgal entities. "._. CONTRACT TERMS: All unchecked boxes do not appJy to this Conlracl, IN -WI11\'ESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have by the'ir duly authorized representatives executed tit is Agreement on the date first above written. CITY 0.' PALO ALTO City Manager or Designee Approved as to form: Senior Assistant City AttorDey l Rev, JilnUQI:' t:, 2010 \\C~wllmll\5hal'llld\ASD\j>L'RCH\SOL!CIT A TIONS\CURUNT IJUYER·CM FOlDERS\l.mUTlES -CAROL YN--N\,,:;:.FPJU-4u%~ GeT vin g,S.!!wer\FINAL CO NT ELA,. C1\C 1214M66,do c EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 Proposed Methods to Collect Lateral CCTV Data: Hydromax USA LLC. (Consultant) shall inspect approximately 18,000 sanitary sewer laterals and approximately 1,000,000 LF of associated sanitary sewer mains for the presence of natural gas cross bores with robotic lateral launching CCTV cameras, manual push rod cameras, and lateral cleaning equipment in a professional and workmanlike manner. The laterals to be inspected exclude approximately 140 critical facilities previously inspected by others. The work shall be compensated according to the fee schedule attached. The work shall be performed according to the requirements of Attachment C, City of Palo Alto Contract General Services Agreement, except where more specifically stated herein or in attachments. Consultant shall make reasonable attempts, as defined below, to inspect all sanitary laterals between the tap connection at the main sewer to the point the lateral enters the building. Consultant will accomplish this by placing a robotic lateral launching camera at the downstream manhole to remotely search for the presence of cross bores in the manhole, main sewer, and laterals. The robotic lateral launching eqUipment that shall be used, will enable inspection of laterals from mainline sewers 6 inches to 36 inches in diameter. Sewers greater than 36 inches in diameter will, as necessary, require confined space entry to hand place the lateral camera head in the tap from inside the main sewer. Consultant will traverse the main sewer to each tap and launch a steerable, pan and tilt, lateral camera up to 120LF from the tap connection where the structural condition of said pipes allows for passage of the camera. Should Consultant encounter multiple laterals converging in a single tap, Consultant will utilize the steerable lateral camera with guide pin to inspect the adjoining laterals separately by identifying each pipe as an independent inspection. Such adjoining lateral inspections shall be treated as separate inspections for identification, data submittal and invoicing. The intent is to video every wastewater lateral and branches from the main to a single structure in one video. If there are separate taps off the main to the same structure, separate videos of each lateral shall be made from the main to the structure. If there are multiple structures branched off the lateral on the same parcel, separate video to each structure shall be made from the main to the structure. If there are multiple structures branched off the lateral to different parcels, separate video to each structure shall be made from the main to the structure. If there is an abandoned lateral at the curb, a separate video to the cap shall be made from the main to the capped end. Lateral risers and dead end branches shall be part of the lateral video inspection. Consultant shall perform the inspections of both mainline sanitary and connected lateral sewers using pan and tilt cameras. All lateral sewers shall be inspected per NASSCO LACP requirements. Mains shall generally not be coded except for basic observations starUstop, footage, lateral locations, major defects (severe break, cannot proceed, cross bore). Consultant will ensure range of view, lighting, picture quality, rate of travel and pan and tilt at serious defects are upheld to support this goal without impeding the inspection process. All cross bores observed in the mainline sanitary sewer and in the connected lateral will be recorded as a defect and reported immediately as provided below. 8 Rev. January It,2010 IICc-terralsha"dIASDIPURCHISOLlCITA TIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIUTILITIES -CAROL YNNIRFPslI40966 CCTVing.Sewer\FINAL CONTRAC1\C J2140966.doe Consultant will verify the limits of the inspections by identifying the location of the camera head by means of radio sonde transmitter contained within the camera and a sonde receiver on the ground surface to identify the actual limits of inspected lines with 33 or 512 MHz sondes. In the event a lateral cannot be fully inspected from the tap connection it may become necessary to inspect the remaining portion of the lateral by means of manual push rod cameras. Lateral inspections up to 200 feet can be performed using push rods. Radio sonde and receiver equipment will be utilized as described above to ensure a complete inspection to 5 foot beyond abandoned inspection from the main sewer, or to the tap connection of sanitary lateral to sewer main, as necessary to allow for a combined inspection for a complete traverse of the lateral. Push rpd inspections will require an access point of no less than 3 inches inside diameter via an exterior clean out or upon approval through alternate means such as removal of toilets for direct access to the sewer within foundation. Consultant will contact the structure occupant to request entry for inspection in the event inspection from the mainline was incomplete and a suitable external access point is not available, unless the City provides instructions otherwise in advance. In the event a clean out is not present and the customer will not allow a toilet to be pulled, Consultant can sometimes accomplish the inspection by accessing the roof vent on single story homes. City may elect to install an exterior clean out. Consultant shall refer the need for alternate access/exterior clean out installations to the City. Consultant will retum post installation and inspect via push rod through the newly installed clean out. It is preferable to have a 'Tee" style or "Double Wye" clean out installed to allow for multidirectional inspections of the push camera. Where inspections are not able to be completed with reasonable efforts, and such completion has been hindered through structural problems or blockages, ConSUltant shall inform City of the limits of the incomplete inspection. This information may be used by the City to determine the improvement that the City may elect to use. City is not required to make any improvement of pipes and may do so at its sole option. ConSUltant proposes to track laterals requiring push rod inspections to complete the pipe segment and coordinate with property owners for scheduling of inspections at the earliest convenience of the building occupants. If after three attempts to make contact with property owners ConSUltant is unsuccessful in gaining access, Consultant will make contact with City to determine how to proceed. ConSUltant will return all work sites to equal or better conditions found prior to performance of said inspections. Mainline sewers shall be inspected "as is". No cleaning for observing defects shall be included. City represents that their mainline sewers are on a preventative maintenance schedule with mains cleaned approximately every two+ years. If cleaning is needed to assist in the traverse of the mainline sewer Consultant will request City to clean the mainline sewer, The area to be cleaned will be clearly identified and communicated to City by email or in another manner agreed upon prior to starting the project that allows for documentation of such request. In the event a lateral pipe segment cannot be fully inspected after reasonable attempts to remove obstructions or traverse because of poor structural condition or attempt/s for alternate access is/are not successful, Consultant will provide all the information obtained to City for City's determination of possible solutions or to determine if enough information has been obtained to safely assess the proximity of uninspected portions of pipe Consultant will capture all recorded CCTV data in a format compatible with P.O.S.M. software and suitable to uploading into ICOM software. Consultant will coordinate with ICOM to meet 9 Rev, Ja.'1uary 11,2010 \\Cc·-[crra\shared'.ASD\P'URCH\SOUCITATJONS\ClJRRENT Bl,'Y'ER-CM FOLDEru."'\UTILlTIES ~ CAROLY~~Rrps\140%6 CCTVing.Sewcr\Fl""; AL CONTRACT\C12140966.doc their specifications. Collected data will be sent to Consultant's data center for quality assurance, progress updates, and creation of the electronic deliverables called for in the specifications. The video shall be annotated using the software. One copy of video logs and hard drives or downloaded color video and audio information shall be provided to City's contractor, ICOM or to other location as directed. Consultant technicians and project manager will remain in regular contact with designated representatives of the City assigned to Consultant work areas in order to provide daily activities, work locations, progress, and findings requiring immediate attention. If or when a cross bore is identified Consultant will immediately notify all required parties as determined in the kick off meeting, clearly identify the location and approximate depth of the breach, protect the breach from outside damage by remaining on the location with the breach in view of the camera until a City representative authorized to relieve Consultant crew(s) arrives (wait time is expected to be less than 60 minutes). An independent video, image, and report will be generated for each cross bore discovered and delivered post Consultant ONOC. The flow chart for project showing major steps is attached. Work hours that are necessary for completion of the project, which are not within 8 to 5, shall be subject for obtaining a noise variance. It is our intention to try and work at least every other Saturday if possible. Inspections of arterial streets that have different work hour requirements will be scheduled accordingly. Night, weekend and evening work may be scheduled due to high flow conditions, traffic, accommodating structure entry to owner's convenience, etc. Business districts of the University area between Alma and Middlefield and the area on California between EI Camino Real and Park, shall not be inspected between the week before Thanksgiving through New Year's Day. City shall provide GIS mapping system and minor order records for City facilities as available. Consultant will use such mapping and information from City to plan and execute inspections in addition to other information including review of physical assets. Consultant shall be responsible for damage to public or private property that occurs because of our inspection activities. Consultant believes that there will be some laterals that are not capable of being inspected without replacement of the lateral line due to structural defects or other causes after reasonable cleaning attempts. When reasonable cleaning efforts of a single lateral (1-1/2 hours) using either high pressure jetting and/or City approved non-cutting mechanical cleaning equipment in combination with cameras is unable to determine the presence or absence of a cross bore, the cleaning efforts shall be abandoned and the City shall be informed. City may require no further actions by Consultant. If all of the items associated with this paragraph have been performed, but Consultant has not been able to clear the entire line, Consultant will provide all of the collected information to the City and Consultant will be compensated as if the lateral had been cleared. 1.2 Meeting Project Deadline Consultant shall inspect approximately 18,000 laterals and the corresponding main sewer involved in inspection of these sanitary laterals. Consultant will begin on July 19, 2011. Consultant will provide adequate mainline launch lateral CCTV inspection tnucks and crews to inspect all laterals by December 31, 2012. Initial equipment and crews will increase periodically throughout the project. Additionally, Consultant 10 Rev, January 11, 2010 \\cc~terra"'$hared\ASD\PURCH·..sOUCIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOtDER..,)\UTlLfTJES -CAROL YN"N'lRFPs\}40966 CCTVing,Sewer\FINAL CONTRACT\C12 j 40966.doc plans to add temporary mainline launch lateral CCTV inspection trucks and crews during winter months. Consultant will provide adequate equipment and crews to complete these inspections prior to December 31, 2012. Consultant shall refer all problematic laterals to City for completion of clean out installation, scheduling, re-inspection and all other labors for said problematic laterals, defined as those in excess of reasonable efforts as described in section 4.1 or those that are otherwise inaccessible. This corresponds to the City management intention to free Consultant lateral launching crews to be unhindered or undelayed by lateral inspections requiring extraordinary lengthy or unusual measures beyond reasonable described in section 4.1. Consultant will perform inspections in restricted areas early in the project to make sure the limitations of those areas will not impede meeting the 12/31/2012 deadline. 1.3 Verification of Completion (All of Section 4.3 is to remain confidential) Consultant would perform QAlQC checks on 100% of all the collected field data. These checks include data analyst office review of all videos, logs, and crew reports against supplied contract documents, mapping, GIS shape files, and area survey form performed prior to pipeline inspections. Consultant will ensure every known sanitary sewer pipe segment potentially affected by the presence of natural gas cross bores has been inspected and approved by data analyst independent of the inspection. However, incomplete pipe lines that have not been able to be inspected after reasonable effort will be listed as incomplete and will not be categorized as cleared. If improvements to the pipeline allows for later inspections to be completed, the line will then be listed as complete and cleared of cross bores of gas lines. Consultant shall perform the following tasks to ensure each lateral awarded for inspection is completed: 1. Prior to beginning any inspections it is the policy of Consultant to gather in all available mapping of the sewer systems, gas systems, satellite imagery of entire work area, address lists, and area approval forms. The area approval form, shall include a drawing created from available information or on site and agreed upon with City, to clearly define Consultant inspection limitations prior to inspecting any sewers. These exceptions are expected to exclude the 140 critical laterals previously completed. Included in this form is the following base information Consultant's pipeline data analysts uses the following to track completion and compare against incoming field data. • Total LF of sanitary sewer main required to reach all affected laterals • Total number of buildings potentially affected by trenchless installation of gas lines • Total manhole to manhole pipe segments to inspect • Drawing of above listed findings from site survey coupled with information provided by sewer mapping defining sewers not identifiable on ground surface. This will include main segments crossing bore paths at intersections and lines without manholes to identify. 2. Consultant will perform all laterals in the project area. City will provide mapping detailing the boundaries of areas containing gas lines for cross bore investigations. 3. Data analysts create punch list based on the collected field data contained in the above documents. 11 Rev. January 11, 20ID IICc-terralsharedIASDIPURCHISOLICIT A TIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIUTILITIES -CAROL YNNIRFPsl140966 CCTVing.Scwcr\FINAL CONTRACT\C12140966.doc 4. Crews will use templates for pipeline inspection software designed to ensure contract deliverable requirements fields are entered. Technicians are prompted to progress through data collection and inspections to assist in all the predetermined information being collected. 5. In areas where delineation of the limits of inspection have not been determined, Consultant shall schedule an onsite meeting with City project manager, and Consultant technicians to physically walk project where delineation of the limits of inspection have not been determined to discuss any last minute changes to scope, or area approval forms, as well as, City expectations specific to inspection site beginning with lateral launching CC1Y crews. 6. GPS points shall be captured at the mainline/lateral connection, property line clean-outs, and at the furthest point inspected in the lateral. The cost to do this is buill into the cost provided. This cost assumes that we will be capturing a GPS point on a cleanout that is readily seen in the yard, or based on the location that the sonde provides when viewing the cleanout invert with a camera. Consultant will not be expected to uncover any laterals in the field and then take a GPS point. 7. 'Pipeline data and GPS data is transmitted daily to analysts for ONOC through ftp site or other means. 8. Consultant data analyst shall review videos, other data and uses GPS findings to ensure project limitations are met based upon comparison with previously provided information. 9. Any incomplete segments shall be recorded in Consultant data-base and referred for lateral launching CC1Y crews for rework or to push rod technicians via electronic work orders. 10. Push rod technicians shall be instructed to attempt inspections received through work orders. 11. Data from laterals completed by push rod technicians is uploaded daily to analysts for ONOC through ftp site or other means. 12. Each attempt to enter a building for completion by push rod crews is recorded and tracked until 3 attempts are reached. Weekly reports from data analysts are issued to City and Consultant project manager listing unsuccessful attempts to complete inspection of sewers and subsequenlly gain access to buildings. 13. Consultant project manager and City shall reach a decision on how to proceed with unsuccessful entry buildings. City will inform Consultant of its decision. Consultant shall relay status and decision for future actions of said lateral to data analyst to enter final result for lateral in database or request additional inspection efforts by Consultant crews, Le. after a clean out is installed or access to structure is allowed. 14. Laterals requiring push camera inspection that cannot be completed without an access point being created are referred by data analyst to City for City's determination if a clean out installation will be scheduled. The incomplete lateral Shall be marked incomplete in data base. Subsequenlly, if an inspection can be completed the status will be changed as appropriate. 15. Upon City notification to data analyst of clean out installation being completed, data analyst reissues work order for lateral to push rod technicians. 16. Steps 9-12 repeated to completion of lateral. 12 Rev. Januruy J 1, 201 0 \\Cc'~rTa\shared\ASD\PURCH\5mUCIT A TIONS'CURRE}:"T BUYER-CM FOLDERS\UllLmES -CAROL YNN\RFPs\1411966 CCTVing.Sewer\FINAl, CCJSTR.A.CI\C 12140966.doc 17. Data analysts will show GPS infonnation for tap and foundation for every lateral identified through main line inspection thereby providing GPS map based project tracking. GPS points shall be accurate to within two (2) feet unless there are structural, canopy, or other physical restrictions. It should be noted that current Sonde/Locator technology also has a similar accuracy. This will aid project management in identifying which laterals are complete, incomplete, and the current status of each address based upon Consultant color coding key. If a wye lateral is identified, the tap of the branching lateral shall be the wye. 18. All data shall be made web accessible both internally for project management and to City for remote real time (within 72 hours after receipt of data from field crews) viewing of Consultant progress within any given area as noted by approval forms and attachments. 19. Data analyst will determine completion by query all predetermined addresses through Consultant project database. 20. Any incomplete laterals associated with query attempt will populate as red flagged and data analysts will not mark as complete until lateral status is entered as complete and up to 3 GPS points attached. Once City has determined that incomplete laterals will not be subject to further actions for inspection by Consultant, data analysts will indicate in the data base that the incomplete inspecUon requires no further action by Consultant. 21. After all above criteria has been verified by Consultant data analyst, the data analyst will generate and transmit extemal hard drives to City or designated representative. 22. Subsequent to passing QAlQC processes, information shall be transmitted by Consultant data analyst to ICOM or other designated representative of City. The above process along with the flow of work is shown on Consultant's Gas Services Legacy Inspections Flow Chart Final Work Procedures -Palo Alto (see end of this section). 1.4 Contingency Plans for Site Conditions At the kick off meeting Consultant will request the preferred order of inspection areas from City officials, if any. Consultant will incorporate knowledge of City to ascertain its optimal scheduling of inspections. Palo Alto officials will endeavor to exchange information of local events in and around areas of the highest public exposure such as the business districts, parks, schools and universities, parade, festival, and high volume traffic routes. Consultant will schedule work around such areas and events as to minimize inconveniences to the community. In the event Consultant encounters man holes in areas where flow of pedestrian, vehicular, or event traffic would be affected by the presence of Consultant crews, ConSUltant shall make every reasonable effort to find alternate points of entry for sewer manholes. Consultant may coordinate alternate times (after normal hours or weekend) 50 as to minimize conflicts with businesses. Consultant will make every reasonable effort to avoid manholes reqUlnng trucks to park in grassy or landscaped areas when possible. Based on discussions with City officials and our previous visits to survey the prospective work areas, Consultant believes that most of the manholes are situated in roadways where damage to ground surface surrounding manholes will be inconsequential. Should Consultant have need to access manholes in grassy areas ConSUltant shall request use of plates from City or at minimum use plywood to minimize tire tracks in soft restoration areas. Consultant shall provide and use plywood as necessary to minimize tire tracks in soft restoration areas. 13 Rev. January 11,2010 \ICc-tcn-,lsh'redIASDIJ'lJRCI-~SOUClT A TIONSIClJRRcNT B\J YER·CM FOLDERSIUTILITIES -CAROLYNNIRH',\140966 CCTVmg.Sewer\FIN AL CONTRACT',C1214Q966,doC' Should Consultant have no other option but to access man holes on private property, or in easements connected to private property, Consultant will first make friendly requests to access private property for the purpose of completing inspections. Consultant will extend every courtesy to the residents of City when working in proximity of driveways, parked vehicles, sidewalks, place of residence, or place of business. Consultant will as courteously as possible attempt to coordinate inspections with the blessings of nearby affected individuals as to not block driveways, flow of patrons with local businesses, or endanger the sanctity of private property. Consultant will seek the assistance of City officials when refusal to access mandatory points of entry should occur without provoking or disturbing residents when such refusals arise. Consultant will move to the next closest point of access and continue inspections elsewhere until City can resolve such occurrences and facilitate entry for Consultant. 1.5 Operator Qualifications Consultant requires every technician to pass a set of rigorous training programs prior to being allowed to represent our name and perform as· serious a task as cross bore eliminations. Training for our technicians includes the following: o Basic and advanced knowledge of muniCipal, residential, commercial, and industrial plumbing systems. o Adequate computer and software skills to perform high level data collection. o Proficiency in line and sonde locating. o Training in the protection of and safe practices regarding themselves, the public, and the work areas. o Traffic control procedures. o Effective communication practices. o Training on the operations, troubleshooting, and repair of both mainline lateral launching CCTV equipment, and manual push rod equipment. o Data storage and management practices. o Gas installation procedures. • Safe travel practices. o Mainline launched CCTV operators have to hold the position of operator assistant for a minimum of three to six months before being eligible to start actually performing lateral inspections independently. o Mainline launched CCTV operators must complete gas cross bore inspection training, pass written exams and demonstrate proficiency with all tasks associated with running a project, following project specifications and operating equipment. o Mainline launched CCTV operators shall have at least 2,000 lateral inspections on gas cross bore projects before they are permitted to work on this project o Push rod operators must have plumbing and drain cleaning training. o Basic electrical knowledge and factory training from manufacturers on advanced robotics repairs and wiring for repairs conducted in the field. o Typically work as a helper or technician for 6 months before allowed to operate the equipment independently under the direct supervision of the training operator. 14 Rev, January LI,2010 \'.cc·"",.\sha .. d\ASD'J'URCH'~OLlCITA nONS'CURRENT BUYER-CM FOWERS\lJTILmES • CAROL YNNlRFP,\ 14Q%6 CC1Ving,Sewer\FINALCONTRACnC I 214fr..l66,dm: • Upon passing numerous written and task related tests, new operators are paired with veteran operators on the same projects to fine tune the newly promoted operator and observe the completeness of the training process. • Ongoing education and retesting to keep individuals sharp and up on current practices. • All operators report to project managers with many thousands of lateral inspections and hundreds of thousands of mainline inspections to observe and uphold quality and completion of all assigned tasks. As noted in the "Staffing Section' of our proposal, it is our intention to have Adam Petrzilka as the initial and primary CCTV truck operator on this project Adam has performed approximately 2,000 lateral inspections. We estimate that he will have completed an additional 500 inspections prior to deploying to City. Adam posses all the technical, and communication skills required to successfully complete this project. We believe that while he does not have the 5,000 inspections as requested in the proposal, that he has the best qualifications for successfully completing City's project and is LACP certified. Any additional CCTV truck operators who are deployed will have completed the training and testing listed above and will have performed at least 2,000 lateral inspections before being permitted to work on this project without supervision. 1.6 Standard Traffic Control Plan During the course of performing pipeline inspections requiring manhole access, Consultant must maintain and protect work areas in a manner that ensures minimal disruption to the normal flow of traffic while fostering a safe work environment for Consultant crews. Safety for our team members and that of the communities in which we work is of the highest priority. Consultant has enjoyed a history of zero job site injuries stemming from traffic related incidents. We attribute this success to our strict compliance with applicable regulations, as well as, compliance with state and local DOT laws. In order to continue our tradition of maintaining safe work environments Consultant proposes the following measures: Consultant employs the use of a pre-mobilization checklist to confirm each crew arrives on site with the following standard traffic control equipment. • (20) 28' cones with dual reflective collars • Two signs for advanced warning and lane closure notification • All Consultant vehicle are equipped with DOT approved strobes, light bars, multidirectional arrow lights, and reflective decals • High visibility ANSI Class (2) PPE, as well as, pertinent materials for flagging traffic • Wheel chocks appropriate for the grade of the work site • Adequate barriers for protection of opened manhole • Adequately trained personnel to ensure traffic control and job site protection can be observe in light traffic areas. Consultant has based its pricing on the premise that when working on city streets the standard traffic ,control equipment listed in Section 4.6 is adequate. City street traflic control requirements in excess of traffic cones, portable signs and arrow boards on the CCTV vehicles is at additional cost to City. If additional equipment and labor is required to safely perform inspections on City of City streets, it shall be invoiced at cost plus 10% for rental equipment and at $75.00 per hour 15 Rev. January 11, lOUJ \\Cc·IO""lsh",d\ASD'-PURCJl\SOLJClTA·nONSlCIJRRENI' BUYER-CM FOLDBRSIIITILITIES . CAROLYNNIRFPsI140%6 . CCTVing_S~wer\FINAL CONTRACT\C12 140966,doc for additional labor more than the standard two person inspection crew, including labor of transportation of equipment to and from the inspection location. On roadways where California Law requires delineators or arrow boards for advanced warning, buffer zone, work zone, and taper zones, Consultant will ensure a sufficient amount of approved eq uipment is utilized. Such traffic control for CAL TRAN is at no additional cost to City. Consultant shall submit traffic control plans to City for approval prior to work commencement. It is the policy of Consultant to request on site meetings with traffic regulatory officials to direct Consultant as to the desired patterns, time restrictions, and communication requirements Consultant is to adhere to. Consultant project managers also performs random, periodic safety checks and grades individuals on the compliance with state and local requirements, as well as, enforcement of Consultant internal safety requirements. Should work occur during night hours or on state routes, Consultant requires all technicians to be in ANSI Class (3) personal protective equipment. 1.7 Public Outreach Plan Consultant will cooperate with City's efforts to educate and interact with the public to increase the real and perceived success of cross bore projects. Consultant encourages City's public outreach for cross bore education through many different mediums has proven effective in mitigating the risk of Cross bore exposure for all potentially affected parties and will distribute literature to structure residents who may inquire as to the operations during such operations. If efforts to contact residents include knocking on the door, Consultant will hang literature created by City on the door knob. It has been typical for the below listed methods to be the responsibility of the gas distribution utility by which Consultant has been contracted. ConSUltant has seen many different methods employed and will discuss the most direct routes for transferring this knowledge to the public. 1. Consultant employees are well accustomed to dealing with the questions and curiosities posed by the public during the course of our inspections. Consultant team members are trained to approach the delicate issues surrounding cross bores in a responsible and diplomatic manner without inciting unnecessary fears or alarm. Consultant push rod technicians having the greater part of exposure to residents through the course of entering homes and businesses are trained and have acquired the communications skills necessary convenient to communicating with occupants and the general public. 2. City shall provide templates for door tags and no parking signs with City logo and contact information to Consultant. Consultant shall post door tags in a conspicuous location at least 7 days prior to inspections and "no parking" signage as directed by City Police Department. No additional charges shall be incurred for the placement of these City provided materials. In addition ConSUltant field technicians will place a City provided tag denoting completion of lateral inspection on the external riser for gas service at the meter upon successful completion of inspection. 1.8 Emergency Plan Consultant will direct the project manager to review the awarded work areas and compile information pertaining to the following necessary components of an emergency plan. 16 Rev. January 11,2010 \\Cc~reITa\9hared\ASD\PURCH\.·mL1 crrA',"ONS\C{JRRENT BUYER-eM "F(JLDER.-";\UTILlTlES n CAROL YNN'<RFPS'\140966 CCIVlng.Scwer\FINAL CO:-;l'RAcnCI2I 4ll9DG.doe 1, Location, route, and contact information for the nearest urgent care, hospitals, fire, and police departments compiled and posted in all Consultant vehicles involved in this project 2. Predetermined meeting place in the event of disaster. 3. Acccuntability plan and designated chain of ccmmand in the event project manager cannot be reached. 4. Evacuation routes determined and posted in all Consultant vehicles involved in this project. 5. Training for Consultant technicians for confined space and blood bome pathogens ccnfirmed prior to allowing any employee to work on this project. 6. Confirmation of first aid readiness and location of M.S.D.S. sheet locations for Consultant crews, 7. Contact information and emergency contact protoccls as provided and updated by the City. 8. Earthquake preparedness training to be performed by Consultant project manager upon arrival of Consultant crews in City. 9. Continuation of work plan shall be discussed with and approved by authorized City contacts should major public emergency occur. In the event of an explosion caused by cross bores while Consultant is performing inspections in City, Consultant has made arrangements for a camera system modified for environments requiring explosion proof electronics to be shipped as a loaner to Consultant. Receipt of this unit can occur within 72 hours should inspections of sewer lines be absolutelY necessary where natural gas may be present in sewer lines. This equipment is approved for nuclear and gaseous environments. Any expenses related to such specialized equipment shall not be considered part of this agreement and will require addenda to the associated RFP. 1.9 CCTV Collection Methods ConSUltant proposes to inspect the sanitary sewer mains utilizing Rausch mainline/lateral launching CCTV cameras. This equipment provides optimal picture quality of both main sewers and lateral sewers for defect observation and a rotating lateral camera that provides navigation. Consultant will perform the inspections of main and lateral sewers in a manner that allows for post processing of collected data for the future P.A.C.P. coding if desired, Consultant will ensure range of view, lighting, picture quality, rate of travel and pan and till at serious defects are upheld to support this goal without impeding the progress of Consultant's primary goal of cross bore elimination. Consultant will utilize the minimally invasive methods available to ensure the lowest level of disturbance to the community and property owners. Consultant will return all work sites to equal or greater conditions found prior to performance of said inspections. In recent conversations, City has stated that their sewers mains are cieaned every two+ years. Because of this aggressive cleaning program we anticipate very little mainline cleaning will be required. However if heavy cleaning is needed Consultant will submit a request to City for cleaning, The area to be cleaned will be clearly identified and ccmmunicated in a manner agreed to by both City and Consultant prior to the start of the project. When cleaning is requested our crews will proceed to an area not requiring cleaning. The inspection of sewers with high water levels (greater than 1/3 pipe) will be addressed through night or weekend inspections (times that experience lower flows). If Consultant is still unable to provide quality 17 Rn,Ianuary 11,2010 \\C,·t=aIsh."rlIASDIPURCH\SOLICIT A T10NS\CURRENT II UYER·eM FOWERSIUTILITIES • CAROL YNNiRFI'SlI4lJ')1i6 CG1Y'mg,Sl!wcnFINAL CONTRACnC1214Q966,doc video City will be notified to determine if City wants to take additional steps to decrease flow levels, permit the higher flows, or accept the mainline inspection deliverable for the section of sewer in question as delivered by Consultant. Consultant will capture all recorded observations and pertinent data from CCTV crews to City above described spectfications using P.D.S.M. pipeline data collection software. Collected data will be sent to Consultant headquarters for quality assurance, progress updates, and creation of electronic deliverables defined by contract documents for shipment to City for review. Consultant technicians and the project manager will communicate regularly with designated representatives of the City in order to provide daily activities, work locations, progress, and findings requiring immediate attention. 18 Rev. January 11; 2010 \\Cc-'clTalshaccdIASD\PURCH\'>OLlcrr A TJONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\UTILI1'IES -CAROL YNN\RFPs\140966 CCTV ing.Sewer\FrNAL CON1'RACT\C 12140966.doc EXHIDITB SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULT ANT shall perfonn the Services so as to complete the project in 18 monills from the Notice to Proceed (NTP). The NTP is scheduled to be issued on July 18, 2011. All tasks are to be perfonned simultaneously. The tenn of this Agreement is from July 18, 2011 to December 31, 2012 19 Rev. Janual)' 11.2010 \\CC~I.eITa\Shared\."S D\J'lURCJf\SOUCITA 110NS\CURRENT BUYERMCM FOLDERS\UTILITlES ~ CAROL YNN\RFP5\140966 CCrVing.Sewl'i\PINAL CONfRACnC12140966.uoc EXHIBITC SCHEDULE OF FEES Compensation based upon task CONTRACTOR shall perform the tasks as described and budgeted below. The CITY's Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts betweeI;1 any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for the Services including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $3,523,950. Any services provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to City. DESCRIPTION OF TASK Task I (CCTV & Document Sewer Laterals) Task 2 (Mapping to Track Progress) Task 3 (CCTV Sewer Mains) Task 4 (Additional Coding for Laterals) Basic Services Additional Services Total Not-to-Exceed Amount Additional Services NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION PER TASK INCLUDING REIMBURSABLES $3,330,000 $36,000 $included $157,950 3,523,950 $276,000 $3,800,000 The CONSULTANT shall provide additional Services only by the advance, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shal! submit a detailed written proposal for additional services. The additional services scope, schedule, and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY's project manager and CONSULTAl'IT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in the Agreement. Option!: PACP Coding for muinlinepipe would be performed al. cost of 0.135 if performed Option 2: Cost per additional!.t.r.l (Task 1) nol to exceed = $185 perl.teral, if performed. 20 Rev. January 11,2010 \\Co-tOTTlllsh"edIASDIPURCH\SOLlCITA TlONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM rOLDERS\UTILlTlES -CAROLYNN\RPNI40966 CLIVing.Sewer\FlNAL CONTRAC1\C12140966.doc EXHlBITD INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACfORS TO TIlE CITY Of PALO ALTO (CITY), AT TIlEIR SOLF. EXPE:-ISll, SHALL FOR TIlE TERM OF TIlE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN 1NSlJRA,"ICE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR TIIE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITII AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR IDGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHOruZED TO TR.4..'<SACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN TIlE STAn; OF CALIFORNIA. A WARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WlTIl CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW' MINIMUM I.lMITS REQUIRED TYI'E OF COVF.RAGE REQUIRE~mNT EACH YES YES YES YES NO YES I. OCCURRENCE AGGREGATil WORKER'S COMPENSATIO)l • STATUTORY E'dPI . .oYER'S ll~BlL1TY , STATUTORY BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 SI,OOO,OOO GENERAL LlABlUTY, [NCI.UDING PERSONAL INJURY, [lROAl) FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 51,000,000 PROPERTY DAMAGE BI.\NKET CONTRACllJAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJlJRY Be PROPeRlY $1,000,000 SI,UOO,OOO LIABILITY DAMAGE COMBINbD. BOlllLY INTlJRY $],000,000 $1,000,000 I -EACH I'ERSON SI,ooO,OOO $) ,000,000 AUTOMOBlUi LlABIlJTY, -EACH OCClJRRENCH Sl,OOO,OOO $],000,000 INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 NON-OWNED BODlL Y INTlJRY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $\,000;000 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, IXCLUIlIXO. ERRORS AND OML~SIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN A1'PIJCABLE), AND NEGI.JOENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES 81,000,oaO . , , . THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS A.'l ADDmONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, A1 • ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND ! EFI''ECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE i INSURAl'lfCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND I ITS SlIBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' I COMP)~NSATION, EMPLOYER'S LJADIUTY AND .PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ! ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCII,!I>flll>1J3ERS, OFFICERS, AGENIIl, AND EMPLOYEES. I INSLJRANCE COVER.-\GE MUST NCLUDR: A. A l'ROVIS10:ol FOR A WRlTrEN TIlJRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVER.~GE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; A~ B. A CO)lTRACfUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE C'OVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INOE;ANIFY CITY. C. DEDUC11BLE AMOUNTS IN EXCF-SS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL II. CONTACfOR l\flJST SUBMrr CER'I1F1CATF.s(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIO;./S, WlTH RESPECT TO TIlE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDmONAL INSUREDS" 12 Rev. January II I-2010 \\Cc-tclTJl'sh,,!"d'ASDIPURCHISOl.lCITAI10NS\cURREN1·IlUYER,(;'M FOLDIlRSIUTILITlES • CAROL YNN\RFPs114il%6 CCTVing.Sewcr\FINAL CONTRAC1\c 12140966.d"" A. PIUMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAlMS ARISING OUT OF TIlE OPERATIONS OF THE NA!vlED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDmONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTIlER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR lHEl BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY TIlE NA.\1ING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THA,T REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF TIlE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NA.\1ING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE TIlE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION I. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFEECTI\'E DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, Tim ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE TIlE EFEECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY m-PALO ALTO 1'.0_ BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 13 Rev. January u. 2010 \\Cc-terralsharedlASDIPURCH\SOLICIT ATIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIUTILrrIES -CAROL YNNIRFP,1140966 CCTVing.SeweIIFINAL CONTRACT\C12140966.doc OPIO: LV CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MAnER OF ,v~ONLY AND ; NO R1GHlS UPON _THE '"-"_~'-'C'v~'" . THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTIER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S" AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR _ AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. : If the certlncate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, s'-!bj&et to the terms and condlUons of the pOlicy, certain PQliclslls may require an endoll>ement. A etatement on this certificate does not confer rIghts to the '. ___ .. ~ieuOf ",. I~~~I ~==:i~==3 • "rancn ••• 1 ~, ~~~~ Lavene ~~n~d" Sto, 2 ~-------j Trent flun,!,,'N 471.0 INSURED Hydromax. Inc, Hydromax USA, LLC, Hydromax Services LLC & Roto Rooter Po Box 70 Chandler,lN 47610 IIN'URER., I,NSURE.S, I,NSURERe, ... ," I ,.SUROR., NAle> A+. XV THIS IS TO C~~~FY THAT THE."OLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED !9 THE.I~,S!:l~"-D. NAMED ABOVE ':9.". THE POLICY PERIOD I I "MAY" I TERM OR CONDITIoN OF !IN':,~~,"''.cc_. OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS <y;'-, ';~;;;";,, A':.~~-BEISSUE~ ~~ SUCH pn'-,',;;'~., I~J,TSSH6WNMAY HAVE'IE:: T"."~' ,e'"~D HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS '~ ~'" ~ -= u.~ A YERAlllA .. LnvGENERAL L""!l1lY X 01/04/11 01104112 a : ~ p CLAtMS..fMD! 00 OC:CUR MED EX? I $ r • r GENE_ • ~ , Ix I POUcy il ~f,g, -[""''r LDC , UABll1rr A ~ ANYAUm r-ALLOWNEDAUTOS f-:-;-SCHEDULED AurOS ~ HIRED AUTOS [K HON-OWNEOAUTOS CERTIFICATE HOLDER X 01/04111 CANCELLATION CITYPA4 01104112 • • 100,OO( 6,OO( '" "n, CITY OF PALO ALTO PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMIN. CAROLYN BISSEn SHOULD AN{ OF TI-lE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXFlRAT10N DATE TIiEREOF, NonCE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH lHE POUCY PROVlSIONS.. I 250 HAMILTON AVE MEZZMIINE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 AUTHO~DRfPRE$ENTAnvE ~iA-~- © 1988-2009 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2009109) The ACORD name and logo are registernd marks of ACORD • • • aOeM? COMMON POI.! CY CONDITIONS All CovOlage Pel1. inciooed III !hiS policy are subjed to thi! fClllowiIlQ CIlIKIJllons: Z. We may cancel ll1i& pollt:y or <II1Y Col(llt1l[ge PM by mlll1ing '" dellVOOng to till Ills! Named I""urea written rIOllCil Of cancellation Slleast: lie 10 days ~to .... tll& e(fedillll dale of CM· ceIIaliOn If WI! !lIIlleei for nO!1p11}111en1 01 I)femium; or • II. 30 days before lIle efl'ell!lw datil 01 can· IlIlllalicm If WE> eMeel mr 8ny olller lO!'" .$On. 3. We will mall or deliver <II.Ir notice 10 lhi! Ill'll Nomed lnsurad's last rrnIlIInQ addre .. knOwn to us. 4. Notie. of canaelllMicm wltl stille ll1e effeetMio dale 01 cencellalion .. nihil polley 14 CSIlceded, that date wilt beeome thlJ end Of 1M ""Ney perio<l If a Coverage Part Is cancelll!ld, that date will become IIIe end Of th~ p<lIIcy peeled >1$ respects !h.1 O""eNi.llll Perl Q!'\Iy. 6. K \ljis policy or eny Coverage Part 10 ""n· ulled, we will HnD lhe n£lll Named In ... ",d any premium ",'und due If _ cancel, the "'" fUnd "'" be pro (111". II the flm Named In· sured eo_IS, ill. rel\Jnd may ~. leu than pro roIa. The eaneeillilllon will ~. affective .... on II we have nat mild .. or alTered a r&- fund, 6" II nOl.lc<:> is I1U!Mot1. plOlll 01 malMng ... 11 be SlJlfn::iem proof of ntlIIC8. B. Cllanges This pallcy <;:OI'I!aimI oW the .Jgl'lNlmel'llll \leIweQn Y"" and us IlIlIlCeITIIIl9 lite iI1!JIJmnce 1Ifi<>r<Ied. T\lf: first Na_ 11IIlured silmon In tile lJ9CIm. lions is autborizot1 l<l m""" dlllJlgllS In tile terms Of lIlis poliql IOIIb our _nl11lIS P"ll<:fs ,_ ean ~ llmend<o:l or WIl'Ved on". l:Iy endOl'!ll!llllllU i'SSUed by .... "" pllft nI thl, policy , C.. Examlnalion Of Your BO<lks And RlM:orda We lMy eumlne and audlI your beoks l1li(1 ",coms "" Illoy relate ID II1Is poll,,\, uI any flme dUrlllg tile> po>Il&}' p;;r1cd "'''' up to IllIM )1911'" afterward. D. Inspeclil'/I& And SliM!)'" to' W. Mve1!1e light 10: a. Make illSllllClions lind """"15 at any lime; b. Give you repom an lIIe condlIioll5 WI! 11m!: and t.. RB&omm8Ddmanges. 2:. w. ..... not QI>Ig8\>ld 10 make MY inspeoo lions. 0UJY8)'II, """'"" or recllI1II!lendellans and any _ adlI),.. WI! 00 undertBkB I'I!llIIe onlY to IftsImIblllly and the prel11\unv; to be ob"'ljod w. do "'" make ~1II9!y iIlspe<:tlon5e We dlllIOIlllldertal\e Ii) pe!1'Orm lba dulY of any fleI5IlII Of 0I'!l1ll11~ to Il!OVi<Ie fur II\IiI healll1 Of ~y at WCrl<J!rs or lIle puIlIl~. And .... 0<> nat """"'nllhet condlficmB' II. A18 •• or heal\llful; Of b. C<>mply with laws. regulallQ/lS. _ or stan_, 3. P3IagrapIIS 1. and 2. of ihlll alndllion aPPlY n.1 only to .... but alsO 10 3IIy 1'lIIing, ot1vl· SOlY, mi. ~k:a 01 similar QIIl!nl2!ltlon lOflldl _ II1St1rance illspedlons, 5un1l>y11, repona Or _lKIaUon .. , 4. PamgraPh 2. 01 !ilia mnd1l1<:>l1 daM /ICII appIr to sny Inspecti,ns. SUIYfIY$, l&porIs or llIO' cmmendaUons ... may maks Il!lalr"", 10 colt!- DoaIian,l!IIder 'lillie or m.nlcipal sIaIuIa!I, ".' dinanoos or ","ulallons, of !Xilkn, preoo .. 18 vessel. or &le .. alM> E. _I\I1II. 1, The first Named JJ'IIlllRld sh""," In the Olio'"" !3Uon$: •• Is 19Spor\SlllJe lor !he paylMllt 01 all PI"'" m!um!I: an(j b. WI1I be me payGIl rot any relum pmmj· u"'" "'" pay .. 2. we cornpt#o ail prIlmJum. tar thb pulley In acrords"", ""'11 our 1'UIes, rates, rating pis.,., ;Uem11Jlll5 and minimum "",mlums. The 1I1e- mium ~_ III !he Deelamions was oom- puled ilased on rates and rul"" In !Ifloc\ at Pnge! r1I2 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED (CONTRACTORS) This end"""""enl modllle.s Insurance pmvlded um'.r lhe foJlowlng: COMMERCIAl. GENERAlllABIUTY COVERAGE PART 1. WHO IS AN INSURED -(Secdcn III is amended I, Inelude any PEt"",n or orgenlzal!on lhat you agree in a ''wrltbm contract requiring in5lJl'i!m,~· to include as an addlllilnal Insured "" this Cover· age Pal1. but; a) Only v.tih respecl to IlabilHy lor "hodI1)IInJul)". "propallY damage' or 'pelliOnaJ Injury"; and b) II, and only 10 the extenl that, the Injury or damage is caused by ads Dr omfssions of you or your subcontractor In the performance of "your work' to Which the 'Written conlract requiring insuranco" applies. TIle person pr organization doos not qualify as an addkional insured wUh "",pee! to Ihe Ind.PQndent oc:ts or omissioos of 5UCh penion or organization, 2. Tho insurance provided to the additional insul1ld by this endorsement Is limited as follows: a) In the event that tho Limits or InsurancE! of this Coverage Part shown In Ihe Declarations exceed the limit. of liability roquired by the "written conln!ct requiring Insurance". the In- surance provided to Ihe addHional insured shall be IImijed to the limits 01 liability ,..,. quined by that "Written o.ornrncl ",qulrlng In- surance'. Thl. endorsement shall not In- crease the limits of in. uranGa de.cnbed In Sectron 111-Limits or Insurancs. b} The insurance provided to the aadkiona\ in- sured d~ not apply to "bodily injury", 'prop- erty damage' or "personal In!ury' analng out of the rendenn!> of, or falluro to ""''''". tiny profe..uonal erchllectural, "Il!llneorrng or su,. veying service&, Includlng: i_ The preparinG!. approving. or l"m~1i to prepare or approve. ma"". she" draw- ings. opinions. reports. 'Urlleys, field ",. dees or change orders. or the preparing~ apprcv1ng, or r",llng to p"'Pilr" or ap- prove. drawings and specifications; and If. SUI"""lsoljl, !n,;peenon, archltacturat ar engineering ael/vitias. c) Tho blsurance prOllJded to the addltion.1 In- """,d de." no! apply 10 "bodily Injury' or "property damage" caused by "y<)ur 1Wlr1<." snit incll.lded In the "produf$>Qlrnpleied op- ornUons hm:ard' unl ••• It!o 'wriItM cc>Wllct l1Iquiring insurance" spocfficrally "'quires you It> provIde such COV!Ir'IIIl" for that additional Insured. and then Ihe iosuranoe provided 10 the addllbnaJ insured appiles only tn .uch "bodily I~Jur:r or "property damago-that oc- curs belon', the end 01 the period 01 time for which tile "w~l!&n contrac:t requiring insur- Mce" requires y<)u to provide such coverage or the III1d 01 1ho polley ~nod. whIchever I. earlJer, 3. Tho inllurance prtWided to the additlonalln.ured by this endorsement Is excess over any valid and coliecUbl. "other insurance". whether primary. axe""". conDngerrt or On any other baSiS. that i. !MIilabl. to thi! additional insured lor a 10$$ we cover under this endorsement However, it the "written conltllct requiring Insurance" specifically l1Iqulres that this Insufance apply On • primary basis or a p~mary and non-contributory baSis, tills insoran"" Is primary to 'other insuran",,- ••• lIable to the eddHionai insured whloh covers that person or orgsnlzaUon as e named Insured for .~n Ie ... and we will not sham with thot "other InsurllIlce'. Sut the Insurance provided to t1. add"!onal Insured by thl. endorsement s@ is ''''C''S8 over any wild end collectible ·~th.r In- surance"" whether primary, axcess, contingent or on any other b ... 15, that I. ""allable to the addi- uon$llnsul!ld when that ""rson cr organlzBUon is an additional Insured under such "other Insur- 1!!I1<le" , 4, As Ii <XlndlUon 01 co ..... rage provided to the sddlUonal [n ... ",d by this. endorsement: 8) The additional Insured must give us wrtrtsn noll"" Il$ SOOn as praQlillabie of an 'occur-"'"""" a, !In oll'enli/il Which may restJll in a Claim. TO tta extant pMslble. StJth notice l!hOuld Indudc: CG 024608 05 @ 2()05 The Sf. Paul Tmvelers Campen;,"" Illc. Page 1 of:1: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY i. How, when and where the "occurrenceII' or offense took place; II The namas and addresses of any injured persons and witnesses; and iii, The nalUre end location of any injury or damage ar1slng out of the "occurrence" or offense, b) If a dalm I. made or 'sull' I. brought againsl tile additional Insured, the additional Insured must: I, Immediately rerord the specf4ics at Ine daim or ....... iI· 8I1d the date receivad; and It, Notify us as soon as preclicable, The additional insured must sea to it that wa receive written notice or the claim or ":suit" as soon as praclicable, oj The addillonal insured must Immediately send us copies of all lell81 papers received in oonneclion with tile claim or 'suit", cooperate with us In the investigation or settlement of the claim or detense against the usUit". and oIherwll;e comply With all policy condlUans. d) The eddnlonel insured must tender !he de- fenee and Indemnity of any claim or "suit" 10 any pravlde, of "other Insurance" which would cover the additional Insured for a loss we cover t.mder this endorsement. However, this condition doas not affect whether the Insur- ance prOlilded 10 the additional insured by this endorsement Is primary 10 "other insur- ance" available to the additional insured which covers that person or organizatron 8S a named insured as described In paragraph 3. above. !5. The following definition is added to SECTION V -DEFINrrlONS, "Written contract requlrfng insurance" means that part of any written con!reet or agreement under which you are required to include e person or organization as an additional jn~ l!l.II'Ild on this Coverage Part, provided. that the 'bodily injury" and "properly damage" oc- curs and U1e j'personal injury" is caused by an offense committed: •• After the .ignlng and execution of the contract or agreement by you: b. While that part of the contract ar agreommt Is in effect; and c. a.fore Ihe end of !he pOlicy period Page 2 012 e 2005 The st. Paul Travelers Companies, I~c CG 02 46 08 05 *NOT YET APPROVED* 110617 dm 0073564 Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving An Amendment to Utilities Rule and Regulation 23 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Pertaining to Special Wastewater Utility Regulations The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utilities Rule and Regulation 23 (Special Wastewater Utility Regulations), Part B, pertaining to Hauled Waste, and Part C, pertaining to Maintenance of the Wastewater Collection System, is hereby amended to read in accordance with sheet numbers 1 through 11, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utilities Rule and Regulation 23, as amended, shall become effective July 11, 2011. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(8). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS RULE AND REGULATION 23 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS Issued by the City Council Effective 67-111-20102011 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. HAULED LIQUID WASTE The discharge of hauled liquid wastes is regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.09.110. The following Rules and Regulations are to implement this Provision. 1. PURPOSE To provide a means of treating certain waste prohibited from entering the Wastewater system, City of Palo Alto Public Works Department operates a Hauled Liquid Waste Treatment Site at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). Certain wastes may be hauled to this site for treatment and disposal. 2. WASTES ACCEPTABLE FOR TREATMENT a. Hauled septic tank wastes b. Portable toilet pumpings c. Grease Trap wastes 3. HOURS OF OPERATION Hours of operation for the Liquid Waste Hauler’s Treatment Site shall be as established by the Manager, Water Quality Control. 4. WASTE IDENTIFICATION The hauler must provide a liter sample, taken in the presence of a waste treatment plant operator, of the contents of each tank to be discharged. The nature and source of the waste will be verified before the truck is permitted to unload. If laboratory analysis indicates that the material is not as represented (septic tank waste or toilet piping from a domestic source) the hauler’s permit may be revoked. SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS RULE AND REGULATION 23 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS Issued by the City Council Effective 67-111-20102011 Sheet No 2 5. HAULING OPERATIONS a. To discharge at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, a hauler must: 1. Obtain a Trucker’s Discharge Permit from the Manager, Water Quality Control; 2. File with City of Palo Alto Public Works DepartmentCPAU a Certification of insurance and a hold harmless clause: 3. Post a bond or cash deposit with City of Palo Alto Public Works DepartmentCPAU’s appropriate division. b. The Trucker’s Discharge Permit shall be issued for twelve-month periods and is revocable for the violation of any of these Rules. The fee for Trucker’s Discharge Permits shall be as stated in City of Palo Alto Public Works DepartmentCPAU Rate Schedule S-4. c. Insurance policies in force with limits of liability shall not be less than those specified below as follows: Coverage for Which Limits of Insurance is Afforded Liability Worker’s Compensation & Compensation Employer’s Liability Statutory Bodily Injury Liability $1,000,000 each Person except automobile including $1,000,000 each occurrence the following coverages: Coverage for Which Limits of Insurance is Afforded Liability Protective, Completed Operations, Board Form Contractual and SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS RULE AND REGULATION 23 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS Issued by the City Council Effective 67-111-20102011 Sheet No 3 Personal Injury Property Damage Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence except automobile including the following coverages: Protective, Completed Operations, Board Form Contractual and Personal Injury Property Damage Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence except automobile including the following coverages: Protective Completed Operations and Board Form Contractual Bodily Injury & Property Damage $1,000,000 each Person Liability Automobile $1,000,000 each occurrence d. The hauler must agree to save and hold harmless City of Palo Alto Public Works DepartmentCPAU, its officers, agents, and employees from any liability of any nature whatsoever caused in whole or in part, by the negligence of the hauler, or his agents, or employees, arising out of such operation. 6. BILLING Waste Haulers will be billed directly for grease, septic tank and portable toilet wastes. 7. REFUSAL OF WASTES City of Palo Alto Public Works DepartmentCPAU reserves the right to reject any Load of hauled waste under the following conditions: a. If the waste is not properly identified b. If there is not sufficient storage capacity at the plant for the Load c. For reasons of public health or safety at the discretion of the Manager, Water Quality Control Plant. d. If the Load contains waste materials not authorized by these Regulations. SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS RULE AND REGULATION 23 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS Issued by the City Council Effective 67-111-20102011 Sheet No 4 C. MAINTENANCE OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM Depending on whether the City’s Wastewater main is located in the public right -of -way or in an easement, the Customer may be solely responsible for the inspection, maintenance and repair of a portion of the lateral or the entire lateral. (A lateral is the pipe connecting a building’s plumbing system withto the City's Wastewater main.) 1. CITY’S WASTEWATER MAIN IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY If the City’s Wastewater main is located in the public right -of -way, the Customer is responsible for the upper portion of the lateral, from their home or structure updown to and including the connection to the City’s Wastewater main cleanout box, as shown on the diagram below. In cases where a cleanout at the property line does not exist or the existing cleanout is greater than five (5) feet from the property line, the City is responsible for only the portion of the lateral located between the property line and the City’s Wastewater main. The City will install a cleanout in the planting strip, at the back of the sidewalk, or matching the water meter box setback distance and the cleanout will be installed on private property within five (5) feet of the property line. If the Customer (or the Owner, if the Customer is not the owner of the property) refuses to permit the City to install a cleanout, then the Customer (or the Owner, if the Customer is not the owner of the property) shall be solely responsible for the lateral running from the City’s Wastewater main to the home or other structure. SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS RULE AND REGULATION 23 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS Issued by the City Council Effective 67-111-20102011 Sheet No 5 2. CITY’S WASTEWATER MAIN IN AN EASEMENT The City’s Wastewater mains that are located in easements are often, but not always, located at the rear of the property rather than under the public street or public right-of-way surface. If the City’s Wastewater main is located within an easement, CPAU will be responsible for the inspection, maintenance and repair of the City’s Wastewater main located therein. The Customer is responsible for inspecting, maintaining and repairing the City’s Wastewater lateral, including, but not limited to:, clearing any stoppages and any clean -up related to lateral backups. The diagram below illustrates the Customer’s areasphere of responsibility. SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS RULE AND REGULATION 23 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS Issued by the City Council Effective 67-111-20102011 Sheet No 6 3. CUSTOMER'S RESPONSIBILITY REGARDLESS OF LOCATION OF CITY’S WASTEWATER MAIN These rules shall apply no matterwithout regard to where the location of the City’s Wastewater main is located. a. If the City’s Wastewater main’s maintenance is necessitated by or otherwise results fromin a violation of the Municipal Code and/or these Regulations, CPAU may assign responsibility to the userCustomer, and may refuse to perform such maintenance. b. The Customer will be responsible for replacing non-plastic Wastewater laterals whenever the Customer is building a new structure or constructing additions/remodels that have a value greater than fifty percent (50%) of the current value of the existing structures on the lot. Reconnection to a City’s Wastewater lateral will only be allowed on existing plastic pipe laterals meeting current WGW Utility Standards. All laterals constructed of non-standard pipe materials must be replaced, per the WGW Utility Standards, from the main up to and including the cleanout at the property line at the fees listed in Utility Rate Schedule S-5, or by the Customer’s contractor at the Customer’s expense. c. The inspection, maintenance and repair of Pprivate sewer mains and laterals areshall be the responsibility of the Customers (or the Property Owners, if the Customers are not the Property Owners) up to and including the connection of the private sewer mains and laterals to the City’s Wastewater mains or manholes. However, the City will conduct at SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS RULE AND REGULATION 23 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS Issued by the City Council Effective 67-111-20102011 Sheet No 7 its cost (without cost to the Customers or the Property Owners) and assume temporary responsibility for the inspection and maintenance or repair, if required, of the private sewer mains and laterals if the City determines that an unsafe condition exists with respect to such private sewer mains and laterals and CPAU has created such unsafe condition. CPAU’s temporary responsibility and obligation to inspect and maintain or repair, if required, any private sewer main and lateral will continue until CPAU has restored the private sewer main and lateral, which are initially determined to be in an unsafe condition, to a safe condition, and the City at its cost has taken such other reasonably necessary actions regarding any other utility facilities that may have contributed, directly or indirectly, to the existence of the unsafe condition. d. The Customer will be responsible for the on-site Wastewater Collection System in accordance with the Municipal Code, including: 1. Preventing storm Wwater, roof or yard drainage, basement, foundation or under- drainage from being discharged into the Wastewater Collection System, unless a permit is granted by Regional Water Quality Control Plant. In addition, any plumbing or piping that is connected or could be connected that would allow the future discharge of storm Wwater or ground Wwater into the Wastewater Collection System is prohibited. 2. Maintaining the condition of the on-site Wastewater Collection System so that it is water -tight and does not allow the infiltration of groundwater. 3. Keeping the clean-out box at ground level and visible. If, after receipt of a 30 -day notice from CPAU, the Customer has not made the clean-out box accessible, CPAU may remedy the inaccessibility by performing the work and charging the Customer for the actual costs incurred. 4. Installing, maintaining, and ensuring the proper usage of Grease Control Devices in accordance with the Sewer Use Ordinance (Section 16.09.103 of the Municipal Code). If the source of grease contamination in the Wastewater Collection System can be linked to a particular Customer, the Customer may be held responsible for cleaning or causing the cleaning of the Wastewater Collection System, including any associated costs or damages incurred by the City. 5. Limiting the Wwater inflow rate to the Wastewater Collection System during fire system testing to 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates must be diverted to a detention SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS RULE AND REGULATION 23 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS Issued by the City Council Effective 67-111-20102011 Sheet No 8 tank to limit the flow rate to 30 GPM. 6. Limiting Wastewater ejector pumps usage so that the following conditions are met:. The pump(s)’ output capacity may not exceed 100 GPM. The Wastewater lateral must change to a 4” gravity flow lateral at least 20’ from the City-owned clean out. The velocity in the 4” gravity flow lateral must not exceed 3 feet per second. The tank and float shall be set up such that the pump run -time does not exceed 20 seconds or 33 gallons pumped during each cycle. 7. Installing an approved backwater valve per the latest adopted version of the California Plumbing Code, Section 710.0, when the floor elevations with fixtures or drains connected to the Wastewater Collection sSystem are less than one foot above the next upstream Wastewater main manhole cover. The upstream Wastewater main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 4. NOTIFICATION TO CPAU If a Wastewater stoppage occurs, the Customer shall timely notify CPAU. CPAU will then determine ifwhether the stoppage ishas occurred in the portion of the system maintained by CPAU or the Customer (or the Property Owner, if the Customer is not the owner of property). CPAU will clear the stoppage that has occurredfrom the property line or clean out to the main in the portion of the system maintained by CPAU. D. SAMPLING OF INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES IN EXCESS OF 25,000 GALLONS PER DAY In order to properly apportion costs of operation and maintenance of the RWQCP to the large industrial or commercial users, it is essential to determine both the quantity and quality of Wastewater produced by each user discharging 25,000 gallons per day or its equivalent. The following is adopted as a fair and equitable method of developing the necessary criteria: 1. FLOW The quantity Charge shall be based upon the metered Water served to the industrial or commercial user being billed. Exceptions will be made for the following: a. For Customers with one or more cooling towers, the volume of evaporated Water associated with cooling (inflow less outflow) may be used to offset flow calculations SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS RULE AND REGULATION 23 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS Issued by the City Council Effective 67-111-20102011 Sheet No 9 for Wastewater billing. To be eligible for such offsets, the Customer must comply with the following items: 1. Inflow Water data (a) Customer must have inflow Water Meter(s) on all cooling tower inlet(s); (b) Meter(s) must be annually certified by County Department of Weights and Measures; (c) Proof of Certification(s) must be submitted to Utilities along with annual Meter Reads; 2. Outflow Water data (a) Five (5) cycles of concentration will be assumed for outflow calculations; (b) Customers whose cycles of concentration are greater than five (5) and who want to have this reflected in their calculations must have outflow Meter(s) installed; (c) Outflow Meter(s), if installed and used for purposes of calculation, must be annually certified by County Department of Weights and Measures; (d) Proof of Certification(s) must be submitted to Utilities along with annual Meter Reads; 3. Data acquisition and submittal (a) Customer is responsible for reading and recording each inflow Meter(s) flow (and each outflow Meter, if applicable) on a monthly basis; (b) Meter Reads should be performed at approximately the same time each month; (c) The following data, at a minimum, must be recorded at each reading: i. Date of read ii. Inflow read(s) for each inflow Meter iii. Outflow read(s) for each outflow Meter (if applicable) (d) The City of Palo Alto reserves the right to periodically review Customer's Meter(s) for accuracy; SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS RULE AND REGULATION 23 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS Issued by the City Council Effective 67-111-20102011 Sheet No 10 4. Participation rules and restrictions (a) Customer must have six (6) months of data in the first year to be eligible for participation; (b) Customer must annually submit twelve (12) months of data thereafter; (c) Inflow data (and outflow data, if applicable) must be submitted to the Utilities Customer Service Division annually by May for consideration in calculations for July (the start of the City's fiscal year); b. In cases where the user has extensive landscape irrigation and summer monthly consumption exceeds the average monthly consumption of January, February, and March by more than 50 percent (50%), the average of the January, February, and March consumption shall be used for calculating wastewater discharge for the remaining months of the year. c. If an outflow Meter has been installed, such metered outflow will be used to determine flow in lieu of recorded water meter consumption. 2. CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND, SUSPENDED SOLIDS, AMMONIA a. Measurements of the concentration of these constituents shall be taken from 24-hour composite samples collected periodically for each industrial discharger discharging in excess of 25,000 gallons per day to the wastewater collection system. 1. The constituent concentrations found in these samples and previous samples shall be averaged to provide the basis for establishing the Wastewater Treatment Charge to be levied to the discharger being sampled. 2. All samples shall be analyzed at the laboratory of the RWQCP. Treatment Charges will be based upon the quantity and concentration found in the waste stream monitored. b. If an establishment’s piping configuration, or other physical considerations, render representative Effluent sampling prohibitively complex or infeasible, then CPAU shall set the establishment’s level of sewage effluent constituents SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS RULE AND REGULATION 23 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS Issued by the City Council Effective 67-111-20102011 Sheet No 11 for billing purposes at the average effluent levels of industries in CPAU, or where feasible, at the average effluent constituent levels of similar establishments. c. Sampling results are intended to provide an estimate of the quality of Effluent discharge by the facility. Sampling results can vary significantly depending on the facility processes operating on the day of sampling. If the annual sampling results in combination with the flow data indicate a revised annual bill to the Customer, the amount of the increase or decrease shall not exceed 25 percent. The 25 percent limitation is independent of any change in rates or Charges to Rate Schedule S-2. (END) City of Palo Alto (ID # 1892) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 1892) Council Priority: City Finances, Community Collaboration for Youth Well-Being, Emergency Preparedness, Environmental Sustainability, Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: City Council Priorities Quarterly Report Title: City Council Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report for the Period Ending June 30, 2011 From:City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Approval of the City Council Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report for the period ending June 30, 2011. Executive Summary The City Council adopted Council priorities earlier this year on January 22, 2011. Background The City Council was provided a report in April of this year that included a master list of the Council priorities and key goals under each priority. At that time, Staff indicated they would provide quarterly update reports to the City Council. The enclosed report is the first quarterly update report on the progress of the priorities for the period April to June 2011. The report includes the original information, plus the current status and next steps for each priority. The City Council will receive the next report in early October for the period of July to September 2011. Attachment City Council Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report Summary, April 1 to June 30, 2011 July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 1892) Attachments: ·Attachment A -Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report (PDF) Prepared By:Danille Rice, Department Head:James Keene, City Manager City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager   City of Palo Alto, City Manager’s Office  www.cityofpaloalto.org  650.329.2100                                                 City of Palo Alto 2011   Strategic Priorities Quarterly Report               July 11, 2011                             Volume 1, Issue 1                 For the period ending June 30, 2011     INSIDE THIS ISSUE   2011 Strategic Priorities Summary                         Pages 3‐4   Strategic Priorities Narratives:   City Finances                                                               Pages 5‐14   Emergency Preparedness                                         Pages 15‐22   Environmental Sustainability                                   Pages 23‐34   Land Use & Transportation Planning                      Pages 35‐44   Youth Well Being                                                        Pages 45‐52                           Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 2                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t                               This Page Intentionally Left Blank                                                                     Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 3                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t   2011 Strategic Priorities Summary    A. City Finances (CF)   Goals  1. Complete labor negotiations with all major bargaining groups    2. Complete refuse fund study and stabilization  3. Complete economic development strategic plan  4. Execute new budget and fiscal measures to help ensure long‐term financial stability  5. Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission to complete analysis of the City’s long‐term infrastructure  needs and report to the City Council    B.  Emergency Preparedness (EP)   Goals  1. Conduct community exercise  2. Evaluate a secondary electrical transmission line source   3. Implement recommendations of Foothills Fire Management Plan  4. Implement Office of Emergency Services (OES) restructure  5. Improve Emergency Operations readiness     C.  Environmental Sustainability (ES)   Goals  1. Evaluate construction of composting digester or alternatives   2. Evaluate plan to introduce electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at commercial sites, residential  sites, and City facilities  3. Establish formal collaboration with Stanford University  4. Explore methods to integrate Palo Alto Green into City sustainability programs  5. Prepare Urban Forest Master Plan    D.     Land Use & Transportation Planning (LUTP)   Goals  1. Complete strategies and plans at the Development Center (DC) to improve customer service and  accountability  2. Complete draft Rail Corridor Study outlining measures to provide for community land use,  transportation, and corridor urban design  3. Complete Stanford University Medical Center Renewal and Replacement Project  4. Substantially complete update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Housing Element  Update and 2 Area Concept Plans   5. Facilitate, in cooperation with local and regional agencies and organizations, the development of a  short and long‐term action plan to sustain Caltrain   6. Actively participate, in preparation of, regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB375), and  Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)  7. Prepare Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan update                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 5                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     A. City Finances (CF)    Executive Summary:    City finance strategies form the foundation for the City Council identified priorities.  A stable financial  picture in the short and long‐term ensures the City’s ability to deliver on all five Council priorities.   Sound City finances are integral to Palo Alto’s quality of life.      A key principle of the City’s finance objectives is to provide for the City’s finances in the near and long‐  term. For example, the City negotiates labor agreements on a periodic basis, and the contracts  envisioned during this cycle are ones where the City plans to make meaningful long‐lasting changes to  key City legacy costs (e.g., pension and health care).  The City is working toward developing a  sustainable business model for funding ongoing infrastructure needs while eliminating a major backlog  of City projects.  These efforts will take time, yet this investment is well worth the effort.  This work  will result in improving the overall high quality of life that Palo Alto citizens have come to rely and  expect from their City government.  Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.      1. Develop and execute new human resource contracts that help the City manage its labor costs to  a sustainable level over the long‐term.    2. Execute an economic development program that supports and creates new municipal revenue  streams to support vital City services, and positions the City for the 21st century innovation  economy.    3. Outline a comprehensive initiative to fund ongoing infrastructure maintenance, and the existing  backlog of City projects.  A quality infrastructure base is vital to the community’s quality of life,  and attracting and sustaining a robust business base to support City services.    4. Explore in‐depth available potential revenues, along with expenditure reductions that enable  the City to create a long‐term sustainable fiscal ecosystem for the City to maintain and  ultimately enhance City service delivery and quality of life.  The solution to the City’s finances  should be multi‐dimensional, incorporate new or enhanced revenues, reset long‐term labor  contracts, and use new methods to deliver City services.                                           Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 6                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t                                     This Page Intentionally Left Blank                                                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 7                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     1.  Project: Complete labor negotiations with all major bargaining groups  Department: Human Resources Department   Project lead: Interim Human Resources Director  Project start date: May 2010  Target completion date: December 2011    Background and description:     In 2009, the City took the lead among Bay Area public agencies by initiating steps in contract  negotiations with Service Employees International Unit (SEIU) and Management and Professional  employees to implement a two‐tier retirement benefit.  The new benefit changed the retirement  formula for new hires to 2% @60.  The City also implemented an employee medical contribution with  non‐public safety employee groups (e.g., management, professionals, and SEIU employees).  Over the  past year, the City has been involved in difficult negotiations with two out of the four public safety  unions: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Local 1319, and the Palo Alto Police Manager’s  Association (PAPMA).  The other two sworn safety units will begin contract negotiations in spring  2011.  Many existing benefits were negotiated over an extended period of time and are long  established.  These are challenging negotiations to address in a short period of time.      In 2010, Council reaffirmed the importance of attracting and retaining a quality workforce but  emphasized the critical need to balance this objective with a commitment to sustainable employee  compensation. In addition, Council directed that systemic problems and issues be addressed with  systemic solutions.  As described in the City’s input to the Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report, the  City agreed that unsustainable employee costs must be aligned with available resources, taking into  consideration the City’s significant infrastructure needs and the public’s expectation of services.  As  demonstrated by its balanced budgets, minimal use of reserves, AAA credit rating, and excellent  annual outside audits, the City prides itself on responsible financial stewardship and management.   The City fully intends to maintain these best practices and adjust costs and revenues as needed.   Progress is dependent on the City’s success in its collaboration with employee units.  The City must  abide by contractual obligations of its labor contracts, as well as legal requirements to meet, confer,  and bargain in good faith over matters within the scope of representation.  This places real and  practical constraints on the City’s ability to move forward with changes it may believe necessary, but  which are subject to negotiation.  The City strives to reach agreements that ensure a sustainable  financial future, and one which provides excellent services to the community.  Identified below are  goals for Fiscal Year 2011.    1. PAPMA is a new bargaining unit. The City and PAPMA are in negotiations to create their first  Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).    2. The City has been negotiating with the Fire Fighters’ Association since May 2010.  The City  determined that a further productive movement toward a negotiated agreement cannot be  reasonably expected after eight months of negotiations, and declared impasse on February 15,  2011.  This action initiated a binding interest arbitration of the unresolved issues. Dates for  Arbitration have been set for the Fall.  3. The City typically negotiates with the Fire Chiefs’ Association after the Fire Fighters’  negotiations’ conclude.  Given the lack of progress as described above, the City will initiate  negotiations with the Fire Chiefs in spring 2011 with the goal of reaching an agreement in Fiscal  Year 2012.  4. The City and SEIU will meet in spring 2011 to prepare a successor agreement that is scheduled  to expire on June 30, 2011.                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 8                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     5. Palo Alto Police Officers' Association (PAPOA) deferred their scheduled wage increase in FY 2010  for one year to provide relief to the City’s budget and negotiated an additional year on their  existing contract for a new expiration date of June 30, 2011.  Negotiations o begin in the Spring,  2011.    Current status:     The City continues in negotiations with PAPMA to create their first Memorandum of  Understanding (MOU.)  The City reached impasse in negotiations with IAFF/Palo Alto Firefighters  in February 2011.  Arbitration hearing is scheduled in September 2011.  The City has continued  with informal discussions in hope of reaching agreement in accordance with Council direction.   Negotiations with the Fire Chiefs’ Association was initiated in May 2011.  The City reached an  agreement with SEIU to rollover SEIU’s contract, keeping its existing terms, and extending the  contract until June 30, 2012. The City held preliminary off‐the‐record discussions with PAPOA in  the Spring of 2011, with formal negotiations targeted to begin in July 2011.     Next steps:     The City will begin formal negotiations with PAPOA in July 2011.  The Utilities Management and  Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA) is a new unit.  The City certified UMPAPA in May 2011  and will begin negotiations in July 2011.                                                                               Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 9                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     2.  Project: Complete refuse fund study and fund stabilization  Department: Public Works Department   Project lead: Interim Public Works Director  Project start date: August 2010  Target completion date: December 2011     Background and description:     Studying the Refuse Fund and executing a plan to balance and stabilize the fund is one goal identified  by the Council. This enterprise fund supports a large array of City services including garbage,  recyclables, compostable collection, disposal, street sweeping, household hazardous waste services,  and supporting City‐owned facilities.  City‐owned facilities include the Recycling Center and the Palo  Alto Landfill and Composting Facility.  Due to multiple factors, such as the success of the City’s zero  waste services, downturn in economy, and use of reserve funds, the Refuse Fund financial health has  been compromised.  Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.    1. Rebuild the Refuse Fund’s Rate Stabilization Reserve to a level that meets established  guidelines. This includes ensuring balanced annual operating budgets and establishing a stable  annual revenue stream.  2. Assess and realign refuse rates among users. The City is finalizing a Cost of Service Study.  The  results of this study will be used to evaluate the current refuse rate structure, and help make  recommendations for changes.   3. Continue to work towards zero waste. The City has made great strides towards reaching this  goal, and much of its success is connected to the Refuse Fund conservation pricing rate  structure.    Current status:    Major progress has been made this fiscal year in returning the Refuse Fund to financial health and  stability. Fiscal Year 2011 revenues are matching expenditures for the first time since Fiscal Year 2008,  and reserves are no longer decreasing. The Palo Alto Landfill is being closed with substantial savings to  follow.  Short and Long‐term time schedules have been developed to place the Refuse Fund on a  trajectory to full sustainability.       Next steps:    A major set of analysis will be presented to the Council on July 6, 2011 with refuse rate changes to  ensure financial health in Fiscal Year 2012.  The Cost of Service Study is anticipated to be completed in  fall 2011.                                                Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 10                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     3.  Project: Complete economic development strategic plan  Department: City Manager’s Office  Project lead: Economic Development Manager  Project start date: January 2011  Target completion date: December 2011    Background and description:     Economic development is nearly always a strategic priority for local municipal business retention and  business expansion.  Business attraction strategies have direct correlation to revenues and City  services.  Stable and predictable revenues are critical to the community’s quality of life.  Identified  below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.    1. Develop new revenue streams and innovative uses for under‐utilized City owned properties.  2. Provide leadership in the outreach and messaging for the Development Center (DC)  restructuring process.  3. Outreach to the City’s largest revenue generating and most innovative companies.  4. Create emerging technologies demonstration and pilot partnerships program partnerships,  especially with innovative green/clean tech companies.  5. Enhance the City’s Doing Business webpage and create engaging and effective marketing  collateral geared towards the City’s diverse business environment (i.e. retention and attraction  of different market segments), and transition to electronic marketing.    Current status:    A draft of the Economic Development Strategic Plan was presented to the Policy & Services  Committee in March 2011.  A second iteration was brought forward to the Committee in June 2011.   In the meantime, work has progressed on all of the above items:     1. A plan has been developed at the staff level on a revenue generating use for a City‐owned small  parcel and will be returning to the Council in fall 2011.  2. The DC restructuring effort continues, and there has been significant outreach to the business  community and press from the Economic Development Team. Staff will be bringing  recommendations for the DC improvements to the Council at the August 1, 2011 meeting.   Recommendations include a recommendation for central management of all DC operations,  including utility and public works functions.    3. The Economic Development Team has targeted many of the City’s largest revenue generating and  several innovative companies for outreach.  Staff has made numerous contacts by email, phone,  and in person.  In many cases, solutions to issues have been orchestrated by the Economic  Development Team, including many companies expanding or re‐locating to Palo Alto.    Next steps:     A third iteration of the plan will be brought forward in September 2011 with the idea to separate the  larger policy discussion and the actual team plan. While the policy discussion is expected to be  ongoing, the plan and outlined deliverables, including those prioritized above, are expected to move  forward as a City Manager directive.                               Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 11                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     4.  Project: Execute new budget and fiscal measures to help ensure long‐term financial  stability  Department: Administrative Services Department   Project lead: Chief Financial Officer  Project start date: May 2011  Target completion date: Fall 2011     Background and description:    The City currently completes and uses a Long‐Range Financial Forecast (LRFF).  The forecast provides  actual financial data for the most recent completed budget year, adopted and projected financial data  for the current budget year, and projected financial data looking forward ten years (to 2021).  The  LRFF is used to project and quantify a baseline projection of revenues, expenditures, cash flows, and  fund balance for the General Fund.  The forecast enables the City to take steps to plan for potential  revenue and expenditure increases/decreases, and future liabilities and costs (e.g., health care and  PERS pensions).  The forecast enables policy makers to evaluate financial impacts of potential  initiatives and to plan ahead to ensure the long‐term fiscal stability of the City.  To achieve fiscal  stability it is critical for revenues to exceed expenditures on an ongoing basis.  The LRFF shows a  snapshot of the expected ten‐year relationship between revenues and expenditures to enable  corrective action to be taken if needed.  The forecast helps community members understand the  organization’s present and future financial capabilities and resource allocations to support services  and programs.   Coupled with the City’s annual budget documents, the LRFF provides an invaluable  source of financial information for those interested in the City’s financial plan.      The plan allows the City to evaluate potential new revenues, expenditure reductions, and service  options that can achieve a stronger more sustainable budget.  For example, last year the City made  substantial changes to its PERS pension plan by moving to a new two‐tier formula (2% @ 60) for non‐ safety personnel.   In addition, the City will be implementing an employee contribution to healthcare  this year, which will reduce the City’s healthcare expense immediately. The City needs to execute  additional measures to ensure long‐term financial sustainability.  Identified below are goals for Fiscal  Year 2011.   1.  Identify new, potential revenue sources including preparation of a report outlining various     potential revenue options, the pro’s and con’s of each option, and estimated potential revenues.   Potential new revenues options include but are not limited to ambulance service subscription tax,  business operations tax, City‐wide parcel tax, increase in property transfer tax, and increase in  utility users tax.  2. Develop plans to address increased employee compensation (salary and benefit) costs, and  develop plans to share cost increases with employees.   3. Identify additional operational efficiencies, such as contracting out City services, exploring  potential partnerships with existing non‐profit organizations and non‐governmental organizations,  adjacent cities, and other governmental organizations.  Also consider establishing partnerships  with regional public agencies on the Peninsula to jointly act to deliver services and programs.     a.    Analyze and review organizational structure for potential functional consolidation options (e.g.  placing all maintenance functions within one department), and consolidation options with  regional agencies that may provide similar services to the City (e.g. public safety and dispatch  services).  b.    Consider the potential ability to civilianize certain public safety management positions.  c.    Consider an exclusive towing services contract in the City.                           Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 12                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     d.    Explore contracting out fleet maintenance and utility billing services.  e.    Explore partnerships with private entities and/or Friends Groups for cost sharing for  community   services.   4.   Identify a long‐term sustainable financial model to address the City’s infrastructure backlog, and  develop a model to fund infrastructure preventive maintenance.  This model will be developed in  coordination with the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) and presented to the Finance  Committee.      Current status:    Staff is working on a draft report and anticipates providing the report to the Council in the fall 2011.   The timing is based on coordination between this report and a draft report from the IBRC.    Next steps:     Completion of the report is anticipated in fall 2011.                                                                                       Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 13                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     5. Project: Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission to complete analysis of the City’s  long‐term infrastructure needs and report to the City Council  Department: City Manager’s Office   Project lead: Deputy City Manager  Project start date: November 2010  Target completion date: December 2011    Background and description:      The Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) was established to make recommendations to the  Council to address the City’s current infrastructure backlog.  The IBRC will return to the Council in the  fall 2011 after considering the following list of questions:    1. What is the complete listing of the City’s infrastructure backlog and future needs? What criteria  should be used to prioritize this list?  2. Are there ways the City’s infrastructure needs can be prioritized into five year increments that  can be financed and effectively implemented given current Staffing resources?  3. What are potential financing mechanisms that could be used to address the City’s infrastructure  needs? Should there be a one‐time financing mechanism or some ongoing source of  infrastructure funding?  What are the options for each of these choices?  4. Is a bond measure the best mechanism for funding the infrastructure backlog?  If so, when  should this move forward and how could it be structured?  5. How can public/private partnerships be leveraged as an infrastructure funding mechanism?  6. How are project cost estimates developed and are these in alignment with other local  jurisdictions?  7. How do Enterprise Fund infrastructure projects intersect with General Fund infrastructure  projects?    Current status:    The IBRC divided into three sub‐committees and analyzed the project’s problems.  Information was  gathered via surveys, Staff interviews, meetings with other cities, and individual members’ research.  Staff and IBRC Commissioners developed the most detailed and extensive needs assessment database  prepared to date.  On May 17, 2011 Staff and four IBRC Commissioners toured multiple City parks,  bike paths, streets, bridges, and medians to view examples of the infrastructure backlog and needs.    Next steps:    The three IBRC sub‐committees are preparing reports and a Council study session is being scheduled  in July 2011. A draft report from the IBRC is anticipated in September 2011, with a final report  returning to Council in December 2011.                                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 14                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t                                     This Page Intentionally Left Blank                                                               Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 15                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     B. Emergency Preparedness (EP)     Executive Summary:     The City, like any community in the Bay Area, is susceptible to a variety of natural hazards including  earthquakes, floods, wild‐land fires, and man‐made disasters.  The City is committed to protecting life,  property, and the environment through a number of activities including preplanning, training, rapid  emergency response, and public safety education.  Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.    1. The City will conduct one major community emergency preparedness exercise.   Staff will work  with community groups to plan and host a full‐scale exercise which will include multiple  neighborhood groups and City departments.  This exercise will be consistent with accepted  national exercise guidelines.    2. The City will evaluate and complete a feasibility analysis and report on alternatives for a  secondary electrical transmission source. The new transmission source will be established in a  separate geographical area that would eliminate the possibility of a single contingency outage  interrupting power to the City.    3. Implement recommendations of the Foothills Fire Management Plan to address treatment and  mitigation measures that are required to ensure the viability of evacuation routes and protect  life and property.    4. Implement the Office of Emergency Services (OES) restructuring, and focus on four key  readiness areas: preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery.    5. Improve emergency operations readiness per the City’s Emergency Operations Plan.  The City  will work to better coordinate all City facilities and personnel to respond in a coordinated and  cohesive fashion.                                                     Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 16                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t                                     This Page Intentionally Left Blank                                                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 17                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     1.  Project: Conduct community exercise   Department: Police Department   Project lead: Acting Public Safety Director   Project start date: January 2011  Target completion date:  September 2011    Background and description:     The City and the community seek to improve response time to major incidents.  A coordinated, well‐ planned response requires an exercise component in order to rehearse and clarify Staff and resident  roles.  Such exercises are building blocks in support of a strategic, multi‐year training and exercise  plan.   Deliverables identified are as follows, and not in rank order:    1.   City departments will work with volunteer groups and external stakeholders to develop the  scope, purpose, objective, and scenario for a City/community exercise.  2.      Identify a joint community/Staff exercise design team to coordinate/manage the exercise, and  support community resilience.  3.   Encourage participation within community groups and volunteer organizations.  4.   Manage exercises which will evaluate the following: 1) intra‐City communications; 2) sharing  real‐time communications with external stakeholders; and 3) internal emergency preparedness  procedures.  5.   Develop an after‐action report and corrective action plan post‐exercise.    Current status:    In 2010, the Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) community group, under the leadership of Lydia Kou,  pioneered the first post‐major‐earthquake scenario called Quakeville. Residents "camped" in a local  park which simulated the immediate aftermath and illustrated some of the challenges that could arise.   In 2011, PAN will partner with the City, via the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council, to involve  residents and Staff (police, fire, public works, utilities, etc.) in an expanded Quakeville community  exercise.    Next steps:     The Training and Exercise Design Team (TEDT), part of the City's adoption of the Homeland Security  Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP), includes Lydia Kou and subject matter experts Sergeant  Wayne Benitez, Sergeant Scott Savage, and Officer. Ken Dueker.  The TEDT has met several times to  define the scope and objectives of the exercise.  Next steps will be to define the "vignette" scenarios  that will include the Block Preparedness Coordinator (BPC) program communicating with the new  Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC).  