Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014-06-02 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Council Chambers June 2, 2014 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 June 2, 2014 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. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council 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, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. 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 up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 6:00-7:00 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations(James Keene, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen, Dania Torres Wong, Eric Nickel, Catherine Capriles, Geo Blackshire, Melissa Tronquet, Mark Gregerson, Nancy Nagel, Molly Stump, Walter Rossmann) Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) 2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Lalo Perez, Melissa Tronquet, Joe Saccio, Molly Stump, Walter Rossmann, Nancy Nagel, Dennis Burns, Mark Gregerson, Kathryn Shen, Dania Torres Wong) Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) 2 June 2, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker. City Manager Comments 7:00-7:10 PM Oral Communications 7:10-7:25 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Consent Calendar 7:25-7:30 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3. Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Power Purchase Agreement with 65HK 8me LLC for up to 60,000 Megawatt-hours Per Year of Energy Over 34 Years for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $130 Million 4. Approval of Two Agreements: (a) Agreement with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and its Member Agencies for Funding of Construction of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101, and (b) Memorandum of Understanding between the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and the City of Palo Alto Concerning the Mitigation of Impacts to the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Due To The San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101; and Adoption of a Resolution Making Findings of Fact and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act in the Context of Approval of the Construction Funding Agreement of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 5. Recommendation for Council Approval to Amend the Current Regional Animal Care and Control Services Contracts with the City of Los Altos and Town of Los Altos Hills, and to Extend Term For Five Additional Years 6. Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement, Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement, Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Program 3 June 2, 2014 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. Agreement and the Second Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement with the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) 7. Council Review of an Appealed Architectural Review Approval of the Demolition of Approximately 290,220 s.f. of Existing R&D/Office Space and Construction of 180 Dwelling Units which Includes 68 Detached Single-Family Units and 112 Multi-Family Units Located at 1451-1601 California Avenue, as part of the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: City of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2003082103) (STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 9, 2014) 8. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City’s Participation in the Santa Clara County Home Consortium (“SCCHC”) for Purposes of Securing Federal Home Funding for affordable housing. 9. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council Approval of the Expenditure of up to $84,000 for FY2015 for Teen Programs Using Net Revenue Collected from 455 Bryant Street Rent 10. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Approving the Use of Online or Electronic Filing of Campaign Statements (First Reading May 12, 2014, PASSED 9-0) 11. Council Adoption of a Resolution Determining Zero Property Tax Exchange on the Annexation of Lands of Bower and Shaw at 830 Los Trancos Road to the West Bay Sanitary District 12. Adoption of a Resolution Calling a General Municipal Election- Tuesday, November 4, 2014 13. Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance Adopting a Plan of Improvements for the Magical Bridge Playground Project at Mitchell Park 14. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code to Change the Regular Meeting Start Time from 7:00pm to 6:00pm; Amend the Council’s Procedures to Reflect the 6:00pm Meeting Start Time 15. Approval of Funding of $50,000 Per Year for Years Two Through Five, for a Total Amount Not-To-Exceed $250,000 for Contract Number S13147834 with the Fire Safe Council for Stewardship Services to 4 June 2, 2014 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. Fulfill the Treatment Work Indicated in the Foothills Fire Management Plan 16. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C09127935 in the Amount of $543,744 With Utility Tree Service Inc. for Power Line Clearing Services for a Total Contract Compensation of Not-to-Exceed $6,646,774 17. Approval of Sister City Reaffirmation Agreement with Oaxaca, Mexico Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:30-8:30 PM 18. Public Hearing - Council Adoption of an Ordinance Modifying: (1) Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to: (a) Address Sidewalk Width and Building Setbacks (Setback and “Build-to” Line Standards, and Context Based Design Criteria) Along El Camino Real, and (b) Reduce the Allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN Zoned Sites Where Dwelling Units are Permitted at 20 Units Per Acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to Adjust the Definition of Lot Area and Add a Definition for “Effective Sidewalk”. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) (THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED BY COUNCIL MOTION ON APRIL 21, 2014 TO JUNE 2, 2014) 8:30-9:00 PM 19. Approval of Letter Regarding Santa Clara County Transportation Project Sales Tax Increase 9:00-10:00 PM 20. Council Direction to Staff on Potential Housing Site for Inclusion in the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update and on Submittal of an Administrative Draft for the State's Initial Review 10:00-10:45 PM 21. Review and Approval of the Revised Draft Infrastructure Project Funding Proposal, Preliminary Approval of the Transient Occupancy Tax Ballot Language, and Authorization to do Final Polling on the Transient Occupancy Tax and Utilities User Tax Modernization Measures 5 June 2, 2014 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. Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 10:45-11:00 PM 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. 6 June 2, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Supplemental Information Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Meeting June 3, 2014 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council SET 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4791) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability Summary Title: Hayworth Solar Renewable Power Purchase Agreement Title: Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Power Purchase Agreement with 65HK 8me LLC for up to 60,000 Megawatt- hours Per Year of Energy Over 34 Years for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $130 Million From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), and the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to: 1. Approve a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with 65HK 8me LLC (Hayworth), a Delaware limited liability company, for the acquisition of up to 60,000 Megawatt-hours (MWh) per year of solar energy over a maximum of thirty-four years at a total cost not to exceed $130 million; 2. Waive the application of the investment-grade credit rating requirement of Section 2.30.340(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which applies to energy companies that do business with the City, as Hayworth will provide a $1.875 million letter of credit as a development assurance deposit, and a subsequent $2.5 million letter of credit as a performance assurance deposit; 3. Delegate to the City Manager or his designee, the authority to execute on behalf of the City the PPA with Hayworth, the two contract term extensions available to the City under the PPA, and any documents necessary to administer the agreements that are consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and City Council approved policies; and, 4. Waive the application of the anti-speculation requirement of Section D.1 of the City’s Energy Risk Management Policy as it may apply to surplus electricity purchases resulting from the City’s participation in the Hayworth PPA, including during the 2017-2020 time City of Palo Alto Page 2 frame, due to the variability of the City’s hydroelectric resources and the potential uncertainties associated with the timeliness and viability of the renewable energy projects in the City’s portfolio that are still under development. Executive Summary As part of ongoing efforts to meet the City’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of at least 33% of sales from qualifying renewable resources by 2015, staff issued a request for proposals (RFP) for renewable resources in the fall of 2013 and evaluated the proposals based on price, value, viability and compatibility with the City’s needs. After thorough review, staff concluded that the Hayworth solar photovoltaic (PV) project proposal had the best total score. When it begins operating in mid-2015, the 25-megawatt (MW) project will provide about 6 percent of the City’s annual energy needs, and will be sited on low productivity, water- constrained agricultural land in Kern County. The project was proposed by a team comprising 8minutenergy, a California-based solar PV project development company with a portfolio of more than 2,000 MW of solar PV projects, and Saferay Inc. (Saferay), a German independent solar power producer that was spun off from the panel manufacturer Q-Cells International in 2010. The Hayworth PPA, presented in Attachment B, is structured as a 27-year initial term, followed by a three-year extension term option that can be exercised by either party and a four-year extension term option that can only be exercised by Palo Alto. The project’s pricing (which equates to a levelized price of $68.72 per MWh if both extension term options are exercised) is slightly lower than the prices of the three solar PV project PPAs that were approved by the Council last year. As with these three prior contracts, Palo Alto will make no upfront payments under the Hayworth PPA; energy will be paid for only after it is delivered. In addition, the Hayworth project will be a “fully deliverable” project and is to be located in what is currently a local capacity requirements (LCR) area, as defined by the California Independent System Operator. This means that the City will be able to count Hayworth’s capacity towards its LCR, which provides significant value that many renewable energy projects are not able to provide, at no additional cost. The Hayworth PPA has been reviewed and approved by staff and by the City Attorney’s Office, has been executed by the seller, and awaits Council consideration and approval before the City executes it. Both the UAC and the Finance Committee unanimously recommended that Council approve the proposed PPA. Committee Review and Recommendation On March 26, 2014, staff presented a recommendation to the UAC to recommend Council approval of the PPA with 65HK 8me LLC. The UAC unanimously recommended that Council approve the PPA as presented by staff. The excerpted minutes from the UAC’s discussion of the proposed PPA at its March 26, 2014 meeting are provided as Attachment D. City of Palo Alto Page 3 At its May 6, 2014, meeting, the Finance Committee discussed the proposed PPA. The Finance Committee staff report (Staff Report 4671), which contains a detailed evaluation of the PPA and its impact on the City’s electric supply portfolio, is provided as Attachment C. Staff described the process of issuing the RFP and winnowing down the 92 proposals received to the one finalist, and presented an analysis of how the proposed project will fit in the overall electric supply portfolio and help meet the City’s ambitious RPS and Carbon Neutral Plan goals. Staff described the key features of the project and PPA, and discussed the risks involved in executing such an agreement and the measures staff negotiated into the PPA to mitigate these risks. (For a detailed discussion of Recommendation #2—the waiver of the investment grade credit rating requirement—see pages 11-12 of the Finance Committee staff report. And for a discussion of Recommendation #4—the waiver of the anti-speculation requirement—see pages 13-14 of the Finance Committee staff report.) Finally, staff discussed the confluence of factors that have led to the attractive renewable energy prices available in today’s market and the reasons that staff believes this is an appropriate time to commit the City to another long-term PPA for a solar PV resource. Finance Committee members commented on the low price for the PPA and that the market for renewable energy is good at this point in time. Regarding the fact that, if all the contracted renewable energy projects are built, the City could have more resources than it needs to meet its requirements for some period of time (until the older PPAs begin to expire starting in 2021), committee members noted that the City could sell the energy and the renewable energy attributes. After discussion, the Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Council adopt a resolution approving the PPA with 65HK 8me LLC; delegating to the City Manager or his designee the authority to execute the PPA, the two contract term extensions, and any documents necessary to administer the agreement; waiving the application of the investment- grade credit rating requirement; and waiving the application of the anti-speculation requirement as it may apply to this purchase. The excerpted minutes from the Finance Committee’s discussion of the Hayworth PPA at its May 6, 2014 meeting are provided as Attachment E. Resource Impact The cost of renewable energy supplies from Hayworth is expected to be up to $130 million over the 34-year term of the agreement. The annual expected cost is up to $4.2 million. Approval of the PPA would result in a retail rate impact from all renewable resources, including the three new projects, of up to 0.20¢/kWh, beginning in 2017. The expected future cost for procuring renewable resources to meet the City’s RPS goal is already included in the current five-year financial forecast. Policy Implications City of Palo Alto Page 4 Approval of the proposed PPA is in conformance with the City’s Long-term Energy Acquisition Plan (LEAP), specifically the City’s RPS to meet at least 33% of the electric sales from renewable energy by 2015. Approval of the proposed PPA would also further the City’s efforts to achieve a carbon neutral electric supply portfolio entirely through the acquisition of additional “hard resources” that supply the City with both energy and environmental attributes (Staff Report 3550). Environmental Review Approval of this agreement does not meet the definition of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065. However, the City intends to receive output from a project that will constitute a project for the purposes of CEQA. The project developer will be responsible for acquiring necessary environmental reviews and permits on the project to be developed. During the development phase of the project, the City will become a “responsible agency” under the CEQA proceedings. As such, the PPA allows for the City to review the project CEQA documents and issue a notice of determination with respect to its review of the projects. Staff anticipates working with the City Attorney’s Office and the Planning Department to undertake this assessment. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution to Approve PPA with 65HK 8me LLC (PDF) Attachment B: PPA with 65HK 8me LLC (PDF) Attachment C: Finance Committee Staff Report 4671, Hayworth Solar Renewable PPA (without attachments) (PDF) Attachment D: Excerpted Final Minutes of the March 26, 2014 UAC Meeting (PDF) Attachment E: Excerpted Draft Action Minutes of the May 6, 2014 Finance Committee Meeting (PDF) * NOT YET APPROVED * 140318 dm 6053003 1 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving a Long Term Power Purchase Agreement with 65HK 8me LLC for the Purchase of Solar Electricity R E C I T A L S A. On April 12, 2011, the Governor approved Senate Bill (“SB”) X1-2, which requires that all retail sellers of electricity in California, including publicly-owned utilities, serve 33 percent of their retail electricity sales with renewable energy by 2020. B. On April 16, 2012, Council approved an update to the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan’s (LEAP) strategy related to the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). The updated strategy specifies that the City’s objective is to reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by pursuing a minimum level of renewable purchases of at least 33 percent of retail electricity sales by 2015. C. On March 4, 2013, Council approved a Carbon Neutral Plan, which enabled the City to achieve a carbon neutral electric supply portfolio starting in calendar year 2013. D. The City is interested in purchasing power generated by renewable resources for the benefit of its electric customers. E. By purchasing renewable energy resources, the City will help reduce the production of greenhouse gases, will meet its RPS requirements under SB X1-2 and LEAP, and will meet its Carbon Neutral Plan goals. F. 65HK 8me LLC (“Hayworth”) through its parent companies, 8minutenergy Renewables LLC and Saferay Inc., proposed its project in response to the City’s Request for Proposals 151223 (“RFP”) in October 2013. Its proposal is highly competitive with other RFP respondent proposals. G. The execution of a power purchase agreement (“PPA”) with Hayworth is anticipated to enable the City to meet a six-percent portion of its goal of sourcing 33 percent of its electric needs from renewable resources and its goal to implement the Carbon Neutral Plan. H. Under the terms of this PPA, the City is allocated a 100 percent share of the power from Hayworth’s solar project located in Kern County, California, which will yield approximately 25 megawatts of plant net output. I. The PPA is for a twenty-seven year base contract term and will allow the City or Hayworth to extend the PPA at either party’s option for an additional three-year term (First Option). After the First Option is exercised, the PPA allows the City to extend the PPA at its sole option for an additional four-year term (Second Option). * NOT YET APPROVED * 140318 dm 6053003 2 J. The City’s participation in the Hayworth PPA may result in surplus electric purchases that are inconsistent with the anti-speculation requirement of Section D.1 of the City’s existing Energy Risk Management Policy, including during the 2017-2020 time frame, due to variability of the City’s hydroelectric resources, and potential uncertainties associated with the timeliness and viability of the renewable energy projects in the City’s portfolio still under development. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council approves the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between 65HK 8me LLC, as seller, and the City of Palo Alto, as buyer. The delivery term of the PPA is up to thirty-four (34) years, commencing upon the commercial operation date of the planned electric generation facility, which date is expected to be no later than June 30, 2015. The City will receive a 100 percent share of the facility’s net output. Spending authority under the PPA shall not exceed one hundred thirty million dollars ($130,000,000). SECTION 2. The Council delegates to the City Manager, or his designee, the authority to execute the PPA with 65HK 8me LLC on behalf of the City, and the authority to execute any documents necessary to administer the PPA that are consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and City Council approved policies. SECTION 3. As permitted by section 2.30.290 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council delegates to the City Manager, or his designee, the authority to exercise the First Option and Second Option as defined herein, to extend the twenty-seven year base contract to a full thirty-four year contract term for the City. SECTION 4. With respect to the Council’s award of the PPA referred to in Section 1 above, the Council waives the creditworthiness requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.340(c), as that requirement may apply to 65HK 8me LLC. SECTION 5. With respect to the Council’s award of the PPA referred to in Section 1 above, the Council waives the anti-speculation requirement of Section D.1 of the City’s existing Energy Risk Management Policy, as that requirement may apply to surplus electricity purchases caused by the City’s participation in the Hayworth PPA. SECTION 6. The Council’s approval of this PPA does not meet the definition of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065. However, the City intends to receive output from a project that will constitute a project for the purposes of CEQA. The project developer will be responsible for acquiring necessary environmental reviews and permits on the project to be developed. During the development phase of the project, the City will become a “responsible agency” under the CEQA proceedings. As such, the PPA allows for the City to review the project CEQA documents and issue a notice of determination with respect to its review of the projects. Staff anticipates * NOT YET APPROVED * 140318 dm 6053003 3 working with the City Attorney’s Office and the Planning Department to undertake this assessment and make a determination. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services Attachment B - 1 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 [Execution Version] POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT Between The City of Palo Alto and 65HK 8me, LLC Dated as of _____________, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page - 2 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE II TERM, PURCHASE AND SALE ........................................................ 15 2.1 Term ....................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Purchase and Sale of the Output ............................................................ 15 2.3 Price........................................................................................................ 17 2.4 Tax Credits and Incentives ..................................................................... 17 2.5 Right of First Refusal for Expansion Plant and Expansion Plant Output ..................................................................................................... 17 2.6 Refurbishment of Plant ........................................................................... 18 ARTICLE III METERING AND BILLING ................................................................ 18 3.1 Metering Requirements ........................................................................... 18 3.2 Billing ...................................................................................................... 19 3.3 Payment .................................................................................................. 20 ARTICLE IV SELLER'S OBLIGATIONS ................................................................ 21 4.1 Development, Finance, Construction and Operation of the Plant ........... 21 4.2 General Obligations ................................................................................ 23 4.3 Construction Milestones .......................................................................... 24 4.4 Obligation to Schedule and Deliver ......................................................... 26 ARTICLE V BUYER’S OBLIGATIONS .................................................................. 28 5.1 Delivery and Transmission ...................................................................... 28 5.2 Taxes ...................................................................................................... 29 5.3 Notification of Transmission Outages ..................................................... 29 ARTICLE VI FORCE MAJEURE ............................................................................ 29 6.1 Force Majeure Events ............................................................................. 29 6.2 Remedial Action ...................................................................................... 29 6.3 Notice ...................................................................................................... 30 6.4 Termination Due To Force Majeure Event .............................................. 30 ARTICLE VII DEFAULT/REMEDIES/TERMINATION ............................................. 30 7.1 Events of Default by Buyer ..................................................................... 30 7.2 Events of Default by Seller ...................................................................... 31 7.3 Termination for Default, Etc .................................................................... 31 7.4 Damages ................................................................................................ 33 7.5 Indemnification ........................................................................................ 33 7.6 Buyer’s Right to Operate ......................................................................... 34 ARTICLE VIII REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES ...................................... 35 8.1 Seller’s Representations and Warranties ................................................ 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page - 3 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 8.2 Buyer Representations and Warranties .................................................. 37 ARTICLE IX DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE ................... 37 9.1 Forms of Assurance ................................................................................ 37 9.2 Managing Assurances ............................................................................ 38 9.3 Development Liquidated Damages ......................................................... 38 9.4 Performance Liquidated Damages ......................................................... 39 ARTICLE X MISCELLANEOUS ............................................................................ 40 10.1 Assignment ............................................................................................. 40 10.2 Financing ................................................................................................ 40 10.3 Notices .................................................................................................... 41 10.4 Captions .................................................................................................. 42 10.5 No Third Party Beneficiary ...................................................................... 42 10.6 No Dedication ......................................................................................... 42 10.7 Entire Agreement; Integration ................................................................. 42 10.8 Applicable Law ........................................................................................ 43 10.9 Venue ..................................................................................................... 43 10.10 Nature of Relationship ............................................................................ 43 10.11 Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Reasonableness ...................................... 43 10.12 Severability ............................................................................................. 43 10.13 Confidentiality ......................................................................................... 44 10.14 Cooperation ............................................................................................ 45 10.15 Mobile Sierra Doctrine ............................................................................ 45 10.16 Counterparts ........................................................................................... 45 10.17 Immunity Waiver ..................................................................................... 45 10.18 Debt Liability Disclaimer .......................................................................... 45 EXHIBITS A-1 Plant Site Description A-2 Site Drawings B Environmental Attribute Transfer from Seller to Buyer C Insurance Coverages D Scheduling Protocols E COD Certification F-1 Form of Letter of Credit F-2 Form of Escrow Agreement G Expected Annual Net Energy Production Attachment B - 4 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT This Power Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of ________________, 2014 (the “Effective Date”), is entered into by and between the City of Palo Alto, a California chartered municipal corporation, and 65HK 8me, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (individually, a “Party” and, collectively, the “Parties”). RECITALS: 1. Seller intends to develop, finance, build, own and operate a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility (the “Plant”), to be located at the Site. 2. Buyer is engaged in the procurement and supply of electricity to residential and commercial customers in Palo Alto, California. 3. Buyer wishes to purchase the Output of the Plant and intends to resell related Energy to its residential and commercial customers. 4. Buyer is willing to purchase, and Seller is willing to sell, the Output of the Plant, on the terms and conditions and at the prices set forth in this Agreement. 5. Buyer is purchasing this Output to meet Buyer’s needs at a known price and timing. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals above and the following covenants, terms and conditions, the Parties agree: AGREEMENT: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS The following initially capitalized terms, whenever used in this Agreement, not otherwise defined in the preamble or herein, have the meanings set forth below, unless the context of their use otherwise indicates. The terms “includes” and “including” mean to include, “without limitation.” AC: Alternating current. Agreement: Has the meaning set forth in the preamble, and includes all exhibits and appendices thereto, as may be amended from time to time. Buyer: The City of Palo Alto and any successor or permitted assignee. - 5 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 Buyer CEQA Approval Deadline: Has the meaning set forth in Section 10.19. CAISO: The California Independent System Operator Corporation, or its functional successor. Calculation Period: The twenty-four (24) month periods (i.e., two full Contract Years) ending on (and including) each anniversary of the Commercial Operation Date, commencing at the second anniversary of the Commercial Operation Date. Calculation Period Deemed Delivered Energy Amount: For each Calculation Period, an amount expressed in MWh equal to the sum of (i) the total Energy actually delivered by Seller to the Point of Interconnection in such Calculation Period plus (ii) the Seller Excused Energy Amount for such Calculation Period. CARB: Has the meaning set forth in the definition of EA Agency. CEC: Has the meaning set forth in the definition of EA Agency. CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA Deadline: Has the meaning set forth in Section 10.19. CEQA Disapproval: Has the meaning set forth in Section 10.19. Change in Law: The enactment or issuance of any new law or regulation, the amendment, alteration, modification or repeal of any existing law or regulation or any authoritative interpretation of any existing law or regulation issued by a competent court, tribunal or Governmental Authority contrary to the existing official interpretation thereof, in each case coming into effect after the date of this Agreement and which must be complied with in order for the Plant to be constructed and operated lawfully. Change of Control: Any circumstance in which the Ultimate Parents Ownership Percentage ceases to be equal to or greater than fifty percent (50%). COD Certification: Seller’s certification of Commercial Operation in the form set forth in Exhibit E, duly executed by Seller and the licensed professional engineer. Commercial Operation: The condition of the Plant, whereupon (a) it is certified by Seller to be complete in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations except for punch list items and (b) Seller has delivered to Buyer the COD Certification. Commercial Operation Date: The date upon which Commercial Operation first occurs, as notified to Buyer in the COD Certification in accordance with Section 4.3(h). - 6 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 Commercially Reasonable Efforts Standard: Has the meaning set forth in Section 7.6. Compliance Costs: All reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses necessary to incur by Seller and payable to third parties in order to maintain ERR status for the Plant arising out of any new or changed Requirements of Laws after the Effective Date. Construction Start Date: The date on which Seller delivers to Buyer a copy of the Notice to Proceed that Seller has delivered to the EPC Contractor for the Plant. Contract Year: Successive periods of twelve (12) consecutive months, with the first such period (i.e., the first Contract Year) beginning at 12:00 a.m. on the day immediately following the Commercial Operation Date and ending at 11:59:59 p.m. on the anniversary of the Commercial Operation Date, and each successive twelve (12) consecutive month period thereafter until the end of the Term. Contractual Obligations: As to Seller, any material agreement, instrument or undertaking to which Seller is a party or by which it or any of its property is bound. Costs: With respect to a non-defaulting Party, (a) brokerage fees, commissions and other similar third party transaction costs and expenses reasonably incurred by such Party either in terminating any arrangement entered into pursuant to this Agreement or entering into new arrangements which replace this Agreement (including, in the case of Seller as the Non-Defaulting Party, tax recapture costs) and (b) all reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by the non-defaulting Party in connection with the termination of this Agreement. CEQA Deadline: Has the meaning set forth in Section 10.19. County: Has the meaning set forth in Section 10.19. CPUC: Has the meaning set forth in the definition of EA Agency. CUP or Conditional Use Permit: Has the meaning set forth in Section 10.19. CUP Issuance Date: Has the meaning set forth in Section 10.19. Daily LD Amount: For each day for which delay liquidated damages are payable under Section 9.3, an amount equal to the following: (i) for the first 182 days for which such damages are payable, $2,565 per day, (ii) for the next 182 days for which such damages are payable, $7,695 per day, and (iii) for the next 1 day for which such damages are payable, $7,680 per day. Development Assurance: The amount to be posted or deposited by Seller in accordance with Article IX of this Agreement, which amount shall be equal to - 7 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 $1,875,000.00 (determined by taking the product of $75.00 per kW AC and 25,000 kW, the expected Initial Capacity as of the Effective Date). Discretionary Curtailment: Has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4(c). Dispatch Down Period: The period of curtailment of delivery of Energy from the Plant resulting from (a) curtailment ordered by the CAISO (whether directly or through a Plant Scheduling Coordinator or the Participating Transmission Owner), for any reason, including, but not limited to, any system emergency as defined in the CAISO Tariff (“System Emergency”), any warning of an anticipated System Emergency, or any warning of an imminent condition or situation which could jeopardize the CAISO’s or Participating Transmission Owner’s electric system integrity or the integrity of other systems to which the CAISO or Participating Transmission Owner is connected; (b) curtailment ordered by the Participating Transmission Owner or distribution operator (if interconnected to distribution or sub-transmission system) for reasons including, but not limited to, (i) any situation that affects normal function of the electric system including, but not limited to, any abnormal condition that requires action to prevent circumstances such as equipment damage, loss of load, or abnormal voltage conditions, (ii) any warning, forecast or anticipation of conditions or situations that jeopardize the Participating Transmission Owner’s electric system integrity or the integrity of other systems to which the Participating Transmission Owner is connected; (c) curtailment ordered by the Participating Transmission Owner or distribution operator (if interconnected to distribution or sub-transmission system) as a result of scheduled or unscheduled maintenance or construction on the Participating Transmission Owner’s transmission facilities or distribution operator’s facilities (if interconnected to distribution or sub-transmission system) that prevents the delivery or receipt of Energy to or at the Point of Interconnection; or (d) curtailment in accordance with Seller’s obligations under its interconnection agreement with the Participating Transmission Owner or distribution operator. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Dispatch Down Periods shall not include periods of curtailment of delivery of Energy from the Plant resulting from circumstances commonly referred to as economic curtailment (“Economic Curtailment”), where Buyer or its designee (as the Scheduling Coordinator) submits an economic or similar bid in the applicable CAISO market that results in otherwise available Energy not being scheduled or awarded in such CAISO market. EA Agency: Any local, state or federal entity, or any other Person, that has responsibility for or jurisdiction over a program involving transferability of Environmental Attributes, including, without limitation, the Clean Air Markets Division of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”), the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (the “CEC”), the California Public Utilities Commission (the “CPUC”), the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), and any successor commission or agency thereto. Early Termination Date: Has the meaning set forth in Section 7.3. - 8 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 Economic Curtailment: Has the meaning set forth at the end of the definition of Dispatch Down Period. Effective Date: Has the meaning set forth in the preamble of this Agreement. Eligible CEQA Delay: Has the meaning set forth in Section 10.19. Eligible Renewable Energy Resource or ERR: Has the meaning set forth in California Public Utilities Code Section 399.12 and California Public Resources Code Section 25741, as either code provision is amended or supplemented from time to time. Energy: The electricity generated by the Plant and delivered to Buyer by the Seller, pursuant to this Agreement, at the Point of Interconnection, as expressed in units of kilowatt-hours (kWh) or megawatt-hours (MWh), including Test Energy. Environmental Attributes: Any and all credits, benefits, emissions reductions, offsets, and allowances, howsoever entitled, attributable to the generation from the Plant or Expansion Plant(s), as the case may be, and its displacement of conventional energy generation. Environmental Attributes include, without limitation, Renewable Energy Credits, and all of the following: (1) any avoided emissions of pollutants to the air, soil or water such as sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and other pollutants; (2) any avoided emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that have been determined by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to contribute to the actual or potential threat of altering the Earth’s climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere; and (3) the reporting rights to these avoided emissions such as Green Tag Reporting Rights. “Green Tag Reporting Rights” are the right of a “Green Tag” purchaser to report the ownership of accumulated Green Tags in compliance with federal or state law, if applicable, and to a federal or state agency or any other party at the Green Tag purchaser’s discretion, and include without limitation those Green Tag Reporting Rights accruing under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and any present or future federal, state, or local law, regulation or bill, and international or foreign emissions trading program. Green Tags are accumulated on kWh basis and one Green Tag represents the Environmental Attributes associated with one (1) MWh of energy. Environmental Attributes do not include (i) any energy, capacity, reliability or other power attributes from the Plant or Expansion Plant(s) or (ii) tax credits associated with the construction or operation of the Plant, Expansion Plant(s), or any other associated contract or right, and other financial incentives in the form of credits, rebates, reductions, or allowances associated with the Plant, Expansion Plant(s), or any other associated contract or right, that are applicable to a state or federal income taxation obligation. Environmental Attributes Reporting Rights: All rights to report ownership of the Environmental Attributes to any person or entity, under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 or otherwise. - 9 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 Environmental Laws: Any and all federal, state and local laws, including statutes, regulations, rulings, orders, administrative interpretations and other governmental restrictions and requirements relating to the discharge of air pollutants, water pollutants or process waste water or otherwise relating to the environment or hazardous substances, as amended from time to time. EPA: Has the meaning set forth in the definition of EA Agency. EPC Contract: The Seller’s engineering, procurement and construction contract with the EPC Contractor. EPC Contractor: An engineering, procurement, and construction contractor, or if not utilizing an engineering, procurement, and construction contractor, the entity having lead responsibility for the management of overall construction activities, selected by Seller, with substantial experience in the engineering, procurement, and construction of utility-scale solar photovoltaic power plants. Event of Default: Has the meaning set forth in Article VII. Expansion Plant: Any expansion of the Plant from its Initial Capacity, or any other electricity generating facility owned or controlled by Seller or its affiliates, located at the Site. Each such expansion of the Plant or additional facility shall be deemed to be an “Expansion Plant.” Expansion Plant Output: All capacity, energy, associated Environmental Attributes, ancillary services, contributions towards resource adequacy or reserve requirements (if any) and any other reliability or power attributes produced by Seller at any Expansion Plant. Expected Annual Net Energy Production: For each period of two successive Contract Years, it is the sum of the expected annual net energy production in AC Megawatt-hours for such two Contract Years, including the effects of first year 0.5% panel performance degradation and subsequent 0.5% panel annual performance degradation, as represented in Exhibit G. Extension Term: Has the meaning set forth in Section 2.1. Fair Market Value: Has the meaning set forth in Section 2.1. FERC: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and its successor organization, if any. Final CEQA Approval: Has the meaning set forth in Section 10.19. First Extension Term: Has the meaning set forth in Section 2.1. - 10 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 Force Majeure Event: Any act or event that delays or prevents a Party from timely performing obligations under this Agreement or from complying with conditions required under this Agreement to the extent that such act or event is reasonably unforeseeable and beyond the reasonable control of and without the fault or negligence of the Party relying thereon as justification for such delay, nonperformance, or noncompliance. Force Majeure Events typically include: (i) acts of God or the elements, extreme or severe weather conditions, explosion, fire, epidemic, landslide, mudslide, sabotage, lightning, earthquake, flood or similar cataclysmic event, acts of public enemy, war, blockade, civil insurrection, riot, civil disturbance or strike or other labor difficulty caused or suffered by a Party; (ii) any restraint or restriction imposed by law or by rule, regulation or other acts or omissions of governmental authorities, whether federal, state or local which by exercise of due diligence and in compliance with applicable law a Party could not reasonably have been expected to avoid and to the extent which, by exercise of due diligence and in compliance with applicable law, has been unable to overcome (so long as the affected Party has not applied for or assisted such act by a governmental authority); and (iii) electric transmission interruptions or curtailments (not including any such interruption or curtailment that results from the negligence or contractual breach of the Party affected); provided that the term “Force Majeure Event” does not include: (a) economic conditions that render a Party’s performance of this Agreement at the Price unprofitable or otherwise uneconomic (including Buyer’s ability to buy Energy or Environmental Attributes at a lower price, or Seller’s ability to sell Energy or Environmental Attributes at a higher price, than the Price); (b) a governmental act by Buyer that delays or prevents Buyer from timely performing its obligations under this Agreement; (c) a Plant equipment failure, except any such failure caused by an event or circumstance that meets the requirements set forth in this “Force Majeure Event” definition; (d) failure or delay in grant of Permits, except, in any case, if caused by an event or circumstance that meets the requirements set forth in this “Force Majeure Event” definition; or (e) failures or delays by the Participating TO or the CAISO in entering into, or performing under, any agreements with Seller contemplated by this Agreement, except, in any case, if any such failure of performance is caused by an event or circumstance that meets the requirements set forth in this “Force Majeure Event” definition. Forecasting Service: Has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4(d). FPA: Has the meaning set forth in Section 8.1. Full Capacity Deliverability Status: Has the meaning set forth in the CAISO Tariff. - 11 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Gains: With respect to a Party, an amount equal to the present value of the economic benefit to it, if any (exclusive of Costs), resulting from the termination of the Agreement for the remainder of the Term, determined in a commercially reasonable manner. Factors used in determining economic benefit may include reference to information supplied by one or more third parties, including quotations (either firm or indicative) of relevant rates, prices, yields, yield curves, volatilities, spreads or other relevant market data in the relevant markets, market price referent, market prices for a comparable transaction, forward price curves based on economic analysis of the relevant markets, settlement prices for a comparable transaction at liquid trading hubs (e.g., NYMEX), all of which should be calculated for the remainder of the Term to determine the value of the Output. A Party shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain third party information in order to determine Gains and shall use information available to it internally for such purpose only if it is unable, after using commercially reasonable efforts, to obtain relevant third party information. Governmental Authority: Any federal or state government, or political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, any municipality, township or county, or any entity or authority exercising executive, legislative, judicial, regulatory or administrative functions of or pertaining to government, including, without limitation, any corporation or other entity owned or controlled by any of the foregoing. Incentives: Any and all tax credits, deductions, allowances, depreciation and exemptions applicable to federal, state and local taxes and any other payment, credit, deduction, benefit, grant or monetary incentive provided by any federal, state or local governmental authority or any Person, whether now in effect or arising in the future, in each case arising from the activities contemplated by this Agreement, including any “Renewable Energy Production Incentive Payments” from the U.S. Department of Energy and any “Energy Investment Tax Credit” described in Section 48 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as it may be amended or supplemented from time to time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Incentives shall not include anything that qualifies as Output as defined herein (including any Environmental Attributes). Indemnified Party: Has the meaning set forth in Section 7.5. Indemnifying Party: Has the meaning set forth in Section 7.5. Initial Capacity: The installed capacity of the Plant, determined as of the Commercial Operation Date, which shall not to be less than 24 MW AC or more than 27 MW AC, and shall be determined based upon the sum of the nameplate ratings (AC) of all Plant inverters. Initial Term: Has the meaning set forth in Section 2.1. - 12 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 Interconnection: Construction, installation, operation and maintenance of all Interconnection Facilities. Interconnection Agreement: The agreement to be entered into among Seller (and one or more of its affiliates), the Participating TO and CAISO pursuant to which Seller (and one or more of its affiliates), the Participating TO and CAISO set forth the terms and conditions for interconnection of the Plant to the Participating TO’s system, as amended from time to time. The Parties acknowledge that the Interconnection Agreement capacity is for more MWs than the Plant will require, and may serve as an interconnection agreement for generating projects in addition to the Plant. Interconnection Facilities: All of the facilities installed for the purpose of interconnecting the Plant to the Participating TO System, including, without limitation, transformers and associated equipment, relay and switching equipment and safety equipment. Lender(s): Any Person(s) providing money or extending credit (including any capital lease) to Seller, including in the form of debt or tax equity, for (i) the construction of the Plant, (ii) the term or permanent financing of the Plant, or (iii) working capital or other ordinary business requirements for the Plant. “Lender(s)” shall not include any trade creditor(s) of Seller. Losses: With respect to a Party, an amount equal to the present value of the economic loss to it, if any (exclusive of Costs), resulting from the termination of this Agreement for the remainder of the Term, determined in a commercially reasonable manner. Factors used in determining the loss of economic benefit may include reference to information supplied by one or more third parties, including quotations (either firm or indicative) of relevant rates, prices, yields, yield curves, volatilities, spreads or other relevant market data in the relevant markets, market price referent, market prices for a comparable transaction, forward price curves based on economic analysis of the relevant markets, settlement prices for a comparable transaction at liquid trading hubs (e.g. NYMEX), all of which should be calculated for the remainder of the Term to determine the value of the Output. A Party shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain third party information in order to determine Losses and shall use information available to it internally for such purpose only if it is unable, after using commercially reasonable efforts, to obtain relevant third party information. If the non-defaulting Party is the Seller, then in addition to lost payments for Output pursuant to this Agreement, “Losses” shall also include any associated loss of investment tax credits and other lost tax benefits. Milestones: Has the meaning set forth in Section 4.3. MW: Megawatt (AC). MWh: Megawatt-hour (AC). - 13 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 NCPA: The Northern California Power Agency, a California joint powers agency. Notice to Proceed: The notice provided by Seller to the EPC Contractor following execution of the EPC Contract between Seller and such EPC Contractor and satisfaction of all conditions to performance of such contract, by which Seller authorizes such EPC Contractor to begin construction of the Project without any delay or waiting periods. Operations Assumption Notice: Has the meaning set forth in Section 7.6. Option Exercise Notice: Has the meaning set forth in Section 2.1. Outage: A physical state in which all or a portion of the Plant is unavailable to provide Energy to the Point of Interconnection, or in which any portion of the Participating TO System is unavailable to receive Energy, to the extent that the unavailability affects the Participating TO System’s ability to accept delivery of Energy at the Point of Interconnection, whether planned or unplanned. Output: All actual capacity of the Initial Capacity, and all associated Energy, as well as the following (as associated with the Initial Capacity and/or associated Energy): Environmental Attributes; ancillary services; contributions towards resource adequacy or reserve requirements (if any); and any other reliability or power attributes. Participating TO or Participating Transmission Owner: Pacific Gas & Electric Company, a California corporation, or any successor thereto acting as transmission provider from the Site to the CAISO grid. Participating TO System: The transmission system owned by the Participating TO. Parties: Buyer and Seller, and their respective successors and permitted assignees. Party: Buyer or Seller, and each such Party’s respective successors and permitted assignees. Performance Assurance: The amount to be posted or deposited by Seller in accordance with Article IX of this Agreement, which amount shall be equal to the product of $100.00 per kW AC and the expected Initial Capacity specified under Section 4.2(h). Permits: All material federal, state or local authorizations, certificates, permits, licenses and approvals required by any Governmental Authority for the construction, ownership, operation and maintenance of the Plant, including any such permits or approvals required under CEQA. - 14 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 Person: An individual, partnership, corporation (including a business trust), limited liability company, joint stock company, trust, unincorporated association, joint venture, Governmental Authority or other entity. PIRP: Has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4(a). Plant: The power generation facilities described in the Recitals to be constructed and owned by Seller and located on the Site for the generation and delivery of electricity, including the step-up transformer, revenue quality meter and all other facilities up to the Point of Interconnection, but not including any Expansion Plant. Point of Interconnection: The point on the electrical system where the Plant is physically interconnected with the Participating TO System, which is anticipated to be at PG&E’s Lamont Switching Station. Price: The price set forth in Section 2.3. Prudent Utility Practice: Those practices, methods and equipment, as changed from time to time, that: (i) when engaged in are commonly used in the United States of America in prudent electrical engineering and operations to operate solar photovoltaic plant generation electric equipment and related electrical equipment lawfully and with safety, reliability, efficiency and expedition; or (ii) in the exercise of reasonable judgment considering the facts known, when engaged in could have been expected to achieve the desired result consistent with applicable law, safety, reliability, efficiency and expedition. Prudent Utility Practices are not limited to an optimum practice, method, selection of equipment or act, but rather are a range of acceptable practices, methods, selections of equipment or acts. QF: Has the meaning set forth in Section 8.1. REC or Renewable Energy Credit: Has the meaning set forth in California Public Utilities Code Section 399.12(h) and CPUC Decision 08-08-028, as may be amended from time to time or as further defined or supplemented by applicable law. Requirements of Laws: Collectively, any federal, state or local law, treaty, franchise, rule or regulation, or any order, writ, judgment, injunction, decree, award or determination of any arbitrator or court or other Governmental Authority, in each case applicable to or binding upon Seller or Buyer or any of its property or to which Seller or Buyer or any of its respective properties are subject. Residual Test: Has the meaning set forth in Section 2.1. - 15 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 Saferay: Has the meaning set forth in the definition of Ultimate Parents. SCADA: Has the meaning set forth in Section 3.1. Scheduling Coordinator: NCPA or any agent or successor thereof, or such other scheduling coordinator as may be designated by Buyer in accordance with this Agreement. Second Extension Term: Has the meaning set forth in Section 2.1. Section 45 Credits: Those tax credits available under Section 45 of Subtitle A, Chap. 1A, Part IV of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or any other similar state, federal or local tax credits, deductions, payments or benefits arising from the generation and sale of electricity using qualifying renewable resources, not including any Environmental Attributes. Section 48 Credits: Those tax credits available under Section 48(a)(3)(A)(i) and 48(a)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or any other similar state, federal or local tax credits, deductions, payments or benefits arising from the investment in qualifying energy properties, not including any Environmental Attributes. Seller: 65HK 8me, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and any successor or permitted assignee. Seller Excused Energy Amount: Means, for each Calculation Period, an amount expressed in MWh, equal to the aggregate amount of reduction(s) in delivered Energy during such Calculation Period as a result of Dispatch Down Periods, Discretionary Curtailments, Economic Curtailments, Force Majeure Events, Buyer’s breach or default hereunder or failure to accept delivered Energy, or outages to the local transmission or distribution system. No less frequently than quarterly during each year, Seller shall calculate and provide notice to Buyer of the then cumulative amount of the Seller Excused Energy Amount for such year, along with an explanation in reasonable detail of the calculation thereof based on historical Plant data, meteorological data, output projections (including by the CAISO, if applicable) and other relevant data. The calculation shall be subject to review and approval by Buyer. Shortfall: Has the meaning set forth in Section 9.4. Site: The real property on which the Plant is to be built and located in/near Kern County as more particularly described in Exhibit A, or such other real property selected by Seller to which Buyer consents in writing which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge and agree that the Site described on Exhibit A as of the Effective Date is only the approximate size required by the final Plant design and is in the vicinity of other lands under the control of Seller or its affiliates. At or prior to the financial closing of Seller’s construction financing - 16 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 for the Plant, Seller shall update Exhibit A (and rearrange the boundaries of the Site) by notice to Buyer providing an updated version of Exhibit A. Such final Site boundaries shall include sufficient real property for the Plant, plus sufficient additional real property (approximately one acre) in order to accommodate any potential future build out of storage facilities as may be mutually agreed by the Parties pursuant to Section 4.2(i). Station Service Power: The energy used by Seller to operate the Plant. System Emergency: Has the meaning set forth in the definition of Dispatch Down Period. Term: Has the meaning set forth in Section 2.1. Termination Payment means, with respect to the non-defaulting Party, the sum of (a) the Losses or Gains, and Costs, expressed in U.S. Dollars, which such Party incurs as a result of the termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 7.3 plus (b) all amounts then owed to the non-defaulting Party by the defaulting Party. If the non-defaulting Party’s aggregate Gains exceed its aggregate Losses and Costs, if any, resulting from such termination of this Agreement, the amount for preceding clause (a) shall be zero. Test Energy: Energy (to the extent available) generated by the Plant and delivered to the Point of Interconnection prior to the Commercial Operation Date. Two Year Minimum Production Threshold: For each Calculation Period, an amount (in MWhs) equal to eighty percent (80%) of the Expected Annual Net Energy Production for such Calculation Period (i.e., for the avoidance of doubt, the sum of 80% of the Expected Annual Net Energy Production for the first Contract Year of such Calculation Period plus 80% of the Expected Annual Net Energy Production for the second Contract Year of such Calculation Period). Ultimate Parents: means: (a) 8minutenergy Renewables, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“8me”), (b) Saferay Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Saferay”) and (c) any successor entity to 8me or Saferay with which or into which 8me or Saferay (as applicable) is merged, consolidated or combined, or which acquires all or substantially all of the assets of 8me or Saferay (as applicable). Ultimate Parents Ownership Percentage: means the percentage of the outstanding equity interests (inclusive of both voting and economic rights) in Seller that are owned individually or jointly by the Ultimate Parents (together, in the aggregate), directly or indirectly through one or more intermediate entities; provided that in calculating such percentage owned by the Ultimate Parents, for all purposes of the foregoing: (i) any ownership interest in Seller held by one or both Ultimate Parents indirectly through one or more intermediate entities shall be counted towards such Ultimate Parents’ ownership interest in Seller only if such Ultimate Parents (together, in the aggregate) directly or indirectly own fifty percent (50%) or more - 17 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 of the outstanding equity voting and economic interests in each such intermediate entity; and (ii) ownership interests in Seller owned directly or indirectly by any Lender (including any tax equity provider) shall be excluded from the total outstanding equity interests in Seller. Valuation Consultant: Has the meaning set forth in Section 2.1. Valuation Consultant Report: Has the meaning set forth in Section 2.1. WECC: Has the meaning set forth in the definition of WREGIS. WREGIS: The Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System, an independent, renewable energy tracking system for the region, administered by the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (“WECC”). WREGIS tracks renewable energy generation from units that register in the system using verifiable data and creates RECs for this generation. WREGIS was developed through a collaborative process between the Western Governors’ Association, the Western Regional Air Partnership, and the CEC. 8me: Has the meaning set forth in the definition of Ultimate Parents. ARTICLE II TERM, PURCHASE AND SALE 2.1 Term (a) This Agreement shall be effective upon its execution by authorized representatives of the Parties and, unless earlier terminated pursuant to an express provision of this Agreement, shall continue until the twenty-seventh (27th) anniversary of the Commercial Operation Date (“Initial Term”). Either Party shall have the option to extend the Initial Term for one additional three (3) year extension term following the Initial Term (a “First Extension Term”). Additionally, Buyer (but not Seller) shall have a second option to extend the First Extension Term for another four (4) year extension term following the First Extension Term (a “Second Extension Term”), provided that, subject to this Section 2.1, any exercise of an option for the First or Second Extension Term shall be effective only if (i) such extension would not cause the overall Term to exceed 80% of the Plant’s “estimated useful life” from the beginning of the Initial Term and (ii) the estimated value of the Plant at the end of the First Extension Term (in the case of the exercise of an option for the First Extension Term), and at the end of the Second Extension Term (in the case of the exercise of an option for the Second Extension Term), after subtracting the estimated cost to Seller for - 18 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 removal and delivery of the Plant to the Seller, is (in 2015 (or such other year as the Commercial Operation Date occurs) dollars) at least 20% of the original cost of the Plant (such requirements ((i) and (ii) together), the “Residual Test”). The Residual Test shall be performed in accordance with Section 2.1(c). (b) Subject to this Section 2.1, a Party desiring to extend this Agreement into the First Extension Term or Second Extension Term, as the case may be, shall exercise such option by a written notice (“Option Exercise Notice”) delivered to the other Party by not later than eighteen (18) months prior to the end of the Initial Term or the First Extension Term, as the case may be. (c) If any extension option is exercised under Section 2.1(a) and (b), then promptly following the date of the Option Exercise Notice, Buyer shall designate a recognized appraisal and valuation consultant for approval by Seller (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld) (such approved consultant, the “Valuation Consultant”) and such Valuation Consultant shall by the date that is one hundred twenty (120) days following the date of the Option Exercise Notice determine (1) whether such extension would violate the above Residual Test, and (2) the estimated fair market value of the Plant (including all tangible and intangible related assets) as at the end of the current Term (the “Fair Market Value”). The Valuation Consultant shall provide to both Parties a reasonably detailed written report summarizing the Valuation Consultant’s assumptions and conclusions as to the Residual Test and Fair Market Value determinations (the “Valuation Consultant Report”). If the Residual Test is not satisfied, then the exercise of the option to extend this Agreement for the First Extension Term or Second Extension Term (as the case may be) shall be deemed ineffective and this Agreement shall expire at the end of the Initial Term or First Extension Term (as the case may be), and Section 2.1(d) below shall apply. (d) If this Agreement expires under Section 2.1(c) as a result of a failure of the Residual Test (following the exercise of an extension option), then Buyer shall have a purchase option to purchase the Plant (including all tangible and intangible related assets) from Seller at the end of the then current Term for a purchase price equal to the Fair Market Value (as determined by the Valuation Consultant Report), which option shall be exercisable in Buyer’s discretion by written notice delivered to Seller on or before the date that is 90 days following the date of the Valuation Consultant Report. If such purchase option is so exercised, then the Parties shall cooperate to cause the Plant (including all tangible and intangible related assets) to be sold from Seller to Buyer on the last day of the Term for the Fair Market Value purchase price and otherwise on customary terms and conditions. (e) The Initial Term, together with any First Extension Term and Second Extension Term is referred to herein as the “Term.” For the avoidance of doubt, the maximum Term shall not extend past the thirty-fourth (34th) anniversary of the Commercial Operation Date. - 19 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 2.2 Purchase and Sale of the Output (a) Commencing on the Commercial Operation Date and continuing during the Term, Seller shall sell and deliver at the Point of Interconnection, and Buyer shall purchase, accept from Seller at the Point of Interconnection and pay for, the entire Output produced during the Term pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Prior to the Commercial Operation Date, Buyer shall purchase and accept from Seller at the Point of Interconnection and pay for, the Output relating to any Test Energy pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; provided that the decision to produce and deliver Test Energy hereunder shall be at the sole discretion of the Seller. All Test Energy shall be scheduled in accordance with the procedures set forth in Exhibit D. Seller shall not sell to any other party, and Buyer may claim credit for, the Output, as may be available to Buyer from time to time. (b) During the Term, Seller shall sell and transfer to Buyer, and Buyer shall purchase and receive from Seller, all right, title and interest in and to the Environmental Attributes associated with the Output, if any, whether now existing or subsequently generated or acquired (other than by direct purchase from a third party) by Seller, or that hereafter come into existence, during the Term, as a component of the Output purchased by Buyer from Seller hereunder. Seller agrees to transfer and make such Environmental Attributes available to Buyer immediately to the fullest extent allowed by applicable law upon Seller’s production or acquisition of the Environmental Attributes. Seller shall not assign, transfer, convey, encumber, sell or otherwise dispose of all or any portion of the Environmental Attributes to any Person other than Buyer. Seller makes no written or oral representation or warranty, either express or implied, regarding the current or future existence of any Environmental Attributes. (c) During the Term, Seller shall not report to any person or entity that the Environmental Attributes granted hereunder to Buyer belong to anyone other than Buyer, and Buyer may report under any program that such Environmental Attributes purchased hereunder belong to it. (d) Seller will document the production of Environmental Attributes under this Agreement by delivering with each invoice to Buyer such attestations or other documents as may be required by Exhibit B. Exhibit B shall be updated or changed by the Parties, as necessary, to ensure that Buyer receives full and complete title to, and the ability to record with any EA Agency as its own, all of the Environmental Attributes purchased hereunder. At Buyer’s request, the Parties, each at their own expense, shall execute all such documents and instruments in order to transfer the Environmental Attributes, specified in this Agreement, to Buyer or its designees, as Buyer may reasonably request. In the event of the promulgation of a scheme involving Environmental Attributes administered by an EA Agency, upon notification by an EA Agency that any transfers contemplated by this Agreement will not be recorded, the Parties shall promptly cooperate in taking all reasonable actions necessary so that such - 20 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 transfer can be recorded. Each Party shall promptly give the other Party copies of all documents it submits to the EA Agency to effectuate any transfers. (e) As between the Parties, Seller shall be deemed to be in exclusive control (and responsible for any damages or injury caused thereby) of all Energy prior to the Point of Interconnection, and Buyer shall be deemed to be in exclusive control (and responsible for any damages or injury caused thereby) of all Energy at and from the Point of Interconnection. Seller shall deliver all Energy and other Output free and clear of all liens created by any Person other than Buyer. Title to and risk of loss as to all Energy shall pass from Seller to Buyer at the Point of Interconnection. 2.3 Price Subject to any performance related adjustments under the provisions of Section 9.4, during the period of delivery of any Test Energy and the entire Term, for Energy delivered or tendered to Buyer at the Point of Interconnection, Buyer shall pay Seller a price per MWh of Energy (“Price”) equal to (i) for all Test Energy and during Contract Years 1-13, inclusive, Sixty-Eight and 72/100 Dollars ($68.72) per MWh, (ii) during Contract Years 14-27, inclusive, Sixty-Eight and 22/100 Dollars ($68.22) per MWh and (iii) during any applicable First Extension Term or Second Extension Term, Seventy and 33/100 Dollars ($70.33) per MWh. The Price shall be the total compensation owed by Buyer for the Output delivered or tendered to Buyer during the period of delivery of any Test Energy and during the Term. 2.4 Tax Credits and Incentives Buyer agrees and acknowledges that all Incentives shall be owned by Seller. Buyer shall not claim Incentives. Buyer agrees to cooperate with Seller, as may be necessary to allow maximization of the value of, and realization of, and all Incentives; provided that Buyer shall not be required to incur additional costs or accept any diminution in value of its rights under this Agreement or of the Output purchased hereunder. In addition, Buyer shall not take any action (except as otherwise permitted under this Agreement), that would in any way reduce or eliminate the availability to Seller of any Incentives, including the Section 48 Credits, and Buyer shall forego any credits or benefits available to it (other than Environmental Attributes), including rights to purchase of Test Energy, to the extent necessary to allow Seller to obtain the full benefit of the Incentives, but in no event shall Buyer be required to forego receipt of Output after the Commercial Operation Date. 2.5 Right of First Refusal for Expansion Plant and Expansion Plant Output (a) During the Term, Seller may, in exercising its sole discretion, determine, from time to time, to develop, finance, construct and/or operate an Expansion - 21 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 Plant. Each time such a determination is made, Seller shall notify Buyer of such determination and shall offer, in writing, to sell the Expansion Plant Output to Buyer. The offer shall include the price to be paid by Buyer for the Expansion Plant Output, the term of the proposed power purchase agreement, and the other principal terms and conditions of the proposed sale. If Buyer wishes to accept such offer to purchase all (but not less than all) of the Expansion Plant Output, Buyer shall so notify Seller within ninety (90) days of its receipt of such offer. Buyer and Seller shall promptly thereafter enter into good faith negotiation of a definitive power purchase agreement, incorporating the terms of such offer. Until a power purchase agreement for an Expansion Plant is executed, Seller’s proposal, accepted by Buyer (including any modifications agreed upon in writing by both parties), shall control all dealings between the Parties relating to the Expansion Plant. Should any issue arise that is not covered by such documentation, the terms of this Agreement shall apply. (b) If Buyer does not accept Seller’s offer to purchase the Expansion Plant Output within ninety (90) days of receipt of Seller’s offer, Seller shall be deemed authorized to offer to sell that portion of the Expansion Plant Output to one or more third parties at a price and on other terms and conditions which, taken as a whole, are at least as favorable to Seller as the price and other terms and conditions set forth in Seller’s offer to Buyer. If Seller offers to disaggregate the Expansion Plant Output for the purpose of selling the same to multiple independent buyers, Seller shall notify Buyer, in writing, of the terms and conditions of such offers, and Buyer shall again have the right of first refusal consistent with the terms set forth above for each of the lesser amounts being offered to the third parties. If Buyer does not purchase the Expansion Plant Output and Seller sells such Expansion Plant Output to a third party, Seller shall promptly certify, in writing, to Buyer that the terms and conditions of sale of such Expansion Plant Output to such third party, taken as a whole, are at least as favorable to Seller as the price and other terms and conditions set forth in Seller’s offer to Buyer, and, subject to any confidentiality restrictions, Seller shall provide the relevant final contract and any other supporting documentation for such certification. Upon the sale of such Expansion Plant Output in compliance with this Agreement, Buyer shall have no further rights to be offered or to purchase such Expansion Plant Output. Buyer’s refusal, in writing, of the Expansion Plant Output from one Expansion Plant shall not affect Buyer’s right to purchase the Expansion Plant Output from a subsequently developed Expansion Plant under the terms of this Agreement. Seller shall not sell or provide the Expansion Plant Output to any third party, unless Seller can do so without compromising in any material way its ability to provide the Output to Buyer hereunder. The materiality of any such impact shall be determined by Buyer, acting in its reasonable discretion. 2.6 Refurbishment of Plant - 22 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 During the Term, Seller may refurbish the Plant, alter components of the Plant, replace components of the Plant, add additional solar modules or inverters, or replace solar modules or inverters with more powerful solar modules or inverters, etc. in order to increase the Plant estimated peak AC capability up to the lesser of the Initial Capacity or to the amount allowed by the Interconnection Agreement. However, Seller may not perform any refurbishment to increase capacity higher than the Initial Capacity without the prior consent of Buyer, and Buyer has the right, in its sole discretion, to accept or decline to permit any such refurbishment that may increase the Initial Capacity. ARTICLE III METERING AND BILLING 3.1 Metering Requirements The transfer of Energy from Seller to Buyer shall be measured by revenue quality metering equipment at the Point of Interconnection, the Site or another nearby location reasonably acceptable to Buyer. Such metering equipment, including any equipment required for communicating meter data (e.g., a dedicated data line) to Buyer or the CAISO, shall be selected, provided, installed, owned, maintained and operated, at Seller’s sole cost and expense, by Seller or its designee in accordance with applicable CAISO rules. Seller shall exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and operation of any such metering equipment, and shall test and verify the accuracy of each meter at least annually. Seller shall inform Buyer in advance of the time and date of these tests, and shall permit Buyer to be present at such tests and to receive the results of such tests. Subject to Buyer paying the cost of any update or upgrade to such metering equipment pursuant to a new requirement of the CAISO, the Participating TO or any other Governmental Authority, adopted after the Commercial Operation Date, each of Seller’s meters shall be accurate to the metering specifications then in effect for CAISO meter accuracy. Seller shall further install and maintain all equipment and data circuits necessary to transmit all monitored real time supervisory control and data acquisition (“SCADA”) system data and real time data from the CAISO meter to the CAISO and Scheduling Coordinator, while adhering to both CAISO and Scheduling Coordinator’s communications protocols. Seller shall provide Buyer with a copy of each certificate of compliance issued by CAISO, if any. Buyer and Scheduling Coordinator shall be provided access to all monitored SCADA points to be used at their discretion in real time monitoring. Buyer, at its sole cost and expense, may install and maintain check meters and all associated measuring equipment necessary to permit an accurate determination of the quantities of Energy delivered under this Agreement, provided the referenced equipment does not interfere with Seller’s metering equipment. Seller shall - 23 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 permit Buyer or Scheduling Coordinator or its agent access to Seller’s Plant for the purpose of installing and maintaining such check meters. Seller shall submit to the CAISO, or allow the CAISO to retrieve, any meter data required by the CAISO related to the Plant output in accordance with the CAISO’s settlement and billing protocol and meter data tariffs. Buyer shall have reasonable access to relevant meters and associated facilities, as well as real time access to all meter data, as is necessary for Buyer or Scheduling Coordinator or its agent to perform its duties as scheduling coordinator and comply with the requirements of the CAISO Tariff. 3.2 Billing Seller shall provide to Buyer on or before the tenth (10th) day of each month an invoice for the prior month based upon meter data for Energy delivered in such calendar month (taking into account any line losses to the Point of Interconnection), enclosing reasonably appropriate supporting CAISO documentation and any corresponding attestation that may be required pursuant to Section 2.2(d). Such invoice may be transmitted by e-mail to settlements@ncpa.com, or to any other e-mail address designated, in writing, by Buyer, with a copy to be delivered in the mail of the United States Postal Service or other entity to the notice address designated below. Should either Seller or Buyer determine at a later date, but in no event later than two (2) years after the original invoice date, that the invoice amount was incorrect, that Party shall promptly notify, in writing, the other Party of the error. If the amount invoiced was lower than the amount that should have been invoiced, then Buyer shall, upon receiving verification of the error and supporting documentation from Seller, pay any undisputed portion of the difference within thirty (30) days of receipt of verification. If the amount invoiced was higher than the amount that should have been invoiced, then Seller shall, upon receiving verification of the error and supporting documentation from Buyer, pay any undisputed portion of the difference within thirty (30) days of receipt of verification. Any such adjusted amount owing by Seller or Buyer shall be subject to the interest rate as designated in Section 3.3, running from the original due date of payment. 