A series of BPC training classes, neighborhood‐level  training sessions, and mini‐drills have been ongoing, in preparation for the big event.                                            Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 18                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     2.  Project: Evaluate a secondary electrical transmission line source   Department: Utilities Department   Project lead: Utilities Director  Project start date: July 2010  Target completion date: December 2011    Background and description:     In February 2010, the City had electricity interrupted to the entire service area for over ten hours. This  outage was due to an airplane leaving the Palo Alto Airport striking Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)  transmission lines. The purpose of this initiative is to investigate alternatives to install a secondary  electrical transmission source to the City. The new transmission source would be established in a  separate geographical area that would eliminate the possibility of a single contingency outage  interrupting power to the City.  Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.    1. Continue coordinating with PG&E and the Independent System Operator (ISO) on including a  transmission line connecting PG&E’s Ames Substation to Palo Alto’s Adobe Creek Substation.  This project would be part of PG&E’s system plans to improve transmission service in the Bay  Area.  2. Continue discussions with Stanford University on a project that would connect the City’s Quarry  Substation to Stanford’s Substation, and to the Stanford Linear Accelerator’s 230 kV Substation.  3. Prepare a report for Council on viable alternatives for providing a secondary transmission source  and take action per Council direction.    This project is expected to take between three and six years to complete once a viable alternative is  determined due to planning and environmental requirements for a transmission facility.    Current status:    The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) submitted its draft plan in April 2011.  The draft  plan did not recommend that the Ames to Adobe Creek Substation line be installed in the current  planning year. CAISO continues to review this alternative and it may be included in future planning  years.      Next steps:    As a result of this recommendation, the City proposed that the CAISO consider an alternative  transmission line connecting the SLAC Substation to the Quarry Road Substation. The City met with  the CAISO in June 2011 and identified numerous issues requiring further resolution.  Additional  meetings are planned and negotiations are ongoing.  The City will continue to include Stanford  University in discussions with the ISO regarding the review of the alternate proposal.                                           Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 19                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     3.  Project: Implement recommendations of Foothills Fire Management Plan  Department: Fire Department   Project Lead: Acting Public Safety Director  Project Start Date:  January 2011  Target Completion Date:  Ongoing     Background and description:     In 2009, the City commissioned a study to evaluate the fire potential in the wildland‐urban interface.   The study revealed that there are treatment and mitigation measures that are required to ensure the  viability of evacuation routes and to protect life and property.  Identified below are goals for Fiscal  Year 2011.    1.   Extend consultant’s contract to assist Staff in implementing the Foothills Fire Management Plan.   2.  Submit the application to classify the Foothills Fire Management Plan as a Community Wildfire  Protection Plan; explore grant eligibility under Community Wildfire Protection Plan to fill the  estimated $715,000 obligation.  3.  Seek Public Works Capital Improvement Program for ongoing mitigation activities to implement    recommendations.  4.  Host three educational sessions for residents to review the community’s role in mitigation,  prevention, response, and recovery.     5.  Apply for CALFIRE Work Crew as one option to assist in mitigating identified hazards in the  Foothills Fire Management Plan.     Current status:     Staff issued a new scope of work with the City’s consultant Wildland Resource Management, Inc. The  scope included implementation plans, using a fiscally‐constrained environment, which identified  possible cost‐saving alternatives for some abatement processes and possible grant funding (e.g.,  California Fire Safe Grants).  The application was successful, and the plan has been accepted as a  Community Wildfire Protection Plan.  A City consultant will help identify grant funding.  Capital  Improvement Project (CIP) funding for $200,000 has been identified in Fiscal Year 2012.  Staff is  planning three public educational meetings, which will cover homeowner fire mitigation (defensible  space laws), the Block Preparedness Coordinator (BPC) program, and evacuation.  The use of CALFIRE  Work Crews is anticipated to be covered in subsequent funding options.      Next steps:     Following CIP funding allocation and to ensure work is prioritized based on Plan priorities, Staff will  form an interdepartmental team, including Wildland Resource Management Inc., to coordinate the  implementation and develop a work plan.  The work plan will include biological surveys and treatment  prescriptions.                                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 20                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     4.  Project: Implement Office of Emergency Services (OES) restructure  Department: City Manager’s Office/Police Department  Project lead: Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Safety Director   Project start date:  May 2011  Target completion date: Fall 2011    Background and description:     In October 2010, the City Manager’s Office commissioned a study to review the City’s practices in  emergency management.  A consultant was hired by the City to conduct a gap analysis and make  recommendations to improve emergency/disaster readiness. The consultant interviewed key  stakeholders, inspected critical infrastructure, and reviewed emergency planning procedures.  Staff  and the consultant presented recommendations to the Council at a study session held in spring 2011.      The report examined how the City and community can improve in the four key emergency/disaster  readiness categories:  preparedness, prevention, response, and recovery.  The report examined the  appropriate staffing and structure for these emergency preparedness activities.  The consultant  presented recommendations that can enhance the City’s coordination with the community.       Current status:    The OES consultant report was completed and reviewed by the Council and the Palo Alto/Stanford  Citizen Corps Council (CCC) in April 2011.  In May, the Council's Finance Committee voted to fund the  implementation of the report.  The Finance Committee recommended the following actions: 1) hiring  a OES Director; 2) funding one OES Coordinator position; 3) funding one administrative assistant  position; 4) funding the recommended hazard studies (such as HazUS); and 5) creating a separate OES  budget and structure.      Next steps:     Staff, with continued input from the CCC, seeks to move forward with the hiring process for the OES  Director. The report identified numerous high‐priority projects for the OES Director, including  completing various emergency plans, improving the City's Emergency Operations Center,  implementing training for City staff, and optimizing City‐sponsored volunteer programs.  Outreach and  interviews for the OES Director is anticipated to occur in the Third Quarter of the current Fiscal Year.                                                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 21                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     5.  Project: Improve emergency operations readiness   Department: Police Department   Project lead: Acting Public Safety Director  Project start date:  January 2011  Target completion date:  Ongoing    Background and description:    The City seeks, per its Emergency Operations Plan to “incorporate and coordinate all facilities and  personnel…into an efficient organization, capable of responding in a coordinated and cohesive  fashion.”  To better achieve this objective, the City will make a number of improvements in training,  equipment, and technology.    Deliverables identified are as follows, and not in rank order:      1.  Staff will implement a multi‐year, training and exercise plan designed to engage the community  and improve response capabilities.   2.   Enhance interoperable communications and further develop virtual consolidation of dispatch  with neighboring communities.   3.   Identify and seek grant funding for support equipment for emergency response operations.   Staff will explore regional partnerships and support joint planning initiatives, such as the  pending National Disaster Resiliency Center at NASA Moffett Field.  4.  Develop and implement training for Staff on personal and family emergency preparedness.      Current status:    In September 2010, Staff held a study session with the Council.  Numerous projects and plans for  improvement were identified, including the role of the new Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council  (CCC), and the importance of regional efforts, such as the National Disaster Resiliency Center at  Moffett Field.  Multi‐discipline training, such as Urban Shield, was discussed.      Staff efforts to improve the Emergency Operations Plan and training include the following:   Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP): develop Multiyear Training & Exercise  Plan (MTEP); create Training and Exercise Design Team (TEDT); create a comprehensive, multi‐entity  Training Calendar; interface with regional TEDTs; hold joint‐planning meetings with community  stakeholders.     Regional Cooperation:  Officer Dueker is the City’s liaison to regional training groups and exercises,  including the Great Shake Out and Urban Shield; continue to support nascent National Disaster  Resiliency Center at NASA, Moffett Field; review Section 13 of the September 2010 study session  report regarding other regional initiatives.   Emergency Plans: finalize City Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP), Recovery Plan, Pandemic & Public  Health Plan, and Community Emergency Plan; Rewrite the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP).   Emergency Operations Center:  Staff are evaluating transition to Mobile Emergency Operations Center  (MEOC) as the primary EOC.     Support of other Council Priorities:  It should be noted that some of the community‐based efforts are  supportive of youth well being.  For example, the 41 Developmental Assets encourages the City to  create volunteer opportunities for youth.  This same objective is part of the CCC.  The integration of  businesses and business districts as "neighborhoods", as part of the Block Preparedness Coordinator  Program, supports the City finances priority.                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 22                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     The ongoing contraction in sales tax revenue increases the burden on public safety to attract visitors  and shoppers to the City.  Many revenue sources may be “fragile”, as a criminal incident or other  emergency could disproportionately harm such entities or areas.  Due effort is appropriate to aid the  private sector in its preparation, response, and recovery.  Officer Dueker is working with the Stanford  Shopping Center and Stanford Hospital in joint exercises and on a hazards vulnerability analysis.   Further, Officer Dueker is coordinating with Thomas Fehrenbach to expand this activity to other  private sector partners.    Next steps:     When the OES restructuring is complete, the City will start a long‐term process to improve its  resilience.  The new OES Director will be tasked with surveying the existing situation, studying best  practices, and formulating a strategic plan for the next several years.  While there are many areas of  improvement, it should be noted that the City's Block Preparedness Coordinator Program and CCC  were key factors  in the Red Cross awarding the City with a 2011 Innovative Heroes Award.    An opportunity for Palo Alto is to be an innovative leader by establishing a solar‐powered, off‐the‐grid  wireless network for disaster recovery: the Community Disaster Network (CDN).  One objective of the  CDN is to allow real‐time event reporting and information sharing among all levels of community  response and volunteer structures.  During a major storm, when phone and electrical lines are  impaired, a Block Preparedness Coordinator could survey neighbors and fill out an online report form  on their laptop computer (or even iPad®) via the CDN.  This information would then be relayed to the  City’s EOC and other key locations, all without the time‐consuming and laborious paper forms and  voice‐radio methods currently employed.                                                                                 Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 23                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     C.  Environmental Sustainability (ES)    Executive Summary:     Environmental sustainability is a core value and ongoing priority for the City.  The City has been a  leader in this area in the Bay Area metropolitan region and in North America.  The City is a Certified  Green Business and has adopted a Climate Protection Plan (CPP), Sustainability Policy, Palo Alto Green  Program, and continues to make strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).  One recent  example is the initial installation of LED streetlights in the City.  Identified below are goals for Fiscal  Year 2011.    1. Continue to look at the City’s utility plant operations for methods and strategies to increase the  ability to reduce GHG.  This year a major focus will be to look at the financial practicality of new  composting digesters or other alternatives to reduce GHG’s.    2. Fleet operations and gas vehicles are a major contributor to GHG emissions.  Staff will explore  the ability to install electric vehicle charging stations at various locations in the City to facilitate  and encourage the use of electric vehicles.    3. Stanford has a robust sustainability program and several initiatives underway and ongoing in  this area.  Stanford is a leader in research and development of green technologies and practices.  The City will explore developing a more formal collaborative relationship with Stanford to  determine if there are synergies and potential partnerships to enable both entities to leverage  combined efforts to be leaders in sustainable communities.      5. The residents of Palo Alto have embraced many green practices on their own and with the  encouragement of the City.  This includes recycling, use of available transit options (e.g.,  Caltrain), planting of trees, and many other homegrown initiatives.  The City has a number of  sustainability programs and engages in practices to encourage sustainability in the community.   This initiative will provide a focused effort in looking at strategies and tactics to leverage  knowledge, resources, and talent to build a more sustainable community.     6. Palo Alto is a City with a considerable urban forest canopy.  This canopy provides considerable  environmental and community quality of life benefits to the community.  A master plan will  enable the City to create a long‐term plan for managing and enhancing this significant asset, and  help the City meet its sustainability goals.                                           Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 24                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t                                       This Page Intentionally Left Blank                                                                         Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 25                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     1.  Project: Evaluate construction of composting digester or alternatives   Department: Public Works Department   Project lead: Interim Public Works Director  Project start date: October 2010  Target completion date: October 2011    Background and description:    Evaluating alternatives for handling the City’s organic residuals (e.g., yard trimmings, food scraps, and  wastewater solids) is a critical goal of the Council’s environmental sustainability priority.  Identified  below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.    1. Hire a consultant to evaluate a dry anaerobic digestion system.  2. Prepare an applicable level EIR, focused on 8‐9 acres of Byxbee Park, adjacent to the City’s  Regional Water Quality Control Plant.  3. Conduct a Preliminary Analysis before completion of the study.  4. Explore energy conversion technologies in conjunction with the Regional Water Quality Control  Plant long range facilities planning.  5. Explore partnering with local agencies within 20 miles of Palo Alto.    Current status:    The Preliminary Feasibility Analysis was completed on time and vetted in a series of public and Council  meetings. Proponents and opponents of a Palo Alto facility on the Landfill/Byxbee Park site had  extensive comments on the analysis.  Comments were also received on the alternative regional sites in  the South Bay Area.    Next steps:    The key comments on the Preliminary Analysis were addressed and a draft Feasibility Study was  discussed by City Council at its  June 27, 2011 Council meeting.  A full study is anticipated to return to  the Council in fall 2011.                                                                 Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 26                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     2. Project: Evaluate plan to introduce electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at  commercial sites, residential sites, and City facilities  Department: City Manager’s Office  Project Lead: Assist to the CM for Sustainability  Project start date: 2011  Target completion date: EV chargers installed July 2011; remainder of goals will continue through the  end of the year    Background and description:    Electric vehicles (EVs) are being introduced in the marketplace, and require new charging  infrastructure. Encouraging the use of EVs will reduce the community’s greenhouse gas emissions  (GHG), and help meet the Council approved Climate Protection Plan goal of reducing municipal and  community GHG emissions by 15% below 2005 levels by 2020.  Having publicly accessible EV charging  stations at City facilities is one way of encouraging the adoption of EVs.       The City has undertaken a number of steps to facilitate the adoption of EVs.  Staff has provided  charger technology and permitting requirement information to customers on the installation of  chargers in homes.  An assessment of long‐term EV penetration in town has been undertaken, and in  September 2009, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) received a report assessing the potential  impacts of EVs on the distribution system.  Staff concluded that no short‐term capacity problems were  expected.  Longer term, if several households within close proximity of each other purchased electric  vehicles, some larger transformers and secondary conductors may need to be installed to alleviate  localized capacity restraints.  The Utilities department will continue to monitor charger installation  locations in the City. EV charging is being encouraged in the City’s Building Code.  Staff has applied for  and obtained two State grants totaling $35,000 to install EV chargers at publicly available facilities.  A  number of charging stations are anticipated at libraries utilizing Measure N bond funds.  Identified  below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.    1. Staff plans to return to the UAC and the Council with a number of policy level questions. These  may include:   a. How can the City best leverage private capital to install EV chargers?  b. Should free EV charging be provided at City facilities to the public?  c. Should the employee commute program include incentives for EV charging?  d. How can the City best deploy charging stations and optimally utilize the limited parking  space available downtown for EV charging?  e. What is the role of the Utilities Department in installing EV chargers?  f. Should the Utilities department offer time‐differentiated residential electric retail rate  for EV owners to encourage charging during evening hours in order to reduce the  adverse impacts on the electrical grid and distribution system?   2. Determine how to best leverage State grant funds to install EV chargers in publicly available  facilities, and explore the possibility of leveraging private equity capital to provide the funding  shortfall. EV chargers cost between $2,500 and $100,000 each, depending on charging speed  and between $1,500 and $50,000 each to install depending on proximity to electric service and  other location‐specific conditions.                                  Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 27                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     3. Determine locations to install chargers.  There are two charging spots at City Hall and the Alma  Parking Garages; however, these are older charger technologies.  Staff anticipates installing  three of the newer chargers at the same locations, while maintaining the older chargers for a  few more years.  A faster level 3 charger is being considered at the street level on Hamilton  Avenue in front of City Hall, but would cost significantly more than the level 2 chargers.  Other  public parking areas are being evaluated for EV charger installations.  4. A Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from the private sector to optimally deploy EV  chargers is planned.  This RFP will provide an option for the private sector to utilize the grants,  and add their own funds to install, own, and operate charging stations in town, and provide a  franchise fee to the City for utilizing public space.    5. Many of these goals will be accomplished by December 2011, with all goals expected to be  completed by June 2012.      Current status:    A multi‐departmental task force has been created and meets monthly to help develop an EV policy  and resolve related issues including: the installation of new and maintenance of existing EV chargers in  city facilities, developing a fee structure for using City EV chargers, developing an expedited permit  and inspection process for residential and business customers, and determining appropriate locations  throughout Palo Alto for City or privately installed EV chargers.    The internal task force is taking advantage of secured grant offerings from the Department of Energy  (DOE), California Energy Commission (CEC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District  (BAAQMD) to install chargers at publicly accessible locations. The first is a ChargePoint America  Program (DOE funded) grant that will provide the City with five Coulomb ‐ Level 2 chargers.  A portion  of the installation cost will be offset by a grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District  (BAAQMD) and the remainder will be paid for by the Utilities Department.  The five Coulomb – Level 2  chargers were received in June and will be installed in July in the following locations:    ChargePoint America Program – Coulomb Level 2 Chargers  No. Downtown Garage No. of Chargers Location ______   1 City Hall 2 A‐Level   2 Bryant Street 2 Level 2   3 Alma/High (South) 1 Level 2 ______    At the April 27, 2011 UAC meeting, the commission provided feedback regarding the Utility’s and the  City’s role with respect to EVs.  The UAC supports cost recovery for EV‐related capital expenses and  electricity.  In addition, the UAC supports the development of time of use rates to encourage evening  charging providing relief to the distribution system.  To the extent that private funds are available, the  UAC did not encourage City‐owed and operated EV charging stations.     The internal task force presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission in late June 2011 to  get their feedback on EV related policies, EV charging station signage, and parking plan related issues.                                       Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 28                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     Next steps:     The internal task force continues to thoroughly review all related EV issues and is developing a  comprehensive EV policy.  Council approval of this policy will be sought in the fall of 2011. After  adoption of the policy and determination of the City’s role in the development of the EV charger  infrastructure, Staff will recommend whether to pursue any additional grant funds for EV chargers and  where funds will come from for costs not covered by grant funds.    A third grant from the CEC, in the amount of approximately $26,000, is still available for EV charging  station installations throughout Palo Alto.  Rather than invest the funding in additional EV charging  station infrastructure, the internal task force has opted to solicit private‐sector input in the  development of an EV Charging Station Program through a two‐step RFP process that will be released  in summer 2011.  Staff believes that releasing the RFP will help the City better understand the EV  market, and therefore make better decisions regarding infrastructure.                                                                                                         Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 29                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     3.  Project: Establish formal collaboration with Stanford University  Department: City Manager’s Office   Project lead: Deputy City Manager   Project start date: 2011  Target completion date: December 2011, but partnership will be ongoing    Background and Description:     Stanford University represents the most progressive and innovative research in the area of  sustainability and climate change.  Palo Alto can leverage its green initiatives through enhanced  collaboration with Stanford. Stanford has many programs engaged in sustainable innovation.  These  include the Precourt Institute, the Woods Institute for the Environment, and Sustainable Stanford.   While informal relations exist with Stanford, the City could develop strategic relations around  sustainability, allowing for resource sharing, best practices, and internship opportunities.  Identified  below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.    1.  Organize a Sustainability Partnership Summit open to the public, including Stanford and City  panelists.  2.  Organize a formal site visit to  Y2E2, including key Staff in Planning, Utilities, and Public Works,  highlighting innovative construction and facilities management techniques utilized by Stanford.  3.  Develop volunteer internship programs for at least one sustainable initiative.    Current Status:    The Assistant to the City Manager for Sustainability met with the Office of Government and  Community Relations and the Department of Sustainability and Energy Management at Stanford  University.  The group determined there were three main connection points which could be explored  and expanded to ferment a stronger relationship between Stanford University and the City.  They are  internships or academic exchange, faculty knowledge or City projects, and intra ‐ departmental  development or utility relationships.    Internships / Academic Exchange ‐ There have been and continue to be numerous Stanford students  completing internships in the City.  The team discussed formalizing the effort or process by having an  annual event where the students will present what they learned in their internship.     Faculty Knowledge / Projects ‐ There are a few faculty/student projects that have occurred, including  one at the WQTP with Professor Craig Criddle, which is expanding into the second phase of research.   The team discussed documenting some of these projects and honoring them and/or asking them to  present their project/results in a larger forum to develop a better connection between academic work  and the community. The team will explore the idea of incorporating this at an event at the Woods  Institute for the Environment.  Staff is looking into ways to make the procurement process for projects  with Stanford researchers more streamlined.    Intra ‐ Departmental Relationships ‐ There are existing working relationships between City  departments, such as the Utilities and Public Works departments and their counterparts at Stanford.   This could also include projects such as the Zipcar project or the Stanford Hospital.  Many of these  relationships have a sustainability focus or are related to sustainability initiatives.  Staff discussed the  idea of formalizing and publishing this information.                              Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 30                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     Next Steps:     The City will have a number of Stanford interns which Staff will work with to develop an event  scheduled at the end of summer 2011.  In late summer, the Assistant to the City Manager for  Sustainability and individuals from the Office of Government and Community Relations, Department  of Sustainability and Energy Management, and the Woods Institute at Stanford University will  reconvene to review the comprehensive lists of the main connection points and discuss a public  event/summit in the late fall/early winter 2011.      This summer, Stanford University and the City will begin the second phase of research to reduce  salinity in recycled water and enhance irrigation use. The City and Stanford University will begin to  develop decision models for extracting resources from wastewater under the national Science  Foundation grant.  This fall the City and Stanford University will attempt to establish a Public‐Private  Partnership Agreement, under which to continue collaborative research on other wastewater  resource recovery and urban water infrastructure issues.                                                                                              Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 31                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     4.   Project: Explore methods to integrate Palo Alto Green into City sustainability programs  Department: City Manager’s Office  Project lead: Assistant to the CM for Sustainability  Project Start Date: 2011  Target Completion Date: 2012    Background and Description:    The City offers numerous sustainability programs, including PaloAltoGreen, which is one of the most  recognized and progressive renewable energy programs the Utilities department offers.  Following the  Stanford model of an interdisciplinary approach to sustainability, the City could begin to integrate  various projects and activities such as emergency preparation, economic development, and  greenhouse gas reductions.  Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.    1.  Explore connections to broaden the City’s renewable energy and sustainability programs.   Employ the triple bottom line principles in a variety of programs.  2.  Bring community groups (such as the Citizen Core Council) together with sustainability groups  (such as Community Environmental Action Partnerships) to explore issues affecting both,  including the community’s preparedness in a changing climate.  3.  Hold study sessions with the Council, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), and  climate change experts to understand policy implications of rising sea levels and other effects of  global climate change.    Current Status:    In April 2011, Staff developed and presented to Council a comprehensive list of sustainability  programs and initiatives that the City has under taken or is participating in.  This multi‐departmental  inventory is a starting point in which to integrate the many initiatives and management tool to see  where Staff may need to expand or reduce initiatives.      Staff is reviewing opportunities to develop a multi‐department sustainability team whose goal would  be to provide an integrated, seamless approach to promoting sustainable behaviors.  This team will  seek out opportunities to work across departments, and with various community groups.  Staff is  developing a strategy to implement a comprehensive multi‐departmental outreach education plan for  the public.  The first step in the plan is for a sustainability webpage which would link many of the  efforts together.    Last year, Staff held a study session with the PTC to discuss including sustainability in the revision to  the Comprehensive Plan.  This discussion included incorporation of both mitigation (actions which  reduce long‐term risk and hazards of climate change) and adaptation (actions which mediate potential  changes due to climate change, including sea level rise).      Staff is working with the Community Environmental Action Partnership (CEAP) and other community  groups, such as Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN), Acterra, and Transition Palo Alto to help build  partnerships.  CEAP is in support of a community meeting or Council study session to discuss the  issues of adaptation in Palo Alto.  Staff is working with CEAP to reach out to local climate change  experts to bring this together as a community engagement.                                 Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 32                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     The Assistant to the City Manager for Sustainability is exploring opportunities to better collaborate  with the Coordinator of Homeland Security & Public Outreach in the newly formed Office of  Emergency Services (OES) to see if their community outreach, including collaboration with PAN and  the Citizen Core Council could be expanded to include outreach for the City’s sustainability programs.   The key concept is that green initiatives can directly support community disaster resilience.  Staff is  working on submitting a federal funding request for a grant to purchase a solar powered generator  from a local company for the Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC).       Another possible case for solar power is the Community Disaster Network (CDN).  CDN is an off‐the‐ grid WiFi network that will allow first responders, other City staff, and Block Preparedness Coordinator  Program community volunteers a means to efficiently exchange information, even when the phone  lines, power grid, and Internet may be impaired.      Next Steps:     This summer Staff will work on developing a new sustainability webpage.   Staff will work with CEAP  and other community groups for a fall 2011 event or study session focusing on adaptation.  In fall  2011, Staff anticipated the awarding of federal funding for the purchase of a solar powered generator  for the MEOC.  By winter 2011, Staff will meet with the PTC to further develop the discussion of  sustainability in the revision to the Comprehensive plan.                                                                                  Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 33                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     5.   Project: Prepare Urban Forest Master Plan  Department: Planning and Community Environment   Project lead: Director, Planning and Community Environment  Project start date:  December 2010  Target completion date:  November 2011    Background and description:    The Urban Forest Master Plan, partially funded by a grant from the California Department of Forestry  (CalFire), is intended to provide a strategic plan to help the City conserve and renew its urban forest,  to establish procedures and protocols to enhance the effectiveness of City operations and  maintenance, and to provide for consistent and effective monitoring of the urban forest.  Identified  below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.      1. Continue to provide for the protection of the environment, including trees, creeks, wildlife, and  open space.  2. Enhance the City’s environmental sustainability objectives, including the Climate Protection  Plan.  3. Ensure that the City has an accurate and complete picture of its urban forest.     4. Establish the urban forest as an asset and part of the City’s valuable infrastructure.  5. Engage the community as stewards of the urban forest.    The process and timeline for preparation of the Urban Forest Master Plan began in December 2010,  when the City contracted with Hort Science, Inc.  In January 2011, Staff conducted a successful online  survey to which 650 residents responded. During January and February 2011, Staff interviewed over  100 Staff members from all relevant departments. On February 7, 2011, the City’s consultant  introduced the project to the Council at a study session. Future public meetings and hearings will be  scheduled to accommodate further review of the draft plan and adoption by the Council.     Current status:    A preliminary draft of the Master Plan was submitted to CalFire in late May 2011.  CalFire has  reviewed the document and indicated its support for the direction of the Plan.  The Plan satisfies  requirements for reimbursement of the City’s $66,000 grant.  Working with the City’s consultant, Staff  will be working through the summer to revise and complete the draft, and then will schedule  community meetings and hearings with boards, Commissions, and Council in the fall.    Next steps:     In September 2011, Staff and the City’s consultant will revise the draft plan and hold a community  workshop. The Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning and Transportation Commission will  hold meetings in October 2011.  In November 2011, the Urban Forest Master Plan is tentatively  scheduled to return to the Council for adoption.                                       Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 34                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t                                       This Page Intentionally Left Blank                                                                                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 35                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     D. Land Use & Transportation Planning (LUTP)    Executive Summary:     Land use and transportation are key indicators of quality of life in Palo Alto. The overarching principle  of the City’s land use and transportation objectives is to provide for sustainable development and  services: growth, rehabilitation, and services that are sustainable in economic and fiscal terms, as well  as in environmental respects. The City desires to develop in ways that promotes the efficient delivery  of services, assures high quality development and design, protects and broadens the City’s tax and  revenue base, preserves and enhances key environmental attributes, minimizes energy and water use,  and promotes transportation alternatives such as walking, bicycling, and transit.  Identified below are  goals for Fiscal Year 2011.    1. Complete strategies and plans at the Development Center (DC) to improve customer service and  accountability.    2. Complete draft Rail Corridor Study outlining measures to provide for community land use,  transportation, and corridor urban design.    3. Complete the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Facilities and Replacement Project.    4. Substantially complete the update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Housing  Element Update and 2 Area Concept Plans.    5. Continue monitoring High Speed Rail (HSR) activities and collaborative work with Peninsula  cities and regional agencies.  Staff to work on a short‐term and long‐term action plan to sustain  Caltrain.     6. Actively participate in the preparation of the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy  (SB375), Regional Housing Needs Allocation.      7. Prepare Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Master Plan update.                                               Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 36                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t                                     This Page Intentionally Left Blank                                                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 37                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     1. Project: Complete strategies and plans at the Development Center to improve    customer service and accountability   Department: Planning and Community Environment   Project lead: Planning Director  Project start date:  July 2010  Target completion date:  December 2011    Background and description:     Development Center Blueprint Project is focused on improving the delivery of services at the  Development Center (DC). The City Manager’s public statement committed to having measurable  improvements implemented at the DC by the end of June 2011.  Identified below are goals for Fiscal  Year 2011.    1. Create a better customer service culture where there is predictability, clear standards, and a  performance measurement program in place to evaluate service delivery and assess customer  satisfaction.    2. Improve organizational efficiency at the DC and associated processes to minimize costs and  delays to customers.    3. Maintain or enhance community sustainability and economic development goals and objectives  through DC activities.    Current status:    The Development Center Blueprint project has entailed a series of efforts by the Steering Committee  (department heads and upper level managers), Staff Action Committee (approximately 20 Staff  members involved in the DC process from multiple departments), and a Development Center Advisory  Committee (professionals and others with periodic or regular interaction with the DC). Some process  changes have been implemented over the past six months.  An update was provided to the Council on  March 21, 2011. A current focus is to hire Staff to implement program actions, including piloting new  project management and point of contact procedures, as well as, maintaining adequate levels of  service at the DC counter.  The Deputy City Manager has been assigned to work part‐time at the DC,  helping oversee staff integration efforts and performance improvements.    Next steps:     In July and September 2011, it is anticipated that Staff will recruit and hire counter assistance, plan  check staff, and project management staff.  The DC will continue the pilot program currently  implemented.  Program finalization implementation will occur between July and December 2011.  In  December 2011, initial implementation is anticipated to be completed, and Staff will define items for  review and implementation.                                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 38                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     2. Project: Complete draft Rail Corridor Study outlining measures to provide for  community land use, transportation, and corridor urban design  Department: Planning and Community Environment   Project lead: Planning Director  Project start date:  November 2010  Target completion date: December 2011 (Phases I and II), June 2012 (Phase III)    Background and description:     The Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study is intended to provide a vision for land use, transportation, and  design along the Caltrain right‐of‐way and adjacent areas. The plan would identify opportunities for  growth near transit, while protecting nearby neighborhoods. The study would encourage more  pedestrian and bicycle‐friendly mobility, integral to furthering sustainable development in the City.  The study will allow consideration of land use and urban design techniques to enhance the potential  for economic development and increased revenues and tax base within the corridor.  Identified below  are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.    1. Contribute to a sense of community and place in neighborhoods and commercial districts.  2. Assure high quality of development and design.  3. Protect and broaden the City’s tax and revenue base.  4. Preserve and enhance key environmental features.  5. Promote transportation alternatives such as walking, bicycling, and transit.      The Rail Corridor Study will be conducted by Staff, a 17‐member Task Force, and an urban design  consultant. Public workshops and meetings with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the  Council will supplement the work of the Task Force. The study will be conducted in three phases:  vision, alternatives, and draft plan. Each phase will take approximately four to six months, and the  final plan is expected to be considered by Council in early to mid 2012.    Current status:    The Rail Corridor Task Force has met eight times to discuss a variety of issues, opportunities, and  vision concepts for the Corridor. A community workshop was held on May 19, 2011 to identify key  issues and opportunities. Study sessions with the Planning and Transportation Commission and  Council were conducted on June 8 and June 27, 2011 to summarize activity and progress to date.    Next steps:     A second community workshop will be held in late July 2011 with the Planning and Transportation  Commission to discuss a draft vision statement.  In September and October 2011, Staff will review the  draft vision statement.  August through December 2011, Staff and the Task Force will work with the  community to develop alternative scenarios (Phase II).  This will take place with periodic review by the  Planning and Transportation Commission and Council.  In early 2012, the preparation and selection of  a preferred scenario (Phase III), by the Task Force, Staff, and the public, will return to the Council for  review and approval.                                       Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 39                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     3. Project: Complete Stanford University Medical Center Renewal and Replacement  Project  Department: Planning and Community Environment/City Manager’s Office  Project lead: Planning Director/Deputy City Manager   Project start date: Early 2007  Target completion date: June 2011    Background and description:     The Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project is a  comprehensive, multi‐year development project to rebuild and restore the SUMC and School of  Medicine facilities in Palo Alto. The project will satisfy the shared objectives between SUMC and the  City to optimize the delivery of healthcare to patients and meet regional needs for emergency and  disaster preparedness. The project applicant is proposing changes and additions to meet State  mandated seismic safety standards (SB 1953), and to address capacity issues.  Various entitlements  required include certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Comprehensive Plan  amendments, creation of a new hospital zoning district, architectural review of the proposed  buildings, and a Development Agreement that would set land use regulations for a 30‐year period in  exchange of public benefits.  Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.     1. Meeting regional needs for emergency preparedness.  2. Minimizing environmental, financial, and municipal infrastructure impacts on the City.  3. Assuring a high quality of development and design.  4. Promoting sustainable development and green building design principals throughout the  project.  5. Promoting transportation alternatives such as walking, bicycling, and transit.       Since the SUMC representatives first introduced the project in late 2006, Staff has identified the  environmental impacts, conducted public outreach meetings, prepared fiscal analysis, held  preliminary design review meetings, and identified possible public benefits to be included in the  Development Agreement. In May 2010, the Draft EIR was released for public comment. In February  2011, the Final EIR and Response to Comments was completed. The Architectural Review Board and  the Planning and Transportation Commission completed their reviews in May 2011.     Current status:    On June 6, 2011 the Council approved all entitlements and the Development Agreement, and certified  the EIR for the project. The Second reading of the Development Agreement and zoning ordinances  was scheduled on June 20, 2011. Community concerns about the loss of Child Care facilities at Hoover  Pavilion postponed the Second Reading while Stanford worked to provide a relocation site during  construction (achieved).    Next steps:     In 2011, payments to the City will begin for community benefits.  In early summer 2011, construction  of improvements on Welch Road and the upgrade of the Hoover Pavilion will commence.  In 2011‐ 2012, Stanford hospitals will undergo review by the State (OSHPOD) for building permit review and  approval. In 2013, hospital construction will commence.  The completion of the entire project,  including hospitals, clinics, and parking garages is expected in 2025.                              Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 40                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     4. Project: Substantially complete update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan  Amendment/Housing Element Update and 2 Area Concept Plans  Department: Planning and Community Environment   Project lead: Planning Director   Project start date:  2008  Target completion date:  Late 2012    Background and description:     The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update are intended to provide  the framework for the City’s land use, housing, development, and transportation policies. The  Comprehensive Plan Amendment focuses on two Area Concept Plans and on updating policies to: 1)  assure provision of adequate support services to neighborhoods and businesses; 2) propose strategies  to retain and enhance retail and other commercial and revenue‐generating uses; and 3) ensure a  theme of sustainability throughout the City’s land use and transportation policies and programs. The  Area Concept Plans are being developed for the East Meadow/West Bayshore commercial/industrial  area and the California Avenue/Fry’s Area. The Housing Element is updated in accordance with State  law requirements and will outline the City’s housing objectives through 2014, including the provision  of affordable housing units during that period.  Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.       1. Contributing to a sense of community and place in neighborhoods and commercial districts.  2. Assuring a high quality of development and design.  3. Protecting and broadening the City’s tax and revenue base.  4. Preserving and enhancing key environmental features.  5. Accommodating housing for all segments of the population.  6. Promoting transportation alternatives such as walking, bicycling, and transit.       Current status:     The Comprehensive Plan is expected to be completed, in draft form, by early 2012 and then undergo  environmental review (Environmental Impact Report) prior to adoption. The Area Concept Plans have  received preliminary review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, and tentatively  scheduled for the Council’s consideration in mid‐2011. A draft Housing Element will be considered by  the Council in mid‐2011, and forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community  Development for review. The Planning and Transportation Commission has completed its review of  the policies and programs contained in the Housing and Land Use/Community Environment chapters.    Next steps:    The Planning and Transportation Commission will review the policies and programs for community  services, transportation, and business and economics in the months of June and September 2011.  In  September 2011, the draft Housing Element will be reviewed by the Council and forwarded to the  State Department of Housing and Community Development.  The Council will additionally review the  East Meadow Area Concept Plan.  In October through November 2011, the Council will review the  California Avenue/Fry’s Area Concept Plan.  Environmental review and adoption of the Comprehensive  Plan is anticipated in late 2012.                                   Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 41                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     5.  Project: Facilitate, in cooperation with local and regional agencies and organizations,  the development of a short and long‐term action plan to sustain Caltrain  Department: City Manager’s Office  Project lead: Deputy Director, Rob Braulik   Project start date: March 2011  Target completion date: December 2011    Background and description:     Caltrain currently provides fixed rail commuter services to the City.  There are two Caltrain stations,  one located at University Avenue in Palo Alto and another at San Antonio in the City of Mountain  View.  Palo Alto has the second highest Peninsula ridership numbers.  Stanford University represents  over 50% of Caltrain’s “GO Pass” participants.  Thus, Caltrain is an important component of the City’s  transportation system, and plays a critical role in helping local employers, students, and residents get  to and from their destinations.       Caltrain is currently facing an unprecedented operating deficit (e.g., $30M).  Effective July 1, 2011,  Caltrain is planning to make major service cuts to balance their budget.  These cuts would reduce  Caltrain commuter rail services during peak and off‐peak hours.  Caltrain is the only major regional  commuter transportation system without a dedicated funding source.      Given the importance of Caltrain’s services to the business community, Stanford University, residents,  and the Peninsula regional transportation system, the City is looking to participate, partner and  support actions that would put in place a viable financial plan to secure short and long‐term financial  stability.  Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.    1. Host a Palo Alto community forum in partnership with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group  (SVLG) to communicate and inform community members on the current financial plight of  Caltrain, and secure ideas and suggestions from the community, riders, and businesses about  potential solutions to produce a viable financial model.  2. Consult with our Federal and State legislative advocacy firms to advise the City on what  methodologies, programs, and tools may be available to help financially support the  modernization of Caltrain (e.g., electrification, positive train control).  3. Explore and evaluate with partners (including public agencies: San Francisco County and City,  San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), major  private employers, Stanford University and others) the viability of developing a dedicated  revenue stream to fund ongoing Caltrain operations (e.g., sales tax, parcel tax).    Current status:    On January 21, 2011, the City participated in SVLG’s forum on Caltrain’s short and long‐term fiscal  sustainability workshop.   On April 7, 2011, the City co‐hosted with SVLG a workshop on the same  topic in Palo Alto.  The City Council Rail Committee held five meetings in April and May where the  primary topic was Caltrain.  The April 13, 2011 meeting included a presentation from Santa Clara  County Supervisor Liz Kniss, who also sits on the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB).  The  PCJPB includes the City and County of San Francisco, San Mateo County, San Mateo County Transit  District (SamTrans), Santa Clara County, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).                                Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 42                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     To maintain current Caltrain service levels for one year, the PCJPB secured temporary interim  funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, board members, increasing fares by  $.25 beginning July 1, and related actions.  This period will be used to evaluate long‐term funding  strategies to sustain Caltrain service on the Peninsula.     The City continues to work with other public agencies, Federal and State legislative advocacy firms,  and SVLG to analyze strategies and plans to address Caltrain’s fiscal issues.  The City Council Rail  Committee continues to invite Caltrain’s technical and policy staff to present information on the  modernization of rail lines through electrification, installation of a new positive train control  switching system (mandated by the federal government), and the development of a fiscally  sustainable business model, with or without, HSR on the Peninsula.    There has been no definitive progress on analyzing or evaluating an in‐depth and long‐term fiscal  plan, which would include a dedicated funding stream for Caltrain service.  It is anticipated that  discussions will occur during Fiscal Year 2012 between the City of County of San Francisco, San  Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, major private  employers, Stanford University, and others.    Next steps:     The City Council Rail Committee will continue to monitor Caltrain’s fiscal situation and act  accordingly. Caltrain projects will attempt to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on  Electrification this summer.  If this schedule holds, the City may consider commenting on the EIR.   Discussions will continue with Supervisor Kniss, and other Federal and State elected officials and  neighboring public agencies, to provide input on strategies to develop a long‐term plan to address  Caltrain funding.                                                                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 43                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     6. Project: Actively participate, in preparation of, regional Sustainable Communities  Strategy (SB375) and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)   Department: Planning and Community Environment   Project Lead: Planning Director  Project Start Date:  2009  Target Completion Date: 2013    Background and description:     The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) required by SB375 and the accompanying Regional  Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) are important regional planning initiatives for the Bay Area. The City  will be affected by land use, housing, and transportation policies and incentives associated with the  efforts of regional agencies, particularly the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and  Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The City expects to provide meaningful input to  these initiatives, and work with other Santa Clara County cities to assure a voice for the sub‐region.   Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year 2011.     1. Enhance sustainability by promoting sustainable land development patterns and facilitating  alternative transportation modes.  2. Participate in regional planning and transportation solutions where appropriate, and assure  housing opportunities accommodate multiple segments of the population.   3. Use land use and zoning techniques to enhance the potential for economic development and  increased revenues and tax base.  4. Contribute to a sense of community and place in neighborhoods and commercial districts.    Current status:    Staff is attending 3‐4 regional and countywide meetings monthly to participate in these regional  planning discussions. Council Member Scharff and the Planning and Community Environment Director  attend monthly meetings of the Regional Housing Needs Methodology Committee.  The regional  agencies released an Initial Vision Scenario on March 11, 2011.  Staff reported to the Planning and  Transportation Commission on May 4, 2011, and to the Council on March 14, 2011.  A preliminary  Staff letter response is scheduled for Council consideration/revision on July 11, 2011.      Next steps:   On an ongoing basis, Staff will continue to attend regional meetings and participate in countywide  coordination efforts.  Alternative scenarios, released by regional agencies, are anticipated to occur in  July 2011.  In July through September 2011, the RHNA Methodology Committee is anticipated to meet  and release a draft.  In July and October 2011, local agencies are anticipated to respond to said  alternatives.  In October through December 2011, local agencies are anticipated to respond to the  draft RHNA allocations.  In early 2012, the preferred SCS scenario is anticipated to be released.  The  approval of the SCS is anticipated in early 2013.                                         Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 44                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     7.   Project: Prepare Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan update  Department: Planning and Community Environment   Project lead: Planning Director  Project start date:  November 2010  Target completion date:  October 2011    Background and description:     The current Bicycle Master Plan serves as the City’s guide for identifying and setting priorities for  bicycle transportation projects and programs in the community.  The last update to the Bicycle  Transportation Plan occurred in 2003.  The current update includes a pedestrian element providing an  opportunity to include more robust projects and programs that benefit key transportation  infrastructure not normally evaluated in a bike‐only plan. An updated Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan is  essential for accruing funding from regional grant sources. This year, upon development of the plan,  the City will embark on an aggressive update of its bicycle and pedestrian facilities based on the  following goals:       1. Continue to lead in providing for transportation modes other than single‐occupancy vehicles, in  order to provide alternatives to avoid traffic gridlock, enhance safety for children and adults,  and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  2. Identify and implement best practices in bicycle and pedestrian system design for both new  projects and updates to existing facilities such as colored bike lanes, bike boxes, and non‐ intrusive detection methods.  3. Continue educational efforts on the use of bicycle and walking transportation modes to schools,  and strengthen the link between neighborhood communities and schools through capital  projects.  4. Implement bicycle and pedestrian facilities to link major employment centers, such as Stanford  University, with existing transit facilities and other trail/street networks.   5. Identify and implement new innovations in bicycle design and pursue processes that allow their  implementation in the City.  6. Identify and pursue regional grant sources to implement Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan  projects and programs, such as the Highway 101 Bike/Pedestrian bridge at Adobe Creek.     Current status:     The development of the new Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is currently in process. A City‐wide  community meeting was held in March 2011, along with a Planning and Transportation Commission  study session in April 2011.  A Council study session was held on May 2011.  The Council study session  was preceded by a bike ride to tour of two of the City’s bicycle boulevards. A Parks and Recreation  Commission briefing was held on May 24, 2011. Following plan revisions, the draft plan will be  reviewed by various boards and Committees prior to consideration and adoption by the Council.     Next steps:     In July 2011, a review of the draft plan is anticipated by the Palo Alto Bicycle Committee, Citizens  Traffic Safety Committee, and the Parks and Recreation Commission.  A review and recommendation  by the Planning and Transportation Commission is anticipated in August/September 2011, and a  review and adoption by Council is anticipated in August/September 2011.                               Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 45                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     E. Youth Well Being (YWB)    Executive Summary:     The City plays two important roles with regard to community collaboration for youth well being. First,  the City plays a role of convener and coordinator, bringing the community together in order to  effectively harness the community’s talent, expertise, and goodwill so that the community may have  the greatest impact in fostering youth well being. A meaningful example of the City’s role as convener  and coordinator is seen in the Project Safety Net (PSN) Community Task Force. PSN is focused on  developing and implementing a comprehensive community‐based mental health plan for overall  youth and teen well being. A focus in 2011 is to support PSN as defined in the PSN Plan  (www.PSNPaloAlto.org).  Examples include gatekeeper training, developmental assets initiative, peer‐ to‐peer engagement, teen education on drug and alcohol abuse, track watch, youth forum, and  celebrating youth‐friendly businesses.     Secondly, the City plays a direct role in providing programs, services, and facilities for youth and teens.   Examples include the variety of afterschool programs at the Palo Alto Teen Center, Children’s Theatre,  Junior Museum and Zoo, Art Center, and Rinconada Pool. The City’s capacity to provide programs,  services, and facilities for youth well being is dependent on community collaboration through  substantial support of Friends groups and foundations.  An example of community collaboration can  be seen in the vision to build the Magical Bridge Playground in coordination with the Friends of the  Palo Alto Parks. The Magical Bridge Playground is planned for Mitchell Park and will be Palo Alto’s first  playground accessible to people of all abilities and ages.  Identified below are goals for Fiscal Year  2011.   1. Coordinate the PSN Community Task Force and guide its implementation.     Convene monthly PSN meetings to provide the space, atmosphere, time for progress reports,  community collaboration, and decision making.   Create a communications plan for PSN to keep the community informed on the City’s support  of youth and teens.   Coordinate two community trainings on identifying individuals at risk of suicide (gatekeeper  training), and how to report suicide threats to the appropriate parental and professional  authorities.  2. Develop and provide businesses with a simple set of specific opportunities to support youth and  teens.  3. In coordination with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) create an effective and  sustainable structure for the PSN Community Task Force.   Develop a Memorandum of Understanding between the PSN Community Task Force and its  members to define roles, responsibilities, and commitments.   Create a strategic plan to sustain the day‐to‐day activities of PSN and how various community  efforts for youth well being work together.   Secure private funding for PSN through grants, donations, and other means.   4. Incorporate the developmental assets into the planning, implementation, and evaluation of City  programs and services for youth and teens.   Include developmental assets language into job descriptions for Staff that work with youth  and teens.   Provide developmental assets training to all Staff that work with youth and teens.   Measure developmental asset outcomes in youth and teen programs.                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 46                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     5. Council and Staff to engage youth and teens in community decision making.   Actively participate and help coordinate the 2011 Youth Forum.   Council to hold a study session with the Youth Council.   Provide opportunities for teen involvement in community decision making through  teen leadership groups.   6. Celebrate and recognize youth and teens, along with community members, that make an  outstanding contribution to supporting youth.   Encourage and coordinate impromptu special events and recognition opportunities to  celebrate youth and teen accomplishments.   Publically recognize community members and organizations that make an outstanding  contribution to supporting youth.   7. Support Friends of the Palo Alto Parks’ goal of building Palo Alto’s first universally accessible  playground.   Monitor private fundraising efforts for the construction of the Magical Bridge Playground, and  report on the status of fundraising to the Council.                                                                                          Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 47                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     1.  Project: Implement Project Safety Net   Department: Community Services Department   Project lead: Division Manager of Recreation Services   Project start date: September 2009  Target completion date: Ongoing    Background and description:     The Project Safety Net (PSN) Community Task Force was formed in response to the tragic teen suicides  our community experienced between May 2009 and January 2010. The mission of PSN is to develop  and implement an effective, comprehensive, community‐based mental health plan for overall youth  well being in Palo Alto. The coalition is broadly represented with parents, medical professionals from  Stanford University, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and Palo Alto Medical Foundation, City of Palo  Alto, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), youth‐serving non‐profits, City Commissions, the Palo  Alto Youth Council, and many others. The PSN Community Task Force has defined 22 specific  strategies that fall into three categories: education, prevention and intervention. Details of the 22  strategies and history of PSN can be seen at the following website: www.PSNPaloAlto.org     Current status:   1. Coordinate the PSN Community Task Force and guide its implementation:   Monthly PSN meetings have been coordinated by the City and PAUSD.  The meetings occur  on the third Thursday of every month at the Lucie Stern Community Center. The meetings  are attended by an average of 40 community members. The typical format of the meetings  consists of a review by sub‐committees working on the education, prevention, and  intervention strategies followed by a learning item or guest speaker.   A website and a Facebook page for PSN has been created to provide regular updates for  anyone interested in learning about PSN and/or getting involved.    Several community trainings on identifying individuals at risk of suicide (gatekeeper training)  and how to report suicide threats to the appropriate parental and professional authorities  have occurred. A training was conducted in the winter for adults and three trainings  in the  spring for students.   Staff presented the Developmental Assets framework for youth well being to the Palo Alto  Chamber of Commerce, who subsequently voted to adopt the framework and are now  working on defining how they can best apply the Developmental Assets within the business  community.  2. With PAUSD, create an effective and sustainable structure for the PSN Community Task Force.   A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the PSN Community Task Force and its  members to define roles, responsibilities and commitments was created for 2010‐11 with  generous legal support from Covington and Burling. Twelve organizations contributed to the  MOU defining their commitments in Fiscal Year 2010‐11.     With the generous support of the Santa Clara County Mental Health Department, PSN  received a $30,000 grant for consulting services to help the PSN Community Task Force  define a sustainable structure. The planning process was conducted between March and  June 2011. The results of this work were presented to the City/ School Liaison Committee on  June 16, 2011.                                  Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 48                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t      Funding for PSN has come from a number of sources, including the Palo Alto Recreation  Foundation, Palo Alto Women’s Club, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and Stanford  University.   3. Incorporate the Developmental Assets into the planning, implementation, and evaluation of City  programs and services for youth and teens.   Developmental Assets language is being used in the recruitment of Staff and is being  incorporated into work plans for all Community Services Department Staff that work with  youth and teens.   A very engaged sub‐committee of PSN, called the Developmental Assets Initiative, has been  working hard to understand and articulate the meaning behind the Developmental Assets  survey that was conducted in October 2010. Presentations to Commissions, community  organizations, and the general public on Developmental Assets are ongoing. The primary  goal of the Developmental Assets initiative is to engage all residents in a conversation about  youth well being.    Measuring Developmental Asset outcomes in youth and teen programs remains an  important goal. The Developmental Assets survey results, that represent the voice of more  than 4,000 students was made available in March 2011. Staff focus has been on interpreting  and understanding the data and sharing the results.   4. Council and Staff will engage youth and teens in community decision making.   Staff, elected officials and many community partners actively participated in coordinating  the 2011 Youth Forum. The Youth Forum was held on May 21, 2011. This year’s forum was a  one day event offering a series of various sessions. The session themes included athletic  performance, student empowerment, visual arts, performing arts, and healthy lifestyles. The  session themes were created to draw a wide range of students with different interests.  Although the structure of the Youth Forum was different than last year the goal of building  relationships between students and adults remained the same. All sessions were taught by  local professionals, parents, and caring adults. Sessions offered students the opportunity to  learn important life skills, plan local events, and interact with adults from the community.   A study session with the Council and the Youth Council is tentatively scheduled in October  2011.   The City is providing opportunities for teen involvement in community decision making  through teen leadership groups such as the Palo Alto Youth Council, Teen Advisory Board,  Teen Arts Council and Junior Advisory Board. Teen leadership groups work with Staff to plan  events, workshops, and activities like the Palo Alto Youth Forum, music nights, and dances.  The Parks and Recreation Commission and Human Relations Commission have assigned a  commissioner as a liaison to the Palo Alto Youth Council. The commissioners attend at least  one Youth Council meeting a month.     5. Celebrate and recognize youth and teens, along with community members, that make an  outstanding contribution to supporting youth.   The City coordinated, in collaboration with many community partners, a number of events  to celebrate and recognize youth and teens this year. A notable event was the Parade of  Champions in January 2011 which recognized the Palo Alto High School football team and  volleyball team for winning State championships. The parade was a tremendous success  with thousands of residents participating. Other events included the May Fete Parade.  The  theme for this year's parade was "Books are Hidden Treasures ‐‐ Dig In!" and was chosen to  reflect the Developmental Assets program recently adopted by the City to support healthy  youth development.                              Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 49                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t      Other events included Day of Service on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and a teen event  called “Ignite” where teens from all Palo Alto high schools came together for a celebration  at the Lucie Stern Community Center.     With regard to publically recognizing community members and organizations that make an  outstanding contribution to supporting youth the Community Services Department  recognized Becky Beacom and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation for their outstanding  service and contribution to Project Safety Net and youth well‐being. The PSN Community  Task Force also received the Santa Clara County Human Relations Award for promoting and  protecting the human and civil rights of youth in Santa Clara County in April 2011.  Moreover, Project Safety Net was also honored by receiving Stanford University’s  Community Partnership Award for initiative, leadership and involvement in a collaborative  project that promotes the vitality and well‐being of our mid‐peninsula community in May  2011.    Next steps:     Through PSN’s work in its first two years, programs in suicide prevention, Developmental Assets,  youth voice and outreach, mental health counseling, networking health care providers, and  similar efforts have taken root, developed, or joined together. PSN continues to represent a  powerful collection of community resources that are engaged and working together in new and  creative ways. Thanks to the talent and commitment of PSN members, Staff has managed to  move matters forward. However, coalitions built on good will and organized under an MOU  umbrella have initial potency and may inherently be short‐lived without dedicated resources.  The challenge of improving and sustaining a community, in which suicide gets no traction, and  where youth and teens thrive, is a long‐term proposition. Organizational resources need to be  up to the task. Consequently the most immediate next steps include the following:   Bring the PSN planning efforts that define a sustainable structure for PSN to the City/School  Liaison Committee for discussion.   Secure administrative capacity for coordinating PSN coalition, convening partners,  promoting policies and practices, and advocating the elements of a strategy for making  youth well being an ongoing part of Palo Alto’s values and culture.                                                               Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 50                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t                                         This Page Intentionally Left Blank                                                                             Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 51                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     2.  Project: Monitor fundraising for Magical Street Bridge   Department: Community Services Department   Project lead: Director, Community Services    Project start date: July 2011  Target completion date: June 2013    Background and description:     In the fall of 2008, parents of special needs children approached Staff about the inadequacy of access  to Palo Alto playgrounds for some children or their caregivers. As an example, some developmentally  challenged children are unable to grasp and hold the chain supports of most playground swings.  Although some swing sets have cradle‐type swings for very young toddlers, these cradles are not large  enough for a developmentally disabled child who is six years old. Advocates for universally accessible  playgrounds have pointed out that there are nearly 1,500 children in Palo Alto between the ages of 4  and 18‐years of age who have special, visual, auditory, sensory, or developmental needs. In addition,  there are hundreds of physically‐challenged adults or caregivers who can not play and directly interact  with their children or grandchildren at municipal playgrounds because of physical barriers.    The Friends of the Magical Bridge organization was founded in 2009, and is a funding partner with the  Friends of the Palo Alto Parks. Friends of the Magical Bridge have developed conceptual designs for a  universal access playground in the undeveloped section of Mitchell Park, near the rear of Abilities  United and Achieve, Inc. The conceptual plans for a 20,000‐square foot playground were reviewed by  the Parks and Recreation Commission in 2009.  The Commission concluded that the development of a  universally‐accessible playground in this location would be consistent with the Master Plan for  Mitchell Park. In reviewing the conceptual plans for this playground, the Human Relations Commission  also endorsed the concept of the project.    Staff has worked closely with representatives of the Friends of the Magical Bridge and Friends of the  Palo Alto Parks to share the concept of this new playground with various Commissions, Staff Members  and the Council.  As part of the 2012 Capital Improvement Project Budget, Staff has introduced a new  project (CIP PE‐12000) that will provide up to $300,000 in funding as the City’s share for the project.  The Friends estimate that the project will cost $1,600,000.  The Friends have embarked on a  fundraising drive to raise the $1,300,000 needed for their share of the design and construction costs.     Current status:    1. On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee reviewed the draft Capital Improvement Project  Budget, which included the City’s share of construction and planning expenses.  Members of  the Friends of the Magical Bridge were present at the Finance Committee meeting and  answered questions about the status of fundraising for the project.  2. Staff drafted a letter of intent which outlined the responsibilities of the Friends of the Magical  Bridge and City for developing final designs for the project, and seeking necessary permits for  the project.  The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed and amended the draft letter of intent.   The revised letter of intent was sent to the Friends on May 18, 2011, for their review and  approval.  3. On May 17, 2011 the need for a universally‐accessible playground was discussed with sub‐ committee members of the Surface Committee of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission.                               Project Tracking Report (April 1 – June 30, 2011)       Page 52                       Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o  St r a t e g i c  Pr i o r i t i e s  Qu a r t e r l y  Re p o r t     Next steps:     1. It is Staff’s intent to return to the Council with a letter of intent on July 18, 2011 for approval.   2. Under the terms of the letter of intent the Friends of the Magical Bridge will have until June  30, 2013, to raise the funds for the project and be able to enter into a construction agreement  with the City for the project.    ACITY OF V PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto (ID # 1883) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 1883) Summary Title: West Bay Opera Agreement Title: Approval of a Renewed Public/Private Partnership Agreement with West Bay Opera for the Cooperative Use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre From:City Manager Lead Department: Community Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize a renewed public/private partnership agreement between the City of Palo Alto and West Bay Opera (Attachment A). BACKGROUND The Lucie Stern Community Theatre is used by three local theatre companies who produce roughly 15 productions annually. These three companies, Palo Alto Players, West Bay Opera, and TheatreWorks, partner with the Community Services Department’s Division of Arts and Sciences to produce these shows and foster the cultural & artistic needs of Palo Alto residents and City visitors. The City and the companies each benefit from continuing this relationship. At 55, West Bay Opera is the second oldest opera company in the West. West Bay Opera is a major Bay Area springboard for singers on their way to professional operatic careers in the U.S. and abroad. West Bay Opera boasts a professional, tenured orchestra and a high-quality chorus. The company engages high-caliber professional conductors, directors, and set, costume and lighting designers to develop three fully staged opera productions every season, sung in the original languages with English titles. There are free previews at the Palo Alto Art Center and post-show discussion sessions with singers and directors after the first Sunday matinee. All performances take place at the wonderfully intimate Lucie Stern Community Theatre in Palo Alto, a 420 seat theatre in which there are no bad seats, and audiences are swept into the drama by the sheer power and immediacy of the action onstage. Through its Opera in the Schools program (OITS), West Bay Opera plays a vital role in helping to develop the next generation of opera lovers. Each year, the roving OITS artists visit over 45 schools on the Peninsula to stage abridged versions of operas, giving children of all socioeconomic levels the unforgettable thrill of performing onstage, singing or dancing alongside the pros, and giving rise to many well-documented cases of a life-long love of opera. West Bay Opera’s only performance location is the Lucie July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 1883) Stern Community Theatre, and has been a resident theatre company of Palo Alto since 1955. DISCUSSION West Bay Opera’s usage of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre is governed by the public/private partnership agreement. Since each theatre group appeals to and produces a unique genre of theatre, since production scheduling is done interdependently between the three groups, and since the cost of relocating a theatre company is prohibitively high, there exists nearly no opportunity for changing the companies that the Lucie Stern Community Theatre services. Due to these circumstances, staff recommends that the City Council approve the following public private partnership. The key terms of this agreement are discussed below: Term: The new agreement is for one year. If authorized, it takes effect on July 1, 2011 and terminates on June 30, 2012. Similar agreements are intended for subsequent years. Revenue: In accordance with the Municipal Fee Schedule and in exchange for providing facility usage,West Bay Opera shall remit to the City a surcharge for each ticket sold in the amount of $2.00. This fee is effectively passed down to patrons and is applied to all subscription, group, individual, promotional, and other tickets sold. Complementary tickets are excluded, and the sum of the surcharge revenue for each production is due to the City within 30 calendar days after the closing of the production. Among other functions, the proposed agreement acts as a revenue contract which governs the application, collection, and accounting of associated revenue. Responsibilities of City: The contract outlines the responsibilities of the City using the standard terms of public/private and joint-venture partnerships, including specifying goods delivery terms, notice requirements for contract termination, and affirming non- discrimination, insurance, and property guidelines. The City is also responsible for allowing and providing access to the Lucie Stern Community Theatre during designated hours, providing basic maintenance of capital equipment, monitoring production safety, and providing information regarding other scheduled facility uses (such as City- sponsored events of private rentals). Responsibilities of Company: Additionally, the agreement stipulates the responsibilities of the theatre company, including their duty to abide by City and department policies and procedures (specifically including and as related to, without limitation, conduct in community centers, injury and illness prevention, sale of alcoholic beverages, operations, building emergency procedures, zero waste, and facility use). Other responsibilities include timely remittance of fees and surcharges, requirements for sufficient building supervision/staffing, recordkeeping of ticket sales and surcharge remittance for compliance with audits, and adherence to standard practices for facility security. July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 1883) This renewed agreement is substantially identical to previous agreements with the exception of increasing the ticket surcharge from $1.00 to $2.00. This increase is implemented as a result of Municipal Fee Schedule adjustments effective 07/01/2010 and 07/01/2011. RESOURCE IMPACT Approval of this agreement poses no additional burden on City resources or staffing. The increased ticket surcharge is expected to generate additional annual revenue anticipated to be equal to $5,000 -$10,000. This increase has already been budgeted for. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The partnership is categorized as a partnership under the City’s Public/Private Partnership Policy (Attachment B). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Approval of this public/private partnership joint venture agreement does not constitute a project under section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: ·West Bay Opera Agreement 2011 (DOC) Prepared By:Erin Perez, Administrative Assistant Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO AND WEST BAY OPERA COMPANY AGREEMENT BY THIS AGREEMENT MADE AND ENTERED INTO ON THE 25th DAY OF MARCH 2011 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (“CITY”)AND WEST BAY OPERA (“CORPORATION”),IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: CORPORATION SHALL PROVIDE OR FURNISH THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIED 1) GOODS AND MATERIALS, 2) SERVICES OR 3) A COMBINATION THEREOF AS SPECIFIED IN THE EXHIBITS NAMED BELOW. EXHIBITS: The following attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Contract is not complete unless all exhibits are attached. ·Exhibit A: Responsibilities of the Corporation ·Exhibit B: Responsibilities of the City ·Exhibit C: General Conditions ·Exhibit D: Non-Discrimination Form ·Exhibit E: Proof of Liability Insurance TERM: The services and/or materials furnished under this agreement shall commence on 10/01/2010 and shall be completed on or before 06/30/2010.The City may at its sole discretion extend this contract for two additional one-year terms. COMPENSATION:As compensation for the full performance of this agreement, CORPORATION shall remit fees and surcharges to the CITY in accordance with the prevailing rates set forth in the CITY”s Municipal Fee Schedule. Such payments include, but are not limited to, those defined in EXHIBIT A (Section 22) and EXHIBIT C (Section 10)and shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. In consideration of referenced exhibits, attachements, and appendecies, such compensation shall not exceed $50,000. CITY ACCOUNT NUMBER:Fees and surcharges remitted persuant to this agreement shall be credited to the City’s accounts included in the table below: REVENUE TYPE COST CENTER -GL ACCT -INTERNAL ORDER Ticket Surcharge 80020412 –15540 -61205 Facility Attendant 80020512 –13450 -61205 INVOICING: Send all invoices to the City of Palo Alto. Such invoices shall be sent to the attention of the Project Manager. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: General Terms and Coniditions are included on all three pages first three pages of this agreement. . HOLD HARMLESS.CORPORATION shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council Members, officers, employees, and agents from any and all demands, claims or liability of any nature, including wrongful death, caused by or arising out of CORPORATION’S, its officers’, directors’, employees’ or agents’ negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which the law imposes strict liability on CORPORATION in the performance of or failure to perform this agreement by CORPORATION. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This agreement and the terms and conditions on the following pages represent the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the purchase and sale of the goods, equipment, materials or supplies or payment for services which may be the subject of this agreement. All prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written are superseded hereby. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON ITS APPROVAL AND EXECUTION BY CITY. IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT THE DAY, MONTH, AND YEAR FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE. By: ______________________________Date______________________ José Luis Moscovich General Director West Bay Opera By: ______________________________Date______________________ Judge Luckey Manager Arts, Children’s Theatre Community Services Department City of Palo Alto CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVALS: APPROVAL OVER $25,000CITY DEPARTMENT 1 Funds Have Been Budgeted (1) PURCHASING & CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION INSURANCE REVIEW (2) (3) PURCHASING MANAGER APPROVAL OVER $25,000 APPROVAL OVER $85,000 CITY OF PALO ALTO BY:_____________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: BY:________________________ _______________________ MAYOR CITY CLERK CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. ACCEPTANCE. This agreement is limited to the terms and conditions on pages 1, 2, and 3 hereof which includes any exhibits referenced. B. GOVERNING LAW.This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of California. C. INTEREST OF CORPORATION. It is understood and agreed that this agreement is not a contract of employment in the sense that the relation of master and servant exists between the CITY and undersigned. At all times CONRACTOR shall be deemed to be an independent contractor and CORPORATION is not authorized to bind CITY to any contracts or other obligations. In executing this agreement, CORPORATION certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this agreement is an officer or employee of CITY. D. INSURANCE.CORPORATION agrees to provide the insurance specified in the “Insurance Requirements” form attached hereto as Exhibit C. In the event CORPORATION is unable to secure a policy endorsement naming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured under any comprehensive general liability or comprehensive automobile policy or policies, CORPORATION shall at a minimum, and only with the written approval of City’s Risk Manager or designee, cause each such insurance policy obtained by it to contain an endorsement providing that the insurer waives all right of recovery by way of subrogation against CITY, its officers, agents, and employees in connection with any damage, claim, liability personal injury, or wrongful death covered by any such policy. Each such policy obtained by CORPORATION shall contain an endorsement requiring thirty (30) days' written notice from the insurer to CITY before cancellation or reduction in the coverage or limits of such policy. CORPORATION shall provide certificates of such policies or other evidence of coverage satisfactory to City's Risk Manager, together with evidence of payment of premiums, to CITY at the commencement of this agreement, and on renewal of the policy, or policies, not later than twenty (20) days before expiration of the terms of any such policy. E. TERMINATION. This agreement may be terminated by CITY upon ten (10) days written notice to CORPORATION. Monies then owing based upon work satisfactorily accomplished shall be paid to CORPORATION. F. CHANGES. This agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the written consent of the CITY. No changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written consent of the City Manager or his or her designee. G. AUDITS.CORPORATION agrees to permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CORPORATION'S records pertaining to matters covered by this agreement. CORPORATION further agrees to maintain such records for at least three (3) years after the term of this agreement. H. NO IMPLIED WAIVER.No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY shall operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this agreement. I. CITY'S PROPERTY. Title to CITY’s property furnished to CORPORATION shall remain in the CITY. CORPORATION shall not alter or use property for any purpose, other than that specified by CITY, or for any other person without the prior written consent of CITY. CORPORATION shall store, protect, preserve, repair and maintain such property in accordance with sound professional practice, all at CORPORATION’s expense. J. NON-DISCRIMINATION. No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons under this agreement because of the race, color, national origin, age, ancestry, religion or sex of such person. CORPORATION agrees to meet all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment, including completing the NonDiscrimination Compliance Form, attached hereto as Exhibit D, and incorporated herein by this reference. K. WARRANTY. CORPORATION expressly warrants that all materials and services covered by this agreement shall conform to the specifications, requirements, instructions, or other descriptions upon which this agreement is based, shall be fit and sufficient for the purpose intended, of good materials and workmanship and free from defect and that materials and services of CORPORATION’S design will be free from defect in design. Inspection, test, acceptance, payment or use of the goods furnished hereunder shall not affect the CORPORATION’S obligation under this warranty, and such warranties shall survive inspection, test acceptance and use. CORPORATION agrees to replace, restore, or correct defects of any materials or services not conforming to the foregoing warranty promptly. Without expense to CITY, when notified of such nonconformity by CITY, in the event of failure by CORPORATION to correct defects in or replace nonconforming goods or service promptly, CITY, after reasonable notice to CORPORATION, may make such corrections or replace such materials or services and charge contractor for the cost incurred by the CITY thereby. L. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION. CORPORATION, by executing this agreement, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the labor code of the state of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement. M. PRICE TERMS. (a) Extra charges, invoices and payment. No extra charges of any kind will be allowed unless specifically agreed to in writing by CITY. All state and federal excise, sales and use taxes shall be stated separately on the invoices. (b) Transportation charges. Any transportation charges with respect to which CORPORATION is entitled to receive reimbursement shall be added to CONTRAACTOR’S invoice as a separate item, with the receipted freight bill attached thereto. (c) CORPORATION warrants that the prices for materials or services sold to CITY under this agreement are not less favorable than those currently extended to any other customers of the same or like articles or services in equal or less quantities. In event CORPORATION reduces its price for such materials or services during the term of this agreement, CORPORATION agrees to reduce the prices or rates hereof correspondingly. N. SCHEDULES OR DELIVERY.Time is of the essence of this agreement. CORPORATION agrees to comply with the specific schedule provided by the CITY or agreed upon herein without delay and without anticipating CITY’S requirements. CORPORATION also agrees not to make material commitments or scheduling arrangements in excess of the required amount or in advance of the time necessary to meet the schedule(s) of this agreement, if any. O. TRANSPORTATION, PACKAGING & LABELING.All materials or services are to be provided: (a) F.O.B., Palo Alto unless otherwise specified; (b) with a packing list enclosed in cartons, which indicate the agreement number, exact quantity and descriptions, concerning any materials shipments; (c) and comply with current packaging and labeling requirements prescribed by D.O.T. Revised 8/1/2010 Page 4 of 26 EXHIBIT A RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CORPORATION (1)Abide by the policies/procedures established by CITY and CITY’S Arts and Sciences Division and the Department of Community Services for the use of CITY facilities, equipment, costumes, props, furniture, scenery and other production elements. These shall include, but are not limited to, Regulations Of The City Of Palo Alto Regarding Prohibited Conduct In Community Centers and Theaters (Appendix A), the City of Palo Alto Injury and Prevention program (Appendix B), Policy for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages (Appendix C), Operations Manual (Appendix D), Safety Procedures and Guidelines (Appendix E), Building Emergency Procedures (Appendix F), procedure for adjusting the Forestage height including use of the Scissor lift (Appendix G), House Manager's Guide (Appendix H), Zero Waste Plan (Appendix I), and Costume Room Guidelines (Appendix J). Follow safety procedures for the use of power and hand tools, mechanical lifts, etc. including the use of safety goggles, ear protection, face shields, safety cables, outriggers, etc. (2)Obtain, supervise, and pay all necessary related fees for the services of all professional assistance needed to produce such productions. Such assistance may include, but is not limited to the following: Production Directors, all Designers, Carpenters, Painters, Production Assistants, Music Directors, Choreographers, Musicians and other Front of House,Artistic or Administrative personnel. (3)Pay all fees and costs for materials, supplies, scripts, royalties, licenses and other fees and expenses connected with said productions, including all make-up removal supplies. (4)Be solely responsible for the control and supervision of all production activities and personnel connected therewith and shall notify all personnel of their obligations and responsibilities pertaining to their production area. Have primary responsibility for building security when CORPORATION is occupying CITY facilities. (5)Conduct regularly scheduled production meetings, shall notify CITY of such production meetings in writing, and shall coordinate all production activities with CITY'S Project Manager or his/her designee. There shall be at least one or more, as needed, production design meeting(s) for each production as scheduled in ATTACHMENT 1 which shall be convened by CORPORATION at a mutually convenient time prior to start of construction. Provide the Project Manager or his/her designee with a list of major production personnel and their phone numbers for each production at the time of the first production meeting. Construction plans and fly-line plots should be submitted at the aforementioned production design meeting in order for the Project Manager or his/her designee to ascertain compliance with CITY fire or other safety regulations. (6)Provide the Project Manager or his/her designee with a list of all Pyrotechnics effects (including the use of open flames), all Hydro technical effects, all use of Revised 8/1/2010 Page 5 of 26 fog or haze, all loud noises (i.e. gunshots), and all use of strobe lights at least 21 days prior to first use on stage. No flames shall be permitted on stage without the required fire permits from CITY. Smoking by any of the actors on stage as an integral part of the production will be considered a Pyrotechnic effect. Safety precautions approved by a CITY Fire Inspector and the Project Manager or his/her designee will be taken when smoking is occurring on stage, and the audience shall be notified beforehand that smoking, loud noises (i.e. gunshots) or use of strobe lights will occur on the stage. All Fire Department fees for “Open Flame Permits” and “Candles and Open Flames in Assembly Areas Permits” shall be the responsibility of the CORPORATION. (7)Provide the Project Manager with the rehearsal schedule, performance schedule, shop schedule and any requests for the use of CITY facilities (including but not limited to the Community Theatre, rooms located in the Lucie Stern complex and the Lucie Stern Courtyard and patio) for any purpose. Space reservations should be made at least six weeks in advance. CORPORATION shall accommodate other uses of the theatre facility, including but not limited to the stage, auditorium, rehearsal hall, scene shop, paint shop, flat dock, costume shop, and the lobby during periods of non-use during the runs of the productions. CITY shall notify the CORPORATION of such other uses. CORPORATION shall provide personnel for any shifting of CORPORATION'S scenery and/or equipment. (8)Designate as Project Director for the length of this contract an employee or sub- contractor to manage or supervise all areas and items in this contract, including production, technical, house personnel and any and all support groups and to be CORPORATION'S liaison with the Project Manager or his/her designee in all matters relating to the CITY in any way. (9)Arrange for auditions and casting for such productions and be solely responsible for the supervision and control of all performers. With respect to casting, CORPORATION shall have sole discretion to choose and approve the qualifications and select the cast.In personnel decisions, the CORPORATION shall agree to and comply with the provisions of the CITY’S Non-discrimination policy (Exhibit 8). (10) Search for, place and train participants in appropriate areas of theatre production activity and shall utilize personnel in a safe and effective manner in the presentation of such productions. CORPORATION shall be solely responsible for the control and supervision of such participants and shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY from any claims or liabilities arising from the acts or omissions of such personnel. All such personnel shall be deemed the sole agents and employees of CORPORATION and shall be notified by the CORPORATION of this circumstance. (11)Exercise safe practices in the use of CITY facilities and equipment, shall maintain and clear work areas, and shall within 24 hours report, with form provided by CITY (Appendix K), information regarding accidents. Immediately report to the Project Manager or his/her designee on form provided by CITY any breakage, malfunction, deterioration or loss of any of the CITY'S resources (including musical instruments, tools, lights, sound equipment, props, curtains, etc.). Revised 8/1/2010 Page 6 of 26 CORPORATION shall not attempt repair of CITY equipment without prior consultation with the CITY’S Project Manager. CORPORATION shall immediately discontinue any activity where an unsafe or dangerous condition exists. CORPORATION shall train and supervise CORPORATION'S staff and volunteers on safe theatre practices and adhere to CITY'S safety procedures and guidelines. If, in the opinion of any CITY or CORPORATION employee, CORPORATION is conducting an activity in an unsafe manner, CORPORATION or its agents shall be informed and shall immediately discontinue such activity until such activity is able to be conducted in a safe manner approved by CITY staff. (12)Promote and publicize all of its productions, and shall print in all publicity, including, but not limited to, publications, mailings, flyers, posters, brochures, programs, and paid or public service advertising, the statement, "In cooperation with the City of Palo Alto Community Services Department Division of Arts and Sciences." In conformance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 guidelines and requirements, CORPORATION shall bear responsibility for providing appropriate auxiliary aids,interpretive services and accommodations where they are necessary to achieve an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of public performances produced under this contract. Printed programs shall include the following statement required by the Americans with Disabilities Act: "Persons with disabilities who require information on 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: ADA Coordinator, City of Palo Alto, 650-463-4952 (Voice) or ada@cityofpaloalto.org (Internet). (13)Continue to exist as an independent, non-profit corporation under the laws of the United States and the State of California. (14)Submit all signs or displays to be located on the Theatre premises to Project Manager or his/her designee for approval at the first production meeting. All displays may be put up at load-in and must be removed during strike. Inside the Theatre, no display materials may be placed upon stucco walls. Lobby displays may only be placed on the lobby display boards, and all fasteners must be removed at the time display is taken down. Nothing may be posted on the exterior walls or doors of the Theatre or in the Stern courtyard, except for items in the display case and an approved production name sign hung from the theatre balcony.Marquee signs must be constructed of light weight material, and shall be secured in such a way that the sign cannot become dislodged by normal vibration or seismic activity.Signs shall be of a standard size no larger than ten feet in length and eight feet in height. All marquee signage must be attached to the theatre balcony with rigging so that the sign may be easily removed for limited periods during photography shoots, special events, or building maintenance. (15)Assure that the auditorium, stage, paint shop, scene shop, flat dock, costume shop, green room, dressing rooms, rehearsal hall, hallways and outdoor areas adjacent to theatre and shop will be cleared and clean, and that scenery, properties, and other production elements will be disassembled and stored, to the Project Manager or his/her designee’s satisfaction, within six hours after the final Revised 8/1/2010 Page 7 of 26 performance or on a time schedule mutually agreed upon between the CORPORATION and the Project Manager or his/her designee. The stage shall always be returned to its basic set-up as established by the Project Manager or his/her designee unless there is a mutual agreement with the incoming group that has been approved by the Project Manager or his/her designee. All items on the STRIKE CHECKLIST are to be performed unless there is a mutual agreement with the incoming group that has been approved by the PROJECT MANAGER or his/her designee. The Project Manager or his/her designee will sign a copy of the STRIKE CHECKLIST form at the completion of the strike to signify acceptance of clean and neat facilities. (16)Leave storage, paint, scene and costume spaces clean and clear of CORPORATION'S materials other than those materials necessary for the ongoing maintenance and repair of the sets and costumes by the Monday following opening performance. (17)Leave all spaces clear, clean and orderly at the end of each use. Rehearsal Hall is to be cleared of all materials,except major set pieces and any rehearsal props, after each daily use. Rehearsal Hall is to be completely cleared within 24 hours of final use. Kitchen,theatre restrooms and dressing rooms are to be cleaned and cleared after each daily use. Trash, recycling and compostable materials are to be removed from all areas daily. Recyclables and compostable materials are to be placed in the recycling and composting carts near the trash dumpster and garbage and trash are to be placed into the dumpster. The CORPORATION is required to reduce waste, reuse and recycle per the CITY’s Zero Waste Plan (Appendix I). Office space and hallways are to be kept continually clear, clean and orderly and neither space shall be used for the purpose of set, prop, or costume storage. Materials may not be left or stored any place out-of-doors overnight or when unattended by contractor personnel. (18)Enforce current regulations as established by CITY with regard to smoking, food and drink in CITY facilities (Appendix A). CORPORATION shall provide ushers at all previews and performances who will enforce such regulations. Smoking is not permitted inside any CITY facility. No person shall bring any animal into the theatre. This regulation shall not apply to service animals assisting individuals with disabilities or to animals in training to become service animals. Use of animals on the stage is subject to approval by the Project Manager or his/her designee. Food and drink are not permitted in the auditorium, light/sound booth or on stage, unless used as part of a production scene. Food and drink shall be permitted only in approved areas such as the green room and lobby. CORPORATION shall clean up all food and drink containers daily after use. (19)Observe all provisions of this agreement when using CITY facilities other than or in addition to the Community Theatre. This includes cleaning up the rooms, returning tables and chairs to their initial locations and depositing all trash and recycling in the appropriate receptacles. CORPORATION will be responsible for cleaning the Lucie Stern hallway restrooms for weekend performances. (20)Comply with CITY TB test requirement for employees and volunteers of CORPORATION at any time the CITY Risk Manager deems it necessary. If Revised 8/1/2010 Page 8 of 26 minors are involved in the production, State of California requirements for fingerprinting the staff must be followed. (21)Comply with CITY sound ordinance levels for any outdoor activities,including load-in, strike, dismantling, or disposal.Shop doors facing Hopkins and Harriet Streets shall be closed between 8:00 p.m.and 8:00 a.m. (22)Pay Building Attendant fees at prevailing rates as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule: (a)For (an) additional Attendant(s)required for the use of CITY facilities other than the Attendant the CITY will furnish for the Lucie Stern Community Theatre facility for the period of from one hour prior to until at least one half hour after the completion of each public performance as listed in ATTACHMENT 1. (b)For any performances not included in ATTACHMENT 1. (c)When using other CITY facilities at the same time as a public performance as listed in ATTACHMENT 1. All building use policies must be adhered to for any CITY facility use. Additional performances of the productions listed in ATTACHMENT 1 may be added to ATTACHMENT 1 with thirty days notice. (23)Provide house manager and ushers for every performance or event whenever public is in attendance. CORPORATION shall permit only persons who have been trained in theatre emergency, safety and use procedures to usher. CORPORATION shall submit a list of their trained personnel to the Project Manager prior to public performances for each production. Ushers must be available to assist patrons under all circumstances and must be aware of and able to assist disabled persons. The CORPORATION’S House Manager and ushers must also be available to assist in emergency situations throughout the entire performance until audience has left the theatre. Ushers must ensure that wheelchairs, walkers, etc. are not blocking any of the aisles or exits. Ushers shall return seats to the upright position and remove litter from the auditorium and restrooms at the conclusion of each performance. (24)Shall be responsible for installing or removing the removable auditorium seats in designated areas to accommodate their wheelchair patrons and as required due to the needs of the production. (25)Shall have privilege of borrowing available Community Theatre-owned properties, sets, costumes and scenery for productions scheduled in this agreement. Costumes, properties and sets created by CORPORATION with Corporation-owned materials will remain the property of CORPORATION, and shall be removed from the theatre facility at the conclusion of the production in which the materials are used. The Project Manager or his/her designee may, on a case-by-case basis, authorize exceptions. Any allowed items stored at the theatre Revised 8/1/2010 Page 9 of 26 will become available for use by all contracting CORPORATIONS and the CITY. All such items created under former agreements will continue to be the property of the CITY. All office equipment, construction tools, special effects and lighting equipment purchased and owned by CORPORATION will remain the private property of CORPORATION and the CITY assumes no responsibility or liability for the loss or maintenance of such materials. All equipment, instruments, costumes and any other materials rented, borrowed or owned by any subcontractor, agent or person for the CORPORATION is the responsibility of the CORPORATION and/or its subcontractors, and the CITY assumes no responsibility or liability for its maintenance or loss. Such items as original play scripts, musical scores, scenic designs, costume designs and photographs belong solely to the authors, composers, artists who created them or their representatives, and any use of them will be at the sole discretion of the CORPORATION. Any use of these items must be in accordance with all applicable laws. CORPORATION assumes all liability and responsibility for any default on production expenses. (26)Shall be required to replace or have repaired by factory authorized technicians CITY owned equipment, instruments or materials identified by the Project Manager or his/her designee as having been lost, damaged or destroyed by an agent of the CORPORATION. A written report must be made on CITY form whenever CITY equipment is lost, damaged, or destroyed by the CORPORATION. (27)May be allowed the use of Community Theatre-owned properties, sets, costumes, scenery, furniture and equipment for CORPORATION productions not scheduled in this agreement upon written request to the Project Manager or his/her designee and upon express approval and written authorization of the Project Manager or his/her designee. CORPORATION must return to Community Theatre all items borrowed for productions at other venues within four days of the final performance and shall, in the event the items are damaged or destroyed, be responsible for the repair or replacement of all such borrowed items to the satisfaction of the Project Manager. (28)May use Community Theatre facilities and equipment only for theatre productions expressly covered under this agreement. Exceptions, such as for classes, camps or workshops,will be considered by the Project Manager or his/her designee upon the receipt from the CORPORATION of a written request at least thirty days prior to the date needed and, if granted, will be approved in writing by the Project Manager or his/her designee.No such activity will be advertised or promoted until it has been expressly approved by the CITY’S Project Manager. (29)Shall enforce all State and City laws relating to the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in CITY facilities. Alcohol is permitted at the Lucie Stern Community Center if approved by the CITY’S Project Manager. Unless otherwise specifically permitted the only alcoholic beverages which may be sold or served at CITY facilities by CITY policy are wines, including champagne and sparkling wine. If alcoholic beverages are to be sold or distributed free of charge, CORPORATION must possess a State A.B.C. The permit for the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages obtained by the CORPORATION must be Revised 8/1/2010 Page 10 of 26 provided to the Project Manager. Proof of liquor liability insurance where CITY is named as co-insured with liability of at least one million dollars ($l,000,000.00) shall be required. Permits are to be displayed as required by law. It is the responsibility of the CORPORATION to ensure that no alcoholic beverage is served to a minor. Identification must be checked if the person appears to be under thirty years of age. CORPORATION shall remove all items, including cups, glasses, bottles, napkins and food from the lobby and any other affected areas, including the courtyard, after each performance. CORPORATION is required to adhere to CITY’S Recycling and Zero Waste Program (Appendix I). (30)Shall have one of their designated and CITY approved key and/or proximity card holders on the premises at all times as a supervisor whenever anyone from the CORPORATION is in the facility working for the CORPORATION, whether as a paid employee, subcontractor or volunteer. The Project Manager or his/her designee must approve any exceptions in writing. (31)Shall not in any way modify CITY facilities and may not install or attach anything in or on CITY facilities without having first submitted a written request to the Project Manager and having received written permission from the Project Manager or his/her designee. The approval of the Project Manager does not relieve the CORPORATION from any responsibility to obtain necessary CITY permits or Building Department approvals for the modification. Any violation shall result in the CORPORATION being charged for all repairs necessary to restore the facility to its original condition and any additional costs pertaining to the restoration of CITY property. (32)Shall immediately report to the police any incidents of a criminal or suspicious nature occurring on CITY property and notify the Project Manager or his/her designee within twelve hours. If initial notification is verbal, it must also be submitted in writing to Project Manager or his/her designee on provided form. (33)Shall make sure that the doors to the Scene Shop, Rehearsal Hall, and Costume Shop, as well as any other exterior access doors to any area of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre,are not left open, unlocked or left with the locking mechanism disabled at any time when the immediate area secured by the door is unoccupied by the CORPORATION, even if only briefly. Failure to do this may result in greater restricted access to the Lucie Stern Community Theatre, including the possible forfeiture of keys/proximity cards by the CORPORATION and/or restricted access times. (34)Must fill out a CITY Report of Accident/Property Damage report (Appendix K) for any and all accidents, injuries or property damage if a CITY employee is not present to fill out the report. (35)Must operate and conduct business in compliance with the CITY’s Zero Waste Plan (Appendix I) for all activities including, but not limited to, set construction and strike, food and beverage service, and office activities. The CITY Recycling Program can assist with resources for achieving this goal. The goal is to send as little waste to landfill as possible through waste reduction, reuse and recycling. To achieve this goal CORPORATION must first reduce waste whenever possible. Revised 8/1/2010 Page 11 of 26 (36)Shall avoid the use of disposables and shall not use Styrofoam™and other plastics for food/beverage service. Reusable food/beverage service ware should be utilized to the maximum extent possible. Where a reusable food/beverage service option is not available, choose items that are recyclable. For concessions, choose product packaging that is recyclable. (37)Must practice reuse before, during and after production. A list of reuse resources will be provided to avoid the disposal of construction materials, sets and props. CORPORATION must recycle construction debris from set materials (e.g. wood, metal). (38)Must recycle all materials included in the CITY’s Recycling Program including paper (all types), plastic containers #1-#7, cardboard, glass bottles and jars, and metal cans. Compostable materials will be disposed of in designated compost waste receptacles. Revised 8/1/2010 Page 12 of 26 EXHIBIT B RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY (1)Allow CORPORATION the use of the Community Theatre Rehearsal Hall, Costume Room, Scene Shop, Paint Shop, Stage, Auditorium, Light/Sound Booth, designated work space, etc. as scheduled in ATTACHMENT 1 for the preparation and presentation of theatre productions performed under this agreement provided that CORPORATION submits specific rehearsal schedules, performance schedules and shop use schedules. CORPORATION shall be required to comply with all CITY policies. Any use of CITY facilities and equipment other than that listed in this contract but necessary to carry out this contract must be scheduled through and approved in advance by the Project Manager or his/her designee. (2)Allow the use of the auditorium and the stage for performances and brush-up rehearsals on the following schedule: No performance shall begin earlier than 9:00 a.m. nor end later than midnight. In no event shall CORPORATION conduct rehearsals or other activities, or otherwise occupy CITY facilities from 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m. unless prior written permission is obtained from the Project Manager or a designated employee of the CITY is on site. CORPORATION shall observe all facility security rules and regulations as established by CITY (Appendix A). (3)Allow the use of the stage and the auditorium prior to the opening night of such productions according to the production schedule set forth in ATTACHMENT 1. Allow the use of the rehearsal hall, box office, scene shop, paint shop and costume shop according to the schedule as set forth in ATTACHMENT 1. Additional facility use may be provided as specified in item (Exhibit B (1); Exhibit A (28)) above; however, priority use of the room will always be given to actual rehearsals of productions covered by a contract with the CITY. The CITY will not be responsible for obtaining additional space, but may assist in locating other CITY spaces and may act as co-sponsor for use of CITY facilities under appropriate circumstances. Payment as specified in the CITY’s Municipal Fee Schedule will need to be made for any productions/performances/events/other uses that are not included as a part of ATTACHMENT 1. CORPORATION will forfeit the right to any additional reservations of CITY facilities should CORPORATION reserve space which is not used. CITY reserves the right to allow other uses of space when not in actual, scheduled use by CORPORATION. Revised 9/1/2010 Page 13 of 26 (4)Provide the Project Manager or his/her designee with a list of all planned activities utilizing theatre Stage and Auditorium during said periods. This information is to be provided to the Project Manager or his/her designee in production design meetings (5)Allow CORPORATION to use all operational production equipment in CITY'S Community Theatre inventory as requested by CORPORATION and approved in writing by CITY. CORPORATION takes such equipment "as is" and is responsible for ensuring that such equipment is in a safe condition prior to use and is returned in working condition at the conclusion of its use or of the production.The CORPORATION will assist the CITY in keeping the inventory of tools, equipment, instruments and production materials up-to-date so that all theatre users may benefit from the use of these materials. (6)Monitor all aspects of production relative to safety (Appendix E). If the Project Manager or any designee(s) deem(s) that any procedure followed by CORPORATION is unsafe, he or she has the authority to immediately stop such procedure.The CITY and CORPORATION will work together to prevent or quickly mitigate any fire hazards or any items identified by the Fire Department during facility inspections. (7)Provide maintenance of CITY facilities and equipment, replacement lamps for lighting equipment and blades for table power tools, but not hand power tools. CITY shall respond with reasonable speed to make necessary repairs hereunder. (8)Provide persons designated by CORPORATION and approved by the Project Manager or his/her designee with keys, proximity cards (up to a maximum of six), and alarm codes for access to Lucie Stern Community Theatre facilities solely for the purpose of carrying out the requirements of this agreement. Keys, proximity cards, and alarm codes shall not be loaned or transferred and shall only be used by the designated persons. In the event that CORPORATION fails to properly open or lock and secure CITY facilities leading to a false alarm call-out or leaves areas of the facility unlocked and unattended, a two hundred dollar ($200.00) penalty shall be paid to CITY on each occasion. In the event that a designated key holder loses any key or proximity card issued by CITY the CORPORATION shall be assessed a seventy-five dollar ($75.00) replacement charge for each key or proximity card or pay for the cost of rekeying or reprogramming the locks of the facility if circumstances indicate it as determined by the CITY. CORPORATION will be responsible and held accountable for all personnel, properties and activities of CORPORATION. CORPORATION will be responsible and held accountable for all CITY facility and equipment damages or loss due to negligence. Revised 9/1/2010 Page 14 of 26 (9)Have the right to, with no notice; suspend this contract if the building should be declared uninhabitable for reasons of safety by the proper authorities. (i.e. if the building should be damaged in an earthquake and be declared unsafe for occupancy). If there is an outbreak of pandemic flu or other medical emergency and places of public gatherings are closed, CITY will not assume any financial responsibility for loss of revenue by the CORPORATION. If the Lucie Stern Community Theatre is not available due to earthquake, other disaster, or safety related issues, CITY will not assume any financial responsibility for loss of revenue by the CORPORATION. Revised 9/1/2010 Page 15 of 26 EXHIBIT C GENERAL CONDITIONS (1)CITY. The Manager Arts-Children’s Theatre is designated the Project Manager for CITY, who shall render overall supervision of the progress and performance of this agreement by CITY. All services herein agreed in this contract to be performed by CITY shall be under the overall supervision of the Project Manager or his/her designee. Contractor shall go through Project Manager or his/her designee in all matters dealing with CITY policies, funding, facilities, equipment and other CITY departments outside the Community Theatre. (2)CORPORATION. CORPORATION shall assign a single Project Director who shall have overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this agreement by CORPORATION. Should circumstances or condition subsequent to the execution of this agreement require a substitute Project Director, CORPORATION shall notify CITY immediately of such occurrence. The Project Director shall be responsible for all actions of the CORPORATION, including their support groups and volunteers. The Project Director shall also be responsible for all communication and information to and from CITY and CORPORATION'S personnel, including their support groups. (3)ACCESS. CORPORATION shall not prevent the Project Manager, facility maintenance personnel, and others specifically designated by the Project Manager from free and easy access to all CITY facilities. The Project Manager and others specifically designated by the Project Manager shall attempt to coordinate such access if possible. (4)SPECIFIC SERVICES. CORPORATION shall provide all specified services as set forth herein, for the presentation of the 2010-2011 Season’s productions as listed in and on the dates specified in ATTACHMENT 1. (5)PRODUCTION CHANGES. CORPORATION may make changes to its productions within the guidelines of the author or his/her representative. (6)SCHEDULING. CORPORATION may change production scheduling or locations for the purpose of increasing its net revenue and/or audience base, provided that such changes shall not diminish the quality of or access to such offerings by Palo Alto residents. Such changes shall be subject to CITY policies and procedures for space reservation and requests for changes are to be submitted in writing to the Project Manager for approval before any such changes are made. Revised 9/1/2010 Page 16 of 26 (7)FISCAL YEAR DEFINED. The term "fiscal year" shall mean July 1 to June 30, although CORPORATION is not required to use the same period for its own record-keeping and reporting purposes. (8)DAYS DEFINED. The term "days" shall mean calendar days. (9)QUALIFICATIONS. CORPORATION represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this agreement and shall be responsible for the performance of this agreement. (10)TICKET SALES: (a)CORPORATION budget for the term of this agreement is attached hereto, marked “ATTACHMENT 2” and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. (b)CORPORATION shall be responsible for sale of season tickets and single tickets, depositing of revenue and reporting of revenue and expenditures, and shall place available tickets for each production for sale at the theatre box office one hour prior to each performance. CORPORATION shall not pre-sell seat numbers C1, C2, D1, D2, D3, and D4. CORPORATION shall also not pre-sell either the block of seats T2, T4, T6, T8, T10, U2, U4, U6, U8 and U10 or the block of seats T1, T3, T5, T7, T9, U1, U3, U5, U7, and U9 but shall hold one of these blocks of seats for disabled seating priorities. Said unsold seats may be released for sale one hour prior to performance. (c) CORPORATION agrees the price of admission for the season shall be as set forth in ATTACHMENT 3. (d) CORPORATION shall remit to CITY a surcharge for each ticket sold of $2.00 for each and every ticket sold either through subscription, group, individual, promotional or any other means. The surcharge of $ 2.00 per ticket sold is due within 30 calendar days of the closing date of the production. “Sold” is to include any tickets given in exchange for monetary consideration, including donations. There will be a 10% surcharge levied for payments received between 31 days and 60 days after the closing date of the production, a 15% surcharge levied for payments received between 61 days and 90 days after the closing date of the production, and a 20% surcharge levied for payments received in excess of 90 days of the closing date of the production. Payment must be accompanied by the production report specified in “PRODUCTION REPORTS AND RECORDS”, item (a) before payment will be considered to have been made. [See p. 16.] Revised 9/1/2010 Page 17 of 26 (e)CORPORATION shall provide CITY, when requested by the Project Manager or his/her designee, with at least six (6) complimentary tickets for each production on the date(s) requested, best available seating will be provided to CITY if any seats are available at the time of the request. (f)CORPORATION may operate an intermission snack concession during each performance under this agreement. CORPORATION shall conduct such operation in a safe, clean manner and shall hold CITY harmless from any claim or demand of liability of any nature whatsoever which may arise out of such operation. If alcoholic beverages are to be sold or distributed free of charge, CORPORATION shall have on display a California State A.B.C. Permit and provide the Project Manager with proof of liquor liability where CITY is named as co-insured with liability of at least one million dollars ($l,000,000.00) (See Exhibit A (29) above). It is the responsibility of the CORPORATION to ensure that no alcoholic beverage is served to a minor by checking I.D.’s if the person appears to be under thirty years of age. Food and drink may not be taken into the Auditorium or the Light/Sound Booth at any time. CORPORATION shall remove all cups, glasses, bottles, napkins and food from the lobby, green room, and any other affected areas, including the courtyard, after each performance. CORPORATION is required to adhere to CITY’S Zero Waste Plan (Appendix I). (11)ORGANIZATION OF CORPORATION. (a)Composition of Corporation. Throughout the term of this agreement, CORPORATION shall remain an independent, non- profit corporation under the laws of California governed solely by a Board of Directors. Any changes in CORPORATION'S Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, or tax-exempt status shall be reported by CORPORATION immediately to the Project Manager. Not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the persons serving on the governing board of CORPORATION may be interested persons. "Interested persons" means any person currently being compensated by the CORPORATION for services rendered to it, whether as a full or part-time employee, independent or otherwise, but excluding any reasonable compensation paid to a director as director. (b)Meetings of Corporation. All meetings of the Board of Directors of CORPORATION shall be open to the public, except meetings, or portions thereof, dealing with personnel or litigation matters. Project Manager will serve as CITY liaison to CORPORATION'S Board of Directors. Project Manager shall be notified 21 (twenty-one) days in Revised 9/1/2010 Page 18 of 26 advance of the dates, times, and locations of all Board of Directors meetings. CORPORATION shall provide CITY with names, addresses and telephone numbers of CORPORATION Board members, as well as your Board’s meeting schedule (ATTACHMENT 4) to be attached to this agreement prior to its final approval. CORPORATION shall provide an updated roster of Board of Directors as changes may occur. (12)FISCAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF CORPORATION. (a)Fiscal Agent. CORPORATION shall appoint a fiscal agent who shall be responsible for the financial and accounting activities of CORPORATION, including the receipt and disbursement of CORPORATION funds. CORPORATION shall provide CITY with the name of fiscal agent (ATTACHMENT 5) and notify the Project Manager within 24 hours of any changes occurring during the contract period. CORPORATION shall have sole responsibility for the safekeeping of CORPORATION tickets and monies. (b)Fiscal Monitor. CORPORATION shall appoint from its Board an individual who no less than monthly shall review and by signature acknowledge each monthly financial report. (c)System of Accounts. CORPORATION and its fiscal agent shall establish and maintain a system of accounts that shall be in conformance with generally accepted principles of accounting for budgeted funds. Such system of accounts shall be subject to the review and approval of appropriate CITY staff. (d)Financial Record. In support of its system of accounts, CORPORATION shall maintain complete and accurate records of all financial transactions, including, but not limited to, contracts, invoices, time cards, cash receipts, vouchers, canceled checks, and bank statements. These records shall be made available to the CITY upon request.NOTE: CORPORATION currency is not to be stored on the theatre premises between productions. (e)Audits. CORPORATION shall provide for independent audit of its fiscal year transactions, records, and financial reports. The audit shall be at the discretion of CITY and, if required, shall be done by a certified public accountant. The certified public accountant shall submit the report to both parties. The cost of this audit will be borne by CORPORATION. (f)Audit of surcharge payments. Corporation shall retain for a period of at least three years ticket stubs, sales records, and a verified report Revised 9/1/2010 Page 19 of 26 of sold and unsold tickets which must be made available to the city of Palo Alto Auditor upon request. (13)PRODUCTION REPORTS AND RECORDS. (a)Production Reports. CORPORATION shall keep accurate records of and shall file with Project Manager or his/her designee Production Reports within thirty (30) calendar days following the closing of each production, listing number of performances, ticket sales, expense/revenue, number of paid and volunteer participants and paid and volunteer participant hours worked. Each report shall be prepared on the form provided by CITY or on a form approved by the Project Manager. CORPORATION shall make every reasonable effort to supply such other information as the Project Manager and/or CITY Auditor may request. On reasonable notice and with reasons specified, CORPORATION shall grant the Project Manager and/or CITY Auditor access to all CORPORATION records relating to this agreement, including performance records, data, statements, and reports. (b)Evaluation of services. CORPORATION shall furnish all data, statements, records, information, and reports requested by CITY to monitor, review, and evaluate the performance of CORPORATION'S services hereunder. (c)A copy of CORPORATION’S most recently filed California State Tax Form 199, "California Exempt Organizations Annual Information Return" must be filed with the Project Manager or his/her designee within fifteen days of when it is due to the State of California and shall also be attached to this agreement prior to its final approval (ATTACHMENT 6). (14)CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENT.Notwithstanding the requirements of this agreement, in the event CITY should determine from any source, including but not limited to reports submitted by CORPORATION under this agreement or any evaluation report from any source, that there is a condition which requires correction, CITY may forward to CORPORATION a request for corrective action. Such request shall indicate the nature of the condition(s) or issue(s) which require(s) corrective action and may include a recommendation as to appropriate corrective action. Within fifteen (15) days of CITY'S request, CORPORATION shall submit its response which shall include its view of the problem and proposed action, if any. Upon request of either party, the parties shall meet within five (5) days thereafter to discuss the problem and proposed corrective action. Revised 9/1/2010 Page 20 of 26 (15)RIGHT TO SUSPEND OR TERMINATE. Either party may suspend or terminate the agreement for any reason by giving thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party. Upon the expiration of such notice, performance of the services hereunder shall be immediately discontinued. (16)SURRENDER OF MATERIALS. Upon suspension or termination, CORPORATION shall immediately turn over to CITY all keys and proximity cards issued by CITY, copies of studies, reports, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CORPORATION or its subcontractors, if any, in connection with this agreement. Such materials shall become the property of CITY. CORPORATION, however, shall not be liable for CITY'S use of incomplete materials nor for CITY'S use of complete documents if used for other than the services contemplated by this agreement. (17)CONTRACTS WITH OTHER AGENCIES. CORPORATION agrees not to enter into any contract or agreement with another person or agency that will materially interfere with or inhibit the full performance of the services to be provided by CORPORATION under this agreement. CORPORATION agrees to terminate as soon as legally possible any contract or agreement which will materially interfere with or inhibit the full performance of the services to be provided by CORPORATION to CITY under this agreement. Nothing herein is intended to prohibit CORPORATION from applying for, and receiving, supplementary funding from other than CITY sources so long as any agreement required for such funding does not materially interfere with or inhibit the full performance of the services to be provided by CORPORATION under this agreement. CORPORATION is specifically encouraged to seek such supplementary funding. (18)INTEREST OF CORPORATION. CORPORATION covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services hereunder. CORPORATION further covenants that, in the performance of this agreement, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. It is expressly agreed that, in the performance of the services hereunder, CORPORATION shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. (19)ASSIGNMENT. Both parties shall give their personal attention to the faithful performance of this agreement and shall not assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this agreement or any right, title, or interest in or to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the other party, and then only subject to such terms and conditions as the other party Revised 9/1/2010 Page 21 of 26 may require. Consent to one assignment shall not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment without such approval shall be void and at the option of the other party, shall terminate this agreement and any license or privilege granted herein. This agreement and interest herein shall not be assignable by operation of law without the prior written consent of the other party. (20)SUBCONTRACTORS: EMPLOYEES. CORPORATION shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of CORPORATION hereunder. No subcontractor of CORPORATION will be recognized by CITY as such, rather, all subcontractors are deemed to be employees of CORPORATION and it agrees to be responsible for their performance. CORPORATION shall give its personal attention to the fulfillment of the provisions of this agreement by all of its employees, participants, volunteers, and subcontractors, if any, and shall keep the work under its control. (21)INDEMNITY. CORPORATION hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, and employees of and from: (a)Any and all claims and demands which may be made against CITY, its officers, agents, or employees by reason of any injury to or death of any person or damage suffered or sustained by any person or corporation caused by, or alleged to have been caused by, any act or omission, negligent or otherwise, of CORPORATION, its officers, employees, agents, participants, volunteers, or any subcontractor under this agreement or of any of subcontractor's employees or agents. (b)Any and all damage to, loss or destruction of the property of CITY, its officers, agents, or employees occupied or used by or in the care, custody, or control of CORPORATION caused by any act or omission, negligent or otherwise, of CORPORATION, its officers, employees, agents, participants, volunteers or any subcontractor under this agreement. (c)Any and all claims and demands which may be made against CITY, its officers, agents, or employees by reason of any injury to or death of or damage suffered or sustained by any employee, participant, volunteer, or agent of CORPORATION or any subcontractor under this agreement, however caused, excepting, however, any such claims and demands which are the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY, its officers, agents or employees. (d)Any and all claims and demands which may be made against CITY, its officers, agents, or employees by reason of any infringement or Revised 9/1/2010 Page 22 of 26 alleged infringement of any copyright or trademark caused by or alleged to have been caused by CORPORATION or any subcontractor under this agreement. (e)Any and all penalties imposed or damages sought on account of the violation of any law or regulation or of any term or condition of any permit in connection with this Agreement. (f)CORPORATION at its own cost, expense and risk shall defend any and all suits, actions, or other legal proceedings that may be brought or instituted by third persons against CITY, its officers, agents, or employees on any such claim or demand referred to in Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) above, of such third persons, or to enforce any penalty referred to in Paragraph (e) above and pay and satisfy any judgment or decree that may be rendered against CITY, its officers, agents, or employees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. (g)Any and all claims and demands which may be made against CITY, its officers, agents or employees for any loss or damage to materials and equipment owned, rented or borrowed by CORPORATION, its employees, subcontractors, participants, volunteers, sponsors or any others under its project management. (22)INTOXICATION. CORPORATION agrees to be responsible for injuries or damage caused by any of its employees, agents, patrons, subcontractors, or volunteers under the influence of alcohol, drugs, hallucinogens or narcotics, whether or not legally prescribed. CORPORATION as well as CITY shall not permit any of CORPORATION’S employees or volunteers discovered to be under the influence from remaining in any facility used under the terms of this contract and CITY reserves the right of denying such persons further participation in Theatre activities. Consumption of alcoholic beverages or use of illegal drugs is expressly forbidden by any person working for the CORPORATION, paid or volunteer. This includes all staff, actors, crew and musicians while at the Lucie Stern Community Center or any other CITY facility. (23)WORKER'S COMPENSATION. CORPORATION certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self insurance in accordance with the provisions of the code, and it certifies that it will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement. Revised 9/1/2010 Page 23 of 26 (24)INSURANCE. CORPORATION, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect throughout the entire term of this agreement insurance coverage insuring not only Contractor and its subcontractors, if any, but also, with the exception of workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance, CITY, its officers, agents, and employees and each of them. CITY is to be named as co-insured with liability coverage of at least one million dollars ($l,000,000.00) to be attached to this agreement prior to its final approval. Certificates of such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this agreement. Said certificate shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and shall contain an endorsement stating that said insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or altered by the insurer except after filing with the City Clerk thirty (30) days'written notice of such cancellation or alteration. Current certificates of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement. (25)WEAPONS.No firearms or other weapons, whether loaded or not, shall be allowed in the Lucie Stern Community Theatre or on any other CITY property. Stage weapons and firearms designed solely for the use of blank cartridges will be allowed if they are being used as a prop in the current production but must be stored, when not being used, in a secure manner by the CORPORATION’S stage manager or his/her designee. (Please reference the CITY’S Danger Policy, Appendix K) (26)LEGAL COMPLIANCE.CORPORATION and all its paid employees, subcontractors, and volunteer participants are required to abide by all Federal, State and Local laws and ordinances. Revised 9/1/2010 Page 24 of 26 EXHIBIT D NON-DISCRIMINATION FORM Certification of Nondiscrimination: As suppliers of goods or services to the City of Palo Alto, the firm and individuals listed below certify that they do not discriminate in employment with regards to age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, disability, or sexual preference; that they are in compliance with all Federal, State, and local directives and executive orders regarding nondiscrimination in employment. THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS CERTIFIED CORRECT BY SIGNATURE(S) BELOW. Firm:____________________________________________________________ Signature:____________________________________________________________ Name:____________________________________________________________ Signature:____________________________________________________________ Name:____________________________________________________________ Note:California Corporations Code Section 313 requires two corporate officers to execute contracts. *The signature of First Officer* must be one of the following: Chairman of the Board; President; or Vice President. **The signature of the Second Officer** must be one of the following: Secretary; Assistant Secretary; Chief Financial Officer; or Assistant Treasurer. (In the alternative, a certified corporate resolution attesting to the signatory authority of the individuals signing in their respective capacities is acceptable) Revised 9/1/2010 Page 25 of 26 EXHIBIT E INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY -EACH PERSON -EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 NO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, 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 HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I.INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A.A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B.A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C.DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. Revised 9/1/2010 Page 26 of 26 II.CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III.ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A.PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B.CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C.NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1810) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 1810) Summary Title: Newell Rd/San Francisquito Ck Bridge Replacement Title: Adoption of a 1) Budget Amendment Ordinance Creating a New General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project for Replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek; Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Program Supplement with the California Department of Transportation to Receive Highway Bridge Program Grant Funds for the Replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek; Acceptance of Local Matching Funds in Approximate Amount of $42,000 from the Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority for the Replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek; and Approval of the Scope of Work for Engineering Design/Environmental Planning Consultant for Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1)Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance creating a new General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project for the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek (PE-12011) (Attachment A); 2)Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Program Supplement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (Attachment B) to receive Highway Bridge Program grant funds for the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek; 3)Authorize the receipt of local matching funds from the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek (see letter, Attachment C); and 4)Approve the attached scope of work (Attachment D) for an engineering design/environmental planning consultant for the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek. Executive Summary The existing Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek is functionally obsolete from a transportation standpoint and acts as a constriction to creek flow. Staff is July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 1810) proposing a new General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project to replace the existing bridge with a new structure that will improve safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians and will allow San Francisquito Creek to convey the 1% (100-year) flow rate. The City of Palo Alto (City) will be completely reimbursed for the engineering design/environmental assessment phase of the project, with a Caltrans Highway Bridge Program grant providing 88.53% of the funding and the 11.47% local match being provided by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA). In light of the project’s regional benefits and impacts, staff will coordinate with representatives from the City of East Palo Alto and the JPA throughout the implementation of the project. The budget amendment ordinance, resolution, and agreement required for implementation of this project are presented for Council review and approval, along with the scope of the work for the consutant to be retained to perform the engineering design, environmental assessment, and permitting for the project. Background The existing Newell Road bridge over San Francisquito Creek was constructed in 1911. The bridge links Palo Alto with the Woodland Avenue neighborhood of East Palo Alto. The bridge is functionally obsolete and substandard in many ways with respect to traffic safety. The bridge’s deficiencies include its substandard width, lack of access for bicycle and pedestrian traffic, harsh vertical profile, unsafe railings, and poor sight distances. In addition to its traffic safety deficiencies, the bridge also creates a partial obstruction to water flow in San Francisquito Creek because the bridge abutments are constructed within the creek channel. The JPA and the Santa Clara Valley Water District have analyzed the bridge as part of a preliminary study of flood control options for San Francisquito Creek upstream of Highway 101 and have determined that the existing bridge will need to be removed or replaced in order for the creek to accommodate the projected 1% (100-year) flow rate at this location. Staff has been coordinating with JPA representatives to identify a suitable mechanism for modifying the bridge as an element of the JPA’s comprehensive flood control plan. The Caltrans Office of Local Assistance has an ongoing program to inspect local bridges on a regular basis and to provide grant funding to local agencies to fund bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects. Caltrans staff inspects the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek bridge and other locally-owned bridges in Palo Alto on a biennial basis and submits the inspection results to City staff for follow-up action, as needed. Caltrans also administers a federal grant program for local bridge replacement/rehabilitation projects known as the Highway Bridge Program (HBP). Through the HBP, Caltrans issues grants to owners of local bridges for replacement of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. Local agencies are eligible to receive grants covering 88.53% of design and construction costs of eligible projects. The local agency is required to provide the remaining 11.47% of the project costs. Caltrans has classified the Newell Road bridge as functionally obsolete and has identified the City of Palo Alto as the bridge owner for purposes of the HBP. July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 1810) Staff and JPA representatives worked cooperatively to submit an HBP grant application to Caltrans for replacement of the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek bridge. The JPA provided funds to pay an engineering consultant experienced with the HBP requirements to assist with preparation of the grant application and related documentation. The JPA has also agreed to provide the required 11.47% local matching funds for the preliminary design (engineering design, environmental assessment, aand permitting) phase of the bridge replacement project (see letter, Attachment C). Staff and JPA representatives also coordinated with City of East Palo Alto staff on the grant application, since the nothern half of the bridge and the Woodland Avenue approaches lie within East Palo Alto. While Palo Alto staff will manage the HBP grant and the bridge replacement project design consultant, staff envisions the project as a joint effort between staff from Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and the JPA. Discussion Staff is recommending the creation of a new General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project for the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek, with initial funding of $360,000 for FY2012 for engineering design, environmental assessment, and permitting. The City will be completely reimbursed for this phase of the project, with the Caltrans grant providing 88.53% of the funding and the 11.47% local match being provided by the JPA. It is anticipated that HBP funds will be available to pay 88.53% of the project’s construction cost in a future budget year. A source of the local match funding for the construction phase has not yet been identified. The project was not included in the FY2011-16 Capital Improvement Program budget recently approved by Council because the details of the grant funding were not available prior to the budget submttal deadlines. In order to create the new project, Council must adopt the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance and approve the accompanying project description. The project will be managed by the Engineering Services Division of Public Works, who will coordinate closely with representatives from the City of East Palo Alto and the JPA during project design. The City has an Administering Agency-State Agreement for Federal Aid with Caltrans specifying the terms and conditions for receiving State-administered federal grant funds. In order to accept the HBP grant funds from Caltrans, Council must adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Program Supplement amending the master agreement with Caltrans to receive the funds for the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek. The Program Supplement contains two notable provisions. First, the agreement specifies that the City must comply with its adopted Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program when soliciting the services of a design consultant. The City’s DBE program requires its prospective contractors to make a good faith effort to include qualified DBE subcontractor firms on projects receiving federal funds. In addition, the agreement stipulates that the City must return the HBP grant funds if the proposed bridge replacement project is not constructed within ten years following approval of the July 11, 2011 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 1810) Program Supplement. While the City has not currently identified construction funding for this project, considering the fact that the project is so highly leveraged with grant funds (88.53% of the total cost) and that it is a critical element of the flood control plan for San Francisquito Creek, the cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto and the JPA should be highly motivated to find the remaining funds. From a technical and workload standpoint, staff believes that it will be feasible to complete the project within the required timeframe. Council must also authorize the City Manager to accept local matching funds for the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek. The JPA Board has authorized the expenditure of funds for the design phase of the bridge replacement project because the project represents an important first step in achieving flood protection along San Francisquito Creek upstream of Highway 101. The JPA staff is actively working with other member agencies to secure HBP grant funding for the replacement of the other three bridges that currently constrain creek flow (University Avenue, Pope/Chaucer Street, and Middlefield Road). For purposes of HBP funding eligibility, Caltrans has identified the City of East Palo Alto as the owner of the University Avenue Bridge, Palo Alto as the owner of the Pope/Chaucer Street Bridge, and the City of Menlo Park as the owner of the Middlefield Road Bridge. At this time, the only other bridge identified as functionally obsolete and eligible for HBP funding is Middlefield Road. The University Avenue and Pope/Chaucer Street bridges may become eligible for HBP funding once the ongoing JPA/Corps of Engineers feasibility study progresses to the point where it conclusively documents the hydraulic capacity deficiencies of these bridges. Staff recommends that Council approve the attached scope of work for an engineering design/environmental planning consultant for the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek. The scope of work has been reviewed and approved by representatives of the City of East Palo Alto and the JPA. In light of this project’s regional benefits and impacts, staff from these agencies will participate in the review of the consultant proposals and the interviews of the final consultant candidates. They will also participate in the public outreach, technical design, and environmental assessment elements of the project. The design of the replacement Newell Road Bridge will be subject to review by the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board and the Planning & Transportation Commission and the City of East Palo Alto Public Works & Transportation Commission and Planning Commission. The project will also comply with the City’s Art in City Capital Improvement Projects Policy. Resource Impact Funds for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project are available from the General Fund Infrastructure Reserve. The General Fund will be completely reimbursed for the design and environmental assessment phase of the project, with the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program (HBP) grant providing 88.53% of the funding and the 11.47% local match being provided by the San Francisquito Creek July 11, 2011 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 1810) Joint Powers Authority. It is anticipated that HBP funds will be available to pay 88.53% of the project’s construction cost in a future budget year. Although, a source of the local match funding for the construction phase (estimated to be approximately $240K) has not yet been identified, staff will aggressively pursue non-City funds to cover this expense. Potential funding sources include the cities of Palo Alto or East Palo Alto, the JPA, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, or local property owners through a future voter-approved assessment district. Policy Implications These recommomendations do not represent any change to existing City policies. Environmental Review Adoption of the attached resolution, budget amendment ordinance, and approval of the agreement do not represent a project with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project will be subject to environmental assessment and review in compliance with both CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). cc:Kamal Fallaha, City of East Palo Alto Public Works Department Brent Butler, City of East Palo Alto Planning Department Len Materman, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Chris Elias, Santa Clara Valley Water District Norman Beamer, Crescent Park Neighborhood Association Karen White, Duveneck/St. Francis Neighborhood Association Attachments: ·A -Budget Amendment Ordinance for Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project, CIP PE- 12011 (PDF) ·B -Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Execute Program Supplement (PDF) ·C -Letter from San Francisquito Creek JPA Committing to Provide Local Cost Share (PDF) ·D -Scope of Work for Request for Proposals for Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project (PDF) Prepared By:Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager DRAFT --Attachment A ORDINANCE NO.XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 TO ESTABLISH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER PE-12011, NEWELL ROAD/SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, AND TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $360,000 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 20, 2011 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2012; and B. The existing Newell Road bridge over San Francisquito Creek was constructed in 1911. The bridge links Palo Alto with the Woodland Avenue neighborhood of East Palo Alto. The bridge is functionally obsolete and substandard in many ways with respect to traffic safety; and C. The bridge’s deficiencies include its substandard width, lack of access for bicycle and pedestrian traffic, harsh vertical profile, unsafe railings, and poor sight distances. In addition to its traffic safety deficiencies, the bridge also creates a partial obstruction to water flow in San Francisquito Creek because the bridge abutments are constructed within the creek channel; and D. The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and the Santa Clara Valley Water District have analyzed the bridge as part of a preliminary study of flood control options for San Francisquito Creek upstream of Highway 101 and have determined that the existing bridge will need to be removed or replaced in order for the creek to accommodate the projected 1% (100-year) flow rate at this location; and E. Through the Highway Bridge Program (HBP), Caltrans issues grants to owners of local bridges for replacement of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges.The City of Palo Alto will be completely reimbursed for the engineering design/environmental assessment phase of the project, with a Caltrans Highway Bridge Program grant providing 88.53% of the funding and the 11.47% local match being provided by the San Francisquito Creek JPA;and F. It is anticipated that HBP funds will be available to pay 88.53% of the project’s construction cost in a future budget year, and that the cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto and the JPA will work to find the remaining funds; and G. Staff has developed a scope of work for an engineering design/environmental planning consultant for the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek. The City of Palo Alto, the City of East Palo Alto, and the JPA will participate in selecting a consultant to perform the work; and H. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2012 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project Number PE-12011, Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement,is hereby created. SECTION 3. The sum of Three Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($360,000) is hereby appropriated to CIP Project Number PE-12011. SECTION 4.Three Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($360,000) is hereby transferred from the Capital Project Fund Infrastructure Reserve. SECTION 5. The Infrastructure Reserve will later be reimbursed by grant funding from the Caltrans HPB and the San Francisquito Creek JPA in the amount of Three Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($360,000). SECTION 6. The transactions above will have no net impact on the balance of the Infrastructure Reserve. SECTION 7. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 8. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that the design portion of this project does not represent a project with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project will be subject to environmental assessment and review in compliance with both CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). SECTION 9. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: ____________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney APPROVED: _______________________________ Mayor _______________________________ City Manager _______________________________ Director of Public Works _______________________________ Director of Administrative Services Not Yet Approved 1 110601 jb 0130759 Resolution No. _______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Transportation Grants for Program Supplement No. N009 for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is eligible to receive Federal and/or State funding for certain Transportation Projects, through the California Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, Master Agreements, Program Supplement Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, Fund Transfer Agreements and/or any amendments to such agreements need to be executed with the California Department of Transportation before such funds can be claimed; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to delegate to the City Manager or his or her designee authorization to execute Program Supplement No N009 to Administering Agency – State Agreement for Federal Grant Project No. 04-5100R, Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council authorizes the City Manager or his or her designee to execute Program Supplement No N009 to Administering Agency – State Agreement for Federal Grant Project No. 04-5100R, Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ ________________________ City Clerk Mayor ______________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager _____________________________ ________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Public Works Joint Powers Authority www.sfcjpa.org East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, San Mateo County Flood Control District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District 650-561-4580 * jpa@sfcjpa.org * 1231 Hoover Street * Menlo Park, CA 94025 October 1, 2010 Mr. James Keene City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Jim: As you know, the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) believes that modifying bridges over the Creek between Highway 101 and El Camino Real will be a key component of our comprehensive efforts to reduce flooding to residents of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. In recent weeks, I have worked with Palo Alto’s Public Works staff to submit a proposal to Caltrans for the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge, which, according to Caltrans, is “owned” by the City of Palo Alto. Should the State’s Highway Bridge Program approve the City’s application, Caltrans would pay 88.53% of the total project costs, with the local agency responsible for the remaining 11.47% in matching funds. The initial application requires us to make a commitment for the local share of the Preliminary Engineering (planning and design) phase of the Newell Road Bridge. This phase was estimated to cost approximately $360,000, and thus the local match commitment required during this fiscal year and the following one equals not more than $42,000. On September 23, 2010, I asked the SFCJPA Board, which includes Palo Alto Mayor Patrick Burt, to approve a motion to have the SFCJPA provide the 11.47% in matching funds for Preliminary Engineering of Newell Road Bridge. The Board unanimously supported this motion, recognizing that the Caltrans funding would represent an opportunity to begin removing our bridges as obstacles to the safe flow of water in the Creek. The purpose of this letter is to commit the SFCJPA to provide that local match on behalf of the City of Palo Alto. I appreciate the City’s willingness to seek outside funding so that we may move forward with an important element of the SFCJPA’s comprehensive project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Len Materman Executive Director cc: Mayor Patrick Burt Kelly McAdoo Morariu Glenn Roberts Mike Sartor Joe Teresi City of Palo Alto RFP _____ Page 1 of 10 Newell Road at San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project (CIP #PE-12011) Request for Proposals for Project Design and Environmental Assessment/Permitting Scope of Work 1. GENERAL INFORMATION The Public Works Department is seeking consultant services to provide professional services, including preliminary design, environmental analysis and documentation, geotechnical investigation and reporting, regulatory permitting, preparation of plans, specifications, and cost estimate for bidding, and construction administration for replacement of the existing Newell Road bridge across San Francisquito Creek, linking the cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, California. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The purpose of this project is to replace the Newell Road Bridge at San Francisquito Creek (see Attachment A, Project Vicinity Map). Newell Road is a collector street with a current Average Daily Traffic volume of approximately 3000 vehicles per day. San Francisquito Creek is the boundary between the Cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto as well as the boundary between Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. The existing bridge is approximately 40-feet-long with a width of 18 feet curb to curb and an overall bridge width of 21.7 feet. The bridge, which was originally constructed in 1911, is considered functionally obsolete. The traffic lanes are substandard, and the bridge has no provision for bicycle or pedestrian traffic. In addition, the sight distances from the bridge are poor, and the bridge alignment creates an undesirable offset in the horizontal alignment of Newell Road. Furthermore, the existing bridge abutments are located within the creek bed, causing a flow constriction in the channel that prevents it from accommodating the estimated 1% (100-year) flow event. The current (2010) Santa Clara Valley Water District hydraulic model for San Francisquito Creek indicates that the existing bridge opening can convey peak flow of 5900 cubic feet per second (cfs), whereas the 1% flow rate is 9200 cfs. The Newell Road bridge is within the scope of an ongoing study being conducted by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) to identify potential channel and bridge improvements that will provide City of Palo Alto RFP _____ Page 2 of 10 increased flood protection to the area. The SFCJPA, whose member agencies include the cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the San Mateo County Flood Control District, was formed in 1999 to address flooding issues within the creek watershed. It is important that the new bridge design not only pass the 1% flow event, but also accommodate future improvements within the channel and at the top of bank both upstream and downstream of the new bridge that will provide conveyance of the 1% flow and maintain FEMA’s minimum requirement of 3 feet of freeboard in unobstructed stream reaches and 4 feet of freeboard at and within 100 feet of the new bridge. In addition to posing a flooding threat to the surrounding communities, San Francisquito Creek in the project area represents a migration corridor for a native run of federally-protected Central Coast Steelhead, limiting the available construction window for projects within the creek channel to the months of June through October, when migrating steelhead are not passing through the main stem of the creek. The replacement bridge is tentatively proposed to include two 11’ traffic lanes, a 5’ bike lane on the east side of the road, a 9’ bike lane on the west side of the road, and 5’ sidewalks on each side of the road. This proposed configuration would match the existing street cross-section south of the bridge. The proposed bridge length is 75’, which is the approximate distance between the top of the creek banks, allowing the new abutments to be constructed outside the creek channel. It is anticipated that partial reconstruction of the bridge approaches will also be required in order to conform to the new bridge and to create a modified horizontal alignment and vertical profile that will improve traffic safety and sight distances. Consideration should also be given to potential horizontal realignment of the bridge in order to improve the coordination of the geometrics between the north and south legs of Newell Road. Because the creek divides two cities and counties, there are a limited number of utility facilities crossing the bridge. Existing utilities will, however, need to be maintained and relocated as required to maintain continuous service to all utility customers. Newell Road between Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto and Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto may be closed to through traffic during construction. Access to the driveway serving the residence at 475 Newell Road must be maintained throughout the construction period. Although the consultant contract will be managed by the City of Palo Alto, extensive coordination with City of East Palo Alto and SFCJPA staff will be required throughout the project. There will also be a need to devise and implement a robust public communication and outreach plan to solicit input from members of the public. The project will require design review by various advisory boards and commissions in both cities. The consultant will also be responsible for environmental review and documentation of the project in compliance with the provisions of both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In support of the environmental analysis, the consultant must also perform several specific technical studies as described in this scope of work. Lastly, the consultant must also assist the City of Palo Alto in acquiring all local, state, and federal regulatory permits required for the construction of the replacement bridge. City of Palo Alto RFP _____ Page 3 of 10 The design and aesthetics of the replacement Newell Road bridge will be subject to review by the following review bodies: City of Palo Alto — Architectural Review Board Planning and Transportation Commission City of East Palo Alto -- Public Works & Transportation Commission Planning Commission In addition, the project is subject to the City of Palo Alto’s Art in City Capital Improvement Projects Policy (see Attachment B). One percent of the final estimated cost of the replacement bridge shall be earmarked for a public art element, at the discretion of the City of Palo Alto Public Art Commission. The Consultant shall work cooperatively with the artist selected by the Public Art Commission and staff from the cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto to incorporate the art into the final bridge design. The project is being funded through a Caltrans Highway Bridge Program grant. All work prepared by the Consultant shall be in compliance with the requirements of the Highway Bridge Program and shall be subject to the approval of the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance representative of Caltrans District 4 in Oakland. The consultant team shall provide sufficient expertise in the disciplines of civil and structural engineering design, surveying, geotechnical engineering, hydraulic engineering, environmental planning and analysis, public outreach, and project management to produce an environmental assessment document, secure all required regulatory permits, and prepare a complete set of construction documents (plans, specifications, and estimate) for the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek. 3. THE CITY’S INTENT Following is an outline of the scope of work for the project: • The Consultant shall provide complete engineering design services, including preliminary design, design development, and construction documents for the replacement of the Newell Road bridge over San Francisquito Creek and related roadway modifications. • The Consultant shall obtain and review all reports and plans for the existing bridge, overhead and underground utilities, right-of-way maps, and other street infrastructure prior to the start of design. • The Consultant shall obtain the existing hydraulic model for San Francisquito Creek from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The existing creek model is HEC-RAS. • The Consultant shall utilize the existing creek hydraulic model to document the hydraulic design parameters of the replacement bridge. The consultant shall conduct and document a hydraulic model run for San Francisquito Creek with the proposed bridge in place. The documentation shall demonstrate the ability of the City of Palo Alto RFP _____ Page 4 of 10 reconfigured channel at the location of the new bridge to convey the projected 1% flow rate with the bridge in place. • The Consultant shall analyze and review various alternative bridge designs and alignments and submit to the City a recommended design. • The Consultant shall devise and implement a public communication and outreach plan in order to solicit early input from members of the public in the cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. • The Consultant shall provide the services of a licensed civil or structural engineer to design the structural elements of the bridge to meet the provisions of the current edition of the Bridge Design Guide/Specifications published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). • The Consultant shall design all site improvements, including approach roadways and intersection layout, utility relocations, traffic safety design elements, temporary traffic control plan during bridge closure, stream protection measures, and environment compliance requirements. • The Consultant shall work with SFCJPA staff to develop slope stability measures at and around the footings of the new bridge that maintain, to the extent possible, the natural setting of the creek and are consistent, within reasonable limitations, with the principles described in the San Francisquito Creek Bank Stabilization and Revegetation Master Plan. • The Consultant shall review, analyze, and identify the potential environmental impacts of constructing a replacement Newell Road bridge. The Consultant shall prepare a complete environmental document in full compliance with both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA). • The Consultant shall conduct all of the technical studies required by Caltrans in support of the environmental documents. • The Consultant shall provide the services of a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor to prepare a complete topographic survey of the project area. The engineer/surveyor shall identify existing right-of-way limits, and any required additional right-of-way or temporary construction easements. The Consultant shall be responsible for all right-of-way engineering. • The Consultant shall present the preliminary design to staff, the City of Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission, and the City of East Palo Alto’s Public Works and Transportation Commission and Planning Commission for review before proceeding to design development. The consultant shall make any design revisions necessary as a result of these reviews. • The Consultant shall present the 60% design development plans to staff, the City of Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission, and the City of East Palo Alto’s Public Works and Transportation Commission and Planning Commission for review before proceeding to the construction document phase of the project. • The Consultant shall prepare project construction plans and technical specifications for competitive bidding purposes. City of Palo Alto RFP _____ Page 5 of 10 • The Consultant shall complete any and all permit applications that may be necessary to allow the replacement of the Newell Road bridge. The Consultant shall ensure that the applications are deemed complete by the reviewing agencies and respond to any requests for additional information. • The Consultant shall assist the City of Palo Alto with bidding the project for construction. • The Consultant shall review contractor submittals for compliance with the plans and specifications. • During construction, the Consultant shall promptly answer contractor requests for information (RFI). The Consultant shall attend regular project meetings that may occur weekly and shall prepare agendas and minutes for such meetings. 4. CONSULTANT SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work shall consist of the following tasks: Task A Public Communication and Outreach Plan The Consultant shall devise and implement a multi-faceted public communication and outreach plan in order to assist City staff with solicitation of input from members of the public regarding the replacement of the Newell Road bridge. The plan shall target residents in the vicinity of the bridge in the cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. The outreach plan shall include at least one public meeting at the outset of the project to solicit preliminary input and comment regarding key design issues and potential project impacts and a second meeting towards the end of preliminary design to solicit specific comments regarding the initial bridge design. The Consultant shall design a project web page to provide updated information to the public during design and throughout the construction of the bridge. Task B Preliminary Design The Consultant shall prepare a preliminary design of the replacement Newell Road bridge. The Consultant shall meet with City staff to gather information and input for developing the preliminary drawings. The preliminary drawings shall represent the proposed bridge layout, horizontal alignment and vertical profile, bridge proportions, and bridge style and special architectural treatments. The Consultant shall perform hydraulic modeling of the creek with the new bridge in place. The Consultant shall analyze and review various alternatives and provide to the City a recommended design for submittal to the official review bodies. Task C Environmental Document The Consultant shall review, analyze, and identify the potential environmental impacts of constructing the replacement bridge and shall prepare complete environmental documents in full compliance with the National Environmental City of Palo Alto RFP _____ Page 6 of 10 Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In support of the environmental analysis, the Consultant shall conduct the special technical studies specified by Caltrans Environmental Planning staff in the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form (See Attachment C). It is assumed that the project will qualify for a Categorical Exclusion (NEPA) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA). Task D Final Design The Consultant shall prepare construction documents based on the preliminary design developed in Task B. Intermediate design development submittals shall be submitted at 60% and 90% design stages. A geotechnical investigation and a Stage 1 hazardous materials investigation shall be conducted at the site to develop project design parameters. The Consultant shall also provide assistance to staff during the bidding process. Task E Cost Estimates The Consultant shall prepare cost estimates for construction of the preliminary design developed in Task B and construction of the final design developed in Task D. Task F Meetings The Consultant shall prepare for and actively participate in the following meetings related to Tasks B, C and D. • City Staff: Meetings with staff from the cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto and the SFCJPA, as appropriate. • The Consultant shall prepare presentation materials for and attend the meetings listed below. The Consultant shall budget up to four hours for each meeting, including ‘waiting’ time and travel time. o Two meetings with the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board o Two meetings with the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission o Two meetings with the City of Palo Alto Public Arts Commission o Two meetings with the City of East Palo Alto Public Works and Transportation Commission o Two meetings with the City of East Palo Alto Planning Commission o One meeting with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors Task G Work Product Submittals The Consultant shall prepare the following work product submittals for staff review at the appropriate stage of the work: City of Palo Alto RFP _____ Page 7 of 10 • Site topographic and boundary survey, including existing improvements • Geotechnical and hazardous material investigations and reports • Technical Memorandum – Bridge Design Parameters • Preliminary Design Drawings: 10 half-size plan sets, plus digital file on compact disc • 60% design development documents: 10 half-size plan sets, 10 technical specification sets (Caltrans Standard Specifications format), 10 copies of an opinion of probable construction cost, plus digital files of all documents on compact disc • 90% design development documents: 10 half-size plan sets, 10 full-size plan sets, 10 technical specification sets, 10 copies of an opinion of probable construction cost, plus digital files of all documents on compact disc • Advisory Body Reviews: Copies of plans, renderings, material/color samples as required by each review body • Environmental document: Special studies, checklists and other documentation as required to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in a format acceptable to Caltrans Office of Transportation Planning (NEPA) and the City of Palo Alto Planning Division (CEQA) • Completed regulatory permit applications and supporting materials as required Task H Construction Documents The Consultant shall prepare final detailed project plans and technical specifications for construction bidding purposes that incorporate all plan check and permitting requirements. The Consultant shall provide one reproducible set of final project drawings and specifications and digital files of all documents on compact disc to the City. City will, at its own expense, reproduce enough copies of these documents for construction bidding purposes. Project Specifications shall be prepared using the Caltrans Standard Specifications format. Consultant shall prepare all technical specification sections. The City will provide the standard boilerplate bidding and contract documents and the general conditions (work hours, duration, truck routes, etc.). Project drawings shall be prepared using the standard 24” x 36” City drawing sheet size and layout (to be provided by City). The City will also provide the Consultant with standard AutoCAD layer names, symbols and line types for use in the final project plans. The Construction Documents shall include, but not be limited to, the following: City of Palo Alto RFP _____ Page 8 of 10 • Existing topographic and boundary survey plan with construction staking control points clearly identified • Demolition plan • Site utilities relocation plans • Grading and drainage plan • Roadway layout plan • Structural plans (including foundation and abutment plans) • Structural details • Landscaping and irrigation plan • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan • Traffic control requirements • Construction schedule requirements • Contractor submittal requirements • Provisions for protecting nearby existing structures, roadways and embankments, and San Francisquito Creek Task I Construction Services The Consultant shall provide construction administration services during construction of the replacement Newell Road bridge: • Visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of operations. • Attend weekly construction meetings and prepare weekly meeting agendas and minutes. • Respond to requests for information (RFI). • Review and take action upon contractor submittals. • Prepare change orders and construction change directives. • Upon request of the contractor, inspect the project to determine whether the work is substantially complete and prepare a punch list of items to be completed prior to final acceptance. • Confirm completion of contractor’s punch list items prior to final payment. • Prepare project record drawings upon the completion of the work. Immediately after completion of the construction phase and acceptance by the City, the Consultant shall submit one complete set of record drawings reflecting the as-built conditions in digital format for archiving. All files shall be delivered in AutoCAD (.dwg) format. Each document file shall be accompanied by a metadata text file, including the date of the file, the company name, contract information, and the name of the technician who prepared the document. City of Palo Alto RFP _____ Page 9 of 10 5. ADDITIONAL SERVICES-SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION The following additional services may be required depending on the actual conditions encountered. The Consultant shall be prepared to perform these services as additional work, subject to prior approval of the City’s Project Manager. • Preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) • Hazardous materials removal plan preparation • Additional meetings with review boards and commissions • Construction staking Depending on the magnitude and quantity of the additional services listed above, an agreement amendment may be necessary. 6. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION Joe Teresi will be the Project Manager, and Rajeev Das Hada will be the Project Engineer, unless otherwise directed by the City. All questions correspondence and invoices shall be directed to the Project Engineer. This contract will be managed by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. Funding for the contract will be provided by a California Department of Transportation Highway Bridge Program grant and the SFCJPA. To ensure a coordinated work effort, any work beyond this Scope of Work shall be approved in advance in writing by the Project Manager. 7. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CITY The Public Works Department, Engineering Division has the following reference documents available on the 6th floor located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto. • Existing infrastructure and right-of-way information from City of Palo Alto Geographic Information System (GIS) • San Francisquito Creek HEC-RAS hydraulic model (Santa Clara Valley Water District) • Geotechnical information, as available, from the City’s database of projects completed in the vicinity. 8. CONSULTANT SELECTION The consultant will be selected based upon qualifications, experience, work schedule and references from similar projects. The consultant selection process will be conducted in accordance with the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual, including the City of Palo Alto RFP _____ Page 10 of 10 provisions for utilization of Disadvanaged Business Enterprises (DBE). For further selection criteria, see Section 100, “Proposal Instructions and Special Conditions”. 9. TIME OF COMPLETION The Consultant shall complete all tasks within 52 weeks of issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Prospective Consultants should submit a project schedule showing major project design milestones and dates for achieving those milestones as part of the proposal. 10. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Project Vicinity Map Attachment B: Art in City Capital Improvement Projects Policy Attachment C: Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form for Caltrans Highway Bridge Program Grant City of Palo Alto (ID # 1588) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 1588) Summary Title: Pool Vehicle Reservation/Key Manager System Title: Approval of Amendment No. 4 to Service Order S07121018 with Invers Mobility Systems for the Purchase of an Automated Pool Vehicle Reservation/Key Manager System in the Amount of $86,665 From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached Contract Amendment No. 4 (Attachment A) with Invers Mobility Systems (S07121018) to purchase additional KeyManager kiosks and vehicle-related hardware required to fully implement a pool vehicle reservation and key management system ($86,655). Discussion In late 2007, Equipment Management implemented the first phase of a citywide employee pool vehicle reservation and key management system (VR-07001), which is being used in conjunction with a decentralized, manual reservation and tracking system. The original contract (S07121018) included the purchase of one Invers KeyManager system, which includes an outdoor kiosk, vehicle-mounted computers, and a vendor-hosted web-based reservation system. System operation is simple and efficient. Vehicle keys are secured in the KeyManager kiosk. When a web reservation is made, a confirmation number is generated. Frequent pool users can be issued a “smart card,” which precludes the need for a confirmation number. When the driver is ready to pick up the vehicle, they will enter the confirmation number into the KeyManager via a keypad, or touch their smart card to a reader, and the vehicle key will be released to them. The KeyManager also allows vehicle users to make “walk-up” or spontaneous reservations without the need for web access, depending on vehicle availability. As soon as the driver enters the vehicle, a wireless key fob communicates with the onboard computer, which authorizes the vehicle for use. Once the vehicle is authorized, the driver may start the engine and begin their trip. In addition to authorizing the vehicle for use, the onboard vehicle computer monitors and downloads vehicle data; including trip mileage and vehicle operating time. This data is transmitted to the KeyManager when the key is returned. This allows Equipment Management to accurately and efficiently track pool vehicle usage, and bill using departments accordingly. July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 1588) The first KeyManager kiosk was installed at the Municipal Services Center (MSC) and eight existing pool vehicles were outfitted with the onboard computers. This Contract Amendment No. 4 will facilitate the purchase of the equipment required to implement the second phase of the project, which will expand the system to MSC Building “C,” the Civic Center and the Elwell Court site. The order includes three additional 16-key KeyManager kiosks, one 16-key slave kiosk (which will provide a 32-vehicle capacity at the Civic Center), and updated vehicle hardware for 40 vehicles. Since the implementation of the first phase, the vehicle mounted hardware has evolved significantly, and Invers now offers wireless vehicle computers that require no interaction from the driver. Previously, drivers would need to touch an encoded key fob to a vehicle-mounted reader in order to authorize the computer and start the vehicle’s engine, and repeat the process at the end of the trip to complete the transaction. With the wireless system, the encoded key fob is detected automatically, so the authorization and data collection routines are transparent to the vehicle user. The new KeyManager kiosks will be equipped with the wireless feature; however, the existing kiosk at the MSC will need to be upgraded with the wireless interface. Audit of Vehicle Utilization and Replacement The recent vehicle audit recommended that: “The Public Works Department fleet management should complete implementation of a centralized Citywide vehicle and equipment pool, and make the Citywide pool accessible to all departments.” The completion of the second phase of this project will allow the Fleet Management Division to implement this recommendation through the establishment of fully automated, centralized vehicle pools at the MSC, the Civic Center and Elwell Court. The centralized aspect of this new system will expand the availability of pool vehicles to all authorized City employees. Any vehicle in the pool can be reserved by any authorized City employee, regardless of location. After the KeyManager kiosks are installed (see Timeline below), vehicle modules will be installed in all existing pool vehicles, and staff will be trained in the operation of the reservation system. This fall the City Manager established a Fleet Review Committee (FRC) consisting of the Assistant City Manager, Administrative Services Director and the Public Works Director. The FRC is responsible for overseeing the City’s fleet to ensure that it is managed efficiently and cost effectively. The automated vehicle reservation system will assist the FRC’s efforts to improve the utilization of fleet assets by allowing more vehicles and equipment to be assigned to centralized pools. Over the last several months, the FRC has reviewed underutilized transport vehicles (vehicles which are primarily used to transport passengers), and has made recommendations for: ·removing vehicles from the fleet, ·reassigning vehicles to the vehicle pool, or ·approving vehicles for continued assignment to departments. July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 1588) Once the pool vehicle reservation system is fully operational, existing assigned vehicles that the FRC has recommended be re-assigned to the vehicle pool will be integrated into the system. Timeline Milestone Estimated Completion Date Delivery of new KeyManager kiosks and vehicle-mounted hardware October 2011 Installation of vehicle-mounted hardware into existing City pool vehicles December 2011 Train City staff on operation of new reservation system January 2012 Integration of departmentally-assigned vehicles into vehicle pool February 2012 Resource Impact Funds have been budgeted for this purchase in the Vehicle Replacement Fund Capital Improvement Program project VR-07001. Because the Fleet Review Committee has removed a substantial number of vehicles from the fleet, the demand on the vehicle pool will increase significantly. It is imperative that the existing automated reservation system be expanded as soon as possible to avoid impacts and inconvenience to City employees that would result if Fleet continued to use the existing manual reservation and tracking system. In addition to facilitating an expanded vehicle pool and improving the utilization of vehicles; the automated system will generate real savings in several ways: ·The Fleet Review Committee has already eliminated 24 vehicles from the fleet, generating approximately $53,000 in annual savings, and the avoidance of $400,000 in capital expenditures for vehicle replacements. 12 additional vehicles will be transferred to the pool. The FRC’s action to eliminate these vehicles from the fleet was made feasible knowing that Fleet Management would be able to readily expand and manage the vehicle pool with an automated reservation system. The former users of the eliminated vehicles have been directed to utilize the vehicle pool for their transportation needs. ·The system is far more efficient than the current decentralized manual reservation system; requiring much less time and effort for vehicle users to obtain vehicles and for Equipment Management staff to manage the reservation process. The staff time saved on this activity can be applied to promoting efficiencies in other areas. ·Once the vehicle pool is established and has operated for a period of time, utlization data from the system can be analyzed, and used to optimize the composition of the pool vehicle fleet. This optimization may result in further fleet reductions. Policy Implications Authorization of this contract amendment does not represent a change to any City policy. Environmental Review July 11, 2011 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 1588) This is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: ·A -Service Order S07121018 Invers Mobility Solutions (PDF) Prepared By:Keith LaHaie, Fleet Manager Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 1741) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 9 (ID # 1741) Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine} Summary Title: Response to Initial Vision Scenario Title: Update of SB 375/Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and Direction on City’s Preliminary Response to Regional Agencies, and Update of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Process From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council provide input regarding the Initial Vision Scenario and revisions to staff’s letter response to the regional agencies. Executive Summary On March 14, 2011, staff updated the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). On May 4, 2011, staff updated the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding the SCS and the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) proposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the SCS for the Bay Area is intended to accommodate an additional 903,000 housing units and 1.2 million jobs from 2010 to 2035. The goal of the IVS, formulated by staff of ABAG and MTC, is to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS would anticipate a total of 12,000 new households and almost 5,000 new jobs being created over that time period. Staff has developed a letter outlining the City’s serious concerns about the IVS, including the need to address job growth near transit to achieve GHG emission reductions, as well as highly unrealistic housing assumptions, the lack of consideration of numerous constraints to growth, and the lack of supportive infrastructure, particularly including transit, to accommodate such extensive levels of development. The Council will provide input to the letter to provide the City’s official comments on the IVS. The regional agencies expect to prepare 3-5 alternative scenarios for analysis in the next month, and then to release those for review by cities and July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 9 (ID # 1741) counties in the region. A preferred alternative is expected for release in early 2012 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area region is to be finalized by early 2013. Background On March 14, 2011, staff updated the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The staff report providing that information is included as Attachment H to this staff report. At the same meeting, staff provided an overview of the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the SCS, which had been released on the prior Friday (March 11). The document was prepared jointly by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The supplemental information for the IVS was outlined in a memo to Council on the day of the meeting and is included as Attachment G to this staff report. The Council’s immediate reaction to the Initial Vision Scenario was that it clearly does not recognize the constraints on Palo Alto in providing for new housing, and was equally inadequate at representing the accurate potential for employment growth. Council indicated that the City’s initial reaction should be at a “big picture” level, and that tweaking the details of the plan would not be a meaningful change. On April 14th, the regional agencies and several environmental groups sponsored a forum to discuss the IVS, at which approximately a dozen (of about 100 total) attendees were from Palo Alto. In reality, however, the discussion entailed only a very general look at preferences in urban form and transportation for the region, and did not help illuminate issues of specific concerns to cities and counties. Staff understands that there will be additional forums for more specific input, and will let the Council and community know when those are scheduled. The regional agencies have been receiving preliminary responses from cities and counties in late May and into June. The agencies have also received input at a number of meetings with planning and transportation officials and with other stakeholders, providing input to the development of alternative scenarios to be considered in the process. On May 4th, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) considered this background and update and provided suggestions for topics to address in a letter response from the City to ABAG and MTC. These suggestions were incorporated into a letter (Attachment A) sent on May 25, 2011, and copied to the City Council. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee, of which Councilmember Scharff is a member, has met several times now as well,and the Committee’s progress is outlined below in the Discussion section. Please also note that Attachment N provides a Glossary of Acronyms and Terms related to the regional planning process. Discussion July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 9 (ID # 1741) Initial Vision Scenario The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for the Bay Area is intended to accommodate an additional 903,000 housing units and 1.2 million jobs from 2010 to 2035. The goal of the IVS, formulated by staff of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), is to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita GHG emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS attempts to do so by assigning “place types” (“transit town center,” “mixed use corridor,” etc.), that reflect Priority Development Areas (PDAs) nominated by cities and counties, plus “growth opportunity areas” (GOAs) identified but not quantified by local jurisdictions. ABAG and MTC indicate that the growth included in the PDAs and GOAs accounts for approximately 70% of regional growth through 2035. The remaining 30% of the growth was allocated to cities relative to each city’s household growth anticipated in ABAG’s Projections 2009. ABAG and MTC indicate that they believe the housing projections from the State are high, given historical trends and the recent economy, and that those numbers will be adjusted downward, perhaps substantially (though they do not indicate when). ABAG and MTC also acknowledge that the IVS does not adequately address the distribution of jobs, so that there is not a similar relationship for employment to either PDAs or to transit access. Attachment B is a summary table of the household and job totals and growth for Santa Clara County and each city within the county. An overview of the IVS is included as an attachment to the March 14, 2011 supplement (Attachment G) and the entire document is available for viewing at: http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/. Adequacy of Place Types “Place types” are outlined on pages 13-18 in the Initial Vision Scenario (and are shown in the presentation materials in Attachment G). For Palo Alto, staff identified the California Avenue PDA as a “Transit Neighborhood,” identified downtown as a “Transit Town Center” growth opportunity area, and identified the El Camino corridor as a “Mixed Use Corridor.” Staff considered identifying downtown as an “Employment Center,” but did not since that place type seemed to exclude residential development entirely, and would seem more appropriate for a research park type of area. The maps included as Attachment E identify growth scenarios for “Transportation Analysis Zones” (TAZs) in Palo Alto and, in some cases, overlapping with other jurisdictions. These TAZs are used by the City, VTA, ABAG and others to analyze land use and transportation distributions for mapping and modeling purposes. It is fairly clear from these maps that the California Avenue PDA, downtown and the El Camino Corridor are locations noted for some substantive growth over the next 25 years. Staff has concluded that the place types identified for Palo Alto are probably okay, but they reflect increased growth over the density estimates that the City provided. ABAG has acknowledged that, to meet the overall growth targets, estimates from staff in most cities were increased. July 11, 2011 Page 4 of 9 (ID # 1741) The growth in the PDAs and GOAs shown in the Initial Vision Scenario amount to about 70% of the total Bay Area growth through 2035. Additional housing was then dispersed among the cities outside of place types to achieve the desired totals. Of concern to staff is that, for most cities, the growth in PDAs and GOAs ranges from 60-80% of the city’s total growth estimates. In Palo Alto, however, the PDA and GOAs account for only 45% of the total growth, which means that extensive housing growth (55% of the total) was identified for areas outside those designated areas. Attachment B indicates that total housing growth increases in Palo Alto are similar to those in several other Santa Clara County cities. But Attachment F compares Palo Alto growth estimates outside the PDAs and GOAs to other cities, showing a significant burden on Palo Alto to provide more housing in areas without sufficient available land and in conflict with goals to provide housing close to transit and services. The subsequent analyses indicate that many of these growth areas are within existing single-family neighborhoods. ABAG has since indicated that the growth was not intended to be specific to residential TAZs, but should be located wherever it is best accommodated, such as in the PDAs or GOAs (though those are already beyond their capacity). Housing and Employment Trends Analysis Attachment C includes tables that compare ABAG’s 2007 and 2009 jobs, housing, and population projections with those outlined in the Initial Vision Scenario. The first table shows a significant decrease in jobs over time, reflecting the general decline in employment in the region since 2001 and the severe economic decline in recent years. The IVS expects a growth of 5,000 jobs in Palo Alto from 2010-2035. There is, however, a substantial increase in housing shown over that same period, a total of 11,990 households. This would comprise an average increase of 480 households per year, whereas the City has produced approximately 200 housing units per year over the past 14 years, during a “boom” housing market. Staff believes this is an unrealistic rate of growth,particularly given the limited land resources and multiple other constraints. Analysis by Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Staff has analyzed the data from the Initial Vision Scenario by TAZ (Attachment E shows the TAZs). There are 25 TAZs that encompass the IVS for Palo Alto. Thirteen (13) of those are entirely within the city limits, and another 12 are shared with other jurisdictions. The fact that a number of the TAZs are shared makes it difficult to be conclusive about any analysis, but there are several observations that are of concern to staff and that were conveyed to the regional agencies: ·Housing Ø Housing in TAZs 351, 359, 360, and 363 are highly overstated, with a total of 5,720 new households (almost half of the total for the City) in areas that are almost entirely single-family residential neighborhoods and zoned accordingly. Ø TAZ 365 is shared with Mountain View, but housing appears to be overstated, with 981 households, though the portion in Palo Alto is again a single-family zoned area. July 11, 2011 Page 5 of 9 (ID # 1741) Ø TAZ 401 includes lands east of Hwy. 101 in Palo Alto and Mountain View, including the Moffett/NASA Ames property. This TAZ includes growth of over 4,000 households, with 2,118 specifically noted in the Moffett area PDA. Thus, it appears that almost 2,000 households would be planned in the E. Bayshore and Baylands area of Palo Alto, clearly an unrealistic figure. Ø TAZ 349 household growth is shown at only 13 households, which is understated, since this area includes Stanford properties subject to the “Mayfield Agreement,” with a minimum of 180 units required of Stanford. ·Employment Ø The total employment growth for the 13 TAZs wholly in Palo Alto amounts to job growth of 5,916 jobs, which exceeds the 4,860 jobs listed for the city in the IVS. This does not include any jobs in the 12 TAZs shared with other jurisdictions. Ø TAZ 355 includes the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) and Stanford Shopping Center, but shows only an increase of 1,290 jobs. The SUMC expansion entails 2,000 additional jobs in itself, so the jobs are substantially understated. Ø TAZs 348 and 349 include the Stanford Research Park, and show an increase of 764 employees through 2035. With buildout of anything near the allowable 700,000 square feet of additional space in the Research Park, however, employment increases would be expected closer to 2,500 jobs for these areas. Ø TAZ 365 is a small area shared by Palo Alto and Mountain View, but shows 859 employees in areas that are generally zoned for single-family residential. Ø TAZ 360 shows employment growth of 579 employees, which again appears overstated, since the area is single-family residential. In summary, staff believes that the TAZ analysis substantially overstates the potential household growth by at least 100%, and that the employment numbers understate the job growth by at least 50%, and perhaps more once a realistic economic projection is produced. Preliminary Response to Regional Agencies Staff has developed and sent a preliminary letter (Attachment A) to ABAG and MTC, outlining the City’s first response to the Initial Vision Scenario. The letter included the following key points, developed by staff after input from the PTC and considering the initial comments of the Council on March 14th: ·The City of Palo Alto in general supports the concepts of concentrating development (employment and housing) near transit stations or along El Camino Real, qualified by the provision of adequate and enhanced transit service in those corridors. The City also supports the provision of affordable housing, and has been a leader in that realm, despite the high cost of housing in the region, the county, and the city. The City further recognizes that it plays a role in assisting the region in meeting GHG emission goals, as well as many other fiscal and social benefits of compact development. ·The City of Palo Alto should be considered a key employment center in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, and the analysis should consider the type of jobs, the desire of July 11, 2011 Page 6 of 9 (ID # 1741) technology firms to locate here, and the GHG reduction benefits of locating jobs near transit (with reference to MTC and other studies). ·The IVS results in only a minimal decrease (2%) in GHG reductions. More extensive impacts are likely from focusing on jobs near transit or other mechanisms to reduce GHG. (PTC addition) ·The basic growth estimates based on State projections and regional assumptions need to be analyzed by independent experts to produce credible projections or ranges of projections. (PTC addition) ·The Initial Vision Scenario does not provide a reasonable evaluation of future employment increases. The IVS should recognize the City of Palo Alto as a key employment center on the Peninsula and in the Bay Area, and employment analyses should consider a) the nature and extent of jobs in Palo Alto, b) the desire of technology firms to locate in and near Palo Alto (the proximity to Stanford, Palo Alto amenities, Caltrain, industry innovators, and high quality schools), and c) the benefits of jobs being located close to transit (jobs close to transit generate higher transit use than housing near transit). References are provided to a chart from MTC supporting that relationship ·The Sustainable Communities Strategy should be based on a concept of identifying transit commute sheds, such as within the Caltrain corridor and the El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, in a way that establishes, for example, 30-45 minute thresholds for locating housing and employment centers linked by transit. This would help to move the concept away from a city-by-city scenario to a more subregional approach, allowing job growth where it is most attractive for employers and housing located where available land and costs are more affordable, but allowing for ready transit, bicycle or pedestrian access from housing nodes to employment centers. ·The construction of housing in Palo Alto is highly constrained by multiple factors, including but not limited to the cost of land, traffic, school capacity, and community services. Staff attached the January 9, 2008 letter (Attachment I) from Mayor Klein to ABAG appealing the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which outlined many of those concerns. ·The housing growth estimates are severely overestimated and unrealistic, using the overstated 2009 Projections as a starting point. At least half of the potential increases in the IVS are shown in areas that are now populated primarily with single-family land uses and zoning, which are not appropriate for intensification. Any increases in housing should be limited to the identified Planned Development Area and Growth Opportunity Areas. ·Any expectations of growth for the Sustainable Communities Strategy must be tied to provision of adequate transportation, and particularly transit, infrastructure. ·Any scenario for future development should separate Stanford University’s housing impact from that of the City. Those demands for housing should not be assigned as the responsibility of Palo Alto. ·The employment growth totals conflict with (are considerably less than) the sum of growth in the Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs). ·Staff identified the specific TAZ deficiencies discussed above. July 11, 2011 Page 7 of 9 (ID # 1741) The responses reflect comments added by the PTC, particularly for items #2 and 3 in the letter. Staff also suggests reference to the publication “Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America” in the response item #1 in the letter. Staff requests that the Council provide input and comment to help finalize the City’s response to ABAG and MTC, which would be transmitted over the Mayor’s signature. Planning and Transportation Commission Review The PTC reviewed the Initial Vision Scenario and staff’s suggested responses on May 4, 2011. The PTC generally supported and reiterated staff’s key points. In addition, the PTC recommended that the letter include points to 1) note the minimal decrease in GHG resulting from this scenario, reinforcing the need to look at employment centers near transit and other strategies to achieve greater GHG benefits, and 2) request independent reviews of the demographic, economic, and growth assumptions underlying the preparation of the Initial Vision Scenario (and presumably the alternatives to be evaluated as well). These points were incorporated as items #2 and 3 in the letter. Responses of SCCAPO and Other Local Agencies The Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials (SCCAPO) has met regularly during the SCS process and has formulated some initial suggestions to the regional agencies (Attachment K). SCCAPO has also compiled a survey of responses from Santa Clara County cities, which has been provided to ABAG and MTC (Attachment L). The County and the cities of Mountain View and Campbell have sent additional responses specific to their communities. Many of the themes were similar to those expressed in the Palo Alto letter, such as the need to better address job growth, the extensive constraints to housing (school capacity, infrastructure needs, traffic, etc.), and the lack of a supportive transportation network to accommodate projected development levels. Not all of the cities are aligned, however, as about half (generally those without transit stations and without extensive new housing expected) did not object to the Initial Vision Scenario. Staff notes that San Jose has, unlike prior projections, objected to the extent of housing envisioned for that city, suggesting a greater jobs allocation to balance its current housing inventory. Alternative Scenarios ABAG and MTC are expected to prepare and release 3-5 “alternative scenarios” for review, likely in July. The alternatives are expected to include variations that: 1) focus more growth in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose; 2) focus more on job centers near transit and housing with reasonable “commute sheds”; 3) attempt to locate more than 70% of new housing in PDAs or growth opportunity areas; and/or 4) locate more growth in areas not proximate to transit. These concepts may be presented to the ABAG and MTC executive boards in the next couple of weeks for direction. Staff will report to Council and the PTC when something is released. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee The RHNA Methodology Committee has met several times and has determined that there should be a close link between the housing criteria and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. July 11, 2011 Page 8 of 9 (ID # 1741) The current methodology under review would require each city and county to provide for 1/3 of the 2035 total in each of the three 8-year planning periods during that timeframe. There has also been discussion of “backloading” (given the current economy) to allocate less units in the 2014-2022 period and more in later years. The two primary topics of discussion have been: 1.The examples portrayed begin with the numbers used in the Initial Vision Scenario, which virtually no one buys into; and 2.The methodology generally relies on assuming 70% of the housing is provided in the PDAs and growth opportunity areas, and then various formulas may be used for the remaining 30%, with factors to be considered including prior affordable housing success, access to transit, quality of schools (not quantity), and/or others. Most of those, of course, are not favorable to Palo Alto. The attached memo from ABAG (Attachment M) was discussed at the March 26th meeting and describes some of the various options and implications. There was considerable objection and no consensus among the group. The Committee’s next meeting is on June 24th so staff and Councilmember Scharff can report the latest at the Council meeting. Due to the desire to tie the RHNA more closely to the SCS, the timeframe for the Committee’s work has been extended to September or October, at least. Resource Impacts Review of the Sustainable Community Strategy and Regional Housing Needs Assessment process involves considerable time of the Director of Planning and Community (estimated 20- 40 hours per month) and lesser time for other department staff. There are, however, no direct costs associated with the staff review. Next Steps 1.The Council letter will be forwarded to ABAG and MTC. 2.Staff will return to PTC and Council with updates and recommended actions, if timely, once the Alternative Scenarios are released (expected in July). 3.Staff and Councilmember Scharff will report to Council in September regarding status and progress regarding the RHNA Methodology Committee’s progress. 4.Staff will continue to participate in regional and countywide meetings and report back to PTC and Council. ATTACHMENTS: ·Attachment A: May 25, 2011 Letter to Ezra Rapport (ABAG) Re Initial Vision Scenario(PDF) ·Attachment B: Table 2.4 -Initial Vision Scenario: Household and Job Totals and Growth (PDF) ·Attachment C: ABAG Projections 2007, 2009 and Initial Vision Scenario Comparison (PDF) ·Attachment D: SCS Initial Vision Scenario Household and Employment Analysis per TAZ (PDF) July 11, 2011 Page 9 of 9 (ID # 1741) ·Attachment E: Maps of Initial Vision Scenario Growth (Households and Employment) by TAZ (PDF) ·Attachment F: Graph and Tables 3.2-3.10c -PDA and GOA Growth Re Total Growth (PDF) ·Attachment G: March 14, 2011 Supplemental Staff Memo Re Initial Vision Scenario (PDF) ·Attachment H: March 14, 2011 Staff Report to Council Re Sustainable Communities Strategy Update (PDF) ·Attachment I: January 9, 2008 Letter from Mayor to ABAG Re Appeal of RHNA Determination (PDF) ·Attachment J: Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Excerpt Minutes of May 4, 2011 (PDF) ·Attachment K: June 8, 2011 Letter from Santa Clara County Planning Officials to One Bay Area (PDF) ·Attachment L: Santa Clara County Planning Officials Survey of Responses to Initial Vision Scenario (PDF) ·Attachment M: May 26, 2011 Memo from RHNA Committee (PDF) ·Attachment N: Glossary of Acronyms and Terms (PDF) ·Attachment O: Initial Vision Scenario available at: http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/(TXT) Prepared By:Curtis Williams, Director Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager May 27, 2011 Ezra Rapport, Executive Director Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Ci~of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Re: Initial Vision Scenario for Sustainable Communities Strategy Dear Mr. Rapport: On behalf of the City Manager and City of Palo staff, we appreciate the opportunity to respond to One Bay Area's Initial Vision Scenario, released on March 11, 2011. City staff has reviewed the document with the City Council and with the Planning and Transportation Commission, and has prepared the preliminary responses below. We expect to visit with the Council again on June 27, 2011, and will then forward an updated letter from the Mayor and Council. The City of Palo Alto generally supports the intent and concepts of concentrating development (employment and housing) near transit stations or along transit corridors throughout the Bay Area, including around Caltrain stations and along El Camino Real on the Peninsula, qualified by the provision of adequate and enhanced transit service in those corridors. The City also supports the provision of affordable housing in the region, and has been a leader in that realm, despite the high cost of housing in the region, particularly in Santa Clara County and Palo Alto. The City, further recognizes that it plays a role in assisting the region in meeting greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals, as well as many other fiscal and social benefits of compact development. The City believes that it has modeled many of these principles in the past and continues to do so. The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS), however, offers a plan that is highly unrealistic and in some ways contrary to many of those goals. The City of Palo Alto has several key concerns with the IVS and requests that the regional planning group substantially modify the plan in its subsequent iterations to address these issues: 1. The Sustainable Communities Strategy and future alternative scenarios sho.uld recognize that Palo Alto is a key employment center on the Peninsula and in the. Bay Area. Employment analyses should consider: a) the nature and extent of jobs in Palo Alto (high percentage of technology professionals), b) the desire of technology firms to locate in and near Palo Alto (proximity to Stanford, Palo Alto amenities, Caltrain stops, the synergy of industry innovators, and high quality schools), and c) the benefits of jobs being located close to transit. According to Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) studies, jobs close to transit generate at least twice the rate of transit use than housing near transit (see attached chart). A greater focus on locating jobs near transit is likely to produce significant benefits for GHG reduction. Planning 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled pa~r processed without chlorine Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2520 650.617.3108 Building 285 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2496 650.329.2240 Lel.lr:r to Ezl'Il R iJpporl: '\1ay 20 J J 2. The Initial Vision Scenario is expected to result in only a 2% decrease per capita in GHG emissions for the region by 2035 (10% under the "Current Regional Plans" scenario v. 12% under the IVS). The public is likely to ask "why is the IVS preferred over the existing planning scenario and is it worth the extent of change to accorrunodate such a minor reduction in GHG?" The Sustainable Corrununlties Strategy must more directly address the location of employment near transit, move away from a jurisdiction-specific approach, and should also focus on other strategies, such as pricing, to achie:ve more meaningful GHG benefits. 3. The Initial Vision Scenario (and therefore ultimately the Sustainable Corrununities Strategy) is based on housing increases and employment projections largely derived from the State of California and modified by ABAG and MTC. The models for projecting these fundamental housing and jobs figures should be thoroughly vetted by third parties to reflect many of the realities of the present and future, including economic trends and limiting constraints such as land cost and availability, needed infrastructure, and diminishing capacity for schools and other public services. 4. The Initial Vision Scenario does not provide a realistic evaluation of future employment increases in Palo Alto. The IVS shows an increase of slightly less than 5,000 new jobs in Palo Alto, when the City already has plans in the process or approved (Stanford Medical Center, downtown offices, remaining capacity in the Stanford Research Park, pending occupancy of 1 million square feet of vacant space in the Researeh Park, etc.) that would account for nearly that many jobs by 2020. 5. The construction of housing in Palo Alto is highly constrained by multiple factors, including but not limited to: a) the high cost and limited availability of land, b) traffic congestion, c) capacity of the Palo Alto Unified School District, and d) corrununity services. Attached is a January 9, 2008 letter from Mayor Klein to ABAG objecting to the City's most recent Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which letter outlined many of those concerns and others. 6. The IVS and SCS and the upcoming RHNA methodology also rely heavily on ABAG's 2009 projections, which already overstate the potential housing growth in Palo Alto, as outlined in the attached 2008 letter. The SCS should provide an opportunity to move away from a city- specific approach (based on household formation) to regional and subregional growth patterns that better distinguish between employment centers and housing nodes and the means to connect the two with transit, bicycling, walking andlor shorter vehicle trips. The employment and housing linkage should be evaluated more dynamically, as appropriate locations for each are not limited by jurisdictional boundaries. 7. The housing growth estimates arc highly overestimated and unrealistic. The potential increase of 11,990 households (HH) over the 2010-2035 timeframe represents an average increase of 480 HH per year, whereas the City has produced approximately 200 housing units per year over the past 14 years, during a "boom" housing market. And as housing has grown, land resources, school capacity and other services have decreased, so that it is extremel y difficult to imagine even that level of growth continuing through 2035. The City believes that the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) analysis (below) indicates that the IVS overestimates the potential household growth by at least 100%. Page 2 Letter to Ezra Rapport: May 25, 2011 8. At least half of the potential housing increases in Palo Alto are shown in areas that are now populated primarily with single-family land uses and zoning, lands which are not available or appropriate for intensification. The Sustainable Communities Strategy should be designed to strengthen existing communities, but implementation of the IVS would be contrary to that purpose. Any increases in housing growth should be limited to the City's identified Priority Development Area (PDA) and Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs). 9. Any expectations of growth for the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) must be tied to the provision of adequate transportation, and particularly transit, infrastructure. Policies of the SCS should emphasize this connection. 10. Any estimates of future growth in housing and jobs must clearly delineate what is generated on the Stanford University campus (apart from the medical center and research park). These areas are wholly within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. According to a tri-party agreement between the City, Stanford and the County, no part of the campus may be annexed to the City of Palo Alto, unlike many areas adjacent to other cities, where the County encourages annexations. The housing needs of the Stanford campus should not be assigned to the City of Palo Alto. 11. The City's TAZ analysis indicates several errors, omissions, and understatements of employment potential. Additionally, several of the T AZs encompass areas partly in other jurisdictions, so it is difficult to gauge precisely how much the Palo Alto jobs numbers are understated. Some of the City's specific concerns include the following: a. The employment growth totals conflict with (are considerably less than) the sum of growth in the TAZs. The total employment growth for the TAZs wholly in Palo Alto amounts to 5,916 jobs, which exceeds the 4,860 jobs listed in the IVS. This does not include any Palo Alto jobs in the 12 TAZs shared with other jurisdictions. b. TAZ 355 includes the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) and Stanford Shopping Center, but shows only an increase of 1,290 jobs. The current SUMC expansion, near approval by the City Council, entails over 2,000 additional jobs in itself, and future growth of the Shopping Center is expected as well. c. T AZs 348 and 349 include the Stanford Research Park, and show an increase of 764 employees through 2035. With buildout of anything near the 700,000 square feet of additional space in the Research Park, however, employment increases would be expected closer to 2,500 jobs for this area. d. TAZ 365 is a small area shared by Palo Alto and Mountain View, but shows 859 employees in areas that are generally zoned for single-family residential. e. TAZ 360 shows employment growth of 579 employees, which again appears overstated, since the area is zoned for and occupied by single-family homes. 12. The City's TAZ analysis indicates several errors, omissions, and overstatements of housing potential. Additionally, several of the TAZs encompass areas partly in other jurisdictions, so it is difficult to gauge precisely how much the Palo Alto housing numbers are overstated. Some of the City's specific concerns include the following: a. Housing in TAZs 351, 359, 360 and 363 is highly overstated, with a total of 5,720 new households (almost half of the total for Palo Alto) in areas that are almost entirely single-family residential neighborhoods and zoned accordingly. Page 3 Letter to Ezra Rapport: May 25, 2011 b. TAZ 365 is shared with Mountain View, but housing appears to be overstated, with 981 households, though the portion in Palo Alto is again a single-family zoned area. c. TAZ401 includes lands east of Hwy. 101 in Palo Alto and Mountain View, including the MoffettJNASA Ames property. This T AZ includes growth of over 4,000 households, with 2,118 specifically noted in the Moffett area PDA. Thus, it appears that almost 2,000 households would be planned in the East Bayshore and Baylands area of Palo Alto, clearly an unrealistic figure and not proximate to any transit. d. TAZ 349 household growth is shown at only 13 households, which is understated, since this area includes Stanford properties subject to the "Mayfield Agreement," with a minimum of 180 units required of Stanford. In summary, the City of Palo Alto strongly suggests that the Sustainable Communities Strategy should be based on a concept of identifying transit commute sheds, such as the Cal train corridor and the EI Camino Bus Rapid Transit corridor, in a way that establishes, for example, 30 minute commute thresholds for locating housing notes and employment centers. This would help to move the concept away from a city-by-city scenario to a more subregional approach, allowing job growth where it is most attractive for employers and near transit. Most housing could then be located where available land and costs are more affordable, but facilitating transit, bicycle or pedestrian access from the housing nodes to those cmploymcnt centers. Thank you for your consideration of the above comments and suggestions. Staff expects that the Ci2' Council will forward its comments, which may expand on those outlined, following its June 27 Council meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (650). 329-2321. Sincerely, ~W"~ Curtis Williams, Director Department of Planning and Community Environment Attachments: January 9, 2008 Letter from Mayor Klein to ABAG re: RHNA MTC Chart Showing Transit Ridership for Jobs v. Housing cc: City Council Planning and Transportation Commission James Keene, City Manager Doug Kimsey, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Ken Kirkey, Association of Bay Area Governments Page 4 Table 2.4: Initial Vision Scenario – Household and Job Totals and Growth by Jurisdiction Households Jobs Santa Clara County 2010 2035 Growth % Change 2010 2035 Growth % Change Campbell 16,890 21,000 4,110 24.3% 22,100 26,900 4,800 21.7%Cupertino 19,830 21,590 1,760 8.9% 30,510 35,280 4,770 15.6% Gilroy 14,330 22,120 7,790 54.3% 16,650 22,670 6,010 36.1% Los Altos 10,670 11,970 1,300 12.2% 10,250 11,510 1,260 12.3% Los Altos Hills 3,050 3,090 30 1.1% 1,840 1,940 90 5.0% Los Gatos 12,430 13,150 720 5.8% 18,270 20,700 2,420 13.3%Milpitas 19,030 38,760 19,730 103.7% 46,780 55,620 8,840 18.9% Monte Sereno 1,230 1,270 40 3.3% 400 530 130 33.1% Morgan Hill 12,400 20,040 7,640 61.6%12,700 20,810 8,110 63.9% Mountain View 32,110 50,350 18,230 56.8%50,070 64,510 14,430 28.8% Palo Alto 26,710 38,690 11,990 44.9%73,300 78,160 4,860 6.6%San Jose 305,090 435,590 130,500 42.8%342,800 593,220 250,420 73.1% Santa Clara 43,400 67,670 24,270 55.9%103,190 138,390 35,200 34.1% Saratoga 11,000 11,120 120 1.1%6,830 7,280 450 6.6% Sunnyvale 54,170 73,420 19,260 35.5%72,390 96,410 24,020 33.2% Santa Clara County Unincorporated 31,600 37,990 6,390 20.2%50,300 64,480 14,180 28.2%Countywide Total 613,940 867,820 253,880 41.3% 858,380 1,238,410 379,990 44.3% ABAG Projections 2007, 2009 and Initial SCS Vision Scenario Jobs Comparison 2010 2035 25 yr Jobs Growth Percent Change 2010 2035 25 yr Jobs Growth Percent Change Projections 2007 3,693,920 5,247,780 1,553,860 42.1% Projections 2007 77,400 92,960 15,560 20.1% Projections 2009 3,475,840 5,107,390 1,631,550 46.9% Projections 2009 76,480 82,160 5,680 7.4% Initial SCS Vision Scenario 3,271,300 4,493,300 1,222,000 37.4% Initial SCS Vision Scenario 73,303 78,163 4,860 6.6% ABAG Projections 2007, 2009 and Initial SCS Vision Scenario Households Comparison 2010 2035 25 yr Households Growth Percent Change 2010 2035 25 yr Households Growth Percent Change Projections 2007 2,696,580 3,292,530 595,950 22.1% Projections 2007 27,980 34,810 6,830 24.4% Projections 2009 2,667,340 3,302,780 635,440 23.8% Projections 2009 26,700 36,500 9,800 36.7% Initial SCS Vision Scenario 2,669,800 3,572,300 902,500 33.8% Initial SCS Vision Scenario 26,705 38,692 11,987 44.9% ABAG Projections 2007, 2009 and Initial SCS Vision Scenario Population Comparison 2010 2035 25 yr Population Growth Percent Change 2010 2035 25 yr Population Growth Percent Change Projections 2007 7,412,500 9,031,500 1,619,000 21.8% Projections 2007 64,500 78,900 14,400 22.3% Projections 2009 7,341,700 9,073,700 1,732,000 23.6% Projections 2009 61,600 84,000 22,400 36.4% Initial SCS Vision Scenario 7,348,300 9,429,900 2,081,600 28.3% Initial SCS Vision Scenario n/a n/a n/a n/a ABAG Region Population City of Palo Alto Population (Jurisdictional Boundary) ABAG Region Jobs City of Palo Alto Jobs (Jurisdictional Boundary) ABAG Region Households City of Palo Alto Households (Jurisdictional Boundary) SCS Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) Household and Employment Analysis 2010-2035 per Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) Employment SCS IVS for Palo Alto IVS 2010 2035 Growth % Change Jurisdiction Palo Alto 73,300 78,160 4,860 6.6% TAZ EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS TAZ TAZ CITY TOTAL EMPLOYEES 2010 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 2035 EMPLOYEE GROWTH 2010-2035 % PERCENT CHANGE 367 CPA 1,832 2,540 708 39 366 CPA 2,528 3,879 1,351 53 362 CPA 7,307 7,540 233 3 364 CPA 793 927 134 17 363 CPA 680 1,008 328 48 360 CPA 888 1,467 579 65 361 CPA 891 932 41 5 358 CPA 949 999 50 5 357 CPA 849 889 40 5 356 CPA 10,645 11,523 878 8 359 CPA 698 1,120 422 60 349 CPA 13,593 14,148 555 4 351 CPA 4,680 5,277 597 13 Subtotal CPA only TAZ's CPA 46,333 52,249 5,916 Subtotal of TAZ's shared with other jurisdictions Shared TAZ's with other jurisdictions 69,365 77,089 7,724 Total of all TAZ's with CPA 115,698 129,338 13,640 Households SCS Ivs for Palo Alto IVS 2010 2035 Growth % Change Jurisdiction Palo Alto 26,710 38,690 11,990 44.9% TAZ HOUSEHOLDS ANALYSIS TAZ TAZ CITY TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 2010 TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 2035 HOUSEHOLDS GROWTH 2010-2035 % PERCENT CHANGE 367 CPA 2426 2754 328 367 366 CPA 2037 4069 2032 366 362 CPA 1720 1788 68 362 364 CPA 938 1092 154 364 363 CPA 1150 2225 1075 363 360 CPA 2184 3240 1056 360 361 CPA 2430 2536 106 361 358 CPA 1963 2050 87 358 357 CPA 1854 1944 90 357 356 CPA 4473 7085 2612 356 359 CPA 1579 2618 1039 359 349 CPA 323 336 13 349 351 CPA 2076 3270 1194 351 Subtotal CPA only TAZ's CPA 25153 35007 9854 Subtotal of TAZ's shared with other jurisdictions Shared TAZ's with other jurisdictions 13615 22057 8442 Total of all TAZ's with CPA 38768 57064 18296 891932415 949999505 849889405 11712587 190201116 873894212 1376186348735 3576405047413 730775402333 79392713417 680100832848 698112042260 319933301314 512653352094 3086348039413 1832254070839 888146757965 13593141485554 4680527759713 1079193885980 10645115238788 12635134498146 25283879135153 173211859112707 2078723833304615 Arastradero Lake Felt Lake Boronda Lake 190201116 2078723833304615 1376186348735 3576405047413 1079193885980 1832254070839 25283879135153 730775402333 79392713417 680100832848 888146757965 891932415 949999505 84988940510645115238788 698112042260 173211859112707 12635134498146 11712587 319933301314 512653352094 13593141485554 3086348039413 4680527759713 873894212 San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek Buckeye Creek Matadero Creek Charleston Slough Matadero Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Adobe CreekAdobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe CreekAdobe Creek Adobe Cr e e k Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Cornelis Bol Park Esther Clark Park Greer Park Jerry Bowden Park John Boulware Park Mitchell ParkMitchell Park Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Eleanor Pardee Park Alexander Peers Park Don JesusRamos Park Rinconada Park Don SecundinoRobles Park Juana BrionesPark Johnson Park Water QualityControl Plant Alta Mesa Memorial Park CommonArea "B" BaylandsAthletic Center The Bowl VenturaCommunityCenter Gunn High School Las Trampas Valley OhloneElementarySchool DuveneckElementarySchool Orchard AddisonElementary Main Library Art Center Walter HayesElementary School Greer Park SealePark Palo VerdeElementarySchool El CarmeloElementarySchool JL StanfordMiddle School FairmeadowElementarySchool HooverElementary Hewlett Packard Hewlett Packard Barron ParkElementary School Alta Mesa Memorial Park Alta MesaMemorial Park Juana BrionesElementarySchool Agilent nway Way Tower BaylandsInterpretiveCenter Timothy Hopkins Park Timothy Hopkins Park Castilleja School TIBCO SAP Terman Middle School Heritage Park El Camino Park TermanPark Arastradero PreserveArastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero PreserveArastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Palo AltoAirport JordanMiddleSchool Palo Alto HillsCountry Club Land Fill Sailing Station Hooks Island Hooks Point CompostingArea Gunn High School Foothills Park Foothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills Park MaintenanceYard Emily Renzel Wetlands MunicipalServiceCenter Mountain View Shoreline Park Palo Alto High School Veteran's Administration Hospital Flood Gates Mountain View Shoreline Park Mountain View Shoreline Park Mountain View Shoreline Park FoothillReservoir #2 Arrillaga Property Midtown Area Cubberley Community Center VMware Byxbee Park Pearson -Arastradero Preserve Hig h w a y 2 8 0 401 373 374 365 367 366 362 364 363 360 361 358 357 356 359355 354 353 352 347 348 349 350 351 368 San Antonio Rd 280 A l a m eda de l a s P ulg a s S a n d H i l l R o a d 2 8 0 Junip e r o S e r r a Boule v a r d P a ge M i l l Road A r a s t r a d e r o R o a d E l C a m i n o R e a l San Antonio Av e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R o a d G 5 A l t a m o n t R O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d University Avenue r e e w a y 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t El Camino Real A l p i n e R o a d F oothi l l Expr e s s w a y H i g h w a y 2 8 0 Los Trancos Road Hi l lv i ew E a s t B a y s h o r e W e s t B a y s h o r e Fabian Central Expressway El Camino Real Bayshore Freeway El M o nte R oa d S a n d H i l l R o a d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d East Palo Alto StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Mountain View Los Altos Los Altos Hills Portola Valley Set of 4 Numbers What do the numbers mean? 1st number on top - 2010 IVS Employee Count 2nd number from top - 2035 IVS Employee Count 3rd number from top - Difference between 2035 IVS Emp to 2010 IVS Emp Count 4th number from top - Percent increase/decrease from 2010 to 2035 IVS Emp Count TAZ Label350 3086 3480 394 13 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Employment Growth 2010 to 2035 per TAZ: 1 to 99 jobs 100 to 499 jobs 500 to 749 jobs 750 to 999 jobs 1000 to 1500 jobs 3046 jobs City Jurisdictional Limits Transportation Stations TAZ Boundaries 0'3585' SC S I n i t i a l V i s i o n S c e n a r i o ( I V S ) 20 1 0 t o 2 0 3 5 Em p l o y m e n t G r o w t h A n a l y s i s pe r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n A n a l y s i s Z o n e s ( T A Z ) CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2011-04-26 09:54:21TAZ 1454 SCS EMP Analysis 2035 byjobsincrease (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 17201788684 19632050874 18541944905 1952192412 3134310 323336134 14801519393 1238137914111 2426275432814 938109215416 243025361064 1200153133128 26347020779 287429791054 1116163351746 1635261698160 1136179065458 11502225107593 21843240105648 15792618103966 18383194135674 20763270119458 203740692032100 44737085261258 60946934084671 Arastradero Lake Felt Lake Boronda Lake San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek Buckeye Creek Matadero Creek Charleston Slough Matadero Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Adobe CreekAdobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe CreekAdobe Creek Adobe Cr e e k Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Cornelis Bol Park Esther Clark Park Greer Park Jerry Bowden Park John Boulware Park Mitchell ParkMitchell Park Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Eleanor Pardee Park Alexander Peers Park Don JesusRamos Park Rinconada Park Don SecundinoRobles Park Juana BrionesPark Johnson Park Water QualityControl Plant Alta Mesa Memorial Park CommonArea "B" BaylandsAthletic Center The Bowl VenturaCommunityCenter Gunn High School Las Trampas Valley OhloneElementarySchool DuveneckElementarySchool Orchard AddisonElementary Main Library Art Center Walter HayesElementary School Greer Park SealePark Palo VerdeElementarySchool El CarmeloElementarySchool JL StanfordMiddle School FairmeadowElementarySchool HooverElementary Hewlett Packard Hewlett Packard Barron ParkElementary School Alta Mesa Memorial Park Alta MesaMemorial Park Juana BrionesElementarySchool Agilent nway Way Tower BaylandsInterpretiveCenter Timothy Hopkins Park Timothy Hopkins Park Castilleja School TIBCO SAP Terman Middle School Heritage Park El Camino Park TermanPark Arastradero PreserveArastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero PreserveArastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Palo AltoAirport JordanMiddleSchool Palo Alto HillsCountry Club Land Fill Sailing Station Hooks Island Hooks Point CompostingArea Gunn High School Foothills Park Foothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills Park MaintenanceYard Emily Renzel Wetlands MunicipalServiceCenter Mountain View Shoreline Park Palo Alto High School Veteran's Administration Hospital Flood Gates Mountain View Shoreline Park Mountain View Shoreline Park Mountain View Shoreline Park FoothillReservoir #2 Arrillaga Property Midtown Area Cubberley Community Center VMware Byxbee Park Pearson -Arastradero Preserve Hig h w a y 2 8 0 401 373 374 365 367 366 362 364 363 360 361 358 357 356 359355 354 353 352 347 348 349 350 351 368 1952192412 60946934084671 1116163351746 1238137914111 1635261698160 2426275432814 203740692032100 17201788684 938109215416 11502225107593 21843240105648 243025361064 19632050874 18541944905 44737085261258 15792618103966 1200153133128 26347020779 18383194135674 287429791054 3134310 323336134 1136179065458 20763270119458 14801519393 San Antonio Rd 280 A l a m eda de l a s P ulg a s S a n d H i l l R o a d 2 8 0 Junip e r o S e r r a Boule v a r d P a ge M i l l Road A r a s t r a d e r o R o a d E l C a m i n o R e a l San Antonio Av e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R o a d G 5 A l t a m o n t R O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d University Avenue r e e w a y 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t El Camino Real A l p i n e R o a d F oothi l l Expr e s s w a y H i g h w a y 2 8 0 Los Trancos Road Hi l lv i ew E a s t B a y s h o r e W e s t B a y s h o r e Fabian Central Expressway El Camino Real Bayshore Freeway El M o nte R oa d S a n d H i l l R o a d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d East Palo Alto StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Mountain View Los Altos Los Altos Hills Portola Valley Set of 4 Numbers What do the numbers mean? 1st number on top - 2010 IVS Household Count 2nd number from top - 2035 IVS Household Count 3rd number from top - Difference between 2035 IVS HH to 2010 IVS HH Count 4th number from top - Percent increase/decrease from 2010 to 2035 IVS HH Count TAZ Label350 1136 1790 654 58 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Household Growth 2010 to 2035 per TAZ: 1 to 99 Households 100 to 499 Households 500 to 999 Households 1000 to 1500 Households 2000 to 2700 Households 4084 Households City Jurisdictional Limits Transportation Stations TAZ Boundaries 0'3585' SC S I n i t i a l V i s i o n S c e n a r i o ( I V S ) 20 1 0 t o 2 0 3 5 Ho u s e h o l d G r o w t h A n a l y s i s pe r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n A n a l y s i s Z o n e s ( T A Z ) CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2011-04-26 10:01:08TAZ 1454 SCS Household Analysis 2035 byincreasehouseholds (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 31% 69% 46% 54% 55% 45% 14% 86% 19% 81% 41% 59% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Ho u s e h o l d G r o w t h Redwood City Mountain View Palo Alto San Jose City of Santa Clara Sunnyvale Cities % of Households Growth within Priority Development Area (PDA) & Growth Opportunity Areas (GOA) in Relation to Total Growth PDA & GOA Growth Growth outside of PDA & GOA Priority Development Area (PDA) & Growth Opportunity Area (GOA) Household Growth in relation to Total Household Growth (selected cities ) San Mateo County Households Jursidiction or Area Name Key Jurisdiction Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change Redwood City - TOTAL GROWTH 29,620 41,032 11,412 38.5%Downtown RWC1 Redwood City City Center 786 6,139 5,353 681%Broadway OARWC3 Redwood City Mixed-Use Corridor 1,962 2,325 363 18%Middlefield OARWC2 Redwood City Mixed-Use Corridor 2,370 2,757 387 16%Mixed Use Waterfront OARWC4 Redwood City Mixed-Use Corridor 876 1,916 1,040 119%Veterans Corridor OARWC1 Redwood City Mixed-Use Corridor 308 1,076 768 249% PDA & GOA Growth % of PDA & GOA Growth to Total GrowthPDA & GOA Growth relative to Total City Growth 6,302 14,213 7,912 69% Santa Clara County Households Jursidiction or Area Name Key Jurisdiction Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change Mountain View - TOTAL GROWTH 32,114 50,348 18,234 56.8% Whisman Station MVW1 Mountain View Transit Neighborhood 0 1,220 1,220 NA Downtown OAMVW1 Mountain View Transit Town Center 1,359 2,544 1,185 87% East Whisman OAMVW4 Mountain View Employment Center 104 203 99 95% El Camino Real Corridor OAMVW3 Mountain View Mixed-Use Corridor 2,561 4,121 1,560 61% Moffett Field/NASA Ames OAMVW5 Mountain View Suburban Center 166 2,283 2,118 1279% North Bayshore OAMVW6 Mountain View Suburban Center 278 2,653 2,375 853% San Antonio Center OAMVW2 Mountain View Transit Town Center 1,470 2,732 1,262 86% PDA & GOA Growth % of PDA & GOA Growth to Total Growth PDA & GOA Growth relative to Total City Growth 5,938 15,757 9,819 54% HouseholdsJursidiction or Area Name Key Jurisdiction Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change Palo Alto - TOTAL GROWTH 26,705 38,692 11,987 44.9% California Avenue PAL1 Palo Alto Transit Neighborhood 922 2,889 1,967 213% El Camino Real Corridor OAPAL2 Palo Alto Mixed-Use Corridor 4,272 6,116 1,845 43% University Avenue/Downtown OAPAL1 Palo Alto Transit Town Center 2,162 3,701 1,539 71% PDA & GOA Growth % of PDA & GOA Growth to Total Growth PDA & GOA Growth relative to Total City Growth 7,355 12,706 5,351 45% Households Jursidiction or Area Name Key Jurisdiction Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change San Jose - TOTAL GROWTH 305,087 435,585 130,498 42.8%Berryessa Station SJO5 San Jose Transit Neighborhood 1,926 8,024 6,098 317%Communications Hill SJO6 San Jose Transit Town Center 2,423 5,198 2,775 115%Cottle Transit Village SJO2 San Jose Suburban Center 59 2,989 2,930 4952%Downtown "Frame"SJO4 San Jose City Center 5,799 24,458 18,659 322%East Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor SJO8 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 2,306 6,396 4,090 177%Greater Downtown SJO1 San Jose Regional Center 3,217 10,117 6,900 215%North San Jose SJO3 San Jose Regional Center 9,488 42,128 32,640 344%West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors SJO7 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 8,299 16,923 8,624 104%Bascom TOD Corridor OASJO4 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 227 1,627 1,400 617%Bascom Urban Village OASJO5 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 1,089 1,889 800 73%Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village OASJO7 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 519 1,619 1,100 212%Camden Urban Village OASJO6 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 346 1,346 1,000 289%Capitol Corridor Urban Villages OASJO8 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 3,692 9,892 6,200 168%Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages OASJO11 San Jose Suburban Center 1,504 3,754 2,250 150%Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban Village OASJO10 San Jose Suburban Center 2,302 9,802 7,500 326%Saratoga TOD Corridor OASJO2 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 1,495 2,595 1,100 74%Stevens Creek TOD Corridor OASJO1 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 1,066 4,966 3,900 366%Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village OASJO9 San Jose Suburban Center 559 3,059 2,500 447%Winchester Boulevard TOD Corridor OASJO3 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 2,026 4,026 2,000 99% PDA & GOA Growth % of PDA & GOA Growth to Total Growth PDA & GOA Growth relative to Total City Growth 48,341 160,807 112,466 86% HouseholdsJursidiction or Area Name Key Jurisdiction Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change Santa Clara - TOTAL GROWTH 43,403 67,672 24,269 55.9% Central Expressway Focus Area OASCL5 Santa Clara City Center 0 4,000 4,000 NA El Camino Real Focus Area OASCL1 Santa Clara Mixed-Use Corridor 1,305 2,183 878 67% Great America Parkway Focus Area OASCL6 Santa Clara Urban Neighborhood 0 3,400 3,400 NA Lawrence Station Focus Area OASCL3 Santa Clara Transit Neighborhood 0 6,194 6,194 NA Santa Clara Station Focus Area OASCL2 Santa Clara City Center 167 3,502 3,335 1997% Tasman East Focus Area OASCL4 Santa Clara Transit Neighborhood 0 1,805 1,805 NA PDA & GOA Growth % of PDA & GOA Growth to Total Growth PDA & GOA Growth relative to Total City Growth 1,472 21,084 19,612 81% Households Jursidiction or Area Name Key Jurisdiction Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change Sunnyvale - TOTAL GROWTH 54,170 73,425 19,255 35.5%Downtown & Caltrain Station SUN2 Sunnyvale Transit Town Center 1,353 5,321 3,968 293%El Camino Real Corridor SUN3 Sunnyvale Mixed-Use Corridor 9,466 14,680 5,214 55%Lawrence Station Transit Village SUN1 Sunnyvale Transit Neighborhood 1,465 2,354 888 61%East Sunnyvale ITR OASUN3 Sunnyvale Mixed-Use Corridor 1 601 600 60000%Moffett Park OASUN1 Sunnyvale Employment Center 0 0 0 NAPeery Park OASUN2 Sunnyvale Employment Center 0 0 0 NAReamwood Light Rail Station OASUN4 Sunnyvale Employment Center 0 0 0 NATasman Station ITR OASUN5 Sunnyvale Mixed-Use Corridor 202 805 603 299% PDA & GOA Growth % of PDA & GOA Growth to Total Growth PDA & GOA Growth relative to Total City Growth 12,487 23,761 11,273 59% TO: City of Palo Alto Memorandum HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT ID#: 1348 DATE: MARCH 14, 2011 REPORT TYPE: ACTION SUBJECT: Item No.6: Release of Initial Vision Scenario by ABAGIMTC The staff 'report for this item indicated that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) were scheduled to release an Initial Vision Scenario for the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).on March 11,2011. The report was released last Friday and staff has quickly, but less than comprehensively, reviewed the documents and supporting information. The full report and background is available online at: htt.p:llwww.onebayarea.org!spotlight.htm. While staffhas not had adequate time to substantially digest or analyze the materials, the summary below outlines pertinent representations from ABAG and MTC regarding the Initial Vision Scenario. Intent of Initial Vision Scenario The Initial Vision Scenario is intended to: • Incorporate the 25-year regional housing need encompassed in the SCS; • Provide a preliminary set of housing and employment growth numbers at regional, CO\.U1ty, jurisdictional, and sub-jurisdictional levels; and • Be evaluated against the greenhouse gas reduction target as well as additional perfonnance targets adopted for the SCS. Attachment A is a memo from ABAG and MTC introducing the Initial Vision Scenario to their respective boards and the public, and Attachment B is an overview of the document, inclu~ng a number of tables outlining potential growth under this scenario of land liSe and transportation patterns. The agencies (ABAG and MTC) indicate that the Initial Vision Scenario is meant to start the conversation about the SCS among local jurisdictions, regional agencies, and other interested stakeholders. This scenario proposes a future development pattern that depends upon a strong economy, sufficient funding for affordable housing and supportive public infrastructure and transportation investments. The proposed distribution of housing focuses on areas close to transit stations and corridors. This focused growth pattern is also intended to preserve open space and agricultural land in the Bay Area. ID#: 1348 Page 1 of 3 The agencies further present that this step in the SCS process is designed to solicit comment primarily from local elected officials and their constituents. This input will inform the development of the detailed scenarios to be drafted by the summer of 2011. Through integrated regional land use, housing, and transportation investments, the Initial Vision Scenario proposes a sustainable pattern of regional growth intended to maximize the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions while accommodating the entire region's housing need through 2035. In this scenario, which is "unconstrained" in terms of financial and other resources to support housing growth, Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Infill Opportunity Areas (areas not designated as PDAs, but that share many of the same attributes), and transit corridors would accommodate a major share of housing growth. The Overview (Attachment B) specifies that the Initial Vision Scenario would meet the regional housing target and achieves an incremental improvement over current regional plans with the.- reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) per capita by 12 percent in 2035. Thus, it falls short of the 15% GHG per capita reduction target in 2035 established by the California Air Resources Board. So other infrastructure and transportation demand management strategies must be evaluated in order for the region to achieve the GHG target. As outlined in the discussion below of potential Palo Alto and Santa Clara County growth in this scep.ario, the PDAs and other areas have been targeted for extensive housing, rather than job, growth. The agencies believe that strategies to encourage more job growth in PDAs and near transit nodes would substantially improve the performance of the targets, especially the greenhouse gas emi~sions target. These strategies will be the subject of the upcoming detailed scenarios analysis, and are clearly a critical area of interest to Palo Alto. Scenario Growth Concepts for Palo Alto and Santa Clara Comty For Palo Alto, the "place types" factored into the Vision Scenario include the California Avenue Area PDA, the Bl Camino Real corridor, and the University Avenue transit area. The initial Vision Scenario, however, describes a development pattern "unconstrained" by public service limitations, fiscal, transportation, or other infrastructure, and is focused primarily on housing growth rather than jobs. Attachment C is a slide presentation made last week by ABAG and MTC to their boards, including background for the Initial Vision Scenario, along with potential growth numbers for the region, each county, and each city. The regional agencies make a point of not calling these numbers "proj ections," rather a growth scenario to begin further discussions. Of particular interest are the following potential housing and job employment numbers: • The Bay Area would grow by approximately 900,000 households from 2010-2035, designed to house enough residents to avoid any increase in net in-commuting. • The Bay Area population would grow by approximately 2 million people in that period. • Bay Area employment would increase by 1.2 million new jobs in that period. • Santa Clara County would grow by approximately 250,000 households from 2010-2035, an increase of about 41 %, the largest county growth in the region. • Santa Clara County employment would increase by approximately 380,000 jobs in that period, an increase of over 44%, the largest county growth in the region. • The City of Palo Alto would grow by just less than 12,000 households from 2010-2035, an increase of almost 45%, the sixth largest increase in households for a city in Santa Clara County, excluding San Jose. ID#: 1348 Page 2 of 3 To: MTC Planning Committee, ABAG Administrative Committee Fr: ABAG and MTC Executive Directors Re: Initial Vision Scenario ATTACHMENT A Date: March 4, 2011 The Initial Vision Scenario starts the conversation on the Sustainable Communities Strategy among local jurisdictions, regional agenoies, and other interested stakeholders. This soenario proposes a future development pattern that depends upon a strong economy, sufficient funding for affordable housing and supportive public infrastructure and transportation investments. The proposed distribution of housing focuses on areas close to transit that have been identified by local jurisdictions. This focused growth pattern preserves opell space and agricultural land in the Bay Area This important step in the Sustainable Communities Strategy process Lilt designed to solicit oomment primarily from local elected officials and their constituents. This input will inform the development of the detailed scenarios to be drafted by the summer of2011. Through integrated regional land USCJ housingt and transportation investments. the Initial Vision Scenario proposes a sustainable pattern of regional growth that maximizes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions while accommodating the entire region's housing need through 2035. In this scenario, which is-unconstrained in tenus of financial and other resources to support housing growth, Priority Development Areas (PDAs), InfiU Opportunity Areas (areas not designated as PDAs, but that share many of the same attributes), and transit corridors accommodate a major share of housing growth. The development of the transportation network in the region by 2035 is aligned with those areas. As such the transportation network for the Initial Vision Scenario is based on Transportation 2035, but also includes improved transit headways to serve increased growth in PDAs and Infill Opportunity Areas. The attached maps show the Priority Development and Intill Opportunity Areas for the region and for each county .. The Initial Vision Scenario relies on input from local jurisdictions and the characteristics of the places they identified for the distrl~ution of growth. The Initial Vision Scenario differs from previous forecasts (Projections 2007, 2009,2011) in identifying places to accommodate an additional demand for 267,000 households beyond Projections 2011 so that the current phenomenon of6>6>in-commuting" from adjoining regions does not worsen in the future. These prior forecasts were derived from Census Tracts. This scenario was constructed uti1i2:ing a detailed place-based approach, meaning that growth was distributed in speoific neighborhoods or geographic locations based on their characteristics. Between November 2010 and January 2011 J MTC and ABAO received input from local planners on the capacity for sustainable growth in PDAs and new Infill Opportunity Areas to supplement the information gathered through the PDA Assessment. To the extentpossible~ MTC and ABAG staffused local estimates of growth to meet the housing target. However, this scenario includes addi1ional housing units in some PDAs or IniUl Opportunity Areas beyond the number submitted by local jurisdictions. The Initial Vision Scenario assumes a growth of 903,000 households up to 3.6 million. and 1.2 million jobs up to 4.5 million by 2035 compared to today. About 95 percent of new households are accommodated within the urb~ footprint. PDAs and Infill Opportunity Areas include about two thirds of household growth in the region. At the county Ieve~ San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa are projected to absorb a m~or share of the total increase in the number of households, at nearly 80%. They also absorb the majority of the regio!1.'s job growth, also nearly 80010. It should be noted that the Initial Vision Scenario does not substantially reallocate jobs to PDAs and assumes continued job growth in employment campuses dispersed throughout the region. Major cities take the lead in the projected growth of housing in the region. San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland are projected to produce one third of the housing needed by 2035 by building upon their regional centers and intensifying transit corridor development. At the same time, medium-sized cities that range from city centers to transit towns (FremoI}~ Santa Rosa, Berkeley, Hayward) RichmondJ Concord, and Santa Clara) would accommodate 17 percent of the regional total. When assessed against the performance targets adopted by the regional agencies, the Initial Vision Scenario reflects significant progress towards the sustainability and equity targets of the region. The Initial Vision Scenario meets the regional housing target and achieves an incremental improvement over our current regional plans with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (OHO) per capita by 12 percent in 2035. Thus~ it falls short of the 15% GHG per capita reduction target in 2035 established by California Air Resources Board. As expected, we will need to evaluate other infrastructure and transportation demand management strategies in order for the regIon to achieve the GHG target. The performance of the Initial Vision Scenario on healthy and safe communities, equitable access, and transportation system effectiveness targets is mixed, indicating some improvements over previous trends and previous forecasts. These results point to the need for additional policies and strategies to meet the regional perfonnance targets. In particular, strategies that will encourage more job growth in PDAs and near transit nodes would substantially improve the perfonnance of the targets, especially the greenhouse gas emissions target. These strategies will be the subject of the upcoming detailed scenarios analysis. The complete report on the Initial Vision Scenario with detailed analysis, data, and maps will be released for public review and presented at your March 11,2011 joint meeting. Steve Heminger HCOMMITm\Plarullng Committee\20 L l\March 11 \Initial Vision Scenario M Memo Fina12-28-11 dkvl.doc 2 ATTACHMENT B lin Overview of the Initial Vision Scenario In 2008, Senate Bi11375 (Steinberg) was enacted. The state law requires that our Regional Transportation Plan contain a Sustainable Communities Strategy (together, Plan Bay Area) that integrates land-use planning and transportation planning. For the 25-year period covered by Plan Bay Area_ the Sustainable Cornnlunities Strategy must identify areas within the nine-county Bay Area sufficient to house all of the region's population, including all economic segments of the population. It must also attempt to coordinate the resulting land .. use pattern with the transportation network so as to reduce per capita greenhouse-gas emissions from personal-use vehicles (automobiles and light trucks). The Initial Vision Scenario for Plan Bay Area is a first-cut proposal that identities the areas where the growth in the regionts population might be housed. This proposal builds upon a rich legacy of integrative planning in the Bay Area. For over a decade, the region and its local governments have been working together to locate new housing in compact fonus near jobs, close to services and amenities. and adjacent to transit so that the need to travel long distances by personal vehicle is reduced. Compact development within the existing urban footprint also takes development pressure off the region's open space and agrlculturallands. We have referred to this type of efficient development as "focused. growtht"and the regional program that supports it is called FOCUS. (See Table 1.) Planning for New Housing and Supporting Iufrastructure The Initial Vision Scenario is constructed by looking first at the Bay Area's regional housing needs over the next 25 years. This analysis was performed using demographic projections of household growth. It is not a forecast of the region. a.nd does not take into account many factors that constrain the fegion's supply of new housing units, such as limitations in supporting infrastructure~ affordable housing subsidies, and market factors. The principal purpose of the Initial Vision Scenario is to articulate how the region could potentially grow over time in a sustainab1e manner, and to orient policy and program development to achieve the first phases of implementation. Under the assumptions of the Initial Vision Scenario, the Bay Area is anticipated to grow by over 2 million people, from about 7,350,000 today to about 9,430,000 by the year 2035. This popUlation growth would :require around 902,000 new housing units. The Initial Vision Scenano proposes where these new-unitS might be accommodated. (See Tables 2 -12.) This Initial Vision Scenario is designed around places for growth identified by local jurisdictions. These places are defined by their chaT8cter, scale, density, and the expected housing units to be built over the long term. Using "place types:' areas with similar characteristics and physical and social qualities) ABAG asked local governments to 1 identifY general development aspirations for areas within their jurisdictions. These places were mostly the Priority Development Areas (PDAs) already identified through the FOCUS program. They also included additional Growth Opportunity Areas, some similar to PDAs and others with different sustainabitity criteria. Based on local visions, plans and growth estimates, regional agencies distributed housing growth across the region, focusing on PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas. ABAG in some cases supplemented the local forecast with additional units based on the typical characteristics of the relevant locally-selected p]ace type. ABAG also distributed additional units to take advantage of significant existing and planned transit investment, and it assigned some units to locally identified areas that present regionally significant development opportunities .fur greater density. The Initial Vision Scenario accommodates 97 percent of new households within the existing urban footprint. Only 3 percent of the forecasted new homes require "greenfield development" (building on previously undeveloped lands). Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas contain about 70 percent of the total growth (743~OOO households). Among . counties, three take the lion's share of growth: Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa absorb a little over two-thirds of the total. These same counties also are anticipated to take the majority of the region'sjob growth (64 percent). (See Tables 13 -22.) The region's three major cities do a lot of the heavy lifting. Thirty .. two percent of the forecast and proposed housing growth occurs in San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland. Seventeen percent goes to medium-sized cities like Fremont, Santa Rosa, Berkeley) Hayward, Concord, and Santa Clara. The analysis embodied in the Initial Vision Scenario is founded on the location of housing. Employment forecasting and distribution in this Scenario is not directly related to land use policy. Employment location can have a strong influence on travel demand. vehicle miles traveled, and vehicle greenhouse .. gas emissions. In light of these factors and considering economic competitiveness, transit sustainability, and a balanced relationship between employment and housing) regional agenci~ will be embarking. with local partners, on further analysis regarding appropriate employment locations in relation to future honsing growth and the transportation network. This wiJ] inform the development of the detailed scenarios. The Initial Vision Scenario reflects the transportation investments from MTC's current Regional Transportation (known as the Transportation 2035 Plan). To support the increased housing growth, it also includes some tentatively proposed improvements to the region's transit network. These include increased frequencies on over 70 local bus and several express bus routes, improved rail headways on BART, eBART, Caltrain, Muni Metro, VTA light .. rail, and Altamont Commuter Express, and more dedicated bus lanes in San Francisco and Santa Clara counties, all resulting in overall growth in transit capacity. However, the Bay Area's transit system is fmancially unsustainable with operators unable to afford to run the current service levels into the future, much less expanded. headways contemplated under the Initial Vision Scenario. MTC's Transit Sustainability Project will propose a more sustainable transit system for inclusion in the detailed scenarios to be tested. 2 Measuring Performance Against Targets The Initial Vision Scenario results in a 12 percent per capita greenhouse gas emissions reduction from personal~use vehicles in 2035, compared to a 2005 base year. This reduction falls short of the region's state-mandated 15 percent per capita greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. It's clear that additional strategies will need to be employed if we want to attain the greenhouse gas targets, and other targets previously adopted by ABAG and MTC. MTC andABAG have adopted a set of Plan Bay Area performance targets to describe in specific, measureable terms the region's commitment and progress toward the "three E" principles of sustainability (Economy, Environment, and Equity). The Initial Vision Scenario meets some regional targets, including accommodating all the projected housing need by income level (in other words, no more in-commuting by workers who live in other regions); reducing the financial burden of housing and transportation on low-income households by providing more affordable housing; and housing the majority of new development within the existing urban core. Also, more residents are projected to ride transit, walk and bike more than existing residents because much of the new housing is located close to services, amenities and jobs, and adjacent to transit in complete communities. (See Figure 1 for the target results.) . The Initial Vision Scenario brings more residents into the region, thus increasing the total amount of travel. New residents will still drive for some trips. Even though vehicle miles traveled per capita in the Bay Area are projected to be lower in the Initial Vision Scenario than it is today, total miles driven within the region are projected to increase. With more Bay Area residents and more miles driven within the region, we can also expect an increase in the total number of injuries and fatalities. Health impacts from exposure to particulate emissions from automobiles and trucks are likewise projected to worsen with more driving; however, state and federal efforts to clean up heavy duty truck engines will more than off set the increases from automobiles, resulting in overall reductions sooty particulate pollution. fI} Finally, it must be said that while bringing more people into the Bay Area will increase the amount of driving and collisions within the region, it is still a net win in the larger sense. The amount of overall driving and greenhouse gas emissions statewide is certainly less than if the new residents were commuting to Bay Area jobs from communities in neighboring regions that do not offer such amenities. Next Steps The Initial Vision Scenario is offered as basis for discussion with local governments, stakeholders, and the general public about how the Bay Area can accommodate all its population growth over the next quarter century. It is by no means a fait accompli. Over the next several months we will seek input through elected official briefings, local government staff discussions, and public workshops. The comments received will assist ABAG and MTC in developing and testing a range of detailed scenarios that achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. 3 The purpose of the SCS is. to forge consensus in the Bay Area on a preferred long-tenn regibnwide growth pattern. Under SB 375, local governments are explicitly not required to update their general plans in accordance with the SCS. The SCS does not carry the same authority as Regional Housing Needs Allocation but it wilt inform the distribution of housing at the local level. The adopted SCS land development pattern will help guide regional policies and invesbnents that are made pursuant to the RegionalTransportation Plan. These regional policies and investments are intended to create financial and other incentives to implement the adopted land pattern in ·the ses. ABAG is currently working with its Housing Methodology Committee to develop a methodology for distributing regional eight-year housing targets to Bay Area local jurisdiotions; the methodology win be adopted by ABAG later this year. The Initial Vision Scenario kicks off a two-year oonversation among local jurisdictions and regional agencies on what ultintately will become the Sustainable Communities Strategy, as a part of Plan Bay Area, During that tinte, the regional· agencies will engage local agencies and the public to help identify and assess several detailed Sustainable Communities Strategy scenarios that demonstrate ways that land-use strategies, transportation investmentSt pricing and other strategies could achieve our adopted goals and targets. The scenarios also will need to address how the Bay Area's land-use plans can assist adaptation to climate change. The Sustainable Communities Strategy will need to coordinate regional agencies' initiatives and requirements related to sea-level rise, air quality, and other climate change related issues. These detailed scenarios will lead to selection of a preferred scenario early next year that would include an integrated transportation investment and land~use plan; this plan would also undergo a detailed environmental impact review that local agencies could use to streamline environmental assessments of their own local development projects as provided for in SB 375. Finally, the ABAO and MTC boards would be asked to adopt the complete Plan Bay Area, including a Sustainable Communities Strategy, by April 2013, , (See Figure 2.) The regional agencies look forward to further dialogue on these assumptions with our local government and transportation partners, stakeholders, and the general public. Attachments 4 Table 3 Initial Jlislon Scenario -Total Jobs all4 Job Growth by County Table 4 Initial Jlision ScelUlrio -Alameda County Total Households anti Household Growth by Jurisdiction Table 7 Initial 'Vision Scenario -Napa County Total Households and Household Growth by Jurisdiction TableR Initial Vision Scenario -Sa" Frllnclsco COllnty Total Households and Household Growth Table 9 Initial 'Visiol' Scenario -San Mateo County Total Households and Household Growth by Jurisdiction Table 10 Initial Vision Scenario -Santa Clara County Total Households, and Household Growth by Jurisdiction Table 11 Initial Vision Scenario -Solano County Total Households and Household Growth by Jurisdiction Little activity has occurred since the January update. The discussion below provides information regarding 1) the RHNA Housing Methodology Committee, 2) Council members meeting with the ABAG Executive Director, 3) the status of preparing a subregional housing allocation, and 4) the anticipated release of the Initial Vision Scenario by the regional agencies. RHNA Housing Methodology Committee The initial meeting of the RHNA Housing Methodology Committee was held on January 27, 2011 in San Francisco, and a second meeting was held on February 24, 2011. "fhe Committee is comprised of a total of 45 individuals, 33 of which represent local governments, with the remainder representing business, civic, housing, and environmental organizations in the region. Of those 33, five are from Santa Clara County, including council members from Mountain View and Palo Alto (Greg Scharff), and three planning directors or senior staff from San Jose, Santa Clara County, and Morgan Hill. Alternates are planning directors from Cupertino and Sunnyvale. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is among the members of the civic organizations. The initial meeting focused primarily on providing background on State housing law and the process for establishing the methodology, how the methodology was established for the current housing period, and the relationship of the RHNA process to the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The latter discussion emphasized that the RHNA process will now run simultaneous with the term of the Regional Transportation Plan (8-year periods) and both will be integral elements of the SCS. Two memos from ABAG are attached (Attachments B and C) that provide overviews of relevant housing law and the methodology that was used to establish the numbers for 2007-2014. "fhere was also some discussion about what issues and factors might be considered to contribute to the consideration of the housing methodology. There was no attempt or intent to make any decisions at this point about which are most important or would be included. At the second meeting, there was further discussion about the various criteria, as well as a description of the rationale and requirements of RHNA (Attachment D). The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for March 24, at which time a few possible allocation formulas will be presented for discussion. Meeting with ABAG Executive Director On February 28, 2011, Councilmembers Burt, Scharff and Schmid, Planning and Transportation Commission chair Tuma, the City Manager, and the Planning Director met with the Ezra Rapport, Executive Director of ABAG, to discuss issues related to the RHNA methodology and the approach to the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Mr. Rapport spoke to many of the issues of concern to the City (e.g., housing and employment projections, housing allocation process, and a sustainable transit network). He emphasized the need to establish an initial vision that focuses on "places" appropriate to accommodate increased development proximate to transit, rather than evaluating projections of housing units or employment increases. Mr. Rapport categorized the SCS as a framework for discussion of the important land use and transportation issues the region must address to maintain its leadership role in the economy and environment of the state. He asked that the City of Palo Alto and other cities respond to March 14, 2011 (10 # 1348) Page 2 of4 Staff expects to report on the Initial Vision Scenario upon its release in March (at the Council meeting if available by then) and will also keep the Council updated regarding the Housing Methodology Committee's work. The Planning and Transportation Commission and the Council will have an opportunity to comment and provide recommendations to the regional agencies and to consider whether to initiate any legislative or other action outside the prescribed review process. Resource Impact This report results in no immediate impact to the City. Environmental Review This update is not subject to environmental review. Courtesy Copies Planning and Transportation Commission Attachments: • Attachment A: January 10, 2011 CMR 110:11 (PDF) • Attachment B: January 20, 2011 Memo from ABAG re: RHNA Process Requirements (PDF) • Attachment C: January 20, 2011 Memo from ABAG re: Review of Last RHNA Cycle (PDF) • Attachment D: February 16, 2011 Memo from ABAG re: Rationale for the SCS and Requirements of RHNA (PDF) • Attachment E: February 10, 2011 Recommendation of Cities Association re: Subregional RHNA Process (PDF) • Attachment F: SB375 Glossary (DOCX) Prepared By: Department Head: City Manager Approval: March 14, 2011 (lD # 1348) Curtis Williams, Director Curtis Williams, Director James Keene, City Manager Page 4 of4 January 9,2008 ABAG Executive Board c/o Henry Gardner, Secretary -Treasurer Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Dear Mr. Gardner: ~!iy~!P~A!~ Department of Planning and Community Environment The City of Palo Alto thanks you for providing us with the opportunity to review and comment on the revised Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which \Vas adopted by the ABAG Executive Board on November 15,2007. ., . . -· .. t. . . '. The City acknowledges ABAG's modification to PaloAlto's R.HNAto address t.he City'~ Sphere of Influence circumstance with the COU)1ty,ofSantaClctra and Stanford' U;niversity.:< .. However, our City Council, the Planning and Transportatioll Conlwission ati4~tatf.have a.ll·deterlnined that the RHNA of 2,860, even after the reductioli of 645 units,. is completely un~chievable in Palo Alto given the lack of available land, the higli'cost of land a¢quis'ition~andll1~ impacts of that amount of growth on the City's neighborhoods and infrastructure. Setting these requirements' that call1lot be achieved threatens the credibility and viability of important public institutions and becomes simply an exercise 'in futility. . . . Palo Alto has an extensive arid iong hlstory of leading and implem¢)J:ting affordable housing in an area highly impacted by·the 'high cost of housing. W~;-Y\f;~¥t¥Jhe first to implement inclusionary zoning in this: region and Palo. Alto Housing Corpor~t!9.11!":w.as established back in: 1970 as a non-profit affordab~e housing provider. Although the,cHy":6f Palo Alto has adop'ted' zoning and programs supporting . core concepts behind the al1oc~~'PJ1':lUethod such as smart growth, infill development, protection of open space and rural :"~~¢~$:~',:,~t?stricting urban sprawl, and transit oriented develOpment, there, should be a reasonable ~xpe~t~tip'j:i.::ofsuccess in meeting goals When assigning allabitions to cities. ·"·,,: •• i: .............. . Factors such as essential hlfr.astru6ftire needs and service reqtilf¢.~elJ:l~';;~Wl~t:)~~~~fl to be taken i~t'o consideration. Many comp'Qn~nts of the City's i)1frastructur~~ie,;ali~~ayit>;ea,pacity and an~ther critical factor is the capacity limitations ofthe",Palo Alto Uftifjed 'SQh,ool:Q:i~b1ct. The cutrent school popUlation has alreaqy pushed.. the :pres~nt . facilitles' beyond' capacity so that ' every elementary school now has multiple PP':rtables. Students. fr9ID an additional 2,86Q .housirtgunits . simply cannot be acconunodatd:fwith:the eJtis!ip'-g "Iac1litie$:'a:nd budget. Giveil that-the' s~hool district is at capacity, and there is ,no .avai,tablytunqillg ·to"a.~commddate'.the jncreasedsnid~nt population from the allocation, these requIrements 'Would -amourit to an unfu.nded'Mandate for Palo Alto. . .. ' . Planning 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2520 650.617.3108 BUilding 285 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2496 650.329:2240 Mr. Henry Gardner Page 2 of4 January 9, 2008 As staff has indicated previously in transmittals to ABAG, the population and household growth projections for Palo Alto will not be realized and should be adjusted to reflect a population growth rate of approximately 3.0 % over the next RENA period within our jurisdictional boundary. ·ABAG's Projections 2007 assumes a popUlation growth rate of approximately 7% during the next 7 years in our jurisdictional boundary. Historically, the City of Palo Alto's popUlation has grown only by approximately 4.7% over the last thirty years. We understand that the methodology uses Sphere of Influence popUlation projections but we believe that the popUlation trend within our Sphere of Influence is proportional to the historic jurisdictional boundary population trends. Although the City has experienced a growth rate of approximately 8% during the last seven years, this has been a period when Palo Alto has constructed significant new housing development well in excess of histori~ averages and that rate cannot be sustained given Palo Alto's limited land availability and redevelopment potential. Therefore, it's very likely that the. City's popUlation growth will remain far below ABAG's projections since it will be very difficult for Palo Alto to continue the housing development it has experienced in the last seven years. During the last RHNA period, the City's population growth was largely attributable to a single development of approximately 1,000 units on the City's only remaining vacant large residential site. This City's housing growth occurred during a temporary period of substantial decline in the market for commercial development and increasing demand for housing. Taking this anomaly and extrapolating this into the future is not appropriate. By using its own overestimated Projections 2007 popUlation numbers, the RENA methodology compounds this error by assigning a 45% weight to the population projections that ABAG itself created. This logic appears circular in that the driver behind this growth appears to be the mandate from ABAG. Additionally, the City should receive credit in this RENA cycle for the 1,036 units that were built during that last RHNA period that exceeded the City's assigned allocation. The City exceeded its above moderate allocation by 1,282 units and its low allocation by 14 units with a deficit of 51 units in the very low category and 208 in the moderate category. Palo Alto has also protected and retained existing units that are more affordable and should receive further credit to offset the City's RHNA requirements. The City also continues to oppose the inclusion of an additional Transit Oriented Development (TOD) factor in the allocation methodology to the extent that it would disproportionately assign housing to cities like Palo Alto that have shown a commitment to TOD, in effect penalizing cities that have developed smart growth policies. Additional growth requirements for built out cities like Palo Alto should be predominantly TOD housing, not the core ABAG allocation plus TOD housing. The emphasis of transit use in the methodology is unrealistic at least for Palo Alto. Transit at the University and California Avenue stations is used more efficiently by commuters and not Mr. Henry Gardner Page 3 of4 January 9, 2008 .so efficiently by residents; many more people take transit TO Palo Alto than FROM Palo Alto. A greater concentration of jobs in the vicinity of transit will promote mass transit in Palo Alto more effectively than the concentration of housing. Furthennore, Palo Alto has been assigned additional units'based on transit access from the San Antonio Avenue station. However, this station is located in and serves primarily Mountain View, not Palo Alto. Also, Caltrain only services the San Antonio Caltrain station once per hour during rush hours further reducing its TOD effectiveness. Palo Alto has promoted smart growth in its Comprehensive Plan policies and its Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) zoning all in the midst ofVTA reducing bus services to Palo Alto neighborhoods and with little or' no proj ected additional funding for transit to support the TOD aspects ofRHNA. However, Palo Alto's diligence and success in implementing smart growth policies, appear to have led ABAG to assume that the City has no limit to further intensifying with infill development. Given the RHNA mandate to provide housing for all income levels, it is impossible for the City to provide the 1,875 units assigned for below market rate income levels. Palo Alto prioritized affordable housing as one of the City's top five goals and built over 90 percent of the City'S very low and low income housing allocation for the last RHNA cycle. However, the current RHNA methodology uses 2000 Census income distribution data for allocating housing based on affordability, and does not reflect the City's success in building affordable housing over the last seven years. Instead, the current methodology allocated more affordable housing to Palo Alto compared to the region as a whole. Additionally, due to the extraordinary cost of land in Palo Alto, all very low and low income rental housing that has been developed recently has required significant City subsidy. The cost of low and very low income projects in Palo Alto are averaging $400,000 to $500,000 per unit. Recently the City has had to subsidize approximately 50% of the proj ect cost for most low income. and very low income proj ects. . This is in large part due to the exorbitant land costs in Palo Alto which average $10 million an acre but have been as high as $16 million an acre. In order to develop the assigned 1,234 units of low and very low income housing under current funding conditions, the City would be expected to provide a subsidy of approximately $245 to $310 million, which is clearly unrealistic and unattainable as the City struggles to maintain revenues adequate to support basic services to its residents and businesses. Given state subsidy restrictions, and because of the high land costs in Palo Alto, moderate income units are achieved only through the City's inclusionary zoning program, which requires 15 -20% affordability. As a result, approximately 70% of the ABAG allocation would need to be subsidized by Palo Alto. In order to provide the assigned 641 moderate income level units, the City would have to develop 3,205 -4,272 market rate units. The high cost to the City of providing this 'housing as well as supporting services and facilities, schools, transit and parks, is an unfunded state mandate. There may also be insufficient water resources available to serve this additional popUlation. Until there is state Mr. Henry Gardner Page40f4 January 9, 2008 subsidy available for affordable units, identifying adequate sites to meet proposed RHNA housing for lower income levels in communities like Palo Alto will be a paper exercise. The City requests that you confinn that the job growth anticipated with the proposed Stanford Shopping Center and Medical Facility expansions are included in ABAG's projections for the City's job growth for the 2007-2014 period, and the City will not be assigned these jobs a second time in a future RHNA regardless of those projects' occupancy dates. Finally, much discussion has occurred about the impact of commute emissions on climate change. Palo Alto has just concluded a comprehensive climate change impact analysis. A significant finding of that report is that 11 % of Palo Alto's C02 emissions are attributable to trips into Palo Alto. Consequently, the report indicates that even an additional 2,860 units with similar commuting characteristics would impact Palo Alto C02 emissions by less that 0.1 % or 1/1000th Palo Alto's total C02 In closing, the City requests that ABAG revise Palo Alto's RHNA to reflect a 3% population growth over the seven-year RHNA period, exclude the San Antonio station from our transit factor, adjust the transit factor to elinlinate any "double counting" and credit the City with the 1, 036 units the City built in excess of our last RHNA assignment. The City also urges ABAG to consider factors such as land costs and availability as well as community needs to provide adequate open space and essential services in developing a realistic RHNA. Given that there was no representative from the 250,000 residents of North Santa Clara County on the Housing Methodology Committee, we were not adequately represented and, therefore, unique factors prevalent in our area were not sufficiently considered in the ABAG allocations. If ABAG adopts more realistic and achievable ~A allocation goals, this will enable cities to focus on actually providing adequate housing for a diverse" population, a goal strongly supported by the City Council and the Palo Alto community. The City of Palo Alto appreciates your consideration of our appeal of the assigned allocation. Sincerely, ~, .. -?7--l$e' Larry Klein Mayor cc: Paul Fassinger, ABAG Research Director Planning and Transportation Commission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Verbatim Minutes May 4, 2011 EXCERPT Chair Tuma: We will move onto item two, an update of SB375 and Initial Vision Scenario and the City’s Preliminary Response. Welcome. 8 9 10 Other Items: 11 12 13 1. Update of SB375/Initial Vision Scenario and City’s Preliminary Response. Mr. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: Thank you Chair Tuma and Commissioners. We are here tonight to talk to you about the Initial Vision Scenario that has been developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, MTC. This is in furtherance of their efforts to implement the Sustainable Community Strategy that we have talked to you about before that was required by Senate Bill 375 a couple of years ago. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Staff made a presentation a few days after this came out in March to the Council. We were scheduled to update them on the activities so we did, and this came out and we quickly put together some information. That packet was attached to your Staff Report. Since at that time we, and when I say we I mean mostly mean Roland, has been able to spend some time analyzing some of the numbers behind the proposal that the two agencies have put together. So what I am going to do tonight is I am going to flash through the presentation that One Bay Area, which is the name of this unified effort between ABAG and MTC, put together in presenting the Initial Vision Scenario. So this is not necessarily what Staff’s presentation would be if we started from scratch, but it has a lot of the basics in it. So I think it is good to do that. I am just going to hit a handful of slides out of the 30 or whatever that are in the packet. This is for the most part attached also in your packet. It was attached to the Council Report, the full presentation. Then I will talk just a little bit about some of the analysis that we have done. What we really would like to get to is I would like to have this discussion as a lead in to Staff preparing a letter to ABAG and MTC responding to the Initial Vision Scenario. So they have basically asked for responses from cities by the end of May. My guess is it is probably going to go beyond that, and I know that not a lot of cities are going to do it by the end of May. So I am figuring it is pretty much through June and we will get to the Council either late in May or early in June and talk to them about this before we send them an official letter. Then there have been a couple of recent developments since about a week ago that I want to bring you up to speed on as well. At any rate, I am not going to spend much time we did the SB375 presentation before. The intent to reduce greenhouse gases by 15 percent per capita through a combination of land use and transportation measures, linking the housing needs to RHNA, Housing Needs Allocation, to the transportation plan for the region. Those would be done at eight-year intervals basically with the beginning of the Sustainable Community Strategy being adopted in 2013, the first RHNA cycle being 2014 to 2022, and the Regional Transportation Plan being that time period as well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 So this Initial Vision Scenario, as the agencies call it, is a starting point for a conversation about how to accommodate 900,000 new households, about 2.0 million new people, and 1.2 million new jobs in the Bay Area, and how to do that in a sustainable way. Those numbers are numbers that have generally been handed down from the state, from the Department of Finance, and they are subject to modification most likely downward in the next few months, but we don’t know how much downward. It does look like there may be some changes in those. So their starting point has been to start working from the places that Staff has identified over the last few years as our Priority Development Area. Then they asked us to look at also where there might be other opportunities for growth in like corridors, El Camino Corridor being one that has been identified by several cities and VTA as an option. Downtown we didn’t specifically note before so that was another one. Then assigning what they call Place Types to that whether it is an employment center, or a transit town center, or a transit neighborhood, or a mixed use corridor those kinds of things that have associated development intensities with them. The philosophy generally being to provide increased development intensity near transit and reducing automobile trips. So again, the sort of totals of this. This is from 2010 through 2035, and these numbers here 900,000 additional households, 2.0 million population, 1.0 million employed residents, and 1.222 million jobs. Then the total totals. They distributed these by county, and as you see Santa Clara County generally takes on most, more than any other county in terms of both jobs and housing, certainly not surprising in the jobs area, maybe a little less so in housing. Then they tried to distribute that housing in these Priority Development Areas and what they call the Growth Opportunity Areas, which again were not initially specified by cities, but they came back and asked us for those. In doing that attained about 70 percent of the growth that they are looking at for the region. So 30 percent doesn’t sort of fit within, and in fact more than 30 percent doesn’t fit within it. In order to accommodate 70 percent they increased everybody’s numbers more than what the cities had suggested might be accommodated in those areas. So they did that to get 70 percent. Thirty percent they then sort of distributed. I can’t really tell you what the formula was. I don’t understand it precisely but I know that whatever it was it worked against Palo Alto as I will show you in a minute. Then the housing distribution, you see over here the percent of the growth in housing for us. Our growth is projected at almost 12,000 new residential units, and that is about a 45 percent increase over the existing. Now you see a lot of others here. Mountain View is 57 percent. Santa Clara is 56 percent. Morgan Hill is smaller and has a lot of open space so maybe 61 percent is not as surprising. But in any event very significant numbers in terms of the increases that they are looking at. These are in terms of the Place Types. This is where that map with the pie charts was that I was telling you about. I knew I saw it somewhere. So what they have done is shown sort of how much for each city is their Priority Development Area, how much are these Additional Growth Opportunity Areas, and how much of sort of the remainder was distributed to those cities. What you see in Palo Alto up here is that less than half of our estimate is the areas that we have defined as possible growth areas. Most other cities like San Jose about 85 or 90 percent of San Jose’s is in their Defined Growth Area so they didn’t get a lot more from the region assigned there. They are a big city. Santa Clara City is almost all in the Growth Opportunity Areas. That reflects their recently adopted Master Plan. I will show you the table in a minute, but Palo Alto if we were left with just these two areas would be about 45 percent of the number that has been shown so far. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 So these are some of the Place Types. Transit town centers is one that I think we indicated might fit Downtown Palo Alto. It is kind of mixed use areas that are not really necessarily at the same scale as an Oakland or a San Jose or something like that, but is a suburban sort of center of town. Mixed use corridor, El Camino Real certainly fits into that type of criteria. Then I think we had California Avenue as the transit neighborhood. So something that is a little lesser scale but close to transit still, and mixed use, and services. What? eBART? Improved headways. Commissioner Martinez: On the second bullet. 19 20 Mr. Williams: Improved headways, eBART is how you travel electronically on BART. Got me. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 They have these series of roadway capacity, transportation capacity. One thing I didn’t mention is this is to be sort of their unconstrained scenario. E-BART is East Contra Costa BART Extension. Thank you, Roland. This is an unconstrained scenario. So they start out and just basically say if we could have all the services, the transit, and utilities, and schools, and everything else and there weren’t any of those constraints what might happen? So this is showing the really significant increase in transit infrastructure that would correlate with this level of growth, which of course we know is not likely to be the reality. This is comparisons to those greenhouse gas – I should go back and show this. So the target for the Bay Area in 2020 is seven percent reduction, and 15 percent by 2035 in the per capita greenhouse gas. Their modeling based on this Initial Vision Scenario shows that we would be at 12 percent reduction. So we wouldn’t even be to the 15 percent that was kind of the target on this. I don’t even want to go there. We are starting to analyze the validity of that analysis and what all went into it. It is pretty difficult to do. We will do that another day. So it creates more affordable housing and brings more people into the regions. One of the reasons it says that is as you will recall we reported to you before that one of the criteria through SB375 is that each region essentially house the potential growth in its region without assuming that anybody lives outside that region, on a net basis at least. So we are not sending a lot of people who work in nine county Bay Area region over to Modesto or someplace else to live and commute from. These are other targets that have been analyzed and discussed. So the conclusion is that this produces housing and more sustainable locations if we have adequate resources and transit. It meets the 2020 greenhouse gas but not the 2035 greenhouse gas targets, and there will need to be additional land use transportation non-infrastructure strategies required. So the employment location is another issue. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 So the Initial Vision Scenario, and this is readily admitted by the agencies, is that they did not distribute the employment according to transit locations and such, and that they intend to do that. So we have not gotten to that point. They acknowledge that there is more transit benefit from employment than from residential. So I don’t think that is news to them, but I don’t know exactly how you go about getting to this point without having that critical piece plugged in there as well. So the intent on this process is for the agencies to sponsor public outreach to communities and to Councils and elected and such. Through, what now looks like it will be probably well into the summer, all these timelines here that were outlined in March are already starting to expand. I know the RHNA methodology, which says July 2011 is now September or October. They have added a few meetings to that. What they want to do is try to have that timing be a little better with the timing on this Vision Scenario exercise too. So they are developing alternatives, at least three alternatives to the Vision Scenario. I went to a meeting yesterday and saw some of the concepts that they are looking at. They make sense. Some of the things that in our bullet points here that we are indicating to you that might be good comments they seem to be responding to in terms of identifying employment centers, and identifying transit commute sheds that would feed those and not tying housing as closely to employment by jurisdiction as this does or as some prior exercises have. So there are a couple of varieties of that flavor. Then there is another one that would essentially put more of the growth in outlying jurisdictions that perhaps created sort of mixed use downtowns/employment areas, and maybe it is a possibility that – and some of them are commenting on that. Some cities are saying we want to have a mixed use downtown and build up some of that, have some more housing and hopefully employment, and you ought to consider that. So that is another one of the options they are looking at. But over the course of beginning in July I think they will be getting into that and modeling some of those scenarios more too. So in some ways they are somewhat quickly moving past the Initial Vision Scenario but I still think it is incumbent on us to make comments on what we have now and be able to look at that. Commissioner Keller reported last time about the outreach meeting that they had in Mountain View. That was something that there were probably ten or so I guess people from Palo Alto at that meeting. It did not seem to be very useful. I have reported that back to the agencies and they said they have gotten that comment from others as well. They are planning on doing additional sessions that are not sort of under the rubric of the environmental organization that sponsored that one. These are some questions that they have posed for cities to respond to, but are just ideas and thoughts. How do the growth distributions work? What to do differently? What resources would we need to support the growth? How might regional transportation dollars support that growth? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 What further analysis we have done. There are a few tables and these maps in your Staff Report. The first table, Table 2.4 it is labeled from their report, outlines all the jurisdictions and their numbers. A second table that included we don’t have for a slide up on the screen was essentially comparing the changes in ABAG’s projections. It documents the projections 2007, projections 2009, to the Initial Vision Scenario. Those basically show that our jobs percentage keeps going down, which may be somewhat accurate at least. We know that jobs certainly have overall been reduced, but the growth would be less over those 25 years than they were previously projecting, whereas the housing keeps going higher. So in projections 2007 – oh, he does have it there. So it is this table. Essentially it shows that the housing projections 2007 for Palo Alto showed a 24.4 percent increase to 2035, and now in the Initial Vision Scenario it is up to 44.9 percent. So it sort of keeps going up and employment on the top is reduced. The other exercise was to look at transportation analysis zones. So the city is divided up for modeling purposes, other purposes, I don’t know what the other purposes are, but into transportation analysis zones but primarily for transportation modeling purposes. Then ABAG and MTC did provide us with information that wasn’t exactly along the same lines as the way we have things broken up. Some combined TAZs and some of their TAZs since they are larger actually went into either Mountain View or Menlo Park or into the county. So it was a little difficult to tell sometimes how much of the growth that was being shown was in which. In any event the table in Attachment C sort of puts in a tabular fashion what is being shown, and some of the things that we noticed. For instance under Employment the Initial Vision Scenario is showing 4,860 new jobs in Palo Alto, and then it is broken down by these TAZs. Roland added those up and for the ones that are entirely within Palo Alto there are actually closer to 6,000 jobs. So we don’t know why that is. It is clearly an error. Then there is another 7,700 that are in shared TAZs with other jurisdictions. So without knowing more about how much is at Moffett Field versus in our Baylands it is a little hard to tell. One TAZ is basically our Baylands and Moffett Field. So if you look at it from that perspective then it doesn’t …. So then the household ones were done the same way and didn’t necessarily have – again we don’t know of this number how much of that is in – there is big chunk of that like 4,000 or something that is in that TAZ that is Moffett Field to the Baylands. We are hoping that is mostly in Mountain View and not proposed in the Baylands. So that is housing. So we mapped those out and this basically shows the number of net new housing units in each of those TAZs, and color-coded to represent the numbers. The main takeaway from this that we found was yes some of the El Camino Corridor and California Avenue and Downtown certainly had sort of the highest percentage. They probably were hirer than what we gave ABAG but at any rate we understand that those are growth areas. But, in addition, in a TAZ like this is showing over 1,000 new residential units in an area that is essentially all single-family homes. We have one, two, three, like at least four of those in this, which just kind of makes no sense at all. There are areas that don’t have vacant land. There are areas that don’t have really re- developable parcels. So it looks like again they looked at some of the growth areas, really loaded those up and there were a lot left over and sort of spread that out. I think they sort of understand now that that is what happened, and that they need to find another way to allocate those units. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 There is a similar map for the employment. Again, in some of the growth areas there were some discrepancies that were found. Like in the Stanford Hospital area they are showing 1,000 more jobs or something like that. Well, the hospital has 2,000 more jobs right there and who knows what is going to happen with the shopping center. So we will point out a lot of these number crunching details. What we really would like to do tonight and for this initial letter is stay at a higher level and try to just talk more conceptually about what we think the problems are with the Initial Vision Scenario. So on pages 4 and 5 of your Staff Report, about halfway down page 4 it begins with some bullets. I am going to quickly run through those and indicate that those, with the exception of the last two on page 5, are ones that we think would be useful to convey to ABAG and MTC now at a sort of high level of analysis. Then we will probably include as attachments sort of the list of this TAZ analysis, and some of that for them. It helps sort of support our statements here. The first one is that just generally the concept of concentrating development, employment, and housing near transit stations along El Camino Real proximate to transit is a sensible, sustainable principle. The City has I think exemplified good intentions towards affordable housing in the future. We certainly approve projects that are exemplary in that respect. I think we should point that out and take credit for it. Obviously no city does enough to meet the numbers that are outlined by ABAG but we certainly do that. In the City our Comprehensive Plan statements recognize that it plays a regional role as well as just a local role. So just starting on a somewhat positive overall note that we recognize what the overall intent is here. However, I was looking at this this afternoon and thinking probably in a letter we would reorganize some of these points, but first of all that construction of housing is very highly constrained. There are a lot of cities that have some vacant land left to build housing on, not to mention they might also have general plans that call for that. We are also limited not just by the availability of land and cost of land but also by traffic, school capacity, community services, and we probably would outline a little bit more than that. We would suggest attaching, which we attached to your report, the letter that was sent to ABAG over Mayor Klein’s signature back in 2008 in response to the RHNA projections at that point to show all the various constraints that we do have, and what we felt were the inadequacies in the analysis at that time. Secondly, that again they have not looked at employment. That the scenario should look at the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County generally as being a real employment centers in the Bay Area, and the city on the peninsula and within Silicon Valley, and should consider the nature and extent of jobs. The desire of technology firms to locate here and why that is and why that will continue, and recognize that, and the benefits of jobs being located close to transit, which we have both in the Research Park proximate to California Avenue train station, and then Downtown and the shopping center and hospital relative to the University Avenue station. Thirdly that we should be looking more at those employment centers in a transit commute, what I call transit commute sheds, whereby people can get to and from employment. Not to say we don’t have any housing but that there are other communities that are looking to build a lot of housing and where it is more affordable to build housing, but they are ten or 15 minute train ride from Palo Alto’s employment centers. That it makes sense at least as an alternative to be really looking at that kind of a scenario that might be more efficient in terms of moving people, and in terms of providing real affordable housing or more affordable housing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 That the housing growth estimates are severely overestimated and unrealistic. At least half of the potential units are shown in single family neighborhoods that would not happen, and are not appropriate for intensification, and that they should really be focusing their attention on the planned development area for or Priority Development Area for California Avenue and some along El Camino and Downtown, those types of areas. Then sort of lastly in terms of the broad comments would be that there really needs to be a tie between the infrastructure availability and service availability and the growth, particularly in transit area. You can’t really expect, or this is not going to have real benefits of increasing any of this intensity anywhere unless there is transit to help serve that and there is a commitment financially to make that happen. Then as I mentioned, these last couple in terms of the employment growth totals conflict, and then a specific Transportation Analysis Zone deficiencies, or something we would probably throw in a little appendix to the letter and specifically outline a number of the points that we made elsewhere in the document here. So we would like you to give us any thoughts that you have on this approach. Happy to try to answer questions. Then what we will do is try to synthesize those and put something together for a Council meeting in several weeks, and take a draft letter to them before we send it onto ABAG and MTC. Thanks. Sorry for the length of the presentation but there is a lot here. Chair Tuma: Okay, appreciate that. I think that is a lot of what this evening is about is getting us up to speed on the presentation. Did you have some comments as to or essentially one of the key things that you are looking to get out of this evening is our input into this letter and the comments. Give us some idea about the letter itself. What scope, how long do you envision the letter being, what level of detail are we talking about? 27 28 29 30 31 32 Mr. Williams: I would really like to keep it to a couple of pages. Right now they are going to get 110 letters probably from agencies and then who knows how many from individuals or from organizations. A lot of business and social justice and environmental organizations are pretty active in attending these meetings and keeping up with this. So I am sure they are going to be weighing in as well. I think if we can keep focused on some of the big picture things, like the Council said at its initial discussion something to the effect of it is not at a point where you are talking about tweaking it and a lot of details. It is kind of overall what is the concept. So I think we would like to stay at that level, make it maybe three pages at the most, and I think we will have a lot better chance of the staff of ABAG, and that is really going to be the ones who take this and run with it, so of them seriously considering it if we are pointed in our comments. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Chair Tuma: I think the other thing in terms of making sure that we are comprehensive in documenting our position, one of the things to bear in mind is that you are planning to attach Mayor Klein’s letter in which a lot of the same types of arguments and positions that we would 44 45 46 take in response to this Initial Vision Scenario are incorporated in that letter. So from our discussions earlier it sounds like what you really want to do is reserve the main body of the letter to kind of big hits, big arguments that we have. A lot of it will still be documented because of the attachments and other things that you will submit, but the letter itself is kind of what are our best, biggest structural type arguments. Is that fair? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mr. Williams: That is correct. 7 8 Chair Tuma: Okay, great. So Commissioners, I would like to see if we can do this in one round, five minutes each. If there are additional comments, concerns, questions I am sure Staff would be happy to receive those in writing. So with that let’s start with Vice-Chair Lippert followed by Commissioner Keller. 9 10 11 12 13 Vice-Chair Lippert: Actually I had a host of questions that I think are particularly important in terms of framing this conversation. What is the role of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and also the Air Board? 14 15 16 17 Mr. Williams: Well, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is sort of operating under the umbrella of the Air Board’s direction. The Air Board in consultation with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District came up with the emissions goal of the 15 percent. That emissions target is different for the various regions around the state. I think there were eight regions the Council of Governments like ABAG that are addressing SB375. So the Air Board in consultation with the Air Quality Districts in each of those regions came up with in this case the 15 percent for the Bay Area. I think their role from now on will be mostly working with the agencies to model what the different scenarios might result in in terms of reductions. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Vice-Chair Lippert: The reason I ask that is it is a pretty important point, because the Air Board is really the lead agency for AB32, which SB375 is supposed to work with. So one of the I guess flaws that I see here even though SB375 links transit with land use the whole idea is to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions here. So what we really need to be presented with are what those target are in terms of us reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and whether we actually can achieve that through other programs before we get into looking at housing. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 I think you said it particularly well, which is that they are not really looking at the jobs they are looking at the housing. Whereas Commissioner Keller and you had identified it could be the jobs that are in fact driving this, but we are not looking at the jobs. We are looking at the linkages between transit and housing, and we are being imposed with this housing. What I think is happening here is that starting off with the jobs/housing imbalance that we have in this city. This is anecdotal. We have 65,000 people that live in Palo Alto but we have 100,000 jobs. So maybe the way to achieve that is to begin to look at capping, and I think our Commissioners in the last review talked about capping maybe the amount of office space we have here, so that you begin to limit the number of jobs we have here so that it is proportional to the housing, and that we only remove that cap as we see increased transit. Just throwing it out there but I think we are looking at this perhaps backwards, which is we are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the net result is that we are forced to take on more housing to begin to build onto the jobs/housing imbalance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The other point that I want to make here is the environmental review for this. It basically says the MPOs don’t have the ability to impose I guess the land use decisions so to speak, but yet they are imposing the numbers. Specifically SB375 promotes transparency through several public participation provisions for the development of both sustainable communities, etc. and APS, which are Alternative Planning Strategies. I think Alternative Planning Strategies are going to play a very important role here because I don’t think that the numbers are achievable so we have then look at the alternatives. That is why I am talking about alternatives here. Each MPO or Metropolitan Planning Organization must conclude at least two forms specifically for local government elected officials. Was that one of the two? The form that you went to. Mr. Williams: I suspect they would consider it to be, yes. 15 16 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Additional public participation plan must include outreach to a variety of potential stakeholders including private groups, public transit entities, and provision is made for public workshops and urban simulation computer modeling if practicable. I am just going to wrap this up here. This is where the rub is. Here you are you are holding a gun to our heads or they are holding a gun to our heads. It says there must be a minimum 55-day comment period on a draft SES. I assume that this is a draft SES. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Williams: This is not a draft SES. 24 25 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Then again it says at least two or three public hearings depending on whether the MPO is a single county or multi-county, well this is a multi-county MPO. So it is at least three public hearings for this. 26 27 28 29 Mr. Williams: Yes, and we are not anywhere close. If they stay on schedule the draft SES would be in probably early to spring of 2012. Then all that stuff kind of kicks in as far as being required. This is like they say an Initial Vision Scenario, there are going to be three alternatives, and there is going to be a preferred scenario turned into a draft. So I would expect that they would say that those things are targeted towards once there is a draft. But, nevertheless they have outreach plans and hearings scheduled for a number of these as we go through the process. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, I have one more comment and then I can let somebody build onto that if they want. At a time when funds for public transit, at a time when transit is being cut it is really difficult to look at this as a growth plan when they are saying link transit to housing, but yet they cut service. One of the largest areas that they have identified is Gilroy. They are cutting train service to Gilroy. So what are we doing here? We are adding housing when we are cutting train service. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Keller followed by Fineberg. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: So I have a couple of comments that are high level in terms of suggestions on what you might want to put in the letter in that capacity. The first is to consider the location of employment and to encourage transit-oriented development for employment. In particular to encourage what I would call transit oriented job placement as opposed to jobs sprawl. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The second point is that in terms of housing and location of housing we should consider the price of land for housing, and the availability of land for infill development for housing, and actually do that analysis and see where that land is available. The third consideration is to consider where there is available school capacity and available land for new schools, and where increased housing development and other development will revitalize schools. The housing development should be focused on where there is school capacity and where housing development will revitalize schools like the discussion that we had a few months ago where there was somebody telling us about how new housing developments would revitalize schools. Well, that applies to certain communities but not to Palo Alto, and that is what they should consider, exactly that discussion, where that applies. The fourth item is there is a comment there about strengthen existing communities. Well, one important part of strengthening existing communities in that slide was preserve existing low- density residential neighborhoods. I would like that to be a particularly strong point. It is okay to think about increasing the density of development along transit corridors and transit stuff, but if you really want to strengthen existing communities you don’t do it by destroying existing communities by increasing the density in existing low-density residential neighborhoods. Then two other comments. One comment is that it isn’t a housing/jobs imbalance. It is a triangle of transit, housing, and jobs. We need to think of it as a triangle. We need to think about the idea that when you have jobs here and housing there that transit is used. If you look at cities that have a lot of transit use, namely the New York Metropolitan Area, they get transit use by having dense jobs area with transit leading in all directions towards that dense jobs area. You don’t increase transit use by increasing more housing in Manhattan. You look at say Chicago that has various transit uses, there is a dense jobs area and transit bringing people into that dense jobs area, and then you have surrounding neighborhoods that feed into that dense jobs area. So the whole idea that we have a jobs/housing imbalance and you need to fill it in on a city-by-city basis is basically stupid planning. It makes no sense from a land use perspective. The only sense it makes is from a fiscalization of land use perspective. If you don’t think about fiscalization, if you think about really promoting transit use that is not the strategy that you would apply. Finally, we should think about putting into our policies, written down so we can thumb it in the face of these agencies that say put more housing near transit, is we should have a policy that limits housing expansion based on both provision and use of transit. So if they say more housing means more transit use, we should measure the transit use, we should measure the provision of transit, and say well this doesn’t work. It doesn’t make any sense. Consider putting policies like that to basically show them that they are full of effluent and that they should revise their policies for things that actually make sense. Thank you. Chair Tuma: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg followed by Martinez. 1 2 Commissioner Fineberg: I have four points I would like to make. I will go over them, naming them first and then talk as fast as I can in detail. The first is that this is a planning exercise without being constrained by reality. Second is there should be a peer review of the model to develop the statewide growth estimates. I am thinking along the lines of the study that Berkeley did on the high-speed rail ridership figures. I understand our Director said that those numbers are coming downward. Third is the scenario will be a deathblow to public education in California. The fourth is what areas does Palo Alto have to deal with anticipating this in our Comprehensive Plan and also if reality is being suspended for the planning do we get to suspend reality in our implementation of the planning, because fair is fair. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 So the first thing. It is a planning exercise without being constrained by reality. Removing the constraints is a wonderful way to go through a creative process, but this is not a creative process for a lovely vision. This is real world. Unless there can be documented ways to cover costs, it is an unfunded mandate. Unless there can be documented ways to deal with the fact that private parties already control the land, Staff has to figure out the right wording, but I would question whether the suspension of reality and real-world constraints is appropriate in a state planning process with legal requirements that are going to flow from ignoring reality. In terms of the peer review, I applaud Staff for the very detailed and accurate analysis of specific issues in Palo Alto. Good job on that. I think the City needs to also somehow question the underlying numbers of growth statewide. I don’t see where it is supportable that there is going to be a million jobs, a million new houses. We have been losing jobs. Google is hiring but the numbers just aren’t supportable. So even if they are reduced slightly if they are completely erroneous then all the effluent that is spread around there is still too much to start with. So pick your words more carefully than I just did but I think that there needs to be some significant challenge of the statewide numbers, and we might be in the opportunity to somehow generate that if we can point to the right body that would do a peer review or whatever the appropriate measurement would be. Number three, the scenario would be a deathblow to public education in California. I understand we are the City we are not the schools. I just did a quick calculation of if this scenario runs how much land would the school district need to buy and what the cost would be. I am figuring 12,000 new households, one student per new household. If we double the size of the population on each campus and build a new campus at the same size that we currently use for high school, middle school, and elementary. So that would be doubling the population on the same amount of land. We would need 50 acres for a high school for 3,000 students, 25 acres for one middle school with 2,000 students, and ten acres for seven elementary schools or 75 acres for the 7,000 elementary school students. That is 150 acres. Where would we find 150 acres to build new schools? Where would we find at $5.0 million an acre the $750 million? That is three-quarters of a billion. The school district is not going to be able to find that money. In areas that are revenue limit rather than basic aid the state budget funds that pay for development of new schools is about to run out of money. If and when that happens the underlying laws revert back to some earlier cases that the projects will not be considered fully mitigated by payment of the development impact fees. So the underlying legal structure that development happens under will change. If this rate of development happens it is simply going to be a death knell of public education. I don’t think there is any excuse to say that that is an acceptable thing to plan for. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Then the last thing was just echoing other Commissioners’ comments. I agree with what they are saying about what opportunities do we have in our Comprehensive Plan, or in our planning models to defend ourselves against unfunded mandates, against destruction of our public schools, and that is more implementation rather than in the letter. Chair Tuma: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez followed by Garber. 9 10 Commissioner Martinez: I don’t know if I can follow that. I appreciate our Planning Director really wanting to go toe-to-toe with ABAG. I want you to know we are in your corner. But can we talk first? 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I think that in the letter that questions sort of their numbers and wanting to come up with better numbers sort of buys into this let’s build more housing and the basis. I wanted to know whether there is really, since this is the Initial Vision Scenario, a chance to really look at it in a different way, or have they gone too far down the road and there are too many communities that are also looking at this and we better sort of stick with the program and just try to win the battles that we can. Do you have a sense of that? Mr. Williams: I think it depends on what that alternative or alternatives are that you would have in mind. I think what the agencies would certainly feel that they are committed to is, assuming the state numbers didn’t change or whatever the state numbers end up being, that they sort of are assigned. By the way, they are challenging those too. They think they are high and part of their game plan here is to try to work the state down to something that seems more realistic. But assuming that they still have some big number up there I think they would feel committed that they have to find a way to accommodate that number, in some way that seems more sustainable than continuing business as usual growth into green field areas, and spreading out in ways that assure that transit won’t work. So within some of those parameters they probably feel backed up against the wall. I am not sure what you have in mind. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Commissioner Martinez: I am not sure what I have in mind either. As much as I love this lady, I know that every community is going to be arguing the impact on their schools, and the lack of infrastructure, and community facilities. It is something they are going to say well, welcome to the club. Similarly the argument of let’s put the housing somewhere else we are a primary job generating hub. I am not sure that sort of goes well with other communities. If we go back to our last item where Commissioner Tanaka was saying housing costs us more than an employment base would. What community would want to support us with providing housing when we are getting the benefits of providing the jobs? I am not sure that argument would go very far either. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I think if there is the possibility to look at it in a different way I would look at not just the transit– related benefits of the plan, but really the benefits of looking at all greenhouse gas emission uses especially of the automobile. If you look at certain cities like San Jose where as big as that city is there are still more people leaving the city for work than coming there. That seems like kind of an odd situation. It is not like San Francisco where they are promoting more people going there with probably more employment growth there than any of the other counties in the ABAG region. It seems to me that it would be a more reasonable planning approach to say let’s look at the places where automobile traffic is leaving the city for work, and try to concentrate the employment growth there. Maybe it is there and maybe it is in Redwood City, maybe it is in Oakland, maybe it is in Richmond. There are a lot of communities that are not creating – pardon me? Atherton. And look at really that as an alternative strategy. The Council asked us to look at a big picture and it seems to me that the big picture is not buying into this housing and jobs model too quickly. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber followed by Tanaka. 11 12 Commissioner Garber: Well, there is not a lot left to say. I think the Commissioners have had some great points and I am supportive of I think nearly all of them. The way that I read what we have been given here, the City has been given here is demand as it has been described by yourself and Commissioner Fineberg, it is unconstrained by anything. The standard model of planning is you take demand and you take supply and you see if they match. If they don’t if you want to bridge it, and if do want to bridge it what do you do? If we had all of the time and all of the money that we would need to it would seems to me at some point we need to figure out what our supply is. There is a variety of ways of understanding that which is with the existing zoning, what is it today, what is it if we were to take full advantage of how our land uses are currently disposed around the city, and compare that against this demand. Then you can really have more of a substantive conversation about how close you want to get to that. Recognizing that we don’t have all that time and money I understand why we sort of picked these points and sort of posit them as a way of mitigating the potential impacts and not abdicating ourselves from the conversation. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 So again, I think what your plan is for the letter and your details here are spot on. I think you have hit everything that I can imagine that should be in there. I would love to be able to have, as exhibits for it these sorts of supply figures and scenarios against that demand so that we could so that, but I recognize that is probably outside the scope of what needs to come back here because that is not a small task. Chair Tuma: Commissioner Tanaka. 34 35 Commissioner Tanaka: I also agree with a lot of my fellow Commissioners’ comments. I think Staff captures a lot of the big salient points. The only question I have for Staff is, I think as I was listening to all of the comments and reading this report, one thing I was wondering is what is our representation here? I thought Council Member Scharff was pretty active on this. I thought Palo Alto would have a bigger say this round versus last time when we had some pretty high numbers. Can you talk a little bit about what is our participation representation here? I think that is one of the biggest underlying – I think whatever letter we send I think we need to have our active participation in this process. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Mr. Williams: Thank you that is a good point I had not mentioned. So the need to distinguish between the Initial Vision Scenario, which is the Sustainable Community Strategy being 45 46 developed for the Bay Area over a 25 year period from the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, which is what we have gotten previously for a five to seven year period is now going to be an eight year period. So Council Member Scharff is on a committee that is helping to determine what the methodology will be for assigning that housing need over those eight years. He is not on a committee that is reviewing the Initial Vision Scenario and the big grand plan for the next 25 years. However, those two things are very closely tied together and sort of aligned at this point in time. The committee has had four meetings now, once a month in the last four months, I have gone to all of those. Council Member Scharff has not been able to make all of them but we have talked. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 The committee, as I mentioned, is now going to have more time to come up with a recommendation on the methodology primarily because this Vision Scenario came out and everybody is starting to see, well how can you be talking about one and saying you are going to have this many units and then you are going to be saying there are this many in 25 years, and well, if this is in eight years is only one-tenth of what the 25 year scenario that is not going to make much sense. So I think there has been some acknowledgement that maybe it is not exactly one-third, one-third, one-third. That one way to do the methodology for the RHNA process is just to take well you have a 25-year period from 2010 to 2035, and if you just divide it into thirds you essentially have your three eight-year RHNA numbers setout. Then what you have to do is decide if the income levels that go with that as part of the RHNA. I mean, if we were all in agreement for what the Vision Scenario is for 25 years that probably would be an acceptable way to go. When they brought this issue up, I and some other people said, well that is a nice idea but if you don’t buy into the Vision Scenario being anywhere close to what is realistic then no, not likely to agree. Greg, Council Member Scharff has said the same thing. So I think that is why they pushed out the housing numbers is so that we can get down the road a bit with these Alternative Vision Scenarios, get away from this one a little bit and get into some of those, and start looking at different scenarios and how those play out. At the last housing meeting they actually provided us with a spreadsheet of every city and how with the 70/30 percent split what that would mean as far as our numbers for the next, if you basically took one-third of that. Then others are saying well, maybe that makes some sense but you should sort of backload that period because of the economic times that we are in right now it is going to take awhile before you really start getting up, so you really shouldn’t do a third, maybe you should do a quarter, 25 percent, in this first eight years and then ramp up beyond that. So those kinds of discussions are going on but again Council Member Scharff is one of 45 people on that methodology committee. Then the Vision Scenario is ultimately adopted by the Executive Board of ABAG and the Executive Board of MTC. I don’t know how many people are on those, but that will be after their full assembly’s meet, which will basically be comprised of somebody, representatives, from every city in the county and region, and various other special agencies and districts. Then the groups that I am going to I attend this Regional Advisory Working Group once a month that probably has varied from anywhere from 60 or so people at the meetings to 100 or more than 100. The Santa Clara County Planning Directors is meeting at least once a month to talk about this. So you have the 15 or whatever it is cities in the county. So it has all this input from all these places. There is a mass of people and no one person or one city can really, even a San Jose or a San Francisco, can dominate this discussion. 1 2 3 Commissioner Tanaka: I guess I just wanted to make sure that we have our two cents in there. It sounds like you are doing all the things that we can do. 4 5 6 Mr. Williams: I think we are as active as we can sort of legally be active. 7 8 Commissioner Tanaka: If there is something that we can do more, right? Like if one of the Planning Commissioners should also be active in that process I think…I don’t know but anything else that would help I think would be useful. 9 10 11 12 13 14 I realize I am out of time but can I finish out my comments? Mr. Williams: It was mostly me. I was the one talking during your time. 15 16 Chair Tuma: That is fine. 17 18 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. I like the concept that Commissioner Martinez said about really kind of optimizing for the region versus for a city. I think really that is what you need to do. You need to optimize the dollars for the whole region not necessarily for a particular county or city. That goes with greenhouse gases as well. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 For instance, this is not a new idea it is actually an old idea, I think Commissioner Keller actually mentioned it. East Palo Alto is right adjacent to Palo Alto so if you want a lot of affordable housing East Palo Alto is right there. It is a different county but I think a lot of these boundaries are somewhat artificial. It is not like we are Palo Alto the island off in the middle of the Pacific and no other city is near us. We are all adjacent to each other. So I think that is something that needs to be considered and that is something that could be written into the letter is the fact that by partnering across these city boundaries that are kind of artificial, because these cities are all adjacent, we really are not optimizing for the maximum benefit of all the citizens in the Bay Area, as well as for the greenhouse gases. So I think if that could be contemplated. That is one point that was not in your list of bullets. If that could be emphasized I think that would be good. I think the reality is a lot of people move to a certain area in terms of housing for the schools and they commute to their job no matter how painful that might be. So I don’t actually believe we have a housing-job imbalance. I think Commissioner Keller said it very well, about how jobs generate more transit usage than housing. I was actually reading several studies on Manhattan, as Commissioner Keller mentioned, and it is one of the greenest areas in the world because of its density. So really optimizing for greenhouse gas, trying to save our important oil, and our environment, we really want to think about this more regionally versus trying to stuff everything into a city to make everything artificially balance, which it isn’t balance. That is one of the reasons why I don’t think we should necessarily have a cap on office or commercial. Maybe it does make sense to have more jobs in this particular area than other places, especially given the fact that we don’t necessarily have room for services as some other Commissioners mentioned, in terms of the schools. You would need a lot of acreage. 1 2 3 Anyway, it looks like it is pretty comprehensive already so thank you for your work. Chair Tuma: There was a slide up there that talked about the target percentage being 15 and they thought this was going to be something like 12. Can you put that slide back up for a second? I thought I noticed something on there that just didn’t make any sense to me, and maybe we can’t. 4 5 6 7 Mr. Williams: There it is. 8 9 Chair Tuma: Right. So that is it. I didn’t read this right. I think what this says is if we stayed on the track we are on by 2035 we would achieve ten percent, and if we go with this Vision Scenario we would achieve 12 percent. Is that right? Current Regional Plans versus Initial Vision Scenario. 10 11 12 13 14 Mr. Williams: Well first of all Current Regional Plans is not sort of business as usual. Current Regional Plans is meeting ABAG’s current sort of projections for numbers and housing near transit and that. 15 16 17 18 Chair Tuma: Right. 19 20 Mr. Williams: So on that, yes under that scenario we would be ten percent reduction by 2035. The Initial Vision Scenario would be 12 percent by then. 21 22 23 Chair Tuma: Those numbers, when I look at that it just doesn’t seem to make sense. I mean they are saying that basically we would achieve 20 percent more. Twelve percent versus ten percent is 20 percent more by doing all of this. That just seems like a fundamental flaw there. 24 25 26 27 Mr. Williams: I think we reported this when we talked to you first about the whole Sustainable Communities Strategy effort is that first of all this is a per capita reduction. That the overall total greenhouse gas even with a 15 percent per capita reduction is actually I think an increase of like two percent in the total greenhouse gas emissions. That is to be offset overall because this is just part of AB32. In fact it is a relatively small, it is about nine or ten percent of the overall reduction that we are looking for in greenhouses gases statewide. Most of it is coming from vehicle standards and those kinds of improvements are where we are getting a lot of improvement. So this is sort of the last ten percent of how do we address it. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Chair Tuma: Okay. So I would agree several of the other Commissioners who said essentially what you have in here as sort of where you are going with this letter completely makes sense to me. I don’t see anything in there that I disagree with. I think the only question is a matter of emphasis and where do we fight the fight. To me the numbers are eventually going to come out where the numbers come out. You can have a lot of lower level discussion about that later on, and maybe I am saying something that others have said in a different way, but over and over as we have talked about this historically mostly in the context of RHNA we have always talked about how the artificial boundaries of a city limits just don’t make any sense. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 If I were to say that there is one thing that the City would put its resources behind in terms of trying to make this whole thing make sense is to get around this notion that the subregional approach doesn’t work or you can’t have it because you can’t go across the counties, or that sort of thing. It just defies all logic. I understand that it is sort of the easy way because you say well, each municipality has its own government, and how do you get all these governments to work together. Well, I think that is the difficult question in this whole exercise but it is also the right question in this whole exercise. Maybe it has to be driven by the counties, maybe it has to be driven by some other body, I don’t know, but this notion that you are going to solve this by individual municipalities doing what they are told to do just – greenhouse gases don’t stay in one place. Jobs are not driven by housing. The fundamentals here don’t make sense. So really if I could change one thing about this whole process it would be the ability to work across boundaries on an entirely regional basis. I understand there are 45 people working this RHNA. Maybe there needs to be 45 people looking at this whole thing, and it is difficult. We have state legislatures and other bodies that are large that manage to get the job done, and this is so fundamental to the future of the Bay Area and the future of California that I think that is what is necessary. So I would say the one punch, the one thing, the one focus would be on not being constrained by municipalities, and focus on subregional or some other model. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I have lights again from Commissioners Lippert and Keller. Do you guys have just something brief that can’t be submitted in writing? Go ahead Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: First of all I think it was two years ago, 2009, I sort of warned about this tsunami coming. It was a bit melodramatic in my approach but hopefully it resonated with you. What we are seeing here in terms of this housing tsunami I never expected it to be this large, ever. I think that that is the bit that is a little overwhelming or daunting right now. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I want to read something. This is from the National Resources Defense Council, their take on SB375. Step one in terms of Sustainable Communities Strategies tasks is to map or identify the general location of uses, residential densities, and building intensities within the region. Presumably this will be done in the form of a land use map. That is what we are basically being provided here. SB375 does not require parcel specific maps only general locations need to be identified. That is where I am having some of the difficulty here is that it is taking our neighborhoods and it is identifying them as wholesale housing, higher density housing. I continue with this document because later on it has in here a thing called Saving Clauses. SB375 contains several important saving clauses. It provides that neither SCSs nor the APSs regulate the use of land and that neither of them supercedes the land use authority of local governments. There is no requirement for local governments to conform their land use plans to SCSs or APSs. Now this is particularly important. What we are talking about here is land use and its relationship to transit. They don’t have the ability to come in and say you are going to build so many housing units based on our local land use designations. But the one thing SB375 does is it begins to provide the cascading exemption from CEQA review. So as you begin to incorporate some very important policies for for instance below market rate housing, housing density bonuses, it begins to take sustainable construction, it begins to take off the requirements of CEQA review. So what I see as a possible scenario, and I don’t say that there is any manipulation or a bad thing going on here, all I am just saying is that the possibility is that a developer could very well come in and pick up a site let’s say that is within half a mile of a transit center like Downtown or California Avenue and say hey, I don’t need to comply with CEQA. I am doing what SB375 is requiring of me. So that is where I think the difficulty is going to be. It is not necessarily in the land use it is going to be in the CEQA review. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate what Commissioner Lippert just said and in particular the piece of this that CEQA review doesn’t take into account is traffic. We are going to see horrendous traffic increases. In fact, that is what was done in the scenarios talked about in the One Bay Area stuff that was a few weeks ago. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I want to close with this, which is inspired by Commissioner Fineberg’s comment. It is a phrase, ‘willing suspension of disbelief,’ which is from Samuel Taylor Coleridge, for whom Coleridge Street in Palo Alto was named. This is from Wikipedia. Willing suspension of disbelief is a formula for justifying the use of fantastic or nonrealistic elements in literature. It was put forth in English by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge who suggested that if a writer could infuse a “human interest and semblance of truth” into a fantastic tale the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative. The phrase ‘suspension of disbelief’ came to be used more loosely in the later 20th century often used to imply that the onus was on the reader rather than the writer to achieve it. It might be used to refer to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises. The fictional premises may also lead to the engagement 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 of the mind and perhaps the proposition of thoughts, ideas, arts, and theories. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 So what we have here is a document that is based on fiction. That intends for us to have a willing suspension of disbelief so that we will deal with the idea that based on inconsistencies, based on inappropriate assumptions on how much we should grow, they will then assign to us ABAG numbers. It is interesting that all of this only gets us one percent reduction from 2020 to 2035 in greenhouse gases. That seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with this. What is fundamentally wrong is the balance between housing, jobs, and transit. If don’t take into account transit and jobs, and you only take into account housing then you have not taken advantage of what you can. Thank you. Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg if you could take us home. 39 40 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. I would like to thank Commissioner Keller for his very articulate recital on the willing suspense of disbelief. I had actually thought about it and could not recall enough about my 11th grade English Literature class to speak so eloquently to that. 41 42 43 44 45 46 The last point I would like to raise is something that the Director mentioned regarding the allocation during the three different housing cycles for affordable housing. It brought to mind that that is going to create a process that can’t occur logically. Forgive me that I don’t have these detailed numbers so I am just going to come up with some big round numbers. Let’s say if we have three periods of the seven or eight years over the cycle, and in each of those periods we will have 4,000 housing units that have to be built. Some proportion of those, help me out, will have to be affordable. Is it like 2,000 in each period? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mr. Williams: Well, that is to be determined, but if you base it on this last go around more than half of our units are in affordable housing categories, maybe 60 percent. 7 8 9 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so if it is 2,000 over three periods that would be 6,000. So we are then at the end of the 35 year period going to have a shift in our population that we would have 6,000 new homes built that are extremely affordable and the 26,000 existing plus 6,000 so call it 30,000-plus. So there is going to be quantum shift in the proportion of people of very modest and limited means, and are there even enough people from surrounding areas that would occupy those homes if every neighborhood up and down the Peninsula suddenly built 30 percent affordable housing stock? At a certain point it becomes a logical impossibility. You can’t keep building 30 percent of your housing stock being that low and affordable, and maybe you change it in the fourth cycle out, but it is not a plan that could work in three cycles. You are going to run out of people. So I don’t know how – I am not trying to diminish the need or the value or the absolute dearth of affordable housing that exists right now, but it is just not a logical way to run a model. It won’t work. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Chair Tuma: Okay. With that Commissioners we will close that item. A couple of points of business before we wrap it up for the evening. We have minutes of March 23 and 30. Do I have a motion on that? 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of March 23 and March 30 Meeting minutes. MOTION Commissioner Keller: So moved. 31 32 33 34 SECOND Vice-Chair Lippert: Second. 35 36 37 38 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) Chair Tuma: Motion by Commissioner Keller, second by Vice-Chair Lippert. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? Passes unanimously. 39 40 41 June 8, 2011 Mr. Ken Kirkey Planning Director Association of Bay Area Governments 101 Eight Street Oakland, CA 94607 Mr. Doug Kimsey Planning Director Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eight Street Oakland, CA 94607 Re: SCCAPO response to the SCS Initial Vision Scenario Dear Gentlemen, On behalf of the Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials (SCCAPO), I want to express our appreciation for the work done by ABAG and MTC staff, as well as BAAQMD and BCDC staff and others,in completing the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that was released on March 11, 2011.While regional and local staff naturally hold different perspectives on how to address the planning landscape in our distinctive but related communities, it is imperative that we each act on behalf of our jurisdictions through the assigned responsibilities with which we are charged, at the same time respect and consider those distinct points of view of the others, and then recognize how we must work in concert in planning the future of the Bay Area region as a diverse but interconnected community.The regional exercise platted by the SB375 legislation has made the ties between and among the agencies' staffs at the local and regional level stronger than they have ever been by the dialogue and work we are doing together. It is evident in the SCS discussions,particularly since the roll out of the IVS, that the reactions to both the requirements and the implications of SB375 are multifaceted.Local agency planners, by their education and training at the very least, appreciate the value of a regional perspective where our geographic and topographic features of the Bay Area define an incredible environmental, economic and social ecosystem.Sub-regionally, we recognize that our "unique"communities flow from one to another, such that housing, jobs, amenities and transportation blend somewhat imperceptibly across boundaries. At the same time, interest in local control by citizens within any defined jurisdiction is a very strong driver of policy and actions.While there is much to do before we can determine how successful this first effort may be,there is little doubt that we shall all be more cognizant of each others’needs and, in SCCAPO Response to SCS Initial Vision Scenario June 6, 2011 Page 2 working together, bring into the light the idea that the best interests of the greater region are extremely important for the welfare of the individual communities. Local planning staffs have been working diligently both independently and collaboratively through the SCCAPO meeting framework to understand the objectives and obligations of SB375. The release of the IVS heightened these efforts, and we have prepared this response to the IVS. It includes the summary of a survey conducted through SCCAPO. It should be noted that this survey does not necessarily represent a consolidated or formal position statement from SCCAPO.Rather, it is a collective summary of responses at this stage of the SCS process in response to the IVS figures and the specific questions posed by ABAG staff at the recent RAWG meetings to develop the next alternative scenarios.Our intent here is to simply give a reaction to the IVS as a work product that was created as a critical starting point in the SCS process. It is time to put our energies into moving the process forward. The steps that follow will be more important with the backdrop of the IVS, as it informs the input we can provide and the work we can do together to craft alternative scenarios, and ultimately a Preferred Scenario that we can all embrace. We view the unconstrained IVS as an intentional schema that arrays future jobs and housing growth across our region in a way that could achieve or nearly achieve the target greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions called for by SB375. However, it seems to address sustainability only in a technical way in that it may reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), but not in the sense that it recognizes that thriving communities that are sustainable must make a varied selection of decisions that balance job growth and housing production and consider all of the other amenities that make them livable communities as well. The discussions we have had at our monthly SCCAPO meetings and the results of our internal survey of communities in Santa Clara County reflect the following comments: 1.The assumption that we would house all new job-related households within our regional boundaries is not supportable. The significant changes in households and jobs in some communities appears to be attributed to this factor to some degree. 2.Significant deviations from Projections 2009, upon which most jurisdictions have relied for their planning calculations, challenge the credibility of the IVS estimates. 3.The IVS distributions of housing and jobs do not reflect the unique characteristics of the communities that make up the fabric of the subregions, or therefore the region as a whole. Applying targets from the top down is difficult at best, and insensitive to community character at least, and overall result in missing the land use opportunities that the local planning agencies can develop to the best advantage in a plan for sustainable growth through local complete community concepts. 4. The incorporation of the RHNA process into the IVS creates a troublesome quantity and timing conflict that must be reconciled if RHNA figures are to influence local Genera Plan preparations, particularly with respect to the challenges of the required Housing Elements. SCCAPO Response to SCS Initial Vision Scenario June 6, 2011 Page 3 5.Opportunities for growth are recognized in a variety of locations by local planning efforts, not only in identified PDAs or even the growth opportunity areas that have been summarized in the IVS. The input of local jurisdictions in the preparation was only a start and cannot truly reflect the complex planning nuances at the local level. 6.Transportation and transit priorities cannot be properly evaluated if the basic jobs and housing distribution assumptions are still in question. Local and subregional transportation infrastructure and transit initiatives are not accounted for in the broad-brush presentation of the IVS. In closing, we want to reiterate and emphasize that SCCAPO highly supports the regional planning dialogue that has been facilitated through the SCS process and the vision of compact sustainable growth. While we recognize the challenge this presents under the current suburban and rural fabric of Santa Clara County, we are committed to defining and developing complete communities with diverse housing, employment and transportation options that preserve the environmental health of the region and the State. You have already received from the individual jurisdictions many responses that speak to what we must do going forward together to create a plan that can be implemented and that will assure that our region’s many communities are both sustainable and livable. We look forward to providing input and working with you in the ongoing Alternative Scenarios process. Respectfully, on behalf of the members of SCCAPO, ____________________________________ Kevin L. Riley Director of Planning & Inspection City of Santa Clara H:\Dir P & I\SCCAPO\SCCAPO 2011\SCCAPO resp re IVS June 2011.doc March 2011 Draft Initial Vision Scenario SCCAPO Member Survey Results May 2011 IVS General Conclusions • Jobs Projections: mixed acceptance • Household Projections: too high or reasonable for most cities • Housing Units Allocation: too high or reasonable for most cities • Transportation Capacity: insufficient information; several indicate too low • Place Types: general acceptance Too high: Campbell County Cupertino Los Altos Hills Morgan Hill IVS Jobs Projections Too Low: Gilroy (maybe) Los Gatos Mountain View Palo Alto San Jose Close Enough Milpitas Sunnyvale Other Los Altos Too high: Campbell County Milpitas Morgan Hill Mountain View Palo Alto San Jose IVS Household Projections Too Low: Los Gatos Close Enough Cupertino Gilroy Los Altos Hills Sunnyvale Other Los Altos Too high: Campbell County Milpitas Morgan Hill Palo Alto San Jose Housing Unit Allocations Too Low: [None] Close Enough Cupertino Los Altos Hills Mountain View Sunnyvale Gilroy Other / N/A Los Altos Los Gatos Too high: [None] Transportation Capacity Too Low: County Palo Alto Gilroy Close Enough Cupertino Milpitas Morgan Hill Other/Unknown Campbell Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Mountain View Sunnyvale “None are a Neat Fit” Campbell Place Type Designations N/A: County Cupertino Los Gatos Close Enough Los Altos Milpitas Morgan Hill Mountain View Sunnyvale Other Los Altos Hills Palo Alto Gilroy San Jose “Other place types should be considered” (economic centers) Gilroy General Recommendations Growth Distributions • Decrease household and jobs projections to reflect historical patterns, particularly in unincorporated areas • Growth constrained by lack of available land and other economic and community-based factors (e.g. schools, parks, municipal services, etc.) • Adjust IVS growth distributions to reflect local plans and constraints General Recommendations Transportation Needs • Fund expressway pavement maintenance, operations/safety and congestion-relief projects • Fund VTA list of local road projects ($700M) • Prioritize transportation funding for communities willing to accept growth • Expand BRT and VTA light rail • Secure funding for Caltrain • Expand VTA bus and local shuttle services General Recommendations Infrastructure Needs • Provide funds to increase school capacity • Target infrastructure funding for PDAs and growth opportunity areas • Fund infrastructure improvements for rural areas • Increase sewer/wastewater treatment capacity • Fund water supply, recycled water improvements • Fund flood control improvements, adaptation measures • Replace aging infrastructure General Recommendations Legislative Actions • Amend Housing Element Law to address funding for RHNA capacity, senior units, unincorporated areas • Provide more state grants to support affordable and inclusionary housing • Streamline CEQA, air quality and traffic analyses • Enact appropriate local zoning for PDAs and growth opportunity areas General Recommendations Regional Planning Support • Support sub-regional dialogue and planning coordination among County, cities, VTA/CMA on SCS and RHNA • Provide grants to support sub-regional planning, PDA plans, policy support for SCS implementation, and GHG reductions • Support transportation projects such as Caltrain and BRT • Revise population and employment projections based on realistic trends General Recommendations Open Space Preservation • Limit development and preserve open space, recreation, natural resource and agricultural lands outside of growth management boundaries • Preserve lands with Williamson Act • Complete Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) • Establish growth boundaries and greenbelts • Expand public/private efforts (e.g. conservation easements, TDR, land trusts) Future Vision Scenario Preferred Land Use Concept • More Urban Jobs – Housing Fit 7 YES • Even More Aggressive Urban Jobs – Housing Fit : 5 YES, 1 NO • More Suburban Jobs – Housing Fit 1 YES, 3 Depends on Area, 3 NO Future Vision Scenario Unique County Aspects • Diverse urban and non-urban areas, 75% County rural • Diverse geography, economy & community identities • Center for technology innovation and synergy • Global economy, high-tech employment center • High housing/land costs, affordable housing challenge • High in-commuting from outside County • Unique transportation system by VTA, County & cities • Future impact of high speed rail • Half of water supply from local runoff, reservoirs and groundwater Future Vision Scenario Principles for Sustainable Economy • Reliable and convenient transportation options • Efficient and coordinated multi-modal transportation (VTA, BRT, Caltrain, SamTrans) • Jobs and housing growth at PDAs, growth opportunity areas and near transit • Diversity of housing for workforce, including affordable housing • Address infrastructure, schools, parks and quality of life needs Future Vision Scenario Principles for Housing Growth • Balance of housing to match employment growth • New housing near planned employment centers • Focused growth at PDAs and growth opportunity areas with good transit access • Higher density housing at transit stations and corridors • Grand Boulevard Initiative principles • Option for transfer of housing units between jurisdictions Future Vision Scenario Other Suggested Principles • Connect principle of sustainable compact urban development with support for Bay Area as a global center for innovation • Emphasize compact urban villages with complete neighborhoods and streets • Plan for transit for in-migration commuting, not just more housing • Along with identifying where growth should be directed, address where growth should NOT occur with incentives     Date: May 23, 2011  To: SCS Housing Methodology Committee  From: Ken Kirkey, ABAG Planning Director  Subject: Revised Allocation Methodology – Fair Share Factors    Overview   At the April 2011 Housing Methodology Committee (HMC), ABAG and MTC staff presented several  versions of an initial allocation methodology that attempted to incorporate the sustainability framework  that underlies the Bay Area’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the “fair share” principles that  are integral to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. This memo summarizes the  changes made to the allocation methodology based on the feedback provided by the HMC.    Revised Allocation Methodology   In the initial RHNA methodology proposed by ABAG and MTC for 2014‐2022, 70 percent of the region’s  total housing need will be allocated to the Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Growth Opportunity  Areas identified by local jurisdictions, while the remaining 30 percent of the total housing need will be  allocated based on household formation growth.     At the April 2011 meeting, there was broad support from the HMC for using the PDA and Growth  Opportunity Area sustainability framework for assigning most of the RHNA allocation to jurisdictions.  However, most committee members expressed a desire to see other factors, including school quality,  employment, transit, and past RHNA performance, in the methodology for allocating the remaining 30  percent of the total need to jurisdictions.     The revised methodology example retains the use of the PDAs and Growth Opportunities for allocating  70 percent of the total housing need as Part 1: Sustainability Component, and incorporates the  suggested additional factors for the remaining 30 percent of need as Part 2: Fair Share Component. The  approach used for including each factor is described below.    Part 1: Sustainability Component  Seventy percent of the region’s total housing need is allocated based on the total household growth for  each PDA and Growth Opportunity Area over the eight‐year RHNA period, as shown in the SCS Preferred  Scenario (in this example, we are using the Initial Vision Scenario as a placeholder for the Preferred  Scenario). The total amount of growth in a jurisdiction’s PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas is then  compared to the amount of growth forecasted for the jurisdiction based on household formation.  Jurisdictions where the growth in PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas represents more than 125  percent will not receive additional growth, but will retain the growth assigned to these areas. All other  jurisdictions will receive additional growth based on the “fair share” factors applied to the remaining 30  percent of total housing need.      Allocation Methodology Examples  May 23, 2011  Page 2  Part 2: Fair Share Component  To ensure that each community in the region does its fair share to provide affordable housing, 30  percent of the region’s total housing need will be allocated based on household formation growth  modified by the factors suggested by the HMC: school quality, employment, transit, and past RHNA  performance. Each of these factors is described in more detail below.    School Quality  The school quality factor includes the Academic Performance Index (API) scores for 2009 for 1400 public  elementary and middle schools in the Bay Area. The API scores for each school in a jurisdiction were  averaged to provide a single school quality score for each jurisdiction in the region. Each jurisdiction  received a “score” based on its average API:    900 or above = 5   From 800 to 899 = 3   From 700 to 799 = 1    In the allocation methodology, those jurisdictions with a higher average school quality score will receive  a higher share of the region’s housing need.     Employment  The employment factor is based on National Establishment Time Series (NETS) data for 2010. The NETS  data is gathered by individual business and includes number of jobs, industry type, and location. Staff  analyzed the data to determine the number of jobs in each jurisdiction that are within a PDA or Growth  Opportunity Area and the number that are located outside one of these areas. Jurisdictions were rated  based on the total number of jobs outside of a PDA or Growth Opportunity Area. Only the jobs outside  of PDAs or Growth Opportunity Areas were considered because this factor is being used to allocate the  30 percent of total need that has not already been directed to these sustainable locations.    The score for each jurisdiction is assigned as follows:   More than 40,000 jobs outside of a PDA or Growth Opportunity Area =  5   Between 20,001 and 40,000 jobs outside of a PDA or Growth Opportunity Area = 4   Between 10,001 and 20,000 jobs outside of a PDA or Growth Opportunity Area = 3   Between 5,001 and 10,000 jobs outside of a PDA or Growth Opportunity Area = 2   Less than 5,001 jobs outside of a PDA or Growth Opportunity Area = 1    Those jurisdictions that have a higher number of jobs outside of PDAs or Growth Opportunity Areas will  receive a higher RHNA allocation.    Transit  The transit factor is based on measures of service frequency and overall coverage for an entire  jurisdiction. Service frequency is measured by average daily headways (time in minutes between transit  arrivals over a 24‐hour weekday period) in 2009 by jurisdiction. The calculation is done at the   Allocation Methodology Examples  May 23, 2011  Page 3  intersection level based on how frequently a transit vehicle arrives at that location; therefore, the  average headway only takes into account intersections within a jurisdiction that have transit stops.  Jurisdictions where the service frequency was higher than the median received a “high” score, while  jurisdictions where the service frequency was lower than the median received a “low” score.    Transit coverage is measured by the percent of intersections within a jurisdiction that have transit stops.  This information helps avoid overstating the overall availability of transit jurisdiction‐wide based on the  fact that some jurisdictions have a small number of stops that happen to have frequent transit.  Jurisdictions where the service frequency was higher than the median received a “high” score, while  jurisdictions where the service frequency was lower than the median received a “low” score.    Jurisdictions were then grouped into four categories, and given a score as shown below:   High frequency + high coverage = 5   High frequency + low coverage = 3   Low frequency + high coverage = 3   Low frequency + low coverage = 1    Those jurisdictions that have better transit service and coverage will receive a higher RHNA allocation.    RHNA Performance  This factor evaluates a jurisdiction’s performance in issuing permits to meet its RHNA allocations for very  low‐ and low‐income units for the 1999‐2006 RHNA period. The scores were calculated using the  information included in ABAG’s report A Place to Call Home: Housing in the San Francisco Bay Area  (August 2007). Jurisdictions were scored on the following scale:   0% of RHNA permitted = 5   1 – 25% of RHNA permitted = 4   26 – 50% of RHNA permitted = 3   51 – 75% of RHNA permitted = 2   76 – 100% of RHNA permitted = 1   More than 100% permitted = 0    Those jurisdictions that have permitted less of their past RHNA allocations will receive a higher RHNA  allocation for this period. This is the only factor that was not scored on a scale of 1 – 5. The inclusion of a  zero score for jurisdictions that permitted more than 100 percent of their RHNA allocations for very low‐  and low‐income households gives this factor slightly more weight in the allocation methodology.     Allocation Methodology Examples  May 23, 2011  Page 4  Combining the Factors  Each jurisdiction’s scores on the four factors listed above are summed to determine their total factor  score. For jurisdictions throughout the region, the data analysis determined that the total factor scores  range from 3 to 16. The allocation adjustment assigned to each score is as follows:    Score Allocation Adjustment  3 ‐80%  4 ‐70%  5 ‐60%  6 ‐50%  7 ‐40%  8 ‐30%  9 ‐20%  10 ‐10%  11 0%  12 10%  13 20%  14 30%  15 40%  16 50%    Depending on a jurisdiction’s score, the corresponding allocation adjustment is applied to the amount of  growth assigned to the areas outside of PDAs or Growth Opportunity Areas (from the Preferred Scenario  plus the redistribution of growth from jurisdictions that have already been assigned more than 125  percent of their household formation growth).     The amount of growth assigned to the areas outside PDAs or Growth Opportunity Areas will be reduced  for jurisdictions that have total factor scores below 11 (the median score for all jurisdictions). The  allocations will increase for jurisdictions with higher total factor scores (above 11).   Each county will  retain its control total for the growth outside of PDAs and/or Growth Opportunity Areas.    Part 3: Determining the Total Allocation   A jurisdiction’s total RHNA allocation is the sum of the Sustainability Component (units assigned to the  PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas) plus the Fair Share Component (units assigned to the areas  outside of those sustainable places).   SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY (SB375) GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS AB 32 Assembly Bill 32: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006; state legislation requiring a statewide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels or lower by the year 2020. ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments: A voluntary association of counties and cities in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG provides demographic, financial, administrative, training and conference services to local governments and businesses. A member sits on MTC. ABAG Regional Planning Committee This committee studies and submits matters to the ABAG Executive Board regarding: Plan Bay Area; environmental management, housing, and infrastructure planning; special plans and reports from planning task forces or other regional agencies; comprehensive planning policies and procedures; and such other matters as may be assigned by the Executive Board. Members include a minimum of 18 elected officials, including at least one supervisor from each member county and a city representative from each county,as well as not less than 10 citizens representing business, minority, economic development, recreation/open space, environment, public interest, housing, special districts and labor interests. BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Also known as the Air District, since the acronym seems to take longer to say than the full name): Regulates industry and employers to keep air pollution in check and sponsors programs to clean the air. The Air District also works with MTC, ABAG and BCDC on issues that affect transportation, land use and air quality. Bay Area Partnership Often referred to simply as “The Partnership,” this is a confederation of the top staff of various transportation agencies in the region, including MTC, public transit operators, county congestion management agencies (CMAs), city and county public works departments, ports, Caltrans and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as well as environmental protection agencies. The Partnership works by consensus to improve the overall efficiency and operation of the Bay Area’s transportation network, including developing strategies for financing transportation improvements. Bay Plan The San Francisco Bay Plan guides policies for future uses of the Bay and its shoreline. The first San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968, and it is periodically updated. The two main objectives are: 1) Protect the Bay as a great natural resource for the benefit of present and future generations, and 2) Develop the Bay and its shoreline to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay filling. BCDC will be releasing a revised recommendation on amendments to the Bay Plan to Attachment F Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 2 prepare for inevitable sea-level rise and storm surges affecting areas on and near the Bay shoreline due to climate change. BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission: A state-established agency with jurisdiction over dredging and filling of San Francisco Bay and limited jurisdiction over development within 100 feet of the Bay. Call for Projects Regional agencies use this procedure to solicit competing bids from counties, cities, transit agencies, community-based organizations and other stakeholders for projects to be funded as part of long-range plans, such as Transportation 2035 or Plan Bay Area. Caltrans California Department of Transportation: The state agency that maintains and operates California’s highway system. Capital Funds Moneys to cover one-time costs for construction of new projects —such as roads, bridges, bicycle/pedestrian paths, transit lines and transit facilities —to expand the capacity of the transportation system, or to cover the purchase of buses and rail cars. CEQA California Environmental Quality Act: This statute requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. CEQA Guidelines The Air District’s CEQA Guidelines are developed to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality. The primary purpose is to provide a means to identify proposed local plans and development projects that may have a significant adverse effect on air quality and public health. The Air District’s CEQA Guidelines, updated in June 2010, recommend air quality significance thresholds, analytical methodologies and mitigation measures for local agencies to use when preparing air quality impact analyses under CEQA. The updated CEQA Guidelines seek to better protect the health and well-being of Bay Area residents by addressing new health protective air quality standards, exposure to toxic air contaminants, and adverse effects from global climate change. Clean Air Plan At a public hearing on September 15, 2010, the Air District Board of Directors adopted the final Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP), and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report on the CAP. The 2010 CAP serves to update the Bay Area ozone plan in compliance with the requirements of the Chapter 10 of the California Health & Safety Code. In addition, the 2010 Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 3 CAP provides an integrated, multi-pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. Climate Change Climate change refers to changes in the Earth’s weather patterns, including the rise in the Earth’s average temperature due to an increase in heat-trapping or “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) in the atmosphere. Climate scientists agree that climate change is a man-made problem caused by the burning of fossil fuels like petroleum and coal. Transportation accounts for about 40 percent of the Bay Area’s GHG emissions. Climate change is expected to significantly affect the Bay Area’s public health, air quality and transportation infrastructure through sea level rise and extreme weather. CMAs Congestion Management Agencies: Countywide agencies responsible for preparing and implementing a county’s Congestion Management Program. CMAs came into existence as a result of state legislation and voter approval of Proposition 111 in 1990. Subsequent legislation made them optional. Most Bay Area counties still have them. Many CMAs double as a county’s sales tax authority. CO2 Carbon dioxide: A gas that is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle or through human activities. The largest source of CO2 globally is the combustion of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and gas) in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities and other sources. In the Bay Area, the single largest source of CO2 emissions, some 41 percent, comes from transportation sources. Committed Revenues Funds that are directed to a specific entity or for a specific purpose as mandated by statute or by the administering agency. Conformity A process in which transportation plans and spending programs are reviewed to ensure they are consistent with federal clean air requirements; transportation projects collectively must not worsen air quality. Congestion Pricing A policy designed to allocate roadway space more efficiently by charging drivers a fee that varies with the level of traffic on a congested roadway. (See also Value Pricing.) CTC California Transportation Commission: A state-level commission, consisting of nine members appointed by the governor, which establishes priorities and allocates funds for highway, passenger rail and transit investments throughout California. The CTC adopts the State Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP,and implements state transportation policy. Detailed Scenarios Following development of the Initial Vision Scenario, detailed scenarios that account for Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 4 available revenues will be developed, analyzed and discussed as part of the Plan Bay Area process. (See also Initial Vision Scenario and Preferred Scenario.) EIR Environmental Impact Report: State law requires that an EIR shall be prepared if there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. A draft EIR shall be included as part of the review and approval process whenever a public hearing is held on the project. Following adoption of a final EIR by the lead agency makes a decision whether to proceed with the project. Environmental Justice This term stems from a Presidential Executive Order to promote equity for disadvantaged communities and promote the inclusion of racial and ethnic populations and low-income communities in decision-making. Local and regional transportation agencies must ensure that services and benefits, as well as burdens, are fairly distributed to avoid discrimination. Equity Analysis Consistent with federal requirements for environmental justice, MTC and ABAG will conduct an equity analysis covering Plan Bay Area to determine how the benefits and burdens of the plan’s investment strategy affect minority and low-income communities. Equity Working Group This Equity Working Group was set up to advise MTC and ABAG staff in developing of an equity analysis related to low income and minority communities of concern for Plan Bay Area. It consists of representatives from MTC’s Policy Advisory Council (PAC) and the Regional Advisory Working Group (RAWG) The group is identifying some of the key issues and challenges for the region to grow equitably to help meet the sustainability goals as Plan Bay Area is developed. (See also Equity Analysis.) Executive Working Group The Executive Working Group —including city managers, congestion management agency directors, regional agency executives, transit officials and others —was formed to provide a forum for input on technical and policy issues surrounding development of Plan Bay Area. The Executive Working Group met on June 7, 2010. Additional meeting times/locations as well as meeting materials will be posted on the OneBayArea website. FHWA Federal Highway Administration: U.S. Department of Transportation agency responsible for administering the federal highway aid program to individual states, and helping to plan, develop and coordinate construction of federally funded highway projects. FHWA also governs the safety of hazardous cargo on the nation’s highways. Financial Constraint A federal requirement that long-range transportation plans include only projects that have a reasonable expectation of being funded, based upon anticipated revenues. In other words, long- range transportation plans cannot be pie-in-the-sky wish lists of projects. They must reflect Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 5 realistic assumptions about revenues that will likely be available during the 25 years covered in the plan. Flexible Funding Unlike funding that flows only to highways or only to transit by a rigid formula, this is money that can be invested in a range of transportation projects. Examples of flexible funding categories include the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program. FOCUS A regional planning initiative spearheaded by ABAG in cooperation with MTC, and in coordination with the Air District and BCDC. FOCUS seeks to protect open space and natural resources while encouraging infill development in existing communities (See also PCA and PDA). FPI Freeway Performance Initiative: MTC’s effort to improve the operations, safety and management of the Bay Area’s freeway network via deploying system management strategies, completing the HOV lane system, addressing regional freight issues and closing key freeway infrastructure gaps. FTA Federal Transit Administration: U.S. Department of Transportation agency that provides financial and planning assistance to help plan, build and operate rail, bus and paratransit systems. The agency also assists in the development of local and regional traffic reduction programs. Global Warming See Climate Change. Greenhouse Gases Any of the gases –including carbon dioxide, methane and ozone –whose absorption of solar radiation is responsible for the greenhouse effect, in which the atmosphere allows incoming sunlight to pass through but absorbs heat radiated back from the earth’s surface. Greenhouse gases act like a heat-trapping blanket in the atmosphere, causing climate change. HOV Lane High-Occupancy-Vehicle Lane: The technical term for a carpool lane, commuter lane or diamond lane. Initial Vision Scenario As part of Plan Bay Area, the Initial Vision Scenario articulates the Bay Area’s vision of future land uses and assesses its performance relative to statutory greenhouse gas and housing targets as well as other voluntary performance targets. The Initial Vision Scenario serves as a starting point for the development, analysis and discussion of detailed scenario alternatives that will lead to a preferred scenario by early 2012. Another reason the Initial Vision Scenario is just a starting point is because it is unconstrained by available revenues. (See also Detailed Scenarios and Preferred Scenario.) Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 6 JPC Joint Policy Committee: This consortium coordinates the regional planning efforts of ABAG, the Air District, BCDC and MTC. Land Use Model Used by researchers and planners to identify expected population, jobs and housing growth and to understand the interactions between land use, transportation, and the economy. Models help planners analyze and test various spatial distributions of jobs, population and land uses and describe to policy-makers and the public about the relationship between land use and transportation. MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization: A federally required planning body responsible for the transportation planning and project selection in its region; the governor designates an MPO in every urbanized area with a population of over 50,000. MTC is the Bay Area’s MPO. MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission: The transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. One Bay Area One Bay Area is a new initiative meant to coordinate efforts of the Bay Area’s regional government agencies —the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) —in partnership with the region’s 101 towns and cities to create a more sustainable future. One major effort now underway is the development of Plan Bay Area, the region’s long-range plan for sustainable land use, transportation and housing. Paratransit Door-to-door bus, van and taxi services used to transport elderly and disabled riders. Paratransit is sometimes referred to as dial-a-ride service, since trips are made according to demand instead of along a fixed route or according to a fixed schedule. PM Particulate Matter: A mixture of tiny solid and liquid particles –such as those from dust, dirt, soot or smoke –that are found in the air. When inhaled, these particles can settle deep in the lungs and cause serious health problems. PCA Priority Conservation Area: Regionally significant open spaces for which there exists a broad consensus for long-term protection and for which public funds may be invested to promote their protection. These areas must be identified through the FOCUS program. PDA Priority Development Area: Locations within existing communities that present infill Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 7 development opportunities, and are easily accessible to transit, jobs, shopping and services. Local jurisdictions identified these locations voluntarily through the FOCUS program. Performance Measures Indicators of how well the transportation system or specific transportation projects will improve transportation conditions. Place Types A place type groups neighborhoods or centers with similar sustainability characteristics and physical and social qualities, such as the scale of housing buildings, frequency and type of transit, quality of the streets, concentration of jobs, and range of services. For Plan Bay Area, Place Types are a tool of local-regional exchange to identify places and policies for sustainable development. Bay Area jurisdictions can select a place type to indicate their desired level of growth in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Plan Bay Area Plan Bay Area is one of our region’s most comprehensive planning efforts to date. It is a joint effort led by ABAG and MTC in partnership with BAAQMD and BCDC. All four agencies are collaborating at an unprecedented level to produce a more integrated land use-transportation plan. Planning Directors Forums These are regularly scheduled meetings of local planning directors and staff in each county. Local and countywide issues of concern are discussed, and the forums act as a platform for information sharing. Other participants include congestion management agencies (CMAs) and staff from local community and economic development and public works departments. Potential New Revenues Funds that may be available for transportation investment in the future if proposed new revenue sources are approved. These potential revenues are not included in the financially constrained portion of long-term transportation plans and Plan Bay Area. Preferred Scenario Consideration of the detailed scenario alternatives will lead to a preferred scenario by early 2012. (See also Detailed Scenarios and Initial Vision Scenario.) Program (1) verb, to assign funds to a project that has been approved by MTC, the state or another agency, and (2) noun, a system of funding for implementing transportation projects or policies. Resolution 3434 MTC adopted Resolution 3434 in December 2001 to establish clear priorities for the investment of transit expansion funds over the next decade. It focused on identifying high-priority rail and express/rapid bus improvements to serve the Bay Area’s most congested corridors. Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 8 RAWG Regional Advisory Working Group: An advisory group set up to advise staff of ABAG, MTC, BAAQMD and BCDC on development of Plan Bay Area. Its membership includes staff representatives of local jurisdictions (CMAs, planning directors, transit operators, public works agencies) as well as representatives from the business, housing, environmental and social-justice communities. RHNA Regional Housing Need Assessment: The Regional Housing Need Assessment process is a state mandate regarding planning for housing in California. ABAG is responsible for allocating this state-determined regional housing need among all of the Bay Area’s nine counties and 101 cities. Factors used by ABAG in its allocation process include projected household growth, existing employment and projected employment growth, and projected household and employment growth near transit. RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program: A listing of highway, local road, transit and bicycle projects that the region hopes to fund; compiled by MTC every two years from priority lists submitted by local jurisdictions. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) must either approve or reject the RTIP in its entirety. Once the CTC approves an RTIP, it is combined with those from other regions to comprise 75 percent of the funds in the State Transportation Improvement Program or STIP. (Also see “STIP.”) RTP Regional Transportation Plan: A master plan to guide the region’s transportation investments for a 25-year period. Updated every three years, it is based on projections of growth in population and jobs and the ensuing travel demand. Required by state and federal law, it includes programs to better maintain, operate and expand transportation. The Bay Area’s most recent update of its long-range transportation plan, is known as Transportation 2035. The next RTP will be included as part of Plan Bay Area. Sales Tax Authority An agency that administers a voter-approved county transportation sales tax program; in most Bay Area counties, the congestion management agency (CMA) also serves as the sales tax authority. SB 375 Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg): SB 375 became law in 2008. It includes two main statutory requirements and a host of voluntary measures. It is designed to complement AB 32, which requires the state to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The first requirement is to reduce per-capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from cars and light duty trucks, primarily by building more compact communities with better access to mass transit and other amenities, so people have more transportation choices and do not have to drive as much. The second requirement is to house 100 percent of the region’s projected 25-year population growth, regardless of income level. Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 9 Smart Growth A set of policies and programs designed to protect, preserve and economically stimulate established communities, while protecting valuable natural and cultural resources and limiting sprawl. STIP State Transportation Improvement Program: What the California Transportation Commission (CTC) ends up with after combining various RTIPs, as well as a list of specific projects proposed by Caltrans. Covering a five-year span and updated every two years, the STIP determines when and if transportation projects will be funded by the state. Projects included in the STIP must be consistent with the long-range transportation plan. Sustainability Sustainability means doing things and using resources in ways that protect them so they will be available for current and future generations. The “Three E” goals of sustainability are Economy, Environment and Equity. Sustainability is all about helping support a prosperous and globally competitive economy, providing for a healthy and safe environment, and producing equitable opportunities for all Bay Area residents. Sustainable Communities Strategy The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is an integrated land use and transportation plan that all metropolitan regions in California must complete under Senate Bill 375. In the San Francisco Bay Area this integration includes ABAG’s Projections and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Title VI Refers to Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and requires that transportation planning and programming be nondiscriminatory on the basis of race, color and national origin. Integral to Title VI is the concept of environmental justice. TLC Transportation for Livable Communities: Program created by MTC in 1998 to fund small-scale, community-and transit-oriented projects that improve neighborhood vitality. TOD Transit-Oriented Development: A type of development that links land use and transit facilities to support the transit system and help reduce sprawl, traffic congestion and air pollution. It includes housing, along with complementary public uses (jobs, retail and services), located at a strategic point along a regional transit system, such as a rail hub. TOD Policy To promote cost-effective transit, ease regional housing shortages, create vibrant communities and preserve open space, MTC adopted a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy in 2005 that applies to transit extension projects in the Bay Area. Research shows that residents living within half a mile of transit are much more likely to use it, and that large job centers within a quarter mile of transit draw more workers on transit. Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 10 Travel Model Used by researchers and planners for simulating current travel conditions and for forecasting future travel patterns and conditions. Models help planners and policy-makers analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of alternative transportation investments in terms of performance, such as mobility, accessibility, environmental and equity impacts. Value Pricing The concept of assessing higher prices for using certain transportation facilities during the most congested times of the day, in the same way that airlines offer off-peak discounts and hotel rooms cost more during prime tourist seasons. Also known as congestion pricing and peak- period pricing, examples of this concept include higher bridge tolls during peak periods or charging single-occupant vehicles that want to use carpool lanes. (See also Congestion Pricing.) VMT One vehicle (whether a car carrying one passenger or a bus carrying 30 people) traveling one mile constitutes a vehicle mile. VMT is one measure of the use of Bay Area freeways and roads. 