3.3 Payment For Energy delivered to Buyer pursuant to this Agreement, Buyer or its agent shall pay Seller by electronic transfer of funds by the later of the 20th day of the month or the 10th business day after the invoice is received in accordance with Section 3.2. If such due date falls on a weekend or legal holiday, such due date shall be the next day which does not fall on a weekend or legal holiday. Payments made after the due date shall be considered late and shall bear interest on the unpaid balance at an annual rate equal to two percent (2%) plus the average daily prime rate as determined from the "Money Rates" section of The Wall Street Journal for the days of the late payment period multiplied by the number of days elapsed from and including the day after the due date, to and - 24 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 including the payment date. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 365- day year. In the event this index is discontinued or its basis is substantially modified, the Parties shall agree on a substitute equivalent index. Should Buyer in good faith dispute the amount of an invoice, Buyer or its agent may withhold such disputed amounts until the dispute is resolved by mediation, arbitration or other permissible method. Such disputed amounts shall bear interest at the interest rate described above. Failure of Buyer or its agent to withhold any amount shall not constitute a waiver of Buyer’s right to challenge such amount. Both Parties shall maintain all records relating to the other Party or this Agreement for a minimum of two (2) years after the expiration or earlier termination of the Term, and shall permit the other Party, upon reasonable notice, to inspect and audit such records as the requesting Party deems reasonably necessary to protect its rights. ARTICLE IV SELLER'S OBLIGATIONS 4.1 Development, Finance, Construction and Operation of the Plant During the Term, Seller shall: (a) Develop, finance and construct the Plant. (b) Provide Buyer with access to a “real time” Plant monitoring system (which, at a minimum, shall provide “real time” information regarding the net output of the Plant) that is anticipated to be internet protocol-based and include any applicable alarms required by Prudent Utility Practice. (c) Seek, obtain, maintain, comply with and, as necessary, renew and modify from time to time, all Permits, certificates or other authorizations, which are required by any Requirements of Laws or Governmental Authority as prerequisites to Seller’s performance of this Agreement and to meeting Seller's obligation to operate the Plant consistently with the terms of the Agreement. Seller shall provide to Buyer reasonable assistance and shall cooperate with Buyer’s compliance with CEQA, including the performance of the Buyer’s review and other obligations under Section 10.19 of this Agreement. (d) Operate, maintain, and repair the Plant in accordance with this Agreement, all Requirements of Laws applicable to Seller or the Plant, Permits and in accordance with Prudent Utility Practice, including with respect to efforts to maintain availability of the Initial Capacity subject to normal system wear-and- tear and panel degradation factor. - 25 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 (e) Obtain and maintain the policies of insurance in amounts and with coverages as set forth in Exhibit C. (f) Operate and maintain in a manner consistent with Prudent Utility Practice the facilities it will own and otherwise cooperate with the Participating TO in the physical interconnection of the Plant to the Participating TO System in accordance with the Interconnection Agreement. (g) By October 1st of each year of the Term, provide each of Buyer and Scheduling Coordinator with an annual projection of scheduled Outages for the following calendar year. Should Seller make any changes to such projection, it will notify Buyer and Scheduling Coordinator of such changes at least fourteen (14) days in advance of any newly scheduled or rescheduled Outage. If Buyer requests a change to the scheduled date of any Outage (including to a date set forth in a change notice from Seller), Seller shall consider such request in good faith and notify Buyer of its decision within seven (7) days of receipt of Buyer’s request. In no instance other than Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays during the period of reliability accounting (initially the period between June 1st and September 30th but subject to changes selected at Buyer’s discretion for conforming to CAISO availability assessment) will Seller schedule Outages of more than twenty-four (24) hours during the Term. In connection with any Outage in excess of one (1) MW of Plant capacity, whether a scheduled or unscheduled Outage, Seller shall notify Buyer and Scheduling Coordinator, as soon as practicable, of the percentage of Plant (based on percentage of Energy loss) expected to be out of service and how long the Outage is expected to last. If the Outage is total and is due to failure of the Plant rather than the transmission and distribution system beyond the Point of Interconnection, Seller shall give Buyer and Scheduling Coordinator at least four (4) hours’ prior notice before re- energizing the Plant. In addition, Seller will comply with Scheduling Coordinator’s scheduling protocols, as may be changed from time to time. A copy of the current version of Scheduling Coordinator’s scheduling protocols, which the Parties agree are reasonable, is attached as Exhibit D; provided, during the Term, Buyer shall provide Seller with any revised scheduling protocols to the extent Scheduling Coordinator provides the same to Buyer. (h) Negotiate and enter into an Interconnection Agreement with the Participating TO to enable Seller to transmit Energy to the Point of Interconnection and into the CAISO-controlled grid. Seller shall be responsible for and pay all costs and charges arising under the Interconnection Agreement in compliance with the Interconnection Agreement and associated rules and requirements. As of the Effective Date, it is expected that the Plant will receive Full Capacity Deliverability Status on or around December, 2015. Seller shall ensure that the Interconnection Agreement provides that the Plant shall receive Full Capacity Deliverability Status, and shall take all commercially reasonable actions to cause such status to be obtained as soon as reasonably possible following the Commercial Operation Date. - 26 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 (i) Negotiate and enter into a Participating Generator Agreement and a Meter Service Agreement for CAISO Metered Entities with the CAISO, the load control area operator for the Participating TO System, to which the Plant is interconnected. Buyer shall pay for or reimburse Seller for any such costs or charges associated with these agreements, except to the extent such cost or charge is required to be paid by Seller under this Agreement in Sections 3.1 and 4.1(h). Seller shall cooperate with Buyer to minimize any such costs as are to be reimbursed by Buyer. (j) Coordinate all Plant start-ups and shut-downs, in whole or in part, with Buyer in accordance with CAISO scheduling protocols and the reasonable protocols established by Buyer that are not inconsistent with the CAISO Tariff and CAISO procedures. (k) Fund and maintain the Development Assurance to assure Seller’s timely development of the Plant, including the performance of all construction tasks, and fund and maintain the Performance Assurance to assure Seller’s delivery of the Output to Buyer in accordance with Article IX. (l) During the Term, Seller shall take all actions reasonably necessary to maintain the Plant’s status as an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource, provided that Seller’s obligation (including expenses incurred) to maintain such ERR status shall be subject to a cap on Seller’s Compliance Costs (i) during each calendar year in an amount equal to $10,000 per MW multiplied by the Initial Capacity, and (ii) in the aggregate during the Term of the Agreement in an amount equal to $50,000 per MW multiplied by the Initial Capacity. Seller shall be obligated to take actions to maintain the Plant’s ERR status (due to new or changes in Requirements of Laws) in excess of such amounts only to the extent Buyer elects to pay (and pays) such additional costs. (m) For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding the foregoing, if existing Requirements of Laws relating to ERR status (or relating to any applicable renewable portfolio standards) are repealed or cease to be effective or it becomes impossible to bring the Plant into compliance with any changes in Requirements of Laws relating to ERR status, Buyer shall remain obligated to purchase (and Seller shall remain obligated to sell) the Output (including all available Environmental Attributes) at the full Price in accordance with terms and conditions hereof, although the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to consider amendments to this Agreement that may be acceptable to each Party (and to each Lender) in its sole good faith discretion. 4.2 General Obligations - 27 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 (a) Seller shall obtain in its own name and at its own expense any and all pollution or environmental credits or offsets necessary to operate the Plant in compliance with the Environmental Laws. (b) Seller shall keep complete and accurate operating and other records and all other data for the purposes of proper administration of the Agreement, including such records as may be required by any Governmental Authority or Prudent Utility Practice. (c) Seller shall continue to (i) preserve, renew and keep in full force and effect its organizational existence and good standing, and take all reasonable action to maintain all applicable Permits, rights, privileges, licenses and franchises necessary or desirable in the ordinary course of its business; (ii) comply with all Requirements of Laws applicable to Seller or the Plant; and (iii) comply with all Contractual Obligations related to the operation and maintenance of the Plant that are set forth in contracts or agreements related to the operation and maintenance of the Plant, it being acknowledged (for the avoidance of doubt) that this clause (iii) does not apply to contracts or agreements that are not primarily related to the operation and maintenance of the Plant, including for example Plant debt and tax equity financing contracts. (e) Seller shall provide to Buyer such other information regarding the permitting, engineering, construction or operations of the Plant as Buyer may from time to time reasonably request, subject to licensing or other restrictions of Seller or a third party with respect to confidentiality, disclosure or use; provided, nothing herein will limit Buyer’s right to agree to confidentiality or sign a confidentiality agreement in connection therewith before acquiring knowledge of such information. (f) Seller shall enter into any agreements with the CAISO required by the CAISO for generators delivering power into the CAISO-controlled grid. Except for such costs and charges as are expressly identified in this Agreement as Seller’s costs, Buyer shall reimburse Seller for all costs and charges under such agreements. Seller shall cooperate with Buyer to minimize any such costs as are to be reimbursed by Buyer. (g) Within thirty (30) days after execution of this Agreement, Seller shall provide to Buyer a copy of Seller’s ultimate corporate parent’s most current annual audited financial statements, prepared in accordance with GAAP. Thereafter, from time to time at the request of Buyer (no more frequently than annually), Seller shall provide to Buyer a copy of Seller’s ultimate corporate parent’s most current annual audited financial statements, prepared in accordance with GAAP. Additionally, by no later than thirty (30) days after the end of each fiscal quarter, Seller shall also provide an unaudited quarterly financial statement of Seller prepared in accordance with GAAP consistently applied for Seller. Such quarterly financial statements shall be certified by an - 28 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 officer of Seller as fairly presenting the financial condition of Seller subject only to what would typically be included in year-end audit adjustments and footnotes. If, from time to time, an audited year-end financial statement is prepared for Seller, Seller shall provide it to Buyer no later than four (4) months after the end of Seller’s accounting year. (h) Within fifteen (15) days of the later of (i) obtaining the authority to construct for the Plant from the applicable Governmental Authority or (ii) Seller’s receipt of the system impact and facility cost studies from the Participating TO, Seller shall specify the then expected Initial Capacity of the Plant (which shall be subject to the limits set forth in the definition of Initial Capacity). At that time, Seller shall provide to Buyer a letter stating then expected Initial Capacity of the Plant in MW AC and specifying other material key Plant design details. (i) At the request of Buyer at any time during the Term, Seller shall in good faith evaluate and consider proposals for adding a battery storage unit to the Plant, provided that Seller shall not be required to add any such storage unit to the Plant unless and until Seller, Buyer and any Lenders each (in their sole and absolute discretion) approves the technical details of such unit and appropriate amendments to this Agreement related to such unit, including additional compensation related to such unit. 4.3 Construction Milestones (a) The Parties agree that time is of the essence in the performance of Seller’s obligations under this Agreement, and certain milestones (“Milestones”) for the development and construction of the Plant must be achieved in a timely fashion or Buyer shall suffer damages which are difficult to estimate with reasonable certainty. Seller shall provide Buyer with documentation satisfactory to Buyer, acting in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, to support the achievement of Milestones by the dates set forth below. (b) The following events are all of the Milestones: (i) By March 31, 2015 Seller shall have achieved the Construction Start Date. (ii) By June 30, 2015, Seller shall achieve Commercial Operation. (c) Starting on the Effective Date, Seller shall provide to Buyer written monthly progress reports concerning the progress towards completion of the Milestones which shall be in form and substance as required by Buyer in its sole discretion. In addition, within five (5) business days of the completion of each Milestone, Seller shall provide a certification to Buyer (along with any supporting documentation), demonstrating Seller’s achievement or satisfaction of the Milestone. Seller shall provide to Buyer additional information concerning Seller’s - 29 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 progress towards, or confirmation of, achievement of the Milestones, as Buyer may reasonably request from time to time. (d) Upon becoming aware that it will, or is reasonably likely to, fail to achieve a Milestone by the required date, for any reason including Force Majeure Event, Seller shall so notify Buyer, in writing, as soon as is reasonably practical. Such notice shall provide information regarding the cause of the delay, provide a revised date for achievement of the Milestone(s), and otherwise describe Seller’s plan for meeting the Milestone(s). Seller’s notice will also explain any impact such delay may or will have on any other Milestone, and measures to be taken to mitigate such impact. (e) In the event that: (1) a Force Majeure Event causes any delay to the achievement of any Milestone; (2) there is a delay in or failure of completion of Interconnection Facilities (through no fault of Seller, and provided that Seller has been working in good faith to meet its obligations under its Interconnection Agreement) beyond May 15, 2015; or (3) there is an Eligible CEQA Delay; then, and in any such case, each Milestone deadline shall be extended, in the case of (1) above by that number of days the applicable Force Majeure Event actually delays completion of such Milestone, in the case of (2) above by the number of days elapsed between May 15, 2015 and the date of completion of all applicable Interconnection Facilities, and in the case of (3) above by the number of days of Milestone extension provided for under Section 10.19(e). For the avoidance of doubt, any such extension of the deadline for the Construction Start Date Milestone for a specified number of days shall extend the deadline for the Commercial Operation Milestone for the same number of days. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (i) in no event shall the combined extensions under this Section 4.3(e) for any individual Milestone arising from any individual cause listed above (i.e., (1) Force Majeure Events, (2) a failure to complete Interconnection Facilities (through no fault of Seller) or (3) Eligible CEQA Delays) exceed eight (8) months in the aggregate, (ii) in no event shall the combined extensions under this Section 4.3(e) for any individual Milestone from all causes in the aggregate (i.e., (1) Force Majeure Events, (2) a failure to complete Interconnection Facilities (through no fault of Seller) and (3) Eligible CEQA Delays) exceed twelve (12) months in the aggregate and (iii) if on any given day two or more events cause delay to a Milestone at the same time (i.e., occur concurrently), Seller shall only be entitled to one day of delay for such day. - 30 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 (f) For the avoidance of doubt, any reference herein to any Milestone date or Milestone deadline shall be interpreted to mean such Milestone date or Milestone deadline as may be extended under this Agreement, whether or not such extension is expressly referenced. (g) Seller covenants that it will diligently pursue to completion all Milestones as set forth in Section 4.3(b). (h) Seller shall provide written notice to Buyer thirty (30) days in advance of the anticipated Commercial Operation Date, and shall provide Buyer with reasonable written weekly updates thereafter on the status of Seller’s progress in achieving Commercial Operation until the week preceding the Commercial Operation Date. On the Commercial Operation Date, Seller shall deliver to Buyer by facsimile, with originals to follow by hand-delivery, courier or mail service, the COD Certification signifying achievement of Commercial Operation. 4.4 Obligation to Schedule and Deliver (a) Scheduling. During the Term, Buyer shall provide (or cause to be provided), at its own expense, all Scheduling Coordinator services necessary for both the delivery and receipt of Energy (from the Plant) at the Point of Interconnection in accordance with all applicable CAISO and related protocols. For the avoidance of doubt, during the Term (x) Buyer (and its Scheduling Coordinator) shall have the exclusive right to schedule the Plant into the CAISO grid in any manner reasonably determined from time to time by Buyer (and its Scheduling Coordinator) consistent with the terms of this Agreement, CASIO and related protocols, and the operational characteristics set forth in Exhibit D; provided that if the manner in which the Plant is scheduled results in otherwise available Plant Energy not being scheduled, awarded or delivered in such CAISO market, then the amount of such Energy shall be treated as Economic Curtailment for all purposes of this Agreement, and (y) subject only to Sections 3.1, 4.1(h), 4.1(i) and 4.4(d), Buyer shall be solely responsible for all CAISO and related costs and expenses associated with scheduling and the delivery of Energy to and from the Point of Interconnection. Seller shall sign and deliver documentation, if any, that are required to: (i) designate and otherwise verify that Buyer or its designee is Scheduling Coordinator on behalf of Seller for the Plant; and (ii) allow Buyer to perform its various Scheduling Coordinator duties, including, but not limited to, scheduling Plant output in accordance with CAISO’s Participating Intermittent Resource Program (“PIRP”) or successor programs. Buyer shall appoint NCPA to act as Scheduling Coordinator for Buyer but reserves the right to substitute any other qualified entity as Scheduling Coordinator for the Plant upon reasonable advance notice to Seller. - 31 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 (b) General Confirmations. The Parties acknowledge their general understanding and intent, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as follows: (i) Seller shall use all reasonable efforts consistent with Prudent Utility Practice to maximize the output of Energy from the Plant; (ii) Subject to Buyer’s role as Seller’s Scheduling Coordinator and the other provisions hereof, Seller shall be responsible to arrange for, and shall bear all risks associated with, delivery of all Plant Energy to the Point of Interconnection; (iii) Buyer shall be obligated to pay for all Energy delivered to the Point of Interconnection; and (iv) Buyer shall be responsible to arrange for, and shall bear all risks associated with, acceptance and transmission of Energy at and from the Point of Interconnection. (c) Buyer Curtailment Rights. (i) Mandatory Dispatch Down Periods. Seller shall reduce delivery amounts as directed by the CAISO, Participating TO, or any successor thereof during any Dispatch Down Period. (ii) Discretionary Curtailments and Economic Curtailment. (A) Buyer may require Seller to curtail deliveries of Energy from the Plant to the Point of Interconnection for any reason in Buyer’s discretion (a “Discretionary Curtailment”) by delivering a dispatch notice to Seller, provided that (1) such Discretionary Curtailments shall be limited to a quantity of not more than 10% of the Expected Annual Net Energy Production in each Contract Year; and (2) the dispatch notices shall be consistent with the operational characteristics set forth in Exhibit D. Seller shall reduce the Plant’s delivered Energy by the amount and for the period set forth in each dispatch notice. (B) In addition to paying Seller for all Energy actually delivered hereunder, Buyer shall pay Seller, on the date payment would otherwise be due in respect of each month in which any Discretionary Curtailment or Economic Curtailment occurred, an amount equal to the product of (1) the amount of Energy that Seller could reasonably have delivered to Buyer but for such Discretionary Curtailment and/or Economic Curtailment and (2) the Price. (iii) Failure to Comply. If Seller fails to comply with a dispatch notice that meets the requirements for a Discretionary Curtailment, then, - 32 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 for the amount of Energy (in MWhs) that the Plant delivered in contradiction to the dispatch notice, Seller shall pay Buyer the greater of: (A) 200% of the aggregate Price for such MWhs plus any penalties or other charges actually incurred resulting from Seller’s failure to comply with the dispatch notice; and (B) the CAISO’s Real-Time Market (as defined in the CAISO Tariff) price for the applicable PNode for such MWhs plus any penalties or other charges actually incurred resulting from Seller’s failure to comply with the dispatch notice. (d) Forecast Fee. The Parties acknowledge that PIRP or its successor program, by means of a contract with a forecasting service (the “Forecasting Service”) develops high quality forecasts for day-ahead and/or hour ahead scheduling for CAISO operations. Buyer, or Scheduling Coordinator, shall bear forecast fees imposed by CAISO for use of the Forecasting Service, up to $0.10/MWh. If such fees exceed this amount, the Parties will each be responsible for 50% of such excess. With respect to the Energy to be sold under this Agreement: (i) If requested, Seller agrees to provide the Forecasting Service with sufficient data to support a reasonably accurate and unbiased forecast; and (ii) Buyer, as part of its Scheduling Coordinator services, will use the forecasts developed by the Forecasting Service, which are most applicable to the Plant as the Plant’s “Energy Schedule” for the CAISO Day-Ahead and/or Hour-Ahead markets. ARTICLE V BUYER’S OBLIGATIONS 5.1 Delivery and Transmission Except for Seller’s obligations pursuant to Sections 3.1, 4.1(h), 4.1(i) and 4.4(d), Buyer shall be solely responsible for paying costs and charges associated with the delivery and receipt of Energy under this Agreement at the Point of Interconnection and for the transmission and delivery of Energy from the Point of Interconnection to any other point downstream of the Point of Interconnection (including, without limitation, transmission costs and charges, competition transition charges, applicable control area service charges, transmission congestion charges, inadvertent energy flows, any other CAISO charges related to the transmission of such Energy by the CAISO and any charge assessed or collected in the future pursuant to any utility tariff or rate schedule, however - 33 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 defined, for transmission or transmission-related service rendered by or for any transmission-owning or operating entity). Buyer shall be responsible for the Scheduling Coordinator function. The NCPA, acting on behalf of Buyer, shall be Scheduling Coordinator for the transmission of Energy from the Plant in accordance with applicable CAISO rules. Buyer’s duties as Scheduling Coordinator shall be limited to those duties as are specifically required of scheduling coordinators in the CAISO Tariff and the CAISO protocols. Commercial arrangements for such transmission and delivery services will be coordinated and settled by the Scheduling Coordinator directly with the CAISO or other third parties. At the option of Buyer, the Plant may be included within NCPA’s metered sub-system in connection with the scheduling of power over the CAISO grid and related functions; provided that such inclusion shall have no adverse effect on the Plant’s operations or Seller (or any such effect shall be fully mitigated by Buyer). Seller will do all things reasonably needed to allow Buyer to comply with any obligations, and minimize any potential liability, under the CAISO Tariff; provided, that if such actions require any actions beyond the giving of notices, then Buyer shall reimburse Seller for all reasonably incurred out-of- pocket costs and charges of such actions. If and to the extent that Seller fails to comply with the notice provisions in Section 4.1(g) concerning Outages or with its obligations as outlined in the previous sentence, Seller shall be wholly responsible for all imbalances, deviations, or any other CAISO charges or penalties associated with such Outage or CAISO Tariff obligation (it being understood, however, that all such charges and penalties (if any) shall be borne by Buyer if Seller has not failed to comply with such provisions or obligations). 5.2 Taxes Buyer shall pay and be fully responsible for any sales, use, gross receipts, utility or other taxes, assessments or fees, if any, incurred or imposed on the sale or transfer of Output from Seller to Buyer under this Agreement. Buyer shall not be responsible for any taxes measured on the net income of Seller or ad valorem taxes paid by Seller that are associated with Seller’s rights and privileges relating to the Site. 5.3 Notification of Transmission Outages Buyer will exercise reasonable efforts to provide Seller with as much advance notice as practicable of any Outage on the Participating TO System or other transmission or delivery facilities which might result in a Dispatch Down Period. ARTICLE VI FORCE MAJEURE 6.1 Force Majeure Events - 34 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 It is understood that at times unavoidable delays or interruptions in construction, delivery or performance may result from Force Majeure Events. The performance of each Party under this Agreement may be subject to interruptions or reductions due to a Force Majeure Event. Both Parties shall in good faith use such effort as is reasonable under all the circumstances known to that Party affected by the Force Majeure Event at the time to remove or remedy the cause(s) and mitigate the inability to perform. However, the obligation to use such reasonable efforts shall not be interpreted to require resolution of labor disputes by acceding to demands of the opposition when such course is inadvisable in the discretion of the Party having such difficulty. 6.2 Remedial Action Subject to the limitation on extensions of Milestones set forth in Section 4.3(e), a Party shall not be liable to the other Party if the Party is prevented from performing its obligations hereunder due to a Force Majeure Event. The Party rendered unable to fulfill an obligation by reason of a Force Majeure Event shall take all action necessary to remove such inability with all due speed and diligence. The non-performing Party shall be prompt and diligent in attempting to remove the cause of its failure to perform, and nothing herein shall be construed as permitting that Party to continue to fail to perform after said cause has been removed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the existence of a Force Majeure Event shall not excuse any Party from its obligations to make payment of amounts due hereunder. 6.3 Notice In the event of any delay or nonperformance resulting from a Force Majeure Event, the Party suffering the Force Majeure Event shall, as soon as practicable under the circumstances, notify the other Party, in writing, of the nature, cause, date of commencement thereof and the anticipated extent of any delay or interruption in performance. 6.4 Termination Due To Force Majeure Event Following the Commercial Operation Date, if a Party is prevented in a material respect from performing any material obligations under this Agreement due to a Force Majeure Event lasting for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months or longer, the unaffected Party may terminate this Agreement, without liability of either Party to the other, upon thirty (30) days’ prior written notice at any time following expiration of such period of twelve (12) consecutive months. - 35 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 ARTICLE VII DEFAULT/REMEDIES/TERMINATION 7.1 Events of Default by Buyer The following shall each constitute an “Event of Default” by Buyer: (a) Buyer breaches any material obligation (other than one covered by Section 7.1(b) or (c) of this Agreement) and fails to cure such breach within thirty (30) days after written notification of breach by Seller or, if the breach cannot be cured within thirty (30) days, such longer period as may be necessary to cure such breach as long as Buyer is exercising diligent efforts to cure such breach. (b) Buyer fails to make any payment due under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after written notice that such payment is due. (c) The initiation of an involuntary proceeding against Buyer under the bankruptcy or insolvency laws, which involuntary proceeding remains unresolved for sixty (60) consecutive days, or in the event of the initiation by Buyer of a voluntary proceeding under the bankruptcy or insolvency laws. 7.2 Events of Default by Seller The following shall each constitute an “Event of Default” by the Seller: (a) Seller breaches any material obligation (other than ones covered by Sections 7.2(b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of this Agreement or for which a remedy is specified) and fails to cure such breach within thirty (30) days after written notification of breach by Buyer or, if the breach cannot be cured within thirty (30) days, such longer period as may be necessary to cure such breach as long as Seller is exercising diligent efforts to cure such breach. (b) Seller fails to make any payment due under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after written notice that such payment is due. (c) The initiation of an involuntary proceeding against Seller under the bankruptcy or insolvency laws, which involuntary proceeding remains unresolved for sixty (60) consecutive days, or in the event of the initiation by Seller of a voluntary proceeding under the bankruptcy or insolvency laws. (d) Seller sells or transfers the Output (or any individual component thereof) or Expansion Plant Output (or any individual component thereof) or the right to the Output (or any individual component thereof) or Expansion Plant Output (or any individual component thereof), to the extent that such Expansion Plant Output is purchased by Buyer, to any Person other than Buyer. - 36 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 (e) Seller fails to comply with the terms of Buyer’s right of first refusal as described in Section 2.5 of this Agreement. (f) Subject to Section 7.4(c) and 9.3, Seller fails, for any reason other than an unauthorized act or omission by Buyer, to achieve the Commercial Operation Date by the applicable Milestone deadline as set forth in Section 4.3(b)(ii), as such deadline may be extended in accordance with Section 4.3(e). 7.3 Termination for Default, Etc. (a) Declaration of Early Termination Date. If an Event of Default with respect to a defaulting Party shall have occurred and be continuing, the non-defaulting Party shall have the right (a) to send notice, designating a day, no earlier than ten (10) days after the day such notice is deemed to be received and no later than twenty (20) days after such notice is deemed to be received, as an early termination date of this Agreement (“Early Termination Date”), (b) to terminate this Agreement and end the Term effective as of the Early Termination Date and collect the Termination Payment, which shall be calculated in accordance with Section 7.3(b) below or as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement; (c) withhold any payments due to the defaulting Party under this Agreement; (d) suspend performance; and (e) exercise any other right or remedy available at law or in equity to the extent otherwise permitted under this Agreement. (b) Calculation of Termination Payment. The non-defaulting Party shall calculate, in a commercially reasonable manner, a Termination Payment as of the Early Termination Date. Third parties supplying information for purposes of the calculation of Gains or Losses may include dealers in the relevant markets, end-users of the relevant product, information vendors and other sources of market information. If the non-defaulting Party uses the market price for a comparable transaction to determine the Gains or Losses, such price should be determined by using the average of market quotations provided by three (3) or more bona fide unaffiliated market participants. If the number of available quotes is three, then the average of the three quotes shall be deemed to be the market price. Where a quote is in the form of bid and ask prices, the price that is to be used in the averaging is the midpoint between the bid and ask price. The quotes obtained shall be: (a) for a like amount, (b) of the same Output, (c) at the same (or a reasonably equivalent) Pnode (as defined in the CAISO Tariff), and (d) for the remainder of the Term, or in any other commercially reasonable manner. The Gains and Losses shall be calculated as the difference, plus or minus, between the economic value of the remainder of the Term of the Agreement and the equivalent quantities and relevant market prices for the same term that either are quoted by a bona fide market participant, as provided above, or which are reasonably expected to be available in the market for a replacement contract for the Agreement. The Termination Payment shall be the sole and exclusive remedy available to the non-defaulting Party in connection with its termination of - 37 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 this Agreement and shall not include consequential, incidental, punitive, exemplary, indirect or business interruption damages; provided that, if Seller is the defaulting Party, Buyer terminates this Agreement, and Buyer has paid for interconnection capital costs arising under the Interconnection Agreement pursuant to Section 4.1(h) for which Buyer has not received reimbursement under Section 4.1(h), then Seller shall also reimburse Buyer pro rata for any such costs paid for by Buyer (assuming twenty-five (25) years of Plant operations). The non-defaulting Party shall not have to enter into replacement transactions to establish a Termination Payment. (c) Notice of Termination Payment. As soon as practicable after delivery of a notice of termination, notice shall be given by the non-defaulting Party to the defaulting Party of the amount of the Termination Payment due from the defaulting Party to the non-defaulting Party, if any. The notice shall include a written statement explaining in reasonable detail the calculation of such amount and the sources for such calculation. The Termination Payment shall be made to the non-defaulting Party, as applicable, thirty (30) days after such notice is effective. (d) Disputes Regarding Termination Payment. If the defaulting party disputes the non-defaulting Party’s calculation of the Termination Payment, in whole or in part, the defaulting Party shall, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the non- defaulting Party’s calculation of the Termination Payment, provide to the non- defaulting Party a detailed written explanation of the basis for such dispute. Following delivery of such a notice, disputes regarding the Termination Payment shall be resolved in accordance with Section 10.9. 7.4 Damages (a) Except as otherwise provided herein, the rights and remedies of a Party pursuant to this Article VII shall be cumulative and in addition to the rights of the Parties otherwise provided in this Agreement. (b) Except as otherwise specifically and expressly provided in the Agreement, neither Party shall be liable to the other Party under this Agreement for any indirect, special or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of use, loss of revenues, loss of profit, interest charges, cost of capital or claims of its customers or members to which service is made. Except as set forth in Article IX and except to the extent Seller violates its undertaking not to provide or sell rights to part or all of the Output to a party other than Buyer, Seller shall not be liable to Buyer for failure to provide any specific amount of Output hereunder. (c) In the event that Seller fails to meet the Commercial Operation Date by the applicable Milestone deadline (as extended under Section 4.3), Seller shall pay Buyer liquidated damages as set forth in Article IX. - 38 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 (d) The Parties agree that the Termination Payment above, and the liquidated damages set forth in Sections 9.3 and 9.4, are reasonable and represent a fair and genuine estimate of the damages that either Party will suffer upon the termination of this Agreement or Buyer will suffer upon the failure of Seller to achieve Commercial Operation by the agreed upon date(s). The Parties acknowledge that it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix actual damages in such circumstances, and therefore they have deemed the liquidated damages set forth above to be the amount of damage sustained by Buyer or Seller upon the occurrence of such circumstances. The Parties further agree that payment of such amounts shall be as and for liquidated damages and not as a penalty (and are a sole and exclusive remedy upon a termination hereof, and under Sections 9.3 and 9.4 hereof), and are therefore not subject to avoidance under California Civil Code section 1671. 7.5 Indemnification (a) Up to and including the Commercial Operation Date, the Seller shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Buyer, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, liability, loss, injury or damage arising out of, or in connection with, the negligence, willful misconduct or violation of applicable law by Seller and/or its agents, employees or sub-contractors, excepting only loss, injury or damage caused by the negligence, willful misconduct or violation of applicable law of personnel employed by the Buyer to the extent caused by such negligence, willful misconduct or violation of applicable law of Buyer’s employed personnel. (b) After the Commercial Operation Date, each Party (“Indemnifying Party”) shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other Party and its officers, directors, employees, agents, affiliates and representatives (each, an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all losses, including but not limited to losses arising from personal injury or death, or damage to property, but only to the extent such losses result from or arise out of the negligence, willful misconduct or violation of applicable law by the Indemnifying Party, its employees, subcontractors or agents. If an Indemnified Party determines that it is entitled to defense and indemnification under this Article, such Indemnified Party shall promptly notify the Indemnifying Party in writing of the losses, and provide all reasonably necessary or useful information, and authority to settle and/or defend the losses. No settlement that would impose costs or expense upon the Indemnified Party shall be made without such Party’s prior written consent. 7.6 Buyer’s Right to Operate - 39 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 (a) Subject to Section 7.6(b), if, following the Commercial Operation Date, Seller (i) fails to maintain Seller’s Two Year Minimum Production Threshold or (ii) fails to generate Energy for sixty (60) consecutive days, then Buyer or its designee may, but shall not be obligated to, assume operational control of the Plant from Seller; provided that Buyer shall not be permitted to take control so long as Seller or any of Seller’s Lenders are using commercially reasonable efforts to remedy the failures described in (i) or (ii) above consistent with Prudent Utility Practice (the “Commercially Reasonable Efforts Standard”). Buyer, its officers, employees, agents, contractors and designees shall have the unrestricted right to enter the Plant to the extent necessary to operate the Plant in accordance with the foregoing. Upon the exercise of this right, Buyer or its designee shall at all times operate the Plant, using Prudent Utility Practice, and shall comply, to the extent commercially practicable, with the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Seller shall not be excused from any obligation or remedy available to Buyer as a result of Buyer’s operation of, or election not to operate, the Plant. Buyer shall pay Seller the applicable rate for Output provided hereunder, less any costs incurred by Buyer to operate the Plant. Buyer shall indemnify and hold Seller harmless from any liability to third parties arising out of Buyer’s failure to operate the Plant using Prudent Utility Practice. Upon Buyer’s reasonable satisfaction that Seller has the ability to operate the Plant in accordance with this Agreement, Seller shall resume operational control. (b) Prior to exercising any rights under this Section 7.6 (including taking any action to assume operational control of the Plant), Buyer shall first provide at least twenty (20) days prior written notice to Seller (and Lenders) identifying in reasonable detail the reasons why Buyer believes that neither Seller (nor the Lenders) have satisfied the Commercially Reasonable Efforts Standard to remedy Plant failures (an “Operations Assumption Notice”). If, prior to the expiration of such twenty (20) day (or longer) period, either Seller or its Lenders responds to Buyer’s Operations Assumptions Notice and states in reasonable detail reasons why Seller or it Lenders dispute Buyer’s assertion that Seller and its Lenders have not satisfied the Commercially Reasonable Efforts Standard, then Buyer shall refrain from exercising any rights under this Section 7.6 until such dispute is resolved in writing by both Parties mutually, or Buyer has obtained a court confirmation of its position in the manner contemplated by Section 10.9. (c) Should Seller’s Lender(s) refuse to finance the Plant, or materially condition such financing, solely as a result of this Section 7.6, and Seller gives Buyer reasonable prior written notice of such refusal to finance, Buyer shall have the following options: (1) renegotiate this Section 7.6 with Seller and Lender(s) in a manner mutually acceptable; (2) arrange for financing for the Plant under materially equivalent terms and conditions as the Lender(s) were prepared to provide but for this Section 7.6; (3) delete this Section 7.6 in its entirety (which deletion will not require Seller’s additional consent); or (4) terminate this - 40 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 Agreement without liability of one Party to the other. If Buyer fails to elect and complete one of these options within sixty (60) days of written notice from Seller, Seller shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without liability of one party to the other. To the extent that Seller fails to accomplish financing, and such failure causes delays to the achievement of the Milestones set forth at Section 4.3(b), and such delays are attributable to the discussion and negotiation with Lender(s) of this Section 7.6, then Seller shall be entitled to such reasonable time to arrange for the financing of the Plant upon final resolution of matters related to this Section 7.6. ARTICLE VIII REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 8.1 Seller’s Representations and Warranties Seller represents and warrants to Buyer that as of the Effective Date: (i) Seller is duly organized and validly existing as a limited liability company under the laws of Delaware, and has the lawful power to engage in the business it presently conducts and contemplates conducting in this Agreement, and Seller is duly qualified in California and each jurisdiction wherein the nature of the business transacted by it makes such qualification necessary; (ii) Seller has the legal power and authority to make and carry out this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder; all such actions have been duly authorized by all necessary proceedings on its part. As of the Effective Date, either: (1) (a) the Plant shall on the Commercial Operation Date be a "qualifying small power production facility" (“QF”) as that term is defined in Section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) and will be entitled to all of the exemptions from regulation provided in 18 CFR §§ 292.601(c) and 292.602 applicable to a QF with the capacity of the Plant; and (b) no approval (except with respect to "qualifying small power production facility" status and market-based rate authorization under Section 205 of the FPA) with respect to this Agreement is required from FERC; or (2) (a) Seller shall on the Commercial Operation Date be an "exempt wholesale generator" as that term is defined in Section 1262(6) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, and (b) no approval (except with respect to "exempt wholesale generator" status and market based rate authorization under Section 205 of the FPA) with respect to this Agreement is required from FERC. In the event that the Plant is not a "qualifying small power production facility" that is exempt from Sections 205 and 206 of the FPA on the Commercial Operation Date or any date thereafter, Seller shall make appropriate filings under the Federal Power - 41 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 Act within sixty (60) days so as to comply with applicable law, subject at all times to the provisions of Section 10.15 of this Agreement; (iii) The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by Seller will not conflict with its governing documents, any applicable laws, or any covenant, agreement, understanding, decree or order to which Seller is a party or by which it is bound or affected; (iv) This Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered by Seller and, as of the Effective Date, constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of Seller, enforceable in accordance with its terms against Seller, except to the extent that its enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or other similar laws affecting the rights of creditors generally or by general principles of equity; and (v) There are no actions, suits, proceedings or investigations pending or, to the knowledge of Seller, threatened, in writing, against Seller, at law or in equity, before any Governmental Authority, which individually or in the aggregate are reasonably likely to have a materially adverse effect on the business, properties or assets or the condition, financial or otherwise, of Seller, or to result in any impairment of Seller’s ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement. 8.2 Buyer Representations and Warranties Buyer represents and warrants to Seller that as of the Effective Date: (i) Buyer is a municipal corporation, duly organized and validly existing, and has the lawful power to engage in the business it presently conducts and contemplates conducting in this Agreement; (ii) Buyer has the legal power and authority to make and carry out this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder and all such actions have been duly authorized by all necessary proceedings on its part; (iii) The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by Buyer will not conflict with its governing documents, any applicable laws or any covenant, agreement, understanding, decree or order to which Buyer is a party or by which it is bound or affected; (iv) This Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered by Buyer and, as of the Effective Date, constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of Buyer, enforceable in accordance with its terms against Buyer, except to the extent that its enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or other similar laws - 42 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 affecting the rights of creditors generally or by general principles of equity; and (v) There are no actions, suits, proceedings or investigations pending or, to the knowledge of Buyer, threatened, in writing, against Buyer, at law or in equity, before any Governmental Authority, which individually or in the aggregate are reasonably likely to have a materially adverse effect on the business, properties or assets or the condition, financial or otherwise, of Buyer, or to result in any impairment of Buyer’s ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement. ARTICLE IX DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE 9.1 Forms of Assurance Seller shall maintain the Development Assurance and the Performance Assurance as follows: (a) The Development Assurance shall be deposited by electronic transfer to Buyer’s designated account with Wells Fargo NA or posted in the form of a letter of credit or escrow account (in substantially the form of agreements set forth on Exhibit F-1 and F-2 hereto) with Wells Fargo NA or such other banking institution reasonably acceptable to Buyer, as security for the timely development of the Plant. The transfer or posting shall occur within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, and the Development Assurance will be maintained to and including the Commercial Operation Date. (b) The Performance Assurance shall be deposited by electronic transfer to Buyer’s designated account with Wells Fargo NA or otherwise posted in the form of a letter of credit or escrow account (in substantially the form of agreements set forth on Exhibit F-1 and F-2 hereto) with Wells Fargo NA or other banking institution reasonably acceptable to Buyer, as security for the performance of the Seller to meet its obligations during the period commencing one day after the Commercial Operation Date and ending at the expiration of the Term. The Performance Assurance shall be deposited or posted within thirty (30) days after the Commercial Operation Date and shall be maintained until the end of the Term. 9.2 Managing Assurances Within ten (10) days after the occurrence of the Commercial Operation Date Buyer shall notify Seller’s banking institution that the Development Assurance - 43 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 (which shall be the full amount of the Development Assurance, plus interest under the applicable account, less any undisputed liquidated damages incurred under this Agreement) shall be returned to Seller. Buyer may either make, or request Seller’s banking institution to make, withdrawals from the Development Assurance and Performance Assurances in accordance with this Agreement and, if applicable, the terms of the letter of credit or escrow agreement. Seller shall provide additional funds (or availability thereof) in order to maintain such assurance (at the amounts thereof set forth in the definitions of Development Assurance and Performance Assurance, as applicable) at all times during when Seller must maintain Development Assurance and Performance Assurance, as specified in Section 9.1. Such additional deposits or availability shall occur within fifteen (15) days of any withdrawals from such accounts causing the account balance to fall below said amounts. Within thirty (30) days after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, Buyer will return to Seller any undisputed amount of the Development Assurance and/or Performance Assurance, as the case may be. 9.3 Development Liquidated Damages In the event that Seller fails to meet the Construction Start Date or Commercial Operation Date by the applicable Milestone deadline, as set forth in Sections 4.3(b)(i) and (ii), as such deadlines may be extended in accordance with Section 4.3(e), Seller shall be liable for liquidated damages in the amount equal to the Daily LD Amount for each day that Seller is late in satisfying the Milestone. So long as Seller is paying such liquidated damages on a monthly basis after failing to meet the relevant Milestone deadline (as such Milestone deadline may have been extended per Section 4.3(e)), Buyer shall not be permitted to terminate this Agreement for up to twelve (12) months. If after twelve (12) months following the relevant Milestone deadline (as such Milestone may have been extended per Section 4.3(e)) Seller has failed to achieve the relevant Milestone, or if for any reason Seller fails to pay, or discontinues paying, the liquidated damages provided for above, Buyer may terminate this Agreement by written notice to Seller. This twelve (12) month period shall not be further extended as a result of a Force Majeure Event. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the termination notice, Seller shall pay Buyer a lump sum equal to the amount of the Development Assurance minus any Daily LD Amounts, if any, previously paid to Buyer. No other damages or remedy shall be available to Buyer on the basis of such failure to meet the Milestones set forth in Sections 4.3(b)(i) and (ii) or termination of this Agreement based on Seller’s failure to achieve Commercial Operation within twelve (12) months of that Milestone deadline. If Seller achieves Commercial Operation on or before the Milestone deadline as set forth in Section 4.3(b)(ii), as such deadline may be extended in accordance with Section 4.3(e), Buyer shall promptly refund all Daily LD Amounts previously received as a result of Seller’s failure to meet the Construction Start Date Milestone deadline as set forth in Section 4.3(b)(i). - 44 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 9.4 Performance Liquidated Damages Seller guarantees that the Calculation Period Deemed Delivered Energy Amount for each two-year Calculation Period shall be no less than the Two Year Minimum Production Threshold for such Calculation Period, all in accordance with this Section 9.4. If, for any Calculation Period, the Calculation Period Deemed Delivered Energy Amount is less than the Two Year Minimum Production Threshold (any such shortfall, in MWh, a “Shortfall”), then Seller may cure such Shortfall by paying or crediting Buyer liquidated damages based on the amount of such Shortfall in an amount equal to the product of (i) the amount of such Shortfall multiplied by (ii) the greater of (a) the per MWh Price in this Agreement and (b) the average CAISO Day-Ahead price for energy in the Existing Zone Generation Trading Hub which corresponds to the Existing Zone of SP15 (as such terms are defined in the CAISO Tariff) over the applicable Calculation Period multiplied by (iii) one-half (0.50). Except as otherwise expressly stated in Sections 6.4 and 7.6, the foregoing shall be Buyer’s sole remedy for any Shortfall or failure to produce the Output or failure to maintain any specified Two Year Minimum Production Threshold. If for any two-year Calculation Period Seller is obligated to pay or credit any Shortfall damages hereunder, then, for purposes of calculating the Calculation Period Deemed Delivered Energy Amount for the immediately succeeding Calculation Period, the amount of the Calculation Period Deemed Delivered Energy Amount for the first year in such succeeding Calculation Period shall be deemed to be equal to the greater of (a) the actual Calculation Period Deemed Delivered Energy Amount for such first year and (b) eighty percent (80%) of the Expected Annual Net Energy Production for such first year. ARTICLE X MISCELLANEOUS 10.1 Assignment The rights and obligations of this Agreement may not be assigned by either Party without the prior written consent of the other Party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any Change of Control of Seller (whether voluntary or by operation of law) will be deemed an assignment and will require the prior written consent of Buyer, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Seller may use subcontractors without Buyer’s consent to comply with the terms of this Agreement, provided that notwithstanding the use of those subcontractors, Seller shall remain responsible for all of its obligations under this Agreement. Buyer may furthermore use any agent it so designates for scheduling and billing purposes, so long as Buyer remains responsible for all of its obligations under this Agreement. Any purported assignment of this Agreement in the absence of - 45 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 the required consent, except as provided in 10.2, shall be void. In determining whether to provide its consent to any proposed assignment of this Agreement or Change of Control, Buyer may request Seller to provide financial statements of the proposed assignee or new controlling party, or other relevant information, as the case may be. 10.2 Financing Notwithstanding Section 10.1, Seller may, without the consent of Buyer, collaterally assign its rights under this Agreement to Lender(s) as collateral security in connection with any financing of the construction, purchase or operation of the Plant, provided that such Lender(s) or its designee agree(s), in writing, that upon assuming any of Seller’s prospective rights under this Agreement, such Lender(s) also shall be bound by all of Seller’s prospective obligations under this Agreement. Notwithstanding any such assignment, Seller’s obligations under this Agreement shall continue in their entirety in full force and effect and Seller shall remain fully liable for all of its obligations under or relating to this Agreement. Each such collateral assignment and any purchaser or transferee shall be subject to Buyer’s rights and defenses hereunder and under applicable law. Seller shall provide prior written notice to Buyer at least ten (10) business days prior to any such collateral assignment. In order to facilitate the obtaining of financing of the Plant, Buyer shall execute, upon request, a commercially reasonable consent to assignment, with respect to a collateral assignment hereof to Lenders in connection with the documentation of the financing or refinancing for the Plant. Any assignment in violation of this Agreement shall be void, ab initio. Buyer shall consider in good faith any amendments to this Agreement proposed by Seller which relate to financing of the Plant or other amendments requested by Seller in order to receive or maintain financing from Lenders. If Seller elects to enter into a sale lease-back financing of the Plant, Buyer shall reasonably cooperate to provide such consents and related documents as may be reasonably and customary to carry out such financing. 10.3 Notices Any notice, demand, request, or communication required or authorized by this Agreement shall be delivered either by hand, facsimile, overnight courier or mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested with postage prepaid, to: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attention: Senior Deputy Assistant City Attorney / Utilities Telecopier: (650) 329-2646 - 46 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 on behalf of Buyer; with a copy to: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 3rd Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attention: Director of Utilities Telecopier: (650) 329-2946 and to: Northern California Power Agency 651 Commerce Drive Roseville, CA 95678-6411 Attention: Power Contracts Administrator Telecopier: (916) 783-7693 and to: 65HK 8me, LLC, 111 Woodmere Road, Suite 250 Folsom State: CA Zip: 95630 Attention: Kevin Butler Email: PPA@8minutenergy.com Telephone: 916-608-9060 with a copy to: Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Attention: Leslie E.Sherman Email: LSherman@Orrick.com Telephone: 415-773-5570 on behalf of Seller. The designation and titles of the person to be notified or the address of such person may be changed at any time by written notice delivered in the - 47 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 manner set forth in this Section 10.3. Any such notice, demand, request, or communication shall be deemed received (i) if delivered by hand by a Party or sent by facsimile or email or (ii) upon receipt by the receiving Party if sent by courier or U.S. mail. 10.4 Captions All titles, subject headings, section titles and similar items are provided for the purpose of reference and convenience and are not intended to be inclusive, definitive or to affect the meaning of the contents or scope of the Agreement. 10.5 No Third Party Beneficiary No provision of the Agreement is intended to, nor shall it in any way, inure to the benefit of any customer, property owner or any other third party, so as to constitute any such Person a third party beneficiary under the Agreement, or of any one or more of the terms hereof, or otherwise give rise to any cause of action in any Person not a Party hereto. 10.6 No Dedication No undertaking by one Party to the other under any provision of the Agreement shall constitute the dedication of that Party's system or any portion thereof to the other Party or to the public or affect Seller as an independent entity and not a public utility. 10.7 Entire Agreement; Integration This Agreement, together with all exhibits and Appendices attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes any and all prior oral or written understandings. No amendment, addition to or modification of any provision hereof shall be binding upon the Parties, and neither Party shall be deemed to have waived any provision or any remedy available to it, unless such amendment, addition, modification or waiver is made, in writing, and signed by a duly authorized officer or representative of the Parties. 10.8 Applicable Law The Agreement is made in the State of California and shall be interpreted and governed by the laws of the State of California and/or the laws of the United States, as applicable. 10.9 Venue The Parties hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts for the Northern District of the State of California; provided, however, that if such - 48 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 federal courts sitting in the Northern District of the State of California refuse jurisdiction, the Parties agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts sitting in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 10.10 Nature of Relationship The duties, obligations and liabilities of the Parties are intended to be several and not joint or collective. The Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed to create an association, joint venture, fiduciary relationship or partnership between Seller and Buyer or to impose any partnership obligation or liability or any trust or agency obligation or relationship upon either Party. Seller and Buyer shall not have any right, power or authority to enter into any agreement or undertaking for, or act on behalf of, or act as or be an agent or representative of or otherwise bind the other Party. 10.11 Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Reasonableness The Parties agree to act reasonably and in accordance with the principles of good faith and fair dealing in the performance of this Agreement. Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement, (i) wherever the Agreement requires the consent, approval or similar action by a Party, such consent, approval or similar action shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, and (ii) wherever the Agreement gives a Party a right to determine, require, specify or take similar action with respect to matters, such determination, requirement, specification or similar action shall be reasonable. 10.12 Severability Should any provision of the Agreement be or become void, illegal or unenforceable, the validity or enforceability of the other provisions of the Agreement shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect. The Parties will, however, use their best endeavors to agree on the replacement of the void, illegal, or unenforceable provision(s) with legally acceptable clauses which correspond as closely as possible to the sense and purpose of the affected provision. 10.13 Confidentiality (a) The Buyer is a public agency subject to the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). If Seller’s proprietary information is contained in documents or information submitted to Buyer, and Seller claims that such information falls within one or more CPRA exemptions, Seller must clearly mark such information “CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY,” and identify the specific lines containing the information. Buyer shall disclose such information to third parties only to the extent required by California law (including, without - 49 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 limitation, the California Constitution, the California Public Records Act and the Brown Act). (b) In the event of a request for such information, the Buyer will make best efforts to provide notice to Seller prior to such disclosure. If Seller contends that any documents are exempt from the CPRA and wishes to prevent disclosure, it is required to obtain a protective order, injunctive relief or other appropriate remedy from a court of law in Santa Clara County before the Buyer’s deadline for responding to the CPRA request. If Seller fails to obtain such remedy within Buyer’s deadline for responding to the CPRA request, Buyer may disclose the requested information. Seller further agrees that Buyer shall have no liability to Seller arising out of any disclosure by Buyer of any Seller information. (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, either Party may disclose this Agreement to its representatives (or any affiliate), the Northern California Power Agency or its representatives, or to any Lender(s) or potential Lender(s) or Plant investors or their representatives; provided that prior to such disclosure, the recipient shall agree, in writing, to keep the material confidential under terms no less stringent than as set forth in this Section 10.13. Buyer also shall be permitted to disclose this Agreement and related information to the City Council of Palo Alto for the express purpose of obtaining approval to execute this Agreement; provided that in connection with such disclosure Buyer shall only disclose such information to the extent required by California law (including, without limitation, the California Constitution, the California Public Records Act and the Brown Act). Each Party shall be bound by its obligations of confidentiality hereunder for a period of two (2) years from the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. (d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 10.13, nothing shall restrict any Party from using or disclosing confidential information in any manner it chooses which (i) is or becomes generally available to the public other than as a result of a disclosure directly or indirectly by the disclosing Party or its representative; (ii) was within the using or disclosing Party’s possession prior to it being furnished hereunder, provided that such information is not subject to another confidentiality agreement with, or other contractual, legal or fiduciary obligation of confidentiality to, any other party with respect to such information; (iii) is rightfully obtained by a Party from third parties authorized to make such disclosure without restriction; or (iv) is legally required to be disclosed by judicial or other governmental action as determined by such Party’s attorney acting in good faith (including, but not limited to, the California Constitution, the California Public Records Act and the Brown Act). 10.14 Cooperation The Parties agree to reasonably cooperate with each other in the implementation and performance of the Agreement. Such duty to cooperate shall not require either Party to act in a manner inconsistent with its rights under the Agreement. - 50 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 10.15 Mobile Sierra Doctrine Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Parties intend that the standard of review for changes to any rate, charge, classification, term or condition of this Agreement proposed by a Party shall be the “Mobile-Sierra public interest” standard of review, as stated by the United States Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, 554 U.S. 1164 (2008) and consistent with the order of the Supreme Court in NRG Power Marketing LLC, et al. v. Maine Public Utilities Commission et al., No. 08-674, 130 S.Ct 693 (2010) (“NRG Order”). Any modifications proposed by a non-contracting third party or FERC acting sua sponte shall be the most stringent standard permissible under applicable law. 10.16 Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts and by different Parties on separate counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and each of, which shall be deemed an original. 10.17 Immunity Waiver Each Party will comply with all applicable lawful federal, state and local laws, ordinances, resolutions, rate schedules, rules and regulations that may affect its rights and obligations under this Agreement. Buyer warrants and covenants that with respect to its contractual obligations hereunder and performance thereof, it will not claim immunity on the grounds of sovereignty or similar grounds with respect to itself or its revenues or assets from (a) suit, or (b) jurisdiction of court (including a court located outside the jurisdiction of its organization). 10.18 Debt Liability Disclaimer For the avoidance of doubt, the Buyer, including, but not limited to, any source of funding for Buyer, any General Fund or any special self insurance program, is not liable for any debts, liabilities, settlements, liens, or any other obligations of the Seller or its heirs, successors or assigns. The Buyer shall not be liable for and shall be held harmless and indemnified by Seller for (a) any claims or damages arising out of any other contract to which Seller is a party, and (b), subject to 7.5(b), any tortious action or inaction, negligent error in judgment, act of negligence, intentional tort, negligent mistakes or other acts taken or not taken by the Seller, its employees, agents, servants, invitees, guests or anyone acting in concert with or on behalf of the Seller. 10.19 CEQA - 51 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 (a) CEQA Condition. The Parties acknowledge that their respective obligations under this Agreement to proceed with the Plant remain subject to the completion of environmental review under CEQA, which review shall be conducted by Kern County (“County”) as “Lead Agency” under CEQA and the Buyer as a “Responsible Agency” under CEQA. Such CEQA review shall be deemed complete (“Final CEQA Approval”) when (i) the County has approved a conditional use permit (the “CUP” or “Conditional Use Permit”) and filed a Notice of Determination (as defined under CEQA) with respect to the CUP under CEQA authorizing the construction and operation of the Plant, (ii) the period for judicial appeals of, and for the filing of a legal challenge to, the CUP and the EIR certification pursuant to CEQA have expired without any such appeals or legal challenges having been made or filed, (iii) the Buyer has filed a Notice of Determination with respect to its review of the Plant under CEQA and (iv) the judicial appeals period, and the period for the filing of a legal challenge, under CEQA with respect to the Buyer’s Notice of Determination shall have expired, without any such appeals or legal challenges having been made or filed. If the Final CEQA Approval has not occurred by December 31, 2016 (the “CEQA Deadline”), then this Agreement may be terminated by either Party by delivery of written notice to the other Party stating that this Agreement is terminated for failure to satisfy the condition set forth in this Section 10.19. (b) Buyer CEQA Review. Buyer retains full discretion as a responsible agency under CEQA to determining whether to approve the Plant or terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 10.19(c) based on the final CEQA documentation prepared by the County and any additional CEQA environmental review conducted by Buyer. Buyer agrees to comply with the requirements of CEQA Guideline Section 15096 in connection with its review and approval of the Plant or termination of this Agreement. The Buyer shall review the CUP and related CEQA documentation (including an environmental impact report if applicable), and issue and file its Notice of Determination in the manner necessary to implement the shorter period of limitations set forth in Public Resource Code 21167(b) or (e) and Guideline Section 15112(c)(1), or shall issue a disapproval of the Plant under CEQA, within thirty-five (35) days after the CUP is issued by the County. (c) Termination. Buyer may terminate this Agreement if Buyer determines, based on the CEQA review conducted by the County or by Buyer, that the Plant causes significant adverse environmental impacts that are not adequately mitigated or for which there are no overriding conditions favoring approval of the Plant (the “CEQA Disapproval”). If, as a result of CEQA review, the Buyer imposes conditions upon the construction or operation of the Plant that are materially different from those imposed under other Permits, or that require material modification of the design, - 52 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 operation, location or other aspects of the Plant, then by notice to Buyer given within thirty (30) days after the Final CEQA Approval (but not later than the CEQA Deadline), Seller may terminate this Agreement. If Seller accepts the modifications to the Plant that are included in the Final CEQA Approval and the CUP, Seller may accept such changes by notice to Buyer. (d) Effect of Termination. Any termination under this Section 10.19 shall be “no-fault”, neither Party shall have any liability arising out of such termination, and Buyer shall promptly return to Seller all Development Assurance. (e) Milestones. The Milestones shall be extended on a day-for-day basis for each day after July 1, 2014 that the County issues the CUP (the “CUP Issuance Date”), and each day after August 1, 2014 (the “Buyer CEQA Approval Deadline”) that the Buyer issues its approval of the Plant under CEQA, in the form of a Notice of Determination (as defined under CEQA). The Buyer CEQA Approval Deadline shall also be extended on a day-for- day basis for each day after July 1, 2014 that the County issues the CUP. Seller shall provide Buyer with at least 14 days prior written notice of the anticipated CUP Issuance Date. If the Buyer does not file its Notice of Determination pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21152(a), and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal CCR §15112(c)(1)), within five (5) days after approving the Plant under CEQA to achieve the thirty (30) day period of limitations set forth in Pub. Resources Code §21167, the Milestones shall be extended to a date that is one-hundred eighty (180) days after the date on which the Buyer approves the Plant under CEQA after issuance of the CUP by the County. Additionally, if, following the date of CUP approval and certification of the EIR by the County, any lawsuit or other action is filed that challenges the approval of the CUP or certification of the EIR, each Milestone shall be extended on a day-for-day basis from such approval date until the date on which such legal challenge is fully and finally resolved allowing the Plant to proceed. All Milestone extensions provided for under this Section 10.19(e) are herein collectively referred to as “Eligible CEQA Delays.” [signature page follows] - 53 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written. SELLER 65HK 8me, LLC By: Name: Thomas Buttgenbach Title: Co-Manager Date: By: Name: Martin Hermann Title: Co-Manager Date: BUYER CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVAL AS TO FORM: By: Name: Title: Senior Deputy City Attorney Date: CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVAL BY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR By: Name: Lalo Perez Title: Administrative Services Director Date: CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVAL BY UTILITIES DIRECTOR By: Name: Valerie Fong Title: Utilities Director Date: CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER By: Name: James Keene Title: City Manager Date: CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVAL BY MAYOR: By: Name: Title: Mayor Date: - 54 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 EXHIBIT A-1 PLANT SITE DESCRIPTION The approximately two hundred twenty five (+/-225) acre site is located in Kern County, due east of the community of Bakersfield, CA. The southwest corner of the project site is located at Muller Rd. and Tejon Highway. The site can be described by the Kern County APNs: 177-220-07, 177-220-08 and 179-020-24. Please find the site map in Exhibit A-2. Acreage and APN are subject to change based on final assessment of project needs. The Parties acknowledge and agree that i) the Site described in this Exhibit A as of the Effective Date is only the approximate size required by the final Plant design and is in the vicinity of other lands under the control of Seller or its affiliates, ii) that the Site may be larger than required for the Plant, and at any time at or prior to the financial closing of Seller’s construction financing for the Plant Seller may update this Exhibit A (reduce the size of the Site or rearrange the boundaries of the Site) by notice to Buyer providing an updated version of this Exhibit A. Such final Site boundaries shall include sufficient real property for the Plant, plus sufficient additional real property (approximately one acre) in order to accommodate any potential future build out of battery storage facilities as may be mutually agreed by the Parties pursuant to Section 4.2(i). - 55 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 EXHIBIT A-2 SITE DRAWINGS Seller shall provide to Buyer final Site Drawings prior to the Commercial Operation Date. - 56 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 EXHIBIT B Environmental Attribute Transfer from Seller to Buyer Participation in the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System. Seller shall, at its sole expense take all actions and execute all documents or instruments necessary to ensure that all WREGIS Certificates associated with all Renewable Energy Credits corresponding to all delivered Energy are issued and tracked for purposes of satisfying the applicable requirements of the California Renewables Portfolio Standard and transferred in a timely manner to Buyer for Buyer’s sole benefit. Seller shall comply with all applicable laws, including, without limitation, the WREGIS Operating Rules, regarding the certification and transfer of such WREGIS Certificates to Buyer and Buyer shall be given sole title to all such WREGIS Certificates. Seller shall be deemed to have satisfied the warranty in this EXHIBIT B, paragraph (viii) provided that Seller fulfills its obligations under this EXHIBIT B, paragraphs (i) through (vii) below. In addition: (i) Prior to the initial Energy delivery date, Seller shall register the Plant with WREGIS and establish an account with WREGIS (“Seller’s WREGIS Account”), which Seller shall maintain until the end of the Term. Seller shall transfer the WREGIS Certificates using “Forward Certificate Transfers” (as described in the WREGIS Operating Rules) from Seller’s WREGIS Account to the WREGIS account(s) of Buyer or the account(s) of a designee that Buyer identifies by Notice to Seller (“Buyer’s WREGIS Account”). Seller shall be responsible for all expenses associated with registering the Plant with WREGIS, establishing and maintaining Seller’s WREGIS Account, paying WREGIS Certificate issuance and transfer fees, and transferring WREGIS Certificates from Seller’s WREGIS Account to Buyer’s WREGIS Account. (ii) Seller shall cause Forward Certificate Transfers to occur on a monthly basis in accordance with the certification procedure established by the WREGIS Operating Rules. Since WREGIS Certificates will only be created for whole MWh amounts of Energy generated, any fractional MWh amounts (i.e., kWh) will be carried forward until sufficient generation is accumulated for the creation of a WREGIS Certificate. (iii) Seller shall, at its sole expense, ensure that the WREGIS Certificates for a given calendar month correspond with the delivered Energy for such calendar month as evidenced by the Plant’s metered data. (iv) Due to the ninety (90) day delay in the creation of WREGIS Certificates relative to the timing of invoice payment under Article 3, Buyer shall make an invoice payment for a given month in accordance Article 3 before the WREGIS Certificates for such month are formally transferred to Buyer in accordance with the WREGIS Operating Rules and this EXHIBIT B. Notwithstanding this delay, Buyer shall have all right and title to all such WREGIS Certificates upon payment to Seller in accordance with Article 3. - 57 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 (v) A “WREGIS Certificate Deficit” means any deficit or shortfall in WREGIS Certificates delivered to Buyer for a calendar month as compared to the delivered Energy for the same calendar month (“Deficient Month”), after taking into account applicable delays in the issuance of WREGIS Certificates referenced in the prior paragraph or otherwise arising under WREGIS Operating Rules. If any WREGIS Certificate Deficit is caused, or the result of any action or inaction, by Seller, then Seller shall take all actions reasonably necessary to remedy such circumstances and failure to do so shall be a breach hereunder by Seller. (vi) Without limiting Seller’s obligations under this EXHIBIT B, to the extent a WREGIS Certificate Deficit is caused by an error or omission of WREGIS, the Parties shall cooperate in good faith to cause WREGIS to correct its error or omission. (vii) If WREGIS changes the WREGIS Operating Rules after the Effective Date or applies the WREGIS Operating Rules in a manner inconsistent with this EXHIBIT B after the Effective Date, the Parties promptly shall modify this EXHIBIT B as reasonably required (a) to cause and enable Seller to transfer to Buyer’s WREGIS Account a quantity of WREGIS Certificates for each given calendar month that corresponds to the delivered Energy in the same calendar month or (b) as may otherwise be reasonably appropriate to address such inconsistency. (viii) Seller warrants that all necessary steps to allow the renewable energy credits transferred to Buyer to be tracked in the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System will be taken prior to the first delivery under this Agreement. - 58 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 EXHIBIT C INSURANCE COVERAGES At its own expense, Seller shall secure and maintain during the Term the following insurance with the coverage amounts indicated for occurrences during and arising out of Seller’s performance of this Agreement. Such insurance shall be placed with responsible and reputable insurance companies in compliance with Requirements of Laws applicable to Seller. 1. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability. Seller shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance which comply with Requirements of Laws applicable to Seller. 2. Automobile Liability. Seller shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance in compliance with Requirements of Laws applicable to Seller, including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired automobiles for both bodily injury (including death) and property damage, including automobile liability contractual endorsement and uninsured/underinsured motorist protection endorsements. 2. Third Party Liability. Seller shall maintain third party liability insurance in compliance with Requirements of Laws applicable to Seller on a project-specific basis covering against legal responsibility to others as a result of bodily injury, property damage and personal injury arising from the operation and maintenance of the Plant. Such policy shall be written with a limit of liability not less than $10,000,000 and a deductible not to exceed $10,000. Such liability may be in any combination of primary and excess/umbrella. Coverage shall include, but not be limited to, premises/operations, explosion, collapse, underground hazards, broad form property damage and personal injury liability. To the extent available on commercially reasonably terms (as reasonably determined by Buyer), such coverage shall not contain exclusions for punitive or exemplary damages. 4. Property Insurance. Seller shall maintain third party property insurance on a project-specific basis covering cost of repairing Plant and or Interconnection equipment to operational condition. Such policy shall be written with coverage sufficient to replace and rebuild the Plant. Coverage shall include, but not be limited to, fire, storm damage, equipment failure, damage to equipment precluding operation under prudent utility practice, premises/operations, explosion, collapse, underground hazards, broad form property damage. Upon the request from Buyer, Seller shall provide Buyer with applicable insurance certificates confirming the insurance coverages required above. - 59 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 EXHIBIT D SCHEDULING PROTOCOLS Following the Effective Date, the Parties will agree on Exhibit D (Scheduling Protocols), which shall be consistent with the CAISO Tariff, any applicable PIRP rules and procedures, customary industry practice, and the Plant’s operational parameters (including as to levels and timing of curtailments), such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld by either Party. - 60 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 EXHIBIT E COD CERTIFICATION Commercial Operation Date: [______] This certification (“Certification”) of Commercial Operation is delivered by ___________ (“Seller”) to The City of Palo Alto (“Buyer”) in accordance with the terms of that certain Power Purchase Agreement dated as of the Execution Date (“Agreement”) by and between Seller and Buyer. All capitalized terms used in this Certification but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement. Seller hereby certifies and represents to Buyer the following: 1. The Plant equipment representing _________ MW AC of Initial Capacity has been installed, tested and is capable of generating energy in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. 2. The Plant is substantially complete and capable of delivering Energy as described in the Agreement. 3. The CAISO has provided notification of Commercial Operation in accordance with the CAISO Tariff, and documentation of such notification is attached hereto or shall be provided to Buyer promptly upon Seller’s receipt thereof. EXECUTED by SELLER this ________ day of _____________, 20__. By: _________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Title: ______________________________ The undersigned, a licensed professional engineer, hereby certifies that, to its current knowledge, the foregoing is substantially true and correct. [LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER] By: _________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Title: ______________________________ - 61 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 EXHIBIT F-1 FORM OF LETTER OF CREDIT If Seller elects to deliver Development Assurance or Performance Assurance in the form of a letter of credit pursuant to Section 9.1 of this Agreement, such letter of credit shall be a standby letter of credit in a form which is customary in the U.S. banking industry and reasonably acceptable to Buyer (such acceptance not to be unreasonably withheld). - 62 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 EXHIBIT F-2 FORM OF ESCROW AGREEMENT If Seller elects to deliver Development Assurance or Performance Assurance in the form of an escrow agreement pursuant to Section 9.1 of this Agreement, such escrow agreement shall be in a form which is customary in the U.S. banking industry and reasonably acceptable to both Parties (such acceptance not to be unreasonably withheld by either Party). - 63 - OHSUSA:756031452.7 EXHIBIT G EXPECTED ANNUAL NET ENERGY PRODUCTION Contract Year Expected Annual Net Energy Production (in MWh) 1 59,788 2 59,489 3 59,192 4 58,896 5 58,601 6 58,308 7 58,017 8 57,727 9 57,438 10 57,151 11 56,865 12 56,581 13 56,298 14 56,016 15 55,736 16 55,457 17 55,180 18 54,904 19 54,630 20 54,357 21 54,085 22 53,814 23 53,545 24 53,278 25 53,011 26 52,746 27 52,482 28 52,220 29 51,959 30 51,699 31 51,441 32 51,183 33 50,928 34 50,673 Note: The above amounts for Expected Annual Net Energy Production assume an Initial Capacity of 25 MW AC. If the Initial Capacity of the Plant as of the Commercial Operation Date is greater or less than 25 MW AC, then the amounts above shall be proportionally adjusted. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4671) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability Summary Title: Hayworth Solar Renewable Power Purchase Agreement Title: Approval of a Power Purchase Agreement with 65HK 8me LLC for up to 60,000 Megawatt-hours Per Year of Energy Over 34 Years for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $130 Million From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) to take the following actions: 1. Approve a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with 65HK 8me LLC (Hayworth), a Delaware limited liability company, for the acquisition of up to 60,000 Megawatt-hours (MWh) per year of energy over a maximum of thirty-four years at a total cost not to exceed $130 million; and 2. Delegate to the City Manager or his designee, the authority to execute on behalf of the City the PPA with Hayworth, the two contract term extensions available to the City under the PPA, and any documents necessary to administer the agreements that are consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and City Council approved policies. 3. Waive the application of the investment-grade credit rating requirement of Section 2.30.340(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which applies to energy companies that do business with the City, as Hayworth will provide a $1.875 million letter of credit as a development assurance deposit, and a subsequent $2.5 million letter of credit as a performance assurance deposit. 4. Waive the application of the anti-speculation requirement of Section D.1 of the City’s Energy Risk Management Policy as it may apply to surplus electricity purchases resulting from the City’s participation in the Hayworth PPA, including during the 2017-2020 time frame, due to the variability of the City’s hydroelectric resources and the potential City of Palo Alto Page 2 uncertainties associated with the timeliness and viability of the renewable energy projects in the City’s portfolio that are still under development. Executive Summary As part of ongoing efforts to meet the City’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of at least 33% of sales from qualifying renewable resources by 2015, staff issued a request for proposals (RFP) for renewable resources in the fall of 2013 and evaluated the proposals based on price, value, viability and compatibility with the City’s needs. After thorough review, staff concluded that the Hayworth solar photovoltaic (PV) project proposal had the best total score. When it begins operating in mid-2015, the 25-megawatt (MW) project1 will provide about 6 percent of the City’s annual energy needs, and will be sited on low productivity, water- constrained agricultural land in Kern County. The project was proposed by a team comprising 8minutenergy, a California-based solar PV project development company with a portfolio of more than 2,000 MW of solar PV projects, and Saferay Inc. (Saferay), a German independent solar power producer that was spun off from the panel manufacturer Q-Cells International in 2010. The Hayworth PPA (Attachment B) is structured as a 27-year initial term, followed by a three- year extension term option that can be exercised by either party and a four-year extension term option that can only be exercised by Palo Alto. The project’s pricing (which equates to a levelized price of $68.72 per MWh if both extension term options are exercised) is slightly lower than the prices of the three solar PV project PPAs that were approved by the Council last year. As with these three prior contracts, Palo Alto will make no upfront payments under the Hayworth PPA; energy will be paid for only after it is delivered. In addition, the Hayworth project will be a “fully deliverable” project and is to be located in what is currently a local capacity requirements (LCR) area, as defined by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). This means that the City will be able to count Hayworth’s capacity towards its LCR, which provides significant value that many renewable energy projects are not able to provide, at no additional cost. On March 26, 2014, the UAC reviewed the proposed PPA and unanimously approved staff’s recommendation. Background Per the Council-approved Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Objectives and Strategies, updated in April 2012 (Staff Report 2710), the City’s RPS target is to procure at least 33% of its retail sales volume from qualifying renewable resources by 2015, and to continue procuring 1 Under the terms of the PPA, the Hayworth project will be sized between 24 and 27 MW, with an expected size of 25 MW. All references to the Hayworth project’s 25 MW size in this report should be understood to capture that range. City of Palo Alto Page 3 renewable resources as long as the cumulative rate impact of all of the City’s renewable resources is not more than 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh). In addition, California’s Senate Bill (SB) X1-2, passed in 2012, requires all electric utilities in the state, including Palo Alto’s municipal utility, to procure increasing amounts of renewable resources in order to serve their retail customers. Utilities must procure at least an average of 20% of their retail sales volume from renewable resources in calendar years (CY) 2011-2013, at least 25% by CY 2016, and at least 33% by CY 2020 (and each year thereafter). Finally, in March 2013, Council approved the City’s Carbon Neutral Plan for the electric supply portfolio, to be achieved starting in 2013 (Staff Report 3550). In the early years of the Carbon Neutral Plan, the City expects to achieve carbon neutrality primarily by purchasing renewable energy certificates (RECs) to offset the emissions associated with its wholesale market power purchases. Ultimately the City’s goal is to achieve carbon neutrality entirely through the acquisition of additional “hard resources” that supply the City with both energy and environmental attributes so that REC purchases can be minimized. Current Status of Renewable Resources in Palo Alto’s Electric Portfolio The City has executed six PPAs for new renewable resources that are currently delivering energy to Palo Alto. These resources include two wind projects and four landfill-gas-to-energy (LFGTE) projects. An additional five PPAs have been executed for projects that are still under development. These resources include one LFGTE project that is expected to begin operating within the next two months, and four solar PV projects that are expected online in 2015 or 2016. The City has also executed PPAs for three other resources but subsequently terminated those agreements after the suppliers ran into problems developing the projects and requested unacceptable contractual concessions. Summary information for all 11 currently contracted RPS resources is provided in Table 1 below. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Table 1 – Palo Alto’s Existing Renewable Energy Contracts Project Supplier Technology Date Contract Executed Actual or Estimated Online Date Annual Energy (GWh) High Winds Iberdrola Wind Nov. 2004 Dec. 2004 48.9 Shiloh Iberdrola Wind Oct. 2005 Jun. 2006 71.4 Santa Cruz Ameresco Landfill Gas Nov. 2004 Feb. 2006 11.2 Half Moon Bay Ameresco Landfill Gas Jan. 2005 Apr. 2009 40.7 Keller Canyon Ameresco Landfill Gas Aug. 2005 Aug. 2009 11.8 Johnson Canyon Ameresco Landfill Gas Aug. 2009 May 2013 10.4 Subtotal – Operating 194.4 San Joaquin Ameresco Landfill Gas May 2010 Apr. 2014 30.3 Brannon Solar Trina Solar Solar PV Nov. 2012 Aug. 2014 50.7 Elevation Solar C sPower Solar PV July 2013 Dec. 2016 80.0 Western Antelope Blue Sky Ranch B sPower Solar PV July 2013 Dec. 2016 50.0 Frontier Solar Ridgeline Energy Solar PV July 2013 Dec. 2016 52.5 Subtotal – Under Development 263.5 Total – All Executed Contracts 457.4 In addition, through its contract with the Western Area Power Administration and through its ownership share of the Calaveras Hydroelectric Project, the City receives a small amount of energy from “small” hydroelectric projects that qualify under the state’s RPS standard. These resources that can be counted towards the City’s RPS requirements together account for about 1% of the City’s sales in normal water years. Lastly, Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN), a local solar PV feed-in tariff program, was launched in April 2012 (Staff Report 2548). Under the revised program design approved in February 2014 (Staff Report 4378), the Palo Alto CLEAN program may provide up to 0.5% of Palo Alto’s electric energy needs by 2015. Together, when all of the renewable facilities under contract reach commercial operating status, and assuming Palo Alto CLEAN provides 0.5% of the City’s total energy supply by 2015, the City’s RPS is expected to be about 30.8% of total energy supply needs in 2015 as shown in Figure 1 below. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Figure 1 – Palo Alto’s Committed Renewable Resources 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Re n e w a b l e E n e r g y G e n e r a t i o n ( G W h / Y e a r ) Large Solar PA CLEAN RECs Landfill Gas Wind Small Hydro 33% RPS Target Figure 1 shows actual energy deliveries through 2013 and estimated deliveries after that date. Discussion This section of the report will cover the following topics: A. The Market for Renewable Resources in California B. Results of Palo Alto’s Renewable Resource Request for Proposals (Fall 2013 RFP) C. Hayworth Solar Farm Summary D. Contract Mechanisms for Mitigating Project Risks E. Energy Risk Manager’s Assessment F. Palo Alto’s Renewable Resource Portfolio with Hayworth A. The Market for Renewable Resources in California California’s aggressive RPS goals for electric utilities resulted in a supply-demand imbalance in the renewables market that drove prices up, particularly between 2007 and 2011. However, in the past three years renewable energy prices have plummeted – largely due to an influx of low- cost solar panels into the market. Prior to 2011, solar was generally the most expensive type of renewable energy technology; now it is generally the least expensive. Furthermore, in the past three years supply and demand factors have shifted decidedly in favor of buyers like Palo Alto. This is due to the fact that a large number of renewable energy City of Palo Alto Page 6 developers have entered the market in recent years—reacting to the then-high renewable energy contract prices and the large appetites of the state’s large investor-owned utilities (IOUs) seeking to meet their RPS procurement requirements. But as of now the IOUs have contracted for enough renewable energy to meet their mid-term needs and thus have dramatically slowed down their procurement efforts. This has left a large pool of project developers competing with each other to win contracts with a relatively small pool of buyers. As a result, renewables prices—particularly for solar—have been driven down recently to near parity with long-term brown market prices. However, a number of factors appear poised to push renewable energy prices back up in the mid- to long-term. Among them are: a) The scheduled expiration, at the end of 2016, of federal tax incentives for renewable energy projects—including the 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and accelerated depreciation rules; b) The state’s three large IOUs are expected to re-start their large-scale RPS procurement efforts around 2017 or 2018 in order to meet the 33% RPS requirement for 2020 and beyond; c) The possibility—suggested repeatedly by the Governor—that the state will raise its RPS requirement to 40% (or perhaps 50%); and d) The possibility that other western states, or the federal government, will institute an RPS requirement or impose a cost on carbon-emitting resources. All of the above factors suggest that now is a good time to lock in long-term commitments at historically low prices in order to help the City meet its carbon neutrality goals and its post- 2020 RPS requirements. B. Results of Palo Alto’s Renewable Resource Request for Proposals (Fall 2013 RFP) The City typically contracts for renewable power by independently issuing RFPs, the most recent of which was released in September 2013. In response to that RFP, the City received 92 project proposals, the same number of proposals received in response to the City’s fall 2012 RFP. The 92 proposals represented a total capacity of 2,300 MW and 6,000 gigawatt-hours per year (GWh/year) of energy from a variety of technologies. The proposed projects included 65 solar PV projects, 16 wind projects, three small hydro projects, three biomass projects, three LFGTE projects, one geothermal project, and one municipal solid waste project. The proposals were evaluated based on price and value, project/contract viability, and compatibility with Palo Alto’s electric portfolio. The results of the evaluation process were extremely close, but ultimately the Hayworth proposal received the highest overall score. In evaluating the price and value of different offers staff takes into account: The daily and seasonal shape of the energy output; The location of the output; City of Palo Alto Page 7 The structure of the output in terms of meeting legislated criteria (i.e., satisfying limitations on the use of the three categories of renewable resources defined by the state’s RPS law); The likely capacity value of the output; The likely interconnection cost to get the output onto the grid; The proposed start date; and The green premium, which is calculated for each proposal as the proposal cost minus the cost of buying the equivalent amount of non-renewable resource output. (See Attachment C for details on how the green premium is calculated for each proposal and Table 2 below showing the green premiums of the City’s existing renewable energy contracts.) Figure 2 is a scatter plot of green premiums versus project start dates for the proposals received from the fall 2013 RFP. The green premiums of these projects were generally fairly similar to those of the project proposals received through the fall 2012 RFP. Further, the viability of each proposed project/contract was evaluated in terms of accomplished and remaining project development steps, along with the financial standing and development experience of the project developer. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Figure 2 – Green Premiums and Project Start Dates of RFP Proposals 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Jan-2014 Jul-2014 Dec-2014 Jul-2015 Dec-2015 Jun-2016 Dec-2016 Gr e e n P r e m i u m ( $ / M W h ) Contract Start Date Solar PV Wind Biomass LFG/Biomethane Small Hydro Geothermal RFP Finalist C. Hayworth Solar Farm Summary Hayworth Solar Farm – operating under the legal name 65HK 8me LLC – is a 25 MW project, with annual energy deliveries of 60,000 MWh (approximately 6% of the City’s energy needs) in the first year of the contract term. As with any solar PV plant, the annual output is expected to decline at a rate of about 0.5% per year due to solar panel degradation effects. The project is expected to begin commercial operations by June 30, 2015, and will interconnect to the CAISO grid as a Full Capacity Deliverability Status (FCDS) resource, which means that the City will be able to claim capacity value from the project. The project will be sited on former agricultural land about 12 miles east of the City of Bakersfield in Kern County. The project will interconnect at the Lamont Substation, which is currently located in a CAISO-designated local capacity area, which means that the City will be able to claim valuable local capacity credit from the project. There is a risk, however, that the CAISO could redefine the boundaries of the local capacity area such that the project would no longer contribute to the City’s LCR, which would likely result in the City having to purchase replacement local capacity from another resource. This risk applies to all projects located in local capacity areas, and is by no means particular to the Hayworth project. City of Palo Alto Page 9 The Hayworth PPA is structured as a 27-year base contract term, followed by a three-year extension term option (First Option) that can be exercised by either party and a four-year extension term option (Second Option) that can only be exercised by Palo Alto. The negotiated price for the PPA is $68.72 per MWh for the first 13 years, $68.22 per MWh for years 14 through 27, then $70.33 per MWh for the two extension terms (years 28 through 34). The project’s pricing (which equates to a levelized price of $68.72 per MWh if both extension term options are exercised) is slightly lower than the prices of the three solar PV project PPAs that were approved by the Council last year. The unusual stair-step pricing structure of this PPA is an arrangement that was negotiated when the supplier informed staff that in order for the contract to go to 30 or 34 years, they needed to include what’s known in the industry as a “residual test.” Essentially, in order for the supplier (rather than the City) to be considered the owner of the project for tax purposes (and thus be eligible for the federal investment tax credit, or ITC), the total term of the contract must be less than 80% of the “useful life” of the equipment, per IRS rules. Most estimates of the useful life of today’s PV panels are about 35 years. As a result, the supplier claims that it cannot sign a contract that contains a base term longer than 27 years, because if it did, it would not be able to get the project financed because no investor would want to take the risk of not receiving the ITC. Over a full 34-year contract term, the levelized price of this stairstep pricing arrangement is the same price that the supplier proposed in the RFP. If the residual test is not passed, or if either of the extension term options is not exercised, the levelized price of the contract will be slightly lower than what the supplier proposed in the RFP. As of today, the green premium for a 34-year contract term is significantly lower than that of a 27 or 30-year term. For this reason, and assuming the development of the project proceeds according to plan, it appears likely that the City will want to exercise both contract term extension options. Staff therefore seeks specific Council authorization to exercise the First Option and the Second Option, which would extend the 27-year base contract to a full 34-year contract term for the City. Staff also requests that Council delegate authority to the City Manager to exercise both of the extension term options, so that the City may act expeditiously if staff determines that it is in the City’s best interest to exercise each option near the end of the then-current contract term. Delegation of such authority to the City Manager is permissible under section 2.30.290 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Hayworth PPA proposal was submitted by the joint partnership of 8minutenergy, a wholesale solar PV development company focusing on utility-scale projects in the U.S., and Saferay, an independent solar power producer based in Germany. Each company owns 50% of the project and they have been working together since 2011 to co-develop it. 8minutenergy is primarily responsible for site control, permitting, and utility interconnection and transmission with the support from Saferay. Saferay is primarily responsible for design of the generating facility, financing, and construction. This includes conceptual design of the PV system, PV module support structures, utility interconnections, and transmission, power purchase agreement and financing. In addition, Saferay is the lead partner for procurement of the large City of Palo Alto Page 10 system components including the PV modules, structural steel, inverters, etc. Saferay has already developed and financed 500 MW of solar PV around the world. This project is also at an advanced stage of development and received one of the highest scores of all projects proposed in the RFP for overall viability and development progress. To date, the project is under full site control for the entire term of the proposed PPA, has executed a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with PG&E and has completed its Phase I and Phase II Interconnection Study reports with the CAISO. It is currently expecting to receive its Conditional Use Permit from Kern County in Q2 2014. D. Contract Mechanisms for Mitigating Project Risks With any new electric generation resource there is a risk that the project will not be built, will come online later than scheduled, or will stop performing at some point after it comes online. To mitigate these risks, the City has negotiated the inclusion of a development and performance assurance deposit in this PPA. And given recent challenges the City has experienced with other PPAs coming to fruition, staff placed greater weight on project viability in this RFP process than it did in prior RFPs, and also negotiated higher development and performance assurance amounts. For this project, a development assurance deposit of $1.875 million (in the form of a letter of credit), or $75/kW of installed capacity, would be available to the City, and withheld from the developer, if the project misses the commercial operation timing milestone. The development deposit provides an incentive to the developer to complete the project on time. It also provides compensation to the City should the project suffer unexcused delays or fail to materialize. After the start of commercial operations, the developer would provide a $2.5 million performance assurance deposit (in the form of a letter of credit), or $100/kW of installed capacity, which will be available to the City, and withheld from the operator, if certain performance measures are not met. Like all of Palo Alto’s other renewable PPAs, this agreement is structured so that the City pays only for metered output from the project after it has been delivered each month. This structure minimizes the City’s exposure to operational, maintenance and counterparty default risks in the contract. The performance deposit provides an added incentive for the operator to maintain the project output and provides compensation to the City should performance be less than expected, which would require the City to secure replacement renewable energy. In addition to risks related to project development, operations, and counterparty default, it should also be noted that there is a risk that in the future the CAISO could impose additional fees on the owners or off-takers of resources with highly intermittent output such as these three projects. As more solar and wind resources are added to the generation mix in the coming years to meet the state’s 33% RPS mandate, the cost of managing the intermittency of these resources and ensuring the stability of the electric grid will likely increase, and it is City of Palo Alto Page 11 possible that this additional cost will be passed on to the owners of the resources that are driving the cost increases. However, it is also possible that these cost increases would be spread evenly across all CAISO load-serving entities, regardless of the level of intermittency of their generation portfolios. While it is important to acknowledge the potential for future cost increases as a result of executing these three agreements, it should also be noted that it is highly unlikely that these cost increases would be great enough to make the Hayworth project less attractive to the City than a non-intermittent alternative (i.e., a geothermal, biomass, or landfill gas project) based on the response to the City’s recent renewable energy RFP. E. Energy Risk Manager’s Assessment The Energy Risk Manager was involved in the RFP process that selected the Hayworth proposal as the finalist. Part of this involvement included performing a credit assessment of the company providing the financial support for this proposal (as well as the companies backing the other shortlisted proposals). The proposed PPA would be entered into with an individual project-level Limited Liability Company (LLC), which is being supported by Saferay Holding GmbH, a privately held, Berlin-based independent solar power producer. The Energy Risk Manager assessed the expected default frequency (EDF) of Saferay using Moody’s credit measure tool, which extracts credit signals by combining information from the equity markets with the company’s debt structure as reported on its financial statements. This analysis yielded an EDF of 1.3 percent (meaning that there is an estimated one in 77 chance of default by the company within the next year). The risks to the City of entering into the proposed PPA are that the supplier defaults or is unable to perform according to the terms of the contract. If this occurs, the City might need to buy renewable energy from another supplier in order to meet its RPS obligations under State law or to meet the City’s RPS goals. These risks are minimized by the following terms of the proposed PPA: The City is not at risk for paying for output that is not delivered. The City will make no payments under the PPA unless and until energy from the project is delivered to the City; The supplier’s development assurance deposit funds provide some degree of assurance that the project will be completed. If it is not, then the City would be able to access the development deposit funds of up to $1.875 million to help offset the cost of procuring replacement renewable energy. Once the project becomes operational, the balance of the development deposit funds will be returned to the project-level LLC. At the same time, a new performance assurance deposit will be posted by the LLC and can be used by the City to cover operational and performance risk. Staff believes this amount is sufficient to cover these risks given that the operating costs for solar plants are much lower than their operating revenues; thus project owners tend to keep their projects operating. In general, businesses in the renewable industry lack extensive financial and operational track records, and because of the capital-intensive nature of these projects, they tend to be highly City of Palo Alto Page 12 leveraged as well. The company reviewed here is not investment grade and has a higher projected default rate than the City’s regular electric and gas suppliers. However, under the terms of the PPA, if the project does not come to fruition according to the construction start and commercial operation date milestones set forth in the PPA or if the supplier defaults at any time during the term of the agreement, the City can access the then- current development assurance funds provided by the letter of credit. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Council waive the investment-grade credit requirement for public agency contracts required under Section 2.20.340(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This conforms to Council action on prior renewable resource contracts with similar characteristics (CMR:461:04, CMR:100:05, CMR:350:05, CMR:343:09, CMR:226:10, Staff Report 3223, and Staff Report 3845). F. Palo Alto’s Renewable Resource Portfolio with Hayworth The City has made commitments to renewable resources projected to provide 30.8% of its energy from qualified renewable resources by 2015. If the Hayworth Solar Farm is added to the City’s renewables portfolio, Palo Alto’s renewable resources would be expected to provide about 33.9% of total sales in 2015, and 55.7% in 2017. As the City’s older PPAs begin to expire (beginning in 2021), the addition of this project to the City’s portfolio would enable it to exceed the state’s 33% RPS mandate until 2030. Figure 3 illustrates the City’s existing renewable resource commitments, with the Hayworth project included as a “pending” resource. Also shown is a reference line indicating the level of renewables that would produce a carbon neutral electric supply portfolio. (The volume of renewable energy certificates (RECs) that need to be procured each year in order for the City to achieve a 100% carbon neutral electric supply portfolio is shown as well. The large volume of RECs required in 2013 and 2014 is due to the impacts of the current drought on the output of the City’s two hydroelectric resources.) This reference line indicates that the inclusion of Hayworth in the City’s renewable resources portfolio would enable the City to achieve 100% carbon neutrality through long-term renewable and hydro resources from 2017 through 2020, even under moderately dry hydrological conditions. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Figure 3 – Palo Alto’s Renewable Resources with Hayworth 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Re n e w a b l e E n e r g y G e n e r a t i o n ( G W h / Y e a r ) RECs New Solar (Pending) Large Solar PA CLEAN Landfill Gas Wind Small Hydro 33% RPS Target 100% Carbon Neutral Portfolio As indicated in Figure 3, staff projects that adding the Hayworth PPA to the City’s renewables portfolio would result in a surplus of carbon neutral electric supplies from 2017 through 2020. However, this will be true only if hydrologic conditions are close to (or greater than) the long- term average level and all five of the renewable resources that the City has contracted for that are still under development (plus the Hayworth project) are completed on-time and deliver the expected amount of energy to the City. As the year 2013 and 2014 data points on the carbon neutral reference line indicate, “dry hydro” years are not uncommon in northern California, and they can have a tremendous negative impact on the output of the City’s hydroelectric resources. In such years, even the addition of the Hayworth PPA and all five of the other contracted resources that are still under development would not be sufficient to achieve a carbon neutral supply portfolio without the purchase of RECs. Also, it is the City’s experience that some renewable energy projects that are contracted for experience significant development delays, or end up not being built at all. The City’s experience in this regard is consistent with the broader renewables market. The California Energy Commission, for instance, has estimated the failure rate for renewables contracts to be between thirty and forty percent.2 2 According to the CEC: “Data from the Energy Commission’s [Investor Owned Utility] contract database indicates that since the start of the RPS Program, about 30 percent of long-term RPS contracts (10 years or more) approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) have been cancelled. The contract failure rate increases to City of Palo Alto Page 14 If, however, the City’s carbon neutral electric supply portfolio exceeds the amount of generation needed to achieve carbon neutrality in any given year, the City would have the ability to either “bank” the RECs associated with that generation for use in a later time period, or sell the surplus into the short-term markets. Prices for short-term REC sales are currently expected to be fairly advantageous for the City over the long-term, so these surplus positions would likely result in little if any financial loss for the City. Section D.1 of the City’s Energy Risk Management (ERM) Policy prohibits speculative buying and selling of energy products. Under the ERM Policy, “speculation” is defined as “buying energy not needed for meeting forecasted load or selling energy that is not owned.” Because Hayworth has the potential to lead to surplus electric purchases, including during the 2017- 2020 time period, staff and the UAC recommend that the Finance Committee recommend that Council waive application of the ERM Policy’s anti-speculation requirement to the City’s participation in the Hayworth PPA. Staff’s recommendation is based on the information set forth above, including the variability of the City’s hydroelectric resources and potential uncertainties associated with the viability and timeliness of renewable energy projects in the City’s portfolio that are currently under development. Table 2 provides a summary of renewable energy project volumes and the associated annual green premium amounts for the City’s committed renewable energy supplies as well as the PPA under consideration. As shown in the table, the annual green premium for the Hayworth PPA is estimated at $330,000. If Council approves the PPA, there would still be approximately $2.9 million per year of green premium remaining—indicate that the City would still have the ability to pursue additional renewable resources within the 0.5¢/kWh rate impact limit. about 40 percent when also considering contracts that have been delayed.” California Energy Commission. 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Publication Number: CEC-100-2011-001-LCF. 2011. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Table 2 – Summary of the City’s Current Renewable Energy Supplies and Proposed Projects Delivery Begins Annual Generation (GWh) Levelized Price ($/MWh) Adjusted Brown Market Price ($/MWh) Green Premium ($/MWh) Total Annual Green Premium ($1000) Small Hydro Before 2000 10.0 N/A N/A 0 0 High Winds Dec. 2004 48.9 57.6 55.0 2.6 125 Shiloh Wind June 2006 71.4 63.0 69.5 (6.5) (464) Santa Cruz Feb. 2006 9.9 62.3 59.3 3.0 29 Ox Mountain April 2009 43.9 59.0 67.5 (8.5) (375) Keller Canyon Aug. 2009 14.9 70.8 83.9 (13.0) (194) Johnson Canyon March 2013 10.4 123.6 67.3 56.3 586 San Joaquin June 2013 30.3 118.1 75.6 42.4 1,286 Brannon Solar Dec. 2014 50.7 77.0 60.1 16.9 857 Elevation Dec. 2016 80.0 68.8 72.7 (4.0) (317) W. Antelope Dec. 2016 50.0 68.8 69.2 (0.4) (22) Frontier Solar Dec. 2016 52.5 69.0 67.1 1.9 98 Total Committed Projects 473 Total Committed Green Premium 1,610 Hayworth June 2015 60 68.6 63.1 5.5 330 Total with Hayworth 533 Total Green Premium with Hayworth 1,940* * The annual green premium associated with a rate impact of 0.5¢/kWh is equal to $4.9 million Commission Review and Recommendation On March 26, 2014, the UAC reviewed staff’s recommendation that Council approve the proposed PPA with 65HK 8me LLC, delegate execution authority to the City Manager or his designee, and waive the City’s investment-grade credit rating requirement and anti-speculation requirement as they may apply to this agreement. The UAC discussed the risk that at some point the project’s capacity may no longer count towards the City’s LCR, and asked how staff would learn of such a change. The UAC also asked about the mechanics of the City’s collection of development and performance assurance funds, and whether any of these funds have ever been retained by the City as a means of assessing liquidated damages. The UAC also asked about the time horizon for banking Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) from the project, in the event that the City has a surplus of carbon neutral electric supply in a given year. After discussion, the UAC unanimously (5-0) recommended that Council approve the PPA as presented by staff. The excerpted draft minutes from the UAC’s discussion of the PPA at its March 26, 2014 meeting are presented as Attachment D. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Resource Impact The cost of renewable energy supplies from Hayworth is expected to be up to $130 million over the 34-year term of the agreement. The annual expected cost is up to $4.2 million. Approval of the PPA would result in a retail rate impact from all renewable resources, including the three new projects, of up to 0.20¢/kWh, beginning in 2017. The expected future cost for procuring renewable resources to meet the City’s RPS goal is already included in the current five-year financial forecast. Policy Implications Approval of the proposed PPA is in conformance with the City’s Long-term Energy Acquisition Plan (LEAP), specifically the City’s Renewable Portfolio Standard to meet at least 33% of the electric sales from renewable energy by 2015. Approval of the proposed PPA would also further the City’s efforts to achieve a carbon neutral electric supply portfolio entirely through the acquisition of additional “hard resources” that supply the City with both energy and environmental attributes (Staff Report 3550). Environmental Review Approval of this agreement does not meet the definition of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065. However, the City intends to receive output from a project that will constitute a project for the purposes of CEQA. The project developer will be responsible for acquiring necessary environmental reviews and permits on the project to be developed. During the development phase of the project, the City will become a “responsible agency” under the CEQA proceedings. As such, the PPA allows for the City to review the project CEQA documents and issue a notice of determination with respect to its review of the projects. Staff anticipates working with the City Attorney’s Office and the Planning Department to undertake this assessment. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution to Approve PPA with 65HK 8me LLC (PDF) Attachment B: Power Purchase Agreement with 65Hk 8me LLC (PDF) Attachment C: Green Premium Calculation (PDF) Attachment D: Excerpted Draft Minutes of the March 26, 2014 UAC Meeting (PDF) Attachment E: Contract Justification Form (PDF) Attachment D Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: May 7, 2014 Page 1 of 2 EXCERPTED FINAL MINUTES OF THE MARCH 26, 2014 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING ITEM 1: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that the City Council Adopt a Resolution Approving a Power Purchase Agreement with 65HK 8me LLC for up to 60,000 Megawatt-hours Per Year of Energy Over 34 Years for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $130 Million Senior Resource Planner Jim Stack summarized the written report. He noted that the project will bring the City to 99% carbon neutral by 2017 through long-term hydro supplies and long- term renewable energy contracts. He said that 92 project proposals were received in the Fall 2013 request for proposals (RFP). Stack explained that the evaluation criteria included price and value as well as project viability and indicated a preference for earlier start dates. Stack described the Hayworth Solar Farm Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) as having a capacity of 25 megawatts (MW), which would generate 6% of the City’s annual electric supply and would have an online date of June 30, 2015. The levelized price is $68.72 per megawatt- hour (MWh) over the 34-year term of the PPA and the project is located in Kern County near Bakersfield. Stack discussed the risks of the proposed PPA and the risk mitigation measures that are part of the PPA, which include having the project developer post development and performance assurance deposits in amounts that are significantly greater than those that have been posted for all of the other renewable energy PPAs the City has executed. Stack stated that the proposed PPA will deliver more energy than the City needs in 2017 through 2020 in the event that all the other solar projects that the City has contracted with are completed and the hydroelectric generation is average or better. He noted that in 2021, earlier renewable PPAs expire creating the need for more renewable energy. Stack said that the electric portfolio is highly affected by hydro conditions and that, in wet hydro conditions, surplus renewable energy would be sold in the market, but that the RECs could be banked to meet Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goals as well to maintain carbon neutrality. Stack explained that the green premium for the Hayworth project is estimated at $330,000 per year, and that this commitment would bring the City’s total committed green premium level for all renewable energy projects to $1.9 million, which is equal to a rate impact of about 0.2 cents/kWh. Attachment D Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: May 7, 2014 Page 2 of 2 Commissioner Hall asked why the green premium in the presentation is different from the number shown in the report. Stack indicated that he refreshed the numbers in the presentation with a new estimate of brown market prices, resulting in a slight increase in the estimated green premium relative to the number shown in the report. Hall stated that the Bakersfield area is currently deemed to be capacity deficient, which benefits Palo Alto in that the Hayworth project would count toward the City’s local capacity requirements, but that this could change in the future. Stack indicated that the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) undertakes studies of the grid on an annual basis and that the boundary lines are changed periodically designating capacity constrained areas. He noted that staff monitors the situation every year already and the situation could change such that, if the project’s classification as a local capacity resource changes, the City might need to purchase additional local capacity to replace it. Commissioner Hall asked if a performance bond is posted up front, or at the time when the non-performance event occurs. Stack stated that in this PPA, as in the City’s other solar PPAs, the developer posts the performance bond at the time the project begins operating – in advance of any performance related issues. Chair Cook asked how long the City can bank RECs for RPS rules. Senior Resource Planner Jon Abendschein stated that the State's RPS rules allow RECs to be banked indefinitely at least through the end of the RPS compliance period (2020). Stack stated that in terms of banking RECs for meeting the City’s Carbon Neutral electric portfolio goals, the City can set its own banking limits. Chair Cook asked if we have collected any development or performance assurances for the current PPAs for not hitting milestones. Stack said that all of the developers of the City’s solar PPAs have posted development assurances in the form of cash or letters of credit, but so far we have not had to draw on those funds because the developers have so far been meeting their development milestones. Director Fong noted that with one landfill gas to energy project that needed to extend its commercial operation date (COD), we negotiated liquidated damages in exchange for the extension of the COD. ACTION: Commissioner Eglash made a motion to approve the staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Melton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) with Commissioners Chang, Foster, and Waldfogel absent. FINANCE COMMITTEE DRAFT ACTION EXCERPT MINUTES Page 1 of 2 Special Meeting Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Roll Call Chairperson Berman called the meeting to order at 8:17 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Berman (Chair), Burt, Holman, Kniss Absent: Agenda Items 2. Approval of a Power Purchase Agreement with 65HK 8me LLC for up to 60,000 Megawatt-hours Per Year of Energy Over 34 Years for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $130 Million. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss that the Finance Committee recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution to take the following actions: 1. Approve a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with 65HK 8me LLC (Hayworth), a Delaware limited liability company, for the acquisition of up to 60,000 Megawatt-hours (MWh) per year of energy over a maximum of thirty-four years at a total cost not to exceed $130 million; and 2. Delegate to the City Manager or his designee, the authority to execute on behalf of the City the PPA with Hayworth, the two contract term extensions available to the City under the PPA, and any documents necessary to administer the agreements that are consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and City Council approved policies. 3. Waive the application of the investment-grade credit rating requirement of Section 2.30.340(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal DRAFT ACTION EXCERPT MINUTES Page 2 of 2 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Action Excerpt Minutes 5/6/2014 Code, which applies to energy companies that do business with the City, as Hayworth will provide a $1.875 million letter of credit as a development assurance deposit, and a subsequent $2.5 million letter of credit as a performance assurance deposit. 4. Waive the application of the anti-speculation requirement of Section D.1 of the City’s Energy Risk Management Policy as it may apply to surplus electricity purchases resulting from the City’s participation in the Hayworth PPA, including during the 2017-2020 time frame, due to the variability of the City’s hydroelectric resources and the potential uncertainties associated with the timeliness and viability of the renewable energy projects in the City’s portfolio that are still under development. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 10:28 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4641) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Emergency Preparedness Summary Title: Approval of San Francisquito Creek JPA Funding Agreement Title: Approval of Two Agreements: (a) Agreement with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and its Member Agencies for Funding of Construction of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101, and (b) Memorandum of Understanding between the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and the City of Palo Alto Concerning the Mitigation of Impacts to the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Due To The San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101; and Adoption of a Resolution Making Findings of Fact and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act in the Context of Approval of the Construction Funding Agreement of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.Approve,and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached agreement with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and its member agencies for the funding of construction of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 (Attachment A); 2.Approve,and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached Memorandum of Understanding with the San Francisquito Creek City of Palo Alto Page 2 Joint Powers Authority (JPA) regarding mitigation for impacts of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 on the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course (Attachment B); and 3.Adopt the attached resolution,making findings of fact and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act in the context of approval of the construction funding agreement for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 (Attachment C). Background San Francisquito Creek is the dividing line between San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties and is bordered by the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. The creek can cause severe flood damage with very little warning and has overflowed seven times since 1910. During the February 1998 El Niño event (approximately a 45-year event), record flooding caused an estimated $28 million in damages in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. More than 1,100 homes were flooded in Palo Alto, and Highway 101 was closed, as were numerous other roadways. The largest flood on record prior to 1998 occurred in December 1955 when the creek overtopped its banks in several locations, inundating about 1,200 acres of commercial and residential property. Damages resulting from this flood event were estimated at nearly $2 million in 1956 dollars. Total damages from a one percent (100-year)flood event are estimated at $300 million in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, as calculated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 2011. Following the historic flood event of 1998,the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto, the San Mateo County Flood Control District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District joined together to create the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA). The SFCJPA and its member agencies have been working cooperatively to implement a series of projects to provide flood protection for local residents. The SFCJPA has been seeking to compile the funds needed to implement its planned capital projects through a combination of federal (USACE), state, and local funding sources. Through the efforts of Congresswomen Eshoo and Speier, important funding for the Army Corps planning work has been included for federal FY 2015. Although other federal City of Palo Alto Page 3 dollars have proved to be elusive to-date, the SFCJPA has identified state and local funding that will pay for the following set of flood protection improvements: Downstream of Highway 101 The SFCJPA’s first major construction-ready capital improvement project will provide one percent flood protection from creek flooding for the communities of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto along San Francisquito Creek between San Francisco Bay and Highway 101. This portion of the creek is at a high risk of severe flooding from flows coming down the creek from the hills, with the extent of flooding influenced significantly by concurrent tide levels in the Bay. The San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 (San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project)is the necessary first step in an overall plan to provide protection to properties located within the flood-prone areas of the San Francisquito Creek watershed. Work upstream of Highway 101 cannot be undertaken until the creek’s capacity has been increased downstream, because before more water can be allowed to flow down the creek, the downstream reaches of the creek need to be expanded to accommodate the higher flow rates. The scope of this project will include construction of setback levees and floodwalls from San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 that will provide one percent flood protection. Upstream of Highway 101 The SFCJPA has identified state and local funding to pay for improvements that will enable San Francisquito Creek to contain flood waters equal to approximately the February 1998 flood (approximately a 45-year event), the largest flood on record. This will include remedying existing channel constrictions and modifying bridges at Newell Road and Pope/Chaucer Streets. If sufficient funding becomes available through the USACE or a local voter-approved funding initiative, a one percent flood protection project upstream of Highway 101, including some combination of modifications to the University Avenue and Middlefield Road bridges, upstream detention, underground bypass channels and floodwalls, could be built in the future. Discussion Multi-Agency Funding Agreement for San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project The SFCJPA, including representatives of the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto, the San Mateo County Flood Control District, and the Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Page 4 Valley Water District, have agreed on the terms of a funding plan to pay for the construction of the projects described above. The estimated construction cost of the projects and the proposed funding sources are listed in the following tables. San Francisco Bay to Hwy 101 --Construction Funding Sources S.F. Bay to Highway 101 Funding Sources Amount East Palo Alto $0.8M San Mateo County match $0.8M SCVWD $27.95M State of California DWR Grant $7.85M Estimated Project Cost $37.4M Upstream of Highway 101 –Future State-Local Construction Funding Sources Upstream of Highway 101: Newell Road Bridge modification Funding Sources Amount SCVWD $0.5M CalTrans Grant $3.5 Estimated Project Cost $4M Upstream of Highway 101: Pope/Chaucer Bridge modification and in-channel/ bank work Funding Sources Amount Menlo Park $0.5M East Palo Alto $0.2M San Mateo County match $0.7M SCVWD $9.7M Estimated Project Cost $11.1M The SFCJPA has completed the design work and the Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project. Construction of the project should begin later this summer, pending receipt of regulatory permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The SFCJPA and its member agencies have drafted a funding agreement for construction of the San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project, which each agency has agreed to present to its respective governing body for approval. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Although Palo Alto is contributing significant in-kind resources to the Project, including easements on City-owned land for channel widening and imported soil for levee construction, Palo Alto is not contributing any cash towards the funding of project construction. Staff recommends that Council approve the attached multi-agency funding agreement for construction of the San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project (Attachment A). A formal funding agreement for the flood protection improvements upstream of Highway 101 will be presented to Council for approval in the future, pending project design and environmental review. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Mitigation for Impacts of the San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project on the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course The City has agreed to provide an easement to the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which is acting as the creek maintenance agency on behalf of the SFCJPA, for approximately 7.4 acres of City-owned land from the Municipal Golf Course and a portion of the overflow parking area at the Baylands Athletic Center to accommodate the creek widening included in the San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project. The loss of the use of this land from the footprint of the golf course resulted in the need for the City to reconfigure a portion of the course. Subsequent to the decision to relinquish control of the 7.4 acres to the SFCJPA, Council decided to proceed with a reconfiguration of the entire golf course, but in any case the SFCJPA’s project created a direct economic impact on the City due to the loss of the golf course land and the athletic center parking area. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the SFCJPA Board of Directors in October 2012 contained a mitigation measure that stipulated that the SFCJPA would compensate the City for loss of the land (see Mitigation Measure REC-1 below). Mitigation Measure REC-1 —Compensate the City of Palo Alto for the Conversion of 7.4 Acres of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course to Accommodate Project Features In order to replace permanently affected holes at the Golf Course, compensate the City of Palo Alto an amount equivalent to the cost of replacing golf holes 12 through 15 within the Project footprint, and the relocation of other holes to accommodate the new holes 12 through 15, so that the Golf Course can remain a PGA-regulation 18-hole course. City of Palo Alto Page 6 To ensure this mitigation measure will be implemented, SFCJPA and City of Palo Alto will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding no later than 30 days prior to the initiation of construction that will require SFCJPA to provide funding for improvements at the Golf Course. SFCJPA and the City of Palo Alto will mutually agree on the amount and timing of the deposit, which will be determined by the results of site evaluation and preliminary design conducted by a certified golf course architect. Money will be used exclusively for mitigation of impacts on the Golf Course that are related to the Project. City staff and representatives from the SFCJPA have negotiated the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will effectively mitigate for the loss of the 7.4 acres of golf course land and the athletic center parking area. The MOU contains the following key elements: 1.SFCJPA to pay to the City the sum of three million dollars ($3,000,000) as adequate and sufficient consideration to offset the City’s costs of reconfiguring the Golf Course to maintain its Professional Golfers Association golf course accreditation. 2.As a mitigation for any damage to the Baylands Athletic Center parking lot caused by the San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project, the SFCJPA shall perform parking lot reconstruction work consisting of the following in the area or areas of damage: (A)The removal and replacement of failed base material beneath the parking lot surface and any underground utilities facilities that may be damaged by the Project-related construction work. (B)Resurfacing with a minimum of two (2) inches of asphalt concrete. (C)Restriping to maximize the number of parking stalls. Staff recommends that Council approve the attached MOU regarding mitigation for impacts of the San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project on the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course (Attachment B). Timeline City of Palo Alto Page 7 Construction of the SFCJPA’s San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project should begin later this summer, pending receipt of regulatory permits from state and federal resource agencies. Design, environmental assessment, and construction of projects that would enable San Francisquito Creek to contain flood waters equal to approximately the February 1998 flood (approximately a 45-year event),including remedying existing channel constrictions and modifying bridges at Newell Road and Pope/Chaucer Street Bridge, will continue using existing local funding sources. Construction of further improvements that would provide one percent flood protection to residents and businesses upstream of Highway 101, including some combination of modifications to the University Avenue and Middlefield Road bridges, upstream detention, underground bypass channels and floodwalls, could be built in the future, pending the identification of funding from the USACE or a local voter-approved funding initiative. Resource Impact The City is contributing significant in-kind resources to the SFCJPA’s San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project, including easements on City-owned land for channel widening and imported soil for levee construction. The City is not contributing any cash towards the funding of project construction. Policy Implications The recommendation does not represent any changes to existing City policies. Environmental Review The SFCJPA certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project,San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in October 2012. In March 2013, the SFCJPA prepared an Addendum to the Final EIR to evaluate environmental effects associated with longfin smelt. As a Responsible Agency under CEQA, the City must consider the JPA’s EIR and Addendum and make required findings prior to taking action to approve the multi-agency Project funding agreement. The EIR identified three significant unavoidable impacts associated with the City of Palo Alto Page 8 project: emissions of nitrous oxides from construction equipment in excess of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) daily threshold of 54 pounds per day; toxic air contaminant emissions in excess of BAAQMD daily emission thresholds; and the reduced availability of existing recreational facilities (the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course) by converting 7.4 acres of the golf course to flood conveyance. The EIR proposes mitigation for these impacts, but even with the implementation of proposed measures, the impact would remain significant (or in the case of the golf course implementation of mitigation is not within the jurisdiction of the SFCJPA). City approval of the Project funding agreement would allow the construction of proposed facilities and thus contribute to these significant impacts. The City is required to adopt a resolution (Attachment C) making certain findings under CEQA, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project. The SFCJPA is responsible for implementing all mitigation measures identified in the EIR with the coordination of the member agencies, including the City. Attachments: ·A -SFCJPA Construction Funding Agreement(PDF) ·B -SFCJPA/City Mitigation MOU (PDF) ·C -Resolution for SFCJPA Project Approval as CEQA Responsible Agency (PDF) SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 1 of 15 Attachment A AGREEMENT AMONG THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, THE SAN MATEO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, THE CITY OF MENLO PARK, AND THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO FOR FUNDING CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION, ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, AND RECREATION PROJECT SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO HIGHWAY 101 This Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the date it is fully executed by and between the SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (“Authority”), a California joint powers authority, the SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (“Water District”), a special district of the State of California, the San Mateo County Flood Control District, a special district of the State of California (“Flood District”), the CITY OF PALO ALTO (“Palo Alto”), the CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO (“East Palo Alto”), and the CITY OF MENLO PARK (“Menlo Park”), collectively referred to as “the Parties” or individually as “Party.” The effective date of this Agreement will be the last date that this Agreement is executed by the Parties. The purpose of this Agreement is to define the roles and responsibilities of the Parties for funding construction of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 (“Project”). R E C I T A L S A. San Francisquito Creek (“Creek”) has a history of flooding the communities in and around East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Palo Alto, most recently in December 2012, impacting residential properties adjacent to the Creek. B. Following the severe flood in February 1998, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto along with the Flood District and the Water District formed the Authority on May 18, 1999. These entities are all full members of the Authority. The Authority was authorized to represent its member agencies as the local sponsor for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (“Corps”) San Francisquito Creek flood control project on May 23, 2002. C. In March 2005 the Corps, working with the Authority, completed a reconnaissance study for the Creek. The reconnaissance study results indicated a Federal Interest in developing a flood control project for San Francisquito Creek. Therefore, the Corps has engaged in the feasibility study (“Study”) phase of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project (“FDRER”) which requires a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement with a local sponsor. D. The Authority entered into a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement (“FCSA”) with the San Francisco District of the Corps for the Study on the Creek. The Corps, pursuant to the FCSA, is developing a project to evaluate flood protection and ecosystem restoration opportunities within the San Francisquito Creek Watershed in Santa Clara and San SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 2 of 15 Mateo Counties. At the conclusion of the Study, the Corps will issue a Federally Preferred Plan, which will detail the pre-design actions to be taken to complete the FDRER. E. The Corps’ ability to complete the Study has been impacted by unanticipated delays due to federal funding constraints and Corps’ processes. F. Due to the Corp’s delay in completing the Feasibility Study and the Member Agencies’ desire to begin addressing the risk of flooding in their jurisdictions, the Authority and Member Agency staff conducted a process of evaluating alternatives for an initial capital project and recommended a preferred alternative with conceptual design drawings to the Authority Board of Directors for consideration. G. On July 23, 2009, the Authority’s Board of Directors unanimously approved the staff’s recommended Project and authorized its Executive Director to pursue funding opportunities and to contract with qualified consultants to perform 1) planning and design services and 2) environmental impact assessment and planning for the Project. H. The Authority, the Water District, and the Flood District entered into an agreement on November 3, 2009 to fund the design and environmental documentation of the Project. I. The Authority hired a design engineering firm and an environmental consulting firm to prepare design documents and an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project. J. The final EIR was certified by the Authority on October 25, 2012. The Notice of Determination (NOD) was filed by the Authority with the County of Santa Clara, Office of the Clerk/Recorder and by the County of San Mateo Office of the Recorder, on July 30, 2013. K. East Palo Alto will contribute $800,000 towards Project costs. L. In November 2012, the voters of Santa Clara County approved Measure B, the Water District’s Safe, Clean Water initiative which will provide significant funding toward the Project costs. The District will contribute approximately $28 million toward Project costs from its Safe, Clean Water program and other sources. M. On January 9, 2013, the Authority entered into an Agreement with the State of California, Department of Water Resources (DWR) for $8 million in grant funding from DWR’s Stormwater Flood Management Program to be applied towards Project costs. N. The Flood District will contribute $800,000 toward Project costs. The Flood District’s financial contribution will be in an amount equal to the financial contribution made by East Palo Alto. O. The City of Menlo Park and the City of Palo Alto are not financially contributing toward the Project costs, however, construction of the Project directly benefits the City of Menlo Park as its completion is necessary to accommodate future flood protection measures located in Menlo Park, upstream of the Project, which may be constructed in the future. In addition, Palo Alto is impacted by the Project because realignment of a portion of its SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 3 of 15 municipal golf course may be necessary to accommodate various flood protection construction elements of this Project. P. For the purpose of this Agreement, funding from East Palo Alto, the Flood District, the Authority, and any future funds from other sources, contributed toward Project costs, shall be referred to as “Non Water District Funds.” Q. The Water District and the Authority intend to enter into a Construction Management Agreement designating the Water District as the entity responsible for managing construction of the Project. R. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to provide for reimbursement of Water District expenditures towards construction of the Project from funding that may become available through Non Water District Funds NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and the covenants and conditions in the sections contained herein below, the Parties agree as follows: P R O V I S I O N S 1. Project Purposes The Project’s purposes are to improve flood protection, restore the ecosystem, and provide recreational opportunities within the Project’s reach, with the following specific objectives: 1) protect properties and infrastructure between Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay from San Francisquito Creek flows resulting from 100 year flood events in conjunction with a 100-year tide, including projected Sea Level Rise; 2) accommodate future flood protection measures upstream of the Project that may be constructed; 3) enhance habitat along the Project reach, particularly habitat for threatened and endangered species; 4) enhance recreational uses; and 5) minimize operational and maintenance requirements. 2. Funding Amounts Construction of the Project is currently estimated to cost approximately $37.45 million. Based on this estimate, the Parties agree to contribute the following amounts toward these costs. A. Non Water District Funds 1. The Authority will provide Project funding in the currently estimated amounts as stated below. The Authority will provide to the Water District documentation of all listed expenses incurred and paid for by the Authority. a) $3,000,000 to the City of Palo Alto to mitigate for impacts to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course; b) $50,000 for other mitigation activities; c) $2,700,000 to Pacific Gas and Electric Company to relocate gas and electric transmission lines; SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 4 of 15 d) $400,000 to the East Palo Alto Sanitary District to relocate a sewer line; e) $100,000 for property acquisition within East Palo Alto; f) $150,000 DWR grant administration costs incurred by the Authority; g) $1,450,000 remaining balance of DWR grant funds after the Authority pays for all costs listed in a) – f) above. The remaining balance will be remitted to the Water District as partial reimbursement of its construction costs. 2. East Palo Alto: $800,000. 3. Flood District: $800,000 (matching East Palo Alto’s contribution of $800,000 currently identified from Non Water District Funds). B. Water District Funds The Water District will expend an amount not to exceed $28,000,000 for expenditures incurred in constructing the Project. 3. Method and Timing of Transactions A. Water District shall prepare and submit quarterly invoice packages to the Authority. Water District’s Quarterly invoice packages will include Project progress reports and all other documentation required by DWR sufficient to enable the Authority to submit subsequent funding requests to DWR for grant funding reimbursement. B. Authority shall submit a request for grant fund reimbursement to DWR within 15 days of receipt of invoice packages from Water District, provided all DWR- related invoicing requirements are met. To the extent funds are available after the Authority pays for all costs itemized in paragraph #2. A. a) through f) above, the Authority will issue payment to the Water District for costs of construction managed by the Water District within thirty days of receipt of grant funds from DWR. C. Non Water District Funds contributed by East Palo Alto and the Flood District will be remitted to the Water District within one hundred and eighty days (180) after a construction contract is awarded by the Water District’s Board of Directors. 4. Mutual Hold Harmless Mutual Hold Harmless and Indemnification Obligations A. In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation, which might otherwise be imposed between the Parties pursuant to Government Code Section 895.6, the Parties agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by a Party shall not be shared pro rata but, instead, the Member Agencies agree that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each of the Parties hereto shall fully indemnify and hold each of the other Parties, their officers, board members, employees, and agents, harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability imposed for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying Party, its officers, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to such party under SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 5 of 15 this Agreement. No Party, nor any officer, board member, or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the another party hereto, its officers, board members, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such other Party under this Agreement. The obligations set forth in this paragraph will survive termination and expiration of this Agreement. B. In the event of concurrent intentional or unintentional misconduct, negligent acts or omissions by any one of the Parties (or each of their respective officers, directors and/or employees), then the liability for any and all claims for injuries or damages to persons and/or property which arise out of each and any of their performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be apportioned according to the California law of comparative negligence. The Parties hereto are not jointly and severally liable on any liability, claim, or lawsuit. C. The construction contract and bid documents will require the construction contractor to agree to appropriate indemnity provisions allowable by law to protect the Parties, and to secure and maintain in full force and effect all times during construction of the Project and until the Project is accepted by the Parties, general liability and property damage insurance, business automobile insurance and such other insurance as the Parties deem appropriate, in forms and limits of liability acceptable to the Parties, naming Water District, Authority and each of its Member Agencies and their respective directors, council members, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds from and against all damages and claims, losses, liabilities, costs or expenses arising out of or in any way connected to the construction of the Project. D. The duties and obligations of this Section will survive and continue in full force and effect after the termination or expiration this Agreement. 5. Retention of Records, Right to Monitor and Audit Unless a longer period of time is required by law or federal or state grant funding agreements, the Parties shall maintain all financial records related to this Agreement and/or the Project for five (5) years after the Agreement expires or is terminated earlier pursuant to Section 7 of this Agreement. The records shall be subject to the examination and/or audit of either Party. 6. Agreement Term This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and remain in place until the construction of the Project is completed and accepted by the Parties, or this Agreement is terminated earlier by the Parties in the manner authorized by Section 7. Termination. 