2572.txt Link only Page 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1858) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 1858) Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine} Summary Title: 2nd Reading SUMC Project Ordinances Title: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Reorganization of an Approximately .65 Acre Territory Designated “Major Institution/University Lands” Located in the County of Santa Clara and Second Reading for the Adoption of Two Ordinances: (1) Amendment of Title 18 of the PAMC to add a new Chapter 18.36 (Hospital District), adding Section 8.10.95 (Tree Removal in HD Zone) to Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations) of Title 8 (Trees and Vegetation) and amending Section 16.20.160(a)(1) (Special Purpose Signs) of Chapter 16.20 (Signs) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) and amending Section 18.08.010 (Designation of General Districts) and Section 18.08.040 to Chapter 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts) and (2) Approval of a Development Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford Hospital and Clinics; Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford; and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University; and Update on Efforts to Address Comments Made by Parents of Students at the Stanford Arboretum Childrens Center From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1.Adopt the Resolution approving the Reorganization of an approximately .65 Acre Territory Designated “Major Institution/University Lands” Located in the County of Santa Clara (Attachment A); 2.Conduct a second reading and adopt the Ordinance Amending Title 18 of the PAMC to add a new Chapter 18.36 (Hospital District), adding Section 8.10.95 (Tree Removal in HD Zone) to Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations) of Title 8 (Trees and Vegetation) and amending Section 16.20.160(a)(1) (Special Purpose Signs) of Chapter 16.20 (Signs) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) and amending Section 18.08.010 (Designation of General Districts) and Section 18.08.040 to Chapter 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts) (Attachment B); and July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 1858) 3.Conduct a second reading and adopt the Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford Hospital and Clinics; Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford; and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (Attachment C). BACKGROUND On June 6, 2011 the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Expansion Project (“project”) and approved a series of land use entitlements related to the project. These entitlements included a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to exempt the Hospital District from the citywide and area specific non-residential development caps and to permit higher buildings in the HD zone; the creation of a new Hospital District Zone; a Conditional Use Permit for the major components of the project and a Development Agreement which would lock in the entitlements for a period of 30 years in exchange for a mutually acceptable package of community benefits. The Council also requested that the Development Agreement be revised to include language consistent with the agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the SUMC project applicants, and the City of East Palo Alto, for payment of specific fees related to traffic improvements at University Avenue in East Palo Alto and a payment if the SUMC project sponsors are unable to achieve the 2025 transportation mode-split target as described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, mitigation number TR-2.3. DISCUSSION Annexation In order to ensure that the site is located entirely in Palo Alto and to ensure compliance with the Tri-Party Agreement between the County, City and Stanford regarding the use of medical center land, an annexation is required. On June 6, Council initiated the annexation proceedings by adopting a resolution setting the date of June 20, 2011 to conduct a meeting on the annexation of a 0.65 acre site from Santa Clara County. The City of Palo Alto is the lead agency for annexation proceedings. The property to be annexed is solely owned by Stanford University. No objections to the annexation have been received by the City. To complete the annexation, the City must adopt a Resolution Making Certain Findings (Attachment A). Zoning Ordinance Given the unique and complex characteristics of the project, a new Hospital District was added to the Zoning Code. No substantive changes were made to the ordinance since Council’s first reading on June 6. For convenience, a copy of the ordinance is included in this Staff Report as Attachment B. The Development Agreement-East Palo Alto Traffic Issue Prior to the June 6, 2011 Council meeting, City of Palo Alto staff, the SUMC project applicants and representatives from the City of East Palo Alto held a series of meetings regarding transportation-related impacts in the City of East Palo Alto. The Final EIR prepared for the SUMC Project concluded that there were no significant traffic related impacts in East Palo Alto. July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 1858) The traffic study prepared for the Final EIR included a level-of-service (LOS) analysis for East Palo Alto intersections, including Woodland/University, University/Bay, and University/Donohoe. It was determined that with the full build-out of the project in 2025, these intersections would continue to operate in a manner that would not trigger CEQA-impacts. Although East Palo Alto representatives have accepted the Final EIR conclusions, they have argued that there would be perceived impacts from the SUMC Project, in that many East Palo Alto intersections currently operate poorly and that these intersection’s LOS would continue to deteriorate over time, even if the SUMC Project’s contribution does not trigger a CEQA impact. Representatives from East Palo Alto requested payments from the SUMC project applicants and the City of Palo Alto to address the perceived traffic impacts. In response to East Palo Alto’s request, at the June 6, 2011 meeting the City Council directed staff to incorporate the following additional provisions into the Development Agreement: 1.The Hospitals shall make a payment of $200,000 to the City of East Palo Alto for roadway and traffic signal improvements scheduled to be done on the length of University Avenue within the East Palo Alto city limits. This work includes repaving and restriping/bike lanes to improve both vehicular and non-vehicular traffic flow. 2.In the event the SUMC Parties are unable to meet the trip diversion goal set forth in this Agreement such that the $4 Million penalty payment is triggered, the City of Palo Alto shall remit $150,000 of the penalty payment to the City of East Palo Alto. The revisions Council directed are incorporated into Section 5(c)(iii) of the Development Agreement (Exhibit A to Attachment C). Approval of a Development Agreement is a legislative act which becomes final 31 days after the second reading of the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement. (Attachment C.) Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center On June 16, 2011, the City received comments regarding the Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center (operated by the Children’s Creative Learning Centers (CCLC)), located at the Hoover Pavilion site. The commentors expressed concerns that the SUMC project could affect the health of the children who attend the CCLC daycare at 215 Quarry Road. The commentors include parents of children who attend the CCLC. Representatives from SUMC and Stanford University have met with the parents group to understand their concerns and identify possible solutions. One July 1, City staff met with the parents group and SUMC/Stanford representatives to provide information and answer questions regarding the Health Risk Analysis, Air Quality, Hazardous Materials and Noise analyses contained within the Final EIR. A memorandum with the information was provided by the City’s EIR consultant, ATKINS, and distributed to attendees at the meeting. The memorandum is contained in Attachment D. July 11, 2011 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 1858) The following is a summary of the progress the stakeholders have made with regard to this issue: Ø A temporary, off-site daycare center location for the CCLC has been identified by Stanford University. The site would need to be developed to accommodate the CCLC, as it is currently vacant land located in Santa Clara County. Once developed, this site would be the temporary home of the CCLC during construction activities at the Hoover pavilion site, and Ø Stanford University has agreed to delay construction of the Hoover Pavilion parking garage until the temporary CCLC site is ready for occupancy. A follow-up meeting with SUMC/Stanford University and the parents group was scheduled for July 6. At the parents’ request, City staff also attended. At the meeting, Stanford and the parents reviewed construction plans, construction site preparation, and a timeline for construction activities at Hoover Pavilion, and to resolve any remaining issues. On July 7, Stanford presented a draft letter agreement to the parents. (A copy of this draft letter is included as Attachment E.) This letter agreement summarizes Stanford’s plans to relocate the day care center during the key elements of construction and the additional steps Stanford plans to take to protect the day care center from disruption. Staff will provide a verbal update at the meeting on whether the letter agreement is acceptable to the day care parents, whether there are any remaining issues to be resolved and the time frame for resolution. NEXT STEPS The ordinances would be in-effect 31-days after the second reading, which would be August 10, 2011. The SUMC project applicant is expected to begin minimal site preparation at Hoover Pavilion for the building renovation activities within the next few weeks. This may include installation of protective fencing and minimal tree protection and relocation preparation work. The parties are also negotiating an agreement that would permit Stanford to relocate the major utility infrastructure servicing the project from the SUMC site to underneath Welch Road. This relocation will facilitate better site planning and avoid possible construction impediments. Also as part of this agreement, the City plans to upgrade the capacity of its gas line in this area. Staff will bring this agreement to Council for approval shortly. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City Council certified the FEIR for the project on June 6, 2011. ATTACHMENTS: ·Attachment A: Annexation Resolution (PDF) July 11, 2011 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 1858) ·Attachment B: HD Zoning Ordinace (PDF) ·Attachment C: Ordinance Adopting Development Agreement (PDF) ·Attachment D: ATKINS Memorandum, SUMC Project Impacts on CCLC (PDF) ·Attachment E: Stanford University & SUMC Letter Agreemement to SACC Parents (PDF) Prepared By:Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager *NOT YET APPROVED* 110614 jb 0130714 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Determinations and Approving the Reorganization of an Approximately .65 Acre Territory Designated “Major Institution/ University Lands” Located in the County of Santa Clara on the Northwest Side of the Main SUMC Site Adjacent to Pasteur Drive (APN: 142-05-031) WHEREAS, a petition for the annexation of certain territory to the City of Palo Alto and detachment of said territory from the County of Santa Clara, consisting of 0.65 acres on the northwest side of the Main SUMC site adjacent to Pasteur Drive (APN: 142-05-031) has been filed by the owner of said parcel; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2011 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9170 initiating proceedings for annexation of the area designated as “Major Institution/ University Lands ”; and WHEREAS, said territory is inhabited and all owners of land included in the proposal consent to this annexation; and WHEREAS, section 56757 of the California Government Code states that the Local Agency Formation Commission shall not review an annexation proposal to any City in Santa Clara County of unincorporated territory which is within the urban service area of the city if initiated by resolution of the legislative body and therefore the Council of the City of Palo Alto is now the conducting authority for said annexation; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 56663 (a) provides that if a petition for annexation is signed by all owners of land within the affected territory, the City Council may approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing; and WHEREAS, evidence was presented to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. That it is the conducting authority pursuant to Section 56757 of the Government Code for the annexation of property designated “Major Institution/ University Lands”, more particularly described in Exhibits “A” and “B”; SECTION 2. That the following findings are made by the Council of the City of Palo Alto: *NOT YET APPROVED* 101018 jb 013714 a. That said territory is inhabited and comprises approximately .65 acres; b. That the annexation is consistent with the orderly annexation of territory within the City’s urban service area and is consistent with the City policy of annexing when providing City services; c. On June 6, 2011, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford University Medical Center Renewal and Expansion Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; d. The City Council on June 6, 2011, enacted an ordinance pre-zoning the subject territory with the “Hospital District” zoning designation; e. That the territory is within the city urban service area as adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County; f. The City requests the County Surveyor, if necessary, determine the boundaries of the proposed annexation to be definite and certain, and in compliance with the Commission’s road annexation policies. The Applicant shall reimburse the County for the actual cost incurred by the County Surveyor in making this determination; g. That the proposed annexation does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services; h. That the proposed annexation does not split lines of assessment or ownership; i. That the proposed annexation is consistent with the City’s General Plan; j. That the territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing City limits; and k. That the City has complied with all conditions imposed by the Commission for inclusion of the territory in the City’s urban service area. SECTION 3. That no subject agency has submitted any written opposition to a waiver of protest proceedings. SECTION 4. That all property owners and registered voters have been provided written notice of this proceeding and no opposition has been received. SECTION 5. That said annexation is hereby ordered without any further protest proceedings pursuant to Government Code section 56663 (d). / / / / *NOT YET APPROVED* 101018 jb 013714 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of these reorganization proceedings the territory annexed will be detached from the County of Santa Clara. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of these reorganization proceedings the territory reorganized will be taxed. INTRODUCED and PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services *NOT YET APPROVED* 101018 jb 013714 *NOT YET APPROVED* 101018 jb 013714 ** Not Yet Approved ** Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 8.10.95 (Tree Removal in HD Zone) to Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations) of Title 8 (Trees and Vegetation) and Amending Section 16.20.160(a)(1) (Special Purpose Signs) of Chapter 16.20 (Signs) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) and Amending Section 18.08.010 (Designation of General Districts) and Section 18.08.040 to Chapter 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts) and Adding Chapter 18.36 (Hospital (HD) District) to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows: (a) Stanford Hospital and Clinics (“SHC”), Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford (“LPCH”) and Stanford University School of Medicine (“SoM”) operate existing Stanford University Medical Center (“SUMC”) facilities within the City of Palo Alto on two sites that are collectively approximately 66 acres: the approximately 56-acre Main SUMC Site and the approximately 9.9-acre Hoover Pavilion Site. The two sites collectively are referred to in this zoning ordinance as the SUMC Sites. The Main SUMC Site is primarily bounded by Welch Road, Quarry Road, and Stanford University lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. The Hoover Pavilion Site is located south and east of the corner of Quarry Road and Palo Road. The boundaries of the SUMC Sites are shown on Exhibit A to this zoning ordinance. (b) SHC, LPCH and SoM have applied for a Zone Change, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Environmental Assessment, Architectural Review, Annexation and a Development Agreement for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (“Project” or “SUMC Project”), including the demolition, renovation, and replacement of on-site structures, thereby adding approximately 1.3 million square feet of net new floor area. (c) Following staff review and preparation of the Environmental Impact Report for the SUMC Project, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project, including this zoning ordinance, and recommended approval on May 11, 2011. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in Attachment L. (d) On June 6, 2011, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report for the SUMC Project, adopted the findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (e) Section 8.80.010 of Chapter 8.80 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code allows the City to amend Title 18 by changing the boundaries of districts, or by changing the regulations applicable within one or more districts, or by changing any other provision of Title 18, whenever the public interest or general welfare may so require. The amendments to Title 18 specified in this ordinance are necessary to carry out the SUMC Project, which will benefit the 110503 jb 0130755 1 ** Not Yet Approved ** 110503 jb 0130755 2 public interest and general welfare. The Stanford University Medical Center is recognized as a global leader in medical care and research, having pioneered advancements in transplantation medicine, cancer care, prenatal diagnosis and treatment, and diabetes and cholesterol treatments. In 2009, the SHC and LPCH served 64 percent of Palo Alto residents who required hospitalization. The Project will enable the SHC, LPCH and SoM to continue this important work, and the addition of more beds for adults and children will alleviate overcrowding and allow the hospitals to serve patients who currently must be turned away. The hospitals also provide the only Level 1 Trauma Center between San Francisco and San Jose. The Trauma Center and the Emergency Department ensure critical community emergency preparedness and response resources for the community in the event of an earthquake, pandemic, or other major disaster. SECTION 2. Section 8.10.95 of Chapter 8.10 of Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: “8.10.95 Tree Removal in HD Zone Tree removal and relocation in the HD shall be subject to the provisions in Section 18.36.070. To the extent Section 18.36.070 is inconsistent with this Chapter, Section 18.36.070 shall control.” SECTION 3. The following amendments are made to Chapter 16.20 of Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in order to address maximum sign size and location in the HD. a. Section 16.20.120(a) (Freestanding signs) is hereby amended to read as follows: “(a) Freestanding Signs Over Five Feet. Freestanding signs over five feet in height shall be permitted only on nonresidential properties in the Hospital Zone, GM zones and on El Camino Real in the CN and CS zones and for service stations, restaurants and shopping centers elsewhere.” b. Section 16.20.160(a)(1) is hereby amended to read as follows: “(1) Directory Signs. In all districts where group occupancies in office buildings are permitted, directory signs may be erected displaying the names of the occupants of a building who are engaged in a particular profession, business or the like. Such signs shall be situated at least two feet inside the property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height. Such signs may have an area of four square feet, plus one and one-half square feet per name, in no event to exceed seventy-five square feet. In the HD district, Directory and Directional signs may be up to 12 feet in height, thirty square feet in area, and located no less than two feet from the nearest public right-of-way unless an alternative location is approved by the Planning Director.” c. Section 16.20.270, Table 1, first note, is hereby amended to read as follows: “This Table is to be used in all Zoning Districts except for the GM zones, the Hospital District, and for El Camino frontages of CN and CS zoned properties.” d. Section 16.20.270, Table 2, first note, is hereby amended to add the following: “For requirements in the HD district, see Section 16.20.160(a)(1).” ** Not Yet Approved ** 110503 jb 0130755 3 SECTION 4. Section 18.08.010 (Designation of General Districts) of Chapter 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows: Map Designation Zoning District Name Chapter Number R-E Residential estate district 18.10 R-2 Two-family residence district 18.10 RMD Two unit multiple-family residence district 18.10 R-1 Single-family residence district 18.12 RM-15 Low density multiple-family residence district 18.13 RM-30 Medium density multiple-family residence district 18.13 RM-40 High density multiple-family residence district 18.13 CN Neighborhood commercial district 18.16 CC Community commercial district 18.16 CS Service commercial district 18.16 CD Downtown commercial district 18.18 MOR Medical office and medical research district 18.20 ROLM Research, office and limited manufacturing district 18.20 RP Research park district 18.20 GM General manufacturing district 18.20 PF Public facilities district 18.28 OS Open space district 18.28 AC Agricultural conservation district 18.28 PC Planned community district 18.38 HD Hospital district 18.36 SECTION 5. Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Map and District Boundaries) of Chapter 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to include the HD district on the Zoning Map. SECTION 6. The following amendments are made to Chapter 18.28 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in order to remove references to the Stanford Hoover Pavilion Site from the provisions governing the Public Facilities (PF) District: a. Section 18.28.02(h) (defining the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site) is hereby deleted. b. Section 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards), Table 2, footnote 3 is hereby amended to read: “(3) Provided that, for parking facilities, the maximum floor area ratio and site coverage shall be equal to the floor area ratio and site coverage established by the most restrictive adjacent district, and provided, further, that the maximum floor area ratio for the Stanford Hoover Pavilion Site shall be .25:1.” ** Not Yet Approved ** 110503 jb 0130755 4 SECTION 7. Chapter 18.36 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: “Chapter 18.36 HOSPITAL (HD) DISTRICT Sections: 18.36.010 Purposes 18.36.020 Applicable Regulations 18.36.030 Definitions 18.36.040 Land Uses 18.36.050 Development Standards 18.36.060 Parking and Loading 18.36.070 Tree Preservation 18.36.080 Signs 18.36.090 Historical Review 18.36.100 Architectural Review 18.36.110 Grandfathered Uses 18.36.120 Consistency with Development Agreement 18.36.010 Purposes The Hospital (HD) district is designed to accommodate medical and educational uses including the Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC), Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (LPCH), medical, office, research, clinic and administrative facilities at the Stanford Hoover Pavilion Site, and School of Medicine (SoM) buildings in a manner that balances the needs of hospital, clinic, medical office and research uses with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding areas and neighborhoods. 18.36.020 Applicable Regulations The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures established by this title shall apply to all Hospital Districts. 18.36.030 Definitions For the purposes of this section, the following terms are defined: (a) The “Main SUMC” site is defined as all properties zoned HD bounded by Welch Road, Pasteur Drive and Quarry Road and is comprised of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 142-23- 003, 142-23-004, 142-08-005, 142-23-006, 142-23-007, 142-23-010, 142-23-012, 142-23- 016, 142-23-017, 142-23-018, 142-23-019, 142-23-024, 142-23-025. (b) The “Stanford Hoover Pavilion” site is defined as all properties zoned HD bounded by Quarry Road and Palo Road and is comprised of Assessor's Parcel numbers, 142-04-011 and 142-04-019. ** Not Yet Approved ** 110503 jb 0130755 5 18.36.040 Land Uses The uses of land allowed by this chapter in the HD district are identified in the following table. Land uses that are not listed on the table are not allowed, except where otherwise noted. Permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for the HD district are shown in Table 1: Table 1: HD Permitted and Conditional Uses LAND USE HD Subject to Regulations in: ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with or essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the principal use P Eating and drinking services in conjunction with a permitted use P Retail services in conjunction with a permitted use P Ch. 18.40,18.42 EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES Churches and religious institutions P Public or private colleges and universities and facilities appurtenant thereto CUP HEALTH CARE SERVICES Ambulance services CUP Convalescent Facilities CUP Hospitals CUP Medical Office CUP Medical Research CUP Medical Support Retail P Medical Support Services P OTHER USES Other uses which, in the opinion of the director, are similar to those listed as permitted or conditionally permitted uses P, CUP PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC FACILITY USES All facilities owned or leased, and operated or used, by the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara, the State of California, the government of the United States, the Palo Alto Unified School District, or any other governmental agency P Community Centers CUP Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but excluding construction/storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards. CUP SERVICE USES Day Care Centers CUP Hotels providing not more than 10% of rooms with kitchens CUP TRANSPORTATION USES Helipads and Helicopter uses CUP Transit stops and shelters P ** Not Yet Approved ** 110503 jb 0130755 6 LAND USE HD Subject to Regulations in: Parking Facilities CUP TEMPORARY USES Farmers markets P Temporary parking facilities, provided such facilities shall remain no more than five years P 18.36.050 Development Standards (a) Development Standards Table 2 specifies the development standards for structures in the HD district. Table 2: Development Standards HD Subject to regulations in Section (7): Minimum Site Area No standards Minimum Site Width No standards Minimum Site Depth No standards Minimum Street Setbacks 10 ft (1) Maximum Site Coverage 40% (2)(4) 18.04.030(a)(86) Maximum Height (ft) 130 ft (5) 18.04.030(a)(67); 18.40.090 Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.5 to 1 (3)(6) 18.04.030(a)(57) (1) Measured from the right-of-way line of any public street to the base of the buildings and not including any awnings or other projections. This setback requirement does not apply to below-grade parking facilities or portions of buildings that bridge a street. This setback requirement also does not apply to any portion of a lot or site that does not abut a public street. (2) Site coverage is calculated based upon the total contiguous area within this zone (Main SUMC site or the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site), rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis. (3) FAR is calculated based up on the total contiguous area within this zone (Main SUMC site or the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site), rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis. (4) The maximum site coverage for the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be 30 percent. (5) The maximum height for new construction at the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be 60 ft. (6) The maximum floor area ratio for the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be 0.5 to 1. (7) The regulations referenced in this table apply except as revised in this chapter. (b) Floor Area Ratio Except as provided in this section, floor area ratio shall be defined in accord with Chapter 18.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. All areas used to enclose service and mechanical equipment, whether on rooftops, basements, interstitial space, or other interior areas, shall be excluded from floor area calculations. All parking facilities also shall be excluded from floor area calculations. ** Not Yet Approved ** 110503 jb 0130755 7 (c) Lot Coverage Except as provided in this section, lot coverage shall be defined in accord with Chapter 18.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. Parking facilities shall be excluded from lot coverage. (d) Height and Grade (1) Except as provided in this section, building height shall be defined in accord with Chapters 18.04 and 18.40.090 of the Zoning Ordinance. Helicopter pads on top of the buildings, rooftop mechanical equipment and associated screens, cryogen vents, grease hoods, wind or solar energy equipment, and elevator shafts/ overruns shall be excluded from building height calculations, but shall be subject to architectural review as required in Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) Grade shall be measured in accord with Chapter 18.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. (e) Street Setbacks Except as provided in this section, setbacks shall be defined in accord with Chapter 18.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the HD district, setbacks from public streets shall be defined as the area between the right of way line of any public street to the base of the building, and not including any awnings or other projections. Setback requirements do not apply to any below grade parking facilities or portions of buildings that bridge a street. Setback requirements also do not apply to any portion of a lot or site that does not abut a public street. No setback requirements other than street setback requirements apply in the HD district. (f) Recycling Storage All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of exterior recycling areas and exterior enclosures shall be subject to recommendation by the architectural review board, and approval by the director of planning and community environment, in accordance with Section 18.76.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. (g) Employee Shower Facilities Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 3. Table 3: Employee Showers Required Uses Gross Floor Area of New Construction (ft2) Showers Required 0 - 9,999 No requirement 10,000 – 19,999 1 20,000 – 49,999 2 All government or special district facilities designed for employee occupancy, colleges and universities, private educational facilities, business and trade schools and similar uses 50,000 and up 4 ** Not Yet Approved ** 110503 jb 0130755 8 18.36.060 Parking and Loading (a) Except as provided in this section, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional uses in accord with Chapter 18.52 and 18.54 of the Zoning Ordinance. Except as provided in this section, all parking and loading facilities on any site, whether required as minimums or optionally provided in addition to minimum requirements, shall comply with regulations and the design standards established by Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 of the Zoning Ordinance. (b) Parking requirements in the HD district will be performance-based, as established by the applicable conditional use permit. Parking shall be provided to meet projected needs, with consideration given to the potential for reduced parking demand due to the proximity of the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station (PAITS) and demonstrated effective transportation demand management (TDM) programs. (c) The following parking improvements shall be exempt from the parking landscape requirements of Section 18.54.040: (1) All structured parking facilities; (2) Restriping of existing surface parking facilities and other improvements to surface parking facilities that do not materially alter the existing conditions; and (3) Parking or loading areas identified for use in the event of emergency or mass population events such as earthquakes, pandemics, or human-made biological/chemical exposure. (d) Valet parking facilities shall be exempt from the requirements of Sections 18.54.030 and 18.54.040(c). (e) For the purposes of calculating shading percentage pursuant to Section 18.54.040(d): (1) Shade structures may be utilized in lieu of trees; (2) The canopies of Protected Trees (as defined by Section 8.10.020(j)) transplanted on the Site will count as double the actual tree canopy; and (3) Valet parking facilities may be designed to achieve 25 percent shading (rather than 50 percent shading). 18.36.070 Tree Preservation (a) Applicability (1) Except as provided in this section, development in the HD district shall comply with Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations), and the City Tree Technical Manual. (2) No Protected tree (as defined by Section 8.10.020 (j)), shall be removed or relocated until the Director of Planning and Community Environment (“Director”), in consultation with the City Arborist, has determined whether the ** Not Yet Approved ** 110503 jb 0130755 9 Protected tree meets the standards of Group 1 or Group 2 Trees, as defined below, and the applicable Protected Tree Removal Permit or Protected Tree Relocation Permit has been obtained. The City’s determination whether a Protected Tree meets the standards of Group 1 or Group 2 Trees shall be valid for a period of ten years following the date of such determination. (3) For the purposes of this Chapter, “Biological tree resources” shall have the same meaning as “Protected trees” as defined in Section 8.10.020 (j). (4) For the purposes of this Chapter, “Biological and Aesthetic tree resources” shall consist of those trees that are both Biological tree resources and that have been designated as Group 1 Trees by the Director in consultation with the City Arborist based on a finding that the tree possesses at least one of the following characteristics: (i) Functions as an important or prominent visual feature relating to the existing area, proposed conditions, pedestrian or vehicular thoroughfares; (ii) Contributes to a larger grove or shared canopy, landscape theme or otherwise provides important visual balance to existing buildings, trees or streetscape; or (iii) Possesses unique character as defined in the designation of Heritage Trees, (Section 8.10.090) such as, an outstanding specimen of a desirable species, distinctive in form, size, age, location or historical significance. (5) Within the HD district, Protected trees fall into one of the following categories: (i) Group 1 Trees: Biological and Aesthetic tree resources which are identified in Table 4. If a Protected tree is not listed in Table 4, or if more than ten years have elapsed since the City’s determination whether the tree is a Group 1 Tree, the Director shall determine whether the tree meets the definition of Section 18.36.070(a)(4), above prior to issuance of any permit to remove or relocate the tree; (ii) Group 2 Trees: Biological tree resources that are identified in Table 4. If a Protected tree is not listed in Table 4, or if more than ten years have elapsed since the City’s determination whether the tree is a Group 2 Tree, the Director shall determine whether the tree meets the definition of Section 18.36.070(a)(3), above prior to issuance of any permit to remove or relocate the tree. ** Not Yet Approved ** 110503 jb 0130755 10 Table 4: Protected Tree Groups Tree Group Tree Tag Number (from SUMC FEIR) Tree Location 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 Kaplan Lawn 317, 318, 319, 320, 322, 323*, 324* FIM 1 1 608, 996* Welch Road 325, 326, 327, 328 FIM 1 333, 373, 374, 375, 383, 387, 388, 410, 425, 428, 433, 436, 438, 439, 440, 441, 448, 450, 478, 479, 538, 544 SHC 887, 960, 961, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 1010, 1011, 1016, 1017, 1092, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1111, 1119, 1170, 1172, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177 LPCH 2 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1365,1366, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1393, 1399, 1400, 1420, 1435, 1438, 1439, 1442, 1469, 1481, 1483, 1485, 1500, 1503, 1506 Hoover *Trees to be relocated. (b) Preservation. Notwithstanding Chapter 8.10, Group 1 Trees shall not be removed unless they meet the standard in Section 8.10.050(a). Authorized relocation of Group 1 Trees shall not constitute removal. (c) Relocation. Notwithstanding Chapter 8.10, Group 1 and Group 2 Trees may be relocated upon issuance of a Protected Tree Relocation Permit from the Director in consultation with the City Arborist. For purposes of this section, authorized relocation of Group 1 and 2 Trees shall not constitute removal. The requirements for a Protected Tree Relocation Permit shall be as follow: (1) The applicant shall submit a proposed Tree Relocation and Maintenance Plan (TRMP) that (i) evaluates the feasibility of moving the tree to another location on or near the development site; and (ii) identifies the actions to be taken to increase the likelihood that relocation is successful including the following information: pre-relocation irrigation, relocation procedures, monitoring inspections, and post- relocation tree irrigation and maintenance. (2) If the Director determines the proposed relocation is feasible, the Director shall issue a Protected Tree Relocation Permit requiring the following: (i) The Protected Tree Relocation Permit shall specify the actions required to increase the likelihood that relocation is successful. (ii) Location of relocated trees is subject to review and approval by the Director in consultation with the City Arborist. (iii) If the relocated tree does not survive after a period of five years, the relocated tree shall be replaced with a tree or a combination of trees and Tree Value Standards consistent with Section 3.20, ** Not Yet Approved ** 110503 jb 0130755 11 Table 3-1 Tree Canopy Replacement, of the Tree Technical Manual. If, after relocation, a relocated tree is disfigured, leaning with supports needed, or in decline with a dead top or dieback of more then 25 percent, the tree shall be considered a total loss and replaced as described in this subsection. (iv) The applicant shall provide a security guarantee for relocated trees, as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, in consultation with the City Arborist, in an amount consistent with the Tree Technical Manual. (d) Removal of Group 2 Trees. Notwithstanding Chapter 8.10, removal of Group 2 Trees shall be allowed in the HD district, upon issuance of a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the Director in consultation with the City Arborist. The requirements for a Protected Tree Removal Permit shall be as follows: (1) Group 2 Trees that are removed without being relocated shall be replaced in accordance with the ratios set forth in Table 3-1 of the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual in the following way: (i) The Protected Tree Removal Permit issued shall stipulate the tree replacement requirements for the removed tree, including number of trees, size, location, and irrigation. The number and size of trees required for replacement shall be calculated in accordance with Table 3-1 of the Tree Technical Manual. (ii) The difference between the required tree replacement and the number of trees that cannot be feasibly planted on site shall be mitigated through contribution to the City of Palo Alto Forestry Fund as provided in Section 3.15 of the Tree Technical Manual. Payment to the Forestry Fund would be in the amount representing the fair market value, as described in Section 3.25 of the Tree Technical Manual, of the replacement trees that cannot be feasibly planted on site. (2) Location of replacement trees is subject to review and approval by the Director in consultation with the City Arborist. (e) Appeal. Any person seeking the Director's classification of Group 1 or 2 Trees, or seeking the approval to remove or relocate a Protected tree pursuant to this Chapter who is aggrieved by a decision of the Director may appeal such decision in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.78 (Appeals). 18.36.080 Signs Signs within the HD district shall comply with Chapter 16.20, except as follows: The requirements for Directory Signs and Directional Signs set forth in Section 16.20.160 are modified to allow such Directory and Directional signs to be up to 12 feet in height, thirty square feet in area, and located no less than two feet from the nearest public right-of-way unless an alternative location is approved by the Planning Director. ** Not Yet Approved ** 110503 jb 0130755 12 18.36.090 Historic Review Any exterior alterations to the Stanford Hoover Pavilion and any new construction on the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be provided to the Historic Resources Commission for comment prior to final review by the Architectural Review Board. In reviewing any new construction on the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site the prime concern of the Historic Review Board shall be to ensure that the new construction is differentiated from the old and is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the Hoover Pavilion building and site.  18.36.100 Architectural Review Architectural review, as required in Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 of the Zoning Ordinance, is required prior to the issuance of any building permit in the HD district. Architectural review for landscape and design features linking building areas within the HD district may be implemented through approval of Design Guidelines, which may be modified in the same manner as other architectural review approvals. Directory Signs, Construction Project Signs, and Directional Signs consistent with the area and location regulations set forth in Section 16.20.160 (as modified by Section 18.36.080) and temporary, unsecured pedestrian amenities such as café seating and furniture are exempt from Architectural review. 18.36.110 Grandfathered Uses (a) Applicability (1) Except as provided in this section, nonconforming uses and noncomplying facilities are governed by Chapter 18.70 of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) Any use allowed as a conditional use but legally existing as a permitted use prior to the effective date of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance modifying the allowable uses in the HD district shall be considered a conforming use, except that a conditional use permit shall be required if the use is expanded as outlined in Section 18.70.020. 18.36.120 Consistency with Development Agreement It is the intent of the City Council that the provisions of this Chapter 18.36 be interpreted consistent with the terms of the Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University approved and adopted by Ordinance No. _______. SECTION 8. The EIR for this project was certified by the City Council on June 6, 2011. / / / / / / / / ** Not Yet Approved ** 110503 jb 0130755 13 SECTION 9. 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: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ** Not Yet Approved ** 110503 jb 0130755 14 EXHIBIT “A” * NOT YET APPROVED * 110615 jb 0130722 1 Ordinance No. ________ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving a Development Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford Hospital and Clinics; Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford; and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals. A. Stanford Hospital and Clinics, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“SHC”), Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“LPCH”), and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California (“University,” and together with SHC and LPCH, collectively, the “SUMC Parties”) intend to replace, retrofit and enhance their facilities in the City of Palo Alto. In conjunction with certain state-mandated retrofit and replacement work, the SUMC Parties also intend to expand their hospital, clinic and medical office facilities to meet patient demand. To facilitate this, the SUMC Parties have applied to the City of Palo Alto (“City”) for a development agreement pursuant to Sections 65864-65869.5 of the California Government Code and the City’s Resolution No. 6597 (“Agreement”). Pursuant to this Agreement, the SUMC Parties would provide certain community benefits and voluntary mitigation measures. B. In exchange for these community benefits and voluntary mitigation measures, and in recognition of the substantial public benefits provided by the SUMC Parties’ facilities and operations, the City would vest for a period of thirty (30) years the SUMC Parties’ rights to develop and use their facilities in Palo Alto in accordance with the Project Approvals, and would streamline the process for obtaining Subsequent Approvals, as described in the Agreement. C. Under the terms of the Agreement, the parties have the right to unilaterally terminate this Agreement, if this ordinance is subject to a referendum or if litigation is commenced seeking to rescind the Project Approvals or the City’s decision to enter into this Agreement within one year from the date of the filing of the Notice of Determination. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that: A. Notice of intention to consider the development agreement has been given pursuant to Government Code section 65867. B. The City’s Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council have given notice of intention to consider this Agreement, have conducted public hearings thereon * NOT YET APPROVED * 110615 jb 0130722 2 pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and City’s Resolution No. 6597, and the City Council has found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with City’s Comprehensive Plan, as amended. C. The City has prepared and certified an EIR and has imposed mitigation measures as Conditions of Approval prior to the execution of this Agreement. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford Hospital and Clinics, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“SHC”), Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“LPCH”), and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of the development agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder not later than ten (10) days after it becomes effective. SECTION 5. The City Council adopts this ordinance in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) findings adopted by Resolution No. 9168. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // * NOT YET APPROVED * 110615 jb 0130722 3 SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day after its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: __________________________ __________________________ City Clerk Mayor __________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager __________________________ __________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment This document is recorded for the benefit of the City of Palo Alto and is entitled to be recorded free of charge in accordance with Section 6103 of the Government Code. After Recordation, mail to: City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Between CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city and STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California 110614 sh 0130788 TABLE OF CONTENTS R E C I T A L S ...................................................................................................... 1 A. Definitions................................................................................................... 1 B. Outline of Terms......................................................................................... 1 C. Nature and Purpose of Development Agreements...................................... 2 D. Authority for City Development Agreements............................................. 2 E. Comprehensive Plan................................................................................... 2 F. Property Interests........................................................................................ 2 G. Seismic Safety Requirements ..................................................................... 2 H. Seismic Safety Project Components........................................................... 3 I. Project Purposes.......................................................................................... 3 J. Project Approvals........................................................................................ 3 K. Compliance with City Requirements.......................................................... 3 L. Binding Future Actions............................................................................... 4 M. Elimination of Uncertainty ......................................................................... 4 N. Orderly Development.................................................................................. 4 O. Nature of Recitals ....................................................................................... 5 A G R E E M E N T 1. Definitions................................................................................................... 5 (a) Annual Payment.............................................................................. 5 (b) Applicable Rules............................................................................. 5 (c) Architectural Review Approval...................................................... 5 (d) City.................................................................................................. 5 (e) Comprehensive Plan....................................................................... 5 (f) Conditions of Approval................................................................... 5 (g) Construction Period. ....................................................................... 6 (h) County Property.............................................................................. 6 (i) Days................................................................................................ 6 (j) Design Guidelines........................................................................... 6 (k) Development Agreement Act. ........................................................ 6 (l) Development Impact Fees............................................................... 6 (m) Discretionary Action and Discretionary Approval......................... 6 (n) Effective Date................................................................................. 7 (o) Hospital Foundation Permit............................................................ 7 (p) Hospital Occupancy Permit............................................................ 7 (q) Hospitals. ........................................................................................ 7 (r) Hospital Zoning Ordinance............................................................. 7 (s) HSSA.............................................................................................. 7 (t) Initial Payment Date. ...................................................................... 8 (u) Initial Project Approvals................................................................. 8 (v) Life Of The Project......................................................................... 8 (w) LPCH.............................................................................................. 8 (x) Mortgage......................................................................................... 8 i of v 110614 sh 0130788 (y) Mortgagee....................................................................................... 8 (z) Net New Square Footage................................................................ 8 (aa) Occupancy Permit........................................................................... 9 (bb) OSHPD. .......................................................................................... 9 (cc) Party................................................................................................ 9 (dd) Project............................................................................................. 9 (ee) Project Approvals.......................................................................... 10 (ff) Property......................................................................................... 10 (gg) SB 1953......................................................................................... 10 (hh) SHC............................................................................................... 10 (ii) School of Medicine....................................................................... 10 (jj) Subsequent Applicable Rules. ...................................................... 10 (kk) Subsequent Approvals. ................................................................. 11 (ll) Subsequent Rules.......................................................................... 11 (mm) SUMC........................................................................................... 11 (nn) SUMC Parties............................................................................... 11 (oo) Term.............................................................................................. 11 (pp) University...................................................................................... 11 (qq) Vested Right.................................................................................. 11 (rr) Zoning Ordinance......................................................................... 11 2. Interest of the SUMC Parties.................................................................... 11 3. Binding Effect........................................................................................... 12 4. Negation of Agency.................................................................................. 12 5. SUMC Parties’ Promises.......................................................................... 12 (a) Health Care Benefits..................................................................... 12 (i) Summary of Intrinsic Benefits.......................................... 12 (ii) Fund for Healthcare Services............................................ 13 (iii) Fund for Community Health and Safety Programs........... 13 (b) Palo Alto Fiscal Benefits. ............................................................. 14 (i) Payment of Sales and Use Taxes...................................... 14 (A) Designation of Project Site for Construction Period Sales and Use Tax Purposes. ............................................ 14 (B) Direct Pay Permit for Sales and Use Taxes from Existing Facilities.............................................................. 15 (C) Establishment of Retail Sales and Use Tax Reporting District.............................................................. 15 (ii) Assurance of Construction Use Tax Revenue. ................. 15 (A) Funds To Be Used In The Event Of A Shortfall... 15 (B) Monitoring Construction Use Tax Revenue......... 15 (C) Reconciliation and Payment of Shortage or Surplus.................................................................. 16 (D) Costs of Monitoring and Compliance................... 17 (iii) Funding of Operating Deficit............................................ 17 (iv) Payment of Utility User Tax............................................. 17 (v) School Fees....................................................................... 18 110614 sh 0130788 ii of v (c) Traffic Mitigation and Reduced Vehicle Trips............................. 18 (i) Summary of Existing Programs........................................ 18 (ii) Menlo Park Traffic Mitigation.......................................... 19 (A) Payment...................................................................... 19 (B) Use of Funds............................................................... 19 (iii) East Palo Alto Voluntary Mitigation 20 (iv) Contributions to AC Transit.............................................. 20 (v) Opticom Payments............................................................ 20 (A) Opticom Systems.................................................. 21 (vi) Caltrain Go Passes............................................................ 21 (vii) Marguerite Shuttle Service. .............................................. 21 (viii) Transportation Demand Management Coordinator.......... 22 (ix) Monitoring of TDM programs.......................................... 22 (A) Submission of Reports.......................................... 23 (B) 2025 Mode Split Penalty....................................... 23 (d) Linkages........................................................................................ 24 (i) Improvements to Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection from Intermodal Transit Center to El Camino Real/Quarry Road Intersection. .................................................... 24 (ii) Public Right-of-Way Improvements to Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection on Quarry Road..................................... 24 (iii) Stanford Barn Connection................................................. 25 (e) Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable Housing. ..................................................................... 25 (i) Payment............................................................................. 25 (ii) Use of Funds..................................................................... 25 (iii) Use of Housing Credit. ..................................................... 25 (f) Climate Change............................................................................. 26 (i) Sustainability Programs Benefit. ...................................... 26 (g) Administrative Costs..................................................................... 26 (h) Satisfaction of All Conditions of Approval.................................. 26 6. City’s Promises......................................................................................... 27 (a) Vested Rights to Develop and Use the Property........................... 27 (b) Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses................................ 27 (c) Maximum Density and Intensity of Uses...................................... 27 (d) Other Development Standards...................................................... 27 (e) Subsequent Rules.......................................................................... 27 (f) Subsequent Approvals. ................................................................. 28 (g) Limitation on Architectural Review Approvals............................ 28 (h) Annexation of County Property.................................................... 28 (i) Utility and Storm Drain Connections. .......................................... 28 (j) Waste Treatment Capacity............................................................ 29 (k) Storm Drain Capacity. .................................................................. 29 (l) OSHPD. ........................................................................................ 29 (m) No Other Dedications. .................................................................. 30 110614 sh 0130788 iii of v (n) No Other Public Improvements or Financial Contributions......... 30 (o) No Obligation to Develop............................................................. 30 (p) Timing for Performance of Conditions of Approval.................... 30 7. Exceptions................................................................................................. 31 8. Exclusions................................................................................................. 31 (a) Sewer Facilities, Storm Drains and Runoff.................................. 31 (b) Limited Effect on Right to Tax, Assess, or Levy Fees or Charges31 (c) No Limit on Right of City to Adopt and Modify Uniform Codes.33 (d) No Limit on Power of City to Adopt and Apply Rules Governing Provision and Use of Utility Services........................................... 33 (e) California Environmental Quality Act Compliance (CEQA)....... 33 (f) No General Limitation on Future Exercise of Police Power........ 33 9. Indemnity.................................................................................................. 33 10. Cooperation and Implementation.............................................................. 34 11. Identification of Applicable Rules............................................................ 34 12. Periodic Review of Compliance............................................................... 35 (a) Periodic Review............................................................................ 35 (b) Special Review.............................................................................. 35 (c) Annual Report............................................................................... 35 (d) Supplement to the Annual Report................................................. 35 (e) Procedure...................................................................................... 36 (f) Default by SUMC Parties............................................................. 36 (g) Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination.......................... 37 (h) Hearings on Modification or Termination.................................... 37 (i) Certificate of Compliance............................................................. 37 13. Default by City.......................................................................................... 38 14. Remedies for Default................................................................................ 38 15. Modification, Amendment or Cancellation by Mutual Agreement.......... 39 16. Superseding State or Federal Law............................................................ 40 17. Notices...................................................................................................... 40 18. Term of Agreement; Force Majeure......................................................... 41 (a) Basic Term.................................................................................... 41 (b) Extension for Referendum, Litigation, Default or Moratorium.... 41 (c) Force Majeure............................................................................... 41 19. Assignment; Right to Assign.................................................................... 42 (a) Assignment. .................................................................................. 42 (i) Right to Assign. ................................................................ 42 (ii) Release of Transferor........................................................ 42 20. Mortgagee Protection................................................................................ 43 (a) No Impairment.............................................................................. 43 (b) Notice of Default by the SUMC Parties. ...................................... 43 (c) Notice............................................................................................ 44 (d) Transfer of Ownership.................................................................. 44 21. Miscellaneous. .......................................................................................... 44 (a) Effect of Recitals........................................................................... 44 110614 sh 0130788 iv of v 110614 sh 0130788 v of v (b) Construction.................................................................................. 44 (c) Severability................................................................................... 45 (d) Time.............................................................................................. 45 (e) Waiver........................................................................................... 45 (f) Governing State Law.................................................................... 45 (g) Determination of Compliance....................................................... 45 (h) Entire Agreement.......................................................................... 45 (i) No Third Party Beneficiaries........................................................ 46 (j) Authority to Execute..................................................................... 46 (k) Administrative Appeal.................................................................. 46 (l) Exhibits......................................................................................... 46 (m) Signature Pages............................................................................. 47 (n) Precedence.................................................................................... 47 (o) Recordation................................................................................... 47 (p) Referendum or Challenge............................................................. 47 (i) City’s Reimbursement Obligation.................................... 48 (ii) Effect of Suspension or Termination of Agreement......... 49 (iii) Limit of City’s Reimbursement Obligations..................... 49 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter “Agreement”) is entered into as of this ___ day of _______, 2011, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city of the State of California (“City”), STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“SHC”), LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“LPCH”), and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California (“University,” and together with SHC and LPCH, collectively, the “SUMC Parties”). R E C I T A L S THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties: A. Definitions. These Recitals use certain terms with initial capital letters that are defined in Section 1 of this Agreement. City and the SUMC Parties intend to refer to those definitions when the capitalized terms are used in these Recitals. B. Outline of Terms. Stanford Hospital and Clinics and Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital provide substantial and important public benefits through operation of world-class health care facilities and provision of a Level 1 trauma center located in the City of Palo Alto. The Stanford School of Medicine, which is part of Stanford University, provides substantial and important public benefits through research that will be translated into life-saving and life-enhancing medical treatments and procedures. To comply with the requirements of state law and to provide state-of-the-art medical and research facilities, the SUMC Parties intend to replace, retrofit and enhance their facilities in the City of Palo Alto. In conjunction with certain state-mandated retrofit and replacement work, the SUMC Parties also intend to expand their hospital, clinic and medical office facilities to meet patient demand. To facilitate this, the SUMC Parties have applied to the City for a development agreement pursuant to Sections 65864-65869.5 of the California Government Code and the City’s Resolution No. 6597. Pursuant to this development agreement, the SUMC Parties would provide certain community benefits and voluntary mitigations measures. In exchange for these community benefits and voluntary mitigation measures, and in recognition of the substantial public benefits provided by the SUMC Parties’ facilities and operations, the City would vest for a period of thirty (30) years the SUMC Parties’ rights to develop and use their facilities in Palo Alto in accordance with the Project Approvals, and would streamline the process for obtaining Subsequent Approvals, as described in this Agreement. 1 110614 sh 0130788 C. Nature and Purpose of Development Agreements. Development agreements were authorized by the State of California in 1979, through the adoption of Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5. These statutes authorize the parties to enter into binding agreements for the development of real property within the City. Because California has a “late vesting” rule, landowners usually cannot be certain that they can proceed with a development project until they have actually obtained a building permit and started building. This lack of certainty can discourage long range planning and investment and make it more difficult for cities to provide needed public facilities. A development agreement, in which a city agrees that, for a certain period of time, it will not change the rules applicable to a project, and the property owner agrees to assist with the provision of public facilities or to otherwise provide community benefits, can benefit all parties. D. Authority for City Development Agreements. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, the City adopted Resolution No. 6597 establishing procedures and requirements for consideration of development agreements in Palo Alto. E. Comprehensive Plan. In July of 1998, the City of Palo Alto adopted its current Comprehensive Plan, a document containing the City’s official policies on land use and community design, transportation, housing, natural environment, business and economics, and community services. Its policies apply to both public and private properties. The Plan is used by the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission to evaluate proposed land use changes in the City, including the adoption of this Agreement. It is intended to guide City land use decisions. F. Property Interests. The University is the fee owner of certain Property. SHC leases from the University certain portions of the Property and operates the Stanford Hospital and Clinics, as well as medical offices thereon. LPCH leases from the University certain other portions of the Property, and operates the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital thereon. A portion of the Property is occupied by the University’s School of Medicine. A portion of the Property consisting of approximately 0.65 acres is in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. The balance of the Property is within the City of Palo Alto. G. Seismic Safety Requirements. 110614 sh 0130788 2 SB 1953 requires hospitals to retrofit or replace facilities that do not meet State-designated safety criteria by January 1, 2013. Further requirements must be met by 2030. If a hospital does not comply with these mandates, the State may revoke the hospital’s operating license. On September 30, 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 608, which will provide SHC with the ability to apply for up to five additional years for extensions to meet seismic requirements. If the extensions are granted, the legislation sets a new deadline of January 1, 2018. Effective January 1, 2011, SHC may apply for a three-year extension of the structural compliance deadline; from January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2016. SHC may also be eligible for an additional two-year extension of the 2016 deadline, subject to certain patient safety criteria. The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development is responsible for approving plans for construction work required by SB 1953. H. Seismic Safety Project Components. Several buildings on the Property require structural retrofit or replacement to comply with SB 1953 and other applicable laws. Also, many of the facilities within the Property require nonstructural renovations or replacement to comply with SB 1953. Portions of the School of Medicine that currently occupy space in structures used for hospital purposes must be physically separated from those structures or replaced in order to comply with SB 1953 requirements. In addition, new or replacement hospital structures must meet current standards specified by the California building code for hospitals; compliance with these standards necessitates increased square footage and height to accommodate current seismic structural requirements, patient safety requirements, air handling systems and mechanical duct work. I. Project Purposes. The City and the SUMC Parties desire that the Project is designed and constructed to achieve timely compliance with the requirements of SB 1953 and other applicable laws, to meet existing and projected future demand for patient care, to provide modern, state-of-the-art facilities designed to deliver high quality healthcare services and related teaching and research, and to meet regional needs for emergency and disaster preparedness. J. Project Approvals. The SUMC Parties have applied for, and the City has certified or approved, as applicable, certain environmental documents and land use approvals and entitlements relating to the development of the Project. These actions are identified on Exhibit B. K. Compliance with City Requirements. The City’s Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council have given notice of intention to consider this Agreement, have conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and City’s Resolution No. 6597, and the City Council has found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with City’s Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 110614 sh 0130788 3 L. Binding Future Actions. This Agreement will bind future City Councils to the terms and obligations specified in this Agreement and limit, to the degree specified in this Agreement and as authorized under state law, the future exercise of City’s ability to preclude development on the Property. M. Elimination of Uncertainty. This Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly development of the Property, eliminate uncertainty about the validity of exactions imposed by City, allow installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and generally serve the public interest, both within the City of Palo Alto and in the surrounding region. N. Orderly Development. Development of the Project in accordance with this Agreement and the Project Approvals will provide for orderly development consistent with City’s Comprehensive Plan. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by City staff, its Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council, and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable. Specifically, the City Council has found that: 1. The provisions of this Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the goals, policies, programs and standards specified in City’s Comprehensive Plan; 2. This Agreement will help attain important economic, social, environmental and planning goals of City and enhances and protects the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Palo Alto and the surrounding region. 3. The SUMC Parties will incur substantial costs in providing community benefits, including voluntary mitigation, in excess of that required to address the impacts of the Project; 4. This Agreement will mitigate significant environmental impacts; and 5. This Agreement will otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Act (California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5) was enacted. 110614 sh 0130788 4 O. Nature of Recitals. These recitals are intended in part to paraphrase and summarize this Agreement, however, the Agreement is expressed below with particularity and the Parties intend that their rights and obligations be determined by those provisions and not by the recitals. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) Annual Payment. “Annual Payment” means each annual payment subsequent to the first payment and shall be paid no later than August 31 of the year following the year in which the first payment is made. For example, if the Initial Payment Date is June, 2011, the next Annual Payment would be due by August 31, 2012. (b) Applicable Rules. “Applicable Rules” means the City ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies in effect on the Effective Date, as amended by the Project Approvals. (c) Architectural Review Approval. “Architectural Review Approval” means the approval of an application for architectural review under the Applicable Rules, including without limitation the Hospital Zoning Ordinance. (d) City. “City” is the City of Palo Alto. (e) Comprehensive Plan. “Comprehensive Plan” is the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, adopted in July 1998 and as amended through the Effective Date. (f) Conditions of Approval. “Conditions of Approval” are the conditions to the Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals included in or incorporated by reference in an ordinance, resolution or motion granting a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval, and including the environmental mitigations adopted by the City Council. 110614 sh 0130788 5 (g) Construction Period. For purposes of payment, monitoring and reconciling Construction Use Tax payments in Section 5(b), “Construction Period” is the time period between the issuance of the first permit or approval by a public agency with jurisdiction over the Project, whether it be the City, OHSPD, or any other public agency, which allows the SUMC Parties to undertake development and construction activities contemplated by the Project, the issuance of which the Parties currently estimate to occur in 2011, and December 31, 2025. (h) County Property. “County Property” means the portion of the Property in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County, consisting of approximately 0.65 acres. (i) Days. “Days” shall mean calendar days. (j) Design Guidelines. “Design Guidelines” means the Design Guidelines approved as part of the Project Approvals, as listed on Exhibit B. (k) Development Agreement Act. “Development Agreement Act” means Article 2.5 of Chapter 4, of Division 1 of the California Government Code (Sections 65864 - 65869.5). (l) Development Impact Fees. “Development Impact Fees” means all fees now or in the future collected by the City from applicants for new development (including all forms of approvals and permits necessary for development) for the funding of public services, infrastructure, improvements or facilities, but not including taxes or assessments, or fees for processing applications or permits or for design review. The fees included in this definition include, but are not limited to those fees set forth in Chapters 16.45, 16.47 and 16.58 of the Municipal Code, fees for traffic improvements and mitigation, and fees for other community facilities or related purposes (but not including any school fees imposed by a school district); provided nothing herein shall preclude City from collecting fees lawfully imposed by another entity having jurisdiction which City is required or authorized to collect pursuant to State law. (m) Discretionary Action and Discretionary Approval. “Discretionary Action” includes a “Discretionary Approval” and is an action or decision which requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation, and 110614 sh 0130788 6 which contemplates the imposition of revisions or conditions, by City, including any board, commission or department and any officer or employee thereof, in the process of approving or disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from an activity which merely requires City, including any board, commission or department and any officer or employee thereof, to determine whether there has been compliance with applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, or Conditions of Approval. (n) Effective Date. “Effective Date” means June 6, 2011. (o) Hospital Foundation Permit. “Hospital Foundation Permit” means the OSHPD Incremental Project Permit allowing either Hospital to construct the primary load bearing foundation for a new or expanded hospital building. The SUMC Parties’ best estimate of the anticipated date for issuance of the first Hospital Foundation Permit, based on current information, is by January 1, 2012. (p) Hospital Occupancy Permit. “Hospital Occupancy Permit” means issuance of all permits necessary to allow the first Hospital building to be used by members of the public for healthcare services. Issuance of a temporary occupancy permit for purposes of building preparations in advance of opening shall not trigger obligations based upon issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit. However, a temporary or partial occupancy permit that allows the Hospital building to be used by the public for healthcare services shall trigger obligations based upon issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit. The SUMC Parties’ best estimate of the anticipated date for issuance of the first Hospital Occupancy Permit, based on current information, is by January 1, 2018. (q) Hospitals. “Hospitals” means SHC and LPCH. (r) Hospital Zoning Ordinance. “Hospital Zoning Ordinance” is the ordinance of City, adopted as part of the Project Approvals, amending the Zoning Ordinance to revise and establish the permitted and conditionally permitted uses, intensity, and other standards and specifications applicable to the Property. (s) HSSA. “HSSA” means the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1973, as amended by the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic 110614 sh 0130788 7 Safety Act of 1983, and by SB 1953, as it may be further amended from time to time. (t) Initial Payment Date. “Initial Payment Date” means the date that is 45 days from the filing and posting of the Notice of Determination filed by the City after the second reading of the ordinance approving the Hospital District zoning and the ordinance approving this Development Agreement. (u) Initial Project Approvals. “Initial Project Approvals” means those entitlements, permits and approvals listed on Exhibit B. (v) Life Of The Project. “Life Of The Project” means fifty one years from the Effective Date. (w) LPCH. “LPCH” means Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation. (x) Mortgage. “Mortgage” means and refers, singly and collectively, to any mortgages, deeds of trust, security agreements, assignments and other like security instruments encumbering all or any portion of the Property or any of the SUMC Parties’ rights under this Agreement. (y) Mortgagee. “Mortgagee” means and refers to the holder of any Mortgage encumbering all or any portion of the Property or any of the SUMC Parties’ rights under this Agreement, and any successor, assignee or transferee of any such Mortgage holder. (z) Net New Square Footage. “Net New Square Footage” means the amount of new square footage constructed pursuant to the Project Approvals, less the total amount of existing square footage demolished. For purposes of calculating applicable fees, the demolition of square footage of the structure at 1101 Welch Road, the 1973 Core Expansion building, and the 77 square foot hospital entry shall be credited against the fees for the new SHC hospital structure; demolition of the square footage of the structures at 701 and 703 Welch Road shall be credited against the fees for expansion of LPCH; demolition of the square footage of the Nurses’ cottage, 110614 sh 0130788 8 shops and sheds at the Hoover Pavilion Site shall be credited against the fees for the square footage of the new medical office building at the Hoover Pavilion Site; demolition of the Stone Building complex (1959 Hospital Buildings, including East, West, Core, Boswell, Grant, Alway, Lane and Edwards) shall be credited against the fees for new square footage for the University and SHC in the amount corresponding to the new square footage constructed by each entity. To the extent the SUMC Parties construct new buildings to replace the Stone Building complex and/or 1973 Core Expansion building prior to demolishing or vacating all or part of those structures, the SUMC Parties may, in their discretion, elect to take credit for future demolition of the Stone Building complex and/or 1973 Core Expansion building when calculating payment of fees for the new square footage. Construction of School of Medicine improvements for the University is not expected to result in any Net New Square Footage. (aa) Occupancy Permit. “Occupancy Permit” means a permit issued by any agency that allows a new or expanded structure to be used by members of the public for the intended uses of the facility. Issuance of a temporary occupancy permit for purposes of building preparations in advance of opening shall not trigger obligations based upon issuance of the Occupancy Permit. However, a temporary or partial occupancy permit that allows the building or structure to be used by the public for any of the intended uses of the facility shall trigger obligations based upon issuance of the Occupancy Permit. (bb) OSHPD. “OSHPD” means the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. (cc) Party. “Party” is a signatory to this Agreement, or a successor or assign of a signatory to this Agreement. (dd) Project. “Project” means development of the Property in accordance with the Applicable Rules, Project Approvals, and this Agreement, which is generally described as follows: (1) construction of the new SHC Hospital (in multiple phases), new SHC Clinic/Medical office buildings, new medical office/clinic building at the Hoover Pavilion site, new LPCH Hospital, new LPCH clinic/medical office space, new buildings for the School of Medicine, new SHC parking structure, new LPCH parking structure, new clinics parking structure at the Main SUMC Site, new parking structure at the Hoover Pavilion Site, Welch Road widening, Durand Way connector road, new driveways and drop-off areas, other roadway improvements, new heliport, and miscellaneous accessory 110614 sh 0130788 9 structures, surface parking, pavement and landscape improvements; (2) renovation and remodeling of existing hospital, clinic and medical office facilities including the Hoover Pavilion; and (3) demolition of the 1959 Stone Building complex (hospital and School of Medicine buildings), 1973 Core Expansion building, 1101 Welch Road medical offices, hospital entry, nurses’ cottage, miscellaneous shops and storage buildings at the Hoover Pavilion Site, 701 and 703 Welch Road medical offices, Parking Structure 3, Falk Lot 5, a portion of the Hoover Pavilion surface parking lot, and other miscellaneous surface parking, pavement and landscaped areas. (ee) Project Approvals. “Project Approvals” means the approvals, certifications or actions listed on Exhibit B and any Subsequent Approvals, including all Conditions of Approval. (ff) Property. “Property” means the real property more particularly described in Exhibit A. (gg) SB 1953. “SB 1953” means Senate Bill 1953 (Chapter 740, 1994), California Health and Safety Code Section 130000 – 130070 (amending the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Seismic Safety Act of 1983). (hh) SHC. “SHC” means Stanford Hospital and Clinics, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation. (ii) School of Medicine. “School of Medicine” means the Stanford University School of Medicine, which is part of the University. (jj) Subsequent Applicable Rules. “Subsequent Applicable Rules” means the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies of City, as they may be adopted and effective after the Effective Date that do not conflict with the Applicable Rules, or that are expressly made applicable to the subject matter of this Agreement by Sections 7 and 8. 110614 sh 0130788 10 (kk) Subsequent Approvals. “Subsequent Approvals” means any approval relating to the Project issued by the City upon request of any SUMC Party after the Effective Date, including Discretionary Approvals and ministerial approvals. (ll) Subsequent Rules. “Subsequent Rules” means all City ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies in effect at the time a City action is to be taken that would apply to the Project had this Agreement not been adopted. (mm) SUMC. “SUMC” means the Stanford University Medical Center. (nn) SUMC Parties. “SUMC Parties” means SHC, LPCH, and the University. (oo) Term. “Term” means the term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 18. (pp) University. “University” means the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California. (qq) Vested Right. “Vested Right” means a property right conferred by this Agreement that may not be rescinded, reduced, revoked or abrogated by the City. (rr) Zoning Ordinance. “Zoning Ordinance” is the zoning ordinance for the City of Palo Alto (Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). 2. Interest of the SUMC Parties. Each of the SUMC Parties represent that, as of the Effective Date, it has a legal or equitable interest in all or a portion of the Property as required by Section 65865 of the California Government Code. 110614 sh 0130788 11 3. Binding Effect. Subject to the provisions of Section 19 below, this Agreement, and all of the terms and conditions hereof, shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective assigns, heirs or other successors in interest. 4. Negation of Agency. The parties acknowledge that, in entering into and performing this Agreement, the City, on the one hand, and the SUMC Parties, on the other hand, are each acting as an independent entity and not as an agent of the other in any respect. Nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making City the joint venturer or partner of any of the SUMC Parties, or any of the SUMC Parties the joint venturer or partner of the City. 5. SUMC Parties’ Promises. (a) Health Care Benefits. (i) Summary of Intrinsic Benefits. Stanford University Medical Center is recognized as a global leader in medical care and research, having pioneered advancements in transplantation medicine, cancer care, prenatal diagnosis and treatment, and diabetes and cholesterol treatments. In 2009, the SHC and LPCH provided the following benefits and services:  36,559 inpatients admitted  48,744 emergency department visits  4,759 babies delivered  $262.6 million in uncompensated medical services, charity care, and community programs. The SUMC Parties served 64 percent of Palo Alto residents who required hospitalization in 2009. The Project will enable the SUMC Project sponsors to continue this important work, and the addition of more beds for adults and children will alleviate overcrowding and allow the hospitals to serve patients who currently must be turned away. The hospitals also provide the only Level 1 Trauma Center between San Francisco and San Jose. The Trauma Center and the Emergency Department ensure critical community emergency preparedness and response resources for the community in the event of an earthquake, pandemic, or other major disaster. 110614 sh 0130788 12 (ii) Fund for Healthcare Services. Not later than the Initial Payment Date, and subject to the provisions in Section 21(p), the Hospitals will designate for Healthcare Services the amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000), which amount shall increase by 4.5% per year through 2025, and thereby will total Five Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,600,000) by December 31, 2025. After completing the reconciliation of construction use tax payments described in Section 5(b)(ii)(C), the Hospitals shall use the resulting Fund for Healthcare Services by spending the fund in even increments over a ten-year period from 2026 through 2036 to assist residents of Palo Alto who have self-payment responsibilities beyond their financial means, to pay healthcare services (“Patient Service Program”). If in any year less than one- tenth of the Fund for Healthcare Services is used by the Patient Services Program, the excess shall be used in any one or all subsequent years or added to the Fund for Community Health and Safety Programs described in Section 5(a)(iii) below. The Patient Services Program shall be in addition to the Hospitals’ Financial Assistance/Charity Care Policy dated August 2010, as amended from time to time, and in addition to any coverage afforded by the new federal Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act and subsequent amendments. The Hospitals, in their reasonable discretion, shall develop criteria for determining whether patients are qualified to receive assistance from the Patient Services Program based on Palo Alto residency status and financial need. The Hospitals shall report the criteria used to determine eligibility for assistance from the Patient Services Program, comparative criteria used to determine eligibility for assistance under the Hospitals’ charity policies (in order to verify that the Patient Services Program is in addition to the Hospitals’ charity policies and other federal requirements) and their disbursements under the Patient Services Program annually, as part of the annual report described in Section 12(a). All reporting will comply with applicable privacy laws and policies, as well as the privacy policies of the Hospitals. If at any time the Hospitals and City mutually determine that the Patient Services Program creates undue administrative burdens or is not needed by the Palo Alto community in view of other available programs, the Hospitals shall contribute, in annual installments, the remainder of the funds allocated to the Patient Services Program to the Community Health and Safety Program Fund described in Section 5(a)(iii) below. (iii) Fund for Community Health and Safety Programs. Not later than the Initial Payment Date, and subject to the provisions in Section 21(p), the SUMC Parties shall contribute, in a single lump sum payment, Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) (the “Community Health and Safety Program Fund”) to the City, to be held in a separate account and to be distributed to selected community health programs that benefit residents of the City, which amount could be spent at the City Council’s discretion in whole or in part on the Project Safety Net Program. The SUMC Parties and the City shall establish a 110614 sh 0130788 13 joint committee to evaluate proposals regarding the other specific programs to receive funding, composed of two representatives selected by the SUMC Parties and two representatives selected by the City. The joint committee may choose to coordinate its efforts with the City’s Human Relations Commission, and the City’s representatives on the committee may be members of the Human Relations Commission. The joint committee shall make annual recommendations to the City Council regarding proposed disbursements from the Community Health and Safety Program Fund, and the City Council shall use its reasonable discretion to decide whether to accept, reject or modify the joint committee recommendations. The City shall keep the funds paid by the SUMC Parties to the Community Health and Safety Program Fund in a separate account, to be used only for the purposes described in this Section 5(a)(iii). The City shall deliver an annual report of disbursements from the Community Health and Safety Program Fund in accordance with Section 12(d) below. (b) Palo Alto Fiscal Benefits. (i) Payment of Sales and Use Taxes. The SUMC Parties shall use their best efforts to maximize the City’s allocation of sales and use taxes associated with Project construction and operation as follows: (A) Designation of Project Site for Construction Period Sales and Use Tax Purposes. The SUMC Parties shall accrue or self report sales and use taxes for the benefit of the City pursuant to the applicable regulations of the State Board of Equalization (the “SBOE”) regulations, and any additional regulations issued or amendments made thereto, for the purpose of maximizing the City’s allocation of construction use tax revenues derived from the Project available under the applicable laws and regulations. To this end, the SUMC Parties shall use their best efforts to the extent allowed by law to: (i) obtain all permits and licenses necessary to maximize the City’s allocation of construction use taxes derived from the Project, including but not limited to California Seller’s Permits, Use Tax Direct Payment Permits, and any other license or permit necessary or desirable to maximize the City’s allocation of sales and use taxes derived from the Project; (ii) designate, and require its contractors and subcontractors to designate, the Property as the place of sale of all “fixtures” furnished and/or installed as part of the Project; (iii) designate, and require all its contractors and subcontractors to designate, the Property as the place of use of all “materials” used in the construction of the Project; and (iv) require all contractors and subcontractors to allocate the local sales and use taxes derived from their contracts directly to the City. The SUMC Parties shall, and shall use their best efforts to require their contractors and subcontractors to, complete and file any forms as the SBOE requires to effect the designations required by this Section pursuant to the applicable regulations of the SBOE. The SUMC Parties shall bear all costs associated with its activities under this Section 5(b)(i)(A). This Section 5(b)(i)(A) 110614 sh 0130788 14 does not require the SUMC Parties to establish a purchasing entity or office in the City of Palo Alto. (B) Direct Pay Permit for Sales and Use Taxes from Existing Facilities. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, the Hospitals shall begin and diligently complete the process necessary to obtain a use tax direct pay permit from the State of California in order to increase, on an ongoing basis, the City tax allocation for the Hospitals’ purchases. The Hospitals shall maintain the use tax direct pay permit for the Life Of The Project, unless the State of California ceases to continue to administer the use tax direct pay permit program or a substantially equivalent program. (C) Establishment of Retail Sales and Use Tax Reporting District. The SUMC Parties shall cooperate in good faith with the City to assist the City in establishing and administering a Retail Sales and Use Tax Reporting District that includes the Property and the Project, to enable the City to track the generation, allocation, reporting and payment of sales and use taxes derived from the Project. Such cooperation shall include providing the City with a list of all SBOE Permit Codes assigned to the SUMC Parties’ operations and activities on the Property and associated with the Project, and the physical locations (e.g., addresses) associated with such SBOE Permit Codes. (ii) Assurance of Construction Use Tax Revenue. The SUMC Parties shall take the following steps to provide reasonable assurance to the City that it will receive no less than Eight Million, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($8,100,000) in construction use tax revenues resulting from the Project by December 31, 2025: (A) Funds To Be Used In The Event Of A Shortfall. As provided in Section 5(a)(ii), the Hospitals will designate the amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000), which amount shall increase by 4.5% per year through 2025, and thereby will total Five Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,600,000) by December 31, 2025. (B) Monitoring Construction Use Tax Revenue. During the Construction Period, the SUMC Parties shall use their best efforts to require Project contractors and subcontractors to report to the SUMC Parties the permits obtained and payments made pursuant to Section 5(b)(i)(A). Within six (6) months of the conclusion of each calendar year during the Construction Period, the SUMC Parties will submit to the City a report to be used by the City to monitor payment of construction use taxes and to determine the 110614 sh 0130788 15 share of such construction use taxes that the City has received as a result of the Project (“Monitoring Report”). The report shall include the following information: (i) a self-accrual report for the year identifying purchases made, purchase prices and taxes pertinent to such purchases for owner supplied items; and (ii) a memorandum for the year identifying contractor, sub-contractor, sub- contractor vendor, supplier and other similarly situated persons from whom purchases were made, where such contractor, sub-contractor, vendor, and/or other similarly situated party may allocate taxes directly to the City rather than through SUMC Parties' self-accrual system. Within sixty (60) days of receiving the SUMC Parties’ Monitoring Report, the City shall provide to the SUMC Parties its determination of the amount of construction use taxes that it has received as a result of the Project during the preceding calendar year, along with documentation of the basis for the City’s determination. In the event that the City’s local share of construction use tax revenues is diminished due to legislative/and or other legal changes, the City shall calculate the amount of construction use tax revenue that it would have received under the local share provisions existing on the Effective Date, based upon the payments actually paid to the State Board of Equalization by the SUMC Parties and their contractors and subcontractors, and the City shall add any diminished amount to the amount it has received to arrive at a total amount of “Construction Use Tax Revenues Received” as a result of the Project. The SUMC Parties shall not be required to make up, or assure, to the City that it receives the difference between the actual amount of construction use taxes that the City has received and the amount that the City would have received under the local share provisions existing on the Effective Date. However, as allowed by law and applicable restrictions, the SUMC Parties will join with the City in opposing any legislative or legal change that would result in diminution of the City’s local share of construction use tax revenues because the SUMC Parties recognize that such diminution could adversely affect City services to the community and to the Project facilities. (C) Reconciliation and Payment of Shortage or Surplus. In August 2026, or as soon thereafter as records are reasonably available, the City shall provide to the SUMC Parties its determination of the total amount of Construction Use Tax Revenues Received as a result of the Project, along with a report documenting the basis for the City’s determination (“Reconciliation Report”). Within thirty (30) days of receiving the Reconciliation Report, the SUMC Parties shall notify the City as to any dispute regarding the Reconciliation Report, and the SUMC Parties shall provide a report to the City documenting the basis for the SUMC Parties’ dispute. The Parties shall act in good faith to resolve any and all disputes regarding the Reconciliation Report within ninety (90) days from the date that the SUMC Parties notify the City of such dispute or disputes. Shortfall. Within thirty (30) days of the date the Parties reach mutual agreement as to the total amount of Construction Use Tax Revenues Received as 110614 sh 0130788 16 a result of the Project, the SUMC Parties shall pay to the City the amount of any shortfall between Eight Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($8,100,000) and the amount of the Construction Use Tax Revenues Received as a result of the Project, which amount shall be paid in full regardless of whether it exceeds the amount identified pursuant to Section 5(a)(ii). The amount of the Shortfall Payment then shall be deducted from the Five Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,600,000) amount that the SUMC Parties designated pursuant to Section 5(a)(ii), and the remainder of that designated amount, if any, shall be applied to the Patient Service Program as described in Section 5(a)(ii). Surplus. Within thirty (30) days of the date the Parties reach mutual agreement as to the total amount of Construction Use Tax Revenues Received as a result of the Project, the City shall provide to the SUMC Parties the amount of any surplus between Eight Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($8,100,000) and the amount of the Construction Use Tax Revenues Received as a result of the Project (“Surplus Payment”). The SUMC Parties then shall reduce the amount designated pursuant to Section 5(a)(ii) in an amount commensurate with the Surplus Payment such that the fund for the Patient Service Program shall total Five Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,600,000), comprised of the Surplus Payment paid by the City plus the difference between that payment and Five Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,600,000) to be paid by the SUMC Parties. (D) Costs of Monitoring and Compliance. The Parties each shall bear their own costs of compliance with the provisions of Section 5(b)(ii)(A) – (C), including but not limited to monitoring payment and receipt of construction use taxes, preparation and analysis of reports, and reconciliation. (iii) Funding of Operating Deficit. Not later than the Initial Payment Date, and subject to the provisions in Section 21(p), the SUMC Parties shall pay to the City, in a single lump sum payment, the amount of Two Million Four Hundred Seventeen Thousand Dollars ($2,417,000) for the purpose of assuring that City costs associated with the Project do not exceed revenues to the City resulting from construction and operation of the Project. This amount is the discounted net present value of the projected shortfall in revenues over a 30-year period, based upon the inflation, cost and revenue assumptions used by the consultant hired and directed by the City. (iv) Payment of Utility User Tax. All requirements and language in Section 2.35.100(a) of the City’s Municipal Code to the contrary notwithstanding, the SUMC Parties shall pay to the City a utility user tax at a minimum rate of five percent (5%) of all electricity, 110614 sh 0130788 17 gas, and water charges allocable to new construction completed as part of the Project for the Life Of The Project, which rate may be increased by the City as provided by Section 2.35.100(b) of the City’s Municipal Code. (v) School Fees. The SUMC Parties shall pay to the City, who in turn shall forward to the Palo Alto Unified School District, school fees upon issuance of each building permit from the City or OSHPD, in the amount that is generally applicable to non- residential development at the time of payment based upon Net New Square Footage. For buildings subject to OSHPD jurisdiction, the school fees will be paid within Thirty (30) days after issuance of a building permit from OSHPD. (c) Traffic Mitigation and Reduced Vehicle Trips. (i) Summary of Existing Programs. The Hospitals provide a robust program to minimize commuting by drive- alone vehicles, which currently includes the following components:  Incentives to forego driving or to carpool, including cash payments or other credit for participating in a carpool program, various parking incentives, online ride matching, pretax payroll deduction for transit passes, emergency rides home, free car rental vouchers, Zipcar car sharing credits, and other gifts and rewards.  The free Marguerite Shuttle system, supported in part by payments from the Hospitals, connecting the Hospitals to local transit, Caltrain, and local shopping and dining.  The Eco Pass program for hospital employees, allowing free use of VTA buses and light rail, the Dumbarton Express, the Highway 17 Express, and the Monterey-San Jose Express.  Free use of the U-Line Stanford Express connecting BART, the ACE train, and Ardenwood Park & Ride to Stanford.  Alternative transportation support and information, such as bicycle commuter facilities (clothes lockers, showers, bike lockers), transit pass sales, and various sources of ‘green’ and alternative transportation information including an ‘alternative transportation website. 110614 sh 0130788 18 (ii) Menlo Park Traffic Mitigation. (A) Payment. Subject to the City of Menlo Park’s agreement to be bound by provisions substantially similar to those described in Section 21(p) and subject to the City of Menlo Park’s agreement to use payments received from the SUMC Parties as described in Section 5(c)(ii)(B), below, the SUMC Parties shall contribute to the City of Menlo Park a total of Three Million Six Hundred Ninety Nine Thousand Dollars ($3,699,000) for the City of Menlo Park’s use in connection with traffic mitigation and other measures to enhance City of Menlo Park infrastructure and to promote sustainable neighborhoods and communities and affordable housing. The SUMC Parties shall make this contribution in three equal payments as follows: (1) the first payment shall be made not later than the Initial Payment Date; (2) the second payment shall be made within Thirty (30) days from issuance of the first Hospital Foundation Permit; and (3) the third payment shall be made within Thirty (30) days from issuance of the first Hospital Occupancy Permit. (B) Use of Funds. The amount of Two Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($290,000) shall be used by the City of Menlo Park prior to January 1, 2018 to install Traffic-Adaptive Signal Technology at the following two intersections in the City of Menlo Park: Middlefield Road/Willow Road; and Middlefield Road/Ravenswood Avenue. The amount of One Million Forty Six Thousand Dollars ($1,046,000) shall be allocated by the City of Menlo Park to the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Fund to pay for any improvements for which the Traffic Impact Fee Fund has been established, which amount is in lieu of the SUMC Project's fair share contribution toward the cost of construction of one pedestrian/bike Caltrain undercrossing in Menlo Park; improvements at the Willow Road/Bayfront Expressway intersection; improvements at the Bayfront Expressway/University Avenue intersection; and installation of Opticom systems at the following four (4) intersections: Middlefield Road/Willow Road, Middlefield Road/Ravenswood Avenue, Willow Road/Bayfront Expressway, and Bayfront Expressway/University Avenue. The remainder of the funds shall be used by the City of Menlo Park in its discretion in connection with infrastructure, sustainable neighborhoods and communities, and affordable housing. 110614 sh 0130788 19 (iii) East Palo Alto Voluntary Mitigation. (A) The Hospitals shall make a payment of $200,000 to the City of East Palo Alto for roadway and traffic signal improvements scheduled to be done on the length of University Avenue within the East Palo Alto city limits. This work includes repaving and restriping/bike lanes to improve both vehicular and non-vehicular traffic flow. (B) In the event the SUMC Parties are unable to meet the trip diversion goal set forth in this Agreement such that the $4 Million penalty payment is triggered, the City of Palo Alto shall remit $150,000 of the penalty payment to the City of East Palo Alto. (iv) Contributions to AC Transit. The Hospitals shall offer to contribute the following to AC Transit: (A) Within Thirty (30) days from issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit, the Hospitals shall offer to make a one-time payment to the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (“AC Transit”) of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) to be used for capital improvements to the U- Line to increase capacity. (B) Commencing within Thirty (30) days from issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit and continuing for the Life Of The Project, the Hospitals shall offer to make Annual Payments to AC Transit in a reasonable annual amount, not to exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), to be used for operating costs of the U-Line to maintain a load factor for bus service to the SUMC of less than 1.0. (C) In order to encourage Hospital employees who commute from the East Bay to use public transit from the East Bay to the Project, the Hospitals shall use best efforts to lease seventy five (75) parking spaces at the Ardenwood Park and Ride lot, or an equivalent location, commencing within Thirty (30) days from issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit and continuing for the Life Of The Project, at a cost not to exceed Forty Five Thousand Dollars ($45,000) per year. (v) Opticom Payments. Within Thirty (30) days after issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit, the SUMC Parties shall make the following contributions to mitigate traffic in Palo Alto. 110614 sh 0130788 20 (A) Opticom Systems. The SUMC Parties shall pay Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($11,200) to the City for installation of Opticom systems at the following seven (7) intersections: El Camino Real/Palm Drive/University Avenue; El Camino Real/Page Mill Road; Middlefield Road/Lytton Road; Junipero Serra/Page Mill Road; Junipero Serra/Campus Drive West, Galvez/Arboretum, Alpine/280 Northbound ramp. The City shall use its best efforts to cause the Opticom system to be installed at the intersections listed in this Section 5(c)(v)(A) that are not located within the City’s jurisdiction. (vi) Caltrain GO Passes. Commencing on September 1, 2015, the Hospitals shall purchase annual Caltrain GO Passes (free train passes) for all existing and new Hospital employees who work more than 20 hours per week, at a cost of up to One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000) per year, which amount shall be adjusted annually to reflect any change in the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index (the “GO Pass Amount”). The Hospitals’ obligation to provide GO Passes shall continue for fifty one (51) years, or until such earlier date as: (a) Caltrain discontinues the GO Pass program, or a substantially similar program; (b) Caltrain increases the cost of GO Passes, or a substantially similar program, such that the Hospitals’ annual costs would exceed the GO Pass Amount; or (c) Caltrain service is reduced by such an extent that the Hospitals and the City mutually determine purchase of annual GO Passes, or a substantially similar program, would no longer be effective in substantially reducing Hospital employee peak period trips in order to achieve the Alternative Mode targets specified in Section 5(c)(ix). If the cost of obtaining GO Passes exceeds the GO Pass Amount, the Hospitals shall have the option to elect either to purchase the GO Passes at the then applicable price, or to terminate the obligation to provide GO Passes, or a substantially similar program. If the Hospitals’ obligation to provide GO Passes, or a substantially similar program, terminates for any of the reasons specified in this Section 5(c)(vi), the Hospitals shall contribute the GO Pass Amount to one or more substitute programs to encourage use of transit by Hospital employees or otherwise reduce peak period traffic trips in the intersections impacted by the Project as identified in the Project EIR, including but not limited to regional transportation systems or solutions. The substitute program or programs shall be mutually agreed upon by the SUMC Parties and the City’s Director of Planning and Community Environment. (vii) Marguerite Shuttle Service. The Hospitals shall fund the reasonable costs, in an approximate amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000), for the purchase of additional shuttle vehicles for the Marguerite shuttle service, as and when required to meet increased demand for shuttle service between the Project Sites and the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station. In addition, for the Life Of The Project, the Hospitals 110614 sh 0130788 21 shall fund as Annual Payments the reasonable costs, in an approximate amount of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000) per year, to cover the net increase in operating costs for the Marguerite Shuttle. (viii) Transportation Demand Management Coordinator. Commencing on September 1, 2015, and continuing through the Life Of The Project, the Hospitals shall employ an onsite qualified Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) coordinator for the SUMC. (ix) Monitoring of TDM programs. The City and the SUMC Parties acknowledge that because use of transit by employees of the Hospitals is voluntary, and may be influenced by a number of factors outside of the reasonable control of the Hospitals, such as gasoline prices, costs and availability of alternative transit, housing costs and availability, and personal preferences of employees, the Hospitals cannot guarantee the results of their TDM programs. However, the Hospitals shall monitor the success of their TDM programs from the date of the Initial Project Approvals through the Life of The Project. The following interim targets shall be used to measure the progress toward meeting the desired mode split by 2025. These interim targets assume that in the early phases of implementation, there may be larger shifts to alternative modes than the shifts that may occur in later phases of the TDM program enhancement. For purposes of calculating alternative mode share, any mode that does not constitute driving in a single-occupant vehicle to and from the work site shall be considered an “Alternative Mode,” including working remotely from home. Target Year Alternative Mode Share Percent Change EIR Baseline (2006) 22.9 % NA Project Approval Baseline (2011) TBD TBD 2018 30 % 7.1% 2021 33 % +3 % 2025 35.1 % +2.1 % If the applicable interim target is not met for any two consecutive years prior to 2025, the Hospitals shall provide alternative transportation funding to the City in Annual Payments in the amount of One Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($175,000) per year until the earlier of the year 2025 or the year the applicable interim mode split target is achieved, subject to a maximum of five Annual Payments. The alternative transportation funding must be used by the 110614 sh 0130788 22 City for local projects and programs that encourage use of alternative transportation mode uses or otherwise reduce peak period traffic trips in the intersections impacted by the Project as identified in the Project EIR, including but not limited to regional transportation systems and solutions. The City of Palo Alto should consider transportation systems and solutions that also help to reduce traffic in the City of Menlo Park. (A) Submission of Reports. The Hospitals shall submit annual reports showing the current number of employees employed over 20 hours per week; the number of employees using an alternative mode share as documented by a study or survey to be completed by the Hospitals using a method mutually agreeable to the City and Hospitals; and the efforts used by the Hospitals to attempt to achieve the Alternative Mode targets. (B) 2025 Mode Split Penalty. If by 2025, the Hospitals have not demonstrated substantial achievement of the Thirty Five and One-Tenth Percent (35.1%) target modal split for alternative transportation modes, the Hospitals shall make a lump sum payment of Four Million Dollars ($4.0 million) to the City for local projects and programs that encourage and improve use of alternative transportation mode uses or otherwise reduce peak period traffic trips in the intersections impacted by the Project as identified in the Project EIR, including but not limited to regional transportation systems or solutions. The City shall identify capital projects and program enhancements for which the funds may be applied. Sample projects may include contributions towards regional transportation projects of interest to the City and that are identified within the Valley Transportation Authority—Valley Transportation Plan or other local planning documents. The City of Palo Alto should consider transportation systems and solutions that also help to reduce traffic in the City of Menlo Park. If required, said Four Million Dollar ($4,000,000) payment shall constitute funds to be used by the City to offset trips by Hospital employees through citywide trip reduction. The Four Million Dollar ($4,000,000) payment shall not relieve the SUMC Parties of any of their other obligations under this Agreement, including but not limited to their obligations to continue to attempt to achieve the 35.1% target modal split through implementation of the GO Pass or substantially similar program, or a substitute program mutually agreed upon by the SUMC Parties and the City’s Director of Planning and Community Environment, which shall continue pursuant to the terms of this Agreement for fifty-one (51) years from commencement of the GO Pass program. Further, the Hospitals shall continue to implement an enhanced TDM program, monitor modal splits by Hospital employees, and strive to maximize use of alternative commute modes by Hospital employees. In addition, the Hospitals shall continue to meet with the City on a regular basis to identify potential improvements to the enhanced TDM program. The City shall keep all payments received from the Hospitals pursuant to this Section 5(c)(ix) in a separate account (the “TDM Fund”), to be used only for the purposes described in 110614 sh 0130788 23 this Section 5(c)(ix). The City shall deliver an annual report of disbursements from the TDM Fund in accordance with Section 12 below. (d) Linkages. To further encourage use of Caltrain, bus and other transit services, and to enhance and encourage use of pedestrian and bicycle connections between the SUMC and downtown Palo Alto, the SUMC Parties shall fund the following improvements: (i) Improvements to Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection from Intermodal Transit Center to El Camino Real/Quarry Road Intersection. Two Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,250,000) for improvements to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle connection from the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center to the existing intersection at El Camino Real and Quarry Road, with up to Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) of that amount going to the development of an attractive, landscaped passive park/green space with a clearly marked and lighted pedestrian pathway, benches and flower borders. Not later than the Initial Payment Date, and subject to the provisions in Section 21(p), the SUMC Parties shall pay to the City Two Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,250,000) in one lump sum (the “Intermodal Transit Fund”), and the City shall be responsible for constructing the improvements described in this Section 5(d)(i). The City shall keep the Intermodal Transit Fund in a separate account, to be used only for the purposes described in this Section 5(d)(i). The City shall deliver an annual report of disbursements from the Intermodal Transit Fund in accordance with Section 12(d) below. The City shall construct the improvements described in this Section 5(d)(i) prior to issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit. (ii) Public Right-of-Way Improvements to Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection on Quarry Road. Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) for improvements to and within the public right-of-way to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle connection from the west side of El Camino Real to Welch Road along Quarry Road, including urban design elements and way finding, wider bicycle lanes, as necessary, on Quarry Road, enhanced transit nodes for bus and/or shuttle stops, and prominent bicycle facilities. Not later than the Initial Payment Date, and subject to the provisions in Section 21(p), the SUMC Parties shall pay to the City Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) in one lump sum (the “Quarry Road Fund”), and the City will be responsible for constructing the improvements. The City shall keep the Quarry Road Fund in a separate account, to be used only for the purposes described in this Section 5(d)(ii). The City shall deliver an annual report of disbursements from the Quarry Road Fund in accordance with Section 110614 sh 0130788 24 12(d) below. The City shall construct the improvements described in this Section 5(d)(ii) prior to issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit. (iii) Stanford Barn Connection. Up to Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000) for improvements to enhance the pedestrian connection between the SUMC and the Stanford Shopping Center going from Welch Road to Vineyard Lane, in the area adjacent to the Stanford Barn. The SUMC Parties shall be responsible for constructing these improvements prior to issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit. (e) Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable Housing. (i) Payment. Subject to the provisions of Section 21(p), the SUMC Parties shall pay to the City a total of Twenty-Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($23,200,000) for use in connection with infrastructure, sustainable neighborhoods and communities, and affordable housing. The SUMC Parties shall make this contribution in three equal payments as follows: (A) the first payment shall be made not later than the Initial Payment Date; (B) the second payment shall be made within Thirty (30) days from issuance of the first Hospital Foundation Permit; and (C) the third payment shall be made within Thirty (30) days from issuance of the first Hospital Occupancy Permit. (ii) Use of Funds. The amount of One Million Seven Hundred Twenty Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Eight Dollars ($1,720,488) shall be used in the same manner as funds collected by the City pursuant to its housing fee ordinance. The City shall keep the balance of the payments made pursuant to this Section 5(e) (the “Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable Housing Fund”) in a separate account, to be used only for the purposes described in this Section 5(e). The City shall deliver an annual report of disbursements from the Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable Housing Fund in accordance with Section 12(d) below. (iii) Use of Housing Credit. The housing credit issued to the SUMC Parties in connection with the Alma substation relocation and Quarry Substation Lease may be used to offset the obligations in this Agreement. 110614 sh 0130788 25 (f) Climate Change. (i) Sustainability Programs Benefit. Subject to the provisions in Section 21(p), the SUMC Parties shall contribute Twelve Million Dollars ($12 Million) to the City for use in projects and programs (including carbon credits) for a sustainable community, including programs identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan, as may be amended, and investments in renewable energy and energy conservation. The SUMC Parties’ obligation to make this contribution is conditioned on there being no other non- voluntary requirement applicable to the Project to participate in Palo Alto Utilities’ Palo Alto Green Program. The SUMC Parties shall make this contribution in three equal payments, as follows: (A) the first payment shall be made not later than the Initial Payment Date; (B) the second payment shall be made within Thirty (30) days from issuance of the first Hospital Foundation Permit; and (C) the third payment shall be made within Thirty (30) days from issuance of the first Hospital Occupancy Permit. The City shall keep all payments made pursuant to this Section 5(f) (the “Climate Change Fund”) in a separate account, to be used only for the purposes described in this Section 5(f). The City shall deliver an annual report of disbursements from the Climate Change Fund in accordance with Section 12(d) below. (g) Administrative Costs. In implementing each of the funds described in this Section 5, the funds may be used for the Party’s reasonable costs of administering the funds, including establishing and maintaining the necessary accounts, reporting upon the use and balance of funds, establishing and implementing procedures to allocate funding, and other activities to implement the funds’ purposes. (h) Satisfaction of All Conditions of Approval. The SUMC Parties shall satisfy all Conditions of Approval by the dates and within the time periods required by the Project Approvals, subject to such modifications allowed by this Agreement. 110614 sh 0130788 26 6. City’s Promises. (a) Vested Rights to Develop and Use the Property. City hereby grants to the SUMC Parties the vested right to develop, construct and use the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Applicable Rules, the Project Approvals and this Agreement, and City hereby finds the Project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as amended by the Project Approvals. City shall not apply to the Project any change in the Applicable Rules adopted or effective after the Effective Date, except as provided in Sections 7 and 8 below. (b) Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses. The permitted and conditionally permitted uses of the Property shall be those described in the Hospital Zoning Ordinance. Upon approval by the City, each conditional use permit issued for the Project shall be vested for the Term of this Agreement and the provisions of Section 18.77.090 of the City’s Municipal Code shall not apply to such conditional use permits; provided however, that the rights of the SUMC Parties to continue and maintain permitted and conditionally permitted uses on the Property shall be subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the other Applicable Rules, and the Project Approvals. (c) Maximum Density and Intensity of Uses. When developed, the density and intensity of use of the Property shall not exceed those densities and intensities of use set forth in the Hospital Zoning Ordinance. (d) Other Development Standards. All design and development standards not set forth in the Project Approvals or this Agreement shall be in accordance with the Applicable Rules and the Subsequent Applicable Rules as applied to the Project; provided such standards shall not conflict with the Project Approvals or this Agreement. (e) Subsequent Rules. Subsequent Rules that conflict with the SUMC Parties’ rights to develop the Property as provided under this Agreement are applicable to the Project only under the circumstances described in Sections 7 and 8 below. This limitation applies to changes made by ordinance, initiative, referendum, resolution, policy, order or moratorium, initiated or instituted for any reason whatsoever and adopted by the Mayor, City Council, Planning and Transportation Commission or any other board, commission or department of City, or any officer or employee thereof, or by the electorate. 110614 sh 0130788 27 (f) Subsequent Approvals. City shall not deny or unreasonably delay any Subsequent Approval that is necessary to the exercise of the rights vested in the SUMC Parties by this Agreement. Any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent Discretionary Actions imposed or required by City, including those provided for herein, shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the Agreement. Except as provided in Sections 7 or 8 below. City shall not interpret any Subsequent Approval or apply any Subsequent Rule in a manner that would conflict with the Applicable Rules or the Project Approvals or reduce the development rights provided by this Agreement. Upon City approval, each Subsequent Approval shall be vested for the Term of the Agreement and the provisions of Sections 6(a) and 6(b) shall apply to each Subsequent Approval. (g) Limitation on Architectural Review Approvals. To the extent that the Project Approvals or Applicable Rules require further decisions, determinations or actions pertaining to architectural review “Architectural Review Approval”), the decision in all cases shall be made by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, after recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, subject only to appeal to the City Council, pursuant to Section 18.77.070 of the Municipal Code as set forth in the Applicable Rules, without review or recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Further, in each case, Architectural Approval shall be limited to determining consistency with the Design Guidelines, the Hospital Zoning Ordinance, and the findings regarding architectural review set forth in Section 18.76.020(d) of the Municipal Code. City shall process any application for Architectural Review Approval expeditiously. The provisions of this Section 6(g) shall apply to each architectural review process undertaken and Architectural Review Approval granted with regard to any portion of the Project. (h) Annexation of County Property. City shall petition the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to annex to City the County Property. The SUMC Parties shall cooperate by executing all necessary documents, by providing all information requested by City acting as the conducting authority for purposes of the annexation proceedings, and by attending annexation hearings and testifying in favor of the annexation. The SUMC Parties shall be responsible for paying all reasonable costs of the annexation. (i) Utility and Storm Drain Connections. Unless prohibited by a moratorium lawfully adopted by another governmental agency, or by action taken by City in accordance with Sections 7 or 8, or by state or federal law, City shall allow the SUMC Parties to connect the 110614 sh 0130788 28 Project to the City’s sanitary sewers, storm drains, water system, gas system and electrical system in accordance with its generally applicable rules in effect at the time of application for service and shall issue all permits and authorizations necessary for such connections and service in accordance with such generally applicable rules. A moratorium shall not prevent the issuance of Discretionary Approvals or ministerial approvals for the Project, provided that City shall not be required to allow any connections or provide any services barred by the moratorium. (j) Waste Treatment Capacity. Subject to any limitation imposed by state or federal law, in the event of a moratorium preventing or limiting sanitary sewer connections, the SUMC Parties shall have priority for sanitary sewer treatment capacity for the Project over other unbuilt residential, commercial or industrial development until December 31, 2025. In addition, the SUMC Parties shall have priority over new commercial space built or approved subsequent to the Effective Date, including but not limited to retail, office and industrial space, until December 31, 2025. These priorities apply to both “domestic waste” and “industrial waste.” (k) Storm Drain Capacity. Subject to any limitation imposed by state or federal law, in the event of a moratorium preventing or limiting discharge or increased runoff to storm drains, the SUMC Parties shall have priority for use of storm drains for the Project over other unbuilt commercial development until December 31, 2025. The SUMC Parties also shall have priority over new commercial space built or approved subsequent to the Effective Date, including but not limited to retail, office, and industrial space, until December 31, 2025. (l) OSHPD. City recognizes that, pursuant to the HSSA, (i) OSHPD has exclusive jurisdiction of certain aspects of design and construction, including construction of associated infrastructure, of hospital buildings, including plan review, issuance of building permits, building inspections, and issuance of certificates of occupancy, and, (ii) certain OSHPD standards and rules apply to non-hospital buildings that provide outpatient clinical services. In the event that any OSHPD requirement conflicts with the Project Approvals, the City shall (a) approve revisions to Project Approvals or, as necessary, grant Subsequent Approvals for modifications that are not inconsistent with the Hospital Zoning Ordinance, or, (b) if necessary modifications would be inconsistent with the Hospital Zoning Ordinance, promptly and in good faith enter into negotiations with the appropriate SUMC Parties for such modifications to the Project Approvals as are necessary to conform to the conflicting OSHPD requirement so that the public benefits and objectives of this Agreement will be achieved at the earliest feasible date. The approval of such revisions or modifications shall be determined in the first 110614 sh 0130788 29 instance by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, subject to review only by expedited appeal to the City Council. (m) No Other Dedications. Except as may be required to provide for the installation and maintenance of City-owned public utilities to the Project, including such easements as may be required to install and maintain utility laterals required to serve the Project buildings, and except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement or the Project Approvals, or as may be agreeable to the SUMC Parties, the SUMC Parties shall not be required to make any dedications or reservations of the Property, or any portion thereof or interest therein, or of any other property in connection with the development, construction, use, or operation of the Project, or any portion thereof. The Parties shall also cooperate to identify the locations for any new necessary easements, and the locations of any existing easements that are no longer necessary and may be relinquished or vacated, to minimize the costs to the Parties of creating, maintaining, or vacating such easements. (n) No Other Public Improvements or Financial Contributions. Except as may be required under the Conditions of Approval, in connection with the relocation of City-owned public utilities under Welch Road, the gas line retrofitting on Welch Road, or restoration of any public improvements impacted by the Project construction, the SUMC Parties shall not be required to construct public improvements or make financial contributions to City in lieu of public improvements as part of the Project, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, or as may be agreeable to the SUMC Parties, or as provided in the Project Approvals. (o) No Obligation to Develop. The SUMC Parties shall have no obligation to develop the Project, or any component of it. The SUMC Parties may develop the Project in their sole discretion in accordance with their own time schedule, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The SUMC Parties may develop and construct the Project in any sequence or phases, in their sole discretion. (p) Timing for Performance of Conditions of Approval. The SUMC Parties may request in writing a change in the time of performance of any Condition of Approval. Within a reasonable time of receiving the request, the City Manager or his or her designee (a) shall determine whether additional environmental review is required because of the proposed change; (b) may condition approval of the proposed change upon changes in the timing of related conditions or mitigation measures; and, finally, (c) shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the requested change. Within a reasonable time of receiving the City Manager’s decision on the request, the 110614 sh 0130788 30 SUMC Parties shall give written notice of its acceptance or of its withdrawal of the request. The change shall be effective upon receipt by the City of the notice of acceptance. 7. Exceptions. To the extent Subsequent Rules (including a moratorium otherwise lawfully adopted by City) conflict with the Applicable Rules or Project Approvals, they may be applied to the Project without the consent of the SUMC Parties only (i) if City determines that application of such Subsequent Rules is necessary to protect against conditions that create a substantial and demonstrable risk to the physical health or safety of residents or users of the site to which the Subsequent Rules apply or the affected surrounding region; or (ii) if such Subsequent Rules are mandated or required by supervening federal, state or regional statute or regulation; or (iii) if otherwise provided by this Agreement. 8. Exclusions. (a) Sewer Facilities, Storm Drains and Runoff. This Agreement does not affect the SUMC Parties’ obligations, if any, to pay for or construct improvements in the storm drain system required to implement the Project, nor does it affect the SUMC Parties’ obligations to meet any applicable federal, state and local discharge limits and requirements pertaining to sewer facilities, storm drains or runoff. (b) Limited Effect on Right to Tax, Assess, or Levy Fees or Charges. Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement does not limit the power and right of the City to impose the same taxes, levy the same assessments, or require the payment of the same permit fees and charges by the SUMC Parties as the City requires for all other nonresidential development or property on a citywide basis. The SUMC Parties shall be required to pay all Development Impact Fees in effect on the Effective Date, as provided in this Section 8(b), subject to the SUMC Parties’ right to protest and/or pursue a challenge in law or equity to the new or increased Development Impact Fee. The SUMC Parties shall not be required to pay any new Development Impact Fees adopted after the Effective Date through December 31, 2019, unless such payment becomes due under the Applicable Rules or this Agreement on or after January 1, 2020. Further, the City shall not require the SUMC Parties to pay any increase in the amount of a Development Impact Fee, except as set forth in this Section 8(b) and the amount of the Development Impact Fees shall be calculated as set forth in this Section 8(b). All fees, charges, taxes and assessments permitted by this Agreement, and as modified from time to time, are Applicable Rules or Subsequent Applicable Rules. For buildings subject to OHSPD jurisdiction, City fees shall be considered due not later than 30 days after issuance of the Hospital 110614 sh 0130788 31 Foundation Permit from OSHPD. In no event may any fees be paid later than the date for payment under the Applicable Rules. (i) All provisions and requirements of this Agreement and the Applicable Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the SUMC Parties shall have the following options with respect to the timing of payment of Development Impact Fees, and the rates of Development Impact Fees will be calculated as follows: (A) If the SUMC Parties elect to pay or prepay all or any portion of the Development Impact Fees between the Effective Date and December 31, 2011, the SUMC Parties shall pay such fees at the rate in effect on the Effective Date; (B) If the SUMC Parties elect to pay or prepay all or any portion of the Development Impact Fees on or after January 1, 2012 through and including December 31, 2019, the SUMC Parties shall pay such fees at the rate applicable citywide to nonresidential development at the time of payment; except that the City shall not require the SUMC Parties to pay any increase in a Development Impact Fee that exceeds an amount calculated according to the rate in effect on the Effective Date and adjusted to reflect the change in the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index from January 1, 2012 to the date of payment. (C) If the SUMC Parties elect to pay all or any portion of the Development Impact Fees on or after January 1, 2020, the SUMC Parties shall pay such fees at the rate applicable citywide to nonresidential development at the time of payment, subject to the SUMC Parties’ right to protest and/or pursue a challenge in law or equity to the increased fee. (ii) The SUMC Parties shall not receive any credit against any City Development Impact Fees for any community benefits provided pursuant to this Agreement. (iii) Payment of the city-wide Transportation Impact Fees in accordance with this Agreement shall constitute the Project’s entire fair share contribution to the following transportation mitigation measures: TR 2.1 (contribution to traffic adaptive signal technology in Palo Alto); TR 2.2 (contribution to Everett undercrossing in Palo Alto); and TR 7.2 (contribution to Palo Alto Crosstown Shuttle). (iv) Except as provided in this Section 8(b), the SUMC Parties shall pay Development Impact Fees in accordance with the Applicable Rules, on the basis of Net New Square Footage. (v) Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the City from collecting fees from the SUMC Parties that are lawfully imposed on the Project 110614 sh 0130788 32 by another entity having jurisdiction over the Project which the City is required or authorized to collect pursuant to applicable laws. (c) No Limit on Right of City to Adopt and Modify Uniform Codes. This Agreement does not limit the right of the City, to the extent permitted by state law, to adopt Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Fire and similar uniform construction codes, and to adopt local modifications of those codes, from time to time. Those codes, as modified from time to time, are Subsequent Applicable Rules. (d) No Limit on Power of City to Adopt and Apply Rules Governing Provision and Use of Utility Services. Except as expressly provided in Section 6, this Agreement does not limit the power and right of the City to adopt and amend from time to time rules and procedures governing the provision and use of utility services provided by the City. These rules, as modified from time to time, are Subsequent Applicable Rules. If there is any conflict between such Rules and Section 6, the latter shall control. (e) California Environmental Quality Act Compliance (CEQA). The City has prepared and certified an EIR and has imposed mitigation measures as Conditions of Approval prior to the execution of this Agreement. This Agreement does not limit the City’s duty to comply with the provisions of CEQA and the associated Guidelines, and to comply with the provisions of its own local CEQA procedures, as they may be amended from time to time, that comply with the provisions of section 21082 of CEQA. However, the City shall not undertake additional environmental review under CEQA unless required to do so by CEQA. In the event that any such further environmental review is required for a Subsequent Approval or other Discretionary Action, it shall be in accordance with Sections 15162-15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the scope of analysis and evaluation shall be as required by CEQA. (f) No General Limitation on Future Exercise of Police Power. The City retains its right to exercise its general police power except when such exercise would conflict with the vested rights granted under this Agreement. The police powers so retained and enforceable under this Agreement shall include, but are not limited to, the enactment of regulations concerning the disposition of construction and demolition materials that apply generally to the City. 9. Indemnity. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the SUMC Parties shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees 110614 sh 0130788 33 and agents (each an “Indemnified Party” and collectively the “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by any third party against the Indemnified Parties to attack, set aside, or void any of the Project Approvals, or any Subsequent Approvals. The SUMC Parties shall take the lead role in defending any such claim, action or proceeding, and may, in their sole discretion, elect to be represented by the attorneys of their choice. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to be represented by the attorneys of its choice in any such action or proceeding, with the reasonable costs of such representation to be paid by the SUMC Parties. The SUMC Parties and the City shall fully coordinate and cooperate in the defense of any such action and shall keep each other fully informed of all developments relevant to such defense, subject only to confidentiality requirements and any privileges or legal doctrines that may prevent the communication of any such information. The SUMC Parties’ obligations set forth in this Section 9 shall survive any suspension or termination of this Agreement, regardless of cause. 10. Cooperation and Implementation. The Parties shall cooperate to implement this Agreement in a manner that ensures that all Parties realize the intended benefits of the Agreement. With respect to the City, such cooperation shall include, but without limitation, diligent processing of applications for approval of development of the Project that comply with the Project Approvals, Applicable Rules and Subsequent Applicable Rules, and the City shall not unreasonably deny or delay any Discretionary Action, Subsequent Approval or OSHPD approval that is necessary to the exercise of the rights vested in the SUMC Parties by this Agreement. Such cooperation shall include, but without limitation, prompt compliance by each Party with all requests by another Party for materials and information necessary to determine the responding Party’s compliance with this Agreement, and the diligent provision and implementation of all community benefits and voluntary mitigation measures to be provided by the SUMC Parties under this Agreement and the City’s expenditures of funds for the purposes described in this Agreement. 11. Identification of Applicable Rules. Prior to the Effective Date, the Parties will use reasonable efforts to identify and assemble four (4) sets of the Applicable Rules, one (1) set for the City and one (1) set for each of the SUMC Parties, so that if it becomes necessary in the future to refer to any of the Applicable Rules, there will be a common set of the Applicable Rules available to each Party. Failure by City to identify or assemble written Applicable Rules shall in no manner limit City’s ability to later identify or use such Applicable Rules. 110614 sh 0130788 34 12. Periodic Review of Compliance. (a) Periodic Review. City shall review this Agreement annually, in accordance with the procedures and standards set forth in this Agreement and City of Palo Alto City Council Resolution No. 6597 in order to ascertain the SUMC Parties’ compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The SUMC Parties shall submit an annual report (the “Annual Report”) to the Director of Planning and Community Environment (the “Planning Director”), in the form and containing the content described in Section 12(c) below, each year within thirty (30) days after the anniversary of the Effective Date. The Annual Report shall be accompanied by an annual review fee sufficient to cover the estimated costs of review of the Annual Report. The amount of the annual review fee shall not exceed the City’s actual, reasonable costs for such review. Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the SUMC Parties’ Annual Report, the City shall prepare and submit to the SUMC Parties a Supplement to the Annual Report, in the form and containing the content described in Section 12(d) below, to demonstrate the City’s good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. (b) Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of compliance with this Agreement any time the City Council determines that the SUMC Parties may be in breach of the Agreement. The Planning Director or City Council, as determined from time to time by the City Council, shall conduct such special reviews, at the City’s expense. (c) Annual Report. The Annual Report to be submitted by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 12(a) above shall summarize the SUMC Parties’ progress on the Project, including, at a minimum (i) a list of the net new square footage for which a certificate of occupancy has been received; (ii) a description of the steps the SUMC Parties have taken to comply with the obligations listed in Section 5 of this Agreement; and (iii) any other information the City reasonably requires to determine the SUMC Parties’ compliance with this Agreement. (d) Supplement to the Annual Report. The Supplement to the Annual Report to be submitted by the City pursuant to Section 12(a) above shall include an accounting of the funds received by the City, including a description of the account balances for each of the funds that the City is required to maintain under Section 5 of this Agreement (“City Funds”), the City’s expenditures from each of the City Funds, and the purposes for which the expenditures were used. The City’s descriptions of the expenditures shall be at the level of detail the SUMC Parties reasonably determine is necessary 110614 sh 0130788 35 to confirm that the City’s expenditures from the City Funds are consistent with the terms of Section 5 of this Agreement. The City’s report shall be included in any hearings held by the City pursuant to Section 12(e) of this Agreement. The City shall bear the burden of proof that the City has complied with the requirements of Section 5 for use of funds paid by the SUMC parties. (e) Procedure. During either a periodic review or a special review, the SUMC Parties shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on the SUMC Parties. During the periodic or special review, the City may rely on information in addition to that provided in the Annual Report prepared by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 12(a) above. The Parties acknowledge that failure by the SUMC Parties to demonstrate good faith compliance shall constitute grounds for termination or modification of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of this Section 12. (i) Upon the SUMC Parties’ submission of the Annual Report to the Planning Director, the Planning Director shall review the Annual Report and, based on the Annual Report and any other information available to the Planning Director relating to the SUMC Parties’ compliance with the Agreement, prepare and submit a report (the “Planning Director’s Report”) to the City Council setting forth the evidence concerning good faith compliance by the SUMC Parties with the terms of this Agreement and the recommended finding on that issue. (ii) The City Council shall review the Planning Director’s report, the Annual Report submitted by the SUMC Parties, and any other information available to the City Council relating to the SUMC Parties’ compliance with the Agreement. (iii) If, upon completing its review, the City Council finds that the SUMC Parties have complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review shall be concluded. (f) Default by SUMC Parties. If, upon completing its review described in Section 12(e), the City Council makes a finding, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the SUMC Parties have not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City shall provide written notice to the SUMC Parties describing: (i) such failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement (referred to herein as a “Default”), (ii) whether the Default can be cured, (iii) the actions, if any, required by the SUMC Parties to cure such Default, and (iv) the time period within which such Default must be cured. If the Default can be cured, the SUMC Parties shall have at a minimum 90 days after the date of such notice to cure such Default, or in the event that such Default cannot be cured within such 90-day period but can 110614 sh 0130788 36 be cured within one (1) year, the SUMC Parties shall have commenced the actions necessary to cure such Default and shall be diligently proceeding to complete such actions necessary to cure such Default within 90 days from the date of the notice. If the Default cannot be cured or cannot be cured within one (1) year, as determined by City during the periodic or special review, the City Council may modify or terminate this Agreement as provided in Section 12(g) and Section 12(h). (g) Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a finding under Section 12(f) and the expiration of the cure period specified in Section 12(f) above, City determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, City shall give written notice to the SUMC Parties of its intention so to do. The notice shall be given at least ten calendar days before the scheduled hearing and shall contain: (i) The time and place of the hearing; (ii) A statement as to whether or not the City proposes to terminate or to modify the Agreement; and (iii) Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform the SUMC Parties of the nature of the proceeding. (h) Hearings on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination, the SUMC Parties shall be given an opportunity to be heard and shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The burden of proof on the issue shall be on the SUMC Parties. If the City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the SUMC Parties has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the Agreement, the City Council may terminate this Agreement or modify this Agreement in a manner mutually acceptable to the Parties to address the Default. The decision of the City Council shall be final and subject to judicial review as provided in Section 14, below. (i) Certificate of Compliance. 110614 sh 0130788 37 If, at the conclusion of a periodic or special review, the SUMC Parties are found or deemed to be in compliance with this Agreement, City shall, upon request by the SUMC Parties, issue a Certificate of Compliance (“Certificate”) to the SUMC Parties stating that after the most recent periodic or special review and based upon the information known or made known to the Planning Director and City Council that: (1) this Agreement remains in effect, and (2) the SUMC Parties are not in Default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is issued after a periodic or special review and shall state the anticipated date of commencement of the next periodic review. The SUMC Parties may record the Certificate without cost or expense to City. 13. Default by City. If the SUMC Parties determine that City has failed to comply with any of the City’s obligations under this Agreement, the SUMC Parties may provide written notice to the City describing its contentions regarding (i) such failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement (referred to herein as a “City Default”), (ii) whether the City Default can be cured, (iii) the actions, if any, required of City to cure such City Default, and (iv) the time period within which such City Default must be cured. If the City Default can be cured, City shall have at least 90 days after the date of such notice to cure such Default, or in the event that such City Default cannot be cured within such 90 days period but can be cured within one year, City shall have commenced all actions necessary to cure such Default and shall be diligently proceeding to complete all such actions necessary to cure such Default within 90 days from the date of notice. If the SUMC Parties contend that the City Default cannot be cured or cannot be cured within one year, or if City fails to cure within the applicable cure period as provided in this Section 13, the SUMC Parties shall give notice to City of its contentions before pursuing the remedies described in Section 14. 14. Remedies for Default. It is acknowledged by the Parties that City would not have entered into this Agreement if doing so would subject it to the risk of incurring liability in damages, either for breach of this Agreement, anticipatory breach, repudiation of the Agreement, or for any actions with respect to its implementation or application. The Parties intend by the provisions of this Section 14 that none of the Parties shall have any liability for money damages arising out of a breach of this Agreement, and no liability in money damages for any claims arising out of the application process, negotiation, execution and adoption, or the implementation or application of this Agreement. Each of the Parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, including but not limited to temporary or permanent injunctive relief or restraining orders, except that the Parties shall have no liability in damages for any acts which are alleged to have arisen out of or relate to this Agreement, under any circumstances. The Parties further acknowledge that money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate, and specific performance is the most appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available to all Parties for the following reasons: (a) Money damages are excluded as provided above. 110614 sh 0130788 38 (b) Due to the size, nature, and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its original condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, the SUMC Parties may be foreclosed from other choices they may have had to utilize the Property or portions thereof. The SUMC Parties have invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate the SUMC Parties for such efforts. Except for non-damages remedies, including the remedy of specific performance, the SUMC Parties, on the one hand, and the City, on the other hand, for themselves, their successors and assignees, hereby release one another’s officers, trustees, directors, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any money damages, whatsoever, upon the Parties because the Parties entered into this Agreement, because of the terms of this Agreement, or because of the manner of implementation or performance of this Agreement. All legal actions shall be heard by a reference from the Santa Clara County Superior Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 638, et seq. The parties to the action shall agree upon a single referee who shall then try all issues, whether of fact or law, and report a finding and judgment thereon and issue all legal and equitable relief appropriate under the circumstances of the controversy before the referee. If the parties to the action are unable to agree on a referee within ten (10) days of a written request to do so by any Party, any Party may seek to have one appointed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 640. The cost of such proceeding shall initially be borne equally by the parties to the action. Any referee selected pursuant to this Section 13 shall be considered a temporary judge appointed pursuant to Article 6, Section 21 of the California Constitution. 15. Modification, Amendment or Cancellation by Mutual Agreement. Subject to meeting the notice and hearing requirements of Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Act, this Agreement may be modified, amended, or cancelled at any time by mutual consent of the Parties in accordance with the provisions of Section 65868 of the Development Agreement Act and City’s Resolution No. 6597. 110614 sh 0130788 39 16. Superseding State or Federal Law. In the event that any state or federal law or regulation enacted or adopted after the date of this Agreement shall prevent or preclude compliance with any of the provisions hereof, such provisions shall be modified or suspended only to the extent and for the time necessary to achieve compliance with said law or regulation and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall be in full force and effect. Upon repeal of said law or regulation or occurrence of other circumstances removing the effect thereof upon this Agreement, the provisions hereof shall be restored to their full original effect. 17. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally or by overnight courier service or sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Any notice shall be deemed to have been duly given and received upon receipt. Notices to the parties shall be addressed as follows: City: City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 with copies to: City Attorney City of Palo Alto, 8th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto, 5th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 SHC/LPCH: Mark J. Tortorich, Vice President Planning, Design & Construction 384 Stanford Shopping Center Stanford, CA 94304 with a copy to: Sarah Diboise, Esq. Office of General Counsel Building 170, 3rd Floor, Main Quad P.O. Box 20386 Stanford, CA 94305-2038 110614 sh 0130788 40 Stanford University: Vice President, Land Buildings and Real Estate Stanford University 3145 Porter Drive, Building F Palo Alto, CA 94304 with a copy to: Vice President and General Counsel Stanford University P.O. Box 20386 Stanford, CA 94305 Any Party may change its address for notice by giving ten (10) days’ notice of such change in the manner provided for in this paragraph. 18. Term of Agreement; Force Majeure. (a) Basic Term. Except as to those obligations that expressly extend for the Life Of The Project, or otherwise expressly extend beyond the stated Term of the Agreement, the Term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date, and shall continue for thirty (30) years from the adoption of the Ordinance authorizing this Agreement or until earlier terminated by mutual consent of the Parties or as otherwise provided by this Agreement. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no Party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect to any obligation to have been performed prior to such termination, or with respect to any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement which has occurred prior to such termination, or with respect to any obligations which are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement. (b) Extension for Referendum, Litigation, Default or Moratorium. If a Party is deprived of a benefit under this Agreement as a result of referendum of one or more of the Project Approvals, litigation challenging one or more of the Project Approvals or one or more Subsequent Approvals, a moratorium, or a default by the other Party, then the Party so deprived may elect to extend the Term of this Agreement with respect to that benefit for the duration of the moratorium or default. (c) Force Majeure. Performance by either the SUMC Parties, on the one hand, or the City, on the other hand, of an obligation hereunder shall be excused during any period of “Permitted Delay.” Permitted Delay shall mean delay beyond the reasonable control of a Party including, without limitation, an inability to perform caused by (a) acts of God, including without limitation earthquakes, floods, fire, and other natural calamities, (b) civil commotion; (c) riots or terrorist acts; (d) strikes or other forms of material labor disputes; (e) shortages of materials or supplies; and 110614 sh 0130788 41 (f) vandalism. A Party’s financial inability to perform shall not be a ground for claiming a Permitted Delay. The Party claiming the Permitted Delay shall notify the other Party of its intent to claim a Permitted Delay, the specific grounds of the same and the anticipated period of the Permitted Delay within 10 business days after the occurrence of the conditions which establish the grounds for the claim. The period of Permitted Delay shall last not longer than the conditions preventing performance. 19. Assignment; Right to Assign. (a) Assignment. (i) Right to Assign. Each of the SUMC Parties shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign its interest in the Property, in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall be permitted to cause a violation of the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code section 66410, et seq.), to any person or entity at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided: (A) Concurrently with any such sale, transfer or assignment, or within ten (10) business days thereafter, the transferor shall notify City, in writing, of such sale, transfer or assignment and shall provide City with an executed agreement, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City, by the purchaser, transferee or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee or assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties and obligations of the transferor under this Agreement. (B) No sale, transfer or assignment of any right or interest under this Agreement shall be made without the prior written consent of the City Council, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld. Notwithstanding the failure of any purchaser, transferee or assignee to execute the agreement required by subparagraph (i) above, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee or assignee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee or assignee until and unless such agreement is executed. (ii) Release of Transferor. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer or assignment, the transferring Party shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement unless such Party is given a release in writing by City, which release will be provided by City upon the full satisfaction by the transferring Party of all the following conditions: (A) The transferring Party no longer has a legal or equitable interest in the portion of the Property being transferred. 110614 sh 0130788 42 (B) The transferring Party is not then in default and default proceedings have not been commenced by City under this Agreement. (C) The transferring Party has provided City with the notice and executed agreement required under Section 19(a) (i) above. (D) The purchaser, transferee or assignee provides City with security reasonably satisfactory to City to secure performance of its obligations under this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Section 19 shall prevent a transfer of the Property, or any portion thereof, to an institutional lender or Mortgagee as a result of a foreclosure of a Mortgage or deed in lieu of foreclosure, and any lender or Mortgagee acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, as a result of foreclosure of a Mortgage or a deed in lieu of foreclosure shall take such Property subject to the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, in no event shall such lender or Mortgagee be liable for any defaults or monetary obligations of the SUMC Parties arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by such lender or Mortgagee; and provided further in no event shall any such lender or Mortgagee or its successors or assigns be entitled to a building permit or occupancy certificate for any portion of the Project until all fees due under this Agreement have been paid to City, until all outstanding obligations of the SUMC Parties have been performed, and until any and all outstanding Defaults have been cured. 20. Mortgagee Protection. The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit any of the SUMC Parties in any manner, at their sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any Mortgage securing financing with respect to the Property or development of the Property. City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and shall upon request, from time to time, meet with any of the SUMC Parties and representatives of such lenders to consider any such request for interpretation. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation provided such interpretation is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges: (a) No Impairment. Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust on the Property made in good faith and for value. (b) Notice of Default by the SUMC Parties. 110614 sh 0130788 43 The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a request in writing to the City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from City of any Default by the SUMC Parties in the performance of the SUMC Parties’ obligations under this Agreement. (c) Notice. If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to any of the SUMC Parties under the terms of this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within twenty (20) days of sending the notice of default to the SUMC Parties. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such Party under this Agreement. (d) Transfer of Ownership. Mortgagee shall have the rights set forth in the last paragraph of Section 19 above. 21. Miscellaneous. (a) Effect of Recitals. The Recitals are intended in part to paraphrase and summarize this Agreement, however, the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement are expressed with particularity in Section 1, et seq. and the rights and obligations of the Parties are to be determined by the terms of the Agreement and not by the Recitals. To the extent the Recitals provide factual context for the Agreement, they may be considered when interpreting the terms and provisions of the Agreement. (b) Construction. As used in this Agreement, and as the context may require, the singular includes the plural and vice versa, and the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter and vice versa. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the Parties. This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for each Signatory Party, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. Each Signatory Party has consulted with counsel and determined that this Agreement accurately and completely reflects the agreement of the Parties. The captions of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are solely for the convenience of reference and shall be disregarded in the construction and interpretation of this Agreement. 110614 sh 0130788 44 (c) Severability. If any terms of this Agreement are determined to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected to the extent the remaining terms are not rendered impractical or impossible to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. (d) Time. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and of each and every term and condition hereof. (e) Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. No waiver of any right or remedy in respect of any occurrence or event shall be deemed a waiver of any other right or remedy or in respect of any other occurrence or event. (f) Governing State Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California. (g) Determination of Compliance. At any time during the Term of this Agreement, any Party or its lender, may request any Party to this Agreement to confirm that to the best of such Party’s knowledge, no defaults exist under this Agreement or if defaults do exist, to describe the nature of such defaults. Each Party shall provide such a determination to such lender or other Party within forty-five (45) days of the request therefor. The failure of any Party to provide the requested determination within such forty-five (45) day period shall constitute a confirmation that to the best of such Party’s knowledge, no defaults exist under this Agreement. Requests for such determinations shall be made in writing and as required by Section 17 above. (h) Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties. There are no oral or written representations, understandings, undertakings, or agreements that are not contained or expressly referred to herein, and any such representations, understandings, or agreements are superseded by this Agreement. No evidence of any such representations, understandings, or agreements shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature relating to the terms or conditions of this Agreement, its interpretation, or breach. 110614 sh 0130788 45 (i) No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the signatory Parties and their successors and assigns, including Mortgagees. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. (j) Authority to Execute. Each person executing this Agreement warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to bind the signatory Party for which he or she is signing to the performance of its obligations hereunder. (k) Administrative Appeal. Whenever in the Applicable Rules or Subsequent Applicable Rules any requirement or action by the SUMC Parties is conditioned upon the approval or satisfaction, however expressed, of any entity other than City, such condition shall not be interpreted as providing the third party the right to make any final decision other than as may be authorized by law other than the Applicable Rules or Subsequent Applicable Rules. Where a third party has no right authorized by law other than the Applicable Rules or Subsequent Applicable Rules to make a final decision, a condition requiring approval or satisfaction of such third party, however expressed, shall mean that the third party shall provide, as appropriate, advice, consultation, a recommendation and/or an initial decision regarding the condition. The actual determination in such case will be made by the official or entity of City required or authorized to make such determination in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code as set forth in the Applicable Rules. Appeals from determinations made by City officials or entities shall be made in accordance with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code as set forth in the Applicable Rules. (l) Exhibits. The following exhibits to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated herein in their entirety: Exhibit A – Property Description Exhibit B – Initial Project Approvals If the recorder refuses to record any exhibit, the City Clerk may replace it with a single sheet bearing the exhibit identification letter, stating the title of the exhibit, the reason it is not being recorded, and that the original, certified by the City Clerk, is in the possession of the City Clerk and will be reattached to the original when it is returned by the recorder to the City Clerk. 110614 sh 0130788 46 (m) Signature Pages. For convenience, the signatory Parties may execute and acknowledge this Agreement on separate signature pages, which, when attached hereto, shall constitute one complete agreement. (n) Precedence. If any conflict or inconsistency arises between this Agreement and the Applicable Rules or the Subsequent Rules, the provisions of this Agreement shall have precedence and shall control over the conflicting or inconsistent provisions of the Applicable Rules or Subsequent Rules. (o) Recordation. Whenever recordation is required or may be required by either Party, City shall be responsible for recordation. If City fails to record a document when required, the SUMC Parties may, but are not obligated to, record the document and by doing so the SUMC Parties do not assume the duties or obligations of City established by this Section or the Development Agreement Act nor does it waive any right it may have to compel City to properly perform its duties and obligations. The failure of City to record or to properly record this Agreement or any other document as provided herein shall not affect or limit in any way the SUMC Parties’ rights to enforce this Agreement and to rely upon it. (p) Referendum or Challenge. In the absence of a referendum petition, City shall not unilaterally submit the Project Approvals or the ordinance approving this Agreement to a referendum by action of the City Council on its own motion without the SUMC Parties’ consent. In addition to the remedies set forth in Section 18(b), if the Project Approvals or the ordinance approving this Agreement is the subject of a referendum, or if litigation is commenced seeking to rescind the Project Approvals or the City’s decision to enter into this Agreement or to declare this Agreement void (“Legal Action”), less than one year from the filing with the County Clerk by the City of the Notice of Determination following the second reading of the ordinance approving the Hospital District zoning and the ordinance approving this Agreement (the “NOD”), each Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other Parties no later than thirty (30) days after the event that gives a Party the right to terminate, or such later time allowed in writing by the non-terminating Party or Parties. Each Party’s right to unilaterally terminate this Agreement as set forth in this Section 21(p) shall expire one year from the date of the filing of the NOD. The Parties may also, at any time by mutual agreement, suspend performance of all or part of the obligations in this Agreement pending the outcome of any such referendum or litigation. 110614 sh 0130788 47 (i) City’s Reimbursement Obligation. If the Project Approvals or the Ordinance approving this Agreement is challenged by a Legal Action as described above in Section 21(p), the City shall return payments made by the SUMC Parties to the City according to the following requirements: (A) If the Legal Action is filed with the court before 90 days have elapsed from the filing of the NOD, then the City shall return all payments made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, within 30 days of the City’s receipt of a written request by the SUMC Parties. (B) If the Legal Action is filed with the court more than 90 days but less than one year after the filing of the NOD, then the City shall return payments made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, within 30 days of the City’s receipt of a written request by the SUMC Parties, as follows: (1) Section 5(a)(iii) (Fund for Community Health and Safety Programs) Payments. The City shall return to the SUMC Parties such portions of payments made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 5(a)(iii) that have not been disbursed through the City’s Human Relations Committee or otherwise, or contractually committed to a third party community health care program by the City. (2) Section 5(b)(iii) (Fund for Operating Deficit) Payments. The City shall return to the SUMC Parties such portions of payments made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 5(b)(iii) that have not been contractually committed by the City to a third party. (3) Section 5(e)(i) (Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable Housing Fund) Payments. The City shall return to the SUMC Parties such portions of payments made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 5(e)(i) that have not been contractually committed by the City to a third party. 110614 sh 0130788 48 (4) Section 5(f)(i) (Sustainability Programs) Payments. The City shall return to the SUMC Parties such portions of payments made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 5(f)(i) that have not been contractually committed by the City to a third party. (C) If the Legal Action is filed with the court one year or more after the filing of the NOD, and results in a final judgment that materially impairs the SUMC Parties’ vested rights under this Agreement, then the City shall have no obligation to return any payments already made by the SUMC Parties to the City pursuant to this Agreement, and all of the Parties’ outstanding obligations under this Agreement shall be suspended until the Parties have mutually agreed to either reinstate or terminate this Agreement. (ii) Effect of Suspension or Termination of Agreement. If the Parties mutually agree to suspend performance of all or part of the obligations in this Agreement pending the outcome of the Legal Action pursuant to Section 21(p) above, the agreement to suspend performance shall address the terms under which the SUMC Parties’ payment obligations under Section 5 shall be reinstated. In the event that the SUMC Parties unilaterally terminate this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 21(p), the City may elect at its reasonable discretion to revoke the conditional use permit for the Project in whole or in part, and the SUMC Parties will not contend that commencement of construction elsewhere on the Property has vested the SUMC Parties’ rights to construct structures for which construction has not yet commenced. The Parties’ rights and obligations set forth in this Section 21(p)(ii) shall survive the SUMC Parties’ unilateral termination of this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of Section 21(p). (iii) Limit of City’s Reimbursement Obligations. Except as specifically set forth in this Section 21(p), the City shall have no obligation to return any payments made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to this Agreement. 110614 sh 0130788 49 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF PALO ALTO ______________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ City Attorney APPROVED: ______________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS By: _________________________ Name: _______________________ Title: ________________________ LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD By: __________________________ Name: ________________________ Title: _________________________ THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD UNIVERSITY By: ___________________________ Name: _________________________ 110614 sh 0130788 50 Title: __________________________ 110614 sh 0130788 51 110614 sh 0130788 52 110614 sh 0130788 53 110614 sh 0130788 54 110614 sh 0130788 55 110614 sh 0130788 56 110614 sh 0130788 57 110614 sh 0130788 58 110614 sh 0130788 59 110614 sh 0130788 60 110614 sh 0130788 61 110614 sh 0130788 62 110614 sh 0130788 63 Exhibit B Initial Project Approvals A. Approval of the resolution adopting changes to the Comprehensive Plan to recognize taller building heights at SUMC, to exclude hospital, clinic and medical school use areas from the citywide and area specific non- residential growth limits, and changes to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; B. Adoption of an ordinance amending the municipal code to establish a new “Hospital” zone district and amending the sign code and tree code to be consistent with the Hospital Zone regulations; C. Adoption of an ordinance approving a thirty–year development agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicants that would grant certain development rights in exchange for certain public benefits; D. Adoption of a Record of Land Use Action approving a conditional use permit that would allow specific hospital, medical office, and related uses in the Hospital Zone; E. Architectural Review Board Approval of the following: 1. Stanford Hospital; 2. Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital expansion; 3. School of Medicine, Foundations in Medicine 1 building (FIM1); 4. Renovation of the existing Hoover Pavilion; 5. Medical Office Building and Parking Garage; 6. Surface Improvements along Welch Road, and Durand Way; and 7. SUMC Design Guidelines. F. Adoption of a Resolution annexing an approximate 0.65 acre site from Santa Clara County; and G. Acceptance of SUMC Area Plan Update. 1 June 30, 2011 Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Construction and Operational Air Quality, Noise, and Hazardous Materials Impacts of SUMC Project on Existing Childcare Facility at the Hoover Pavilion Comments were first submitted to the City on June 16, 2011 regarding the Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center (operated by the Childrens' Creative Learning Centers [CCLC]) at the Hoover Pavilion Site. The commentors expressed concern that the SUMC Project could affect the health of the children who attend the CCLC daycare at 215 Quarry Road. On June 27, the SUMC Project sponsors agreed to relocate the CCLC during construction at the Hoover Pavilion Site to Stanford land in unincorporated Santa Clara County subject to Stanford’s General Use Permit (GUP) with the County. Nonetheless, the below analysis summarizes the impacts to the CCLC during construction. In addition, it is expected that the CCLC would continue to operate at its current location after the construction period is complete. As such, the below analysis also includes a description of the operational impacts at the Hoover Pavilion Site on the children at the CCLC. Please note that the EIR makes repeated references to “sensitive receptors” in the air quality, noise, and health risk assessments. As defined in the EIR, sensitive receptors include land uses with populations that may be susceptible to changes in ambient conditions for health-related concerns. Typically, these uses include residences, hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, and daycare facilities. The EIR listed CCLC as an existing on-site use at the Hoover Pavilion Site and for purposes of the discussion below it is considered a “sensitive receptor.” Section 3.5, Air Quality Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (Impact AQ-1) The Draft EIR, Section 3.5, identified that impacts related to construction air quality emissions would be significant. Heavy construction activity on dry soil exposed during construction phases would cause emissions of dust (PM10 being the air pollutant component of greatest concern). ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions also would result from the combustion of fuel by construction equipment and construction worker vehicles. Throughout construction, pollutant emissions would vary day-to- day and year-to-year depending on the specific construction phase in progress. When considered in the context of long-term project operations, demolition and construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants would be temporary, but, given the duration and scale of the SUMC Project and the fact that construction emissions would overlap with emissions from SUMC Project 2 operations, emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 from the construction equipment have the potential for significant effects on local and regional air quality. The determination of significance in Impact AQ-1 is not specifically linked to any particular population, or even to sensitive receptors. The determination of significance is tied to a numerical standard established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to be protective of public health. Thus, the exceedance of the construction emission standards is significant and would affect nearby uses, including CCLC. As a result, mitigation measures to reduce construction-related air pollutants would be required and applied at project construction sites, including Hoover Pavilion. To minimize dust emissions, the BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible PM10 control measures for all construction activities in the air basin. Implementation of the BAAQMD-recommended measures (Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1 below) would reduce the impacts caused by construction dust to a less- than-significant level. Additionally, implementation of construction equipment emission reduction measures (Mitigation Measure AQ-1.2 below) would further reduce NOx, ROG, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions during construction compared with the estimates of construction equipment emissions. However, reduction of NOx emissions below 80 lbs/day during the first year of construction could not be guaranteed, and this impact would still be considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2 have been developed as part of this analysis to reduce impacts, in consideration of BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. These measures would reduce the effects of pollutants, like dust, on all receptors, including those at CCLC; only NOx emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. AQ-1.1 Implement Recommended Dust Control Measures. To reduce dust emissions during project demolition and construction phases, the SUMC Project sponsors shall require the construction contractors to comply with the dust control strategies developed by the BAAQMD. The SUMC Project sponsors shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: a. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials including demolition debris, or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; b. Water all active construction areas (exposed or disturbed soil surfaces) at least twice daily; c. Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; d. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas; e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas during the earthwork phases of construction; f. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; g. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); 3 h. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); i. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; j. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and k. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. AQ-1.2 Implement Equipment Exhaust Emission Reduction Measures. To reduce emissions from construction equipment during project demolition and construction phases, the SUMC Project sponsors shall require the construction contractors to comply with the following emission reduction strategies to the maximum feasible extent. The SUMC Project sponsors shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: a. Where possible, electrical equipment shall be used instead of fossil-fuel powered equipment. b. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid need for fossil-fuel powered equipment. c. Running equipment not being actively used for construction purposes for more than five minutes shall be turned off. (e.g., trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk materials; however, rotating-drum concrete trucks may keep their engines running continuously as long as they are on site). d. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling while on residential streets serving the construction site (also included in Mitigation Measure NO-1.1). e. Diesel-powered construction equipment shall be Tier III or Tier IV California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified equipment to the maximum feasible extent. f. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the smallest practical to accomplish the task at hand. Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (Impact AQ-2) Mobile Source Emissions. The SUMC Project would result in an increase in traffic from current conditions. For purposes of this analysis, all trips associated with the SUMC Project were assumed to be new trips within the air basin, although some portion of the trips attributed to the SUMC Project would likely occur whether or not the SUMC Project is constructed (i.e., those in need of medical treatment likely would seek treatment elsewhere in the Bay Area if the SUMC facilities were not expanded). Thus, the SUMC Project emission estimate represents an upper bound on potential new emissions from mobile sources. Stationary Source Emissions. The SUMC Project would generate criteria pollutant emissions from on- site combustion of natural gas for space and water heating and of other fuels by building and grounds maintenance equipment. The SUMC Project facilities also would use larger amounts of electricity, which would result in increased criteria pollutant emissions associated with operations of power plants 4 supplying that electricity. Since most of the electricity used in the Bay Area is produced by power plants located elsewhere, the criteria pollutants they produce would have very little effect on the San Francisco Air Basin, and therefore, these emissions were not estimated. Total Emissions. SUMC Project stationary and mobile sources would emit ROG, NOX and PM10 in excess of the BAAQMD 80 pounds per day (15 tons per year) significance thresholds. Thus, the SUMC Project emissions of ROG, NOX and PM10 would be significant. These emissions would be mostly from SUMC mobile sources. Continued implementation of the current Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is included as part of the SUMC Project for existing employees at the hospitals and the increase in employees that would result from the SUMC Project. As indicated in Section 3.4, Transportation, enhanced TDM measures are identified in Mitigation Measure TR-2.3. The resulting reduction in SUMC Project vehicle miles traveled, however, would not be sufficient to prevent project ROG, NOx and PM10 emissions from exceeding the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Accordingly, impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. As noted earlier for Impact AQ-1, the determination of significance is tied to a numerical standard established by the BAAQMD to be protective of public health. Thus, the exceedance of the operational emission standards is significant and would affect CCLC. Localized Carbon Monoxide Impacts from Motor Vehicle Traffic (Impact AQ-3) Increases in traffic from the SUMC Project would contribute to localized CO emissions. Table 3.5-8 in the Draft EIR identifies the intersections where predicted CO concentrations would be the highest with the SUMC Project; the closest study intersection to the CCLC is at El Camino Real/Palm Avenue/University Avenue, approximately 1,215 feet from the CCLC. The maximum 1-hour CO concentration at 25 feet from this intersection during the PM peak hour under 2025 conditions would be 5.8 ppm; the maximum 8-hour concentration, approximately 2.5 ppm. The maximum 1-hour CO concentration would be significantly below the federal and State 1-hour standards of 35 ppm and 20 ppm, respectively. The maximum 8-hour concentration would be below the 9 ppm State and federal standard. Because the SUMC Project would not exceed CO standards, it is considered to have a less- than-significant impact on localized carbon monoxide emissions at intersections affected by project traffic. Therefore, localized CO impacts from the SUMC Project would be less than significant for all receptors, including CCLC. Although the dispersion model was limited to certain intersections, the modeling is adequate for describing possible impacts elsewhere in the project vicinity for two important reasons: • CO standards in the Bay Area have not been exceeded for almost 20 years and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the entire Bay Area as “Attainment” with regard to the CO air quality standards, meaning that the Bay Area has satisfied the federal standards. 5 • CO levels, even at their highest as measured at Bay Area monitoring stations, are typically only a quarter to a third of the ambient standards. Since these relatively low values are added to the CO modeling results as being representative of local background concentrations, local emissions of CO by vehicles using the intersections would have to be very high to result in a local standard violation. In addition to increased traffic at nearby intersections, there would be additional traffic ingress and egress at the Hoover Pavilion Site due to the proposed parking garage. Currently, there are 85 parking spaces at the Hoover Pavilion Site and the SUMC Project would include a total of 1,085 parking spaces, for a net increase of 1,000 spaces. As such, it is expected that CO levels would increase slightly over existing conditions. However, as explained above, even the areas in the Bay Area with the highest CO levels have not exceeded the air quality standards in over 20 years. Since the most congested intersections in the Bay Area do not exceed the standards, the proposed parking structure at the Hoover Pavilion Site also would not exceed these standards. In addition, the proposed parking structure is designed as an open-air garage. CO could be an issue for an underground/closed garage without ventilation and cars driving within the structure and idling. However, in an open-air garage, CO emissions (and any other pollutants emitted by cars) would be rapidly dispersed by wind flow. Additionally, only a small fraction of cars within the garage would be active at any given time. Vehicles that would use the structure are expected to arrive and depart during shift changes for medical and other staff and at steady intervals throughout the day due to medical appointments at the Hoover Pavilion Site. As such, localized CO impacts from the Hoover Pavilion parking garage would have a less-than-significant impact on the sensitive receptors at the CCLC. Toxic Air Contaminants (Impact AQ-4) Exposure to diesel particulate matter and toxic air contaminants, depending on their concentrations, may trigger human health risks. The Health Risk Assessment (HRA), Appendix F of the Draft EIR, is summarized under Impact AQ-4 and concludes that sensitive receptors would not be subject to significant health risks, based on the criteria established by the BAAQMD. Receptors both on-site and off-site would be exposed to diesel particulate emissions from construction equipment, additional onsite emergency generators at SUMC, and additional trucks traveling to/from the existing and proposed loading dock at SUMC, and to toxic air contaminants from additional helicopter travels to / from the existing and proposed helipad. The combined exposures during construction and operational emissions would be less than the targeted total cancer risk and chronic hazard index, so that a significance conclusion of less than significant is appropriate. Appendix F describes in detail the “receptor grid” that was created to estimate human health risks all occupied locations within the SUMC. More specifically, as shown in Figures 3.6 and 3.7 of Appendix F, the modeled receptor grid covered all occupied areas of the Hoover Pavilion Site, including the CCLC. Residential and worker risks were both previously evaluated at these receptors but only the maximum worker risks were presented in the report. Because the modeled risks for residents and 6 workers in the Hoover Pavilion area were low, it would be reasonable to expect similar conclusions for children at CCLC. The primary contributor to health risks in the vicinity of CCLC is the construction activity and its emissions of diesel particulate matter. During the operational period, risks from truck and electric generator emissions are very small at the Hoover Pavilion Site. This qualitative assessment for the CCLC indicates a low risk from exposure to toxic air contaminants. ENVIRON has performed a quantitative assessment for a child at the CCLC using the same methodology as presented in the HRA, as included in Attachment A to this memo. Exposure assumptions used in the HRA for child residents and a school child are presented in Table 4.1a of Appendix F to the Draft EIR. At the CCLC location, the estimated risks for a child resident (assumed exposed 350 days/year) would be 5 x 10-6 and for a school child (assumed exposed 180 days/year) would be 3.6 x 10-6 (both below the Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD] threshold of 10 in a million; 10 x 10-6 or 1 x 10-5). Assuming a daycare child is at the center for the duration of a worker exposure (i.e., whenever the parent is working or an assumed exposure of 245 days/year), the estimated risk would be 4.8 x 10-6. The estimated noncancer hazard index for all child populations is less than 0.1 (well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1). Accordingly, the EIR conclusion of a less-than-significant health risk for onsite and offsite receptors is applicable to CCLC. Attachment A to this memo, prepared by ENVIRON, provides further details. Objectionable Odors (Impact AQ-5) None of the activities associated with the SUMC Project would have the potential to expose nearby sensitive receptors, including the CCLC, to objectionable odors. According to BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, objectionable odors are typically emitted by industrial and commercial operations such as wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, petroleum refineries, chemical factories, and paint and coating operations. The SUMC Project consists of increased inpatient hospital and clinic/medical office uses. Such operations are not known to emit substantial objectionable odors that would impact sensitive receptors or sensitive land uses. As such, the SUMC Project would have a less-than- significant odor impact. Section 3.7, Noise Construction Noise (Impact NO-1) As part of the SUMC Project, construction of a new medical office building and parking garage are planned on sites adjacent to the existing Hoover Pavilion building and the CCLC. Demolition of existing structures (sheds and storage buildings) on the parking garage site and excavation for the garage foundation is expected to take four months; subsequent construction of the garage and medical office building superstructures would take an additional six months; and work on interior finishing for the medical office building and garage would take an additional eight months. As such, the total construction period at the Hoover Pavilion Site would occur over a period of 18 months. During the initial periods of demolition, excavation, and superstructure work on the garage, noise generated by the equipment used for construction would affect the occupants of the CCLC. 7 The Draft EIR contains Table 3.7-8, which reports typical noise levels associated with the operation of various types of common construction equipment. Table 1, below, presents the noise levels associated with a subset of this equipment, which would most likely be used for construction of the medical office building and parking garage at the Hoover Pavilion Site. There would be a brief initial phase involving demolition of the existing shops and sheds on the proposed garage site; however, these structures are not substantial and would not require the use of any heavy equipment for their removal. Noise levels generated by equipment during garage excavation and construction are shown in Table 1, below, at reference distances corresponding to its operation at the closest approach to the CCLC boundary (estimated to be 50 feet, allowing for a 15-foot zone of construction activity around the garage site, which is about 65 feet distant from the Center) and at an average distance from the garage site center (estimated to be 150 feet). Table 1 Typical Construction Equipment Outdoor Noise Levels Equipment Type Unmitigated Peak Outdoor Noise Level at 50 feet from the equipment location Unmitigated Peak Outdoor Noise Level at 150 feet from the equipment location Backhoe 85 dBA 75 dBA Dozer 80 dBA 70 dBA Concrete Mixer 85 dBA 75 dBA Crane 83 dBA 73 dBA Source: Unmitigated equipment noise levels at 50 feet were taken from SUMC DEIR Table 3.7-8. Notes: Unmitigated equipment noise levels at greater distances were estimated using the formula Lequip(At distance D) = Lequip (At D=50 feet) – 20 log(D/50) as recommended in Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment, May 2006, Chapter 12. No adjustments were included to account for equipment being used for lesser time fractions during a work day or for shielding by terrain or existing structures. On-site construction activities would expose on-site noise-sensitive uses to high noise levels from operation of multiple pieces of construction equipment working simultaneously. Measurements of background noise levels on the Main SUMC Site indicate that the average hourly daytime noise levels range between 55 dBA and 60 dBA in areas not close to the Main SUMC Site access roads. Site activities and traffic conditions around the Hoover Pavilion Site would result in similar background noise levels in that vicinity. As shown in the table above, construction noise levels could easily and often be higher than existing ambient conditions by more than 10 dBA when construction is occurring nearby and be an on-going source of annoyance for patients, visitors, workers, and children at the CCLC. Therefore, construction noise would be significant for on-site noise-sensitive receptors, especially patients, but also for other sensitive receptors such as CCLC. 8 Considering the sensitive nature of activities at the CCLC, and the widely recognized special sensitivity of children to the adverse effects of many environmental agents, including noise, the susceptibility of the occupants of the CCLC during construction at the Hoover Pavilion Site is described in more detail below. • Hearing Impairment. Cases of noise-induced hearing impairment are most commonly attributed to high occupational noise exposures. Noise from environmental sources does not often rise to the level or continue long enough to pose a significant risk for hearing impairment, although studies have noted exceptions for noise exposures associated with specific leisure-time activities (i.e., firearm shooting, motorcycle riding and amplified music from discotheques, concerts and stereo headphone/ear bud use). According to the World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise (1999), the risk for hearing impairment would be considerable only if 8-hour average noise levels or 24-hour average noise levels exceed 75 dBA or 70 dBA for occupational and environmental exposures, respectively, over a lifetime exposure period.1 There is a potential for the development of hearing impairment with extended exposure to noise levels exceeding 70 dBA. This potential increases as the noise level and exposure time increase. As shown in Table 2, below, at 85 dBA, the permissible exposure time is 8 hours and for every 3 dBA increase in noise level over 85dBA, the permissible exposure time is cut in half. Specially, an individual would need to be exposed to 85 dBA continuously for 8 hours before hearing impairment would become an issue; exposures at higher noise levels would require shorter exposure times to remain acceptable. WHO also recommends that high-noise exposure in the workplace for adults never exceed 140 dBA, with the same limit also appropriate for environmental and leisure-time noise. In the case of children, WHO recommends that noise from environmental and leisure-time noise sources should never exceed 120 dBA at any time. 1 Note that the EPA reached essentially the same conclusion regarding protective exposure standards in Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (1971). 9 Table 2 Exposure Time Needed for Continuous Noise at the Specified Level Before Evidence of Hearing Impairment would become Apparent Continuous Noise Exposure Level Permissible Exposure Time 85 dBA 8 hours 88 dBA 4 hours 91 dBA 2 hours 94 dBA 1 hour 97 dBA 30 minutes 100 dBA 15 minutes 103 dBA ~8 minutes 106 dBA ~4 minutes 109 dBA ~2 minutes 112 dBA ~1 minute 115 dBA ~30 seconds Source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and Center for Disease Control (CDC), as accessed on http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/education/information-center/decibel- exposure-time-guidelines/ accessed June 25, 2011. The highest outdoor noise levels during construction at the Hoover Pavilion Site would be approximately 85 dBA with one piece of equipment operating near the CCLC and a few dBA higher with two pieces of equipment. This noise level could occur when equipment would operate on the portion of the parking garage closest to the CCLC, which is about 50 feet. For hearing impairment in staff/children to be a possibility at this level, the equipment would have to be stationary at 50 feet and operating at full power. In addition, the staff/children would need to remain outdoors continuously for a full eight hours or a shorter time if more equipment were in operation and/or the equipment were operating closer than 50 feet from the CCLC. See Table 2, above, for those recommended maximum exposure times. CCLC buildings are located at 50 feet from the closest areas of construction equipment operation; however, staff/children would be inside the CCLC for considerable periods of time during the day. The building structure itself would provide noise attenuation for staff/children inside (i.e., a minimum of 20 dBA, provided that the windows were securely closed while equipment would be operating). Estimates of the maximum indoor noise levels in the closest CCLC buildings from the construction activity are given in Table 3, below. Even if an interior noise level of 65 dBA were to persist all day in the closest CCLC buildings for the duration of garage construction, which is an unlikely scenario, no hearing impairment to staff/children would be expected. 