7. Termination A. If any Party fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, any other Party may terminate this Agreement but only after giving written notice of the failure of performance to SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 6 of 15 the Party committing the failure with a copy of such notice given to all other Parties. Such notice shall explain the alleged failure of performance and provide a reasonable opportunity for the failure to be cured which in no case will be less than 30 days. If the failure of performance is not satisfactorily cured within the cure period, the Agreement may be terminated upon the delivery of a written notice of termination to all of the Parties. B. A final notice of termination may be given only after completion of the notice and cure process described in Section 7.A. and only with the approval of the governing body of the Party terminating the Agreement. C. In event of termination, each Party shall deliver to all of the other Parties, upon request, copies of reports, documents, and other work performed by any Party under this Agreement. The cost of work performed under this Agreement to the date of termination shall be due and payable in accordance with the provisions of this Construction Funding Agreement to be executed by the Parties prior to Water District’s commencement of the bid process for award of a construction contract for the Project. D. Notwithstanding the foregoing, after the Water District awards a construction contract for the Project, this Agreement may only be terminated by the mutual written agreement of all of the Parties approved by the governing body of each Party. E. The Chief Executive Officer of the Water District and the Executive Director of Authority are empowered to terminate this Agreement on behalf of their respective agencies in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 8. Notices Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall not be effective unless it is given in writing and shall be delivered (a) in person, (b) by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or (c) by a commercial overnight courier that guarantees next day delivery and provides a receipt, and addressed to the parties at the addresses stated below, or at such other address as either party may hereafter notify the other parties in writing: Authority: San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority 615-B Menlo Avenue Menlo Park, California 94025 Attention: Len Materman, Executive Director len@sfcjpa.org Water District: Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, California 95118 Attention: Beau Goldie, Chief Executive Officer bgoldie@valleywater.org SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 7 of 15 Palo Alto City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Attention: James Keene, City Manager james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org City of East Palo Alto East Palo Alto 2415 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Attn: Magda Gonzalez, City Manager mgonzalez@cityofepa.org Menlo Park City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 Attention: Alex McIntyre, City Manager admcintyre@menlopark.org Flood Control District Department of Public Works 555 County Center, 5th Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Attention: James Porter, Director jporter@smcgov.org Service of any such notice or other communications so made shall be deemed effective on the day of actual delivery (whether accepted or refused) as evidenced by: a) confirmed in-person delivery by the addressee or other representative of the Party authorized to accept delivery on behalf of the adressee, b) as shown by the addressee’s return receipt if by certified mail, or c) as confirmed by the courier service if by courier; provided, however, that if such actual delivery occurs after 5:00 p.m. (local time where received) or on a non- business day, then such notice or demand so made shall be deemed effective on the first business day immediately following the day of actual delivery. No communications via electronic mail shall be effective to give any notice, request, direction, demand, consent, waiver, approval or other communications hereunder. 9. Severability In the event any portion of this Agreement is declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such portion shall be severed from this Agreement and the remaining parts hereof shall remain in full force and effect as fully as though such invalid, illegal or unenforceable portion had never been part of this Agreement. SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 8 of 15 10. Governing Law and Compliance with Laws The parties agree that California law governs this Agreement. In the performance of this Agreement each Party will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state, and applicable local government. 11. Venue In the event that suit shall be brought by any party to this contract, the parties agree that venue shall be exclusively vested in the state courts of either the County of Santa Clara, or the County of San Mateo or where otherwise appropriate, exclusively in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. 12. Assignability and Subcontracting Parties shall not assign this Agreement or any portion thereof to a third party or subcontract with a third party to provide services required under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other parties. Any unauthorized attempt by any Party to so assign or transfer shall be void and of no effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Party may hire a consultant to fulfill its obligations under Section 3 of this Agreement. 13. Ownership of Materials All reports, documents, or other materials developed or discovered by any Party or any other person engaged directly or indirectly by any Party to perform the services required hereunder shall be and remain the mutual property of Authority and Water District without restriction or limitation upon their use. 14. Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Authority and the Water District with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior offers and negotiations, oral and written. This Agreement may not be amended or modified in any respect whatsoever except by an instrument in writing signed by authorized representatives of the Authority and Water District. 15. Further Actions The Authority and Water District agree to execute all instruments and documents, and to take all actions, as may be reasonably required to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 16. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which, taken together, shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument. SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 9 of 15 17. Non Waiver A Party’s waiver of any term, condition, or covenant, or breach of any term, condition or covenant will not be construed as a waiver of any other term, condition or covenant. 18. Third Parties This Agreement is entered into only for the benefit of the Parties executing this Agreement and not for the benefit of any other individual, entity, or person. (remainder of page intentionally left blank) SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 10 of 15 AGREEMENT AMONG THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, THE SAN MATEO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, THE CITY OF MENLO PARK, AND THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO FOR THE FUNDING OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION, ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, AND RECREATION PROJECT SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO HIGHWAY 101 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority has executed this Funding Agreement as of the date and year stated below. Each Party has executed a separate signature page. APPROVED AS TO FORM: San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority By: ______________________________ By: ______________________________ Greg Stepanicich Len Materman Title: SFCJPA General Counsel Title: Executive Director Date: ____________________________ Date: ____________________________ SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 11 of 15 AGREEMENT AMONG THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, THE SAN MATEO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, THE CITY OF MENLO PARK, AND THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO FOR THE FUNDING OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION, ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, AND RECREATION PROJECT SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO HIGHWAY 101 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has executed this Funding Agreement as of the date and year stated below. Each Party has executed a separate signature page. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Santa Clara Valley Water District By: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ Leslie Orta Tony Estremera Title: Senior Assistant District Counsel Title: Chair/Board of Directors Office of the District Counsel Date: __________________________ Date: ___________________________ ATTEST: MICHELE L. KING, CMC __________________________________ Clerk/Board of Directors SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 12 of 15 AGREEMENT AMONG THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, THE SAN MATEO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, THE CITY OF MENLO PARK, AND THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO FOR THE FUNDING OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION, ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, AND RECREATION PROJECT SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO HIGHWAY 101 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Palo Alto has executed this Funding Agreement as of the date and year stated below. Each Party has executed a separate signature page. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City of Palo Alto By: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ Print Name:_____________________ Print Name:______________________ Title: __________________________ Title: ___________________________ Date: __________________________ Date: ___________________________ SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 13 of 15 AGREEMENT AMONG THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, THE SAN MATEO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, THE CITY OF MENLO PARK, AND THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO FOR THE FUNDING OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION, ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, AND RECREATION PROJECT SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO HIGHWAY 101 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of East Palo Alto has executed this Funding Agreement as of the date and year stated below. Each Party has executed a separate signature page. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City of East Palo Alto By: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ John Nagel Print Name:______________________ Title: City Attorney Title: ___________________________ Date: __________________________ Date: ___________________________ SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 14 of 15 AGREEMENT AMONG THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, THE SAN MATEO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, THE CITY OF MENLO PARK, AND THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO FOR THE FUNDING OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION, ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, AND RECREATION PROJECT SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO HIGHWAY 101 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Menlo Park has executed this Funding Agreement as of the date and year stated below. Each Party has executed a separate signature page. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City of Menlo Park By:_____________________________ By: ______________________________ William L. McClure Print Name:________________________ Title: City Attorney Title: ______________________________ Date: _________________________ Date:______________________________ SFC San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Construction Funding Agreement May 23, 2014 Page 15 of 15 AGREEMENT AMONG THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, THE SAN MATEO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, THE CITY OF MENLO PARK, AND THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO FOR THE FUNDING OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION, ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, AND RECREATION PROJECT SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO HIGHWAY 101 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the San Mateo Flood Control District has executed this Funding Agreement as of the date and year stated below. Each Party has executed a separate signature page. APPROVED AS TO FORM: San Mateo County Flood Control District By: ___________________________ By: ______________________________ Print Name: ____________________ Print Name: ________________________ Title: __________________________ Title: _____________________________ Date: __________________________ Date: _____________________________ Attachment B MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONCERNING THE MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE DUE TO THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION, ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, AND RECREATION PROJECT SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO HIGHWAY 101 This Memorandum of Understanding (this “MOU”), dated as of ___________________, 2014 (the “Effective Date”), is entered into by and between the SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, a California joint powers authority (the “Authority”), and the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (the "City"), (individually, a “Party” and, collectively, the “Parties”), in reference to the following facts and circumstances: RECITALS: A. On May 18, 1999, the cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Palo Alto, the San Mateo Flood Control District and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, acting in accordance with California Government Code Section 6500 et seq., signed the Joint Powers Agreement Creating The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (the “Agreement”). B. Over the past five years, the Authority’s primary activity has been to plan, design, conduct the environmental review of, and provide funding for, capital projects along San Francisquito Creek (the “Creek”) that enhance flood protection, ecosystems and recreation. C. In October 2012, the Authority’s Board of Directors certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 (the “Final EIR”) in connection with the proposed construction of facilities from San Francisco Bay to East Bayshore Road (the “Project”). With respect to the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course (the “Golf Course”), the Project will include the widening of the Creek by relocating a levee into the Golf Course and outboard from its existing location. D. Under the Final EIR, Mitigation Measure REC‐1 – Compensate the City of Palo Alto for the Conversion of 7.4 Acres of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course to Accommodate Project Features (“Mitigation Measure REC‐1”), the Authority must compensate the City for the permanent incorporation of 7.4 acres of the Golf Course, in an amount equivalent to the City’s cost of reconfiguring the portion of the Golf Course impacted by the Project. This would include the replacement of golf holes 12 through 15 within the Project’s footprint and the relocation of the other holes, so that the Golf Course can remain a, PGA‐regulation 18‐hole golf course. 140528 sdl 00710174 2 E. In order to implement Mitigation Measure REC‐1, the Parties intend to enter into this MOU, by no later than thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of construction of the Project. AGREEMENT: In consideration of Recitals A through E, inclusive, which are made a substantive part of this MOU, and the following covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this MOU, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. TERM; TERMINATION 1.1 The term of this MOU will commence as of the Effective Date, and shall continue for a term ending six (6) months after the Authority or its agents complete construction of the Project unless the Parties agree otherwise, in writing. 1.2 This MOU may not be earlier terminated by either Party, except for cause due to a material default. The non‐defaulting Party must give not less than ninety (90) days’ prior written notice of default to the defaulting Party. 1.2.1 For the purposes of this MOU, a “material default” includes: (A) A failure to pay the Mitigation Fee and any other money required to be paid to a Party, if that failure is not remedied within five (5) days after written notice of default is provided by the non‐defaulting Party. (B) A failure to perform any material covenant or obligation set forth in this MOU, if that failure is not remedied within thirty (30) days after written notice of default is provided by the non‐defaulting Party. 1.2.2 The non‐defaulting Party will have an election of rights and remedies that are in addition to all other rights and remedies afforded at law or in equity. SECTION 2. COMPENSATION TO CITY 2.1 The Authority shall pay to the City the sum of three million dollars ($3,000,000.00) (the “Mitigation Fee”) as full, adequate and sufficient consideration to offset the City’s costs of reconfiguring the Golf Course to maintain its Professional Golfers Association accreditation at the time specified by Section 2.1.1 below. The Authority shall not be required to make any additional mitigation payments under this MOU to the City, even if the costs to the City of reconfiguring the Golf Course exceed $3.0 million. The Authority acknowledges and agrees that the City will provide consideration for this payment, as the completion of the Project will require the City to relinquish to the Authority its exclusive use of 7.4 acres of the Golf Course as a golf course and dedicated parkland, but would allow that acreage to continue to be dedicated and used as open space parkland, in order to accommodate the relocation of 140528 sdl 00710174 3 the levee on the Palo Alto side of the Creek. The Authority’s obligation to make this payment shall survive the termination of this MOU. 2.1.1 The Authority will pay the Mitigation Fee to the City from grant proceeds received by the Authority from the State of California as reimbursement for eligible Project construction expenses. Following reimbursement by the State of California of at least $3.0 million in the Project construction expenses incurred by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Authority shall pay to the City the Mitigation Fee in the amount of $3.0 million. 2.2 Section 2.1 notwithstanding, as additional consideration to be paid to the City, the Authority or its agents shall repair any damage to the Palo Alto Baylands Athletic Center parking lot (the “Parking Lot”) that may arise during construction of the Project in connection with the use of the Parking Lot by the contractors and/or subcontractors retained by the Authority or its agents to construct the Project. The repairs will include the resurfacing (including the removal and replacement) of failed base material beneath the Parking Lot surface in the area of damage and any underground utilities that may be damaged by the Project‐related construction work, followed by the resurfacing of the Parking Lot with a minimum of two (2) inches of asphalt concrete and the restriping of that area of the Parking Lot in order to maximize the number of parking stalls, as needed to restore the Parking Lot to its pre‐Project functional condition. 2.2.1 By not later than one (1) week prior to the commencement of construction of the Project, the Authority or its agents shall prepare and submit to the City for the City’s prior review and approval a detailed plan and scope of work pertaining to the use of a portion of the Parking Lot as a construction contractor staging area. The staging area shall be arranged and organized in a manner that would ensure the least possible impact to the paved parking area. Permission to use a portion of the Parking Lot as a construction contractor staging area shall be granted at the City’s sole discretion. 2.2.2 By not later than one (1) week prior to the substantial completion of construction for the Project, the Authority also shall prepare and submit to the City for the City’s prior review and approval a detailed plan and scope of work for any Parking Lot repairs related to construction activity damage. 2.2.3 The City shall use compensation received from the Authority under this MOU exclusively for expenses related to the reconfiguration of the Golf Course. SECTION 3. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS REGARDING IMPORTED SOIL 3.1 The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Project and the Golf Course modifications to be undertaken by the City will require the importation of approximately 400,000 cubic yards of soil to be used for the construction of the Project’s levees and the implementation of the grading plan for the modified Golf Course. 140528 sdl 00710174 4 3.1.1 The City has contracted with a soils broker to obtain the required soil and stockpile it on the Golf Course for use in the construction of the Project and the Golf Course modifications. 3.1.2 The Authority has provided to the City (a) the specifications for the characteristics of the imported soil to be used for the Project’s levees and (b) the quantity of soil, measured in cubic yards, that the City must secure and stockpile for the Project. The City will administer the contract with the soils broker, use its best efforts to ensure that the imported soils meet the specifications established for the Project, and oversee the placement of the imported soils in temporary stockpiles. The soil to be used for the Project’s levees shall be segregated from the soil to be used for the Golf Course modifications. 3.2 The City will be entitled to payment from the soils broker for the right to dispose of soils at the Golf Course’s temporary stockpile site. The City shall be entitled to retain any revenues generated by the disposition of the soils to be used for the Project. 3.3 The City grants the Authority and its agents a right of ingress and egress to come on to and depart from the Golf Course to access and remove the stockpiled imported soil to be used in connection with the Project during the term of this MOU. The Authority at its sole cost and expense shall remove all of the imported soil, designated for use in connection with the Project, from the Golf Course in a timely manner. SECTION 4. PROJECT COORDINATION 4.1 The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Santa Clara Valley Water District (the “Water District”) will manage construction of the Project on behalf of the Authority. In the scheduling of the Project’s construction, the Authority will inform the City of the construction schedule, and the Water District and City shall use reasonable efforts to coordinate the Project’s construction schedule and the City’s Golf Course reconfiguration schedule. The City will close the Golf Course on or about July 1, 2014, or other later date, as noticed, in writing, to the Authority, in order to accommodate the Golf Course renovation project. The Authority shall not schedule any Project‐related construction activities that would require closure of the Golf Course prior to the City’s closure of the Golf Course. The City will permit the Authority to engage in construction‐related activities that are expected to have limited impacts to the Golf Course, including, but not limited to, the temporary stockpiling of imported soil and the relocation of underground and overhead utilities, prior to July 1, 2014, or other later date, as specified above, provided that the Authority first provides the City with not less than fourteen (14) day’s written notice prior to the commencement of such work. SECTION 5. WAIVER; INDEMNITY 5.1 Subject to the limitations on liability, if any, set forth in this MOU, a Party will protect, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the other Party, its officials, officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, representatives and agents, from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, demands, damages, costs, expenses or attorneys' fees, caused by or arising out of the Party’s negligent acts and omissions, or willful misconduct, in the performance or 140528 sdl 00710174 5 nonperformance of its obligations under this MOU. The preceding sentence notwithstanding, no personal liability will attach to any Party’s board member under this Section for any negligent action or inaction by that Party. In the event that both parties are named as co‐ defendants in a legal action, the parties will promptly consult with each other as to how the action should be defended, including whether one party will defend the other and under what terms such representation will be undertaken. 5.2 The waiver by either Party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, or condition of this MOU or of the provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or other City law, rule or regulation, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition, or provision or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or any other covenant, term, condition, or provision. The subsequent acceptance by either Party of any consideration which may become due or payable hereunder will not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other Party SECTION 6. ASSIGNMENT 6.1 Except as provided by law, neither Party may assign, transfer, or convey this MOU or any interest that it may have in this MOU without the other Party’s express consent or approval. Any attempted assignment by a Party without the required consent or approval of the other Party will be void and will confer no right, title, or interest in this MOU, or part thereof. In the event of an unauthorized assignment, at the option of the Party not making the assignment, this MOU may be terminated upon reasonable notice to the Party making the assignment. SECTION 7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR 7.1 In the exercise of its rights and responsibilities under this MOU, each Party acts at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the other Party. Nothing in this MOU will be construed to establish a partnership, joint venture, group, pool, syndicate or agency between or among the Parties. No provision contained herein will be construed as authorizing or empowering any Party to assume or create any obligation or responsibility whatsoever, express or implied, on behalf, or in the name of, the other Party in any manner, or to make any representation, warranty or commitment on behalf of the other Party. In no event will either Party be liable for (a) any loss incurred by the other Party in the course of its performance hereunder, or (b) any debts, obligations or liabilities of the other Party, whether due or to become due. SECTION 8. NOTICES 8.1 Any notice, request, consent or approval by a Party that is required by this MOU to be furnished, will be given, in writing, and delivered by personal service, the United States Postal Service, mailed, first class, postage prepaid, or by facsimile transmission, to the following: 140528 sdl 00710174 6 To CITY: City Clerk City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303‐4303 FAX: (650) 328‐3631 Copy to: Director, Community Services City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 FAX: (650) 321‐5612 Copy to: Office of the City Attorney City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94302 FAX: (650) 329‐2646 To AUTHORITY: Executive Director San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority 615 B Menlo Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025 Copy to: General Counsel San Francisquito Creek Joint Power Authority 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA 94104 FAX: (415) 421‐8486 SECTION 9. MISCELLANEOUS 9.1 This MOU will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The Parties will comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws in the exercise of their rights and the performance of their obligations under this MOU. 9.2 All covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this MOU, whether covenants or conditions, will be deemed to be both covenants and conditions. 9.3 This MOU represents the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and contracts, written or oral. This MOU may be amended by an instrument, in writing, signed by the Parties. This MOU may be executed in any 140528 sdl 00710174 7 number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 9.4 The Parties agree that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguity is to be resolved against the drafting party will not be employed in the interpretation of this MOU or any exhibit or amendment thereto. 9.6 In the event that an action is brought, the Parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 9.7 The prevailing Party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this MOU may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. 9.8 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this MOU or any exhibit or amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this MOU and any exhibit or amendment thereto will remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties by their duly authorized representatives have executed this MOU as of the Effective Date. APPROVED AS TO FORM: SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY _________________________ ___________________________ General Counsel Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF PALO ALTO __________________________ ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services Director of Public Works ______________________________ Director of Community Services Attachment C 140521 sdl 00710401A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN THE CONTEXT OF APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT: SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO HIGHWAY 101 A. The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (the “JPA”) has prepared plans for flood protection improvements along the lower section of San Francisquito Creek, known as the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project: San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 (the “Project”). B. The JPA, as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project: San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 (the “EIR”) in October 2012. C. The JPA approved an Addendum to update information in the EIR in regard to the longfin smelt in March 2013. D. The City of Palo Alto (the “City”), as one of several parties to the Construction Funding Agreement (the “Agreement”), is considering approval of the Agreement, because it specifies the financial contributions that must be made by the JPA and some of its member agencies (not including the City) in order to implement the Project. E. The City, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, must make certain findings prior to making or granting any approval in support of the Project, for example, by approving the Agreement. F. The Council of the City of Palo Alto (“Council”) has previously reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR and has received comments in regard to the Project in a duly noticed public hearing on November 13, 2012. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE, as follows: SECTION 1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and is adequate for purpose of the Council’s consideration of the Project. SECTION 2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. SECTION 3. Changes have been incorporated into the Project which avoid and/or substantially lessen several of the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. Specific economic, social, and technological considerations make infeasible mitigation for certain significant environmental effects of the Project. The Findings of Fact, attached at Exhibit A, include a statement of overriding considerations that support approval of the Project. SECTION 5. The Findings of Fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. SECTION 6. The Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (the “MMRP”), attached as Appendix F in the Final EIR, and incorporated herein by this reference, is adopted. The implementation of the MMRP is required as a condition of approval of the Project. SECTION 7. Consistent with the California Public Resources Code, the documents which constitute the record of proceedings for approval of this Project are located at the Office of the City Clerk, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Public Works San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 1 of 28 Findings Exhibit A Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the San Francisquito Creek Project Final EIR FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION, ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, AND RECREATION PROJECT - SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO HIGHWAY 101 This document presents Findings of Fact (the “Findings”) and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (the “Statement”) by the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (the “EIR”) for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction Project, East Bayshore Road to San Francisco Bay (the “Project”), for which the City is acting as a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Findings and the Statement presented herein were prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State’s CEQA Guidelines. Substantial evidence supporting all findings made herein is contained in the EIR and/or the record of proceedings. If a proposed project would have significant adverse effects on the environment, CEQA requires a responsible agency to prepare findings describing how those effects would be reduced or avoided. Under California Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), several findings are possible. They include: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. For any significant effects that cannot be avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level, the responsible agency must describe the reasons why mitigation or adoption of an alternative approach is infeasible (California Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3)). Adoption of a project that would have significant adverse effects on the environment requires that the lead agency identify the project benefits that are evaluated as outweighing its significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21081(b)). I. BACKGROUND The Project proposes flood reduction facilities along an approximately 1.5-mile stretch of San Francisquito Creek (the “Creek”) from East Bayshore Road to the San Francisco Bay. Flooding from the Creek is a common occurrence. A major flood event occurred as a result of record creek flows in February 1998, when the Creek overtopped its banks in several areas, affecting approximately 1,700 residential, commercial, and public structures and causing more than $28 San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 2 of 28 Findings million in property damages. The maximum instantaneous peak flow recorded during the February 1998 event was 7,200 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that the 1998 flood was a 45-year flood event. A 100-year flood event1 is anticipated to result in flows of 9,400 cfs at the mouth of the Creek. These flows would exceed the existing capacity of the Creek (San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority 2009). The Project would increase conveyance capacity of floodwaters from runoff and tides from the bay to protect residents and property from flood events along the lower section of the Creek. A. The City’s role in the Project The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (“JPA”) was formed in 1999 following the flood of 1998, is a regional government agency whose members include the Cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto; the San Mateo County Flood Control District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The JPA plans and implements flood management, ecosystem restoration and recreational enhancements throughout the San Francisquito Creek watershed and floodplain. The City plans to approve the Construction Funding Agreement that specifies the financial contributions from the JPA and its member agencies needed to allow the construction of the Project. B. The City’s Role as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The JPA, as the lead agency for the Project under CEQA, certified the Final EIR for the Project in October 2012. In March 2013, the JPA prepared an Addendum to the Final EIR to evaluate environmental effects associated with longfin smelt. When the JPA certified the EIR, it also adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (the “MMRP”) and adopted a statement of overriding considerations regarding the impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels. The City is a responsible agency for the Project under CEQA as it approved planning entitlements, authorizing the Project, and will approve easements allowing the Project to be constructed on City-owned property. As a responsible agency, the City is required to consider the environmental review document prepared by the lead agency and make findings regarding the environmental effects of those parts of the Project that the City decides to carry out, fund or approve. C. The City’s Review and Consideration of the Final EIR and Addendum The Final EIR for the Project consists of the Draft EIR (July 2012), the Final EIR (October 2012), and the Addendum (March 2013). These components are collectively referred to as the EIR in the findings. Prior to taking action on the Project, the Council of the City of Palo Alto fully reviewed and considered the information contained in the record of proceedings. In accordance with PRC § 21167.6(e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project includes the following documents: 1 The 100-year flood is more accurately referred to as the 1 percent annual exceedance probability flood because it is a flood that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any single year. A 100-year flood has approximately a 63.4 percent chance of occurring in any 100-year period, not a 100 percent chance of occurring, but conversely could theoretically occur in consecutive years. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 3 of 28 Findings Notice of Preparation, September 15, 2010; Draft EIR (July 2012) and all appendices thereto; Final EIR (October 2012) and all appendices thereto; Addendum to the EIR (March 2013); All written comments received in response to, or in connection with, environmental documents prepared for the Project, including responses to the Notice of Preparation, Documents cited or referenced in the Draft EIR and Final EIR; All findings adopted by the JPA and the City for the Project; All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the JPA or consultants to the JPA with respect to the City’s compliance with CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the Project; Any recordings of public meetings, public workshops and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project; and Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The Council designates the City Clerk of the City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, as the custodian of documents and record of proceedings on which the decision was based. D. Project Objectives Protection from the 100-year flood (1percent flood protection) is the currently accepted standard for flood protection works, and the Project is being designed specifically to meet a goal of providing 1 percent flood protection for residents and businesses along the San Francisquito Creek corridor. The specific objectives include the following: Protect properties and infrastructure between East Bayshore Road and the San Francisco Bay from Creek flows resulting from 100-year fluvial flood flows occurring at the same time as a 100-year tide that includes projected sea level rise through 2067. Accommodate future flood protection measures that might be constructed upstream of the Project. Enhance habitat along the Project reach, particularly habitat for threatened and endangered species. Enhance recreational uses. Minimize operational and maintenance requirements. E. Project Description The Project proposes to increase the Creek’s capacity from San Francisco Bay to East Bayshore Road by: Excavating sediment deposits within the channel to maximize conveyance. Rebuilding levees and relocating a portion of the southern levee to widen the channel to reduce the influence of tides and increase channel capacity. Constructing floodwalls in the upper reach to increase capacity and maintain consistency with the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) enlargement of the U.S. 101/East Bayshore Road Bridge over the Creek. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 4 of 28 Findings Major Project elements include: An overflow terrace at marsh elevation adjacent to the Baylands Preserve. Levee setback and improvements to widen the channel and increase levee height and stability between East Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Golf Course. Floodwalls in the upper reach downstream of East Bayshore Road. Extension of Friendship Bridge via a boardwalk across new marshland within the widened channel. The majority of the Project’s elements would occur on properties in Palo Alto and East Palo Alto and are owned by the City within the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (the “District”) or City of East Palo Alto rights-of-way. F. Scoping and Draft EIR Circulation The JPA submitted the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Project to the State Clearinghouse on September 15, 2010. Two public scoping meetings were held in September 2010. To reach as many community members as possible, the first meeting (midday Wednesday, September 29, 2010) was held at the East Palo Alto Senior Center in East Palo Alto, and the second meeting (Thursday evening, September 30, 2010) was held at the International School of the Peninsula in Palo Alto. Both meetings were publicized through direct mailings to approximately 11,000 affected and interested households, offices, and agencies. The JPA circulated the Draft EIR for a 45-day public and agency review period, beginning on July 30, 2012 and concluding on September 13, 2012. The Draft EIR and Notice of Completion were transmitted to the State Clearinghouse on July 30, 2012. Bound hard copies of the Draft EIR were placed on reserve at several public venues, including the East Palo Alto Public Library, Palo Alto Public Library, and the JPA’s offices in Menlo Park. The Draft EIR was also made available in electronic format online, via the JPA’s website. Notice of the Draft EIR’s availability was e-mailed to interested parties, including adjacent residents and other community members who had requested Project notification. Two public hearings to solicit comments on the Draft EIR were held at 6 p.m. on August 15 and August 29, 2012 at East Palo Alto City Hall (2415 University Avenue) in the East Palo Alto City Council Chambers. G. Final EIR Based on comments received on the Draft EIR, changes were made to the document and a response was provided for each comment. The Final EIR consists of the following materials: copies of all comments on the Draft EIR received by the JPA; the JPA’s responses to those comments; and the complete text of the EIR, including revisions made in response to comments received. The Final EIR and all associated materials in the administrative record are incorporated herein by this reference. The JPA certified the Final EIR on October 25, 2012. H. Addendum to the EIR Based on comments received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) about longfin smelt, an Addendum to the EIR was prepared. The Addendum determined that the Project, as proposed, including seasonal restrictions to in-channel work to avoid impacts to steelhead, would not have a significant impact on longfin smelt. The Addendum to the EIR is San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 5 of 28 Findings incorporated herein by this reference. The JPA considered and approved the Addendum on March 18, 2013. II. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The EIR identified a number of potentially significant environmental impacts that, absent the adoption of mitigation measures, could occur with the implementation of the Project. The Proposed Project was considered to have potentially significant impacts on odors, biological resources, paleontological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous materials and public health, flood hazards, noise and vibrations, and traffic. The Council finds that, in response to each significant effect identified in the EIR and listed in this section, all feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen these environmental effects. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures described in the EIR and briefly summarized below, the proposed Project is determined to have less-than-significant impacts on these resources except for impacts on, air quality and recreational facilities, discussed in Section III, below. The findings regarding the level of impacts and their mitigation are not intended to state all of the substantial evidence in the EIR, or elsewhere in the record, that supports the conclusions stated in these findings. In addition, the mitigation measures are described in an abbreviated fashion; the EIR should be consulted for a complete description of the requirements of these measures. A CREATION OF OBJECTIONABLE ODORS Impact Project construction activities could generate odors associated with diesel exhaust, paving activities, and other construction-related sources. Odors would be temporary and localized but could still result in disturbance, potentially rising to the level of a significant impact, for all Project elements, especially where construction takes place in close proximity to residences. Mitigation Odor impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through Mitigation Measure AQ2.1—Implement Tailpipe Emission Reduction for Project Construction, which requires all construction contractors to implement the exhaust Basic Construction Mitigation Measures and Additional Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) to control exhaust emissions; Mitigation Measure AQ2.2— Fleet Modernization for Onroad Material Delivery and Haul Trucks during Construction, which requires that all on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 19,500 pounds or greater used at the Project site will comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2007 on-road emission standards for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX); Mitigation Measure AQ2.3—Modernization for Directional Drilling Equipment during Construction, which requires that the contractor’s equipment used for directional drilling meet EPA Tier 2 or higher emissions standards, in addition to being outfitted with the best available control technology (“BACT”) devices certified San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 6 of 28 Findings by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that achieve emissions reductions no less than what could be achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations; and Mitigation Measure NV1.3—Designate Construction Noise and Air Quality Disturbance Coordinator to Address Resident Concerns, which designates a representative to act as construction noise and air quality disturbance coordinator, responsible for resolving construction noise and air quality concerns. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures AQ2.1, AQ2.2, AQ2.3, and NV1.3 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to creation of objectionable odors during construction would be less than significant. B. Biological Resources B1 —Disturbance or Loss of Special-Status Plant Populations Impact For all Project elements, construction activities could damage or remove individuals of the following special-status species with potential to occur in the Project area: Alkali milkvetch, San Joaquin spearscale, Congdon’s tarplant, Point Reyes bird’s-beak, Hairless popcornflower, Slender-leaved pondweed, California seablite, and/or Saline clover. However, it is unlikely that the Project would have any impact on Slender-leaved pondweed, if it is determined to be present. Substantial loss of individuals of any of these species as a result of construction disturbance (earthwork, staging activities, foot traffic, vehicle traffic, or other activity) or destruction of suitable habitat adjacent to an existing population could result in a significant impact on the species. Mitigation To ensure that significant impacts on special-status plants during Project construction are avoided if possible, and are compensated if they cannot be avoided, the following measures will be implemented: Mitigation Measure BIO1.1—Conduct Botanical Surveys, Mitigation Measure BIO1.2—Confine Construction Disturbance and Protect Special-Status Plants during Construction, and Mitigation Measure BIO1.3—Compensate for Loss of Special-Status Plants. Mitigation Measure BIO1.1 requires a qualified botanist to survey suitable habitat in the Project area for special-status plants during the appropriate blooming periods for each species, in accordance with the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Botanical Survey Guidelines (California Native Plant Society 2001). Mitigation Measure BIO1.2 would be implemented if it is determined that individuals of identified special-status plant species are present and could be affected by construction traffic or activities. It requires that construction disturbance be confined to the minimum area necessary to complete the work and requires avoidance of adjacent habitat. If deemed necessary by a qualified botanist, a species-appropriate buffer area determined in consultation with agency (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]) staff will be established to protect the special status plants from encroachment and damage during construction by installing temporary construction fencing. Mitigation Measure BIO1.3 would be implemented if any individuals of listed special- San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 7 of 28 Findings status plants are present and cannot be effectively avoided through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO1.2. This measure requires that a compensation plan be developed and implemented so that there is no net loss of special-status plants. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO1.1, BIO1.2, and BIO1.3 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to disturbance or loss of special-status plant populations during construction would be less than significant. B2 - Disturbance, Injury, or Mortality of Western Pond Turtles Impact In the Project area, levee lowering on the right bank, levee raising on the right bank, levee raising on the left bank and levee relocation, construction of the access road on the left bank, and modification to Friendship Bridge have the potential to disturb upland habitat adjacent to the freshwater pond in the Project area and could result in the loss of western pond turtle individuals or nests; this potential for disturbance and loss would represent a significant impact. Mitigation Impacts to western pond turtles would be reduced to less than significant by implementing Mitigation Measure BIO2.1—Develop and Implement Worker Awareness Training, Mitigation Measure BIO2.2—Implement Survey and Avoidance Measures to Decrease Disturbance to Western Pond Turtles, and (if necessary) Mitigation Measure BIO2.3—Daily Surveys and Monitoring of Construction Activities to Decrease Disturbance to Western Pond Turtles. Mitigation Measure BIO2.1 requires that prior to construction, Worker Awareness Training be conducted to inform construction workers of their responsibilities regarding sensitive environmental resources. Mitigation Measure BIO2.2 requires that prior to the start of construction activities at Project element sites that could support western pond turtle, a qualified biologist is retained to conduct preconstruction surveys for western pond turtles. If preconstruction surveys identify active nests, the biologist will establish no-disturbance buffer zones in consultation with CDFW. If western pond turtles are found during the pre-construction survey, then Mitigation Measure BIO2.3 will be implemented, which requires that a qualified biologist be retained to conduct daily surveys for western pond turtles in all suitable habitats in the vicinity of work sites that will be active within the 3 days prior to the onset of site preparation and construction activities with the potential to disturb turtles or their habitat. If a turtle is found during the daily survey, construction in the vicinity of the turtle will not commence until the turtle is removed from the Project area to be relocated to suitable habitat outside of the Project limits per CDFW protocols and permits. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO2.1, BIO2.2, and BIO2.3 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan to ensure their implementation. With these San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 8 of 28 Findings measures in place, impacts related to disturbance, injury, or mortality of western pond turtles during construction would be less than significant. B3 - Disturbance of Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors (Excluding Burrowing Owl) Impact For all Project elements, heavy equipment and human activity during construction would increase noise in the vicinity of the work area, potentially resulting in disturbance of birds nesting and foraging in the area. If occupied nests are present on or adjacent to the construction area, construction activities could result in the abandonment of nests, the death of nestlings, and the destruction of eggs in active nests. Migratory birds, raptors, and their nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. Disturbance of nesting migratory birds or raptors thus represents a significant impact. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO2.1—Develop and Implement Worker Awareness Training described above, and Mitigation Measure BIO3.1—Establish Buffer Zones for Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds (Excluding Burrowing Owl) would reduce the potential for impacts on nesting raptors and migratory birds to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO3.1 requires that prior to the start of construction activities that begin during the migratory bird nesting period (between January 15 and August 31 of any year), a qualified wildlife biologist be retained to conduct a survey for nesting raptors and migratory birds that could nest along the Project corridor; and with the exception of raptor nests, inactive bird nests may be removed. If an active nest is discovered during these surveys, the qualified wildlife biologist will establish a no-disturbance buffer zone around the nest tree or nest in consultation with CDFW, and construction will be stopped if necessary. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO2.1 and BIO3.1 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to disturbance of nesting migratory birds and raptors (excluding burrowing owl) during construction would be less than significant. B4 - Disturbance of Western Burrowing Owls and Habitat Impact Project elements with potential to affect this species include levee lowering on the right bank, levee raising on the left bank and levee relocation, construction of the floodwall on the left bank, construction of the downstream access road on the right bank, and construction of the upstream access road on the right bank. Construction activities within these Project element sites during the nesting period could result in direct injury or mortality, as well as disturbance impacts related to elevated noise and human presence. Impacts could be significant. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 9 of 28 Findings Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO2.1—Develop and Implement Worker Awareness Training described above (western burrowing owl awareness will be included in the preconstruction worker awareness training required for all construction personnel) and Mitigation Measure BIO4.1—Implement Survey and Avoidance Measures for Western Burrowing Owls Prior to Construction Activities would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO4.1 requires that, prior to any construction activity, a qualified wildlife biologist be retained to conduct seasonally appropriate preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls. If any western burrowing owls are found within 250 feet of the construction footprint, during the survey or at any time during the construction process, CDFW will be notified and work will proceed under CDFW direction. Any necessary buffers will be established in consultation with CDFW. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO2.1 and BIO4.1 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to disturbance of western burrowing owls and their habitat during construction would be less than significant. B5 - Disturbance of California Clapper Rail and California Black Rail and Habitat Impact Clapper rail and black rail are considered to have a high potential to be present in suitable habitat within and adjacent to the Project area. Disturbance of species and habitat could result from construction activities associated with the following Project elements: levee lowering on right bank, levee raising on right bank, construction of the floodwall on right bank, levee raising on left bank and levee relocation, construction of the floodwall on left bank, modification of Friendship Bridge, and all marshland restoration Project elements. In addition, maintenance of Project facilities identified as being in or near suitable habitat would have some potential to disturb California clapper rail and California black rail. Thus, construction and maintenance impacts could be significant. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO2.1—Develop and Implement Worker Awareness Training described above (California clapper rail and California black rail awareness will be included in the preconstruction worker awareness training required for all construction personnel), Mitigation Measure BIO5.1—Implement Survey and Avoidance Measures for California Clapper Rail and California Black Rail Prior to Construction Activities, and Mitigation Measure BIO5.2—Produce and Implement Habitat Monitoring Plan for Habitat within the Faber Tract Prior to Construction Activities would reduce disturbance on California clapper rail and California black rail to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO5.1 states that work activities within 50 feet of California clapper rail habitat will not occur within 2 hours before or after extreme high tides (6.5 feet or above) when the marshplain is inundated. In addition, seasonally appropriate surveys will be conducted by a permitted biologist. During breeding season, if necessary, Project activities occurring within 500 San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 10 of 28 Findings feet of active nests will be postponed until after young have fledged. Outside breeding season, if necessary, no-disturbance buffer will be established, and no work will occur within the buffer until the biologist verifies that California clapper rail or California black rail individuals have left the area. If individuals are routinely observed in the work area, a species avoidance plan will be developed in coordination with USFWS and CDFW. Mitigation Measure BIO5.2 states that a habitat monitoring plan will be developed and implemented for existing (i.e., pre-Project) habitat within the Faber Tract that will document baseline conditions prior to Project implementation. Plan approval by USFWS and CDFW will be necessary before implementation of activities recommended by the plan. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO2.1, BIO5.1, and BIO5.2 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to disturbance of California clapper rail and California black rail and habitat during construction and operation and maintenance would be less than significant. B6 - Disturbance of Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Salt Marsh Wandering Shrew and Habitat Impact Construction activities could disturb salt marsh harvest mouse and salt marsh wandering shrew and habitat for the following Project elements: levee lowering on right bank, levee raising on right bank, construction of the floodwall on right bank, levee raising on left bank and levee relocation, construction of the floodwall on left bank, modification to Friendship Bridge, and all marshplain restoration Project elements. In addition, increasing in periodicity of fluvial inputs associated with the levee lowering on right bank could potentially result in habitat changes detrimental to salt marsh harvest mouse and salt marsh wandering shrew. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO2.1—Develop and Implement Worker Awareness Training described above (salt marsh harvest mouse and salt marsh wandering shrew awareness will be included in the preconstruction worker awareness training required for all construction personnel), Mitigation Measure BIO5.2—Produce and Implement Habitat Monitoring Plan for Habitat within the Faber Tract Prior to Construction Activities (which is described above), and Mitigation Measure BIO6.1—Implement Survey and Avoidance Measures for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Salt Marsh Wandering Shrew Prior to Construction would reduce these impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO6.1 requires that construction and maintenance work, including site preparation, be avoided to the extent possible within suitable habitat for these species during their breeding seasons (February 1 to November 30). As work during the species’ breeding seasons will be necessary, a species avoidance plan will be developed and implemented in consultation with USFWS and CDFW. In addition, vegetation clearing will be monitored by a permitted biologist, and appropriate measures will be taken if individuals are observed. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 11 of 28 Findings Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO2.1, BIO5.2, and BIO6.1 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to disturbance of salt marsh harvest mouse and salt marsh wandering shrew and habitat during construction and operation would be less than significant. B7 - Disturbance of California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover and Habitat Impact Levee lowering on the right bank has potential to disturb California least tern and western snowy plover. Construction activities serving this Project element would occur near suitable habitat for these species and could disturb nesting or foraging individuals that could be present. Disturbance of nesting or foraging California least tern and western snowy plover would be a significant impact. In addition, because California least tern and western snowy plover have potential to occur in habitat in the Faber Tract, flooding from San Francisquito Creek associated with levee lowering on right bank and subsequent habitat alteration could affect these species as well. This habitat alteration could be significant. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO2.1—Develop and Implement Worker Awareness Training described above (California least tern and western snowy plover awareness will be included in the preconstruction worker awareness training required for all construction personnel), Mitigation Measure BIO7.1—Implement Survey and Avoidance Measures for California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover Prior to Construction Activities, and Mitigation Measure BIO5.2—Produce and Implement Habitat Monitoring Plan for Habitat within the Faber Tract Prior to Construction Activities, described above, would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO7.1 requires that construction work, including site preparation, will be avoided to the extent possible within 500 feet of suitable habitat for these species during their breeding seasons. In addition, prior to the initiation of work within 500 feet of suitable habitat (regardless of the time of year), a permitted biologist will be retained to conduct surveys of appropriate habitat for California least tern and western snowy plover and their nests, and Project activities will be postponed or appropriate buffers will be established, if necessary. If individuals are routinely observed in or within 500 feet of the work area or do not leave the work area, a species avoidance plan will be developed in coordination with USFWS and CDFW. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO2.1, BIO5.2, and BIO7.1 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to disturbance of California least tern and western snowy plover and habitat during construction and operation would be less than significant. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 12 of 28 Findings B8 - Disturbance of California Red-Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake and Habitat Impact The following Project elements have potential to disturb California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake: levee lowering on right bank; levee raising on right bank; and levee raising on left bank and levee relocation. Construction activities for these Project elements would occur near suitable habitat for California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake and could disturb individuals that might be present in the uplands and in the ponds. Such an effect could constitute a significant impact. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO2.1—Develop and Implement Worker Awareness Training described above (California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake awareness will be included in the preconstruction worker awareness training required for all construction personnel) and Mitigation Measure BIO8.1—Implement Survey and Avoidance Measures for California Red-Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake Prior to Construction Activities would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO8.1 requires that a permitted biologist be retained to conduct a survey of the freshwater ponds and surrounding upland habitat prior to initiation of construction activities in accordance with applicable protocols, and buffer areas and/or a species avoidance plan will be developed in coordination with USFWS and CDFW if needed. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO2.1 and BIO8.1 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) and a Mitigation Monitor Plan to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to disturbance of California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake and habitat during construction would be less than significant. B9 - Disturbance of Steelhead Trout and Suitable Habitat Impact Construction activities for all Project elements would occur near suitable habitat for steelhead trout and could disturb individuals that could be present in San Francisquito Creek. Such an effect would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO2.1—Develop and Implement Worker Awareness Training (steelhead trout and habitat awareness will be included in the preconstruction worker awareness training required for all construction personnel) and Mitigation Measure BIO9.1— Implement Avoidance Measures for Steelhead Trout Prior to Construction Activities would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO9.1 requires that no in-channel construction activities will occur during the steelhead migration period, to reduce the likelihood that steelhead are present during construction activities, and a qualified fisheries biologist, approved by the National Marine San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 13 of 28 Findings Fisheries Service (NMFS), will survey the construction area 1 to 2 days before the Project begins. If no surface water is present in the immediate construction area, fish will not be relocated. If water is present, additional procedures will be implemented to capture and relocate fish as described in the Final EIR. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO2.1 and BIO9.1 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to disturbance of steelhead trout and suitable habitat during construction would be less than significant. B10 - Disturbance or Loss of Riparian Habitat Impact The only Project element that would affect riparian habitat is channel widening and marshplain creation and restoration in the upper reach of San Francisquito Creek in the Project area. Extensive trimming, pruning, or removal of riparian habitat could represent a significant impact. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO2.1—Develop and Implement Worker Awareness Training (described above), Mitigation Measure BIO11.1—Identify and Protect Riparian Habitats, and Mitigation Measure BIO11.2—Restore Riparian Habitat would reduce impacts to less than significant by replacing any riparian areas permanently impacted. Mitigation Measure BIO11.1 requires that a qualified biologist or ecologist be retained to survey and demarcate riparian habitat on or adjacent to the proposed areas of construction in the upper reach of San Francisquito Creek. Riparian areas not slated to accommodate Project construction will be protected from encroachment and damage during construction by installing temporary construction fencing to create a no-activity exclusion zone in accordance with International Society of Arboriculture tree protection zone recommendations and any additional requirements of the resource agencies with jurisdiction. Mitigation Measure BIO11.2 requires that permanently affected riparian habitat be restored at a mitigation-to-impact ratio of 2:1, and temporarily affected habitat restored at a minimum impact-to-mitigation ratio of 1:1 to ensure no net loss of riparian habitat in the affected stream reach. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be developed in the context of the federal and state permitting processes under the Clean Water Act and California Fish and Game Code, and will include success criteria as specified by the permitting agencies. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO2.1, BIO11.1, and BIO11.2 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to disturbance of or loss of riparian habitat during construction and operation would be less than significant. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 14 of 28 Findings B11 - Disturbance or Loss of State- or Federally Protected Wetlands Impact Levee and floodwall construction activities would temporarily and permanently affect diked marsh and tidal salt marsh habitat. Additionally, marshplain creation and restoration activities would temporarily affect tidal salt marsh habitat. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO2.1—Develop and Implement Worker Awareness Training, which is described above, and Mitigation Measure BIO12.1—Avoid and Protect Jurisdictional Wetlands during Construction would minimize impacts on wetlands not within the grading footprint, including the low-flow channel, to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO12.1 requires that a qualified resource specialist (biologist, ecologist, or soil scientist) clearly identify wetland areas outside of the direct impact footprint with temporary orange construction fencing before site preparation and construction activities begin at each site or will implement another suitable low-impact measure. Construction will not encroach upon jurisdictional wetlands identified by the wetland specialist. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO2.1 and BIO12.1 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to disturbance of or loss of state- or federally protected wetlands during construction would be less than significant. B12 - Loss of, or Damage to, Protected Trees Impact Construction of all Project elements could damage and/or would remove protected tree species outside of riparian habitat. Damage to protected trees affecting their chances of survival and/or removal of any protected trees would be considered a significant impact. Note that removal of trees in riparian habitat is addressed and compensated separately above. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO13.1—Transplant or Compensate for Loss of Protected Landscape Trees, Consistent with Applicable Tree Protection Regulations and Mitigation Measure BIO13.2—Protect Remaining Trees from Construction Impacts would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO13.1 requires that protected landscape trees slated for removal be transplanted or replaced as appropriate in accordance with a landscape plan. Mitigation Measure BIO13.2 provides that trees not designated for removal will be protected from damage during construction by the installation of temporary fencing in a manner consistent with International Society of Arboriculture tree protection zone recommendations. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 15 of 28 Findings Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO13.1 and BIO13.2 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to disturbance of, or damage to, protected trees during construction would be less than significant. C. Damage to Significant Paleontological Resources Impact Project construction activities for all Project elements, such as excavations associated with channel widening and floodwall placement, could affect sensitive, previously undisturbed geologic units, potentially unearthing and damaging previously unknown paleontological resources or unique geologic features. According to available geologic maps, such sensitive native sediments may exist on both sides of the channel nearest the upstream portion of the Project area. Any such disturbance could result in a significant impact on sensitive deposits potentially containing paleontological resources. The remainder of the Project site is in areas mapped as artificial fill and artificial levee deposits of varying depth. Should Project-related excavation extend below artificial fill, the Project could result in a significant impact on sensitive deposits underlying the artificial fill potentially containing paleontological resources. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure Paleo1.1—Conduct a Pre-Construction Paleontological Resources Field Survey and Paleontological Resources Inventory and Evaluation; Mitigation Measure Paleo1.2—Conduct Worker Awareness training for Paleontological Resources Prior to Construction; and Mitigation Measure CR1.3—Stop Work Immediately if Buried Cultural Resources are Discovered Inadvertently would reduce impacts on paleontological resources to less than significant level. Mitigation Measure Paleo1.1 requires that qualified personnel be retained to conduct a paleontological resources field survey to determine whether significant resources exist, and paleontological resources monitoring will be conducted if necessary. Mitigation Measure Paleo1.2 requires that prior to the initiation of any site preparation and/or start of construction, all construction workers receive training overseen by a qualified professional paleontologist, to ensure that forepersons and field supervisors can recognize paleontological resources in the event that any are discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure CR1.3 requires that if paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with project sponsors as appropriate. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures Paleo1.1, Paleo1.2 and CR1.3 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to significant paleontological resources during construction would be less than significant. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 16 of 28 Findings D. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment Impact Individual projects contribute to the cumulative effects of climate change by directly or indirectly emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) during construction phases. Project operation would not generate any direct long-term, operational emissions, or contribute to indirect emissions. While not established as a construction threshold, construction-related emissions from the Project are slightly above the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) 1,100 metric ton operational threshold. Mitigation BAAQMD’s Air Quality Guidelines do not recommend a GHG emission threshold for construction-related emissions. However, they do recommend implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to help control and reduce GHG emissions. Implementation of BAAQMD’s BMPs is therefore required to reduce construction-related GHG emissions. Impact GHG1 is considered less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG1.1— Implement BAAQMD Best Management Practices for Construction, which requires use of alternative fueled vehicles, local building materials, and construction waste recycling. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measure GHG1.1 is feasible and will adopt it as described in the Final EIR. This measure will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure its implementation. With this measure in place, impacts related to generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment during construction would be less than significant. E. Hazardous Materials and Public Health E1 - Creation of Hazard through Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Impact Construction and maintenance of all Project elements would require the use of hazardous substances such as vehicle fuels, lubricants, and solvents. Improper storage and handling, including spills and releases, could result in exposure of the workers and the general public to toxins and carcinogens, a significant impact. In addition, Periodic activities required to maintain the new Project elements would require the use of vehicle fuels, lubricants, etc., and could also require solvents, paints, paving media, and other substances and would be similar to existing maintenance requirements. As for construction, improper storage and handling, including spills and releases, could result in exposure of the workers and the general public to toxins and carcinogens, a significant impact. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ1.1—Preparation and Implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan and Mitigation Measure and HAZ1.2—Require Proper Storage and Handling of Potential Pollutants and Hazardous Materials would reduce this impact to less than significant. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 17 of 28 Findings Mitigation Measure HAZ1.1 requires that the contractor prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan before any construction activities begin; and Measure HAZ1.2 requires that the storage and handling of potential pollutants and hazardous materials be in accordance with all local, state and federal laws and other requirements. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures HAZ1.1 and HAZ 1.2 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment during construction and maintenance, would be less than significant. E2 - Exposure of Workers or the Public to Existing Hazardous Materials Contamination Impact Due to current and historic uses of properties adjacent to the Project site, there is a possibility of undocumented soil and/or groundwater contamination that, if disturbed, could impact the Project site. This translates to some risk that construction workers or the public could be exposed to hazardous substances through disturbance during Project construction, potentially constituting a significant impact. Mitigation Any impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementing Mitigation Measure HAZ1.1—Preparation and Implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan, which is described above, and Mitigation Measure HAZ2.1—Stop Work and Implement Hazardous Materials Investigations and Remediation in the Event that Unknown Hazardous Materials Are Encountered would reduce this impact to less than significant. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures HAZ1.1 and HAZ2.1 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to exposure of workers or the public to existing hazardous materials contamination during construction would be less than significant. E3 - Generation of Hazardous Emissions/Use of Hazardous Materials within 0.25 Mile of Schools Impact The upstream portion of the Project reach is located within 0.25 mile of the International School of the Peninsula. Because construction would require the use of a variety of hazardous substances, there would be some potential for exposure of students, school employees, and the public to hazardous materials. The same would be true for ongoing maintenance activities. This is a potentially significant impact for all Project elements. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 18 of 28 Findings Mitigation This impact would be reduced to less than significant by implementing Mitigation Measure HAZ1.1—Preparation and Implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan, which is described above. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measure HAZ1.1 is feasible and will adopt it as described in the Final EIR. This measure will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure its implementation. With this measure in place, impacts related to generation of hazardous emissions/use of hazardous materials within 0.25 Mile of schools during construction and maintenance would be less than significant. E4 - Interference with Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan Impact For all Project elements, the presence of construction equipment and vehicles, worker activities, and materials storage would have the potential to impede emergency access to the Project site and/or interfere with emergency evacuation plans. This would also be true for maintenance activities, although to a lesser degree because fewer pieces of equipment and vehicles would typically be involved. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure TT1—Require a Site-Specific Traffic Control Plan, which requires contractors to develop and implement a traffic control plan for each construction site and would impose similar requirements for maintenance activities, would reduce this impact to less than significant. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measure TT1 is feasible and will adopt it as described in the Final EIR. This measure will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure its implementation. With this measure in place, impacts related to interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan during construction and maintenance would be less than significant. E5 - Breeding or Harborage of Disease Vector Organisms Impact Construction of any of the Project elements has potential to create or expand the potential for mosquito breeding in the Project area, which would be a significant impact. Mitigation Mitigation Measure HAZ8.1—Prevent Mosquito Breeding During Project Construction, which requires that standing water that accumulates on the construction site be removed within four days (96 hours) and that construction personnel properly dispose of unwanted or unused artificial containers and tires, would reduce this impact to less than significant. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 19 of 28 Findings Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measure HAZ8.1 is feasible and will adopt it as described in the Final EIR. This measure will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure its implementation. With this measure in place, impacts related to breeding or harborage of disease vector organisms during construction would be less than significant. F - Effects on Flood Hazards Impact For all Project elements, water diversions associated with Project construction have the potential to disrupt storm water flows within the Creek during significant storm events. Temporary relocation of storm drains would occur during the dry season. This is a potentially significant impact. In addition, the permanent alteration of storm drainage facilities as a result of new Project facilities (i.e., levees) could affect conditions during flood events. This impact has the potential to be significant if relocated storm drains are not designed to accommodate preconstruction flood flows. Mitigation Mitigation Measure HWR1.1—Design of Temporary Relocation of Storm Drainage Facilities during Construction states that temporary storm drainage design during construction will include the necessary review and assessment of alternative routes and ancillary facilities to ensure that they can safely accommodate the redirected flow to the same level of design and performance (i.e., storm drain capacity) as that of the existing facilities until such time that the original facilities are restored. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HWR1.1 reduces construction impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure HWR1.2—Design of Permanent Relocation of Storm Drainage Facilities states that the permanent relocation of stormwater conveyance facilities would be designed so as not to alter the original outlet locations and internal routes. The design will include the necessary review and assessment of pipeline additions and ancillary facilities to ensure that they can safely accommodate flood flows to the same level of design and performance (i.e., storm drain capacity) as that of the existing facilities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HWR1.2 reduces operational impacts to less than significant. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures HWR1.1 and HWR1.2 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to flood hazards during construction and operation would be less than significant. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 20 of 28 Findings G – Noise and Vibration G1 - Excessive Groundborne Vibration Levels Impact For all Project elements, pile driving associated with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) tower relocations is expected to exceed the thresholds at which vibration may become an annoyance and/or damage plaster-walled residential structures for homes within 50 feet of the proposed tower locations. In addition, vibration impacts may be significant for the first row of homes located within approximately 25 feet of the construction sites using heavy construction equipment that is not high-impact equipment. Mitigation Mitigation Measure NV2.1—Conduct Construction Vibration Monitoring and Implement Vibration Control Approach(es) would reduce this impact to less than significant. It requires that during periods of construction a qualified acoustical consultant or engineering firm to conduct vibration monitoring at homes or occupied vibration-sensitive buildings to determine if the measured peak particle velocity (PPV) is in excess of 0.2 inches/second. If the threshold is exceeded, construction activity will cease and alternative methods of construction and excavation will be considered. In addition, if permitted, a preconstruction survey will be conducted that documents any existing cracks or structural damage at vibration-sensitive receptors by means of color photography or video, and a designated complaint coordinator (Mitigation Measure NV1.3) will be responsible for handling and responding to any complaints received during such periods of construction. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measure NV2.1 is feasible and will adopt it as described in the Final EIR. This measure will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure its implementation. With this measure in place, impacts related to excessive groundborne vibration levels during construction would be less than significant. G2 - Substantial Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Impact For all Project elements, construction activities could result in substantial short-term noise increases at noise-sensitive land uses that could rise to the level of a significant impact. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure NV4.1—Provide Advance Notification of Construction Schedule and 24-Hour Hotline to Residents, Mitigation Measure NV4.2—Implement Work Site Noise Control Measures, Mitigation Measure NV4.3—Designate a Noise and Air Quality Disturbance Coordinator to Address Resident Concerns, and Mitigation Measure NV4.4—Install Temporary Noise Barriers would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure NV4.1 requires that advance written notification of the proposed construction activities be provided to all residences and other noise and air quality sensitive uses within 750 feet of the construction site, including the name and contact information of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 21 of 28 Findings person responsible for ensuring that reasonable measures are implemented to address the problem. Mitigation Measure NV4.2 requires that all contractors adhere to specific noise control measures. Mitigation Measure NV4.3 states that the JPA will designate a representative to act as construction noise and air quality disturbance coordinator, responsible for resolving construction noise and air quality concerns. Mitigation Measure NV4.4 requires that if a resident or school employee submits a complaint about construction noise, and the contractor is unable to reduce noise levels to below the significance threshold (exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet) through other means, the contractor will install temporary noise barriers to reduce noise levels below the applicable construction noise standard, and work will be suspended until barriers are installed. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures NV4.1, NV4.2, NV4.3, and NV4.4 are feasible and will adopt them as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation. With these measures in place, impacts related to substantial temporary increases in ambient noise during construction would be less than significant. H – Traffic and Transportation H1 - Potential to Create Traffic Safety Hazards Impact For all Project elements, the presence of large, slow-moving construction-related vehicles and equipment among the general-purpose traffic on roadways in the study area could result in safety hazards, which would be a significant impact. Mitigation To address the potential for safety hazards related to construction traffic Mitigation Measure TT1—Require a Site-Specific Traffic Control Plan, will be implemented which requires contractors to develop and implement a traffic control plan for each construction site. This measure would reduce this impact to less than significant. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measure TT1 is feasible and will adopt it as described in the Final EIR. This measure will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure its implementation. With this measure in place, impacts related to potential to create traffic safety hazards during construction would be less than significant. H2 - Potential to Obstruct Emergency Access Impact At all Project work areas, construction would have the potential to affect emergency vehicle access. Construction-related traffic could also delay or obstruct the movement of emergency vehicles on local area roadways. This would be a potentially significant impact. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 22 of 28 Findings Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure TT1—Require a Site-Specific Traffic Control Plan, which is described above, would include provisions to ensure unrestricted access and passage for emergency vehicles and would reduce this impact to less than significant. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measure TT1 is feasible and will adopt it as described in the Final EIR. This measure will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure its implementation. With this measure in place, impacts related to potential to obstruct emergency access during construction would be less than significant. H3 - Potential to Conflict with Alternative Transportation Impact Construction of all Project elements would require closure of existing pedestrian and bicycle trails located on both sides of the Project portion of the Creek and Friendship Bridge. In addition, the support transit and/or bikeways on the designated truck routes of the Project could be interrupted by slow moving trucks. The impact on the alternative transportation would be temporary but significant. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure TT1—Require a Site-Specific Traffic Control Plan, which is described above, would include provisions for maintaining safe, efficient passage for transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians and would reduce this impact to less than significant. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measure TT1 is feasible and will adopt it as described in the Final EIR. This measure will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure its implementation. With this measure in place, impacts related to potential to conflict with alternative transportation during construction would be less than significant. III. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation, the Project may cause or contribute to potentially significant, unavoidable environmental effects on air quality and recreation. The Council finds that the proposed Project will result in the following potentially significant and unavoidable impacts, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation: Violation of an Air Quality Standard or Substantial Contribution to Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which minimize the significant effects on the environment to the greatest extent feasible, but the Council finds San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 23 of 28 Findings that mitigation is unlikely to reduce NOX emissions to a less than significant level (i.e., mitigation is unlikely to reduce NOX emissions below BAAQMD daily emission threshold of 54 pounds per day), and that no alternate or additional mitigation that would provide such a reduction has been identified as feasible. Consequently, the Council finds that a significant residual impact is likely during construction of some of the Project elements. The following mitigation measures, as described in the Final EIR, will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation: Mitigation Measure AQ2.1—Implement Tailpipe Emission Reduction for Project Construction, Mitigation Measure AQ2.2—Fleet Modernization for Onroad Material Delivery and Haul Trucks during Construction, Mitigation Measure AQ2.3—Modernization for Directional Drilling Equipment during Construction, Mitigation Measure NV1.1—Provide Advance Notification of Construction Schedule and 24-Hour Hotline to Residents, and Mitigation Measure NV1.3— Designate Construction Noise and Air Quality Disturbance Coordinator to Address Resident Concerns. The proposed mitigation measures represent all feasible, cost-effective mitigation measures to reduce exhaust emissions to be implemented by the construction contractor. Although the maximum emissions would be generated only when construction activities from all Project elements overlap and would likely to be short-term, the impact would still be significant and unavoidable with mitigation incorporated. With implementation of all feasible mitigation, Project construction would generate daily emissions of NOX exceeding the BAAQMD threshold for various Project components during all construction phases: Utility Relocation, Phase One, and Phase Two. During the Utility Relocation phase, gas line work and directional drilling would result in daily NOX emissions of 65.71 lbs/day. During Phase One, construction of the new left bank levee and construction of the right bank levee would result in daily NOX emissions of 110.45 and 94.63 lbs/day, respectively. During Phase Two, Conservative Scenario 1—overlap of gas line work, directional drilling, and construction of new left bank levee (Utility Relocation and Phase One) would result in daily NOX emissions of 176.16 lbs/day. In addition, a second scenario was evaluated for Phase Two. Conservative Scenario 2— overlap of site prep, installation of right and left bank floodwalls, and flatbed trailer truck trips (Phase Two) would result in daily NOX emissions of 68.45 lbs/day. In summary, the Council will adopt mitigation (Measures AQ2.1, AQ2.2, AQ2.3, NV1.1, and NV1.3) that comprise all of the approaches identified as feasible to reduce criteria pollutant impacts associated with construction of various Project elements. However, even with these measures in place, pollutant levels could intermittently be high enough to exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Any such exceedance would constitute a significant residual impact, and is considered unavoidable. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate the significant effects on the environment to the greatest extent feasible, but the Council finds that mitigation is unlikely to reduce Toxic Air Contaminant (“TAC”) emissions to a less-than- significant level (i.e., mitigation is unlikely to reduce TAC emissions below BAAQMD daily emission thresholds: annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), cumulative diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) cancer risk of 100 per million, and cumulative average annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.8 µg/m3), and that no alternate or additional mitigation that would provide such a reduction has been identified as feasible. Consequently, the Council finds that a significant residual impact is likely during construction of some of the Project elements. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 24 of 28 Findings The following mitigation measures, as described in the Final EIR, will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation: Mitigation Measure AQ2.1—Implement Tailpipe Emission Reduction for Project Construction, Mitigation Measure AQ2.2—Fleet Modernization for Onroad Material Delivery and Haul Trucks during Construction, Mitigation Measure AQ2.3—Modernization for Directional Drilling Equipment during Construction, Mitigation Measure NV1.1—Provide Advance Notification of Construction Schedule and 24-Hour Hotline to Residents, and Mitigation Measure NV1.3— Designate Construction Noise and Air Quality Disturbance Coordinator to Address Resident Concerns. The proposed mitigation measures represent all feasible, cost-effective mitigation measures to reduce exhaust emissions to be implemented by the construction contractor. With implementation of all feasible mitigation, Project construction would generate daily emissions of PM2.5 and DPM exceeding the BAAQMD threshold for various Project elements during all construction phases: Utility Relocation, Phase One, and Phase Two. During the Utility Relocation phase, construction of Shoofly Towers (T1-4) and gas line work/directional drilling would result in annual PM2.5 concentrations of 0.65 and 0.40 µg/m3, respectively. During Phase One, site preparation would result in an annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.46 µg/m3; construction of new left bank levee would result in an annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.52 µg/m3; modifications to Friendship Bridge would result in an annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.35 µg/m3; and channel widening and marsh plain terracing would result in an annual PM2.5 concentration of 1.57 µg/m3, cumulative DPM cancer risk of 141.83/million, and cumulative average annual PM2.5 concentration of 2.45 µg/m3. During Phase Two, site preparation would result in a cumulative DPM cancer risk of 139.77/million and a cumulative average annual PM2.5 concentration of 1.13 µg/m3; installation of right and left bank floodwalls would result in an annual PM2.5 concentration of 3.46 µg/m3, cumulative DPM cancer risk of 149.23/million, and a cumulative average annual PM2.5 concentration of 4.35 µg/m3; construction of upstream access road on right and left banks would result in a cumulative DPM cancer risk of 139.83/million and a cumulative average annual PM2.5 concentration of 1.18 µg/m3; Conservative Scenario 1— overlap of gas line work, directional drilling and construction of new left bank levee (Utility Relocation and Phase One) — would result in an annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.9 µg/m3, a cumulative DPM cancer risk of 0.6/million, and a cumulative average annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.9 µg/m3; Conservative Scenario 2—overlap of site prep, installation of right and left bank floodwalls, and Flatbed trailer truck trips (Phase Two) —would result in an annual PM2.5 concentration of 3.7 µg/m3, a cumulative DPM cancer risk of 149.3/million, and a cumulative average annual PM2.5 concentration of 4.6 µg/m3. In summary, the Council will adopt mitigation (Measures AQ2.1, AQ2.2, AQ2.3, NV1.1, and NV1.3) that comprise all of the approaches identified as feasible to reduce impacts associated with TAC emissions during construction of various Project elements. However, even with these measures in place, TAC levels could intermittently be high enough to exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Any such exceedance would constitute a significant residual impact, and is considered unavoidable. Result in Reduced Availability of Existing Recreational Facilities or Uses Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate the significant effects on the environment. The Project would relocate the levee on the left bank of San Francisquito Creek inland from its existing location, thereby widening the Creek and cutting through a portion of the Golf Course. To accommodate the new levee footprint and maintain playability of the course, holes 12 through 15 (which are adjacent to the Creek) and certain holes among the remaining fourteen holes would need to be reconfigured on a timetable San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 25 of 28 Findings to be determined by the City of Palo Alto. The total area of the Golf Course to be permanently incorporated into the Project is 7.4 acres. The converted portion of the Golf Course would remain dedicated parkland, but would be permanently converted from Golf Course use to open space as part of the Project. However, it is feasible to reconfigure the Golf Course design in order to maintain or improve the Golf Course’s Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) rating and its playability. Mitigation Measure REC-1—Compensate the City of Palo Alto for the Conversion of 7.4 Acres of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course to Accommodate Project Features requires the SFCJPA to provide monetary compensation to the City to compensate for the costs of reconfiguring the Golf Course to maintain its PGA regulation status. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measure REC-1 would reduce permanent impacts on the Golf Course to a less-than-significant level. The Council finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure REC-1 is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City and has been, or can and should be, adopted by the City. Since the City does not have the ability to guarantee the implementation of this measure, a significant and unavoidable impact on the Golf Course is assumed. The JPA is committed to providing funding to compensate for the costs of reconfiguring the Golf Course as described in Mitigation Measure REC-1. In summary, the Council will adopt Mitigation Measure REC-1 that comprises all of the approaches identified as feasible to reduce impacts associated with the permanent incorporation of 7.4 acres of the Golf Course into the Project. However, because implementation of the mitigation measure is outside the City’s and the JPA’s jurisdiction and fulfillment cannot be guaranteed, a significant and unavoidable impact is assumed. Contributions to Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Impact and Project Contribution The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is a nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, the state 1-hour ozone standard, and the state PM10 and PM2.5 standards; this represents a significant existing cumulative impact on air quality. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase emissions of ozone precursors, such as NOX. BAAQMD has established emissions thresholds which it believes a project’s individual operational criteria pollutant emissions would be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, it considers the project-level criteria pollutant thresholds to address both project-level and cumulative impacts (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2011). The Project’s construction emissions were estimated to exceed BAAQMD daily emission threshold for NOX. Therefore, construction-related tailpipe emissions are expected to constitute a considerable contribution to existing cumulative air quality degradation, notwithstanding the mitigation incorporated into the Project as discussed above. Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ2.1 through AQ2.3 and Mitigation Measures NV1.1 and NV1.3 discussed above would reduce NOX emissions, but BAAQMD’s NOX thresholds would still be exceeded. Therefore, the project’s construction activities on cumulative air quality impacts are expected to be significant and unavoidable. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Council finds that Mitigation Measures San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 26 of 28 Findings AQ2.1 through AQ2.3 and Mitigation Measures NV1.1 and NV1.3 are feasible and will adopt these measures as described in the Final EIR. These measures will be incorporated into the Project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure their implementation. However, even with this measure in place, the Project is expected to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality degradation. Except for the temporary air quality impacts from construction, and recreational impacts to the Palo Alto Golf Course, the Council finds that the EIR identifies no significant environmental effects of the proposed Project which cannot be mitigated to levels of insignificance and further finds that all impacts will either be avoided or reduced to a level that is both insignificant and acceptable. All mitigation measures which are included in the proposed Project and EIR (whether or not they are expressly designated as mitigation measures), or which are referenced in these Findings, or which are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, shall be deemed adopted as part of the Council's approval of the Project and certification of the Final EIR to the extent they have been identified as measures to be undertaken by the City. IV. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, or to the location of a project, which could reduce potential impacts while still attaining the basic objectives of the project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. CEQA Guidelines also require that the range of alternatives considered include a "No Project" alternative. For comparative purposes, the objectives of the Proposed Project are set forth in Section I. D of these findings, and impacts are analyzed in Sections II and III above. As set forth below, the JPA considered various alternatives in selecting the Proposed Project. The Council finds the following with regard to the alternatives analyzed in the EIR, as discussed in more detail below. The EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project as proposed. The Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives and rejected them in favor of the proposed Project. There are no feasible alternatives within the City’s powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effects from the Project. The EIR analyzed two alternatives advanced from the preliminary alternatives analysis in addition to the Project as proposed: Alternative 3 (Golf Course Bypass) and the No Project Alternative. Findings Regarding the Alternatives – Environmentally Superior Alternative Alternative 3 (Golf Course Bypass) includes in-channel marshplain terraces, similar to the Project and a large bypass channel extending across the center of the Golf Course. It does not include levee setbacks in either the middle or upper reaches as set forth in the Project. The differentiating feature of Alternative 3 is a large bypass channel extending from south to north through the center of the Golf Course. This bypass reach would intersect the existing channel just downstream of the Baylands Athletic Center and reconnect with the main channel near the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 27 of 28 Findings airport runway. During both normal daily flows and fluvial flood events, a portion of upstream flows would be diverted through the bypass channel, therefore significantly reducing water levels in the middle reach and conveying a large percentage of flows away from the residences of East Palo Alto. Maintenance and operations of Alternative 3 would be identical to those of the Project. Although Alternative 3 would accomplish Project goals and objectives and reduce impacts on biological resources it would result in greater impacts to aesthetics, cultural resources, land use, noise and vibration, recreation, and traffic. The Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Specifically, the Council finds this alternative infeasible and undesirable from a policy standpoint because it would result worse environmental impacts when compared to the Project. The No Project Alternative would avoid numerous significant impacts identified for the proposed Project, but would not accomplish the Project’s identified goal and objectives. The Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Specifically, the Council finds that this alternative is infeasible because it would not meet the Project objectives. V STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS As described in the Background section, flooding from the Creek is a common occurrence and the most recent major flood event in February 1998 affected approximately 1,700 residential, commercial, and public structures and caused more than $28 million in property damages. The maximum instantaneous peak flow recorded during the February 1998 event was 7,200 cfs. The USACE estimates that the 1998 flood was a 45-year flood event. A 100-year flood event is anticipated to result in flows of 9,400 cfs at the mouth of the Creek, and these flows would exceed the existing capacity of the Creek (San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority 2009). Protection from the 100-year flood (1-percent flood protection) is the currently accepted standard for flood protection works, and the Project is being designed specifically to meet a goal of providing 1 percent flood protection for residents and businesses along the San Francisquito Creek corridor. Construction of the Project would likely result in significant and unavoidable effects on air quality associated with construction of various Project elements during all Project phases. The Council finds that the construction-related air quality impacts are temporary and an unavoidable byproduct of the need to use heavy equipment to complete the Project. The Project would also result in significant and unavoidable effects related to reduced availability of existing recreational facilities due to the permanent incorporation of 7.4 acres of the Golf Course into the Project. The City has committed to all feasible mitigation to reduce this impacts, but the implementation of the mitigation measure for recreation impacts is outside the City’s and JPA’s jurisdiction and fulfillment cannot be guaranteed. No additional feasible mitigation is available. The Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR, as detailed above in Section IV. All feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project by way of adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as requirements of implementation of the Project. San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project Page 28 of 28 Findings In making this Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of the findings of fact and the Project, the Council has considered information contained in the Final EIR for the Project as well as the public testimony and record of proceedings in which the Project was considered. The City has balanced the Project’s benefits against the unavoidable adverse impacts identified in the Final EIR. This determination is made based upon the public benefits identified in the Final EIR and record of proceedings as flowing from the Project. The project provides long term solution to flood management Key project objectives include improving public safety through flood risk management; accommodating future flood protection measures upstream; enhancing habitat and recreational opportunities in the project area; and minimizing maintenance needs of the Project. The impacts of the Project are localized to the project vicinity, but the Project provides long term regional benefits from implementation. The Council finds that the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. The Council has independently determined that the Final EIR fully and adequately analyzes the impacts and mitigation measures of the Project. The number of Project alternatives identified and considered in the EIR meets the test of “reasonable” analysis and provides the Council with important information from which to make an informed decision. Substantial evidence in the record from public meetings and other sources demonstrates various benefits and considerations including economic, legal, social, and technological which would be achieved from implementation of the Project. In consideration of the existing flood risks along the Creek associated with lack of adequate capacity in the Creek channel, and the analysis of the Project outcomes presented in the Final EIR, the Council balanced the Project’s benefits and considerations against the unavoidable and irreversible environmental risks identified in the EIR and concluded that those impacts are outweighed by the Project’s benefits. Upon balancing the environmental risk and countervailing Project’s benefits, the Council has concluded that the benefits that will derive from implementation of the Project outweigh those environmental risks many of which are temporary. The remaining unavoidable and irreversible impacts of the Project are acceptable in light of economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations set forth herein because the benefits of the Project outweigh any significant and unavoidable or irreversible environmental impact of the Project. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4595) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Amendment to Animal Services Contracts with Los Altos and Los Altos Hills Title: Recommendation for Council Approval to Amend the Current Regional Animal Care and Control Services Contracts with the City of Los Altos and Town of Los Altos Hills, and to Extend Term For Five Additional Years From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve an amendment to the respective current regional animal care and control services contracts with both the City of Los Altos and Town of Los Altos Hills to (1) amend the scope of services and (2) extend the term of the contract for five additional years. The contracts would be effective from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2019. Discussion The existing regional animal care and control contracts with the City of Los Altos and the Town of Los Altos Hills are ten-year contracts which were signed in 2004 and set to expire in July 2014. The existing agreement with Los Altos is appended as Attachment A. The existing agreement with Los Altos Hills is appended as Attachment B. The contracts provide for two five-year extensions and staff recommends exercising the first extension. As part of the extension, the City is proposing amendments to the cost structure and the scope of services. The proposed amendment to the Scope of Services is appended as Attachment C. The amendment to the cost structure was driven by the fact that the City of Mountain View left as a regional partner in November 2013. Staff proposes an amended cost structure that will keep the regional partners’ costs consistent with historical averages of services provided. The proposed amendment to the City of Los Altos contract is appended as Attachment C. The proposed amendment to the Town of Los Altos Hills contract is appended as Attachment D. The proposed amendment to the cost structure is contained in the proposed amended agreements Attachments C & D. Proposed Cost Structure Amendment: City of Palo Alto Page 2 The current contract calls for the partner cities to pay a proportion of the Animal Services budget based on an annual percentage of animals handled by Palo Alto for the partner agency. Under this cost structure, Los Altos would see their expected percentage of animals handled to increase from 11.3% historically to approximately 15% which would increase their annual payment by approximately $50,000. Similarly, Los Altos Hills would see their expected percentage of animals handled increase to approximately 8% from a historical average of 4% which would increase their annual payment by approximately $50,000. The proposed methodology will limit the fiscal impact of the departure of Mountain View on the partner cities and provide for consistent costing for all five years of the agreement. Under the proposed amendment, the percentage paid would be fixed for the term of agreement (11.3% for Los Altos and 4% for Los Altos Hills). This percentage is derived from an average percentage of animals handled by Palo Alto from FY 2003 - FY 2012 for each agency. As the City’s cost for animal services increase each year, each agency’s payments will increase along with the increased costs. Proposed Scope of Services Amendments: • Response to Unconfined Stray Dogs - Section 1 Agency Assist The current contract calls for a partner agency to have a visual on all unconfined stray dogs before PAAS will respond. Under the proposed amendment, PAAS would be dispatched as the primary to reports of unconfined stray dogs. The PAAS response would no longer be predicated on Agency staff having visual on the animal. These calls would be of lower priority and would not take precedent over animal in hand, sick, injured or aggressive animal calls. PAAS will retain revenue associated with impound and boarding fees to help offset the costs for this additional service. • Excess Number of Animal Complaints - Section 1 Agency Assist Under the current contract, PAAS does not investigate excess number of animal complaints. Under the proposed amendment, PAAS on-duty Animal Control Officers (ACOs) would investigate all excess number of animal complaints. PAAS would retain any revenue associated with administrative citations to help offset the cost of providing this additional service. • Delinquent Dog Licensing - Section 7 Animal Licensing PAAS will provide delinquent dog licensing services including the issuing of administrative citations. Revenue from administrative citations and penalties associated with animal licensing would stay with PAAS to help offset the cost of providing this additional service. Timeline and Resource Impact The provision of regional animal care and control services to Los Altos and Los Altos Hills is expected to result in annual revenue of $195,000 (approximately $144,000 annually from Los Altos and approximately $51,000 annually for Los Altos Hills). The Fiscal Year 2015 Proposed Operating budget includes a recommendation to reduce estimated revenues from partnering City of Palo Alto Page 3 agencies by $191,250 from $386,250 to $195,000. Services provided to Los Altos and Los Altos Hills are accomplished with existing staff resources and no additional staff is allocated to specifically serve Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. Environmental Review This report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, an environmental review is not required. Attachments Attachment A: 2014 Proposed Amended Agreement with the City of Los Altos Attachment B: 2014 Proposed Amended Agreement with the Town of Los Altos Hills Attachment C: Proposed Amended “Scope of Services” to Proposed Amended Agreements 2014 Attachment D: 2004 Agreement with the City of Los Altos Attachment E: 2004 Agreement with the Town of Los Altos Hills Attachments: ATTACHMENT A - Amended Agreement - Los Altos (PDF) ATTACHMENT B - Amended Agreement - Los Altos Hills (PDF) ATTACHMENT C - Scope of Services (PDF) ATTACHMENT D - Current Agreement - Los Altos (PDF) ATTACHMENT E - Current Agreement - Los Altos Hills (PDF) 1 AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND SHELTERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS This Agreement for Animal Control and Sheltering Services is made this 1st day of July, 2014, by and between the City of Palo Alto (“Palo Alto”) and the City of Los Altos (“Agency”). RECITALS WHEREAS, animal control and sheltering services are required by California law to be provided by incorporated cities; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto has an established animal control and shelter operation (“PAAS”); and WHEREAS, Agency has no current facilities or ability to provide those required animal services, and has requested that Palo Alto provide specified animal control and sheltering services within the jurisdiction of Agency, and for the citizens of Agency; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto has the capacity to provide such services to Agency as are hereinafter described, and is willing to do so; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following covenants, terms, and conditions, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Term The term of this agreement shall commence on July 1, 2014 and shall terminate on June 30, 2019, unless sooner terminated or extended by mutual agreement between Palo Alto and the Agency. The parties intend to extend this agreement for one additional five year term consistent with the original contract signed by the parties in 2004. The parties intend to extend this agreement so long as it is mutually advantageous. Parties agree to meet at least twelve months prior to the scheduled termination hereof and discuss the terms of such extension. A. Amendments - Amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and approved by the governing body of Agency and Palo Alto. This is the entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior written or oral agreements. ATTACHMENT A 2 SECTION 2: Termination by Any Party Any party may terminate this agreement at any time, with or without cause by providing one hundred eighty (180) days written notice of intent to terminate. In any event of termination under this paragraph, Palo Alto shall be paid for all services performed until such termination. SECTION 3: Advisory Committee The joint committee shall hereafter be referred to as the Animal Control Task Force (ACTF) consisting of a PAAS representative, City Manager representative or other designee defined by Agency, and the Superintendent of PAAS. The responsibilities of the ACTF shall include but are not be limited to: 1. Review existing local animal control ordinances and make recommendations for appropriate changes 2. Assessing licensing program 3. Analyze programmatic complaints by either party or its residents 4. Review revenues and expenditures relating to the program SECTION 4: Agency Responsibilities 1. Agency hereby designates Palo Alto to perform, on behalf of Agency, all services as agreed to in Exhibit “A” - Scope of Services of this Agreement. 2. Agency hereby designates Palo Alto responsible for its dog license fee collection, including the issuance of licensing administrative citations. 3. Agency agrees to adopt fees consistent with Palo Alto’s schedule for animal related fees during the term of the agreement. 4. Agency shall implement its own locally enacted provisions for administrative remedies with respect to impoundment, nuisance abatement of dangerous animals and other similar circumstances; provided, however, that Palo Alto will assist and respond when requested by Agency, as set forth in Exhibit “A” of this Agreement. Agency agrees that it will remain solely responsible for arranging and conducting hearings under its Dangerous Animal Ordinances, including but not limited to, providing Hearing Officers and a location for such hearings. The cost of these hearings shall be borne by the animal owner; however, in the event Agency is unable to collect these costs from the animal owner; Agency shall be responsible for these costs. 5. Agency agrees that it shall remain solely responsible for the defense of any appeal of any decision rendered by the Hearing Officer or from any Court judgment based on claims, actions or appeals resulting from Dangerous Animal designations made under Agency’s Ordinances. 3 6. Agency agrees to provide assistance upon request of Palo Alto’s Animal Control Officers within Agency’s jurisdiction. 7. Agency shall be primarily responsible for the investigation and appropriate enforcement action to be taken in substantiated cases of animal cruelty, abuse, etc., under Section 597 of the California Penal Code. 8. Agency shall maintain a safe, clean, and sanitary environment for temporarily holding animals at the Agency’s designated area. Agency reports shall include description of the animal, location it was found, reporting party information and any other relevant information that would assist PAAS with the disposition of the animal. The report shall be provided to PAAS staff at pick up. If the animal is released from Agency, the report shall be sent to PAAS by the end of the work day. 9. As unanticipated events occur in Agency cities, PAAS may be required to contract with outside vendors to provide services that are above and beyond the scope of services and/or the capabilities of PAAS personnel. After consultation and agreement of services with Agency, Agency will be responsible for the cost of vendor services. SECTION 5: Compensation 1. The purpose of this Section is to equitably divide the actual costs of providing animal control and sheltering services to Agency. The costs to provide these services are based on the actual program costs for the Palo Alto Animal Services Division each fiscal year. 2. Agency agrees to pay Palo Alto under the following payment schedule: a. April 1 of current fiscal year – Palo Alto will provide Agency with cost estimate for following fiscal year b. November 1 – Palo Alto will provide Agency with an invoice for the current fiscal year adjusted by any variance in prior year budget to actuals. Payments are due to Palo Alto by December 15 of each year. Payments shall be sent to: Superintendent of Animal Services 3281 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. Agency agrees to pay __% of actual program costs for the Palo Alto Animal Services Division each fiscal year less recovered dog licensing fees. The percentage paid under this agreement is derived from the average percentage of animals handled by Palo Alto for Agency from FY 2003 – FY 2012. Palo Alto will retain all boarding, impound and dog licensing penalty fees. 4 4. Any payments not received on or before the due date shall accrue interest between the due date and date of receipt. Interest shall be based on the prevailing rate of return earned by Palo Alto’s investments during that period. 5. In the event of early termination of this Agreement, in accordance with Section 2 of the Agreement, Palo Alto shall bill Agency a prorata amount of the quarterly payment that covers the quarter during which such termination is effective. 6. For any animal(s) required to be housed at PAAS over ninety (90) calendar days, Agency will be assessed a daily charge of $20 per animal plus any expenses necessary to care for the animal(s), commencing the ninety-first (91) day of impoundment. 7. Any unforeseen changes in State requirements relating to the care and housing of animals shall be the fiscal responsibility of Agency once implemented by Palo Alto based on Agency’s animals handled. SECTION 6: Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agency acknowledges that it is required by law to provide the services set forth in Exhibit “A”, of this Agreement, and that it has no present ability to provide those services and has requested that Palo Alto provide such services. Therefore, Agency expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Palo Alto, its officers, agents, employees and servants from all demands, claims, liabilities, losses, charges, costs, or damages caused by or arising out of Palo Alto’s acts or omissions in the performance of this Agreement. SECTION 7: Notices All notices shall be submitted, in writing, and sent by the United States Mail, certified and postage prepaid, by private express delivery service, by facsimile transmission followed by delivery of hard copy, or by any other process mutually acceptable to the parties to the addresses stated below or to any other address noticed in writing. Palo Alto: Superintendent of Animal Services 3281 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Agency: City of Los Altos SECTION 8: Miscellaneous 1. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any changes resulting in Program modifications shall be provided in writing by Palo Alto to Agency as soon as legislative bodies enact any new or modified regulations regarding animals, their care and housing. 5 2. Palo Alto shall not be deemed in default on account of any delay or failure to perform any obligations in accordance with Agency laws, the laws of the State of California, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the terms of this Agreement, which directly results from an Act of God, including, without limitation, the act of a superior legal authority or an occurrence of nature. 3. If a Court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect. 4. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this Agreement may recover from the other party its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees expended in connection with such an action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS Agreement in Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, California, on the date first above stated. “PALO ALTO” “AGENCY” __________________________ _________________________ Mayor Mayor ATTEST: ATTEST: Regionaldraft2014 1/13/14 1 AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND SHELTERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS This Agreement for Animal Control and Sheltering Services is made this 1st day of July, 2014, by and between the City of Palo Alto (“Palo Alto”) and the Town of Los Altos Hills (“Agency”). RECITALS WHEREAS, animal control and sheltering services are required by California law to be provided by incorporated cities; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto has an established animal control and shelter operation (“PAAS”); and WHEREAS, Agency has no current facilities or ability to provide those required animal services, and has requested that Palo Alto provide specified animal control and sheltering services within the jurisdiction of Agency, and for the citizens of Agency; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto has the capacity to provide such services to Agency as are hereinafter described, and is willing to do so; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following covenants, terms, and conditions, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Term The term of this agreement shall commence on July 1, 2014 and shall terminate on June 30, 2019, unless sooner terminated or extended by mutual agreement between Palo Alto and the Agency. The parties intend to extend this agreement for one additional five year term consistent with the original contract signed by the parties in 2004. The parties intend to extend this agreement so long as it is mutually advantageous. Parties agree to meet at least twelve months prior to the scheduled termination hereof and discuss the terms of such extension. A. Amendments - Amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and approved by the governing body of Agency and Palo Alto. This is the entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior written or oral agreements. ATTACHMENT B 2 SECTION 2: Termination by Any Party Any party may terminate this agreement at any time, with or without cause by providing one hundred eighty (180) days written notice of intent to terminate. In any event of termination under this paragraph, Palo Alto shall be paid for all services performed until such termination. SECTION 3: Advisory Committee The joint committee shall hereafter be referred to as the Animal Control Task Force (ACTF) consisting of a PAAS representative, City Manager representative or other designee defined by Agency, and the Superintendent of PAAS. The responsibilities of the ACTF shall include but are not be limited to: 1. Review existing local animal control ordinances and make recommendations for appropriate changes 2. Assessing licensing program 3. Analyze programmatic complaints by either party or its residents 4. Review revenues and expenditures relating to the program SECTION 4: Agency Responsibilities 1. Agency hereby designates Palo Alto to perform, on behalf of Agency, all services as agreed to in Exhibit “A” - Scope of Services of this Agreement. 2. Agency hereby designates Palo Alto responsible for its dog license fee collection, including the issuance of licensing administrative citations. 3. Agency agrees to adopt fees consistent with Palo Alto’s schedule for animal related fees during the term of the agreement. 4. Agency shall implement its own locally enacted provisions for administrative remedies with respect to impoundment, nuisance abatement of dangerous animals and other similar circumstances; provided, however, that Palo Alto will assist and respond when requested by Agency, as set forth in Exhibit “A” of this Agreement. Agency agrees that it will remain solely responsible for arranging and conducting hearings under its Dangerous Animal Ordinances, including but not limited to, providing Hearing Officers and a location for such hearings. The cost of these hearings shall be borne by the animal owner; however, in the event Agency is unable to collect these costs from the animal owner; Agency shall be responsible for these costs. 5. Agency agrees that it shall remain solely responsible for the defense of any appeal of any decision rendered by the Hearing Officer or from any Court judgment based on claims, actions or appeals resulting from Dangerous Animal designations made under Agency’s Ordinances. 3 6. Agency agrees to provide assistance upon request of Palo Alto’s Animal Control Officers within Agency’s jurisdiction. 7. Agency shall be primarily responsible for the investigation and appropriate enforcement action to be taken in substantiated cases of animal cruelty, abuse, etc., under Section 597 of the California Penal Code. 8. Agency shall maintain a safe, clean, and sanitary environment for temporarily holding animals at the Agency’s designated area. Agency reports shall include description of the animal, location it was found, reporting party information and any other relevant information that would assist PAAS with the disposition of the animal. The report shall be provided to PAAS staff at pick up. If the animal is released from Agency, the report shall be sent to PAAS by the end of the work day. 9. As unanticipated events occur in Agency cities, PAAS may be required to contract with outside vendors to provide services that are above and beyond the scope of services and/or the capabilities of PAAS personnel. After consultation and agreement of services with Agency, Agency will be responsible for the cost of vendor services. SECTION 5: Compensation 1. The purpose of this Section is to equitably divide the actual costs of providing animal control and sheltering services to Agency. The costs to provide these services are based on the actual program costs for the Palo Alto Animal Services Division each fiscal year. 2. Agency agrees to pay Palo Alto under the following payment schedule: a. April 1 of current fiscal year – Palo Alto will provide Agency with cost estimate for following fiscal year b. November 1 – Palo Alto will provide Agency with an invoice for the current fiscal year adjusted by any variance in prior year budget to actuals. Payments are due to Palo Alto by December 15 of each year. Payments shall be sent to: Superintendent of Animal Services 3281 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. Agency agrees to pay __% of actual program costs for the Palo Alto Animal Services Division each fiscal year less recovered dog licensing fees. The percentage paid under this agreement is derived from the average percentage of animals handled by Palo Alto for Agency from FY 2003 – FY 2012. Palo Alto will retain all boarding, impound and dog licensing penalty fees. 4 4. Any payments not received on or before the due date shall accrue interest between the due date and date of receipt. Interest shall be based on the prevailing rate of return earned by Palo Alto’s investments during that period. 5. In the event of early termination of this Agreement, in accordance with Section 2 of the Agreement, Palo Alto shall bill Agency a prorata amount of the quarterly payment that covers the quarter during which such termination is effective. 6. For any animal(s) required to be housed at PAAS over ninety (90) calendar days, Agency will be assessed a daily charge of $20 per animal plus any expenses necessary to care for the animal(s), commencing the ninety-first (91) day of impoundment. 7. Any unforeseen changes in State requirements relating to the care and housing of animals shall be the fiscal responsibility of Agency once implemented by Palo Alto based on Agency’s animals handled. SECTION 6: Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agency acknowledges that it is required by law to provide the services set forth in Exhibit “A”, of this Agreement, and that it has no present ability to provide those services and has requested that Palo Alto provide such services. Therefore, Agency expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Palo Alto, its officers, agents, employees and servants from all demands, claims, liabilities, losses, charges, costs, or damages caused by or arising out of Palo Alto’s acts or omissions in the performance of this Agreement. SECTION 7: Notices All notices shall be submitted, in writing, and sent by the United States Mail, certified and postage prepaid, by private express delivery service, by facsimile transmission followed by delivery of hard copy, or by any other process mutually acceptable to the parties to the addresses stated below or to any other address noticed in writing. Palo Alto: Superintendent of Animal Services 3281 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Agency: Town of Los Altos Hills SECTION 8: Miscellaneous 1. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any changes resulting in Program modifications shall be provided in writing by Palo Alto to Agency as soon as legislative bodies enact any new or modified regulations regarding animals, their care and housing. 5 2. Palo Alto shall not be deemed in default on account of any delay or failure to perform any obligations in accordance with Agency laws, the laws of the State of California, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the terms of this Agreement, which directly results from an Act of God, including, without limitation, the act of a superior legal authority or an occurrence of nature. 3. If a Court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect. 4. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this Agreement may recover from the other party its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees expended in connection with such an action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS Agreement in Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, California, on the date first above stated. “PALO ALTO” “AGENCY” __________________________ _________________________ Mayor Mayor ATTEST: ATTEST: Regionaldraft2014 1/13/14 1 AMENDED EXHIBIT “A” Scope of Services Palo Alto shall provide animal control and sheltering services to Agency as set forth in this Exhibit and in compliance with all related applicable laws of the State of California. Field Services will be provided seven (7) days a week as follows: Regular hours 8:00am – 5:00pm On-Call hours 5:00pm – 8:00am Public Shelter hours 11:00am – 5:30pm (Monday -Thursday, Saturday, and every other Friday) PAAS office will be closed on designated holidays. SECTION 1: Agency Assist Animal Control Officer (ACO) will assist Agency with the control of aggressive, vicious, and/or attacking animals (domestic or wild). ACO will assist Agency staff in the rescue of dogs or cats in immediate distress. ACO will assist Agency to capture unattended, stray dogs when conditions are safe to do so. ACO will assist Agency staff in the active investigation of animal cruelty, abuse, or neglect incidents. Agency will be responsible for all criminal filings. Upon request by Agency staff, ACO will assist in the investigation of animal on animal attacks. If Agency takes enforcement action surrounding an animal violation, Agency may request assistance of ACO to impound animal(s) and provide appropriate care at PAAS during the judicial process. PAAS on-duty ACO’s will assist Agency by investigating all excess number of animal complaints. SECTION 2: Field Impound ACO will impound animals under special custody situations which would include owner arrest, hospitalization, fire, etc...Agency staff will provide ACO/PAAS staff with owner information before the end of Agency staff shift. ATTACHMENT C 2 Confined, stray domestic animals (including those in rented PAAS humane box traps) shall be picked up during regular hours from both citizens and the Agency. SECTION 3: Stray Animals ACO will impound confined, stray animals during regular hours when the owner is not present. ACO will pick up and dispose of reported dead stray animals during regular hours. Residents from Agency’s jurisdiction may bring stray animals to PAAS during regular business hours. After hours, animals may be taken to the holding area at PAPD. The following day, ACO will pick up and transport to the shelter for care and housing. Stray animals located in Agency’s jurisdiction that are taken to the shelter shall be provided care and housing. A lost and found log will be maintained at shelter in an attempt to reunite animals with owners. SECTION 4: Disposition of Stray or Surrendered Animals At the conclusion of any required holding period, stray or surrendered animals may either be placed for adoption or humanely euthanized at PAAS’ discretion. All animals placed for adoption shall be spayed or neutered, micro-chipped and vaccinated prior to placement. SECTION 5: Surrenders Residents from Agency’s jurisdiction may surrender their animal(s) during regular business hours at PAAS. Residents must provide proof of residency and picture identification at the time of the surrender. PAAS provides disposal service for owned, dead animals for a service fee. If owner requests animal to be picked up from their home, there will be an additional fee charged to the animal owner. This service is provided during regular business hours at PAAS. SECTION 6: Bites/Quarantine ACO will assist Agency staff with all animal bite on human incidents. When a dog on human bite occurs during regular hours or is in progress, ACO will respond and direct the quarantine process per 121615 of the California Health and Safety Code. ACO will provide a report documenting the quarantine, witness 3 statements and the action of the animal. PAAS will provide the report to the Agency. Agency will be responsible for all criminal filings. For after hour incidents that are not in progress, the Agency will take an initial report and provide PAAS with a copy of the report by the end of the shift. PAAS shall provide for the control of rabies through quarantine and testing consistent with the provisions of 121615 of the California Health and Safety Code. PAAS shall be responsible for filing the Annual report of Local Rabies Control Activities and Statement of Enforcement with the California State Department of Health Services. Animal bite on human incidents reported by medical personnel will be accepted and documented by an ACO. PAAS will notify Agency of relevant jurisdiction of the incident for evaluation of criminal filing. PAAS shall provide one “actual” at cost rabies vaccination clinic in accordance with State law. SECTION 7: Animal Licensing PAAS shall issue and maintain a dog licensing program for Agency including issuing Administrative Citations for licensing violations. Dog licenses will be processed at PAAS or by mail. PAAS shall provide the licensing applications to residents. PAAS will mail reminder notices prior to the expiration of the dog license. Cat identification tags will be available at PAAS and a database will be maintained. Microchip implantation and information will be available at PAAS for a fee and a database will be maintained. SECTION 8: Veterinary Care Veterinary care for sick or injured stray animals will be provided. The Palo Alto City Veterinarian shall oversee all animal health, hygiene, and nutritional needs of the animals under the care of PAAS. SECTION 9: Wildlife 4 ACO will transport and asses sick/injured wildlife. Under the direction of the City Veterinarian, animals may be transported to the South Peninsula Emergency Veterinary Clinic during regular hours. On-call response will be for wild mammals only. Nuisance wildlife calls will be referred to Santa Clara County Vector Control or to a private pest control company. ACO will assess and may respond to complaints of wildlife presenting a threat to human safety and take appropriate action. Agency will assist upon request from ACO. ACO will pick up dead wildlife on public streets/land weighing up to 50 pounds. For animals over 50 pounds, Agency may contact a designated rendering company for removal. Removal of dead wildlife on private property should be referred to the designated rendering company and associated costs will be the responsibility of the resident. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4740) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of the Northern California Power Agency Governance Agreements Title: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement, Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement, Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement and the Second Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement with the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) to adopt and approve the following agreements with the Northern California Power Agency (“NCPA”) under which NCPA will provide the City of Palo Alto (”City”) with power management and administrative services: 1. Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement; 2. Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement; 3. Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement; and 4. Second Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement. Executive Summary The City is a member of the NCPA, which provides the City certain power management and administrative services, including load and resource scheduling, balancing, settlements and asset optimization. Many of the agreements under which NCPA provides these services to the City had not been updated to reflect current regulatory and market conditions and did not properly reflect how NCPA allocates certain power management and administrative costs to the City and other members. As a result, NCPA and its members negotiated new or updated agreements to govern NCPA’s provision of power management and administrative services to its members, including the Power Management and Administrative Agreement, Facilities Agreement, Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement, and the Pooling Agreement (collectively, the “NCPA Governance Agreements”). Staff recommends approval of the new NCPA Governance Agreements because they clarify NCPA and member commitments and obligations, better City of Palo Alto Page 2 account for applicable regulatory requirements, and allocate costs in a manner that reflects the services delivered to members more equitably. NCPA’s power management and administrative costs are mostly fixed labor expenses. NCPA members pay a portion of these costs based on an agreed upon cost allocation methodology, which follows a cost-causation principle. The City’s portion of NCPA’s power management and administrative costs are approximately $1.5 million annually, which represents approximately 50 percent of total administrative-related expenses at NCPA, and are annually included in the Electric Fund’s operating budget. Through the effort of revamping the agreements, City staff negotiated with other NCPA members a reduction in the City’s power management costs to more accurately reflect services the City receives under the program relative to other members. The City’s expected costs under the revised Governance Agreements will decrease by about $400,000 annually starting in fiscal year (FY) 2015. The NCPA Commission approved the NCPA Governance Agreements by resolution (Attachment B) at the February Commission meeting, but approval the NCPA Governance Agreements by all of the NCPA members is also necessary to effect the agreements. Background The City is a founding member of NCPA, a joint power agency formed in 1968. NCPA is empowered to develop and provide various energy related services to its members including, but not limited to, design, construction, operation and maintenance of generation facilities; day-to- day power management and administrative services related to the City’s energy load; and supply resources to ensure the cost effective and reliable scheduling and settlement of electricity. In 1998 California’s wholesale electricity market deregulated and the California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”) was established as a new balancing authority. The City operates within the CAISO’s balancing authority through a Metered Subsystem Aggregator Agreement between the CAISO and NCPA. In 2007 the CAISO developed new market rules for scheduling, balancing and settling load and generation within the CAISO’s balancing authority. The NCPA Governance Agreements, under which NCPA provides power management and administrative services, have not been updated since the new market design was put in place and therefore do not properly reflect how services are delivered. Additionally, the current NCPA Governance Agreements do not clearly define how costs are allocated for various services and members’ obligations to pay for such services. NCPA staff and its members have worked diligently towards the development of the proposed updated NCPA Governance Agreements. On February 20, 2014, the NCPA Commission approved via resolution (Attachment B) the new set of NCPA Governance Agreements. Discussion The four updated and new agreements under which NCPA will provide power management and administrative services to the City include: 1. Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement, City of Palo Alto Page 3 2. Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement, 3. Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement, and 4. Second Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement. The Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement and the Scheduling Coordination Program Agreements are new contracts. The Facilities Agreement and Pooling Agreements already exist, but have been amended. The NCPA Governance Agreements are too large to provide as an attachment to this staff report, however may be reviewed by clicking here. A summary of each agreement and the proposed changes follows. 1. Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement The Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement is a new agreement, which will act as a routing/umbrella agreement to clearly identify which service agreements a member is required to sign in order to take certain power management and administrative services from NCPA. The Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement also documents how costs are accounted for and categorized for purposes of cost allocation and contains clear and transparent governance provisions that include NCPA Commission quorum and voting procedures. NCPA requires any member taking services under one or more of the NCPA Governance Agreements sign the Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement. 2. Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement The purpose of the Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions under which NCPA may acquire, construct, finance and plan for the addition of NCPA Projects, and manage, maintain, operate, schedule and perform billing for NCPA Projects. Prior to this update, the current Facilities Agreement has been in effect since 1993. The City’s participation in the Calaveras Hydroelectric Project (“Calaveras Project”) requires that the City sign the Facilities Agreement with NCPA in order to vote on matters pertaining to the City’s share in the Calaveras Project. The Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement has been amended to: (i) Update the NCPA Commission quorum and voting procedures for acting upon less formal matters related to NCPA Projects; (ii) Add certain new duties to the NCPA General Manager’s responsibilities including acting as project manager for the NCPA projects; (iii) Enable the acquisition of greenhouse gas (GHG) compliance instruments for NCPA Projects for those members with compliance obligations; (iv) Establishes requirements for installing and maintaining meters and metering equipment; (v) Provide scheduling coordination services for NCPA Projects; (vi) Establish new procedures for the Facilities Committee; (vii) Clarify who may enter into an NCPA Project, and how the different NCPA Project phases are funded and managed; and City of Palo Alto Page 4 (viii) Establish certain notice obligations for participants in NCPA Projects who choose to sell, transfer, assign or exchange their shares of a NCPA Project or project attributes; 3. Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement The Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which NCPA may provide scheduling coordination services to its members. Scheduling coordination services include submitting load and generation schedules and bids on behalf of members to the CAISO on a day-ahead and real-time basis, obtaining and maintaining settlement quality meter data, performing outage coordination for planned and unplanned outages, validating and reconciling CAISO settlement charges and credits, and allocating CAISO charges and credits among the members. Prior to this update, the Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement had been in effect since August 28, 2002. NCPA acts as the City’s scheduling coordinator for all of its load, the Calaveras Projects and most of the City’s supply resources. The Scheduling Coordination Services Agreement is required to continue to receive such services. The Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement has been amended to: (i) Incorporate language to clarify that each member taking scheduling coordination services from NCPA shall acting as an Operating Entity and shall provide schedules and bids to NCPA in accordance with the NCPA Power Scheduling Guide; and (ii) Add language to address liability associated with scheduling member-owned and contracted resources. The Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement includes language to enable NCPA to act as either scheduling coordinator or scheduling agent to the CAISO on behalf of a member for member-owned and contracted resources. Currently, members are required to sign a separate agreement to receive such services for non-NCPA Projects. As such, through Resolution No. 9328, Council delegated authority to the City Manager, or his designee, to execute and amend as necessary an operating agreement between NCPA and the City to receive scheduling coordination services for several long-term renewable resources acquired by the City through various power purchase agreements. Once approved, the new Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement will subsume all prior scheduling coordination agreement thus making the existing operating agreement between the City and NCPA obsolete. 4. Second Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement The purpose of the Second Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions under which NCPA may provide power pool management services to its members. The NCPA Power Pool comprises several NCPA members, including the City, acting as one Operating Entity to receive certain power management services, which include load, resource and price forecasting, resource planning and optimization, energy and capacity transaction activities, risk analysis and management, pre-scheduling, scheduling and dispatch activities, power pool operations and settlement standards, contract administration and industry restructuring and advocacy activities. The term of the Pooling Agreement’s authority for buying and selling energy on behalf of the City is limited to a month. In the absence of a Pooling City of Palo Alto Page 5 Agreement, the City would need to become its own Operating Entity and take on all “within-the- month” up to “day-ahead” and “real-time” load and resource scheduling and balancing activities. The current Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement became effective on October 29, 2008. The Second Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement has been amended to: (i) Revise the NCPA Commission quorum and voting procedures for acting upon matters pertaining to the agreement; (ii) Add to and clarify the duties of NCPA regarding the provision of power pool management services, including enabling NCPA to acquire GHG compliance instruments on behalf of the members as a result of NCPA Pool activities; (iii) Clarify how NCPA develops and uses load and resource balance information to manage the Pool portfolio; (iv) Incorporate language to clarify NCPA’s obligation to act as an Operating Entity on behalf of the Pool members; and (v) Establish transparent methods for allocating costs attributed to Power Pool Management Services, and to establish procedures by which a Pool member may request that such allocation methodology be reviewed for equity, General NCPA Governance Agreement Provisions A key objective for NCPA and its members in updating the NCPA Governance Agreements was to ensure consistency across all agreements. As such, all of the agreements are amended to: (i) Make the billing and payment provisions contained in the agreement consistent with NCPA’s current billing and payment practices; (ii) Set forth clear, transparent and consistent contract termination provisions which require a two year notification for members desiring to withdraw; (iii) Establish clear and transparent procedures and requirements for entering into a service agreement; (iv) Establish consistent settlement and arbitration procedures; and (v) Set forth clear indemnification provisions needed to manage risk which one member may impose on other members. Recommendation As described in this staff report the current Facilities Agreement, Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement, and Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement are not fully consistent with current business practices. The wholesale electric industry has undergone dramatic change as a result of deregulation, and will continue to change and become more complex as the wholesale markets continue to develop and mature. Staff believes that it is in the best interest of the NCPA and the members of NCPA, including the City, to update each of the agreements to ensure that the rules and requirements for how NCPA performs services on behalf of the members are transparent, non-discriminatory, durable, and consistent with current business practices. Alternative Providers of Power Management and Administrative Services City of Palo Alto Page 6 Through the process of reviewing the NCPA Governance Agreements, staff explored alternative service providers to NCPA. The unique and interdependent nature of the arrangement between the City and NCPA makes it complicated to replace NCPA for some service offerings and in some cases not a viable alternative. For example, because the City is a participant owner in NCPA’s Calaveras Hydroelectric Project, the City is obligated to participate in the Facilities Agreement, the Scheduling Coordination Agreement and, therefore, the Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement. While participation in the Calaveras Project requires participation in the Scheduling Coordination Services Agreement, the City is not obligated to receive scheduling coordinations services from the NCPA for non-NCPA Projects. Currently NCPA schedules most resources on behalf of the City including the City’s landfill gas renewable projects acquired through power purchase agreements with Ameresco, Western Base Resource, and market purchases contracted by the City. In the case of the City’s two renewable wind projects, Iberdrola is the scheduling agent and not NCPA. This arrangement has proved to work for these two resources and staff continues to explore this as an option as it develops and proposes new power purchase agreements for renewable resources. The Pooling Agreement is only required to the extent that the City wants to be part of NCPA’s Power Pool and receive load and resource management services for scheduling period which includes day-ahead and balance of the month. The Cities of Santa Clara and Roseville are not a part of the NCPA Pool and fulfill their resource management needs with their own staff and/or through a contracted service provider. However, there are new costs and risks associated with the Roseville/Santa Clara approach, including outsourcing and/or hiring additional staff to take on such activities that require an in-depth review of the alternatives and trade-offs. For the reasons set forth above, staff focused its efforts on the negotiations of the amendments and on negotiating a substantial decrease in the Power Pooling costs allocated to the City rather than conducting an extensive search for an alternate provider to NCPA. Staff will continue to work with NCPA to improve service offerings and ensure that costs are being allocated fairly amongst members. Should staff determine that there is a better alternative than continuing to participate in the NCPA Power Pool in the future, staff will bring this alternative forward for consideration and follow the termination and/or withdrawal provisions contained in the Pooling Agreement to withdraw from the NCPA Power Pool and effect the alternative service delivery mechanism. Resource Impact Approving the attached resolution to adopt the new or updated NCPA Governance Agreements will not adversely impact existing City resources. Not approving the resolution may jeopardize the City’s ability to capture the negotiated savings of approximately $400,000 in reduced NCPA power management and administrative services costs and the City will either have to negotiate alternatives service agreements with NCPA or final an alternative service provider, both of which will require significant staff time and effort with uncertain benefits. The Fiscal Year 2015 Proposed Budget scheduled for City Council adoption on June 16, 2014, assumes the savings of $400,000 for NCPA power management and administrative cost services. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Policy Impact Approval of the resolution to adopt the NCPA Governance Agreements is consistent with the Council-approved 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan’s customer service and cost management objectives. Environmental Analysis Adoption of a resolution approving the NCPA Governance Agreements does not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since the proposed action does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065. In the alternative, execution of the NCPA Governance Agreements is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Approving NCPA Governance Agreements (PDF) Attachment B: NCPA Commission Resolution Approving Governance Agreements (PDF) ATTACHMENT A *Not Yet Approved* Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Approve the Northern California Power Agency Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement, Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement, Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Agreement, and Second Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement R E C I T A L S A. The Northern California Power Agency (“NCPA”) was formed in 1968 for the purpose of utilizing the joint action of participating public power entities to pursue common interests for the benefit of all such members; and subsequently revised on April 1, 1973 and January 1, 2009. The City of Palo Alto (“City”) is a member of NCPA as one of the original signatories to the NCPA Joint Power Agency Agreement. B. NCPA provides various power management and administrative services to its members pursuant to service based agreements. Certain service based agreements under which NCPA supplies power management and administrative services were developed prior to the deregulation of the wholesale electric industry and are inconsistent with current business practices, including how costs associated with power management and administrative services are allocated among the members. C. To ensure that the service based agreements under which NCPA supplies power management and administrative services to the members are made to be consistent with current business practices, NCPA has developed the Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement, Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement, and Second Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement; and has also developed a new agreement, the Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement (collectively, the “NCPA Governance Agreements”). D. The Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement establishes the framework under which the City shall enter into one or more service agreements with NCPA to obtain power management and administrative services from NCPA, and documents how costs associated with NCPA’s provision of power management and administrative services are allocated among the members based on having participated in a NCPA Project or having executed one or more service agreements. E. In 1993 Council approved the NCPA Facilities Agreement with the City. The Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which NCPA may acquire, finance and plan for the addition of NCPA Projects, and manage, maintain, operate, schedule and perform billing for NCPA Projects. 140520 jb 0180042 1 F. By Resolution Number 8200, Council approved the NCPA Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement. The Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which NCPA may provide Scheduling Coordination Services to the members, where Scheduling Coordination Services include, but is not limited to, submission of schedules and bids on behalf of the members, obtaining and maintaining settlement quality meter data, performing outage coordination for planned and unplanned outages, validation and reconciliation of CAISO settlement charges and credits, and allocating CAISO charges and credits among the members. G. Additionally, by Resolution Number 9328, Council approved the Operating Agreement with NCPA to receive scheduling coordination services in relation to the City of Palo Alto s long-term renewable resources acquired through several power purchase agreements. The Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement will supersede this prior Operating Agreement. H. In 1993, Council approved the original Pooling Agreement and then in 2003 approved the Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement between the City and NCPA currently in effect. The Second Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement updates and sets forth the terms and conditions under which NCPA may provide Power Pool Management Services to the members, where Power Pool Management Services include, but are not limited to, load, resource and price forecasting, resource planning and optimization, energy and capacity transaction activities, risk analysis and management, pre-scheduling, scheduling and dispatch activities, power pool operations and settlement standards, contract administration and industry restructuring and advocacy activities. I. The Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement, Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement, Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement, and Second Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement will ensure that the rules and conditions for how NCPA supplies power management and administrative services to the members are transparent, non-discriminatory, durable, and consistent with current business practices. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Adoption of NCPA Governance Agreements is necessary to provide for the cost effective, safe and reliable delivery of electricity and electric related services consistent with the objectives of the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan. SECTION 2. The Council Adopts and approves the following agreements with NCPA: 1. Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement, 2. Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement, 3. Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement, and 4. Second Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement 140520 jb 0180042 2 SECTION 3. Cost associated with the Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement, Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement, Amended and Restated Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement, and Second Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement are approved by the NCPA Commission and included in the Utilities Department’s Electric Supply Purchase Cost on an annual basis. SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution approving the NCPA Governance Agreements does not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since the proposed action does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065. In the alternative, execution of the NCPA Governance Agreements is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services 140520 jb 0180042 3 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4773) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Appeal of 1451-1601 Cal. Ave. AR Approval Title: Council Review of an Appealed Architectural Review Approval of the Demolition of Approximately 290,220 s.f. of Existing R&D/Office Space and Construction of 180 Dwelling Units which Includes 68 Detached Single-Family Units and 112 Multi-Family Units Located at 1451-1601 California Avenue, as part of the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: City of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2003082103)(STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 9, 2014) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Staff requests that this item be continued to the June 9, 2014 Consent Calendar. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4757) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: HOME Consortium Title: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City’s Participation in the Santa Clara County Home Consortium (“SCCHC”) for Purposes of Securing Federal Home Funding for affordable housing. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution regarding participation in the Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) for purposes of bringing more federal funding for affordable housing to Santa Clara County; and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the HOME Consortium Agreement for the period of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2018. Executive Summary Participation in the Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) would provide the City of Palo Alto with an opportunity to collaborate with the County and other local jurisdictions on receive additional HOME Investment Partnerships Funds for affordable housing. While Palo Alto receives funds annually on a formula grant basis from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an entitlement city under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, it is not eligible to receive a direct allocation in funding for the other block grant programs available. HUD promotes the formation of partnerships and specifically provides opportunities for jurisdictions to join together to form a “consortium” in order to receive HOME funding for affordable housing. Forming a consortium enables governments that would not otherwise qualify for HOME program funding under the formula criteria to join with other units of local government to receive an allocation of funds. This creates an opportunity for these jurisdictions to take a more regional, collaborative approach to meeting affordable housing needs. By supporting this effort, the City of Palo Alto will serve as a partner in bringing in additional funding into the County to help address regional affordable housing needs. The City itself may compete for some of these additional funds if the identified project is deemed “shovel ready”. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) administers four block grant programs aimed at the development of viable communities through affordable housing and community development; 1) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG); 2) HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME); 3) Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA); and 4) Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG). Collectively these programs promote approaches that provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities for low and moderate income persons. Each formula program includes thresholds that determine a jurisdictions eligibility to receive a direct allocation of funds from HUD. Local jurisdictions become eligible for HOME and ESG funds if after applying the formula, the allocation is equal to or greater than a percentage or specific dollar amount. For instance, local jurisdictions are determined to be eligible for a direct allocation of HOME funds if their formula allocation is at least $500,000 or $335,000 in years when Congress appropriates less than $1.5 billion for HOME. Eligible applicants for HOPWA include metropolitan statistical areas with more than 500,000 people and at least 1,500 cumulative AIDS cases. Of these four programs, the City of Palo Alto only receives funding as an entitlement city under the CDBG Program, authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. Based on the thresholds set by the formula programs Palo Alto does not qualify as an eligible grantee for the other programs and must compete, at the State level, for funding through a competitive grant application process administered by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Discussion Hud’s CPD promotes the development of partnerships and provides opportunities for jurisdictions to join together to form a “consortium” in order to receive HOME funding for affordable housing. Forming a consortium enables governments that would not otherwise qualify for HOME program funding under the formula criteria to join with other units of local government to receive a direct allocation of funds. This creates an opportunity for these jurisdictions to take a more regional, collaborative approach to meeting affordable housing needs. Currently the City of Palo Alto participates in a similar partnership with the Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues (the Collaborative). The Collaborative is a coordinated effort to meet the housing and supportive services needs of un-housed and very low-income residents of the County. Through this partnership, the Collaborative operates as the County’s Continuum of Care (CoC), which is a structure mandated by HUD to receive federal homeless assistance funds. There is now an opportunity for Palo Alto to participate with the county on receiving additional HOME funds through the formation of a Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC). In 2012, Palo Alto staff in partnership with the County of Santa Clara and the cities of Cupertino and Gilroy, began a conversation about the possibility of creating a HOME Consortium. The SCCHC will allow the County of Santa Clara, as a consortium, to gain access to federal funding City of Palo Alto Page 3 through the HOME Investment Partnership Program that is otherwise programmed to the State of California. The effort has been coordinated around the submittal of the 2015-2010 Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) to ensure that the participating jurisdictions are able to work collaboratively to meet the various federal requirements for creating a HOME Consortium. Palo Alto will soon begin completing its Con Plan for fiscal years 2015 – 2020 in conjunction with a regional effort to streamline the planning process and identify regional goals. Currently the County receives approximately $400,000 in HOME funds and it is anticipated that the formation of the SCCHC will bring in an additional $400,000 annually in HOME funds. Participation in the HOME consortium does not guarantee the City a direct annual allocation of HOME funds. Instead, through this effort the City of Palo will become a participating jurisdiction and serve as a partner in bringing in additional funding into the County to help address regional affordable housing needs. The primary goal of the SCCHC will be to assist lower income families and individuals, including homeless and special needs groups, to obtain access to affordable housing. The SCCHC will utilize the funds for “shovel ready” projects located within the participating jurisdictions. Due to the relatively small amount of funding, a maximum of two jurisdictions will be awarded funding on an annual basis. Applications will be directly submitted through the County's request for proposal process for available HOME funds. It is anticipated that funding through the SCCHC for the first two years of the agreement will be available for pre-development, development, construction, acquisition, preservation and substantial rehabilitation of affordable, permanent or transitional, housing units. During the third year of the agreement, the SCCHC may choose to implement a Countywide Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program. Each project that is awarded funding through the SCCHC must provide or generate the required twenty-five percent matching of local funds under the HOME rule (24 CFR 92.218-222). If a jurisdiction has provided local funding that exceeds the 25% match requirement, the County can “bank” the excess amount to be applied as match for future HOME projects. The County has agreed to utilize its “banked” funds from previous HOME eligible projects and activities to meet the match requirements for an approved project or program. However, should the available funds be less than the 25% matching requirements, the remaining required match funds will be the responsibility of the jurisdiction in which the project is located. As such, if a project is awarded funds in the City of Palo Alto, it is the City’s responsibility to ensure that the matching obligation is met should there not be sufficient funds in the County’s banked matching fund. The County will only fund a project that has the local support of the City. Therefore before a project can be considered by the County for funding under the SCCHC, staff will present the proposed project as part of the CDBG annual action plan and budget. This will provide the City Council with the opportunity to determine local support. The County and the cities agree that the County will act as the “lead entity” in a representative capacity for all members of SCCHC. The County has the ultimate and overall responsibility to ensure that the SCCHC's HOME program is carried out as required by Federal regulations, as outlined in the attached inter-governmental agreement (Attachment B). City of Palo Alto Page 4 The City of Palo Alto would be responsible for the following: Participating in 3-4 meetings per year related to the SCCHC as requested by the County; Assisting the County as needed to evaluate proposals and identify projects that have local support; Identifying local service providers to serve as referral agency for TBRA participants if a TBRA program is administered and funded, and Assisting the County as needed to identify vulnerable homeless residents in the City of Palo Alto that are high users of the City's and/or County's resources A representative from the City will also be needed to serve on the Housing Consortium Advisory Committee (HCAC). The HCAC will be comprised of one to two staff members representing each member jurisdiction. The HCAC will be responsible for reviewing applications annually for funding from the SCCHC and will forward recommendations to the County of Santa Clara’s Board of Supervisors for final approval. Timeline The application for funding as a HOME consortium is due to the State by June 30, 2014. Resource Impact There is no direct fiscal impact to the City of Palo Alto to participate in the SCCHC. As stated previously, the lead entity, the County of Santa Clara, is entirely responsible for managing the HOME funds and meeting all of the relevant federal regulations and requirements. By joining the SCCHC, the City will be collaborating with neighboring jurisdictions and the County to secure additional HOME funds that will help address the regional need for affordable housing. If and when a project is identified in Palo Alto, it will be included in the City’s CDBG budget for review and consideration at which time the fiscal impact, if any, will be determined. Policy Implications Agreement to join the SCCHC is consistent with the City’s adopted Consolidated Plan for the period 2010 to 2015. Moreover, this action is consistent with the housing programs and policies in the adopted 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Review For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), authorization to join the SCCHC in itself is not a project. HUD environmental regulations require that entitlement jurisdictions assume the responsibility for environmental review and decision-making under NEPA. Prior to the commitment or release of funds for an approved project, staff will carry out the required environmental reviews or assessments, and certify that the review procedures under CEQA, and HUD and NEPA regulations have been satisfied for each particular project. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 5 Attachment A: SCCHC Resolution (PDF) Attachment B: Santa Clara County HOME Consortium Agreement (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. ________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the City’s Participation in the Santa Clara County Home Consortium (“SCCHC”) For Purposes of Securing Federal Home Funding and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Participation Agreement R E C I T A L S A. The Congress of the United States enacted the Cranston Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 and federal regulations have been adopted pursuant thereto, hereinafter called the “Act”. B. Title II of the Act created the HOME Investment in Affordable Housing Program, hereinafter called “HOME,” which provides funds to states and local governments for acquisition, rehabilitation and new construction of affordable housing and tenant based rental assistance. C. Funds from Title II are distributed to metropolitan cities, urban counties, states, and consortia of local governments. D. The Act allows local governments to form a consortium for the purpose of receiving and authorizing HOME funds and carrying out the purposes of the Act. E. The Act requires that a consortium shall have one member unit of general local government authorized to act in a representative capacity for all members for purposes of the Act and to assume overall responsibility for ensuring the consortium’s HOME program is carried out in compliance with the Act. F. The Cities of Cupertino, Gilroy, and Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara will establish the Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (“SCCHC”) and allow the County to receive HOME funds for federal fiscal years 2015, 2016 and 2017 and all members of the SCCHC will remain in the Consortium for the entire period. G. The term of the agreement will be until the HOME funds from each of the federal fiscal years of the agreement’s specified qualification period (FY 2015, 2016, 2017) and each successive qualification period for which the agreement is renewed are expended on eligible activities and the funds are closed out pursuant to 24 CFR 92.507. H. The City authorizes the automatic renewal of the agreement for successive qualification periods. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: 140521 jb 0131206 1 ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 1. The City Council authorizes the City Manager or his/her designee to execute and approve the HOME Consortium Agreement beginning October 1, 2014. The Mayor, City Manager and any other designated City staff or officials are hereby authorized to execute such application forms and any other necessary documents to secure these funds. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that the HOME Consortium Agreement authorized under Section 1 of this resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, the Council further authorizes and directs City staff to prepare certifications that may be required, under CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for any project identified to be funded in Palo Alto under this agreement prior to the release of funds for any such project. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________________ ________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ City Manager _______________________ ________________________ Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ________________________ Director of Administrative Services _______________________ Housing Coordinator 140521 jb 0131206 2 Table of Contents I. Definitions II.Purpose III.Agreement IV.Roles, Responsibilities and Decision Making Process V. Program Design VI.Fund Administration VII.Consolidated Plan and CAPER VIII.Amendments IX.Duration of the Agreement X. Termination of Agreement Attachments: Authorizing Resolutions for each member jurisdiction ATTACHMENT B Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 1 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered by and among the County of Santa Clara (hereinafter “County”), the City of Cupertino, the City of Gilroy, and the City of Palo Alto (hereinafter “Cities”), each being a general local governmental unit of the State of California, and is made pursuant to California Government Code, Section 6500 et seq. WHEREAS, County and Cities agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens to secure approval by the federal government to be considered as a consortium under the federal HOME Program operated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) as authorized under the HOME Investment Partnership Act, Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, as amended (hereafter collectively referred to as the “Act”); WHEREAS, Title II of the Act creates the Home Investment Partnerships Program (hereinafter "HOME") that provides funds to states and local governments for acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction of affordable housing and tenant-based rental assistance; and WHEREAS, under the Act, an organization of geographically contiguous units of general local government may act as a single unit of general local government for purposes of receiving and administering HOME funds and carrying out the purposes of the Act; and WHEREAS, the Act requires local governments acting as a consortium to submit a single Consolidated Plan that covers the entire geographical area encompassed by the consortium members as part of the eligibility requirements for HOME funds; and WHEREAS, funds from Title II are distributed to metropolitan cities, urban counties, states and consortia of local governments; and WHEREAS, the Act requires that a consortium must have one member unit of general local government authorized to act in a representative capacity for all members for purposes of the Act to assume overall responsibility for ensuring that the consortium’s HOME program is carried out in compliance with the Act and 24 CFR Part 92, including requirements concerning the Consolidated Plan; such member unit shall hereinafter be referred to as "Lead Entity"; and WHEREAS, Santa Clara County, the City of Cupertino, the City of Gilroy, and the City of Palo Alto desire to act jointly as a consortium for purposes of the Act and hereby enter into this HOME Consortium Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OUTLINED BELOW, THE COUNTY AND THE CITIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 2 SECTION I. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in 24 CFR Part 92, Subpart A, paragraph 92.2 are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the following meanings in this Agreement: A. “Act” means Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 12701 et. seq.). B. “CDHO” means Community Development Housing Organization. C. “Consolidated Plan” means the consolidated plan for the consortium prepared in accordance with 24 CFR 91.400-91.430 or successor provisions. D. “A disabling condition.” for the purposes of this agreement, is defined as a physical disability, mental illness, severe depression, alcohol or drug abuse, chronic health problems, HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, Hepatitis C, trauma, or a Developmental disability. E. “Federal HOME Program” means the procedures established by HUD for the use of funds made available through the Act to carry out multi-year housing consistent with 24 CFR Parts 91 and 92. F. “Federal HUD Consortium” means a consortium of units of general local governments bound by the terms of a HOME Investment Partnership Act Consortium Agreement for the purpose of participating in the Federal HOME Program and receiving funds as authorized in the Regulations. G. “Federal Program Requirements” means the Regulations and other documents issued by HUD that specify requirements of the Federal HOME Program in order for funds to be awarded to participating jurisdictions under the Act. H. “HCDAC” means the Housing Community Development Advisory Committee consisting of 28 members, one from the County and one from each participating City in the County’s existing CDBG/HOME JPA and the SCCHC, appointed by the County and each City, as further described in Section IV of this Agreement. I. “HUD” means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. J. “Regulations” means 24 CFR Part 92 HOME Investment Partnerships Program Implementing Regulations as issued by HUD and other relevant provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations. K. “RFP” means request for proposals. L. “TBRA” means Tenant Based Rental Assistance. M. “TAC” means Technical Advisory Committee consisting of 11 staff members from each of the participating cities including representatives from the County existing CDBG/HOME JPA and the SCCHC. SECTION II. PURPOSE This purpose of this Agreement is to form a consortium of units of general local government within Santa Clara County for designation as a Federal HUD Consortium under the Act and the Federal Program Requirements. In this Agreement, this consortium is from time to time referred to as either the “Consortium” or as the Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (hereinafter “SCCHC”). Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 3 SECTION III. AGREEMENT A. The County and Cities mutually agree that the County shall act as the Lead Entity in a representative capacity for all members of SCCHC for the purposes of the Act and as further defined in the Federal Program Requirements. The County, in its capacity as Lead Entity, is authorized to enter into an agreement with HUD on behalf of the SCCHC. The County Executive or designee, acting on behalf of SCCHC, is authorized to submit an application for funding under the Federal HOME Program, consistent with the approved HOME program design that will be in explained in the annual RFP for each program year as reviewed by the TAC and approved by the HCDAC. The County, as Lead Entity, is authorized to enter into agreements with non-profit organizations receiving funding under an approved HOME Agreement. The County as the Lead Entity is authorized to amend the agreement to add new members or for other reasons approved by HUD on behalf of the entire consortium, unless otherwise specified in its agreement. Additionally, the County is authorized to enter into agreements with non-profit organizations receiving funding reviewed by the TAC and recommended by HCDAC and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. B. The SCCHC agree that the following eligible HOME program activities and projects may be pursued with HOME funding available to the Consortium: 1. Single Family Development (Acquisition, New Construction and/or Acquisition and Rehabilitation); 2. Multi-family Development (Acquisition, New Construction and/or Acquisition and Rehabilitation); and/or 3. Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) It is the intent of the SCCHC to explore the option of developing and implementing a TBRA program during the third year of the Agreement. C. The County is authorized to provide oversight for planning, operations, and evaluation of the HOME Program activities undertaken by the SCCHC. The County shall prepare and present a HOME program design in an annual RFP to the TAC and HCDAC each year that will define the collective needs and priorities of the County and Cities. The County shall prepare the Action Plan each year, any Consolidated Plan update or amendment, and the consortium program application to HUD, in compliance with the Act, the Regulations, and the Federal Program Requirements, including reallocation of any funds from previous years not expended and any repayments or other program income. The proposed HOME program design and the consortium program application will be consistent with the Consolidated Plan. D. The TAC will review the proposed HOME program design described in the annual RFP prior to review by the HCDAC. SCCHC TAC members will only comment on the HOME portion of the annual program design and RFP, and will approve the RFP prior to submitting it to the HCDAC for approval. Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 4 E. The Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC) will review the proposed HOME program design within the RFP and any proposed Consolidated Plan update or amendment each year, and present the program and any changes and amendments to each consortium member’s elected board for approval and submission to HUD and to the State. All consortium members must approve the HOME program design within the annual RFP and any Consolidated Plan amendments as it pertains to the SCCHC prior to their submission to HUD in a timely manner. F. The County and Cities mutually agree that the County as Lead Entity shall assume overall responsibility for ensuring that the SCCHC HOME program meets the requirements concerning the Consolidated Plan and all aspects of the Federal HOME programs in accordance with HUD regulations contained in 24 CFR Parts 92 and 91, respectively, and the requirements of 24 CFR 92.350(a)(5); and further, for ensuring that the SCCHC HOME program is carried out in compliance with the requirements of the Act, the Regulations and the Federal Program Requirements. The County is responsible for all aspects of administering the Program and monitoring of sub recipients. The Cities agree to assist the County in maintaining compliance with the Act, the Regulations, and the State and Federal Program Requirements for the full compliance period, extending to and continuing beyond the expiration of this Agreement. This includes responding to a County designated staff member in a timely manner, and designating one city staff member in writing to be accountable for responding to the County. G. If any new entities join SCCHC, the County as Lead Entity agrees to notify HUD in writing and to provide a copy of the authorizing resolution from the new members’ governing body and an amendment to this Agreement signed by the chief executive officer of the new member. The County, as Lead Entity, is authorized by this agreement to amend this Agreement on behalf of the entire consortium to add new members to SCCHC. H. The County and the Cities mutually agree that the SCCHC’s HOME program will provide the opportunity for all members of the consortium to potentially have a project funded in their city with HOME funds. A "shovel ready" project that serves extremely low income persons with supportive services will be given priority. Due to the high cost of development and the limited amount of HOME funding, the County will not divide the funds per each city. Typically, one to two projects per year will be selected by the HCDAC in the participating jurisdictions. The County and Cities shall be given ample opportunity to comment on and approve the funding recommendations of the HCDAC prior to the submittal of the Annual Action Plan to HUD. The SCCHC shall ensure that there is citizen participation within each City as required by 24 CFR 91.401 or successor provision. I. The County as Lead Entity will finance the costs of administering the HOME Program for SCCHC to the extent of appropriations. The County shall establish the HOME Investment Trust Fund as specified in 24 CFR Part 92.500, and will participate in the Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 5 Integrated Disbursement and Information System and other accounting and compliance procedures as required by HUD. The County will retain 10 percent of the HOME allocation available to the SCCHC for administrative purposes. J. The twenty five percent (25%) matching contribution requirement under 24 CFR 92.218- 222 will be met on a project by project basis. The County may utilize its “banked” funds from previous HOME eligible projects and activities, as reported in the County’s Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (“CAPER”), per Federal Regulations, to meet the match requirement for an approved project or program. If the County utilizes its banked match funds to assist an approved project or program, but the available funds are less than the 25% match requirement, the remaining required match funds will be the responsibility of the jurisdiction in which the project is located. The member jurisdiction in which the project or program is located is responsible for ensuring that the required amounts of qualified matching funds are contributed to HOME eligible projects and program activities. Written documentation signed by a County representative must be included with the approved project or program indicating whether or not the County’s banked funds will be utilized. K. The County will only fund a project that has a written letter of support of the City Council for the City in which it will be developed. The Sponsor must provide a copy of the letter to the County. L. All members agree that the SCCHC program year shall be July 1st to June 30th, consistent with the County’s existing program year. M. HOME funds invested in affordable housing shall be repaid if the housing does not meet the affordability requirements of Section 92.252 and Section 92.254 of the Regulations or if the housing ceases to qualify as affordable housing before the period of affordability expires. If HUD, in accordance with Section 92.503 of the Regulations, requires SCCHC to repay HOME funds awarded, the County and Cities agree that the payments will be returned to HUD by the County. N. Any repayment of HOME funds, loans or other program income generated from funds received through the HOME Program, shall be returned to the HOME Investment Trust Fund established by the Lead Entity and reallocated by the SCCHC Program during the next Annual Action Plan submission following receipt of the repayments or other program income, to the extent allowed by the Regulations and Federal Program Requirements. O. The County and Cities agree to comply with all Regulations, Federal Program Requirements, and as reviewed by the TAC approved by the HCDAC, SCCHC HOME program design features, targeting and local policy requirements. P. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of the County and Cities pursuant to authority granted them by their governing bodies. Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 6 Q. To the maximum extent permitted by law, each jurisdiction, if applicable, which is a party to this Agreement shall indemnify and hold harmless the County and other Cities, and their officers, officials, and employees, from and against any and all costs, damages, liabilities, claims, losses, judgments or expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, arising in any manner from or as a result of any activities by or on behalf of the Cities under this Agreement other than as provided for in Paragraph I of this Section, provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph indemnifies and holds harmless the County and other Cities from and against any costs, damages, liabilities, claims, losses, judgments or expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, arising in any manner from or as a result of negligent acts or omissions of the County, and other Cities or their officers, officials, and employees. Likewise, the County shall indemnify and hold harmless the Cities, and the Cities’ officers, officials, and employees, from and against any and all costs, damages, liabilities, claims, losses, judgments or expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, arising in any manner from or as a result of any activities by or on behalf of the County under this Agreement other than as provided for in Paragraph I of this Section, provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph indemnifies and holds harmless the Cities from and against any costs, damages, liabilities, claims, losses, judgments or expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, arising in any manner from or as a result of negligent acts or omissions of the Cities, or the jurisdiction’s officers, officials, and employees. R. The County and Cities certify that they will adhere to all federal and state regulations pertaining to the disposition of real property, if any real property is acquired by the County or Cities with funds authorized under the Federal Program Requirements. S. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by federal law and by the laws of the State of California consistent with federal law. Any litigation arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in courts sitting in California, with venue in Santa Clara County. T. No amendment to this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing by mutual agreement of the County and each of the Cities. U. SCCHC and the parties to this agreement are bound by the terms of this Agreement for the purpose of participating in the Federal HOME Program and agree to cooperate to undertake or to assist in undertaking housing assistance activities for the Federal HOME Program, and agree that the SCCHC may receive funds as authorized in the Regulations. V. The County and Cities agree to cooperate in the implementation of the Federal and State HOME Programs and to cooperate in the preparation of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan and the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (“CAPER”) in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR Parts 91 and 92. The County and Cities shall execute and submit any required certifications required by the Regulations and the County as Lead Entity shall prepare and submit its plan for monitoring compliance with the Consolidated Plan. Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 7 W. In accordance with the Act and the Regulations, each member of the SCCHC composed of the County of Santa Clara, the City of Cupertino, the City of Gilroy, and the City of Palo Alto, certifies that it will direct its activities to the alleviation of housing problems within Santa Clara County, that it will affirmatively market HOME-assisted housing as defined in Section 92.351 of the Regulations and will affirmatively further fair housing as required by the Regulations. SECTION IV. ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS General Roles and Responsibilities A. Santa Clara County, as designated Lead Entity of the SCCHC, has the ultimate and overall responsibility under the Regulations for ensuring that the SCCHC's HOME program is carried out as required in 24 CFR part 92, including the submission of a program description for the use of HOME funds which has been mutually agreed upon by the County and the Cities for providing all assurances or certifications as required under 24 CFR part 92. Section III. B of this agreement sets forth the SCCHC's proposed use of HOME funds (consistent with needs identified in its approved Consolidated Plan). The County, as the Lead Entity agrees to strict adherence to the program description as approved and to all assurances and certifications provided, including agreeing to take all actions necessary to assure compliance with SCCHC's certification under the Fair Housing Act; Executive Order 11063 (Equal Opportunity in Housing) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Uniform Relocation Assistance, Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970 and the Davis Bacon Act at 40 USC 276a, et seq. Santa Clara County shall not provide HOME funds for activities in or support of any cooperating jurisdiction that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or activities that impede the County's actions to comply with Fair Housing certification. In addition, the Lead Entity is responsible for taking all required actions to comply with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. B. The County will be responsible for all aspects of administration of the SCCHC’s HOME program, including but not limited to the following: Preparation of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan and CAPER; Implementation of program policies and funding priorities as reviewed by the TAC and approved by the HCDAC; Development of procedures, forms and compliance protocols; Selection of the administrative subrecipient; Selection criteria for local service providers; Development and execution of HOME subrecipient, project and beneficiary agreements, including lease agreements; Maintaining program wide records; Standard forms and reporting templates to guide program implementation; Monitoring subrecipients, CHDOs, and developers; Financial management including analysis of budgeted to actual expenses; Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 8 IDIS entry, reporting, drawdowns and closeout; Reimbursement to subrecipient and developers/CHDOs; Oversee the use of the CHDO set aside, including project selection, development and HOME compliance; Compliance with cross cutting federal regulations and requirements; If TBRA is selected, developing a Countywide TBRA Program; and Scheduling TAC and HCDAC meetings and supporting the TAC and HCDAC consistent with the annual funding schedule described herein. C. Member jurisdictions will be responsible for the following: Appointing members to the TAC and HCDAC; Participating in HCDAC and other meetings related to the SCCHC as requested by the Lead Entity; Contributing local match funds for projects supported by the City as defined in HOME regulations and as agreed to in Section III, Paragraph I; Assisting, as needed, a locally-based CHDO to develop a project or projects, using the CHDO set-aside; and Identifying local service providers to serve as referral agency for TBRA participants, if a TBRA program is administered and funded. Decision Making Process A. The SCCHC agrees that Santa Clara County shall serve as the Lead Entity and administer the SCCHC through County staff. As Lead Entity, Santa Clara County shall perform all duties and responsibilities as set forth for the Lead Entity by the terms of this Agreement. The Lead Entity shall provide effective leadership, support and management of the SCCHC's required functions. In addition, Lead Entity's staff shall provide, subject to adequate funding, effective leadership, support and management of the implementation of the region's affordable housing policies. B. As the Lead Entity, Santa Clara County shall be responsible for the management and accounting of all SCCHC funds. Santa Clara County's management and accounting for all SCCHC funds shall conform to the policies, regulations and statutes governing such funds, including without limitation the Federal Program Requirements. C. The SCCHC funding application process will follow the County’s existing schedule for its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME programs. The RFP will be released in October with funding applications due to the County by December. The County will hold a workshop for agencies applying for funding in mid-November. It is anticipated that the County will review submitted proposals; determine eligibility f each proposal; rank the proposals; and present funding recommendations to the HCDAC in February. If deemed necessary by the HCDAC, applicants may be asked to present a presentation to the Committee in January. The Board of Supervisors will review and approve the HCDAC funding recommendations in March or April. It is the County’s Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 9 responsibility as Lead Entity to work with the HCDAC to review proposed public outreach, including citizen participation within each City as required by 24 CFR 91.401 or successor provision, and establish funding priorities on an annual basis. Threshold criteria and any other criteria, incentives, etc., developed for HOME funding may be developed by the Lead Entity in collaboration with the HCDAC. Such criteria will be consistent with all relevant policies and priorities contained in the Consolidated Plan, related plans from individual CDBG entitlement jurisdiction pursuant to 24 CFR 91.220 (hereinafter referred to as "Action Plans") and individual housing elements in each jurisdiction's master plans as applicable. D. All proposed projects will be reviewed for compliance with Federal Program Requirements by the Lead Entity. Only those projects which are eligible for funding under the Federal Program Requirements will be approved by the HCDAC and submitted to HUD for HOME funding. The Lead Entity will pre-screen project applications for conformance with any additional threshold criteria established by the HCDAC. The Lead Entity shall present to the HCDAC a list of all proposed projects and its recommendations for funding. E. All SCCHC members agree that the HCDAC may convene and review only those development projects pre-screened by the Lead Entity. F. All SCCHC members agree that the TAC Committee may be comprised by no less than twelve (12) persons, one representing each City and the County including the seven cities in the County’s existing CDBG/HOME JPA. It is the intent of the County and Cities that the TAC appointee should be a staff person knowledgeable in regard to housing issues. G. All SCCHC members agree that the HCDAC Committee will have a minimum of one individual representing each City and the County, appointed by each jurisdiction. H. All SCCHC members agree that the appointees to the TAC and HCDAC committees will only provide comment and recommendations on the HOME program. It is agreed upon that the TAC and HCDAC meetings will be divided into two sections. The first portion of the meeting will cover the HOME program and the second portion will cover the CDBG program. There will be a ten minute break between the two portions of the meeting to allow SCCHC members to exit. I. The SCCHC pledges adherence to the conflict of interest tenets embodied in HUD's CPD Notice 98-09 (Superseding CPD Notice 93-06). J. The purpose of the TAC is to provide technical assistance and assist with the preliminary review of the funding applications. The TAC will assist County staff with ranking eligible projects and provide funding recommendations to the HCDAC. K. The purpose of the HCDAC is to determine priorities for funding, ensure that the schedule described in “Section C” above on page 9 of this Agreement for submission of Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 10 applications and community outreach as required by the Federal Program Requirements are met, and review eligible projects for conformity to Consolidated Plan, local Action Plans, housing elements, and other criteria established but the SCCHC members, including criteria concerning length and depth of affordability which may be more strict than those required by Federal Program Regulations. The HCDAC may also evaluate development projects using other underwriting and project feasibility criteria developed and adopted by the HCDAC. The HCDAC will prioritize projects based on the criteria described in this paragraph and make HOME funding recommendations as constrained by the availability of funds. L. All SCCHC members agree that the recommendations made by the HCDAC will be reviewed for final approval by the County’s Board of Supervisors. All projects selected by the County’s Board of Supervisors must conform with the Consolidated Plan, related Action Plans, minimum criteria established for the funding round and/or specific self- directed priority project(s). The Board of Supervisors agrees to give due consideration to the HCDAC recommendations. SECTION V. PROGRAM DESIGN Development Projects A. The SCCHC agrees that to the extent feasible and possible, funded Development Projects will be distributed geographically. The County will administer the RFP process and applicants will apply directly to the County. Each development project must be reviewed and approved by the TAC and HCDAC, and the application must show the support of the jurisdiction in which the project may be developed. In evaluating projects, the County shall consider the past geographic distribution for project funding. Priority may be given to projects that set aside units for the County’s and City’s special populations– extremely low income and special needs populations such as seniors, the homeless, chronically homeless, at-risk youth, farm workers and persons with Disabling Conditions. Projects that establish a direct referral process with Santa Clara County Departments will be given priority. Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) B. The SCCHC agrees that a TBRA program may be established in the third year of the SCCHC HOME Consortium Agreement. If a TBRA program is established, the following program design, administrative structure and policies will be implemented: A single Program Administrator (PA) may administer the SCCHC’s TBRA program as a sub recipient of a countywide program. The PA will be designated by the Lead Entity using selection criteria reviewed by the TAC and approved by the HCDAC. The PA will be responsible for administering the TBRA program in its entirety, including but not limited to the following: o Intake (from referrals from local service providers “LSP”); Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 11 o Income eligibility determination; o Housing search assistance; o Landlord outreach and marketing; o Unit inspections; o Rent reasonableness determinations; o Lease approval; o Rental assistance calculation and approval; o Payments to landlords; o Maintenance of the waiting list o Annual Recertification of income; o Case record-keeping and submitting monthly status reports to the County; and o Adhering to HUD regulations and reporting requirements. A Local Service Provider (LSP), one from each member jurisdiction, may be responsible for referring eligible participants to the PA. Each member may select its referring LSP for the program based on criteria reviewed by the TAC and approved by the HCDAC. The LSP may also be responsible for case management and referral services, including but not limited to: o Case management; o Selection of households for the SCCHC’s TRBA program; o Referring clients to the PA; and o Entering Data into HMIS and maintaining other required reports. Each member jurisdiction may be allotted a certain number of priority slots to be reserved for its special needs population. This allotment may be proportional to the HOME dollars coming into the Consortium because of the member’s participation. This allotment would be for a specified time period, and if not used, the slots would be available to the County based on the clients need. Priority is based upon place of origin of the client, not the final location of the TBRA unit. TBRA clients must be at or below 60 percent of the area median income as defined annually by HUD; however, priority will be given to the County’s special needs populations– extremely low income seniors, the homeless and chronically homeless individuals and families, at-risk youth, farmworkers and persons with Disabling Conditions as defined above. The date of entry is the date the client is enrolled in the LSP’s case management program. Once referred to the PA, the client may be waitlisted based on location and date referred by the LSP. C. The SCCHC agrees that any funding that is allocated for TBRA may be used for rent and security and/or utility deposits permitted by the Federal Regulations. Rental assistance may follow the voucher model as allowed under the HOME program regulations. The rental payment standard shall be based on HUD Fair Market Rents and includes allowance for tenant-paid utilities. Rental assistance shall be limited to two (2) years unless special circumstances indicate an extension is necessary. Since TBRA may be Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 12 implemented in the third year of this agreement, the members of the Consortium may need to determine at the end of year two if they intend to continue the Consortium beyond the initial three year period before the County agrees to begin a TBRA Program. SRCTION VI. FUND ADMINISTRATION A. The County shall receive and have custody of all funds until disbursal of such funds to be made in a manner designated by the County consistent with the Federal Program Requirements. B. All repayments of SCCHC administered HOME funds, matching contributions in the form of cash, and any payment of interest or other return on the investment of such HOME funds and matching contributions must be placed in the HOME Investment Trust Account. If the required 25 percent match is in the form of services, backup documentation must be provided to the County to verify that the match is eligible according to Federal Program Requirements. C. SCCHC members may agree to place repayments of any matching funds in the HOME Investment Trust Fund for allocation by the Consortium, subject to agreement by HUD if appropriate. If the SCCHC subsequently terminates, such repayment will revert to the jurisdiction to which the funds were originally pledged. D. If the SCCHC terminates, program income will be allocated to the County and the Cities based on the geographic distribution of the remaining investment of such Consortium funds, but only if such jurisdictions place such funds in a HOME Investment Trust Fund operated in compliance with HUD rules and regulations and HUD agrees to monitor such nonparticipating jurisdictions’ trust funds in a timely manner. If HUD prohibits the administration of HOME dollars by any nonparticipating jurisdiction, repayments otherwise due to a nonparticipating jurisdiction may be administered by Santa Clara County in compliance with HUD regulations. E. The mechanisms by which any repayment of non-HOME funds used as matching funds and/or any payment of interest or other return on investment of such non-HOME funds to be made shall be governed by the restrictions imposed by the source of such funds. The SCCHC may describe procedures for such funds and repayments thereof consistent with such restrictions. F. The Lead Entity shall maintain appropriate books, records, files and accounts relating to the receipt and disbursement of SCCHC grant funds, including records in accordance with 24 CFR 92.508 as they relate to the application, acceptance and use of federal funds for this federally assisted program and any other records imposed by the SCCHC’s grant agreement with HUD. All such books, records, files and accounts shall be made available for inspection at reasonable times and places by authorized representatives of member jurisdictions and HUD, or any other persons authorized under the Act or regulations. Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 13 G. The Lead Entity has the responsibility for monitoring according to HUD regulations and guidelines on the use of any local HOME investment fund monies. If the SCCHC agrees to administer State HOME funds or any other funds, the Lead Entity will have the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to the State on the use of such funds. SECTION VII. CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND CAPER A. The SCCHC agrees that although the Lead Entity is ultimately responsible for developing a Consolidated Plan in conformance with 24 CFR Sections 91.400 – 91.430; all SCCHC members shall participate in the Consolidated Plan development process and end product. B. The Consolidated Plan document shall be prepared by the Lead Entity in collaboration with member jurisdictions (if each member so chooses) more than sixty (60) days prior to the date the Consolidated Plan documents must be submitted to HUD. C. SCCHC agrees that necessary adjustments to the Consolidated Plan development process described herein will be made when necessary as required by the Federal Program Requirements. D. The SCCHC may use a Consolidated Plan advisory committee or the HCDAC to assist in the development of the Consolidated Plan documents. An advisory committee established pursuant to this Paragraph is not required, but should be representative of all member jurisdictions. E. The above process may be modified by County staff, if deemed appropriate. F. All performance reports, including monthly or quarterly status reports shall be furnished to the Lead Entity, as required or specified in HOME written agreements with developers, subrecipients or administrators. The Lead Entity shall prepare annual performance reports or whatever report specified by HUD and submit the same to HUD with a copy to each member jurisdiction. SECTION VIII. AMENDMENTS A. Should it become necessary to amend this Agreement to meet Federal Program Requirements, the County Executive or its designee may make such changes provided that each City is informed in writing and consents in writing to the proposed changes. B. No other amendment to this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing by mutual agreement of the County and each of the Cities. SECTION IX. DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement begins with the effective date of October 1, 2014 and falls within three federal program years, 2015, 2016 and 2017. The term of the agreement will be until the Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 14 HOME funds from each of the federal fiscal years of the agreement’s specified qualification period (FY 2015, 2016 and 2017) and each successive qualification period for which the agreement is renewed, are expended on eligible activities. The SCCHC will follow the County’s established program year for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program which begins on July 1st and ends June 30th. The first program year will be July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, the second program year will be July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 and the third program year will be July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. As required by 24 CFR 92.101 (e), neither the County nor any of the Cities may withdraw from the Consortium during the terms of this agreement. All members of the Consortium must comply with Federal Program Requirements until Home funds from each of the federal fiscal years of the qualification period are closed out pursuant to 24 CFR 92. 507. This agreement shall automatically be renewed for the Consortium’s participation in successive qualification periods of three federal fiscal years each. At least six months prior to the commencement of a new qualification period or by HUD's consortia designation notice or HOME Consortia web page, whichever provides the greatest notice, the County shall notify each City in writing of its right to decide not to participate in the Consortium for the next qualification period and the County shall send a copy of each notification to the HUD Field Office. If a City or the County decides not to participate in the Consortium for the next qualification period, the City or County shall notify the County, and the County shall notify the HUD Field Office, before the beginning of the new qualification period. Before the beginning of each new qualification period, the County shall submit to the HUD Field Office a statement of whether or not any amendments have been made to this agreement, a copy of each amendment to this agreement, and, if the Consortium’s membership has changed, the state certification required under 24 C.F.R. § 92.101(a)(2)(i). The Consortium shall adopt any amendments to this agreement that are necessary to meet HUD requirements for consortium agreements in successive qualification periods. The automatic renewal of the agreement will be void if: the County fails to notify a Consortium member or the HUD field office as required under this automatic renewal provision or the County fails to submit a copy of each amendment to this agreement as required under this automatic renewal provision. SECTION X. NOTICE All notices required pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the party to receive such notice at the addressed set forth below: Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 15 County of Santa Clara: Rebecca Garcia, Program Manager Office of Supportive Housing 70 West Hedding Street, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 City of Cupertino: Attn: Senior Housing Planner City of Cupertino, Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 City of Gilroy: Daniel Murillo Housing and Community Development Grant Coordinator Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna St. Gilroy, CA 95020 City of Palo Alto: Tim Wong, Housing Coordinator Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Any party may change the address to which notices are to be sent by notifying the other parties of the new address, in the manner set forth above. Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates appearing below. ______________________________ _________________________ Mike Wasserman Date ATTEST President, Board of Supervisors County of Santa Clara Name: ___________________ Title: ____________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ DON LARKIN, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ATTORNEY Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates appearing below. ______________________________ _________________________ Gilbert Wong, Mayor Date ATTEST City of Cupertino Name: ___________________ Title: ____________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ CITY OF CUPERTINO ATTORNEY Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates appearing below. ______________________________ _________________________ Don Gage, Mayor Date ATTEST City of Gilroy Name: ___________________ Title: ____________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ CITY OF GILROY ATTORNEY Inter-governmental Agreement Santa Clara County HOME Consortium (SCCHC) HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium Agreement Page 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates appearing below. ______________________________ _________________________ Nancy Shepherd, Mayor Date ATTEST City of Palo Alto Name: ___________________ Title: ____________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ CITY OF PALO ALTO ATTORNEY City of Palo Alto (ID # 4776) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Policy and Services Recommendation to Council - FY15 Teen Services Funding Plan Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council Approval of the Expenditure of up to $84,000 for FY2015 for Teen Programs Using Net Revenue Collected from 455 Bryant Street Rent From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the expenditure of up to $84,000 for FY2015 from the net revenue collected from 455 Bryant Street (Garage) rent, of which 75 percent is committed to teen programs subject to the annual appropriation of funds, to: 1. Allocate $60,000 to hire three hourly Teen Activity Specialists assigned to the Library Department and one each to the Arts and Sciences and Recreation Divisions of Community Services Department to plan and coordinate events, programs and services for Palo Alto teens, and 2. Allocate an expense budget of $24,000 for the Teen Activity Specialists to support teen events, programs and services, and 3. Staff will return to Policy and Services Committee six months after the opening of Mitchell Park Community Center and Library, with options for spending some or the entire reserve fund collected from 455 Bryant Street rent subject to City Council’s approval to transfer appropriations of these funds from Fiscal Year 2014 to Fiscal Year 2015. Background At its June 13, 2013 meeting, the City Council unanimously approved a motion to refer to the Policy and Services Committee to discuss and provide a recommendation to the full Council on a sustainable expenditure plan for teen program funding based upon anticipated future revenue from the dedicated funding source. City of Palo Alto Page 2 On November 19, 2013 the Policy and Services Committee recommended to Council the following motion, which was unanimously approved by Council on January 13, 2014 (Attachment A): Policy and Services Committee recommends Council approve the expenditure of up to $30,000 from the net revenue collected from 455 Bryant Street rent, of which 75 percent is committed to teen programs, to: 1. Hire an hourly staff person or contractor to develop and maintain a calendar of events, programs and services for Palo Alto teens. 2. Develop and implement an evening drop in program for high school students at the new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. Staff is pleased to report that number one above, “ClickPA”, which was highlighted at the April 22 Policy and Services Committee, has been implemented and is very successful. The teen led program is also a finalist in the 2014 Apps Challenge for their creative and innovative design and service for the Palo Alto teens. Due to the delay in opening the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center staff have been unable to begin the high school teen drop in program discussed at the November 19, 2013 Policy and Services Committee meeting. However, staff have applied some of the available funds to support programs that would have been included as part of the drop in program this fiscal year. The high school teen program for the Mitchell Park Center remains in the planning stage and will become a reality when we open the new center in November 2014. Staff recommends that these two programs continue, and be supported by the FY2015 funding plan before Council this evening. Staff returned to the Policy and Services Committee on April 22, 2014 with an expenditure plan for Fiscal Year 2015. The expenditure plan is summarized in the discussion below and detailed in the April 22, 2014 Policy and Services Committee staff report which can be viewed in Attachment B. The Policy and Services Committee unanimously approved the staff recommendation and expressed enthusiasm and support for the expenditure plan. Discussion At the April 22 Policy and Service Committee meeting staff were joined by several high school students including Ryley Burt, Fabian Garduno and Ally Gong to present the expenditure plan which consists of spending $60,000 in Fiscal Year 2015 year to hire three hourly Teen Activity Specialists: one assigned to Library services and one each assigned to the Arts and Sciences and the Recreation Divisions of Community Services Department. The three Teen Activity Specialists would form a work unit, and work both as a team and independently to plan and deliver programs for high school students using the data collected in City of Palo Alto Page 3 the survey and focus groups staff have conducted, along with ongoing input and participation of the teen community. To view the teen survey results visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/teens In addition, staff proposes that the three Teen Activity Specialists have access to an expense budget to support teen programs and services developed in collaboration with teens. Staff recommends an allocation of $24,000 for Fiscal Year 2015, to be divided evenly among the Libraries, Arts and Sciences and Recreation Divisions. A flow chart for how staff recommends ideas for teen programs and services, using the Bryant Street rental revenue, would be planned and evaluated can be viewed in Attachment C. The process would begin with an idea for a teen event, program or service. Ideas would be petitioned from teens by the Teen Activity Specialists. Staff expects that many of the program ideas will come from teen leadership and special interest groups such as the City’s existing: Children’s Theater Teen Arts Council, Recreation’s Teen Advisory Board, Library’s Teen Advisory Board and the Palo Alto Youth Council. As a program idea develops, the Teen Activity Specialists and their teen sponsor(s) would complete the Teen Program Proposal Form. The Teen Program Proposal Form asks critical questions to ensure the program or service is well planned with respect to possible funding needs, logistics and timeline along with criteria that demonstrate alignment with the feedback we have heard from the teen community regarding interests and priorities, and alignment with the City’s policy of promoting 41 Developmental Assets in teen programming. When a Teen Program Proposal Form is ready for submission it would be reviewed the City’s Teen Services Team which is made up of Library and Community Services staff. If the Teen Services Team finds the program proposal needs further planning the proposal returns to the Teen Activity Specialist and the Teen Sponsor(s) to be revised accordingly. If the proposal receives approval the proposal moves forward for implementation. After a program or service is implemented Teen Services Team will review participant evaluations and program results to determine how well the program or service met its intended outcomes. Finally, staff proposes that the Palo Alto Youth Council, with the guidance of their Community Services Manager staff liaison, report to Council on the programs and services funded by the new funding resource at the annual City Council / Palo Alto Youth Council study session. Three examples of the type of teen programs and services that would receive funding were presented by students at the April 22 Policy and Service Committee meeting, the program examples are summarized below: makeX – While this is a project that has already taken place it is a good example of the type of project that could receive support. The project was created by teens for teens City of Palo Alto Page 4 and was the culmination of months of work. Funded by a California State Library grant, the project involved twenty two local teens, who participated as paid and volunteer designers to design and prototype furniture and learning experiences for the maker- space. Throughout the project, participating teens worked closely with Art Center and Library staff as well as project consultants: architects Noll & Tam and author and educational consultant Bernie Trilling. Participating teen designers toured maker-spaces throughout the Bay Area on field trips, and then used a design thinking process to design and prototype furniture, then selected equipment and materials for the space. The result was a teen mobile makerspace that is available to teens on Friday evenings and Saturdays free of charge which continues at the Cubberley Center. Click PA- Is a co-created one-stop event central for high school students in and around Palo Alto. Students can go to Click PA to find fun local things to do, submit events, reviews, photos, and opportunities and we will share them. ClickPA is a good example of staff’s intent to use these new funds in a way that has multiple benefits for Palo Alto teens. In this example, teens are given several unique internship opportunities in web design, project management, marketing and teamwork. In addition the program provides a much needed online events and activities calendar for Palo Alto teens and invests in mentoring between caring adult role models and teens. For information about ClickPA visit www.ClickPA.org Open Mic Nights – The Teen Arts Council (TAC) is an initiative of the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre (PACT), founded in 2009 to promote teen wellness and to provide an outlet for teen artists. Comprised of a six-member executive committee and a general membership of over 25 teens who in 2013 fulfilled more than 2,900 community service hours, TAC members meet weekly to share ideas, discuss current challenges, and plan for future events. The Open Mic nights are among the most successful of the Teen Arts Council’s series of original events, created for teens by teens. Drawing audiences of 100 or more of their peers, each event features 20-30 youth performers, providing teen artists with a venue to perform music, poetry, dance and their many other artistic talents. In addition to collaborating with one another and developing new programs and services the Teen Activity Specialists, funded by the new revenue stream, would also work closely with their departments and respective divisions to further leverage existing resources by building upon programs and services that staff already provides Palo Alto teens. Council direction was to develop a sustainable expenditure plan. The revenue from the 455 Bryant Street rent, of which 75 percent is committed to teen programs, is estimated to be $85,000 annually. The expenditure plan as described above is sustainable as it does not draw down on the reserve fund which has balance of $217,334. Spending the reserve balance would is perhaps more suitable for a capital investment, as suggested by members of the Policy and Service Committee. The Policy and Service Committee recommends that staff return to the City of Palo Alto Page 5 Policy and Service Committee six months after the new Mitchell Park Center opens with ideas and options for using the reserve. Resource Impact The cumulative amount collected from the 455 Bryant Street rental revenue committed to teen programs (75% of total revenue) from FY 2009 through FY 2013 available for Teen Programs was $217,334. On January 13, 2014, the City Council approved the expenditure of $30,000 for Fiscal Year 2014 to hire an hourly staff person or contractor to develop and maintain a calendar of events, programs and services for Palo Alto teens; and to develop and implement an evening drop in program for high school students at the new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. With this action, the available funding for teen programs was reduced to $187,334. The rental income committed to teen services for Fiscal Year 2014 is estimated at $84,000. Therefore, the estimated unspent balance to be carried forward to Fiscal Year 2015 subject to City Council approval of the appropriation of funds is approximately $271,000. If the approved expenditure of $30,000 for Fiscal Year 2014 is not fully spent by year end the difference will be recommended to be carried forward and add to the $271,000 balance. The estimated cost to implement the staff recommendation is $84,000 in Fiscal Year 2015, subject to City Council approval of the Fiscal Year 2015 budget. This expenditure is offset with the estimated rental income of $84,000 for Fiscal Year 2015. Attachments: ATT A - P&S Staff Report (PDF) ATT B - April 22 2014 P and S CMR (PDF) ATT C - Flow Chart (PDF) ATT D - Excerpt from 4-22-14 P&S Minutes (DOCX) City of Palo Alto (ID # 4268) Policy and Services Committee Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 11/19/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Discussion and Recommendation on a Sustainable Expenditure Plan for New Teen Program Revenue Title: Recommend to Council the Expenditure of up to $30,000 From the Net Revenue Collected From 455 Bryant Street Rent, of Which 75 Percent is Committed to Teen Programs, to Hire an Hourly Staff Person to Develop and Maintain a Calendar of Events, Programs and Services for Palo Alto Teens; and, to Develop and Implement an Evening Drop in Program for Palo Alto High School Students at the New Mitchell Library and Community Center From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the expenditure of up to $30,000 from the net revenue collected from 455 Bryant Street rent, of which 75 percent is committed to teen programs, to: 1. Hire an hourly staff person to develop and maintain a calendar of events, programs and services for Palo Alto teens. 2. Develop and implement an evening drop in program for Palo Alto high school students at the new Mitchell Library and Community Center. Background During the 2014 budget process and the Finance Committee’s discussion, Chair Burt requested information on a past plan to split excess revenues from a City property rental stream with 75 percent allocated to Teen Programs and 25 percent to the General Fund (GF). On December 10, 2001 (Attachment A - CMR: 444:01), Council reviewed and approved two of four staff recommendations pertinent to Chair Burt’s questions: Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [31:45:d1] City of Palo Alto Page 2 1) Direct staff to issue taxable Certificates of Participation to construct non-parking space on Lot S/L site of commercial use and utilize net revenues to fund youth and teen programs. 2) Approve subsidizing Barker Hotel assessment by using rental revenues from non-parking space on Lot S/L site. The current occupant of the non-parking site (455 Bryant) is Form Fitness. The funding adopted by Council was based on a Youth Master Plan (Attachment B) and teen survey which found that additional revenues to support teen programs is a higher priority than building a new Teen Center on the non-parking S/L site where the former teen center was located. The December 10, 2001 report substantiates the following formula used to calculate revenue for teen programs (Attachment A). Annual rent less annual debt service less subsidy to Baker Hotel = Net Revenue time 75 percent = Teen Revenue Support. Debt service payments began in FY 2003 with rental revenue streams beginning FY 2005. In FY 2009 a positive net revenue stream was realized to support teen programs. The cumulative net rental revenue from FY 2009 through FY 2013 designated to Teen Programs is $217,334. At its June 13, 2013 meeting, the City Council unanimously approved a motion to refer to the Policy and Services Committee to discuss and provide a recommendation to the full Council on a sustainable expenditure plan for teen program funding based upon anticipated future revenue from the dedicated funding source. In addition, the Council asked the Policy and Services Committee to provide a recommendation on which Boards and Commissions should consider the program. Discussion In September 2013, the Community Services (CSD) and Library departments assembled a team of staff that oversees teen programs to consider how we might best use the new funding stream in preparation for meeting with the Policy and Services Committee. Staff has gathered substantial feedback from the teen community and wants to share some early insights and discuss with the Committee what boards and commissions may need to be involved. For guidance, staff initially reviewed the 2003 Youth Master Plan (Attachment B).The following excerpt, which speaks to the new revenue stream, is from page 4 of the Youth Master Plan: Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [31:45:d1] City of Palo Alto Page 3 One of the first Youth Master Plan projects was to survey 500 Palo Alto Youth on the need for a teen center versus the need for additional teen programs and services. The results of the survey indicated that the teen population’s desire was to have more teen programs rather than a teen center. A request was made to City Council to lease the proposed teen center space with 75% of the revenue going into the teen program account and new recreational and social programs created by teens for teens. A key message illustrated in the above excerpt is the need to engage Palo Alto teens in developing recommendations for how we might best use these new funds. Staff has completed, or in some cases is in the process of conducting, the following activities in order to develop and recommend a sustainable expenditure plan for Council review: Teens Survey Focus Group Interviews with Youth Serving Agencies Best Practice Review For the purpose of this report staff focused on feedback from a recent teen survey and teen focus group conducted in fall 2013. CSD, Library staff, and the Palo Alto Youth Council drafted the survey (Attachment C). Teens primarily distributed the survey to other teens. The outreach to encourage survey responses included the following: Student Facebook pages Gunn and Paly class pages Art Center Maker Space participants Art Center teen volunteers Teen Arts Council participants Click PA Focus on Success students YCS middle school and high school clubs Palo Alto Youth Council Teen Advisory Board ROCK PSN student representatives Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [31:45:d1] City of Palo Alto Page 4 PAUSD Student Activities Directors To date, the City received 503 survey responses and will continue to gather responses through the month of November. The non-open ended survey questions that lend themselves to a graph can be viewed on the City of Palo Alto website at: www.CityofPaloAlto/teens. In addition, on October 18, 2013 the City conducted a teen focus group. Teens from a variety of interest groups were invited, including the Children’s Theater Teen Arts Council, Recreations Teen Advisory Board and Palo Alto Youth Council to the Lucie Stern Community Center for frozen yogurt and a fun in-depth conversation about how the City can best use the new funding for teen activities. Thirty teens attended the focus group. The teens participated in a facilitated exercise to envision a teen friendly Palo Alto community. A large map was taped to the floor allowing teens to walk and crawl over it. The map included some key streets and places of interest for orientation otherwise the map was blank. There were three parts to the exercise: 1) The teens worked in small groups to write and draw on the map those areas where they saw the greatest needs, and those areas with apparent gaps that needed additional or expanded teen programs and services. 2) Each teen was sworn in as Mayor of Palo Alto and given $450 to fund those additional or expanded teen programs and services as illustrated on the map. 3) Each teen was then given three colored dots representing themselves individually and asked to place each dot on the map where they thought they would most likely be. Several themes have emerged from the teen survey, focus group and community outreach thus far that are described below. With respect to the survey, of the 503 respondents most were high schools students and 27% were seniors. There is a good mix of Palo Alto and Gunn High school participation. Approximately 60% of the respondents are female 40% are male. Teens appear to spend most of their free time in their neighborhoods or at school according to the survey. Not surprising, teens typically participate in activities between 3-6pm during the week and on Saturdays and Sundays. Many teenagers are already participating in a wide variety of programs, clubs and activities. Palo Alto teenagers are engaged in a remarkable diversity of extracurricular activities. Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [31:45:d1] City of Palo Alto Page 5 When asked what geographic area, teens would like to see more teen programs, Downtown, My Neighborhood and Mid-Town topped the list. Teens prefer opportunities for unstructured spaces and self-directed socialization, relaxation, music, arts and fun. Palo Alto teens also have very little free time. Homework is the greatest reason for the lack of free time. In the focus group we also heard that cost of activities is often a barrier. In the focus group, many teens also talked about stress, and the need for more opportunities to relax and de-stress. Some additional feedback in both the survey and focus group is many Palo Alto teens are unaware of existing programs and services for teens. Transportation challenges are also a factor. Teens indicated that getting to and from places of interest is not easy or convenient. When asked during the focus group how might you spend the money to support Palo Alto teens, work opportunities and internships, low cost or free food, space to “hang out”, music, stress reduction, low pressure unstructured programs and services stand out as core interests. These findings are also consistent with the survey results. Additional feedback from talking to Palo Alto teens is the interest for more to do downtown. Many teens say that downtown is great, easy to get to, has a great “vibe,” but there is not enough to do outside of buying something to eat. They love the idea of a place to go dancing or other sorts of activities, particularly on Friday evenings. There was also strong interest in tutoring opportunities from Children’s Theater Teen Arts Council, Recreations Teen Advisory Board and Palo Alto Youth Council. Many said they would take advantage of such an offering if there were Stanford students helping run the program, rather than peer tutoring that is available to them through school. Although staff are not yet ready to submit a complete expenditure plan recommending how the available funds and future funds may be utilized staff do have two recommendations to use a small portion of the funds this fiscal year. Staff recommends proceeding with the following: 1. It is clear from the survey responses and in talking with Palo Alto teens that there remains a lack of awareness of programs and activities available for teens in Palo Alto. Ironically this was also a finding in the Youth Master Plan Process of 2003. Consequently, staff feels it would be prudent to invest in hiring an hourly staff person to oversee a student intern program to track teen programs and services for Palo Alto teens, and to use social media and other outreach vehicles to maintain a current calendar of events, programs and services that may be of interest to Palo Alto teens. A program called Click PA (www.ClickPA.org) which aims to provide this needed service, exists, but is it unfunded and led by volunteers. Investing in temporary staff to work closely with Palo Alto teens to maintain the Click PA website Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [31:45:d1] City of Palo Alto Page 6 will be a valuable tool for teens to become more aware of existing opportunities for enriching, social, fun experiences in Palo Alto for teens. 2. It is also very clear that high school age teens are interested in a safe, unstructured space to hang out. Staff recommends we develop and implement an evening drop in program for Palo Alto high school students at Mitchell Library Community Center this fiscal year as soon as possible after opening the new center. The program would be designed to capture the spirit of the feedback we are hearing from teens for a space that includes low cost or free food, social gathering, music, arts and other stress reduction activities in a somewhat unstructured program design. Moreover, staff propose that Palo Alto teens from the Children’s Theater Teen Arts Council, Recreation’s Teen Advisory Board and Library Teen Advisory Board among other teens interested in this program work together with staff to help design and run the new high school evening program at the new Mitchell Library Community Center. Staff will continue to work with the teen community, Palo Alto based youth serving agencies, PAUSD develop additional plans for a sustainable expenditure plan for Council consideration. Council also asked what boards and commissions may need to be involved. Staff recommendation is to ensure youth and teen interests groups and leadership boards are involved in the process, and to return to Policy and Services Committee early 2014 with a more fully developed expenditure plan. After which the expenditure plan can be included in the City’s annual budget process for review and approval. Resource Impact The estimated cost to implement the two staff recommendations is $30,000 or less in total. This is a rough estimate as more work is needed develop the recommendations. The cumulative amount collected from the 455 Bryant Street rental revenue, of which 75 percent is committed to teen programs, from FY 2009 through FY 2013, available for to Teen Programs is $217,334. Attachments: Attachment A - CMR 2001 444-01 (PDF) Attachment B - Youth Master Plan (PDF) Attachment C - Survey (PDF) Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [31:45:d1] City of Palo Alto (ID # 4507) Policy and Services Committee Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/8/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Recommendation to Council an Expenditure Plan for Teen Programs - 455 Bryant St Title: Recommendation to Council for an Expenditure Plan for Teen Programs From the Net Revenue Collected From 455 Bryant Street Rent From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the expenditure of up to $84,000 for FY2015 from the net revenue collected from 455 Bryant Street rent, of which 75 percent is committed to teen programs, to: 1. Allocate $60,000 to hire three hourly Teen Activity Specialists assigned to the Library Department and one each to the Arts and Sciences and Recreation Divisions of Community Services Department to plan and coordinate events, programs and services for Palo Alto teens. 2. Allocate an expense budget of $24,000 for the Teen Activity Specialists to support teen events, programs and services. Background During the 2014 budget process and the Finance Committee’s discussion, Chair Burt requested information on a past plan to split excess revenues from a City property rental stream with 75 percent allocated to Teen Programs and 25 percent to the General Fund (GF). On December 10, 2001 (Attachment A - CMR: 444:01), Council reviewed and approved two of four staff recommendations pertinent to Chair Burt’s questions: 1) Direct staff to issue taxable Certificates of Participation to construct non-parking space on Lot S/L site of commercial use and utilize net revenues to fund youth and teen programs. City of Palo Alto Page 2 2) Approve subsidizing Barker Hotel assessment by using rental revenues from non-parking space on Lot S/L site. The current occupant of the non-parking site (455 Bryant) is Form Fitness. The funding adopted by Council was based on a Youth Master Plan (Attachment B) and teen survey which found that additional revenues to support teen programs is a higher priority than building a new Teen Center on the non-parking S/L site where the former teen center was located. The December 10, 2001 report substantiates the following formula used to calculate revenue for teen programs (Attachment A). Annual rent less annual debt service less subsidy to Baker Hotel = Net Revenue times 75 percent = Teen Revenue Support. Debt service payments began in FY 2003 with rental revenue streams beginning FY 2005. In FY 2009 a positive net revenue stream was realized to support teen programs. The cumulative net rental revenue from FY 2009 through FY 2013 designated to Teen Programs is $217,334. At its June 13, 2013 meeting, the City Council unanimously approved a motion to refer to the Policy and Services Committee to discuss and provide a recommendation to the full Council on a sustainable expenditure plan for teen program funding based upon anticipated future revenue from the dedicated funding source. In addition, the Council asked the Policy and Services Committee to provide a recommendation on which Boards and Commissions should consider the program. On November 19, 2013 the Policy and Services Committee recommended to Council the following motion, which was unanimously approved by Council on January 13, 2014 (Attachment C): Policy and Services Committee recommends Council approve the expenditure of up to $30,000 from the net revenue collected from 455 Bryant Street rent, of which 75 percent is committed to teen programs, to: 1. Hire an hourly staff person or contractor to develop and maintain a calendar of events, programs and services for Palo Alto teens. 2. Develop and implement an evening drop in program for high school students at the new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 3 The City Teen Services Team, which is made up of Community Services (CSD) and Library department staff that oversee teen programs, has been meeting since September 2013 to plan for the use of the new funding stream from the 455 Bryant Street rent. Staff has gathered extensive feedback from the teen community, held two focus groups meetings with teens and reached out to local partners for input in developing the recommendation before you this evening. The teen survey, teen focus groups and outreach conducted have been especially helpful in understanding today’s interests of Palo Alto teens. Staff received 541 survey responses which can be reviewed on the City website: www.CityofPaloAlto/teens. The survey, focus group discussions and outreach revealed the following priorities by teens for how we might consider using the new funding stream: Opportunities for self-directed socialization, relaxation in unstructured spaces Opportunity for more visual and performing arts Safe welcoming spaces and activities in the evening Special events Special interest classes Volunteer opportunities Work opportunities and internships Low pressure, fun activities Additional activities in downtown Palo Alto Tutoring opportunities Field trips College tours Palo Alto teens have a strong desire to be involved in the planning of programs and services and they want the flexibility to experiment with ideas across a variety of interests. Many of the ideas that the teens shared with staff for programs and services require coordination and staff support. Whether implementing a music event in Downtown Palo Alto or coordinating field trips, an important but lacking resource to make these programs and services happen is staff who can work closely with Palo Alto teens to coordinate and implement the activities. The staffing available in the Community Services Department, for example, has been reduced by 25% since the year 2000 when the Downtown Teen Center closed. While the staff reductions City of Palo Alto Page 4 were necessary for a sustainable and balanced City budget, the impact has been a reduced capacity to develop, coordinate and evaluate expanded or new programs and services. For this reason staff proposes using $60,000 a year to hire three hourly Teen Activity Specialists: one assigned to Library services and one each assigned to the Arts and Sciences and the Recreation Divisions of Community Services Department. While this staffing expenditure plan does not add fulltime benefited positions to the City’s’ table of organization, it does provide much-needed temporary staff resources to coordinate additional teen programs and services. The three Teen Activity Specialists would form a unit, and work both as a team and independently to plan and deliver programs for high school teens using the data collected in the survey and focus groups, along with ongoing input and participation of the teen community. Attached is a draft job description for the Teen Activity Specialists to provide more details on their expected role and responsibilities (Attachment D). In addition, staff proposes that the three Teen Activity Specialists have access to an expense budget to support teen programs and services developed in collaboration with teens. Staff recommends an allocation of $24,000 for Fiscal Year 2015, to be divided evenly among the Libraries, Arts and Sciences and Recreation Divisions. A flow chart for how staff recommends ideas for teen programs and services, using the Bryant Street rental revenue, would be planned and evaluated can be viewed in Attachment E. The process would begin with an idea for a teen event, program or service. Ideas would be petitioned from teens by the Teen Activity Specialists. Staff expects that many of the program ideas will come from teen leadership and special interest groups such as the City’s existing: Children’s Theater Teen Arts Council, Recreation’s Teen Advisory Board, Library’s Teen Advisory Board and the Palo Alto Youth Council. For an info-graph illustrating both City and non-city teen leadership and advisory groups see Attachment G. As a program idea develops, the Teen Activity Specialists and their teen sponsor(s) would complete the Teen Program Proposal Form (Attachment F). The Teen Program Proposal Form asks critical questions to ensure the program or service is well planned with respect to possible funding needs, logistics and timeline along with criteria that demonstrate alignment with the feedback we have heard from the teen community regarding interests and priorities, and alignment with the City’s policy of promoting 41 Developmental Assets in teen programming. When a Teen Program Proposal Form is ready for submission it would be reviewed the City’s Teen Services Team which is made up of Library and Community Services staff. If the Teen Services Team finds the program proposal needs further planning the proposal returns to the Teen Activity Specialist and the Teen Sponsor(s) to be revised accordingly. If the proposal receives approval the proposal moves forward for implementation. City of Palo Alto Page 5 After a program or service is implemented Teen Services Team will review participant evaluations and program results to determine how well the program or service met its intended outcomes. Finally, staff proposes that the Palo Alto Youth Council, with the guidance of their Community Services Manager staff liaison, report to Council on the programs and services funded by the new funding resource at the annual City Council / Palo Alto Youth Council study session. A sampling of the type of teen programs and services that may receive funding and coordination support from the Teen Activity Specialists include the following. (These are ideas generated by Palo Alto teens and align with the outreach staff has conducted): Teen Drop-In Studio at the Art Center - The Palo Alto Art Center currently offers a Teen Summer drop-in program, but would like to expand the program. The vision is that from 1-5pm on Fridays, high school students could come to the Palo Alto Art Center to work on their own projects, using the Art Center’s studio space and equipment. Students pay $5 per hour, which includes the use of basic materials, such as pencils, markers, and all tools. A professional artist from the community oversees the Friday drop-in program, mentoring students and helping them engage, whether they need help realizing a project, are interested in trying new techniques, or want to build their portfolio. Exposure to different local artists would also help students make connections in the visual arts, be inspired, and learn from the experts. Low-cost lockers can be rented at the Art Center for material storage, allowing students to work on projects that are too large or ambitious to be done at home or at school. The Teen Drop in program would support teens that are passionate about art and are thinking of pursuing art as a career by exposing them to local artists and contemporary art, and connecting them with local art and museum professionals. Behind the Scenes at the Museum Workshops at the Art Center – Professional workshops that will allow teens to see what it would be like to be a museum professional. The Art Center would like to offer a professional workshop for high school students interested in a profession in visual art. Three separate two-week workshops would be offered over the course of each calendar year, with each workshop focusing on a different field within the visual arts: Art Education, Curating Exhibitions, and Public Art. Students in each intensive 2-week workshop would learn about jobs in the arts, receive job-specific training, make connections in the field, and work together to accomplish a related project. For example, students taking the Art Education workshop might design a museum interactive or lead a student tour. Students in the Exhibitions workshop will help curate and install an exhibition at the Art Center. Students in the City of Palo Alto Page 6 Public Art course might help draft a call for proposals, attend Public Art hearings, and help students gain connections in the field that will turn into mentors and professional contacts that will support them beyond the course, and even beyond high school, embedding them in a local and national network of art professionals. makeX – While this is a project that has already taken place it is a good example of the type of project that could receive support. The project was created by teens for teens and was the culmination of months of work. Funded by a California State Library grant, the project involved twenty two local teens, who participated as paid and volunteer designers to design and prototype furniture and learning experiences for the maker- space. Throughout the project, participating teens worked closely with Art Center and Library staff as well as project consultants: architects Noll & Tam and author and educational consultant Bernie Trilling. Participating teen designers toured maker-spaces throughout the Bay Area on field trips, and then used a design thinking process to design and prototype furniture, then selected equipment and materials for the space. The result was a teen mobile makerspace that is available to teens on Friday evenings and Saturdays free of charge. Business Community Speaks - Teens would like to have access to the extraordinary minds within our community (e.g. Stanford, Google, IDEO, Tesla, Lucas Films, Facebook) The Library would invite speakers from this venue to participate in STEM talks for teens supporting science, technology, engineering and math. Staff estimates that 100-400 Middle and High School Students including surrounding communities could be served. The program would create a bridge with our business and education leaders with our youth community and further support the Youth Friendly Business initiative the Palo Alto Youth Council is working on. Expected outcomes for this program would include opportunities for internships, mentoring and fun learning experiences that are relevant and support the Common Core Standards and the 41 Developmental Assets. College Tour: Students would travel from Cal Poly to Sonoma State with many stops along the way in a three- to four-day trip. Students will get to visit several campuses, connect with Palo Alto alumni, and experience life on campus. Students would participate in a variety of leadership building activities and exercises along the way, and have the opportunity to reflect individually on each unique college experience at the end of the day. The itinerary would support the 41 Developmental Assets by encouraging Empowerment, Constructive Use of Time, Positive Values, Social Competencies, Positive Identity, and of course, Commitment to Learning. Currently, there are no other Palo Alto organizations (including school districts) who offer college tours to students. In addition to collaborating with one another and developing new programs and services the Teen Activity Specialists would also work closely with their departments and respective City of Palo Alto Page 7 divisions to further leverage existing resources by building upon programs and services that staff already provide Palo Alto teens. Regarding Councils previous approval of the expenditure of $30,000 for the following programs: 1. Student intern program to track teen programs and services for Palo Alto teens, and to use social media and other outreach vehicles to maintain a current calendar of events, programs and services of interest to Palo Alto teens. 2. Develop and implement an evening drop in program for high school students at the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center as soon as possible after opening the new center. Staff recommends that these programs continue, and be supported by the three Teen Activity Specialists. Staff is pleased to report that number one above, the student intern program to track teen programs and services for Palo Alto teens called Click PA has been implemented. Click PA is a strong example of staff’s intent to use these new funds in a way that has multiple benefits for Palo Alto teens. In this example, teens are given several unique internship opportunities in web design, project management, marketing and teamwork. In addition the program provides a much needed online events and activities calendar for Palo Alto teens and invests in mentoring between caring adult role models and teens. For more information go to: www.ClickPA.org Due to the delay in opening the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center staff have been unable to begin the high school teen drop in program discussed at the November 19, 2013 Policy and Services Committee meeting. However, staff have applied some of the available funds to support programs that would have been included as part of the drop in program. Council direction was to develop a sustainable expenditure plan. The revenue from the 455 Bryant Street rent, of which 75 percent is committed to teen programs, is estimated to be $85,000 annually. The expenditure plan as described above is sustainable as it does not draw down on the reserve fund which has balance of $217,334. Retaining and building upon the reserve balance is a strategy staff would like to consider as opposed to recommending one-time expenditures that may not have a lasting impact. If an interest by the teen community or Council arises that warrants spending some or all of the reserve it can be considered at such time, but currently no such interest has been identified. Resource Impact City of Palo Alto Page 8 The estimated cost to implement the staff recommendation is $84,000 in FY 2015. The cumulative amount collected from the 455 Bryant Street rental revenue, of which 75 percent is committed to teen programs, from FY 2009 through FY 2013, available for Teen Programs is $217,334 fiscal year. Staff anticipates an additional $84,000 to accrue by the end of FY 2014. If this recommendation is approved by the Policy and Services Committee, staff will submit a recommendation for funding teen services as part of the FY 2015 Proposed Budget scheduled for release on May 5, 2014. Attachments: ATT A - CMR 444-01 - 2 (PDF) ATT B - YMP (PDF) ATT C - Jan 13 2014 Staff Report (PDF) ATT D - Teen Activities Specialists - Job descriptions (DOCX) ATT E- TEEN Proposal Form 3-10-14 (PDF) ATT F - teenleadershipgroups (PDF) ATT G - Flow Chart - Teen Services NEW (DOCX) CMR:444:01 Page 1 of 9 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2001 CMR: 444:01 SUBJECT: 1) ADOPTION OF ATTACHED RESOLUTION ORDERING FURTHER CASH PAYMENTS FOR SECOND SERIES OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA OFF-STREET PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BONDS; AND 2) CONFIRMATION TO ISSUE TAXABLE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION TO CONSTRUCT NON-PARKING AREA ON LOT S/L; RENT SPACE FOR COMMERCIAL USE AND UTILIZE NET REVENUE TO FUND TEEN PROGRAMS; AND 3) APPROVAL TO USE NET REVENUE FROM NON- PARKING RENTAL SPACE TO SUBSIDIZE BARKER HOTEL ASSESSMENT 4) DIRECT STAFF TO REFUND AND REFINANCE 1992 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION FOR CIVIC CENTER IMPROVEMENTS REPORT IN BRIEF The City is ready to initiate the second phase of financing for construction of the new downtown parking garages and the non-parking area on the Lot S/L site. By adopting the attached resolution, Council will begin the “cash collection” process necessary before issuing assessment improvement bonds in early March. Construction on both garages is expected to begin in early April. CMR:444:01 Page 2 of 9 Staff is also requesting Council reaffirmation and direction on several other financing and funding issues. On May 14 2001, Council endorsed a funding plan for teen programs by allocating 75 percent of net revenues from commercial rentals in the non-parking space on Lot S/L. To build this space and realize the revenues, taxable debt must be issued. Staff will return on December 17 2001, requesting formal Council approval. In this report, staff is also requesting Council approval to use a portion of the net rental revenues to subsidize part of the Barker Hotel’s new assessment. Staff’s recommendation on this subsidy fulfills a commitment made on March 19, 2001 to find a solution to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s petition on this matter. Finally, staff is requesting approval to move forward with refunding and refinancing the City’s 1992 Civic Center Certificates of Participation based on current low interest rates and expected savings. This action will postpone a significant expense this fiscal year as well as result in net present value savings. Financial impacts from approved actions above will be included in midyear adjustments to the 2001-02 budget and in upcoming budgets. These impacts are detailed in the Resource Impact section of this CMR. CMR:444:01 Page 3 of 9 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt and approve the attached Resolution (Attachment B) "Ordering Further Cash Payments and Directing Actions with Respect Thereto" for the University Avenue Off-Street Parking Assessment District. 2. Direct staff to issue taxable Certificates of Participation to construct non-parking space on Lot S/L site for commercial use and utilize net revenues to fund youth and teen programs. 3. Approve subsidizing Barker Hotel assessment by using rental revenues from non- parking space on Lot S/L site. 4. Direct staff to pursue refunding and refinancing of 1992 Certificates of Participation for Civic Center improvements. BACKGROUND On March 19, 2001, property owners in the University Avenue Off-Street Parking Assessment District approved a new assessment that would refund prior parking improvement bonds and provide funding for the design and construction of two new parking structures on Lots R and S/L (CMR:170:01). The financing plan for the parking structures consisted of two phases or two series of bonds. After a required thirty day cash payment period in which district property owners had the opportunity to pay all or part of their assessment, staff initiated the first of two financing phases to construct the garages. This phase included: refunding prior parking bonds; reimbursing the General Fund previously advanced project costs; and obtaining new funding to complete final design of the garages. On May 14 2001, Council approved a resolution to issue and sell the first series of bonds (CMR:237:01). Bonds in the amount of $9,135,000 were sold successfully on June 13, 2001. In addition to building a parking structure on the Lot S/L site, Council approved construction of a non-parking area that will be an extension of the parking garage. Costs for building this extension remain the responsibility of the City’s General Fund. Initial plans for this area were to house a downtown teen center, with the remaining space used for retail and other commercial purposes. Rent from commercial users was to be used to offset the City’s debt service costs for constructing the non-parking area. As a result of a Youth Master Plan study and student survey conducted in spring 2001, an alternative proposal for delivering youth and teen services was presented to Council on May 14, 2001. Members of the Palo Alto Youth Council shared results of a student survey indicating that 77 percent of respondents preferred having more programs, activities, and special events rather than a new downtown teen center. The survey, along with input from a variety of teen advisory boards, indicated a strong desire for teen- created programs and events such as film festivals, dance parties and ski trips. To fund CMR:444:01 Page 4 of 9 new programs and events, the Youth Council endorsed a staff proposal to allocate 75 percent of net revenues derived from commercially renting the entire non-parking area to funding youth and teen activities. Council endorsed this new plan (See Attachment A for selected minutes with Council discussion on this item). DISCUSSION Each of the actions requiring Council approval are described below: University Avenue Off-Street Parking Assessment District Bonds – Second Series Given approval of the new assessment district on March 19, 2001 and a plan to begin construction of the new garages in spring 2002, it is necessary to begin the process of issuing a second series of improvement bonds. As with the first series, Council is requested to adopt the attached resolution that sets in motion notification of a 30 day cash payment period when property owners have the option to pay their assessments to avoid incurring financing and future interest costs. Property owners who do not pay cash will have their assessments financed through the bond issuance. Upon Council approval of the resolution, cash payment notices will be mailed to the property owners before the end of December. After the cash payment period ends in late January, staff will return to Council in early February for approval of a resolution that authorizes the issuance and public sale of bonds and approves the necessary financing documents. Now, staff estimates that $36,332,000 in bonds will be required to cover management, acquisition, construction, and financing costs for the two new garages. Combined with the first issuance, a total of an estimated $45,467,000 in bonds will have been issued on behalf of the assessment district. This translates into an estimated annual assessment of $1.45 per square foot for property owners of properties assessed once the entire assessment is bonded (this includes the refinanced 1977 and 1989 parking bond assessments estimated at $.35 per square foot). As mentioned in prior reports, the City of Palo Alto is responsible for paying a share of the assessments under Proposition 218. The proposition requires that public properties benefiting from the improvements must be assessed and that the local agency (City) must separate general from special benefits to property owners with the general benefits to be paid by the local agency. Like any property owner, the City has an option to either pay its assessments in cash or finance them over the life of the bonds. Also, like any property owner, the City may save some money by avoiding some initial financing costs. An analysis based on expected interest rates for the City’s portfolio (5.0 to 5.5 percent) versus the anticipated interest rates on the assessment bonds (5.0 to 5.5 percent), indicates that there are no economic benefits to the City under either option. Instead, the City should make its decision on more strategic or policy driven considerations. If the cash payment option is selected, staff can identify a $699,000 payment that will not have to be made in the 2001-02 budget as a result of refinancing the 1992 COPs (see discussion below in section 3). This option, however, will require a draw on the Budget CMR:444:01 Page 5 of 9 Stabilization Reserve of approximately $521,000. Such a draw is not optimal in the short- term given the City’s revenue picture and “strengthening the bottom line” effort. The option to finance will result in an ongoing, annual payment of around $77,000 for the next 30 years. The City has tended to be conservative about issuing debt and conserving the use of future resources. Staff does recommend, however, that the City pays this annual assessment since it is relatively small and will provide some immediate relief to current pressures on General Fund resources. By refinancing, the City will be relieved of the $699,000 payment due this year. Staff will return with the appropriate budget adjustments in the 2001-02 Midyear Report based on Council direction. Non-Parking Area on S/L Site The City of Palo Alto’s General Fund is responsible for all expenses associated with building the non-parking area expansion on the S/L site. The current estimate for constructing this facility is $3.1 million. Including financing costs, approximately $3.6 million in bond proceeds will need to be generated. Based on the current plan to rent this area for commercial use and utilize net revenues for teen programs and other purposes, it is necessary for the City to issue taxable debt. With Council’s approval, staff will pursue taxable Certificates of Participation to finance the non-parking area. Staff proposes using the Civic Center as the asset needed to raise funds for the S/L extension and for refinancing the 1992 COPs. These COPs will be issued separately from the assessment improvement bonds and separately, but simultaneously with the refinanced 1992 COPs. The taxable COPs and tax-exempt refunding COPs will be issued as separate series, but will be marketed with the same Official Statement. Staff will return to Council on December 17 for authority to issue both series of COPs (estimated at $8.0 million) and to approve the necessary financing documents. Taxable COPs result in a slightly higher interest rate and annual lease or debt service payments. Assuming a 20 year amortization period, an interest cost of 6.8 percent, and $3.6 million in bond proceeds, the estimated annual lease payment for this facility will be around $331,000. Rental revenues, based on renting available space on the first floor for retail purposes ($4.50 per square foot) and space on the second floor for office use ($5.00 per square foot), are projected at $462,000, with net revenues of $131,000 annually. Projected rental rates are based on information provided by a local developer and somewhat reflect the current weakness in commercial rates. Staff proposes that net revenues be used to subsidize the Barker Hotel assessment, for youth and teen services, and for other General Fund services. At the March 19 public hearing, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) requested that the City subsidize the new assessment on the Barker Hotel based on its use as low-income housing and minimal usage of parking space. Council was receptive to this request and directed the City Manager to develop a solution. Staff recommends that net revenues from the commercial space leasing be used to subsidize the PAHC assessment. Based on current assessment projections, the subsidy would equal around $7,600 annually. This amount is derived by CMR:444:01 Page 6 of 9 calculating the incremental amount of assessment related to the new garages for the SRO space. PAHC will be responsible for that part of the new assessment related to the commercial space on the first floor of the Barker site. Remaining net revenues would then be distributed according to the proposal approved by Council on May 14 (see Attachment A for the minutes from the meeting). Seventy five percent of the net revenues would be allocated to youth and teen services and 25 percent would be used for General Fund purposes. Based on the projections and uses recommended above, it is estimated at this time that $92,000 would be allocated annually for youth and teen programs and $31,000 would be available for General Fund use. These allocations would increase as rental rates are increased over time. Refunding and Refinancing of 1992 Certificates of Participation As a result of falling interest rates, staff and the City’s financial advisor recommend refinancing the 1992 Certificates of Participation issued for improvements to the Civic Center. Current outstanding principal on these COPs is $3,520,000. Analysis shows estimated net present value savings of $139,000 or 3.8 percent of outstanding bonds (net of all costs of issuing the refunding). A refinancing also provides the City with an opportunity to push out and amortize a $699,000 payment (due in March 2002) over the remaining life of the bonds (bonds mature in 2012). By not making this payment in 2001-02, the City can re-budget these funds for other purposes such as the payment of its downtown assessment obligations (see above) or simply reduce expenditures in 2001-02 as part of the “strengthening the bottom line” effort. The City is still required to make this payment, albeit in a different timeframe. The City’s financial advisor prepared a second refinancing scenario for City staff to consider. It analyzed the benefits of refinancing the 1992 COPs over the next 20 years instead of repaying them within the next 10 years. Based on an estimated interest cost of 4.7 percent, there were modest net present value savings of $52,000 or 1.5 percent of outstanding bonds. The primary benefit of pursuing this option is that it would lower annual lease payments in years 2003-05 from $815,000 to $256,000, thereby relieving the General Fund of nearly $560,000 annually in lease payments. This option provides short- term relief, especially if the recession lingers longer than expected, but it extends the life of a City obligation with no significant economic savings. Staff does not recommend this option because it does not provide reasonable savings, unduly extends the City’s debt obligations, and constrains the use of future City resources. RESOURCE IMPACT Staff’s recommendations have a positive impact of $540,000 on the 2001-02 budget. This positive impact is the sum of the 1992 COPs lease payment expense of $699,000 (reduced expenditure) and the City’s 2001-02 assessment obligation of $159,000 (increased expenditure). CMR:444:01 Page 7 of 9 University Avenue Off-Street Parking Assessment District Bonds – Second Series By issuing approximately $36,332,000 in the second assessment bond series for the University Avenue Assessment District, the City will be responsible for collecting special assessments in the Assessment District to service an estimated $45,467,000 in improvement bonds. This translates into an estimated, annual cost of $1.45 per square foot annually for each property assessed when total bonds are issued and assessments are collected. Staff recommends that the City finance its assessment obligation resulting in an estimated annual assessment payment of $77,400. Non-Parking Area on S/L Site Based on a $3.6 million bond issue, the City can expect an annual debt service payment of $331,000 based on a 20 year amortization period and an interest rate of around 6.8 percent. Given the expected rental rates for commercial use and the commitments discussed above, the following fiscal impacts are anticipated. Rental Revenues $462,000 Debt Service $331,000 Barker Hotel Subsidy $ 7,600 Net Revenues $123,400 Teen Programs at 75% $ 92,600 General Fund at 25% $ 30,800 Refunding and Refinancing of 1992 Certificates of Participation Based on the recommendation above, a refinancing of the 1992 Civic Center COPs shows that the City can realize $138,000 in net present value savings (net of all costs of issuing the Refunding COPs). The City can also delay and re-amortize a lease payment of $699,000 due this fiscal year. This can either relieve the City of a budgeted expense in a fiscal year when revenues are stressed or be reallocated for other purposes. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendations in this report are consistent with prior Council direction. Staff’s recommendation to refinance the 1992 Certificates of Participation is based on economic savings or lower lease payments to relieve pressure on a fund’s commitments is also consistent with prior refinancing efforts approved by Council. TIMELINE 2001 December 17 Resolutions approving issuance of COPs for non-parking area on Lot S/L and refinancing 1992 Civic Center COPs and adoption of required financing documents. December 27 Publish Notice of COPs sale CMR:444:01 Page 8 of 9 December 28 Mail cash payment notices to Assessment District Property Owners 2002 January 8 Bid documents on COPs distributed to underwriters January 16 Bids on COPs received and awarded January 28 Cash payment period ends, determine final bond size, and distribute financing documents to rating agencies and bond insurers January 29 Receive COPs proceeds February 4 Council adopts resolutions authorizing assessment bonds and approving required financing documents February 7 Publish notices of assessment bond sale February 11 Week Ratings presentation on assessment bonds February 28 Bids on assessment bonds received March 18 Assessment Bond closing; bond proceeds received April Construction of garages and non-parking area begins ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An Environmental Impact Report for the parking structures was prepared as part of the PC zoning application and was certified by Council on December 20, 1999, by adoption of Resolution No. 7917. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Selected Agenda Item and Minutes from Council Meeting of May 14, 2001 Attachment B: Resolution Ordering Further Cash Payments and Directing Actions With Respect Thereto Attachment C: Notice for Mailing on cash payment option Attachment D: Notice for Publication CMR:444:01 Page 9 of 9 PREPARED BY: JOE SACCIO Manager, Investments and Debt DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: CARL YEATS Director, Administrative Services CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager City of Palo Alto YOUTH MASTER PLAN REPORT February 4, 2003 VISION STATEMENT ur vision is that all youth in Palo Alto will have safe, healthy, positive experiences that support them in the development of behaviours, skills, attitudes, knowledge, and values necessary to realize their full potential. O -i- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he City of Palo Alto youth want and deserve a voice in their com- munity. Although youth are frequently seen as problems, they can be assets and resources, especially when officials are seeking effective solutions to community problems. Our youth are the foremost experts on their experiences, needs, and interactions with other segments of the community. Involving youth in local decision- making taps this important knowledge and promotes their full and healthy development. The City, by adding teens to key decision-making bodies, can give teens a direct role in establishing local policies and setting city priorities. Promoting the engagement and involvement of youth in our community should include hosting a youth forum for discussions, appointing youth to local boards or commissions, and the continuation of a youth council and advisory board for middle and high school youth. These opportunities may only reach a small percentage of a city’s youth, but they make a powerful statement to all young people and adults that youth are valued members of the community. Several of these elements can be combined to create a multi-tier framework for youth participation and involvement, allowing large numbers of youth to become involved in civic activities. Young people themselves will help to define and refine the vision for youth participation and involvement in our community and local government. The following report highlights these important aspects of community involvement in developing and implementing a Youth Master Plan. The efforts of the Youth Master Plan Steering Committee supported the teens in creating a youth- driven plan. T -ii- CONTENTS VISION STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PARTICIPANTS 1.0 BACKGROUND 2.0 PLANNING PROCESS 3.0 THE PLAN Goal No. 1 — Encourage and continue to provide opportunities for youth participation in our community. Goal No. 2 — Improve communication and awareness of youth recreational and social programs. Goal No. 3 — Ensure an on-going collaborative process that coordinates, supports, and monitors youth programs and services. 4.0 SUMMARY ATTACHMENTS Youth Master Plan Data Base Teen Center Needs Assessment Articles Published Postiive Alternatives for Youth In Memory of Debbie Moore January 6, 2002 -iii- PARTICIPANTS PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Victor Ojakian, Mayor and Judy Kleinberg, Councilwoman ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Pat Briggs, Director of Children’s Theatre Dawn Calvert, Superintendent of Recreation Pat Dwyer, Police Chief Kathy Espinoza-Howard, Director of Human Services Leon Kaplan, Director of Arts and Culture Patrick Larkin, Supervisor of Recreation Debbie Moore, Positive Alternatives for Youth Manager Bobbi Ross, Recreation Manager Ernesto Sarmiento, Recreation Coordinator Dan Williams, Director of Recreation VOLUNTEER CONSULTANT Jim Bronson YOUTH MASTER PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE Becky Beacom, Palo Alto Medical Foundation Richard Beckwith, Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission Roy Blitzer, Palo Alto Human Relations Commission Derek Chan, Youth Community Service Raissa Gebhard, Jordan Middle School, Assistant Principal Susie Hodges, Youth Community Service Cathy Kroymann, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board Member Jeanne Labozetta, Family Service Mid-Peninsula Linda Lenoir, PAUSD, Nurse Dan Logan, YMCA of Palo Alto Te rry Naylor, Voluntary Transfer Program, PAUSD Judy Palmer, Medical Professor, Retired Irv Rollins, Palo Alto Unified School District Ken Russel, Palo Alto Human Relations Commission Barry Taylor, YMCA of the Mid-Peninsula Caitlin Whitaker, Youth Community Service Karen White, Parent Teacher Association Council -iv- 1.0 BACKGROUND he impetus for creating a Youth Master Plan (YMP) originated from a joint study Session of the Palo Alto Youth Council and the City Council in March 2000, whereby the YMP was defined as a process to develop a focused and organized approach to the delivery of programs and services to youth and their families. It was then determined that a Youth Master Plan would benefit the entire community in many ways, including determining existing services and overlaps; identifying service gaps and addressing the needs of all youth and evaluating personal assets and skills needed by youth to grow into healthy adults. In October 2000, a Youth Master Plan Steering Committee was formed and included approximately 40 committee members from the following agencies: Palo Alto City Council, Parks and Recreations Commission, Community Services Department Staff, Police Department Staff, Youth Council, Youth Advisory Board, Palo Alto Unified School District Board and Administration, Palo Alto schools, Parent Teacher Association (PTA), Stanford University, all major youth serving agencies, youth sports agencies, business community, faith community, and health care agencies. The Steering Committee began its efforts to define the basic components of a Youth Master Plan which included: establishing a vision for youth in Palo Alto, conducting a needs assessment and contracting a facilitator to create a document. The committee agreed to hire a facilitator, to guide the committee through the process in the most efficient and cost effective manner. However, this youth-driven process and training approach became lengthy and costly. A decision was made to work with a short-term volunteer consultant to assist the committee with the planning process, including grant preparation. The initial goal was to obtain grant funding as well as obtain financial support from the City’s budget and those agencies serving on the Steering Committee. Unfortunately, after grant proposals were submitted, funding was denied and no City funds were available to facilitate the on-going process. T -1- 2.0 PLANNING PROCESS he Youth Master Plan Steering Committee began with a primary objective to carry out a youth-driven process to determine what services are available that support youth in leading healthy and productive lives, which services are needed and how to achieve the needed services. The secondary objective was to educate community leaders and youth service organizations about youth needs and how to support them in developing healthier lives and becoming effective community members. The YMP Steering Committee approached the planning process by asking the question, “How well are Palo Alto’s youth doing?” Are the financial resources allocated to the appropriate areas for the positive development of youth and teens in our community? A definition for youth to be served was defined by the committee in January 2001. The target age group for the plan was identified as 11 years-18 years old. In order to begin an education and outreach process, the City needed a mechanism to survey the development skills of youth and teens. A tested measurement process would be required, with an aspect that could establish statistically what major categories were needed to develop a healthy child. The Search Institute Survey could provide this measurement tool. Discussion of a survey process continued throughout the planning sessions. The expectation is not to see instant growth in a youth’s asset skills, but to increase Development Asset experiences. The evaluation process keeps the program’s focus on the larger purpose of a youth plan – to strengthen personal skills by increasing Developmental Assets. All full-time recreation program managers, coordinators and support staff would be trained in a general course on the Search Institute’s 40 Developmental Assets, which are factors that most people recognize as important for healthy development. Each program manager and coordinator would be required to identify the Developmental Assets that are applicable to their program or project. A more intensive training would be given to program managers and coordinators on the identification of Developmental Assets, interpretation of the statistical results and how to communicate with parents, youth and community members regarding the value of asset building. Hourly staff would be trained periodically throughout the year, with those in lead positions attending specific trainings. At Summer-in-Service training, a two-hour training would be provided to all new and returning seasonal hourly staff on Developmental Assets. Several organizations like YMCA and YWCA are already utilizing Developmental Assets as a core of curriculum designs. Excellent partnerships are developed when working with Developmental Assets organizations. The similar curriculum philosophy reduces conflicts in joint program design. Palo Alto City Staff investigated "The Cornerstone Project" implemented in Santa Clara County. "The Cornerstone Project" is based on the 40 Developmental Assets researched and created by the Search Institute of Minneapolis. "The Cornerstone Project" was a collaboration of community leaders and organizations from throughout Santa Clara County. The survey conducted by "The Cornerstone Project" details the information received from nearly 7,000 local 7th to 12th graders as they tell how adults are doing in guiding them to adulthood. The survey results call for everyone to begin working together to T -2- support young people to build the developmental assets that are the cornerstones of healthy youth development and a strong community. As a result of the investigation into "The Cornerstone Project," two City of Palo Alto CSD staff, Debbie Moore, Positive Alternatives for Youth Manager (2000-2002) and Patrick Larkin, Supervisor of Recreation were sent to the Search Institute in Minneapolis, for training in the 40 Developmental Assets. Bobbi Ross, Positive Alternatives for Youth Manager (2002 to present) has trained the ACS Board of Directors on the 40 Developmental Assets. In addition to the 40 Developmental Assets, the City of Palo Alto recognized that "Youth Development Competencies" would play an important role in the process of creating a Youth Master Plan. 2.1 Proposed Work Plan ■Identify and contact consultants and other cities that have conducted a Youth Master Plan process to make recommendations on proceeding with the YMP process by October 15, 2001. ■Create a project plan and timeline. ■Gather existing data on youth needs, behaviors, attitudes, etc. and current available services to incorporate into the YMP process by November 15, 2001. ■Request and obtain commitments of collaborative partners to provide monies toward the cost of hiring a consultant by November 15, 2001. ■Develop an RFP and submit to the Purchasing Department to identify a consultant by November 30, 2001. ■Hire a consultant by February 15, 2002. 2. Sub-Committees The planning process consisted of a needs assessment, data analysis and development of a plan. Sub- committees, made up of members of the YMP Steering Committee, were formed and met on an individual basis. Each sub-committee had primary responsibility for collecting, analyzing, and presenting the information it collected. ■Mission/Vision Sub-Committee: Responsible for developing the Vision and Mission State- ment for the YMP and presenting to the YMP Steering Committee for approval. ■Data Collection Sub-Committee: Responsible for obtaining existing data, surveys, reports, etc. pertaining to issues and needs of youth and information on existing resources, programs, and services for youth in Palo Alto and presenting information to the Youth Master Plan Steering Committee for approval. The Human Services Department with the support of Family Resources, and the sub-committee were able to compile a Community Resource database (Attachment 1). The list was reviewed and studied by the YMP Steering Committee and then sent on to the Youth Assessment and Marketing Committees. -3- ■Assessment Sub-Committee: Responsible for researching and recommending potential survey methods (such as written and/or phone surveys, focus groups, public forums) that will assist in identifying issues, needs and gaps in service to the youth of Palo Alto. And will present the information to the YMP Steering Committee for approval. The sub-committee worked closely with the Data Collection Sub-Committee to prevent duplication of work(s) already completed. ■Facilitator Sub-Committee: Responsible for determining if there is a need for a facilitator to assist in the YMP process and if so, identifying and interviewing potential facilitators. The sub- committee made a recommendation to the YMP Steering Committee for approval. ■Marketing Sub-Committee: Responsible for developing a plan to inform the community on a Youth Master Plan and the process for completing the YMP, as well as how to “market” the finished product to the community. Members of the sub-committee may also participate in the marketing strategy (i.e., writing newspaper articles, participating in the cable TV productions, etc.). The sub-committee presented their plan to the YMP Steering Committee for approval. ■Funding/Finance Sub-Committee: Responsible for researching potential funding sources to finance the cost of completing the YMP process (including facilitator, survey, printing costs, etc.) and made recommendations to the YMP Steering Committee. 3. Action Teams Palo Alto Youth Council Palo Alto Youth Council (PAYC) is a group of fifteen high school students from the Palo Alto area. The Council was created to serve as a task force to identify and address the issues that face teens in the community. One of the first YMP projects was to survey 500 Palo Alto Youth on the need for a teen center verses the need for additional teen programs and services. The results of the survey indicated that the teen populations desire was to have more teen programs rather than a teen center. A request was made to City Council to lease the proposed teen center space with 75% of revenue going into the teen program account and new recreational and social programs created by teens for teens (ideas generated through Youth Council and other Teen Advisory Boards). (Attachment 2) The youth driven process moved to analyze and identify areas of interest. The research established the following findings: Palo Alto had many resources for middle school and high school youth. The Palo Alto Youth needed target marketing for these existing resources. The PAYC’s largest accomplishment is the teen activity database (Attachment 3) that was compiled in conjunction with the YMP. The PAYC survey (Attachment) addressed the recreational needs of teens in Palo Alto. The results of the survey found there is not a lack of activities for teens in the community, but a lack of awareness of the activities. Over the course of a year, they researched and collected information on teen activities, programs, and teen oriented businesses and organized the information into categories (i.e., sports, community, restaurants, clubs, billiards, movies, and general recreation). The database, with over 55 entries, was submitted to the Palo Alto Weekly News to raise awareness in local teens. Based on PAYC survey results, it was determined that the following areas were priorities for teen engagement in the community: -4- ■Advertisement and awareness of teen oriented programs and activities. ■Developing relationships with other local youth groups for joint projects. ■Support and volunteering in the community. These priorities were addressed by PAYC. The action team contributed articles written and produced by youth to the local papers (Attachment 4). Members of the PAYC volunteered to serve in several public events, including the Palo alto Weekly’s Moonlight Run, ticket takers and food servers at the Senior New Year’s Eve Day Bash, operate craft and game booths at the winter Solstice and Winter Fest Celebrations and the Hippity Hop Easter Celebration, and helped at the Break Dance Competitions. The PAYC put youth representation in several of the City planning committees and projects that would affect youth in the near future. In addition to the Youth Master Plan, youth served on the Mitchell Park Community Center/Library Project Site Committee, and the Main Library and Art Center Project Committee to provide a younger voice in these normally adult-dominated groups. Positive Alternatives For Youth Positive Alternatives for Youth provides programs that improve school performance, strengthen life skills and social adjustment, and decrease criminal involvement, through collaborative com- munity efforts. The Positive Alternatives for Youth (PAY) Program is a collaborative effort of various agencies (Attachment 5) to offer youth a future life alternative by providing participants with academic support, job coaching, mentoring, and other youth services. Participants, in addition to having a chance to talk with other teens and work on creative problem solving, are connected with reliable trustworthy adults who are interested in talking and helping them face challenges. They are urged to set high standards for themselves and to take their participation in the program seriously. Participants gain competence, confidence and self-reliance through guided group discussions and learn the skills needed to launch a successful future. They are encouraged to learn from one another, to appreciate one another, and to treat their PAY match as a caring partner. Youth Community Service Youth Community Service (YCS) promotes the ethic of service, fosters youth leadership, builds community and enhances education by providing community service, service learning, and leader- ship activities to East Palo Alto, Menlo park, and Palo Alto young people in grades K-12. Since 1990, YCS has engaged young people in service opportunities that allow them to learn more about themselves and their community. YCS has grown from 200 students in its first year to over 2,000 students who participate in both one-time and on-going service experiences in and out of the classroom. YCS is a local collaboration that unites young people across cities, school districts, and counties. Ravenswood City School District, Palo Alto Unified School District, City of Palo Alto, City of East Palo Alto and YWCA of the Mid-Peninsula sponsor the YCS collaboration. The Palo Alto Rotary Club and Haas Center for Public Service at Stanford University are supporting partners. YCS Programs are: -5- ■Community Service and Leadership: Through this program YCS offers after-school service clubs for more than 200 students at 7 middle schools and 3 high schools in East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto. The program includes YCS Fellows, an 8-month leadership course for 10 high school students that provides training and skills development to enable youth leaders to better engage their peers in service. YCS also sponsors numerous one-time service days throughout the school year, involving nearly 800 students in service on an annual basis. ■Service Learning: Offers support to teachers who are working to use service as a teaching tool to bring the real world into their classroom and make their curriculum more relevant. To this end, YCS provides training and technical assistance to teachers at the 25 elementary, middle and high schools in both the Ravenswood (East Palo Alto) and Palo Alto School Districts. In addition, YCS helps local teaches and community agency staff become better service learning leaders at their schools and agencies through the Service Learning Leadership Development Program and the national Kellogg Learning in Deed Initiative. ■Summer of Service (SOS): An 8-week summer camp, brings together over 60 local middle school students to contribute to the community, develop leadership skills, and make new friends. Students serve in small groups, addressing a variety of issues; the environment, poverty and homelessness, child development and health. Earlier this year, Summer of Service received the Award of Excellence, the highest award given by the California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS) for quality youth programming. Adolescent Counseling Services Adolescent Counseling Services (ACS), founded in 1975, addresses the emotional and development needs of adolescents and their families in a changing society. ACS runs three programs: a residential treatment facility for teen girls; an outpatient adolescent substance abuse treatment program; and an on-campus counseling program. ACS presented a 7-minute video from the Emerging Youth Issues Forum held November 8, 2000. The Forum brought together youth to identify issues that adolescents will be facing over the next 5 years. The video presented several teens talking about adolescent issues. The two main topics stressed by these teens were isolation and stress they felt in school and their home life. ___________ In summary, members of the YMP Steering Committee, Palo Alto Youth Council and other community members came together to unite on common goals in order to support the Palo Alto community’s middle and high school youth and their families. The objectives initiated by the youth, for the youth are clearly identified in the following Plan section of this report. -6- 3.0 THE PLAN he purpose of the Palo Alto Youth Master Plan is to engage and support the Palo Alto community’s middle and high school youth and their families. The objectives initiated by the youth for the youth in the Youth Master Plan include: 1.Encourage and continue to provide opportunities for youth participation in our community. 2.Improve communication and awareness of youth recreational and social programs. 3.Ensure an ongoing collaborative process that coordinates, supports and monitors youth programs and services. Each of the objectives is clearly identified in the short-term and long-term approaches. To be effective in reaching these objectives, the City of Palo Alto Recreation staff recommends that the City should continue to provide the following: ■Adequate/current staff support for planning and implementing the goals. ■Opportunities for youth to meet with City Council members and Commissions. ■Continuation of youth program development and evaluation of program effectiveness. ■Opportunities for addressing emerging and existing needs. Goal #1: Encourage and continue to provide opportunities for youth participation in our community. Young people need safe, healthy and fun activities where they can engage in positive behavior so that they can grow into healthy adults. Currently, there are a variety of programs and services available to the youth in the City of Palo Alto. However, youth do not always participate in these programs due to inconvenient scheduling, lack of transportation, lack of awareness, or cost of the program. New programs must be developed and implemented continuously to meet un-addressed and emerging needs, and to build on the strengths and abilities of the youth in our community. 1A.Desired Outcome Every young person will have the opportunity to participate in recreational, social, educational, and enrichment programs offered in the Palo Alto community. 1B. Action Steps Completed 2000-2002 ■The City of Palo Alto Youth Council (PAYC) promotes teen opportunities in the community incollaboration with the Palo Alto Weekly News, to create a teen activities database that can be accessed through Palo Alto Online. ■PAYC developed a documentary on “Teens and Stress in Palo Alto”. T -7- ■PAYC hosted a debate at the YAK ATTACK 2001 on religion in school. ■Teen Recreation staff created a Youth Drop-In Center at Mitchell Park Community Center (MPCC) to engage youth in after-school recreational, social and enrichment programming. ■City staff coordinated shuttle service from Jordan Middle School to the new Drop-in Center at MPCC. ■Collaborated with the Mitchell Park Library staff to offer after-school homework help opportunities for students. ■Recreation staff created a Junior Advisory Board comprised of ten middle school students to advise recreation staff on program interests and needs to offer for middle school youth. ■City staff implemented a Middle School Dance program to include all PAUSD middle school youth. ■Recreation Division program staff implemented new break dance practice workshops targeting middle and high school youth. ■City staff coordinated shuttle service for after-school transportation from Gunn and Palo Alto High School. ■Recreation Division recruits teen volunteers to participate and help in implementing citywide special events. ■Created and implemented “Teen Band Night” a program for high school youth. ■City of Palo Alto provides a Counselor-In-Training (CIT) program for middle school age students. ■Collaborated with PAUSD to implement,”Summer Survivor” and “Camp at the Drop,” two middle school summer camp programs. ■Recreation Division program staff implemented new break dance practice workshops targeting middle and high school youth. ■Teen Recreation staff collaborated with the YMCA and the Ventura community, to approve a portable skate park at Ventura Neighborhood Center for teens. -8- ■Teen Recreation staff attended job fairs at the high schools for summer staff recruitments. ■The Recreation staff collaborates and participates on (Youth Community Services) YCS steering committee to offer numerous service projects for teens at schools throughout the community. ■Positive Alternatives for Youth (PAY) provide leadership training and community service internship opportunities for middle school youth. ■Yo uth Council representatives participated on the Mitchell Park Community Center /Library Project Site Committee. NOTE: The Fee Waiver Program continues to be available for all recreation-sponsored activities as well as for participation in community youth sports leagues. 1C. Short-term Action Steps ■The PAYC is in the process of completing a documentary on the “Top Ten Fun Things For Teens To Do in Palo Alto.” ■Recreation staff and Youth Council Advisor are investigating the opportunity for a Youth- produced TV show. ■City staff is exploring the development of new funding/grant opportunities (corporate sponsors) for youth development programming. ■City staff will evaluate youth access to public transportation. ■City staff will assess the effectiveness of the fee waiver program. ■City staff will work collaboratively with Youth and Teen Recreation Services (YTRS) to evaluate best practices relating to teen programming. ■Staff will maintain an open dialog between city businesses, the Palo Alto Police Dept. and all youth-related businesses in the community. 1D. Long-term Action Steps ■Promote recognition celebration for youth volunteers (Youth Council, Teen Advisory Board, Junior Advisory Board, YCS, YMCA, PAY Community Intern Program, CIT, etc.) ■Develop innovative marketing strategies targeting teens in order to increase participation in teen programs. Goal #2: Improve communication and awareness of youth recreational and social programs. Many youth and families are not using available resources due to communication barriers, which include not being aware of existing youth programs and difficulties in accessing information and services due to language and/or cultural barriers. -9- 2A.Desired Outcome Mass Communication is key in promoting opportunities for youth and teens. The city must target market to youth and teens to get the message out through unconventional methods that will attract this population to the programs and services available. A community able to provide a wide-range of diverse and appropriate print and non-print media to inform all residents of the full range of programs available to teens is needed. 2B. Action Steps Completed 2000-2002 ■YMP Steering Committee will continue its support of the Youth Master Plan and open up opportunities for teens to accomplish their goals as sited in the Plan. ■Staff will establish two-way communication with Junior Advisory Board to promote discussion on interests and activities needed for middle school youth in our community. ■YMP Marketing Committee teen member had written recognition of peer accomplishments in a local newspaper article. ■Collaborated with MPACC to enable teens to develop skills in the media that will teach them how to express their thoughts to the public. ■PAYC developed a PAYC Web Site, which will continue to highlight current PAYC projects and programs. ■PAYC worked with the Palo Alto Weekly News to update and create a website for teen activities on Palo Alto Online. ■Recreation and PAUSD will continue to collaborate and market new and innovative programs for teens during the summer months. ■Teen Representatives should continue to be identified for participation on all committees relating to projects or services affecting teens (i.e., MPCC/Library Project). -10- 2C.Short-term Action Steps ■Community youth organizations will utilize the Youth Council and other teen action groups as two-way channels of communication. ■PAYC will work with the Palo Alto Weekly on developing a teen activities link to Palo Alto Online. ■City staff will collaborate with local agencies to get information on services offered that will be of interest to teens and improve their socialization skills. ■City staff will work collaboratively with PAUSD to create and implement safe and enriching experiences for teens during the summer months. ■Teen Forums will take place annually beginning April 2003, which will discuss topics that relate to current teen, issues affecting Palo Alto youth. 2D. Long-term Action Steps ■Teen Advisory Board (TAB) will promote positive teen contributions to the community through news media coverage. ■TAB will work to create a documentary educating parents and teens, highlighting fun and interesting activities for youth in our community. ■PAYC will work with City Council on an annual basis to discuss the role of teens regarding the decision-making processes that relate to the teens in Palo Alto. ■A Palo Alto teen representative appointed to every Commission related to issues and activities for this age group (i.e., PARC, HRC, etc.) Goal #3: Ensure an ongoing collaborative process that coordinates, supports and monitors youth programs and services. The Youth Master Plan will be evaluated and revised by the Palo Alto Youth Council and other teen advisory boards, and reviewed by appropriate City Commissions and advisory groups as needed. A diverse selection of strong activities and programs enables youth to develop into well-rounded members of the -11- community and maintain productive, healthy lifestyles. 3A.Desired Outcome Community agencies and organization collaborate in order to provide multiple youth services addressing the needs of teens and to leverage community resources for the benefit of the teens. 3B. Action Steps Completed 2000-2002 ■Collaboration established with the Mitchell Park Library staff and Recreation Center staff to offer an after-school drop-in program, which will include a homework help and recreation socialization component. ■City Staff implemented “Summer Survivor Camp” for middle school students in collaboration with the PAUSD in summer of 2001 and 2002. ■City staff and PAUSD staff collaborated and implemented “Camp at the Drop,” a program targeting middle school age youth for the summer of 2002. ■Recreation Division has expanded their offerings for teens, including tennis lessons provided by a senior community volunteer, city-wide middle school dances, Monday night Break Dance practices, Dance Classes provided by volunteer professionals, implemented a new drop-in center, implemented the new teen band nights program, the annual Break Dance Contest, implementing additional summer camps targeting middle school youth, and created Junior Advisory Board for Middle School youth. ■Collaboration with Recreation staff, the YMCA and the Ventura Community to develop skateboarding elements placed at the Ventura Neighborhood Center. 3C.Short-term Action Steps ■Continue to develop a relationship with the school district staff and other local youth serving agencies to enhance and enrich the quality of services offered to youth in Palo Alto. ■City staff, PAYC will develop a relationship with Human Relations Commission in order to support teens to address their concerns in a safe and caring environment through a teen forum. -12- ■Work with agencies that provide a variety of services for youth in order to provide a holistic approach to teen services. ■Establish collaboration with the Lucie Packard Children’s Hospital and their health out reach program to implement a teen forum focusing on teen related issues. 3D. Long-term Action Steps ■The Youth Council will refer to the YMP annually and implement collaborative projects using existing resources related to the goals of the plan. ■Continue collaborations with community agencies serving youth and teens in Palo Alto. ■Bi-annually, the Youth Council will evaluate the YMP to determine the overall effectiveness of the action items identified in the plan to make adjustments based on the current trends and issues involving this age group. -13- 4.0 SUMMARY he Youth Master Plan incorporates the successes of present youth programming, and identifies the short-term action projects without a need for additional funding resources. The long-term action items could require future funding sources. These additional funds could become available through the Council’s agreement to return a net income from the leasing of the parking garage (originally the teen center) back to teen programs. The Youth Master Plan documents what we as a City and Community are successfully accomplishing for our teens. This approach will now be evaluated and reviewed on an annual basis by the City’s Youth Council and Teen Advisory Boards and City Council. Our commitment as a City is for the Plan to become a living document that is passed on from year to year with continued support for engaging youth in our community. T -14- ATTACHMENTS 1. Youth Master Plan Database 2. Teen Center Needs Assessment 3. Teen Activity Database 4. Articles Published 5. Positive Alternatives for Youth -15- City of Palo Alto (ID # 4368) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/13/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Policy and Service Committee Recommendation for the Expenditure of up to $30,000 for teen programs Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommendation for $30,000 Expenditure for Teen Program From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Policy and Services Committee recommends Council approve the expenditure of up to $30,000 from the net revenue collected from 455 Bryant Street rent, of which 75 percent is committed to teen programs, to: 1. Hire an hourly staff person or contractor to develop and maintain a calendar of events, programs and services for Palo Alto teens. 2. Develop and implement an evening drop in program for high school students at the new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. Background During the 2014 budget process and the Finance Committee discussions, Chair Burt requested information on a past plan to split excess revenues from a City property rental stream with 75 percent allocated to Teen Programs and 25 percent to the General Fund (GF). On December 10, 2001 (Attachment A - CMR: 444:01), Council reviewed and approved two of four staff recommendations pertinent to Chair Burt’s questions: 1) Direct staff to issue taxable Certificates of Participation to construct non-parking space on Lot S/L site of commercial use and utilize net revenues to fund youth and teen programs. 2) Approve subsidizing Barker Hotel assessment by using rental revenues from non-parking space on Lot S/L site. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The current occupant of the non-parking site (455 Bryant) is Form Fitness. The funding adopted by Council was based on a Youth Master Plan (Attachment B) and a teen survey which found that additional revenues to support teen programs is a higher priority than building a new Teen Center on the non-parking S/L site where the former teen center was located. The December 10, 2001 report substantiates the following formula used to calculate revenue for teen programs (Attachment A). Annual rent less annual debt service less subsidy to Baker Hotel = Net Revenue time 75 percent = Teen Revenue Support. Debt service payments began in FY 2003 with rental revenue streams beginning FY 2005. In FY 2009 a positive net revenue stream was realized to support teen programs. The cumulative net rental revenue from FY 2009 through FY 2013 designated to teen programs is $217,334. At its June 13, 2013 meeting, the City Council unanimously approved a motion to refer the matter to the Policy and Services Committee, to discuss and provide a recommendation to the full Council on a sustainable expenditure plan for teen program funding based upon anticipated future revenue from the dedicated funding source. In addition, the Council asked the Policy and Services Committee to provide a recommendation on which Boards and Commissions should consider the program. Discussion On November 19, 2013 the Policy and Services Committee discussed the matter with Community Services staff and several high school students who are working on developing an expenditure plan for the new revenue stream for teen programs and services (Attachment C - Staff Report - Policy and Services Committee meeting, November 19, 2013). At the November 19 Policy and Services Committee meeting staff and students shared how the community outreach was going to engage a diverse and broad number of Palo Alto teens in the process. The outreach has included the following activities: Teens Survey Focus Groups Interviews with Youth Serving Agencies Best Practice Review City of Palo Alto Page 3 Several themes have emerged from the outreach thus far which are described below: The Teen Survey, which yielded more than 500 responses, found teens typically participate in activities between 3-6pm during the week and on Saturdays and Sundays. Palo Alto teenagers are engaged in a remarkable diversity of extracurricular activities with most teenagers already participating in a wide variety of programs, clubs and activities. When asked what geographic area teens would like to see more teen programs the response was Downtown, My Neighborhood and Mid-Town predominantly. Teens prefer opportunities for unstructured spaces and self-directed socialization, relaxation, music, arts and fun. While there is interest in more fun things to do, Palo Alto teens also shared they have very little free time, with homework being the greatest reason for the lack of free time. In the focus groups, many teens talked about the high level of stress they feel and the need for more opportunities to relax. The kinds of activities teens expressed would help encourage the reduction of stress included music, art, sports, dance, yoga and more opportunities for social connectedness among peers outside of school. When teens were asked during the focus group and on the survey how might you spend the new funding stream to support Palo Alto teens? Work opportunities and internships, low cost or free food, space to “hang out”, music, stress reduction, low pressure unstructured programs all stand out as core interests. Additional feedback from talking to Palo Alto teens is interest in more to do downtown. Many teens say downtown is great, easy to get to, has a great “vibe,” but there is not enough to do for teens outside of spending money, of which they have little of. They like the idea of a place to go dancing or other sorts of activities, particularly on Friday evenings in the downtown area. There is also an ardent interest in additional tutoring opportunities. Many teens said they would take advantage of such an offering if there were Stanford University students involved helping run the program, rather than peer tutoring that is available to them through school. Another teen focus group is planned for late January 2014 and staff will continue to work with the teen community, Palo Alto based youth serving agencies, Palo Alto Unified School District to develop a sustainable expenditure plan for Council consideration. While the community outreach continues staff did propose two expenditure recommendations to the Policy and Services Committee, to use a small portion of the funds at this time. The two expenditure recommendations (below) were unanimously approved by the Policy and Services Committee: City of Palo Alto Page 4 1. It is clear from the survey responses and in talking with Palo Alto teens that there remains a lack of awareness of programs and activities available for teens in Palo Alto. Ironically this was also a finding in the Youth Master Plan of 2003. Consequently, staff feels it would be prudent to invest in hiring an hourly staff person to oversee a student intern program to track teen programs and services for Palo Alto teens, and to use social media and other outreach vehicles to maintain a current calendar of events, programs and services of interest to Palo Alto teens. A program called Click PA (www.ClickPA.org) which aims to provide this needed service, already exists, but is it unfunded and led by volunteers. Investing in temporary staff or contractor to work closely with Palo Alto teens to maintain the Click PA website will be a valuable tool for teens to become more aware of existing opportunities for enriching, social, fun experiences in Palo Alto for teens. (Attachment D - Draft Budget – Total Cost $10,000). 2. It is also very clear that high school age teens are interested in a safe, unstructured space to hang out. Staff recommends we develop and implement an evening drop in program for high school students at the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center this fiscal year, as soon as possible after opening the new center. The program would be designed to capture the spirit of the feedback we are hearing from teens for a space that includes low cost or free food, social gathering, music, arts and other stress reduction activities in a somewhat unstructured program design. Moreover, staff proposes that Palo Alto teens from the Children’s Theater Teen Arts Council, Recreation’s Teen Advisory Board and Library Teen Advisory Board among other teens interested in this program work together with staff to help design and run the new high school evening program. (Attachment E - Draft Budget – Total Cost $20,000). The Policy and Services Committee were very supportive of the above recommendations and appreciated the opportunity to talk directly with teens at the November 19, 2013 meeting. The committee members asked for more details on how the money for the recommendations above would be spent, so draft budgets are attached for each recommendation. Staff will return to Policy and Services Committee in February or March with additional recommendations. The Policy and Services Committee looks forward to further discussion with staff and teens, for how best to activate the new funding to support teen programs and services. Council also asked what boards and commissions may need to be involved. Staff is making sure youth and teen interests groups and leadership boards are very involved in the process and are including Parks and Recreation Commission in the process. As mentioned above staff will return to the Policy and Services Committee in early 2014 to discuss a more fully developed City of Palo Alto Page 5 expenditure plan, after which the expenditure plan will be included in the City’s annual budget process for Council review and approval. Resource Impact The estimated cost to implement the two staff recommendations is $30,000 or less in total. The cumulative amount collected from the 455 Bryant Street rental revenue, of which 75 percent is committed to teen programs, from FY 2009 through FY 2013, available for to Teen Programs is $217,334. Attachments: Attachment A - CMR 444:01 (PDF) Attachment B - Youth Master Plan (PDF) Attachment C - Staff Report Nov 19 - 2013 (PDF) Attachment D - ClickPA budget proposal_draft3 (PDF) Attachment E - Teen Drop In Budget (PDF) Attachment F - Excerpt from November 19, 2013 P&S Minutes (DOC) ATTACHMENT D Calcification - Recreation Leader III Working Title - TEEN ACTIVITIES SPECIALIST – LIBRARIES, ARTS & SCIENCES & RECREATION Duties include: Assist in the creation, implementation, coordination and evaluation of teen programs within the Community Services and Library Departments(s). Promote teen participation in City Teen Services programs through school outreach and online efforts. Will develop strategies for soliciting, gathering, analyzing and responding to teen feedback on CSD programming Coordinate evening high school drop-in program at the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. Oversee teen led online community calendar of teen programs and services– ClickPA. Develop partnerships with third-party community organizations to assist planning and implementing teen programs. Coordinate with fellow Teen Activities Specialists in other divisions to promote collaboration, efficiency and diversity of programs. Support CSD and Library staff in respective divisions regarding long-term goals for teen programming. Mentor teens and help them develop program ideas. Complete and submit Teen Activity Proposals Forms. Report monthly to City Teen Services Committee regarding teen programs. Help prepare annual report and assessment of teen programs. As necessary, recruit volunteers (youth and adult) to support City Teen Services. ATTACHMENT F City of Palo Alto—Teen Services—Community Services and Library Departments TEEN PROGRAM PROPSAL This form should be completed by teens and Teen Activity Specialist. The Teen Activity Specialist will take the proposal for review to the Teen Peer Review Committee and City Teen Services Committee. PERSONAL INFORMATION: Name of Primary Applicant: Age: School: Address: Email: Names and Emails of Co‐Applicants: PROPOSED PROJECT: Please provide us with an “elevator pitch” for your project (2‐3 sentences). Please provide a longer summary of your project, highlighting the: who, what, where and how of your project (up to 250 words). What need in the teen community will your project address? How did you find out about that need? How will your project address that need? How many teens will your project serve? ATTACHMENT F How will you know if your project is successful? How will you measure success? Which Developmental Assets are addressed in your project (http://www.projectcornerstone.org/html/developmentalassets.html)? Will your project provide a chance for teens to develop career skills? How? Will you partner with other organizations or companies to realize your project? If so, who? Have you already reached out to those potential partners? BUDGET: Please provide a budget for your project using our template form (see attached). What will happen if your project is not funded? What will happen if your project isn’t funded to the full amount of your request? ATTACHMENT F City of Palo Alto—Teen Services—Community Services Department and Library TEEN PROGRAM PROPOSAL - BUDGET TEMPLATE Note: Totals for Section A and Section B should match. Section A: Revenue and Funding Request Amount Requested to Support Project: Estimated Revenue generated by Project: Include a brief description of how revenue is generated: (for example, if your project includes a $5 participation fee, with an estimate of 100 participants, your estimated revenue = $500) Total Section A -$ Section B: Expense Contractors or other professional fees Brief description of any support that will be provided by contractors, for example graphic design, instruction, other Teen Activity Specialists Time - estimate how many hours of support needed Travel Equipment - Rent Equipment - Purchase Supplies Printing and Copying Postage and Delivery Venue - Rental, including any additional fees such as insurance or cleaning Other (specify) Total Section B -$ Teen Leadership Groups Outside KƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƟŽŶƐ Special Interest Teen Advisory Groups Teen Policy Ambassadors Teen Arts Council CSD Arts and Sciences Division Palo Alto Youth Council City of Palo Alto Youth and Government YMCA YCS Fellows Youth Community Services ROCK Gunn High School Youth Advisory Council Media Center BBYO Oshman Family JCC ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶdĞĞŶĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽĂƌĚ ^ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ Library Teen Advisory Board Library Department ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ:ƵŶŝŽƌĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽĂƌĚ ^ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ ATTACHMENT E Flow chart for how ideas for teen programs and services, using the Bryant Street rental revenue, are planned and evaluated: Teen leadership groups and teen sponsors propose and develop ideas: - Palo Alto Youth Council - Arts and Sciences - Teen Arts Council - Recreation - Teen Advisory Board - Library – Teen Advisory Board - Other teen sponsors Program Proposal Form completed by teen sponsor with support and guidance from Teen Activity Specialists City Staff – “Teen Services Team” review proposals and evaluate after implementation: - Library - Arts and Sciences (CSD) - Recreation (CSD) Implement Program or Service Palo Alto Youth Council Annual Report to City Council Approved Proposal needs more work IDEAS! Attachment E Teen Leadership Groups and teen sponsors propose and develop ideas. • Palo Alto Youth Council • Arts and Sciences - Teen Arts Council • Recreation - Teen Advisory Board • Library - Teen Advisory Board • Other teen sponsors. Program Proposal Form completed by teen sponsor with support and guidance from Teen Activity Specialists. Flow chart for how ideas for teen programs and services, using the Bryant Street rental revenue, are planned and evaluated. Ideas City Sta - Teen Services Team review proposals and evaluate after implementation: • Library • Arts and Sciences (CSD) • Recreation (CSD) Proposal is either approved and moved on or sent back to teen sponsor for more work. Implement Program or Service. After, implementation returns to Teen Services Team to review and evaluate outcomes. Palo Alto Youth Council Annual Report to City Council. Policy and Services Committee EXCERPT MINUTES Special Meeting April 22, 2014 Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 6:07 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Klein, Price (Chair), Schmid, Scharff Absent: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None AGENDA ITEMS 1. Recommendation to Council for an Expenditure Plan for Teen Programs From the Net Revenue Collected From 455 Bryant Street Rent. Rob De Geus, Assistant Director of Community Services, reported the Teen Services Team gathered feedback from the teen community and local partners in order to provide a recommendation. Teens were interested in self-directed recreation and socialization, visual and performing arts programs, and safe and welcoming spaces. Staff proposed funding three part-time Teen Activity Specialists and allocating $24,000 for program and activity expenses. Teens wanted to participate in developing programs for teens. Teen leadership groups would propose ideas for programs. Staff would review and approve or deny proposals. Program sponsors and Teen Activity Specialists would implement programs. Staff would evaluate success of programs. In its annual Study Session with the Council, the Palo Alto Youth Council would report regarding use of funds and impact of programs. Jennifer Marsh, Staff representative for clickPA, indicated clickPA began in 2012 with four high school students and was funded through a Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Grant. Policy and Services Committee EXCERPT MINUTES Ally Gong, Click PA, joined clickPA as part of the Youth Collaborative. Teens decided to build a web site of events for teens. Ms. Marsh stated recent funding allowed Staff to reach a greater number of teens. Fabian Garduno remarked that clickPA was now a powerful web site. The goal was to provide a calendar of events and opportunities for teens. With additional funds, clickPA bought posters and flash cards to advertise events. Ms. Marsh advised that clickPA was comprised of six high school interns. Two high school event bloggers volunteered with clickPA. ClickPA was a one-stop activity center for high school students in and around Palo Alto. It was a means for students to remain engaged and to feel a sense of belonging. The web site provided opportunities for sharing of photos and reviews of events and a listing of teen jobs, internships, and volunteer opportunities. Ms. Marsh demonstrated the clickPA web site. Staff utilized social media to advertise the clickPA web site. Ms. Gong added that clickPA held a monthly Instagram contest. Teens could add an element to their Instagram posts that would automatically enter the post into the contest. Mr. Garduno noted Facebook "likes" grew to 89. Most Facebook posts for clickPA reached more than 100 people. Teen interns were considering adding selected advertisements to the web site to increase views. Ms. Marsh reported that advertising would be a good method to increase teen attendance at City-sponsored events. ClickPA was chosen as a finalist in the Palo Alto Apps Challenge. Mr. Garduno explained that entering the App Challenge was a way to develop a mobile version of the clickPA web site. Ms. Gong commented that a mobile version was a good way for clickPA to reach the target audience. Ms. Marsh hoped the Policy and Services Committee (Committee) would continue to support clickPA. Funds purchased web hosting, printing, and ad sponsorships. Policy and Services Committee EXCERPT MINUTES Mr. De Geus felt clickPA was a good example of how Teen Activity Specialists would continue to support students. Council Member Klein inquired about the year of each student intern. Ms. Gong stated she was a junior at Gunn High School. Mr. Garduno stated he was a junior at Palo Alto High School. Riley Burt reported the Teen Arts Council was based at Children's Theatre in the Lucie Stern Community Center. Forty-five teens worked a total of 2,900 community service hours. The Teen Arts Council hosted movie nights, middle school dances, film projects, and open mike nights. The Teen Arts Council was limited by a lack of chaperones and funds. Mr. De Geus remarked that the Teen Arts Council had grown considerably over the last few years. Judge Lucky supported more teen programming at Children's Theatre. Teen Activity Specialists would support the Teen Arts Council as it continued to grow. Council Member Klein asked why the Hurricane Music Festival was named hurricane when Palo Alto did not experience hurricanes. Mr. Burt explained it was a creative name. Karen Kienzle, Palo Alto Art Center Director, reported that MakeX was a mobile makerspace created by and for teens. MakeX was created in response to community need. Staff wanted to engage teens in a design- thinking process and to create an environment in which teen voices were heard and validated. Twenty-two teens, called designers, participated in the project. She requested teens provide their school information. Nathan Kai reported he was a sophomore at Palo Alto High School. Lawanya Mahadevan reported she was also a sophomore at Palo Alto High School. Jeremy Trilling stated he was a freshman at Palo Alto high School Policy and Services Committee EXCERPT MINUTES James Wong was a sophomore at Palo Alto High School. Designers visited local makerspaces to learn the skills needed to make an interactive and effective makerspace. On a visit to IDEO, designers learned about the design-thinking process. Designers documented the development process so that the process could be replicated. Ms. Mahadevan indicated designers prototyped each plan and space. Designers wanted a wide range of equipment for the makerspace; however, the budget limited their choices. Mr. Trilling obtained materials and tools from the Palo Alto Arts Center. The makerspace first opened to the public at the Palo Alto Arts Center. Mr. Wong reported beta testing was an important stage as it allowed designers to identify and resolve problems. Mr. Trilling reviewed furniture projects available in the makerspace. Ms. Mahadevan advised that the bouncing chair was the most popular furniture item. Mr. Kai indicated that shelves contained projects made by participants and storage walls held makeX tools. MakeX was open Fridays 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. and Sundays 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. The current location was Cubberley Community Center. Dozens of teens designed projects at makeX. Teens could build designs offered by makeX or build their own designs. Mr. Wong reported that designers facilitated teens with their designs and taught computer aided design software. Ms. Kienzle stated the original goal was to create a starter makerspace. Original funding was provided through a California State Library grant. Additional funding could provide more Staff hours, increased hours of operation, more mentors, and more materials. Mr. De Geus advised that Staff wished to support these types of programs and additional programs. Staff expected rental revenue to generate $85,000 in the current fiscal year for teen programs. After a year, Staff would determine whether programs were successful and interesting. Policy and Services Committee EXCERPT MINUTES Council Member Klein supported Staff's recommendation. He inquired whether the Reserve Fund earned interest. Mr. De Geus assumed the Reserve Fund was earning interest at the City's usual rate. Council Member Klein wanted to know why Staff proposed expending only a small portion of the Reserve Fund. Mr. De Geus believed the Reserve Fund should be utilized; however, Staff was determining how best to invest those funds. Council Member Klein preferred the Reserve Fund be utilized rather than saved. Mr. De Geus could return with a plan to spend down the Reserve Fund. Council Member Schmid understood the Committee was attempting to identify how extra funds would be useful. He asked if teen leadership would be diminished by hiring three Teen Activity Specialists. Mr. De Geus reported that was not the intent. Staff hoped to provide more programs by having Staff devoted to teen services. Council Member Schmid inquired about a goal for number of teens involved in programs. Mr. De Geus indicated the Services, Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) report provided a goal of 1000-plus teens in terms of impact. Council Member Schmid remarked that teens would design their own programs and presumably provide new ideas. Mr. De Geus reported the core principle behind the recommendation was for students to lead programs and events. Staff wanted to surround teens with as much support and mentorship as possible. Ms. Kienzle reported the grant proposal for makeX did not include contract staff because of the limited amount of funding available. MakeX was driven Policy and Services Committee EXCERPT MINUTES by teens; however, teens needed City Staff to navigate bureaucracy and to act as mentors. Teens requested a meeting with Staff every two weeks. Mr. Garduno added that programs could progress much faster with an adult sponsor. Having someone to guide teens would be beneficial. Council Member Schmid suggested budgets for programs contain concrete examples of expenditures. Mr. De Geus advised that expenditures would encompass simple things such as printing and materials for makeX. Teens were interested in internship and job opportunities. Being paid to work with a teen program was much more interesting than working at a local pizza parlor. Ms. Kienzle indicated that makeX designers wanted a 3-D printer, which would provide benefits to many people. Mr. De Geus noted the program proposal form required a budget as part of the proposal. Council Member Schmid noticed that five of the six teens present were from Palo Alto High School. He inquired whether teen programs were reaching all teens in Palo Alto. Mr. De Geus explained that the different leadership groups had different mixes of students. The Teen Advisory Board was composed of largely Gunn High School students. The Palo Alto Youth Council was about half and half. The Teen Arts Council was composed of mostly Palo Alto High School students. Ms. Kienzle added that the original 22 designers for makeX were a good mix of girls and boys and middle school and high school students. Mr. De Geus reported Staff's review of a proposed program would include whether the program reached different types of kids. Ms. Marsh commented that teen interns were more successful in reaching other teens than Staff. The core teen interns of clickPA committed to reaching out to and expanding their networks. Policy and Services Committee EXCERPT MINUTES Council Member Scharff inquired about the review of expenditures for materials and supplies and whether teens would have any input in spending decisions. Mr. De Geus reported that a proposal for an expenditure would have to justify the expenditure and provide a budget. Staff would review that and determine if it was reasonable, weigh it against other interests and proposals, and approve or deny it. The Teen Services Team would evaluate whether the expenditure met the intended outcome. Mr. Garduno explained that the fundamental problem was that teens did not have specific items that they wished to purchase. Teens did not plan events in the future, but tended to think in the near-term. Teens wished to have funds available when they had ideas. Council Member Scharff understood Staff would make expenditure decisions in collaboration with teens. He inquired about the skills Staff would require of the three Teen Activity Specialists. Mr. De Geus believed they should be younger adults, college students, with an interest in the well-being of young people. Staff considered one full-time person, because he would be more committed and more educated. However, funding would only support one person. The three Specialists should have interests in libraries, arts, and recreation. Ms. Kienzle indicated all three positions would be unified by strong interpersonal and facilitation skills. For the Arts Center and Children's Theatre, Staff envisioned someone passionate about museums and STEAM education. Council Member Scharff inquired about STEAM. Ms. Kienzle explained that STEM was an acronym for science, technology, engineering and math. STEAM was STEM with art. Council Member Scharff stated that in his experience people interested in the arts were not necessarily skilled in the sciences. Ms. Kienzle viewed the Specialist positions as pulling together resources available within and outside the City. The Arts Center did not necessarily Policy and Services Committee EXCERPT MINUTES need someone well versed in science and engineering; rather someone who could create opportunities for teens to be successful. Council Member Scharff asked the teens if they needed someone with technical or interpersonal skills. Mr. Burt preferred interpersonal skills. The Teen Arts Council independently operated all events. Generally it required assistance with bureaucracy or technology issues. It would be helpful to have someone who could pull resources together. Ms. Marsh reported her role with clickPA was to book rooms for meetings, to schedule meetings and notify teens, and to create agendas. Basically her role was to keep the project moving and to help the teens target their vision and to stay on track. Three Specialists would have specific interests in the areas they represented, but they would also inform Staff of progress. Council Member Scharff clarified that all three Specialists would have similar skills but interests in different areas. Ms. Gong stated the difficult aspect of clickPA was creating a product that was visually appealing to teens. Coding, web design and marketing skills would be helpful skills for a clickPA Specialist. Mr. Wong added that the makeX team needed an adult mentor who could provide assistance with creating a program for donations for Wi-Fi services. Mr. De Geus would not search for a technical expert in a particular area, but a generalist. Students would participate in the interview process. Staff would search for Specialists that could be mentors to teens. Chair Price felt these programs were good examples of providing opportunities for creativity and innovation. With respect to college tours, she inquired whether Staff could partner with other groups who provided college tours. Mr. De Geus indicated Staff was considering a partnership with the YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association); however, the YMCA no longer provided college tours. College tours came out of the focus groups and surveys. Policy and Services Committee EXCERPT MINUTES Chair Price asked if the bouncing chair could be fabricated. Ms. Kienzle reported all designs for the makeX furniture were open source. Anyone could obtain the designs and have them fabricated. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid that the Policy and Services Committee recommend the City Council approve Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee recommend to the City Council approval the expenditure of up to $84,000 for FY2015 from the net revenue collected from 455 Bryant Street rent, of which 75 percent is committed to teen programs, to: 1. Allocate $60,000 to hire three hourly Teen Activity Specialists assigned to the Library Department and one each to the Arts and Sciences and Recreation Divisions of Community Services Department to plan and coordinate events, programs and services for Palo Alto teens. 2. Allocate an expense budget of $24,000 for the Teen Activity Specialists to support teen events, programs and services. Council Member Scharff remarked that Staff provided an excellent outcome for the original Committee Motion. He was impressed with Staff's efforts. Council Member Schmid felt Staff demonstrated their accomplishments and ongoing activities. He looked forward to having a similar presentation in a year. Council Member Klein stated that academic research showed the important component was involving teens with adults to communicate the lessons of teamwork, hard work and innovation. Hiring specialists in their 20s was good, because they would have some knowledge to impart as well as be able to relate to teens. Mentoring was crucial. Involving as many kids as possible in programs was crucial. AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Chair Price to direct Staff to return with a plan for the use of the Reserve Fund. Council Member Scharff did not believe the Committee should force Staff to spend the Reserve Fund. He preferred Staff create a great program and then request funding. Staff would utilize funds when they needed them. Policy and Services Committee EXCERPT MINUTES Council Member Klein clarified that the Amendment did not direct Staff to spend money in a specific timeframe. Saving the Reserve Fund was contrary to the City's usual procedures in that it did not maintain large reserves. If the Reserve Fund was not going to be used, it should be returned to the General Fund. Staff should find additional ways to engage more kids. Mr. De Geus needed time to determine how to spend the Reserve Fund because of the pending opening of the Mitchell Park Community Center. The Mitchell Park Center would have a dedicated teen center and a great deal of programming. There could be a program there that Staff wanted to invest in. Staff did not intend for the Reserve Fund to be held for years. Council Member Klein suggested a time limit. Council Member Scharff proposed 18 months. Council Member Klein countered with six months. Council Member Scharff proposed 12 months. Chair Price concurred with 12 months. Council Member Scharff inquired whether 12 months was sufficient time for Staff and whether the time limit would begin with the opening of the Mitchell Park Community Center. Mr. De Geus requested at least 6 months after Mitchell Park opened. Council Member Klein concurred with 6 months after Mitchell Park opened. Council Member Scharff inquired whether Staff was agreeable to that time limit. Mr. De Geus responded yes. Council Member Schmid believed the goal was not to spend the Reserve Fund, but to invest it wisely. Policy and Services Committee EXCERPT MINUTES Council Member Scharff supported Council Member Schmid's comment. He disagreed with Council Member Klein that funds came from the General Fund; funds came from a special fund. Council Member Klein disagreed. Council Member Scharff explained funds came from the Bryant Street Garage rent. Council Member Klein indicated that Council action appropriated funds for teen activities. Council Member Scharff understood the rent revenue was set up as an Enterprise Fund. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to return to the Policy & Services Committee with a plan for the use of Reserve Funds within six months of the opening of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 4-0 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 2, 2014 The Honorable City Council Attention: Policy & Services Committee Palo Alto, California SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Approving the Use of Online or Electronic Filing of Campaign Statements (First Reading May 12, 2014, PASSED 9-0) RECOMMENDED MOTION Approve the second reading of an Ordinance approving the use of online or electronic filing of Campaign Statements. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Electronic Filing of Campaign Statements Draft Ordinance (PDF) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 NOT YET APPROVED 140403 dm 0160076 1 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Use of Online or Electronic Filing of Campaign Statements The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. California Government Code Section 84615 provides that a local agency may require an elected officer, candidate, committee, or other person required to file statements, reports, or other documents, except an elected officer, candidate, committee, or other person who receives contributions totaling less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and makes expenditures totaling less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), in a calendar year, to file those statements, reports, or other documents online or electronically with the local filing officer. B. The City has entered into an agreement with Westcoast Online Information Systems, Inc. dba NetFile, a vendor approved by the California Secretary of State, to provide an online electronic filing system (“System”) for campaign disclosure statements and statements of economic interest forms. C. The System will operate securely and effectively and will not unduly burden filers. Specifically: (1) the System will ensure the integrity of the data and includes safeguards against efforts to temper with, manipulate, alter, or subvert the data; (2) the System will only accept a filing in the standardized record format developed by the Secretary of State and compatible with the Secretary of State’s system for receiving an online or electronic filing; and (3) the System will be available free of charge to filers and to the public for viewing filings. SECTION 2. Section 2.40.065 (Electronic Filing of Campaign Statements) of Chapter 2.40 (Municipal Elections) or Title 2 (Administrative Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: “Section 2.40.065 Electronic Filing of Campaign Statements (a) Any elected officer, candidate, committee, or other person required to file statements, reports or other documents described by Chapter 4 (Campaign Disclosure) of Title 9 (Political Reform) of the California Government Code, and that has received contributions and made expenditures of $1,000 or more, shall electronically file such statements using procedures established by the City Clerk. (b) Once an elected officer, candidate, committee, or other person files a statement, report, or other document electronically pursuant to subsection (a), all future statements, reports, or other documents on behalf of that filer shall be filed electronically. (c) In any instance in which an original statement, report, or other document must be filed with the California Secretary of State and a copy of that statement, report, or other document is required to be filed with the City Clerk, the filer may, but is not required to file the copy electronically. NOT YET APPROVED 140403 dm 0160076 2 (d) If the City Clerk’s electronic system is not capable of accepting a particular type of statement, report, or other document, an elected officer, candidate, committee, or other person shall file that document with the City Clerk in an alternative format.” SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason declared invalid, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. SECTION 5. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 4792) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution for Annexation of 830 Los Trancos Title: Council Adoption of a Resolution Determining Zero Property Tax Exchange on the Annexation of Lands of Bower and Shaw at 830 Los Trancos Road to the West Bay Sanitary District From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) making a determination of no property tax transfer from the City of Palo Alto to the West Bay Sanitary District. Executive Summary The Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties are jointly processing an annexation of one parcel to the West Bay Sanitary District. The District has territory in both Counties. The District is not party to the Master Tax Agreement between Santa Clara County and special districts and cities in the county because the District lies almost entirely within San Mateo County. The property seeking annexation is located in the City of Palo Alto. Therefore, the City of Palo Alto and the West Bay Sanitary District must negotiate a property tax exchange prior to San Mateo LAFCO’s final action on this proposal. In this instance, a zero property tax exchange is proposed. LAFCO of Santa Clara County has already heard this request and has forwarded a favorable recommendation to San Mateo LAFCO conditioned on the adoption of resolutions by the City of Palo Alto and the District negotiating a zero percent property exchange. Without Palo Alto’s assistance, San Mateo LAFCO cannot complete this annexation. Background The Santa Clara and San Mateo LAFCOs received an application to annex territory located within the city limits of Palo Alto to the West Bay Sanitary District. Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code requires that the affected agencies enter into negotiations regarding exchange of property tax revenue. West Bay Sanitary District is not requesting any portion of City of Palo Alto Page 2 property taxes received in the area. Nonetheless, the City of Palo Alto is required to adopt a Resolution of Zero Tax Exchange in order for the annexation application to be processed. The Santa Clara Council LAFCO discussed this annexation on April 2, 2014 (see Attachment B, LAFCO staff report). In March 2012, Council approved a Site and Design Review application for a new two story home on this site, as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission. The home and accessory structures are currently under construction in accordance with the building permit issued in September 2012. Discussion The owners of Assessor’s Parcel Number 182-36-031, a 9.43 acre parcel of land at 830 Los Trancos Road (see map in Attachment B), are requesting annexation to the West Bay Sanitary District in order to obtain sanitary sewer services. Several parcels within this area and within the Palo Alto city limits have previously annexed to West Bay Sanitary District. Since West Bay Sanitary District operates without tax revenues, there is no impact on property taxes. Timeline Palo Alto is required to act within 60 days of receipt of the notice (Attachment C), which occurred May 2, 2014. Resource Impact There is no impact to City services, staffing or revenues. Policy Implications This report does not represent any change to existing City policy. Environmental Review Annexation of pre-zoned lands to a special district is categorically exempt under Section 15319 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Class 19, Annexation of Existing Facilities and Lots for Exempt Facilities). Courtesy Copies Martha Poyatos, Executive Officer for San Mateo LAFCO Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer for LAFCO of Santa Clara County Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution (PDF) Attachment B: Local Agency Formation of Santa Clara County (PDF) Attachment C: Electronic Email from LAFCo Requesting City of Palo Alto Adopt Resolution Negotiating Zero Property Tax (DOCX) NOT YET APPROVED 140521 jb 0131205 1 Resolution No. ___ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Determination of Property Tax Exchange Pursuant to Provisions of Chapter 282, Section 59, Part .05, Implementing Article XIIIA of the California Constitution Commencing With Section 95, Division 1, or the Revenue and Taxation Code R E C I T A L S A. State law requires that the City of Palo Alto and the West Bay Sanitary District negotiate a property tax exchange relating to the proposed annexation of the Lands of Bower and Shaw (APN 182-36-031) to the West Bay Sanitary District. B. The City and the District have agreed there is no exchange of service responsibility in regard to sanitary sewer service relating to the proposed annexation. C. The subject determination has been made prior to and as a condition precedent to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission issuing the Certificate of Filing on said proposal. D. It has been agreed that no property tax revenue will be transferred from the City to the West Bay Sanitary District. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. No property tax shall be transferred from the City of Palo Alto to West Bay Sanitary District. SECTION 2. In accordance with Section 3a of Article XIIIB of the State Constitution, the appropriation limit of the West Bay Sanitary District shall not be increased based on this agreement. / / / / / / / / / / / / Attachment A NOT YET APPROVED 140521 jb 0131205 2 SECTION 3. The Council finds that this action is categorically exempt under Section 15312 of the Guidelines to the California Environmental Quality Act. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: ______________________________ ________________________________ City Clerk Mayor APROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ ________________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ________________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment LAFCO MEETING: April 2, 2014 TO: LAFCO FROM: Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer Dunia Noel, Analyst SUBJECT: WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) AMENDMENT AND ANNEXATION (830 Los Trancos Road) STAFF RECOMMENDATION CEQA ACTION 1.As Lead Agency under CEQA, determine that the proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15319 (a) and (b) and Section 15303(d). PROJECT ACTION Forward the following recommendation to the San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission, for its consideration: 2.Approve amendment of the West Bay Sanitary District’s sphere of influence (SOI) to include Assessor Parcel Number 182-36-031, as shown in Attachment A, and adopt SOI determinations. 3.Conditionally approve the annexation of Assessor Parcel Number 182-36-031, located at 830 Los Trancos Road in the City of Palo Alto, to the West Bay Sanitary District, as described and depicted in Attachment B (Exhibits A and B), provided: a.Resolutions of a zero percent property tax exchange reflecting the annexation of the parcel to the West Bay Sanitary District are adopted by the West Bay Sanitary District and the City of Palo Alto. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND LAFCO of Santa Clara County received an application, by landowner petition, to amend the Sphere of Influence of the West Bay Sanitary District (WBSD) to include Assessor Parcel Number 182-36-031 and to annex the parcel into the District in order to allow the District to provide sanitary sewer services to the parcel. The parcel consists of 9.43 acres and is located at 830 Los Trancos Road in the City of Palo Alto. The landowners are in ATTACHMENT B Page 2 of 6 the process of constructing a new 8,400 square foot single-family residence and pool on the property which would replace the now removed original residence. The property has steep slopes covered with oak trees. The property owners would like to abandon the existing septic system and connect to the District’s sanitary sewer system. Attachment A includes a map of the existing and proposed SOI boundaries. Attachment B (Exhibits A and B) describe and depict the boundaries of the proposed annexation. 2002 SOI Amendment and Annexation In 2002, the SOI for the District was amended to include four parcels along Arastradero Road and Los Trancos Road, and a total of fourteen parcels located near Los Trancos Creek were annexed to the District in order to address an environmental health problem for residences along Los Trancos Creek. At the time, the SOI boundary was defined primarily to include all parcels that were directly along the creek based on information obtained from the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department. The Department conducted surveys of the area and identified parcels that were likely to be underlain with high ground water and/or where available septic leachfield or leachfield expansion potential was limited due to parcel setback requirements. The current proposal seeks to include a parcel that is not directly along Los Trancos Creek. This parcel was not included in the District’s 2002 SOI Amendment request, but is adjacent to that area. Inter-LAFCO Agreement Pursuant to Government Code Section 56123, San Mateo LAFCO, as principal LAFCO for the West Bay Sanitary District, first received this SOI amendment and annexation application. Consistent with LAFCO of Santa Clara County’s “Policies and Procedures for Processing Proposals Affecting More than One County,” San Mateo LAFCO forwarded this application to LAFCO of Santa Clara County because the territory involved is located in Santa Clara County. LAFCO of Santa Clara County will hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to San Mateo LAFCO which will then take the final action at its own hearing. LAFCO of Santa Clara’s action is therefore only advisory in this matter. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Categorical Exemption LAFCO of Santa Clara County is a Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed SOI amendment and annexation to the West Bay Sanitary District. The proposed project is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15319(a) & (b) and Section 15303(d) that state: Section 15319: Class 19 consists of only the following annexations: Page 3 of 6 (a) Annexation to a city or special district of areas containing existing public or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or pre-zoning of either the gaining or losing governmental agency whichever is more restrictive, provided, however, that the extension of utility services to the existing facilities would have a capacity to serve only the existing facilities. (b) Annexation of individual small parcels of the minimum size for facilities exempted by Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Section 15303: Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures…The number of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include but are not limited to: (d) Water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of reasonable length to serve such construction. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT Effective January 1, 2001, the CKH Act of 2000 requires that a service review be conducted prior to the establishment or update of a SOI. As stated earlier, San Mateo LAFCO is the principal LAFCO for WBSD. In 2009, San Mateo LAFCO conducted and adopted a service review and SOI update for the District which included service review determinations and SOI determinations. In 2013, LAFCO of Santa Clara conducted and adopted a service review of the WBSD. However, Santa Clara LAFCO did not adopt service review determinations or SOI determinations for the WBSD because San Mateo LAFCO is the principal LAFCO for the District. Proposed Sphere of Influence Determinations In considering and recommending approval of this sphere of influence amendment, LAFCO of Santa Clara County must prepare a written statement of determinations with respect to each of the following: 1. The nature, location, extent, functions, and classes of services provided. West Bay Sanitary District provides sanitary sewer services and solid waste collection services to the City of Menlo Park, portions of the Cities of East Palo Alto and Redwood City, the Towns of Atherton, Woodside, and Portola Valley, portions of unincorporated south San Mateo County, and several parcels in Santa Clara County near Los Trancos Creek. 2. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. The subject parcel is located in the City of Palo Alto and is designated Open Space/Controlled Development in the City’s General Plan. This land use designation Page 4 of 6 includes residential uses. A new single-family residence and pool is being constructed on the parcel. No change in land uses are proposed or planned for the parcel. The parcel does not include agricultural and open space lands as defined in the CKH Act. 3. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. The subject parcel is located in the City of Palo Alto and the property owners are in the process of constructing a new single-family residence on the parcel. The parcel originally had a residence on it which was served by a septic system. The property owners would like to connect their new residence to the WBSD’s sewer system that is located nearby. The City of Palo Alto provides water and police services to the subject parcel. 4. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. The West Bay Sanitary District has the ability to provide sanitary sewer services to the subject parcel. The District’s present capacity of public facilities and services is adequate. 5. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. The parcel is located in the City of Palo Alto, but access to the parcel is through the Town of Portola Valley which is served by the West Bay Sanitary District. The parcel and surrounding rural estates are separated from other neighborhoods in Santa Clara County by open space preserves and parklands. 6. Present and probable need for water, wastewater, and structural fire protection facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. There are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the District’s service area in Santa Clara County based upon mapping information provided by the State of California Department of Water Resources. It is anticipated that San Mateo LAFCO will make a determination concerning disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the District’s existing sphere of influence in Santa Mateo County. CONSISTENCY WITH LAFCO FACTORS AND POLICIES Impacts to Prime Agricultural Lands and Open Space The subject parcels are not under a Williamson Act Contract and do not contain open space or prime agricultural lands as defined in the Cortese Knox Hertzberg Act. Therefore the proposed SOI amendment and annexation will not impact agricultural or open space lands. Page 5 of 6 Logical, Orderly and Efficient Boundaries The proposed expansion is contiguous to the District’s boundary and SOI. The subject parcel is located in the City of Palo Alto, but located outside of the City’s Urban Service Area Boundary. The City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department has approved the construction of a new single-family residence on the property to be served by a septic system, as City sanitary sewer services are not available in this area. However, the Department indicated that they do not have an issue with the proposed SOI amendment and annexation which would allow the parcel to receive sanitary sewer services from the WBSD. Public Health and Safety Issues The County’s Department of Environmental Health (DEH) issues septic system permits and oversees system installations and repairs for properties in Santa Clara County, including those within cities. DEH staff indicated that they have approved “as-built plans” for a septic system on the subject parcel and noted that the site is very steep and densely covered with oak trees. DEH staff also stated that they are not aware of any existing public health and safety issues associated with the site. Growth Inducing Impacts The subject parcel is approximately 9.43 acres in size and is located within the City of Palo Alto. The landowners are in the process of constructing a new single-family residence and would like to abandon their existing septic system and receive sanitary sewer services from the WBSD. The parcel has a City of Palo Alto land use designation of Open Space/Controlled Development and is zoned OS (open space) with a 10 acre minimum lot size requirement. The parcel is not eligible for further subdivision due to its size. Further development of the parcel would be subject to the City of Palo Alto’s development regulations. Directly to the north and west of the subject parcel are unincorporated lands that are already within the WBSD. Directly northeast of the parcel is the City of Palo Alto’s Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Directly south of the parcel are several rural estates which are located within the City of Palo Alto and served by septic systems. Including the subject parcel in WBSD’s SOI and annexing the parcel to the District will allow the District to provide sanitary sewer services to the property. As a result, new sewer infrastructure would be extended closer to these rural estates and could potentially lead to additional landowners seeking sanitary sewer services from the District. However, these remaining parcels are zoned OS (Open Space) and are not eligible for further subdivision due to their size. Ability of District to Provide Services WBSD has indicated that it has adequate sewer capacity to provide sanitary sewer services to the subject parcel without detracting from the existing service levels within the District. As such, the overall impact on services is minimal. Page 6 of 6 According to the WBSD, the owners of APN 182-36-031 will have to install a new privately maintained sewer lateral in order to serve the subject parcel. The new 4-inch lateral will be approximately 800 feet in length and will serve only the subject parcel. While half of the sewer lateral will be constructed on the subject parcel, the remaining 400 feet will be constructed in an existing sanitary sewer easement located on a neighboring parcel. The new lateral will connect to the terminus of the District’s existing sewer main. Property Tax Exchange The West Bay Sanitary District is not party to the Master Tax Agreement between Santa Clara County and special districts and cities in the county because the District lies almost entirely within San Mateo County. The subject parcel is located in the City of Palo Alto. Therefore, resolutions negotiating a zero percent property tax exchange are required to be adopted by the City of Palo Alto and the WBSD prior to San Mateo LAFCO’s final action on this proposal. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS The owners of APN 182-36-031 are in the process of constructing a new single-family residence and would like to abandon an existing septic system and connect the new residence to the District’s nearby sanitary sewer system. The District has the capacity to provide sanitary sewer services to the subject parcel without detracting from the existing service levels within the District. The owners of the subject parcel have agreed to construct a new sewer lateral which will connect the residence to the District’s existing sewer main. The subject parcel is located in the City of Palo Alto and due to its zoning designation and size, cannot be further subdivided. The project has no significant growth inducing impacts or negative impacts on agricultural or open space resources in the area. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the amendment of WBSD’s SOI to include APN 182-36-031 and the annexation of the subject parcel to the District. If directed by LAFCO, staff will forward this recommendation to San Mateo LAFCO for their consideration and final action. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Map of West Bay Sanitary District’s Existing and Proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment Boundary and subject parcel Attachment B: Legal Description (Exhibit A) and Map (Exhibit B) of Proposed Annexation to the West Bay Sanitary District LOS TRANCOS RD P ALOALTO FOOTHI L L S P A R K West Bay Sanitary District County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development Office of the County Surveyor County Government Center, East Wing 70 West Hedding Street, 7th Floor San Jose, California 95110 TITLE: LEGEND: West Bay Sanitary District Sphere of 9.43 Acres ± Prepared by the Office of the County Surveyor November 7, 2012 Gwendolyn Gee, County Surveyor City of Palo Alto Sheet 1 of 1. 0 50 100 150 200 Feet S ANTA C L ARA 1850 THE C O UNTY O F Proposed Annexation Area Assessor's Parcel Number 182-36-031 Existing West Bay Sanitary S.O.I. Boundary Proposed West Bay Sanitary S.O.I. Boundary Influence Amendment and Annexation 2012-01 City of Palo Alto 182-36-031 County Boundary LOS TRANCOS CREEK LOSTRANCOS C R E E K LOSTRANCOSCREEK Attachment C From: "Noel, Dunia" <Dunia.Noel@ceo.sccgov.org<mailto:Dunia.Noel@ceo.sccgov.org>> To: "Whitley, Katie" <Katie.Whitley@CityofPaloAlto.org<mailto:Katie.Whitley@CityofPaloAlto.org>> Cc: "Keene, James" <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org<mailto:James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>> Subject: FW: Requesting City of Palo Alto Adopt Resolution Negotiating Zero Property Tax Exchange for Annexation of a Single Parcel to the West Bay Sanitary District Ms. Whitley, Per Ms. Antil’s automatic reply email, I am contacting you to request your assistance. Please see my email below for specifics. From: Noel, Dunia Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:23 PM To: 'pamela.antil@cityofpaloalto.org<mailto:pamela.antil@cityofpaloalto.org>' Cc: 'james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org<mailto:james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>' Subject: Requesting City of Palo Alto Adopt Resolution Negotiating Zero Property Tax Exchange for Annexation of a Single Parcel to the West Bay Sanitary District Ms. Antil, I am contacting you on behalf Martha Poyatos (Executive Officer for San Mateo LAFCO) and Neelima Palacherla (Executive Officer for LAFCO of Santa Clara County). The two LAFCOs are jointly processing an annexation of one parcel to the West Bay Sanitary District (the District has territory in both Counties). The District is not party to the Master Tax Agreement between Santa Clara County and special districts and cities in the county because the District lies almost entirely within San Mateo County. The property seeking annexation is located in the City of Palo Alto. Therefore, resolutions negotiating a zero property tax exchange are required to be adopted by the City of Palo Alto and West Bay Sanitary District prior to San Mateo LAFCO’s final action on this proposal. LAFCO of Santa Clara County has already heard this request and has forwarded a favorable recommendation to San Mateo LAFCO conditioned on the adoption of resolutions by the City of Palo Alto and the District negotiating a zero percent property exchange. I am contacting you to request your assistance in completing this part of the process. Without your assistance, San Mateo LAFCO cannot complete this annexation. I have attached the applicable LAFCO staff report, and a Palo City Manager staff report and City Resolution on a similar project from 2002 as a guide. Please confirm the City’s plans and timeline for addressing this request. If you have any questions, please feel to email me or give me a call. Thank you for your time and prompt assistance on this matter. P.S. We have another annexation to the District moving forward that might need a similar treatment. Once the application is deemed complete for processing, we will let you know if a similar City Resolution is also required. _________________________ Dunia Noel, Analyst LAFCO of Santa Clara County 70 West Hedding Street 11th Floor, East Wing San Jose CA 95110 Ph: (408) 299-5148 Fax: (408) 295-1613 www.santaclara.lafco.ca.gov<http://www.santaclara.lafco.ca.gov><http://www.santaclara.lafco.c a.gov/> CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 2, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Adoption of a Resolution Calling a General Municipal Election- Tuesday, November 4, 2014 RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve Resolution Calling a General Municipal Election for Five Council Seats for November 4, 2014 BACKGROUND: Attached is a resolution calling a General Municipal Election for five Council Members on November 4, 2014, requesting the services of the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (Registrar), and requesting consolidation of the General Municipal Election with any other election called for this jurisdiction for that date. In addition, the City Clerk recommends eliminating the requirement that the order of candidates’ names be determined by lot (Charter Art. VII, Sec. 3). Therefore, Palo Alto would follow the random name order set for each election by the Secretary of State. The Council Member offices subject to election on November 4, 2014, are those currently held by Council Members Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff and Shepherd. The Registrar estimates that this election will cost approximately $105,000. There are additional costs that the City Clerk will incur for public notices for approximately $7,500. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 2014 GME final (DOC) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 1 Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Calling a General Municipal Election of Five Council Members, Requesting the Services of the Registrar of Voters, and Ordering the Consolidation of the Election R E C I T A L S A. Article III, Section 3, of the Palo Alto City Charter requires that a general municipal election for election of council members be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even-numbered year, that is, November 4, 2014; and B. A statewide election is scheduled to be held on November 4, 2014; elections in certain school districts and special districts in Santa Clara County are also scheduled to be held on that date; and C. Under Part 3 of Division 10 of the Elections Code, beginning at Section 10400, and Education Code Section 5342, elections called by various governing bodies may be partially or completely consolidated; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Call of Election. A general municipal election is called for the City of Palo Alto to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, for the purpose of electing five (5) council members for full terms (four years). SECTION 2. Request to Consolidate. The Council of the City of Palo Alto requests the governing body of the state and any other political subdivision, or any officers otherwise authorized by law, to partially or completely consolidate such elections and the City Council consents to such consolidation. The Council acknowledges that the election will be held and conducted according to procedures in the Elections Code, including Section 10418. SECTION 3. Request for County Services. Under Section 10002 of the California Elections Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County to permit the Registrar of Voters to render services to the City of Palo Alto relating to the conduct of Palo Alto’s General Municipal and Special Elections which are called to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. The services shall be of the type normally performed by the Registrar of Voters in assisting the clerks of municipalities in the conduct of elections, including but not limited to checking registrations, mailing ballots, hiring election officers and arranging for polling places, receiving absentee voter ballot applications, mailing and receiving absent voter ballots and opening and counting same, providing and distributing election supplies, and furnishing voting machines. SECTION 4. Consolidation of Measures. The Council of the City of Palo Alto 2 requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County to include on the ballots and sample ballots, all qualified measures submitted by the City Council to be ratified by the qualified electors of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 5. Duties of City Clerk. The Palo Alto City Clerk shall do all things required by law to effectuate the November 4, 2014, general municipal election, including but not limited to causing the posting, publication and printing of all notices or other election materials under the requirements of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the California Elections and Government Codes. SECTION 6. Contract Authority. Subject to approval of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County, the City Clerk may engage the services of the Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara to aid in the conduct of the November 4, 2014, election including canvassing the returns of that election. The Palo Alto Director of Administrative Services shall pay the cost of contracted services provided that no payment shall be made for services which the Registrar of Voters is otherwise required by law to perform. SECTION 7. Transmittal of Resolution. The City Clerk shall submit a certified copy of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara. SECTION 8. CEQA. The Council finds that this resolution does not constitute a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act under Public Resources Code section 21065 or CEQA Guidelines section 15378. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 4828) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Park Improvement Ordinance Mitchell Park, Magical Bridge Playground Title: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance Adopting a Plan of Improvements for the Magical Bridge Playground Project at Mitchell Park From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that Council adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) Adopting a Plan of Improvements for the Magical Bridge Playground Project at Mitchell Park (Attachment A). Background A PIO is required whenever any substantial building or construction project may affect the use, protection or enjoyment of parks or open space lands.Please refer to the Council approval of consent items 5a and 5b on May 19, 2014 for background and project details.Staff report #3865 (Attachment B; report without attachments) provided a detailed description of the project, including the PIO. Council was not able to consider approval of the PIO on May 19, 2014 because the PIO consideration had not been appropriately noticed. Discussion The proposed playground design is composed of seven play zones, with each zone focusing on a specific type of play. They include: sliding, swinging, spinning, tot- lot, music, natural play and open play area. The Parks and Recreation Commission and staff recommend adoption of the PIO (Attachment A),reflecting these playground improvements. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Resource Impact Adoption of the PIO has no impact on resources. Policy Implications The construction of the Magical Bridge Playground Project will be consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy C-22, which encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C) has been prepared and circulated, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and was adopted by the Director of Planning and Community Environment on May 17, 2014. Attachments: ·A -00710373 ORDN PIO Mitchell Park Magical Bridge Playground (PDF) ·B -Staff Report ID# 3865 (PDF) ·C -Adopted MND for Magical Bridge (PDF) 140416 dm 00710373 *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Mitchell Park The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that: (a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefore. (b) Mitchell Park is dedicated to park, playground, and recreational space. (c) The City intends to authorize the construction of certain park improvements within 0.8 acres of Mitchell Park, referred to a The Magical Bridge Playground, as shown on the Magical Bridge Landscape Improvement Plan (the “Plan”), attached as Exhibit “A,” including: (1) Installation of new inclusive playground and associated equipment; (2) Installation of new accessible walkway and railings; (3) Installation of irrigation, landscaping and trees; (4) Installation of lighting; (5) Installation of bike racks, benches, picnic tables and other amenities; and (6) Installation of a prefabricated pedestrian/bike bridge (d) The Project will be constructed in a manner as to avoid protected trees and other sensitive natural resources, if any. In addition, the existing park uses will be restored following the completion of construction of the Project. (e) The Project is consistent with park and recreation purposes. (f) The Council desires to approve the Project, described above and as more specifically described in the attached Plan. SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for the construction of the improvements at Mitchell Park, and it hereby adopts the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A,” as part of the official plan for the construction of the park improvements at Mitchell Park. 140416 dm 00710373 SECTION 3. The Council finds that the project to construct the facilities at Mitchell Park is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. A draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared and circulated on April16, 2014. SECTION 4. 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 Community Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services 140416 dm 00710373 Exhibit “A” The Magical Bridge Landscape Improvement Plan EXHIBIT ' --,.-.--.. -.. -,---....._ . .. - _ .... _- --• ---;"""""". -.. -.. -.-." "-:.:::.::: -----=-~ Magical Bridge Playground Plan ----. _. --::..--~ -----'--- , ="-=--:.::-.:.:::::=-.-= ._---_.---------- • -- • -- Recommendation Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that Council: 1) Adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance for the Magical Bridge Playground Project of Park Facilities and Other improvements (Attachment A); Staff recommends that Council: 2) Approve the Design, Construction and Funding Agreement for the Magical Bridge Playground Project of Park Facilities and Other improvements in Mitchell Park (Attachment B); and 3) Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 to provide an additional appropriation in the amount of $1,874,182 for the Magical Bridge Playground capital project (PG-12006) and $30,000 for the Art in Public Places capital project (AC-86017) and to recognize a Transportation Development Act (TDA) grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the amount of $82,712 and contributions from the Friends of the Magical Bridge, LLC in the amount of $2,821,471. (Attachment C) Background In June 2007, the Friends of the Magical Bridge (Friends) founder, Olenka Villarreal, approached staff about the need for a universally accessible children’s playground in Palo Alto. Ms. Villarreal pointed out that playground accessibility in Palo Alto is limited and does not accommodate persons of varying disabilities. She mentioned that the Palo Alto Unified School District has an excellent program for those with special needs, and that there are more than 1,500 children in Palo Alto that have developmental, sight, hearing, balance or autistic challenges that require special play equipment and access. Ms. Villarreal shared the stories of her own daughter and those of other parents whose children or themselves are unable to play at city playgrounds. In April and July 2008, the Friends made presentations to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) on the concept of a new universally accessible children’s playground at the southern portion of Mitchell Park. On July 22, 2008, the PRC and staff concurred that the project would be compatible with the Mitchell Park Master Plan and recommended to the City Council that a joint venture between the City and Friends to construct a universally accessible playground be adopted. On June 20, 2011, Council approved an appropriation of $1,300,000 to fund the Magical Bridge project CIP (PE-12013). A letter of intent between the City and the Friends specified that $300,000 of the appropriation would be the City’s contribution to the project for design and construction services. The remaining $1,000,000 was intended for construction, and was to be reimbursed by the friends following their fundraising efforts. The City’s financial contribution to the project is capped at $300,000. Design Process The design process for the Magical Bridge Playground started in February of 2012 with Landscape Architect consultant, Royston Hanamoto Alley and Abey (RHAA), in conjunction with Friends and City staff. RHAA was responsible for the initial design of Mitchell Park in the mid 1950’s and brings many years of experience to the project. The following steps describe the design process: 1. A design workshop between the Friends, City staff and RHAA (design team) resulted in two initial playground designs incorporating playground elements from the Friends’ compiled list of needs. 2. The initial two designs were presented at a community meeting in March 2012. The general response toward both plans was positive. 3. PRC and Architectural Review Board (ARB) study sessions for the two designs were held in April 2012. 4. Following the community, PRC and ARB meetings, a singular conceptual design was created, incorporating many identified needs and the public comments received. This conceptual design served as a master plan and vision for the site with a total project budget of approximately $4 million. 5. The conceptual design was presented to the Palo Alto Bike Advisory Committee (PABAC) in April 2012 and to the City/School Traffic Safety Committee in May 2012. 6. A second community meeting was held on June 2012. The design concept was well-received at the meeting. 7. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) approved an allocation in Spring 2013 of $82,712 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for pathway improvements that improve access to the playground and across the Adobe Creek Bridge. 8. After several months of fund raising, the Friends set a project budget in May 2013 of $3.7 million for the playground. 9. A revised design meeting the $3.7 million budget was presented at a third community meeting on March 1, 2014. The revised plan was well received. 10. The plan was presented to the PRC on March 25. All Commissioners were in favor of the project. 11. A meeting with (PABAC) was held on April 3, 2014 to review the updated design and discuss alternate routes for the pathway while during construction. PABAC was very supportive of the project. 12. A Notice of Intent to circulate the initial environmental study in April 16, 2014 was posted at the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office and the State Clearing House. 13. An ARB meeting was held on April 17, 2014. The plan was approved with conditions to return with additional information on the design of the playhouse, lighting and signage. 14. A PRC meeting was held on April 22, 2014 to review the park improvements as part of the Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO). The recommendation to Council to approve the PIO passed unanimously. 15. An ARB meeting was held on May 1, 2014 to discuss the treehouse, lighting and signage. The ARB approved these elements. Fund Raising Progress Upon the completion of the conceptual designs in July 2012, the Friends developed marketing materials and launched a fund raising campaign in October 2012. The Friends have been actively fund raising towards the $3.7 projected cost of completing the project. The Friends have a combination of $3.5 million in funding and pledges, and are close to achieving their fund raising goal. Per the agreement between the Friends and the City; the Friends will deliver the initial contribution of $2,500,000 to the City within 30 days of the approved agreement, and the second contribution of $321,470 within 90 days of the approved agreement. In March 2014, at the request of the Friends of the Magical Bridge, City Manager Jim Keene appealed to the Santa Clara County Supervisor and former Palo Alto Mayor Joseph Simitian for his support of a $150,000 appropriation from the Santa Clara County Parks Charter fund towards the Magical Bridge Project (See related staff report 4782. The City has also been awarded a Transportation Development Act (TDA) grant from MTC in the amount of $82,712 for pathway and bridge improvements that will focus on renovation of the existing pedestrian/bike path connecting Mitchell Park to Charleston Road. Improvements will address repaving of the existing walkway and renovations to the existing bridge across Adobe Creek that links the main portion of Mitchell Park with the area designated for the construction of the Magical Bridge Playground. These improvements include meeting the American Disability Act (ADA) for access to the bridge, which the current access ramps to the bridge do not meet as well as minor repairs to the bridge including replacement of wood planks and new handrails. The work associated with the TDA grant will be performed by the Friends’ contractor constructing the playground and is covered in the agreement between the Friends and the City. Discussion The proposed playground design is composed of seven play zones, with each zone focusing on a specific type of play. They include: sliding, swinging, spinning, tot- lot, music, natural play and open play area. Defining separate zones dedicated to one specific type of play is an important factor separating and elevating the playgrounds design over other inclusive playgrounds that have been constructed previously. Containing multiple pieces of play equipment, each zone allows users of all physical and cognoscente abilities to experience that specific play activity. Another distinct element of the playground includes areas of retreat in each play zone. These retreats allow users to observe and gain comfort with a play activity or to step away from the activity to calm down or rest. Other elements of the playground that are distinct to its inclusive design goal include: A fully accessible elevated tree walk, interactive music elements, adult exercise opportunities, contrasting paving textures (rubberized paving and concrete paving) and colors between walkways and play zones to clearly demarcate each play area, defined entry points to each play zone to direct access away from active play, play zone signage that includes braille, and a natural play area. Play equipment used in the play zones are provided by multiple vendors and represent the newest and most innovative inclusive products on the market. The PRC and staff is recommending approval of the PIO (Attachment A) reflecting these playground improvements. Access and Bridge Design Access to the site is provided by the Charleston Connection Corridor (pathway) Project, a major bike path, which enters the site in the southeast corner, parallels the existing tennis courts and crosses over Adobe Creek via an existing arched, glue-laminated timber bridge to connect to the greater Mitchell Park. The existing bridge approaches have slopes up to 12 percent, which exceed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility standard of 8.33 percent. In addition, an evaluation of the existing bridge identified some deterioration of the physical condition of the wood and steel elements of the bridge. These bridge elements will be repaired including painting and deck replacement. New railings and retaining walls will support the new ADA-compliant ramps leading to the bridge from both directions. As part of the proposed project, the existing bridge would be removed and replaced with an ADA-compliant structure should funds be available in the future. A secondary entrance located in the northeast corner of the project site provides access from the adjacent private property. This private property is currently occupied by Abilities United, who will partner with Friends of the Magical Bridge to supervise the playground after construction. Agreement Staff is recommending approval of the Agreement between the Friends and the City (Attachment B) and a BAO to fund the project (Attachment C). Staff has worked cooperatively with the Friends to develop an agreement and right-of- entry to provide the Friends’ construction contractor exclusive access to the full designated playground site in Mitchell Park for construction purposes. The agreement specifies policy and procedural guidelines for the Friends of the Magical Bridge to follow regarding design, construction, safety, liability and payment details. The agreement follows similar successful public/private partnership agreements that provide for authorized non-profit organizations to manage the improvements of City facilities. Other examples of such partnerships include the construction of the Heritage Park children’s playground, the Children’s Theatre construction of the Magical Castle, and the renovation of the Palo Alto Art Center. The Friends have solicited bids from qualified and State-licensed contractors. The selected contractor will be responsible for providing insurance and will indemnify the City and the Friends against certain risks. The insurance required is similar to the level of protection normally required for City public works construction projects. The contractor will also be responsible for meeting the requirements of the TDA grant’s prevailing wage criteria associated with the existing pathway and bridge renovation work as outlined in the agreement. The Friends have provided a proposed budget (Exhibit B) and construction timeline (Exhibit C) for the project. Once the agreement is signed and approved, and all requirements met, the Friends will obtain the necessary building permits from the City and commence with construction in June of 2014. The City’s Building Inspection Division will inspect the progress of the construction in order to ensure that the project is constructed safely and competently according to all codes and specifications. All construction work will be coordinated with the Utility Department, local schools and neighborhood to ensure that any impacts to infrastructure and to Mitchell Park access are limited. If for any reason the Friends are unable to satisfactorily complete the project, the retained dedicated funds for the project will be used to allow the City to complete the project according to plans. According to the agreement, the Friends will provide the City an initial payment for $2,500,000 before the construction begins. The Friends have the option to provide a second payment of $321,470 to complete phase two improvements within 90 days after Council approval of the agreement. This payment structure provides flexibility to proceed with the project in phases while the Friends collect the total project funding, if necessary. City staff has worked with the friends to identify $321,470 in phase two construction work that could be excluded from the project without significantly impacting the final playground if the Friends were unable to complete all of the fundraising. This ensures that the City would not be obligated to use City funds beyond the original $300,000 commitment to complete the project in that event. In addition to the Phase one and two payments to the City totaling $2,821,470, the Friends have purchased equipment for the playground at a cost of $342,876. While this expense is part of the total cost of the project, it is separate from the payments to the City and therefore is not reflected in the CIP budget and BAO. 2014 Tentative Timeline ARB approved project with conditions April 24 100% construction drawings/submit for permits May 8 ARB consent item for playhouse and signage May 15 MND circulation period ends May 16 Council approval of agreement, PIO, and BAO May 19 Complete ARB 14 day appeal period May 31 2nd reading of PIO, begin 30-day appeal period June 2 Friends to obtain building permits June 12 Construction start for pathway near June 12 Charleston road Public Ceremony 11:00 am June 23 Complete Charleston Connection Corridor August 18 Complete construction of playground October/November Resource Impact In fiscal year 2012 Council approved the appropriation of $1,300,000 to the Magical Bridge project (PE-12013), with an understanding that the Friends of the Magical Playground would be raising $1,300,000 as their contribution to the design and construction of the project as outlined in the letter of intent. The Friends now have commitments up to $3.5M. The City Council had already approved the appropriation of $1,300,000 to the project in Fiscal Year 2012. BAOs are necessary to accept and approve the funding contribution from the Friends of the Magical Playground in the amount of $2,821,471, the TDA grant in the amount of $82,712 and the Santa Clara County Park Charter Funds of $150,000. The BAO amount recommended as part of this staff report is $1,904,182. Of this amount, $1,874,182 is recommended to be added to the Magical Bridge Playground capital project, with the remainder ($30,000) recommended to be added to the Art in Public Places capital project (AC-86017) for public art associated with the project. It should be noted that the BAO to recognize the Santa Clara County Park Charter Funds is included as part of a separate staff report, also scheduled to be considered by the City Council on May 19, 2014. Project Costs and Funding Summary: Itemized Breakdown of Project Costs Design & Structural Services $323,436 Playground Construction $3,023,381 10% Contingency (design and construction) $334,682 TOTAL: $3,681,499 Funding Contribution from Friends of the Magical Bridge, 1st deposit $2,500,000 Contribution from Friends of the Magical Bridge, 2nd deposit $321,471 Donated Design & Structural Services $234,475 Friends Equipment Purchase $342,876 TDA Grant $82,712 City TDA local match (from $300,000)* $49,965 Santa Clara County Park Charter funds $150,000 TOTAL: $3,681,499 BAO Funding Contribution from Friends of the Magical Bridge, 1st deposit $2,500,000 Contribution from Friends of the Magical Bridge, 2nd deposit $321,471 TDA Grant $82,712 Santa Clara County Park Charter funds $150,000 TOTAL CONTRIBUTED FUNDS: $3,054,183 Funds previously appropriated in the CIP (PG-12006) for Construction purposes $1,000,000 TOTAL REQUESTED BAOs: $2,054,183 *The City’s funding contribution to the Magical Bridge project is $300,000. This funding was appropriated as part of the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget. The above table does not reflect the entire $300,000 contribution. The $300,000 contribution will be utilized for multiple purposes, including but not limited to public art, grant matching funds, testing, and design work, as outlined in Exhibit C of this report. The total additional funding for this project in the amount of $2,054,183 is recommended to be approved with two Budget Amendment Ordinances attached to two related City Manager Reports as described in the table below. May 19, 2014 Magical Bridge Budget Amendment Ordinances City Manager Report #3865 (TDA and Friends of the Magical Bridge) $1,874,183 City Manager Report #3865 (Art in Public Places) $30,000 City