10 Table 3 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Indoors in the Arboretum Children’s Center Buildings Equipment Type Unmitigated Peak Indoor Noise Level at 50 feet from the equipment location Unmitigated Peak Indoor Noise Level at 150 feet from the equipment location Backhoe 65 dBA 55 dBA Dozer 60 dBA 50 dBA Concrete Mixer 65 dBA 55 dBA Crane 63 dBA 53 dBA Source: SUMC DEIR Table 3.7-8, as shown in Table 1, above, with 20 dBA subtracted to account for the noise attenuation provided by the CCLC structures with the windows closed. • Sleep Disturbance. Studies of sleep disturbance of people in their normal living situations show an increased association with sleep disturbance when indoor noise level averaged over sleep- time hours exceeds 30 dBA. Also, a relationship has been established between short-term noise events (e. g., aircraft fly-overs, train pass-bys, etc.) and the percentage of people awakened or who showed sleep-stage changes. Thus, the intermittent character of intrusive construction noise, as well as its average level over sleep-time, needs to be taken into account to avoid sleep disturbance. WHO also recommends an indoor maximum noise level limit of 45 dBA to avoid significant sleep disturbance from short-term noise events. Noise from construction activities at the proposed parking garage, either on the portions close to the CCLC or at other locations on-site, would be high enough inside the CCLC buildings to occasionally exceed the 45 dBA peak levels known to trigger sleep disturbance. These disruptions could be reduced by CCLC staff adjusting the location of noise-sensitive activities during noise-intensive periods of construction. In addition, Mitigation Measure NO-1.1, below, which is required as a condition of approval for the SUMC Project, would help reduce noise levels during construction. For example, Mitigation Measure NO-1.1a, which calls for barriers around noisy operations, could be installed at the CCLC. However, while barriers are effective at reducing noise transmission (e.g., the Federal Transit Administration estimates that at least an 8 dBA reduction can be obtained from a solid barrier that completely shields a noise source from a receptor), disruption of activities at the CCLC would occur during the period of exterior construction of the parking garage. Exterior work on the medical office building would also occur during this time; however, this construction site is too distant from the CCLC to have any potential for noise impacts. • Interference with Speech Communication. For speech to be intelligible in situations where message content is important (e.g., instruction at school, conversing on the telephone, etc.), it has been found that the speech sound level should be at least 15 dBA higher than the background noise level. Thus, for an average speech sound level of 50 dBA, which is typical of casual speech where the speaker and listener are about 1 meter apart, WHO recommends that 11 environmental noise intrusions should not exceed 35 dBA to allow easy communication. Environmental noise intrusions at higher levels may also mask many other acoustical signals important in daily life (e.g., doorbells, telephone signals, alarm clocks, fire alarms, etc.). Noise from construction activities at the proposed parking garage, either on the portions close to the CCLC or at other locations on-site, would be high enough inside the CCLC buildings to occasionally exceed the 35 dBA average levels known to interfere with casual speech and school instruction. These disruptions could be reduced by CCLC staff adjusting the location of noise-sensitive activities during especially noisy periods of garage construction. In addition, Mitigation Measure NO-1.1, below, which is required as a condition of approval for the SUMC Project, would help reduce noise levels during construction, but not to a less-than- significant level. As discussed above, the following mitigation measure, which was provided in the Draft EIR, would not reduce construction noise impacts to on-site sensitive receptors to less-than-significant levels, although the measure would lessen construction-related noise. NO-1.1 Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Construction Noise. The SUMC Project sponsors shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the SUMC Project contractor: a. Provide enclosures such as heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment, shrouding or shielding for impact tools, and barriers around particularly noisy operations on the site. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible, particularly air compressors. c. Provide sound-control devices on equipment no less effective than those provided by the manufacturer. d. Locate stationary equipment, material stockpiles, and vehicle staging areas as far as practicable from sensitive receptors. e. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. f. Require applicable construction-related vehicles and equipment to comply with the City’s truck route ordinance. g. Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who shall be responsible for responding to complaints about noise during construction. The telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and shall be provided to the City. Copies of the construction schedule shall also be posted at nearby noise-sensitive areas. Construction Vibration (Impact NO-2) Construction activities cause varying degrees of ground vibration depending on the equipment and methods employed. The demolition of the sheds and storage facilities would occur within a relatively short period of time; however, the construction of the nearby parking structure would pose potential vibration effects for CCLC over the 18-month construction period. Because of the vulnerability of the 12 Hoover Pavilion to damage from construction vibration, pile driving, which generates the greatest vibration levels, would not be allowed at the Hoover Pavilion Site. This also means that the construction equipment that would most disturb CCLC would not be used. Schools and daycare facilities are treated by the Federal Transit Administration as a Category 3 Land Use, meaning that the site does not contain vibration-sensitive equipment, but is susceptible to activity interference primarily during the daytime. Category 3 Land Uses are generally tolerant of vibration annoyance levels up to 83VdB on an ongoing basis. The magnitude of vibration impacts from equipment such as trucks, dozers, and excavators is generally only significant at 25 feet or less from the construction site (according to Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment, May 2006, Chapter 12). The closest construction site to the CCLC would be about 50 feet. As a result, vibration levels from the anticipated construction equipment at the Hoover Pavilion would result in a less-than-significant impact. The SUMC Project sponsor’s ability to adjust construction schedules; route loaded trucks towards Quarry Road and away from the CCLC; phase demolition, earth-moving and ground-impacting operations so as not to occur in the same time period; and select demolition methods not involving impact, where possible would further reduce construction vibration effects and ensure that impacts are less than the significance threshold identified in the EIR. Operational Noise Impacts from Transportation Sources (Impact NO-3) Vehicular Traffic. The SUMC Project-related traffic would increase noise levels along roadways most affected by SUMC Project traffic by a maximum of 0.3 dBA Ldn along Welch Road. The CCLC is in close proximity to Quarry Road and Arboretum Road, which are roadways that were not identified in Section 3.7 as being significant affected by traffic noise. Nonetheless, even for the impacted roadways, the SUMC Project would result in a less-than-significant traffic noise impact. Heliport Operations. Under the SUMC Project, heliport operations would increase by 28 percent by 2025, specifically from the existing 2,120 annual helicopter trips (six daily trips) to 2,714 (seven daily trips, an increase of about one trip per day). The helicopter approach and departure paths would generally remain the same and CCLC would be within the 85 SEL Ldn contour. It can be assumed that sensitive receptors within the 85 dBA SEL would experience an interior noise level of 65 dBA SEL during an individual worst-case helicopter flyover. The average probability of sleep disturbance associated with this flyover would be about two percent. Increased helicopter operations associated with the SUMC Project would amount to about one additional flight per day and such a single-digit increase in the sleep disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors could be considered insubstantial. Thus, the helicopter noise increase associated with the SUMC Project at the CCLC would have a less-than- significant impact. Further, the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050) exempts noise associated with “emergencies” from its standards and penalties. Emergency Department (Ambulance) Operations. Based on the increase in size and treatment spaces under the SUMC Project, the SUMC anticipates annual Emergency Department (ED) visits to increase 13 from the current 42,522 (8,331 annual ground ambulance trips or 23 trips per day) to 72,675 (14,244 annual ground ambulance trips or 39 trips per day) by full occupancy of the hospitals. The current ambulance route accesses the SHC from Arboretum Road and Quarry Road from El Camino Real, which are in close proximity to the CCLC. However, the ED relocation under the SUMC Project would reroute some of the ambulance trips coming from El Camino Real to Sand Hill Road (east of Durand Way), in contrast to their current access route via Quarry Road. Therefore, although the SUMC Project would increase activity at the SUMC Sites, some of the ambulance traffic would be rerouted and would no longer travel along Quarry Road, in front of the Hoover Pavilion Site. The Draft EIR identifies ambulance noise as a significant and unavoidable impact; however, this conclusion focuses on noise-sensitive uses along Sand Hill Road. Therefore, since some ambulance traffic would be rerouted to an area away from the CCLC, ambulance noise would be a less-than-significant impact at the Hoover Pavilion Site. Operational Stationary Source Noise Impacts (Impact NO-4) Mechanical Equipment. HVAC equipment would be installed at two rooftop locations at the Hoover Pavilion Site (in addition to three existing HVAC systems on the roof of the Hoover Pavilion building). The noise generated by HVAC equipment can vary substantially according to the type, size, and capacity of the equipment. Most existing HVAC equipment is completely enclosed in penthouses or surrounded by walls, a major purpose of which is to substantially reduce the intensity of the noise radiated from the equipment. Consequently, at the time noise measurements were taken, no HVAC noise was audible at on-site or off-site ground-level locations. The proposed HVAC equipment would likely achieve the same inaudible levels with proper choice of equipment and acoustical shielding. Nonetheless, the following mitigation measure would reduce noise impacts to sensitive receptors (including the CCLC) from HVAC equipment proposed for the SUMC Project. NO-4.1 Shield or Enclose HVAC Equipment and Emergency Generators. Noise levels from mechanical equipment shall be minimized to the degree required by the City Noise Ordinance by proper siting and selection of such equipment and through installation of sufficient acoustical shielding or noise emission controls. Noise levels for the emergency generators near Welch Road shall be reduced such that noise levels do not exceed the City’s General Daytime Exception standard of 70 dBA at 25 feet. An acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified professional to ensure that the new mechanical equipment is in compliance with noise standards of the Noise Ordinance. No new emergency generators would be installed at the Hoover Pavilion Site (one emergency generator, EGD 810, already exists at the site). As such, noise from emergency generators would not increase over existing conditions at the Hoover Pavilion Site. Loading Activity. No loading docks are proposed at the Hoover Pavilion Site. As such, increased noise from loading activities would be less than significant. 14 Parking Facilities. One parking facility, the 1,085-space structure, would be located at the Hoover Pavilion Site. The net increase in parking at the Hoover Pavilion Site of 1,000 spaces would raise noise levels and increase the potential annoyance and level of disturbance experienced by adjacent uses. Noise sources would include tires squealing, engines starting, doors slamming, car alarms, and people talking. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken on the Main SUMC Site along the Promenade, adjacent to the existing Parking Structure 3. This location, as shown as Location 8 in Figure 3.7-1 of the Draft EIR, was selected because it was considered representative of on-campus noise levels without exposure to outside traffic on major roadways, but representative of noise from garage activity and medical helicopter flights. Non-helicopter peak noise events, which included any events caused by audible vehicle operations within the garage, did not exceed the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 60 dBA Ldn standard for residential and other noise sensitive uses. Even with effects of helicopter operations included in the daily average noise level, the measured on-campus average noise level (59.4 Leq) did not exceed the City’s noise standard. In addition, this average noise level does not exceed the WHO threshold of 8-hour average noise levels or 24-hour average noise levels of 75 dBA or 70 dBA for hearing impairment. The ambient noise levels at this measurement site (which included noise from the existing parking garage at the Main SUMC Site) would be similar to the levels at the proposed Hoover Pavilion parking garage. However, the helicopter noise is expected to be less at the Hoover Pavilion Site than at the Main SUMC Site, thereby lowering the average noise level. In addition, the measurement was conducted at approximately 15 feet from the Parking Structure 3, whereas the CCLC would be approximately 50 feet from the proposed parking garage at the Hoover Pavilion Site. Thus, future post-construction noise levels at the CCLC are expected to be below the average levels considered acceptable for noise-sensitive uses under the Comprehensive Plan. Any peak noise intrusions from vehicle operations inside the garage are unlikely to rise to levels of concern for hearing impairment, sleep disturbance, or speech communication within the CCLC. The noises from the proposed parking garage would occur sporadically and, while potentially annoying, would not be expected to occur on a frequent enough basis to result in a significant noise impact to the CCLC. Section 3.12, Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials Use and Storage (Impact HM-1) The SUMC Project would increase the on-site use and handling, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials relative to existing conditions. Regulations restricting emissions and specifying safe work practices would be implemented to reduce impacts of hazardous materials use and storage. These regulations include California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law (also called the “Business Plan Act”); the 2007 California Building Code; the 2003 Life Safety Code; the 2001 California Fire Code; the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s groundwater protection program; Cal/OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard; OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogen Standard; hazardous waste laws and regulations; radiation control laws and regulations; the California Medical Waste 15 Management Act; the DOT hazardous materials transportation regulations; the USPS hazardous materials transportation regulations; the EPA hazardous materials transportation regulations; and the BAAQMD and Cal/OSHA. These regulations would minimize the potential for exposure to adverse health or safety effects. Therefore, the SUMC Project would not involve the use, disposal, or transport of materials in a manner that poses substantial hazards to people, animal, or plant populations. Furthermore, the SUMC Project would implement its required emergency response plan as part of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP), which is then submitted to the PAFD. The HMBP, along with the Business Plan Act, would cover incidents such as accidental releases. In a hazardous materials incident, which is unlikely under the SUMC Project, the PAFD would be responsible for incident command, scene management, hazard control, containment, and mitigation until relieved by another agency having jurisdiction over the event. Participation in the PAFD Unified Command of hazardous materials incidents during emergency and post-emergency periods includes, but is not limited to: hazmat site perimeter security, crowd control, traffic control, and evacuation and relocation of evacuees to a secure location.2 Therefore, the SUMC Project (including operations at the Hoover Pavilion Site) would not result in a significant environmental impact related to the increased use, transport, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials. Demolition and Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Disturbances (Impact HM-2) The construction of the SUMC Project could release hazardous materials in existing buildings. Because it was common building practice to use materials containing asbestos, PCBs, lead, and mercury in structures built prior to 1981, demolition of the existing buildings (which were built prior to 1981) could disturb these hazardous building materials and, without control measures, the hazardous materials could cause adverse health or safety effects to construction workers, the public, and/or the environment. However, implementation of the mitigation measure below would reduce impacts from exposure to asbestos containing materials to a less-than-significant level at the SUMC Sites by ensuring that all asbestos containing materials are identified and removed prior to structural modification and/or demolition. HM-2.1 Conduct Asbestos Survey at the SUMC Sites. Prior to building renovation and/or demolition, an asbestos survey shall be performed on all areas of the building anticipated to be demolished and/or renovated. This survey shall be performed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. In the event that asbestos is identified in the buildings proposed to be demolished and/or renovated, all asbestos containing materials shall be removed and appropriately disposed of by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. A site health and safety plan, to ensure worker safety, in compliance with OSHA requirements (8 CCR 5208) shall be developed by the SUMC Project sponsors and in place prior to commencing renovation or demolition work on portions of buildings containing asbestos. 2 City of Palo Alto, City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan, June 2007. 16 Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwater During Construction (Impacts HM-3 and HM-7) The Hoover Pavilion Site (211 Quarry Road) is listed on the Cortese List, which compiles information on public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination; sites selected for remediation; sites with known toxic material; LUST sites; and/or solid waste disposal facilities. The sites on the list are designated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Integrated Waste Management Control Board (IWMCB), and the DTSC. Since the Hoover Pavilion Site is listed, construction could potentially expose occupants and the environment to hazardous materials; however, as explained in more detail below, the risks would be low because of prior actions and mitigation measures in the EIR. The Phase I ESA for the Hoover Pavilion Site identified on-site conditions that represent potential environmental concerns. These conditions include two 2,200-gallon USTs (diesel); one 750-gallon UST (primarily diesel); one 350-gallon waste oil UST; a boiler room with sumps; and three oil-filled transformers. The two 2,200-gallon USTs were emptied and closed in-place under a permit with the PAFD. The 750-gallon UST (which was installed in the 1960s under a permit with the PAFD) was removed in 1996, and the 350-gallon waste oil UST was emptied and closed in-place in 1987. According to interviews conducted as part of the Phase I ESA, the boiler room and sump were closed in 2000, and the three oil-filled transformers were removed and replaced with dry type transformers in the mid-1990s. The AMEC Geomatrix reports conducted from 2008 to 2010 concluded that residual petroleum is present in soil, particularly in the area of the two 2,200 gallon, closed-in-place USTs that formerly contained fuel oil and diesel. Testing confirms that no petroleum constituents are present in soil vapor. The presence of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) was evaluated as part of the Hoover Pavilion Site (in soil) and found to be limited in concentration, area and depth, and presents no impacts to human health or the environment. The impacted area would be excavated as part of the Hoover Pavilion parking garage excavation. Thus, all of the residual CVOCs and most of the petroleum impacted soil whose areal extent has been defined will be removed as part of the SUMC Project and therefore will not impact operations at the Hoover Pavilion Site post-construction. Mitigation Measure HM-3.4, below, would require a Site Remediation Assessment to reduce impacts to less than significant by specifying measures to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards and ensuring that the proposed remediation measures would adhere to federal, State, and local requirements. With respect to groundwater, the studies show no dissolved-phased constituents are present above environmental screening levels and the lateral extent of the plume is confined to the property. In two monitoring wells immediately adjacent to the USTs, 1/8 to 1/4 inch of product composed of a mixture of degraded viscous fuel oil (heavy fuel oil number 6) and degraded diesel has been measured; remediation of this product has been completed to the fullest extent practicable. CVOCs testing in groundwater shows results below the State Maximum Contaminants Levels (MCLs). Therefore, the 17 Hoover Pavilion Site has been thoroughly investigated and the cleanup meets the State’s standards and poses no threat to human health or the environment. In addition to the steps that have already been taken to reduce health risks from on-site potential environmental concerns, the following mitigation measures from the EIR would further reduce exposure to contaminated soil to construction personnel and users of the Hoover Pavilion Site, including the CCLC, to a less-than-significant level. HM-3.3 Conduct a Soil Excavation Program at the Hoover Pavilion Site. A qualified consultant, under the SUMC Project sponsors’ direction, shall undertake the following activities: • Remove all buried underground storage tanks from the property after sheds and storage buildings on the Hoover Pavilion site have been demolished; • To the extent necessary, additional soil sampling shall be collected to determine health risks and to develop disposal criteria; • If warranted based on soil sampling, contaminated soil shall be excavated, removed, and transported to an approved disposal facility in compliance with OSHA requirements; • To the extent required based upon the results of soil sampling and the results of a health risk assessment, a Site Health and Safety Plan to ensure worker safety in compliance with OSHA requirements shall be developed by the SUMC Project sponsors, and in places prior to commencing work on any contaminated site. • The SUMC Project sponsors shall submit documents to the County DEH to proceed with closure of the Hoover Pavilion Site. HM-3.4 Develop a Site Management Plan for the Hoover Pavilion Site. The SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare a site remediation assessment that (a) specifies measures to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards, including hazards from remediation itself, and (b) certifies that the proposed remediation measures would clean up contaminants, dispose of the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal, State, and local requirements. Site excavation activities shall not proceed until the site remediation has been approved by the County DEH and implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors. Additionally, the Site Remediation Assessment shall be subject to review and approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. All appropriate agencies shall be notified. Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal (Impact HM-4) The regulatory framework for hazardous waste generation and disposal is administered by the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and the Radiologic Health Branch of the California 18 Department of Health Services (CDHS). The regulations require the use, storage, handling, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes to be maintained at a level that would ensure interruption of the exposure pathway between hazardous substances and the environment or populations. The SUMC Project facilities would be required to have in place and to maintain “cradle-to-grave” procedures to dispose of hazardous wastes properly; would need to comply with the federal and State radiation control laws described in the EIR under Applicable Plans and Regulations); and, because the SUMC Sites combined would likely generate 200 or more pounds per month3 of medical waste, would be required to implement a Medical Waste Management Plan. Compliance with these requirements would ensure the exposure pathway would be greatly restricted. Without a complete exposure pathway, impacts from hazardous waste would be less than significant. Please let Kirsten Chapman or myself know if we can assist further with an understanding of the project impacts and mitigation measures that would be applicable to the CCLC. Sincerely, Rod Jeung Associate Vice President/Senior Group Manager 3 5.8 tons of hazardous waste per year divided by 12 months equals an average monthly generation of 0.48 tons (about 967 pounds). 201 California Street, Suite 1280, San Francisco, CA 94111 www.environcorp.com Tel: +1 415.796.1950 Fax: +1 415.398.5812 APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Rod Jeung, Atkins From: Liz Miesner/Michael Keinath, ENVIRON Date: June 30, 2011 Re: Health Risk Assessment of SUMC Project on Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center Introduction At the request of Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan (PBS&J) (now Atkins), ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON) performed a human health risk assessment (HHRA) of the incremental increase in diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (SUMC Project) and the toxic air contaminants (TAC) emissions associated with the helipad operation at the Medical Center , which was included as Appendix F of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the SUMC Project. The SUMC Project involves demolition, replacement, and expansion of existing medical facilities at the SUMC Sites, which are comprised of the 56-acre Main SUMC Site and 9.9-acre Hoover Pavilion Site. Both the Main SUMC Site and the smaller Hoover Pavilion Site are shown on Figure 1.1 of the HHRA (see attached). The HHRA presented the maximum risk estimates for onsite and offsite populations or receptors, but did not present any site-specific estimates for children at the Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center, which is located on the Hoover Pavilion Site. As shown on Figures 3.6 and 3.7 of the HHRA (see attached), ENVIRON’s modeled receptor grid covered the Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center. Both worker and residential risks were previously evaluated in the model for all receptor locations. Because the modeled risks for residents and workers on the Hoover Pavilion Site were low (below applicable thresholds), it would be reasonable to expect similar conclusions for children at Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center. The purpose of this memorandum is to address specifically the estimated risks for children at the Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center associated with the SUMC Project. Methodology The purpose of the HHRA was to estimate the potential health effects to onsite and offsite populations associated with the incremental increase in DPM and other TAC emissions from construction sources and operational emissions of the SUMC Project, including: Exposure to emissions of DPM from construction equipment used for the SUMC Project, Incremental exposure to DPM emissions from additional onsite emergency generators at SUMC, Mr. Rod Jeung 2 June 30, 2011 Incremental exposure to DPM emissions from additional trucks traveling to/from the existing and proposed loading dock at SUMC, and Incremental exposure to TAC emission from additional helicopter travels to/from the existing and proposed helipad at SUMC. The methodology used in the HHRA is consistent with California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) risk assessment guidance. ENVIRON evaluated potential exposures at the receptor locations using conservative exposure parameters consistent with BAAQMD risk screening guidance (BAAQMD 2005a, 2005b). This HHRA estimated excess lifetime cancer risks and chronic noncancer hazard indices and compared them to the BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds of significance. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for TACs is a excess lifetime cancer risk greater than ten in one million (1 x 10-5) and a noncancer hazard index of greater than 1.0 for the maximum exposed individual (MEI). Project Description The Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC), the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (LPCH), and the Stanford University School of Medicine (SoM) are jointly proposing the SUMC Project. The SUMC Project consists of demolishing approximately 1.2 million square feet of existing buildings and replacing them with onsite structures containing approximately 2.5 million square feet of new hospital, clinic, medical office and medical research uses; adding approximately 1.3 million square feet of net new floor area. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 from the HHRA (see attached) show the existing and the proposed layout for the SUMC Project, respectively. Table 2.1 from the HHRA (see attached) lists the existing buildings associated with the SUMC as well as the buildings to be demolished or constructed as part of the proposed SUMC Project. The Hoover Pavilion Site currently contains approximately 84,200 square feet within the Hoover Pavilion building; approximately 7,400 square feet within the Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center; and approximately 13,800 square feet of miscellaneous shops and storage outside of the Hoover Pavilion building (See HHRA Figure 2.1 attached). Under the redevelopment scenario, about 60,000 square feet of clinic/medical office space would be constructed in a new building at the Hoover Pavilion Site and the existing Hoover Pavilion building would be renovated, with portions converted to medical office uses. The approximately 13,830 square feet of shops and storage space at the Hoover Pavilion Site would be demolished to accommodate the construction. To replace the demolished parking and accommodate the increase in clinic/medical office space at the Hoover Pavilion Site, a 60-foot-tall garage would be constructed on that site. The garage would provide 1,085 spaces. The redevelopment scenario is shown on Figure 2.2 of the HHRA (see attached). On the Hoover Pavilion Site, demolition of existing structures on the parking garage site and excavation for the garage foundation is expected to take 4 months; subsequent construction of the garage and medical office building superstructures would take an additional 6 months; work on interior finishing for the medical office building and garage would take an additional 8 months (thus, the total construction period on the Hoover Pavilion site would be 18 months). In the Mr. Rod Jeung 3 June 30, 2011 HHRA, the construction of the new parking structure and the new medial office/clinic building was assumed to start in mid-2010 and end in late 2011. The SUMC Project proposes the addition or modification of emergency generators, loading docks and helipads which can be sources of DPM or other TACs; therefore, the incremental impact of these operational sources were also be evaluated in this HHRA. However, as shown on Figure 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 of the HHRA (see attached) none of these sources are located on the Hoover Pavilion Site. Emissions Estimation Using established emission standards adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and an emission estimation model developed by ARB; ENVIRON estimated DPM emissions from emergency generators and loading docks associated with future operations at the proposed SUMC. In addition, ENVIRON estimated incremental TAC emissions for the existing and proposed helipad operation using an emission estimation model developed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). PBS&J provided estimated incremental DPM emissions for the construction of the SUMC Project that were estimated using the ARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Rule.1 PBS&J provided ENVIRON the year-by-year construction DPM emissions calculated based on ARBs In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Rule. Table 3.1 from the HHRA (see attached) presents the year-by-year emissions of DPM from building construction and demolition at the construction sites including the Hoover Pavilion Site. Air Dispersion Modeling Consistent with BAAQMD-approved practices, DPM concentrations for estimated emissions were then conservatively estimated at receptor locations using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) version 07026 (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2005) with meteorological data recorded on the Stanford University campus during 2005. This location was determined to be the most representative meteorological data available for air dispersion modeling for the SUMC Project. Each source type modeled (e.g., construction equipment, emergency generators, and delivery truck/vehicles) is assumed to operate on a separate schedule based on information provided in the SUMC Project application.2,3 Wind roses which correspond to the period modeled for each source are shown in Figures 3.3 (construction activities – 9 am to 5 pm), 3.4 (emergency generators – 6 am to 7 am) and 3.5 (delivery truck/vehicles – 24 hours per day) from the HHRA (see attached). Three resolutions of grid spacing were used at differing distances from the SUMC Project. A fine grid with 20 meter spacing between receptors was used for areas within and up to 500 1 ARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Rule was approved on July 26, 2007 and was modified in December 2010. The rule sets increasingly stringent fleet-average emission rates year-by-year. 2 Project Application – Demographics and Operations (Revised 04/2008), http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8833 3 Project Application – Construction Activities (Revised 04/2008), htttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8839 Mr. Rod Jeung 4 June 30, 2011 meters from the Project boundary. A medium grid receptor spacing of 50 meters was used up to one kilometer from the Project boundary, and a coarse grid spacing of 200 meters was used to cover the area bounded by US 101 (northeast), 280 (southwest), and local streets that are 2000 meters northwest and 4500 meters southeast of the Project boundary. Figure 3.6 from the HHRA (see attached) presents an overview of the ground level grid receptor locations used in the analysis. Note that the gridded area (at finest resolution, 20 meter spacing) includes all occupied areas of the Hoover Pavilion Site. ENVIRON conducted the construction modeling analysis on a year-by-year basis to take into account the relocation of construction activities and employees as the Project progresses. For this analysis, ENVIRON assumed that the operating schedule of the construction equipment is 9 am to 5 pm, Monday to Friday. The location of the proposed construction activities are represented by adjacent volume sources as shown in Figures 3.11a - 3.11m from the HHRA. Figures 3.11a and 3.11b, which include the Hoover Pavilion Site construction in 2010 and 2011, are attached to this memorandum. Human Health Risk Assessment The HHRA was performed to evaluate the potential health effects associated with exposures to the incremental increase in DPM emissions resulting from the proposed SUMC Project. Specifically, ENVIRON estimated the excess lifetime cancer risks and chronic noncancer hazard indices associated with onsite and offsite exposures to the incremental increase in DPM emitted during construction activities and on-going operations. The potential health effects associated with TAC emissions from helipad operations are not evaluated in this section because the incremental increases of TAC emissions from helipad operations are below the BAAQMD TAC Trigger Levels. According to the BAAQMD, TAC Trigger Levels represent the concentration “below which the resulting health risks are not expected to cause, or contribute significantly to, adverse health effects” (BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, Section 223). The HHRA was performed in accordance with the June 2005 BAAQMD Toxic Evaluation Section Staff Report (BAAQMD 2005a) and consistent with BAAQMD’s Risk Evaluation Procedure and Risk Management Policy (BAAQMD 2000) as well as methodologies presented in the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (Cal/EPA 2003) and Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis (Cal/EPA 2000). DPM emissions from construction activities and operational sources, including emergency generations and truck traffic servicing the loading docks, are the focus of this HHRA. Diesel exhaust is generated when an engine burns diesel fuel and consists of a mixture of gases and fine particles (also known as soot). Under California regulatory guidelines (Cal/EPA 1998, 2008a), DPM is used as a surrogate measure of exposure for the mixture of chemicals that make up diesel exhaust as a whole. The toxicity values selected for use in evaluating potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to DPM are presented in Table 4.2. The exposure parameters used in the HHRA for residents, workers, and school children were summarized in Tables 4.1a, 4.1b, and 4.1c of the HHRA (see attached). Note that a child Mr. Rod Jeung 5 June 30, 2011 resident is assumed to be present 24 hours per day; 350 days per year for nine years and a school child is assumed to be present for 10 hours per day; 180 days per year for nine years. It is assumed that a daycare child would be present at the 12 hours per day; 245 days per year for approximately 6 years (age 8 weeks to 5 years). The duration of 245 days per year is the same as for a worker (assuming the worker is taking their child to daycare) and assumes exposure 5 days a week for 49 weeks; minus vacation and holiday time). Note that since construction activities are assumed to take place between 9 am and 5 pm on weekdays, all populations are assumed to be present during all construction activities. As the emergency generators are assumed to be tested once per week for 30 minutes between 6 am and 7 am, and the truck travel to and from the loading docks are assumed to occur 24 hours per day, not all populations will be present at all times when these sources are operating. Findings As noted earlier, the HHRA presented the maximum risk estimates for onsite and offsite receptors, but did not present any site-specific estimates for the Arboretum Children’s Center. Table 1 (new, attached) presents the estimated cancer risks and hazard indices (HIs) based on construction emissions at the Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center for all receptors included in the model. At the daycare center location, the estimated risks for a child resident (assumed exposed 350 days/year) would be 4.9 x 10-6 and for a school child (assumed exposed 180 days/year) would be 3.6 x 10-6 (both below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in a million; 10 x 10-6 or 1 x 10-5). Assuming a daycare child is at the center for the duration of a worker exposure (i.e., whenever the parent is working or an assumed exposure of 245 days/year) the estimated risk would be 4.8 x 10-6. The estimated noncancer hazard index for all child populations is less than 0.1 (well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1). Note that these are all conservative estimates as they assumes that a child is present at that location all day, every day of construction and is outdoors during that time. Table 2 (new attached) presents the estimated cancer risks and HIs based on construction and operational emissions. As shown on these two tables, the primary contributor to the estimated health risks in the vicinity of Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center is the construction activity and its emissions of diesel particulate matter. During the operational period, risks associated with emissions from delivery trucks and routine testing of standby emergency generators located at the main SUMC Site are very low at the Hoover Pavilion site. Accordingly, the EIR conclusion of a less-than-significant health risk for onsite and offsite receptors is applicable to the Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center. References BAAQMD. 2000. Bay Area Air Quality Management Air Toxic Risk Evaluation Procedure (REP) and Risk Management Policy (RMP). February. BAAQMD. 2005a. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Staff Report. Toxic Evaluation Section. June. BAAQMD. 2005b. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HRSA) Guidelines. June. Mr. Rod Jeung 6 June 30, 2011 Cal/EPA. 2000. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part IV Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. September. Cal/EPA. 2003. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. August. USEPA. 2005. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised). 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, Appendix W. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. November. Attachments List of Tables included from HHRA 2.1 Existing and Proposed Buildings by Facility - Stanford University Medical Center 3.1 Estimated Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions – Construction Activities 4.1a Exposure Parameters – Construction Activities 4.1b Exposure Parameters – Operational Emissions - Emergency Generators 4.1c Exposure Parameters - Operational Emissions - Truck Emissions Associated with the Existing and Proposed Loading Docks 4.2 Inhalation Toxicity Values for Diesel Particulate Matter New Table 1 Estimated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk and Chronic Noncancer Hazard Indices at the Arboretum Daycare Center List of Figures included from HHRA 1.1 Project Location Map 2.1 Existing Project Layout 2.2 Proposed Project Layout 2.3 Emergency Generator Locations – Existing and Proposed 2.4 Loading Dock Locations – Existing and Proposed 2.5 Helipad Locations – Existing and Proposed 3.3 Windrose for Construction Activity 3.4 Windrose for Emergency Generator Testing 3.5 Windrose for Loading Dock Truck Delivery 3.6 Receptor Grid – Overview 3.11a - 3.11 b Location of Modeled Construction Sources (2009 Building Name Map Reference Building Name Map Reference Hoover Pavilion Figure 2.1 (37)Hoover Pavilion Hoover Medical Office Building Figure 2.2 (11) AMC (Cancer Center)Figure 2.1 (11)AMC (Cancer Center) Blake-Wilbur Figure 2.1 (12)Blake-Wilbur Falk Figure 2.1 (32)Falk HMP Figure 2.1 (31)HMP D, E, F Pods Figure 2.1 (38)D, E, F Pods Original Hospital Figure 2.1 (31) Core, East, West, Boswell Figure 2.1 (29) Core Expansion Figure 2.1 (30) SHC Replacement Hospital Facility Figure 2.2 (1) SHC Clinic/Office Buildings Figure 2.2 (2) 703 Welch Figure 2.1 (34) 701 Welch Figure 2.1 (35) 730 Welch Figure 2.1 (1)730 Welch Original LPCH Figure 2.1 (33)Original LPCH LPCH Hospital Expansion/Clinic Figure 2.2 (5) LPCH Clinic Figure 2.2 (6) PSRL Figure 2.1 (21)PSRL Grant Figure 2.1 (29) Edwards Figure 2.1 (39) Lane Figure 2.1 (40) Alway Figure 2.1 (41) FIM 1 Figure 2.2 (8) FIM 2 Figure 2.2 (9) FIM 3 Figure 2.2 (10) Clark Figure 2.1 (27)Clark Fairchild Figure 2.1 (26)Fairchild LKC (under construction)2 Figure 2.1 (25)LKC Beckman Figure 2.1 (23) Beckman CCSR Figure 2.1 (22) CCSR Lucas Figure 2.1 (16) Lucas Redwood Figure 2.1 (20) Redwood Hoover LPCH SHC SoM Off-Project SoM On-Project Table 2.1: Existing and Proposed Buildings by Facility - Stanford University Medical Center1 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project Palo Alto, California Post-ProjectFacilityPre-Project Notes: 1. Information was summarized from the Project Description (dated 06/17/2009) and the data request response from Stanford University on 09/16/2008. 2. Learning and Knowledge Center (LKC) is currently under construction at the site of the former Fairchild Auditorium between Beckman and Fairchild. Footprint is shown on Figure 4-4 of the Project Design. Abbreviations: AMC: Advanced Medicine Center CCSR: Center for Clinical Sciences Research FIM: Foundations in Medicine HMP: Hospital Modernization Project LKC: Learning and Knowledge Center LPCH: Lucile Packard Children's Hospital PSRL: Children's Surgical Research Lab SHC: Stanford Hospital and Clinics SoM: School of Medicine Source: Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project - Project Design Text: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8801 Figures: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8802 ENVIRON Annualized Construction DPM Emissions (lb/year) Construction Phases Year 2010 Year 2011 Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2016 Year 2017 Year 2018 Year 2019 Year 2020 Year 2021 LPCH PARKING LPCH EXPANSION SHC PARKING PARKING STRUCTURE 3 DEMO SHC REPLACEMENT HOSPITAL CORE EXPANSION/DEMO SHC CLINICS PARKING SHC CLINICS FIM #1 EDWARDS DEMO FIM #2 LANE ALWAY DEMO FIM #3 GRANT DEMO HOOVER PAVILLION PARKING HOOVER PAVILLION MOB TOTAL PM EMISSIONS Notes: 1. The project time frame and the year-by-year annual DPM emissions from building construction were summarized from the emissions calculation provided by PBS&J on August 20, 2009. Abbreviations: DEMO: demolition DPM: Diesel Particulate Matter FIM: (School of Medicine) Foundations In Medicine Buildings (FIM 1, 2, and 3) lbs: pounds LPCH: Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Hospital Expansion and Clinic MOB: Medical Office Building PBS&J: Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jenigan SHC: Stanford Hospital and Clinics Replacement Hospital Facility and Clinic/Office Building SUMC: Standford University Medical Center Table 3.1: Estimated Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions - Construction Activities1 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project Palo Alto, California 313 161 161 161 334 167 32 136 136 136 136 21 21 21 54 54 54 48 48 52 52 6 17 96 96 32 176 176 171 342 233 25 50 1018 927 54 4817 75 127 127329 298 233 ENVIRON Exposure Parameter Units Adult Resident & Senior Center1 Child Resident Worker School Child1 Daily Breathing Rate (DBR) [L/kg-day]302 581 149 581 Fraction of Day Exposed (F)2 --1 1 1 0.42 Exposure Frequency (EF)[days/year]350 350 245 180 Exposure Duration (ED)3 [years]12 9 12 9 Conversion Factor (CF)[m3/L]0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Averaging Time (AT) [days] 25550 25550 25550 25550 Intake Factor, Inhalation (IFinh)4 [m3/kg-day]0.0041 0.0080 0.0014 0.0017 Modeling Adjustment Factor (T) -- 1 1 4.2 5 3.4 6 Table 4.1a: Exposure Parameters - Construction Activities Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project Palo Alto, California Notes: 1. Offsite sensitive receptors identified for evaluation in this HHRA include childcare centers, schools, and retirement facilities/senior centers. Sensitive receptors at childcare centers and schools were evaluated using exposure parameters recommended by BAAQMD (2005) for school children. Exposure parameters recommended by Cal/EPA (2003) for adult residents were used to evaluate receptors at retirement facilities/senior centers. 2. Fraction of the day exposed for the school child was calculated assuming that the child attends school 10 hours per day (BAAQMD 2005). 3. The exposure duration for adult residents, workers and sensitive receptors at retirement facilities/senior centers corresponds to the planned construction period of 12 years. The exposure duration for a child resident and school child is 9 years per BAAQMD guidance (2005). 4. IFinh = DBR x F x EF x ED x CF / AT 5. Consistent with Cal/EPA (2003) guidance, and adjustment factor is applied to evaluate the worker. The adjustment factor converts the annual average concentration (estimated assuming exposure occurs 24 hours per day for 7 days per week) to a concentration a worker may breath during an 8 hour work day assuming the worker is present at the same time as the construction activity (that is, concurrent with the DPM emissions). The adjustment factor for a worker is 4.2 (equal to [24 hours/8 hours]*[7 days/5 days]). 6. Consistent with Cal/EPA (2003) guidance, an adjustment factor is applied to evaluate the school child. The adjustment factor converts the annual average concentration (estimated assuming exposure occurs 24 hours per day for 7 days per week) to a concentration a school child may breath during an 10 hour school day assuming the school child is presented at the same time as the construction activity (that is, concurrent with the DPM emissions). The adjustment factor for a school child is 3.4 (equal to [24 hours/10 hours]*[7 days/5 days]). Abbreviations: BAAQMD: Bay Area Air Quality Management District Cal/EPA: California Environmental Protection Agency DPM: Diesel Particulate Matter HHRA: Human Health Risk Assessment kg: kilogram L: liter m3: cubic meter Sources: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2005. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HRSA) Guidelines. June. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2003. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. August. ENVIRON Exposure Parameter Units Adult Resident & Senior Center1 Child Resident Worker School Child1 Daily Breathing Rate (DBR) [L/kg-day]302 581 149 581 Fraction of Day Exposed (F)2 --1 1 1 0.42 Exposure Frequency (EF)[days/year]350 350 245 180 Exposure Duration (ED)[years]70 9 40 9 Conversion Factor (CF)[m3/L]0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Averaging Time (AT)[days]25550 25550 25550 25550 Intake Factor, Inhalation (IFinh)3 [m3/kg-day]0.29 0.072 0.24 0.052 Modeling Adjustment Factor (T)--1 1 4.2 4 3.4 5 Table 4.1b: Exposure Parameters - Operational Emissions Emergency Generators Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project Palo Alto, California Notes: 1. Offsite sensitive receptors identified for evaluation in this HHRA include childcare centers, schools, and retirement facilities/senior centers. Sensitive receptors at childcare centers and schools were evaluated using exposure parameters recommended by BAAQMD (2005) for school children. Exposure parameters recommended by Cal/EPA (2003) for adult residents were used to evaluate receptors at retirement facilities/senior centers. 2. Fraction of the day exposed for the school child was calculated assuming that the child attends school 10 hours per day (BAAQMD 2005). 3. IFinh = DBR x F x EF x ED x CF / AT 4. Consistent with Cal/EPA (2003) guidance, and adjustment factor is applied to evaluate the worker. The adjustment factor converts the annual average concentration (estimated assuming exposure occurs 24 hours per day for 7 days per week) to a concentration a worker may breath during an 8 hour work day assuming the worker is present at the same time as the emergency generator test (that is, concurrent with the DPM emissions). The adjustment factor for a worker is 4.2 (equal to [24 hours/8 hours]*[7 days/5 days]). 5. Consistent with Cal/EPA (2003) guidance, an adjustment factor is applied to evaluate the school child. The adjustment factor converts the annual average concentration (estimated assuming exposure occurs 24 hours per day for 7 days per week) to a concentration a school child may breath during an 10 hour school day assuming the school child is presented at the same time as the emergency generator test (that is, concurrent with the DPM emissions). The adjustment factor for a school child is 3.4 (equal to [24 hours/10 hours]*[7 days/5 days]). Abbreviations: BAAQMD: Bay Area Air Quality Management District Cal/EPA: California Environmental Protection Agency DPM: Diesel Particulate Matter HHRA: Human Health Risk Assessment kg: kilogram L: liter m3: cubic meter Sources: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2005. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HRSA) Guidelines. June. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2003. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. August. ENVIRON Exposure Parameter Units Adult Resident & Senior Center1 Child Resident Worker School Child1 Daily Breathing Rate (DBR)[L/kg-day]302 581 149 581 Fraction of Day Exposed (F)2 --1 1 1 0.42 Exposure Frequency (EF)[days/year]350 350 245 180 Exposure Duration (ED)[years]70 9 40 9 Conversion Factor (CF)[m3/L]0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Averaging Time (AT)[days]25550 25550 25550 25550 Intake Factor, Inhalation (IFinh)3 [m3/kg-day]0.29 0.072 0.057 0.015 Modeling Adjustment Factor (T)4 --1 111 Notes: Adult and worker: IFinh = (Breathing Rate*Exposure Frequency*Exposure Duration*CF)/(Averaging time) School Child: IFinh = (Breathing Rate*[Exposure Time/24 hours]*Exposure Frequency*Exposure Duration*CF)/(Averaging time) Source: Acronyms OEHHA = Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment "Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparations of Health Risk Assessments," OEHHA, August 2003. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2005 June. Staff Report, Appendix D Proposed BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program HRSA Guidelines, Section 2.1 Table 4.1c: Exposure Parameters - Operational Emissions Truck Emissions Associated with the Existing and Proposed Loading Docks Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project Palo Alto, California Notes: 1. Offsite sensitive receptors identified for evaluation in this HHRA include childcare centers, schools, and retirement facilities/senior centers. Sensitive receptors at childcare centers and schools were evaluated using exposure parameters recommended by BAAQMD (2005) for school children. Exposure parameters recommended by Cal/EPA (2003) for adult residents were used to evaluate receptors at retirement facilities/senior centers. 2. Fraction of the day exposed for the school child was calculated assuming that the child attends school 10 hours per day (BAAQMD 2005). 3. IFinh = DBR x F x EF x ED x CF / AT 4. Modling adjustment not necessary, as emission sources are in operation 24 hours per day. Abbreviations: BAAQMD: Bay Area Air Quality Management District Cal/EPA: California Environmental Protection Agency HHRA: Human Health Risk Assessment kg: kilogram L: liter m3: cubic meter Sources: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2005. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HRSA) Guidelines. June. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2003. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. August. ENVIRON Chemical CPF [(mg/kg-day)-1] Chronic REL (ug/m3) Diesel PM 1.1 5 Notes: CPF = Cancer potency factor PM = Particulate matter (mg/kg-day)-1 = per milligram per kilogram-day REL = Reference exposure level ug/m3 = microgram per cubic meter References: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. April 9. Table 4.2: Inhalation Toxicity Values for Diesel Particulate Matter Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Palo Alto, California Abbreviations: CPF: Cancer Potency Factor PM: Particulate Matter (mg/kg-day)-1: per milligram per kilogram-day REL: Reference Exposure Level ug/m3: microgram per cubic meter Source: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) / Air Resource Board (ARB). 2008. Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values. June 25. ENVIRON Cancer Risk Chronic HI2 (in one million)(-) Adult Resident 2.6 Child Resident 4.9 Worker 3.7 School Child 3.6 Daycare Child 4.8 0.07 Table 1: Estimated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk and Chronic Noncancer Hazard Indices from Construction at Stanford Arboretum Children's Center1 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Palo Alto, California Population Notes: 1. This table presents the estimated excess lifetime cancer risks and chronic noncancer HI associated with offsite receptor exposure to diesel exhaust emissions from the construction related to the SUMC Project and assumes the receptor is outdoors for entire construction period. 2. The chronic HI is based on a diesel particulate matter (DPM) concentration of 0.37 ug/m3, which represents the maximum annual concentration from construction activity as predicted at the SACC. Note: the DPM concentration varies by year based on level of construction activity. Abbreviations: DPM: Diesel Particulate Matter HI: Hazard Index m: meter PM: Particulate Matter SACC: Stanford Arboretum Children's Center ENVIRON Cancer Risk Chronic HI2 (in one million)(-) Adult Resident 3.0 Child Resident 5.0 Worker 4.0 School Child 3.6 Daycare Child 4.9 Table 2: Estimated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk and Chronic Noncancer Hazard Indices from Construction and Operation at Stanford Arboretum Children's Center1 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Palo Alto, California Population 0.07 Notes: 1. This table presents the estimated excess lifetime cancer risks and chronic noncancer HI associated with offsite receptor exposure to diesel exhaust emissions from the construction and operational activities related to the SUMC Project and assumes the receptor is outdoors for all exposure. 2. The chronic HI is based on a diesel particulate matter (DPM) concentration of 0.37 ug/m3, which represents the maximum annual concentration from construction activity as predicted at the SACC. Note: the DPM concentration varies by year based on level of construction activity. Abbreviations: DPM: Diesel Particulate Matter HI: Hazard Index m: meter PM: Particulate Matter SACC: Stanford Arboretum Children's Center ENVIRON Drafter:Date: 10/01/2009 Contract Number: Figure 6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608 Project Location MapStanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 1.1 µ 0 250 500 750 1,000125 Meters KZ 0320376A Legend Stanford University Medical Center Palo AltoPalo Alto Los AltosLos Altos Menlo ParkMenlo ParkRedwood CityRedwood City Mountain ViewMountain View StanfordStanford East Palo AltoEast Palo Alto FremontFremont North Fair OaksNorth Fair Oaks San CarlosSan Carlos §¨¦280 £¤101 UV84 UV84 UV84 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,0001,250 Meters Drafter:Date: 10/01/2009 Contract Number: Figure 6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608 Existing Project LayoutStanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 2.1 KZ 0320376A 38 39 40 41 4243 38 D, E, F Pods 39 Edwards 40 Lane 41 Alway 42 Barn 43 Child Care Center Source: Adapted from Figure 1-1 SUMC Buildings & Location, Stanford Medical Center Application - Part 1 Entitlements, 04/18/2008. Drafter:Date: 10/01/2009 Contract Number: Figure 6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608 Proposed Project Layout Stanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 2.2 KZ 0320376A Source: Adapted from Figure 3-5b Project Replacement Buildings/Structures, Stanford University Medical Center Project - Part 3 Project Description (Rev. 05/2009) Drafter:Date: Contract Number: Figure 6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608 #* #* #* #* #* #* #* SHC LPCH FIM3FIM1 FIM2 EGD 814 EGD 817 Emergency Generator LocationsExisting and ProposedStanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 2.3 µ 0 50 100 150 20025 Meters KZ 0320376A #*Emergency Generators for Removal #*Proposed New Emergency Generators Stanford University Medical Center 10/01/2009 Drafter:Date: 10/01/2009 Contract Number: Figure 6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608 Existing Shared Loading Dock Proposed LPCH Loading Dock Proposed SHC Technology Loading Dock Loading Dock Locations - Existing and ProposedStanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 2.4 KZ 0320376A Source: Adapted from Figure 4-1 SUMC Proposed Site Access Plan Stanford Medical Center Application Part 4 - Project Design (rev. 06/2009) Drafter:Date: 10/01/2009 Contract Number: Figure 6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608 Helipad Locations - Existing and ProposedStanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 2.5 KZ 0320376A Source: Adapted from Figure 5-2a Helipad Location - Existing and Proposed, Stanford Medical Center Application Part 5 Demographics and Operations, 05/2009. WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: Windrose for Construction Activity Stanford University Medical Center Palo Alto, California COMMENTS: Figure 3.3 COMPANY NAME: MODELER: DATE: 10/10/2008 PROJECT NO.: 0320376A NORTH SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20% WIND SPEED (Knots) >= 22 17 - 21 11 - 17 7 - 11 4 - 7 1 - 4 Calms: 0.00% TOTAL COUNT: 3285 hrs. CALM WINDS: 0.00% DATA PERIOD: 2005 Jan 1 - Dec 31 09:00 - 17:00 AVG. WIND SPEED: 4.10 Knots DISPLAY: Wind Speed Direction (blowing from) WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: Windrose for Emergency Generator Testing Stanford University Medical Center Palo Alto, California COMMENTS: Figure 3.4 COMPANY NAME: MODELER: DATE: 10/10/2008 PROJECT NO.: 0320376A NORTH SOUTH WEST EAST 8% 16% 24% 32% 40% WIND SPEED (Knots) >= 22 17 - 21 11 - 17 7 - 11 4 - 7 1 - 4 Calms: 0.00% TOTAL COUNT: 730 hrs. CALM WINDS: 0.00% DATA PERIOD: 2005 Jan 1 - Dec 31 06:00 - 07:00 AVG. WIND SPEED: 2.29 Knots DISPLAY: Wind Speed Direction (blowing from) WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: Windrose for Loading Dock Truck Delivery Stanford University Medical Center Palo Alto, California COMMENTS: Figure 3.5 COMPANY NAME: MODELER: DATE: 1/29/2009 PROJECT NO.: 0320376A NORTH SOUTH WEST EAST 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% WIND SPEED (Knots) >= 22 17 - 21 11 - 17 7 - 11 4 - 7 1 - 4 Calms: 0.00% TOTAL COUNT: 8760 hrs. CALM WINDS: 0.00% DATA PERIOD: 2005 Jan 1 - Dec 31 00:00 - 23:00 AVG. WIND SPEED: 3.10 Knots DISPLAY: Wind Speed Direction (blowing from) Drafter:Date: 10/01/2009 Contract Number: Figure 6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608 Receptor Grid - OverviewStanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 3.6 µ 0 250 500 750 1,000125 Meters KZ 0320376A Overview of Receptor Grid Modeled Receptors Stanford University Medical Center DRAFT 0 3,100 6,2001,550 Meters Drafter:Date: Contract Number:Approved:Revised: Figure 6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608 FIM #1 SHC Parking Structure LPCH Parking Structure Hoover Pavillion Parking Hoover Pavillion MOB Location of Modeled Construction Sources in 2010Stanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 3.11a µ 0 100 200 300 40050 Meters SP 0320791A Legend Construction Source Stanford University Medical Center Drafter:Date: Contract Number:Approved:Revised: Figure 6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608 FIM #1 SHC Parking Structure LPCH Expansion-Hospital and Clinic Hoover Pavillion Parking Demolition of Existing Parking Structure 3 Hoover Pavillion MOB Location of Modeled Construction Sources in 2011Stanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 3.11b µ 0 100 200 300 40050 Meters SP 0320791A Legend Construction Source Stanford University Medical Center :> I ANtUKLI UNIVt.K:>11 Y Mt.I.JII,;AL I,;t.N I tK PROJECT: renew July 7. 2011 Attachment E We're nere wnen you neeD us most. Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford STANFORI) SCHOOL OF MED Dear Stanford Arboretum Children's Center Parents, During the last several weeks, representatives from the Stanford University Medical Center Renewal Project have met with parent-nominated delegates from the Stanford Arboretum Children's Center (SACC) to discuss construction related~work planned for the Hoover Pavilion site. The SACC parents have communicated a wide range of concerns regarding the potential for construction activities to disrupt the SACC programs and we understand that the resulting discussions have been cooperative and productive. Based upon careful consideration of the SACC parents' requests, the Stanford University Medical Center Renewal Project team has developed the attached statement describing a detailed set of plans to temporarily relocate the SACC prior to construction of the Hoover Pavilion parking structure, perform work to renovate the Hoover Pavilion in a manner that will be protective of the children at the SACC, and continue to work with the SACC staff and parents to address concerns as they arise. Stanford University, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital support and are committed to the actions described in the attached statement. While temporary relocation of the SACC will be a significant expense, and postponement of the Hoover Pavilion parking structure will present substantial construction logistics challenges, we are willing to take these steps on behalf of our employees, their children and the staff at the SACCo Although we fully expect that the SACC relocation plan will be approved, if for some unforeseen reasons it cannot be carried out, the SACC will have to be closed. Should this transpire, we will not close the SACC before September 1,2012 and will delay construction on the parking structure until that time. In that unlikely event, we will do our best to help parents find alternate accommodations for their children. While we are delaying the parking structure construction, please be aware that it is imperative that the renovation and remodeling of the historic Hoover Pavilion building proceed as planned. Completion of the Hoover Pavilion renovation is on the critical path for replacement of Stanford Hospital and, therefore, is necessary for timely compliance with mandatory State of California seismic requirements. As described in detail in the attached statement, the Renewal Project team will take the necessary steps to prevent disruption to the SACC prior to its relocation. However, our ability to keep the SACC open during this first phase of construction depends upon there being no obstacles to proceeding with the Hoover Pavilion renovations. For that, we need your understanding and cooperation. The Renewal Project team, as well as other University representatives, will continue to meet regularly with SACC staff and parents to address your concerns and to provide updates regarding project construction and the timing for relocation of the SACCo We appreciate the collaborative dialog with you that led to a set of procedures and steps that will enable us to move forward. Sincerely, Christopher G. Dawes President and CEO Packard Children's Hospital cc John Etchemendy Provost Stanford University James Keene, Palo Alto City Manager Amir Dan Rubin President and CEO Stanford Hospital & Clinics STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEOICAL CENTER PROJ EeT: renew ~ Yl!Je're liiere wl'lem MOU meeo us most. Lucile Packard Children's Hospita[ at Stanford STANFORD SCHOOL. OF MEfHCINE Stanford has identified a campus site to temporarily relocate the Stanford Arboretum Children's Center (SACC) on Stanford land adjacent to Stock Farm Road, between Oak Road and Campus Drive West. Stanford is determining the location of necessary utilities and other infrastructure in order to design the facility and will then seek the necessary Santa Clara County permits to construct it. Application will be made to the State of California for child care licensing. Upon approval by Santa Clara County, completion of construction, and the receipt of state licensing, the SACC will be relocated to the Stock Farm Site. The SUMC Renewal Project team hopes to complete the relocation process within six months, but recognizes that the time line for receipt of County permits and State licensing is not entirely within our control. Although we fully expect that the SACC relocation plan will be approved, if for some unforeseen reasons it cannot be carried out, the SACC will have to be closed. Should this transpire, we will not close the SACC before September 1, 2012 and will delay construction on the parking structure until that time. In that unlikely event, we will do our best to help parents find alternate accommodations for their children. Until the SACC has been relocated, the SUMC Renewal Project team will refrain from commencing excavation for the Hoover Pavilion parking structure. Only a limited amount of work connected with the parking structure on the Hoover Pavilion site will occur prior to relocation of the SACCo Soil test borings may be performed, but such borings will occur only at times when children are not present at the SACCo In addition, in order to avoid tree removal during the nesting season, trees to be relocated will be boxed and other trees may be removed. While we are delaying construction of the parking structure, it is imperative that the SUMC Renewal Project team immediately proceed with renovation and remodeling of the historic Hoover Pavilion building. Completion of the Hoover Pavilion renovation is on the critical path for replacement of Stanford Hospital in order to timely comply with mandatory State of California seismic requirements for hospitals. In order to construct the new Stanford Hospital, the medical office buildings housing community physicians at 1101 Welch Road must be demolished. Several of the practitioners at 110 1 Welch Road first must be relocated to the renovated Hoover Pavilion. Accordingly, completion of the Hoover Pavilion renovations is a precursor to construction of the new Stanford Hospital. Prior to relocation of the SACC, utilities work necessary for the Hoover Pavilion may occur on the portion of the site nearest to Quarry Road and around the building perimeter. This utility- related work will also require some tree removal. With the exception of two brief periods for crane lifts, renovation of the historic Hoover Pavilion building will be performed using electrically-powered hand-held equipment in an area of the site 1 that is not directly adjacent to the SACCo The specific work planned at the Hoover Pavilion building is as follows: • Baseline air quality monitoring within the Hoover Pavilion building will be conducted. • The Hoover Pavilion will be sealed, and interior containment systems will be installed throughout the building. Pursuant to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requirements for prevention of exposure to asbestos and other hazardous materials, negative air pressure will be created within the building. • The construction contractors will perform interior demolition and hazardous materials abatement beginning no earlier than August 8, 2011. Throughout this work, any asbestos and lead paint will be handled as required by BAAQMD and other applicable regulatory agencies in order to prevent exposure. • To reduce truck traffic near the SACC, off haul of debris from interior building demolition will occur on the Quarry Road and/or Palo Road sides of the Hoover Pavilion building. • Upon completion of hazardous materials abatement and interior demolition, air quality clearance testing will be performed and then the containment system will be removed. • The exterior south stairway will be demolished and replaced. • For approximately two days, a crane will be used to remove mechanical equipment from the Hoover Pavilion rooftop. • The bridge between the Hoover Pavilion and the Nurses' Cottage will be removed. • The construction contractor will erect scaffolding on all sides of the existing Hoover Pavilion building. • The construction contractor will wrap the exterior of the Hoover Pavilion building with a mesh net. In addition to protecting the historically significant building, the mesh net will prevent construction debris from falling outside the active construction area and it will conceal construction activities within the building enclosure. • Windows on the Hoover Pavilion will be removed and then taken offsite to be repaired to match the historical condition. • The Hoover Pavilion clay tile roof and other portions of the roof will be replaced. • For approximately two days, a crane will be used to install new rooftop mechanical equipment. • New mechanical systems, including HVAC and elevators, and interior tenant improvements and furnishings will be installed throughout the Hoover Pavilion bUilding. • A glass wall will be installed in an area on the Palo Road side of the Hoover Pavilion. • The Hoover Pavilion building will be re-painted and other exterior work will take place, including work on awnings and restoration of design features. • A new finial will be installed on top of the Hoover Pavilion tower. • Work will be performed at the building entrances to provide access required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In performing construction work at the Hoover Pavilion site, the Renewal Project team will comply with all of the dust, construction air quality and construction noise mitigation measures required by the City of Palo Alto in the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted as part of the conditional use permit. With implementation of the measures required in the MMRP along with the protective measures outlined above, the Renewal Project team does not anticipate disruption to the SACCo Nevertheless, the following additional steps will be taken during the construction period: 2 • Representatives from the Renewal Project team will continue to meet with SACC staff and parents to review the status of permitting and cons.truction work to complete the temporary relocation facility, to address concerns regarding construction work at the Hoover Pavilion site prior to relocation of the SACC, and to address concerns regarding air quality and noise effects from the adjacent parking structure upon return to the Arboretum site. • The project manager and/or the construction manager for the Hoover Pavilion project component will meet with SACC staff and parents to review the overall construction schedule and provide regular briefings on upcoming construction work at the Hoover Pavilion site. In addition, the project manager and construction manager for the Hoover Pavilion project component will be available on site to respond to questions and concerns as they arise. • The project team will take baseline noise measurements prior to commencement of construction activities on the Hoover Pavilion site. Periodic noise monitoring will then occur during construction, in locations and at intervals determined in cooperation with the SACC staff and parents, and the results of the noise monitoring will be shared. Based on the results of noise monitoring and feedback from SACC staff, the project team will work cooperatively with the SACC to minimize disruption to the center. • The Renewal Project team will provide data to the SACC regarding air pollutant emissions and noise levels from full operation of the Hoover Pavilion parking structure. After the Hoover Pavilion parking structure has been constructed and the SACC Forest Room relocated, the SACC will be returned to the Arboretum site. 3 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1907) City Council Staff Report Report Type:Meeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 1907) Summary Title: Draft Letter of Interest for Foothill DeAnza Title: Council Consideration of Draft Letter of Interest to Foothill DeAnza Community College Including Options to Sell or Long-term Lease the City owned 8 acres at Cubberley Community Center and a Request to Palo Alto Unified School District for Support and Possible Collaboration with Foothill College From:City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council consider the issues discussed in this report as factors that may inform a letter to be drafted responding to Foothill De Anza Community College District’s Request for Offers (RFO) to expand its Educational Center on the 8 acres owned by the City. The Council may wish to discuss the recommendation the PAUSD Board approved at its June 28, 2011 meeting as part of the deliberations on its response to Foothill. Executive Summary The City Council, at its June 27, 2011 meeting, directed staff to draft language for Council consideration responding to Foothill De Anza Community College District’s (Foothill College) desire to purchase the City’s 8 acres to expand its Education Center (motion attachment A). Council’s action requested that a response identify both sale and lease as options to convey the property. Council’s motion also included a request to Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) for their support of, and collaboration with, Foothill’s expansion at Cubberley. This report identifies key issues for Council to consider in providing further direction to staff in responding to Foothill College. Given the School Board’s action and the variety of factors and policy decisions the Council will need to make, staff decided it was premature to produce an actual draft letter for this meeting. PAUSD Board of Trustees, at its June 28, 2011 meeting enacted the following motion: “We (PAUSD Board of Trustees) believe that the future of Palo Alto residents and PAUSD trustees will need the 35 acre contiguous Cubberley site to provide high quality and comparable K-12 educational services to all students in all neighborhoods. We also believe that working together with the City of Palo Alto to define and address our joint July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 1907) Cubberley interests will produce effective and mutually beneficial decisions for the residents we serve.” The City Manager has been informed by the Foothill De Anza Chancellor that the Board remains interested in a potential response from the City of Palo Alto. In staff-to-staff conversations between Foothill and the City, it is clear that while Foothill remains interested in Cubberley as potential location for the Education Center, they also value the relationships they have with the City, PAUSD and the community at large, including the non-profits and other cultural/artistic groups located at Cubberley. Background Foothill College directly leases from the City 18,493 square feet on the 8 acres owned by the City and sub-leases 21,179 square feet on the 27 acres owned by PAUSD leased to the City for a 40,000 square foot presence at Cubberley. Foothill College intends on building its Education Center in phases, the first being 40-60,000 square feet with the possibility of an ultimate build out of 100,000 square feet. Foothill College desires 700 parking spaces for the initial phase and 1,200 spaces at ultimate build out. Cubberley presently has 750 total parking spaces (620 on PAUSD land and 130 on City land). While staff believes that an additional 20% surface parking can be gained through a more efficient parking layout and building additional parking in landscape reserved areas adjacent to Middlefield Road, structured parking would be required to fulfill Foothill’s stated parking requirement for the full build out of 100,000. In addition to the 35 Cubberely acres, contiguous properties could add up to an additional 7.6 acres. The former Greendell School site, not part of the City’s Cubberley area, is 5 acres leased by PAUSD to a private day care school. Adjacent to Greendell is the former Peninsula Day Care Center at 2.6 acres and is currently proposed for residential development. The City-School Liaison Committee: Councilmembers Shepherd and Yeh; and Boardmembers Tom and Klausner have also identified Cubberley as a significant agenda topic for their consideration this year. The Council will recall a colleagues memo (Attachment B) was presented by Councilmembers Shepherd and Yeh in March of this year which identified Cubberley as a major issue to be addressed by the City-School Committee this year. Discussion Staff has identified the following factors for further Council consideration of its response to Foothill College: 1. Timing—Should the City request additional time to respond to Foothill College? Issues: Because Foothill College’s interest in other sites, such as the Onizuka AFB site July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 1907) in Sunnyvale, and a desire to fulfill its commitments made in the passage of its Bond Measure C in 2006, Foothill College has clearly indicated its desire to complete its site selection by late summer this year. Should the City have an additional 3 to 6 months to analyze site planning and parking constraints, a response letter could suggest an approach that could address the various Cubberley interests. If additional time were provided, the City could engage the appropriate land planning expertise to better understand the site constraints and building potential to accommodate as many of the interests as possible. Moreover, the additional time would give the City, Foothill and PAUSD the opportunty to collaborate, clearly the desired outcome of both the City’s and PAUSD’s recent Cubberley actions. 2. Should the City sell or lease its 8 acres to Foothill College? Issues: Leasing the site, even on a long term basis (25 to 50 years) offers the most future flexibility to the City. Palo Alto is a built out community and publically owned land is a critical factor in delivering the services and amenities prized by our community. Foothill College’s interest may lean towards ownership, primarily, as staff understands, to enable the bond measure to fund the purchase of the 8 acres. Lease payments must come from operating funds, not their bond measure. Cash flow challenges affect all of us and Stated cutbacks have placed and extra burden on education. A new Education Center in any location, also allows Foothill to reduce or eliminate the lease payments of nearly $1M they make now to the City. 3. Should the City’s response letter suggest Foothill College utilize less than the 8 acres for its Education Center? Issues: Foothill College is requesting 8 acres to initially house a 60,000 square foot facility (Phase 1), possibility growing to 100,000 square feet over time (Phase 2). Phase 1 would result in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 17% on 8 acres. Palo Alto’s lowest commercial non-residential FAR is 405 in most cases. Should the City offer less than 8 acres, say 4 acres, to Foothill for Phase 1 only, retaining 4 acres, for example, for continuing community uses? Or does an extension of Foothill’s site selection process enable staff to understand more clearly the assumptions behind such a low builiding-to- site ratio as well to explore the possibility of utilizing less land area to achieve the same quality educational facility. 4. What is the effect of prior City and PAUSD Agreements? Issues: The Purchase Agreement the City entered into with PAUSD contains a provision allowing the District to purchase the site at fair market value prior to a sale to a third party. One issue, for example, is whether a response letter triggers this provision. As previously discussed, a response letter is not a binding letter that would trigger this provision. A related second issue is whether an offer of a long term lease triggers PAUSD’s purchase option. Since the Purchase Agreement provision is limited to July 11, 2011 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 1907) a “[sale] of fee interest” which is legally distinct form a “long term lease”, a long term lease would not technically trigger PAUSD purchase option. 5. What impact does additional land in the Cubberley area have on accommodating the variety of interests? Issues: Two key properties are adjacent to and might be explored for inclusion into the Cubberley campus. The former Greendell School is a 5 acre parcel PAUSD leases to a private school and is not a part of the City’s leased portion of the campus but is subject to the related Covenant Not to Develop. This covenant prevents PAUSD from converting certain District-owned property to non-school uses. Adjacent to Greendell is the former Peninsula Child Care facility at 2.6 acres which closed earlier this year and is proposed for private residential development. The developer, Summerhill Homes, has filed a subdivision map for 10 single family homes which conforms to the existing zoning. The subdivision application would ultimately require Council approval but since the proposal complies with existing zoning, there would be very limited Council discretion in its review of the proposal. While the property is privately owned and the City has no ownership or lease control over it, should one or both of these properties be explored as part of a greater Cubberley campus? 6. Should the City suggest to Foothill College that less parking may be necessary to accommodate the Education Center? Issues: Foothill states it needs 700 parking spaces for Phase 1 of the Education Center which is proposed to be 60,000 square feet. Currently Foothill occupies 40,000 square feet and shares 130 parking spaces on the City’s 8 acres and 620 spaces on the PAUSD portion with the numerous tenants and service providers. While parking at Cubberley can reach capacity at peak times, generally the site is considered adequately parked. Since the Phase 1 development proposed by Foothill would result in a net increase of 20,000 square feet, staff would question the need for as much parking as Foothill has stated it needs. 7. Could a more analytical and specific approach to the future site planning at Cubberley by all parties result in a plan to accommodate the non-profit and community uses on the Cubberley campus. Issues: Cubberley has long provided community focused uses for south Palo Alto and the City as a whole. Our community has enjoyed access to numerous rich cultural and social services because of their location at Cubberley. A closer and more analytical approach to the site planning and ultimate space need of all the stakeholders may offer a better sense of the space available to accommodate as many of the users as possible. Conclusion If the City proceeds with a letter to Foothill, the City Council has the discretion to July 11, 2011 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 1907) structure that letter in any way it chooses. The issues identified above are meant to inform how a letter might be composed. Additionally, the City and School District will need to decide how to meaningfully discuss plans for Cubberley for the future, whether the City submits a letter or not. The Council knows that the City will need to decide before December 2013 if it is to exercise its option to continue leasing of Cubberley. The City has been committed to such conversations reaching back to the tripartite meeting hosted by the City a year ago and reflected in the Colleagues memo discussed at Council in March 2011. Attachments: ·Attachment A: Motion from Council Meeting June 27, 2011 (PDF) ·Attachment B: Colleague's Memo from Vice Mayor Yeh and Council Member Shepherd (PDF) ·Attachment C: Letters from the Public -Cubberley (PDF) ·Attachment C: Cubberley Map (PDF) Prepared By:Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager Department Head:James Keene, City Manager City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager Attachment A lTIiM No. Direction on Submission of Letter of Interest to Foothill College Regarding new Education Center at Cubberley Community Center MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: 1) continue this discussion until July 11th, 2) direct Staff to return with a report that outlines alternative advantageous uses of the 8 acre site, 3) have Staff provide ideas where nonprofits, artists, and services could relocate, if necessary, and 4) request the Palo Alto Unified School District Board provide the City with ideas how they can purchase or share the financial burden of Cubberley Community Center. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to direct Staff to prepare a Letter of Interest (Letter) for Council's consideration to be brought back on July 11, 2011. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to include in the Letter options to either sell the property or for a long term lease. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to request Palo Alto Unified School District begin an open process of examining their support and possible collaboration of partnership opportunities with Foothill College. SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-3 Burt, Holman, Schmid no CITY OF PALO ALTO COLLEAGUE'S MEMORANDUM DATE: February 28, 2011 City Council Members TO: FROM: Vice Mayor Yeh and Council Member Shepherd SUBJECT: Request that the City Council review and comment on suggested items for the City/Schools Committee agenda for calendar year 2011 RECOMMENDATION We ask our Council Colleagues to 1) review the suggested list of agenda topics for the City/Schools Committee and 2) make comments and lor suggest additional items to be considered by the committee. BACKGROUND Many important issues are facing the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District. Opportunities to dialogue and identify potential solutions exist through the City/Schools Committee. To ensure a thoughtful set of agenda items are taken up by the committee this year, we are seeking input from Council colleagues on the issues that are of the highest priority that would fit under the committee's purview. This discussion will inform and help formulate a robust set of agendas to share with colleagues from the School District. Currently, City/School Committee meeting agendas are established on an ad hoc baSis. While appropriate for being responsive to issues, this memo intends to establish a process that is pro-active in identifying areas to focus efforts, coordinate resources, and enhance or improve collaboration between the two government entities that most directly serve the Palo Alto community. PROPOSAL Currently suggested topics include the following: 1. Public Facility inventory. As the committee responds to demographic and growth projections by PAUSD, the City should understand the School District's interest in current Public Facility-zoned sites to address capacity needs for its long-term strategy. Agenda items already include identifying and taking stock of all zoned PF sites owned by both the City or District and adjacent properties to existing PF properties/sites for purposes of future expansion and a presentation by City staff regarding current PF sites. Land Use & Planning, Community Collaborative for youth Health and Well-being 2. Cubberley. Ongoing dialogue on the issue of future site plans for the Cubberley site and potential for maximizing multiple community needs and opportunities: education( K-12 and Community College and life-long learning), community programs and classes. Understanding that the current covenant expires in 2014 and needs a 12 month notice to change, two areas that would benefit City planning could focus on PAUSD's position on 1) when and if the district will need to reopen Cubberley as an active school site, 2) whether or not this needs to include the 8 acres owned by the City and 3) explore wins for multiple community interests? Land Use & Planning, Community Collaborative for Youth Health and Well-being 3. Budget Items. During budget discussions over the last several fiscal years, the areas where City expenditures benefited School District interests emerged as an important topic to explore further. Included in a preliminary list are programs that reflect ongoing City investments in school and educational programs and services. Potential agenda items include 1) a full cataloguing of these programs, 2) reviewing the shared cost of resource officers and crossing guards, and 3) review of the annual payment to PAUSD. City Finance, Community Collaborative for Youth Health and Well-being 4. Project Safety Net. One of the most recent areas of collaboration between the City and School District. The shared role of the City and PAUSD regarding the degree of responsibility for the social and emotional well being of youth on campus and in the community should be clearly defined and articulated publicly to make PSN meaningful and sustainable. Potential agenda items 1) long-term financial allocation for the PSN program, and 2) formalizing the roles for both the City and the School District to reflect the systemic shifts in both entities' commitment to the program and efforts. Community Collaborative for Youth Health and Well-being 5. Information Technology. The creation of the City's Fiber Optic Fund in FY 2009 provides a potential opportunity for the City to support the School District's interest in securing a long-term affordable option to providing high-speed internet and multimedia access to all campuses. Potential agenda items include 1) how the City might expand its dark fiber network to local school campuses, 2) fiscal analysis to determine the feasibility of any expansion, given current and project market conditions, and 3) exploring precautions and advancements for securing mobile phone connectivity expansion. City Finances (Financial: Economic Development) 6. Energy Efficiencies and Renewal Resources. The existence of the City's Electric Fund and interest in sustainability initiatives by both the City and the School District would benefit from identifying specific opportunities for collaboration. The .City has maintained a state, national and international leadership role in setting aggressive milestones for environmental sustainability. Potential agenda items would include identifying demonstration projects contributing to increased energy efficiency, renewable resource development, educational projects preparing the community's next generations, supporting the students' own innovative initiatives promoting environmental sustainability, and trip reduction management strategies. Environmental Sustainabi/ity 7. Emergency Preparedness. The City has widened its focus on EP over the last few years. The success of our active volunteer task force will depend on participation of the entire community when and if a catastrophic event may happen. At this point in time PAUSD has not officially engaged in the primary points of focus 1) the Citizen's Corps Council (CCC), and 2) drills, best practices and coordination. The success of our City programs relies on the engagement of all community segments. Potential agenda items include 1) an update on District emergency plan, 2) teen CERT training, 3) a PAUSD decision maker appointed to the CCC, and 4) Safe-2-Tell program in conjunction with Project Safety Net. Emergency Preparedness Resource Impact These agenda items and initiatives will have an impact on City staff resources and Council members' available time. The same will be true of the School District. Pending Council direction on helping array agenda topics in some priority, the City Manager has agreed to provide the Committee with a realistic staff resource "budget". Minor, Beth CITY OF PALO ALTO.. CA til Y CLERK'S OFFICE From: Eric Munro [emunr094304@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 10:57 AM II JUL -5 AM 10: 23 To: Council, City; Council, City Subject: Cubberly Center Dear City Council, Please keep the Cubberly Center as a community center and city property. Don't sell it. This center provides a vital service to our communtiy: 1. Encourages a variety of community activities: sports, arts, education, music, ..... 2. Provides a focus point where people meet for these activities. My 2 children have used this center for basketball games when they were young and now use it a members of PACO (Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra). Page 1 of 1 This center greatly helps make Palo Alto a vibrant community and not just a bedroom community. It shouldn't be viewed asa profit center, but rather like a park. It adds to the quality of life here in Palo Alto. It's success can be seen by simply looking at the parking lot. Most of the time it is quite full with cars of residents getting together for some activity. The center doesn't need the $16M+ repairs reported in the newspaper. It is ok to have uneven sidewalks/pathways in the center. However a new paint job would help make the center feel more uplifting without costing much. I moved from Cupertino to Palo Alto many years ago in large part b/c Palo Alto does have a more child friendly community feel to it. Cubberly is a large part of that. Please keep it. Resident, Eric Munro 7/5/2011 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Zohar.pdf (58 KB) Wendy Pica-Furey [biocnslt@earthlink.net] Sunday, July 03, 2011 3:22 PM Council, City Wendy Pica-Furey Zohardance Zohar.pdf Dear City Council, CllY Qf PALS "1:T8, 8A CITY CLERK'S OFFICE II JUL -5 AM 10: 22 Since I am unable to attend the July 11th meeting, I have written a letter in favor of Zohar dance and its continued operation at the Cubberely site. Please refer to the attached enclosure. 1 Dear Palo Alto City Council, My initial dance experience at Zohar began 28 years ago. I had recently graduated from the University of San Francisco School of Nursing and was working as an RN at the V A Medical Center in Palo Alto. After day shift ended at the hospital, I participated in jazz classes instructed by Ehud Krauss. I continued with periodic jazz lessons while attending graduate school. After several years of absence, I have returned to dance. I am currently taking jazz once again from Ehud and group and private ballet lessons from Mamy Trounson. Ehud is a master of his craft and exudes great artistic style. His wonderful wit and sense of humor provide additional entertainment. Mamy is an exceptional instructor who exhibits a gentle manner while demonstrating and teaching ballet technique. Zohar contributes immensely to the community by providing access to the arts for children, teens and adults. Both Daynee and Ehud Krauss show a special interest in their students. Although many years had past, Daynee remembered me. She allowed for private lessons on days other than Sunday, when Mamy's individualized sessions were typically reserved. Ehud welcomed my return and spent time conversing with me. Zohar's outreach program greatly benefits the teen popUlation. Years ago, several teenagers were present in my jazz class. In certain instances, teens would approach me to talk. They knew I was a nurse, as I initially arrived to the studio in my nursing attire. A common topic of conversation included relationships with others. I specifically remember a 13-year old girl who requested to talk with me about the loss of a male friend recently killed in a drive-by shooting on the 101. This heartbreaking conversation made me realize the importance of Zohar's outreach program and the efforts ofDaynee and Ehud to better the lives of teens. Dance at Zohar allows for creative expression, builds confidence, challenges the mind and strengthens and tones the body. Various styles of dance are taught in a safe, structured, nurturing and supportive environment. Students have fun, laugh and meet individuals with common interests and different ethnic backgrounds. My fond memories of Zohar directed me to resume my love of dance. After several years of absence, I am proud to say that my current experience has been gratifying and reflects that of the past. I am deeply saddened by the news of the potential closure of the Cubberley site. The discontinuation of this valuable art formb would create an enormous void and adversely impact the entire community. Sincerely, Wendy Pica-Furey 7/1/11 Minor, Beth From: cookerz@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 29,2011 9:14 AM To: Council, City Subject: Re: Cubberly sale/lease comment Dear Council Members Page 1 of 1 CITY CltRK:S or~'c~A , , JUN 29 PM 5: 5& It would be a huge mistake to sell any part of Cubberley. It is a valued asset in sounth Palo Alto. regards Chris Cooke 6/29/2011 Minor, Beth From: Haideh Tabrizi [gnmschool@sbcglobal.netJ Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 12:28 PM To: Council, City; GNM Teacher Sadaf Subject: Good Neighbor Montessori at Cubberley community center Dear City Council Members, Page 1 of 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OfFICE II JUN 30 AM 8: t 2 Good Neighbor Montessori was founded at Old Ohlone school (Hoover Elementary school) in Palo Alto, in 1986. Cubberley Community Center has been GNM's home since 1992. I am a Montessori trained teacher and have been a Palo Alto resident since 1980. I started GNM with a handful number of Palo Alto young children in 1986. GNM has been voted as the Best of Palo Alto by some parents and that encourages us to do the best job we know how, which is to 'love and inspire young children of Palo Alto and the nearby communities. Ever since 1986, looking into the future, I have turned every stone to find another appropriate and safe location for GNM to purchase or lease on long term basis either in Palo Alto or close by vicinity. Either the locations are not safe or environmentally appropriate, or are too expensive, or the biggest hardship of all has been obtaining the use permit. We understand that the City is financially under pressure to sell part of the C.C.C. property. I am asking this: Can you provide a location with the correct use permit, for a small school like GNM, either at another spot in the C.C.C., or another part of Palo Alto? We do not mind to spend the money to renovate and fix the place for our needs. There are over eighty worried parents along with their young children, as well as some worried staff members looking at you with this question! Good Neighbor Montessori needs Your support in this matter to survive! Please help us!! So that GNM could continue doing what it does best, by loving and inspiring the young children of our community. Respectfu Ily, Haideh Tabrizi Good Neighbor Montessori Founder and Administrator Since 1986 6/30/2011 Minor, Beth From: Sylvia Star-lack [staUack@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 4:52 AM To: Council, City Subject: Please do not sell Cubberley. Dear City Council, Page 1 of 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO CA CiTY CLERK'S OFFICE If JUL -7 AM 8: 32 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal to sell part of Cubberley Community Center to Foothill Community College. The proposal to sell Cubberley will not only affect existing programs at Cubberley Community Center, the Board of Education has said it will also adversely affect PAUSD's flexibility to grow as enrollment increases. Selling Cubberley in this moment, when the city is working on infill development that will increase demand for community services and school capacity, would be unwise. Please do not go forward with this initiative. Thank you for your consideration. -Sylvia Star-Lack 902 VanAuken Circle Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 424-1773 7/7/2011 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Subject: Carol Gilbert [carol.gilbert@comcast.net] Thursday, July 07, 2011 10:48 AM Council, City Retain Cubberly CUi Of PALO Ali O. CA CfTY CLERifS OFFICE II JUL -7 AM [0= 53 I have not weighed in on this before, but I feel the need to urge you to retain the Cubberly site. It currently serves a lot of locals and will doubtless become a site the school district may need again in the future. Should you sell off this property, at a future date we will be looking to buy something similar--but there won't be anything similar, and if there were, it would break the bank to buy it. Maintain what we have. Let Foothill rent space or go elsewhere. Sincerely, Carol Gilbert 555 Byron St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Green Meadow Community Association Building 6 Building 4 Building 10 Building 12 Building 7 Building 10 Building 9 Building 8 Building 7 Building 11 Building 8 Buildin Building 9 Greendell Site Piazza's Market V E C G B Unitarian Church A B C D E F H P L K J GYM A GYM B PAVILION THEATER M-2 M-3 M-4 AUDITO RIUM S T-1 T-2 U F A TIOGA COURT SCRIPPS AVENUE SCRIPPS COURTBEN LOMOND DRIVE DIABLO COURT NELSON DRIVE SHASTA DRIVE M AC KAY DRIVE FERNE AVENUE DAKE AVENUE SAN ANTONIO AVENUE FERNE AVENUE SAN ANTONIO AVENUE NELSON COURT NELSON DRIVE ADOBE PLACE CREEKSIDE DRIVE PARKSIDE DRIVE SUTHERLAND DRIVE KEATS COURT MIDDLEFIELD ROAD BYRON STREET CHARLESTO N ROAD NELSO N DRIV E EL CAPITAN PLACE SUTHERLAND DRIVE SEMINOLE WAY MAPLEWOOD PLACE SUTHERLAND DRIVE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD MONTROSE AVENUE IDE DRIVE CA TE R R A P LAC E HRISTOPHE R C O U R T M A P L E W O O D A V E N U E CHARLESTON ROAD This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'350' Cubberley Greendell and525 San Antonio Sites CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto sturner, 2011-07-07 16:12:18Parcel Report Scott (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb)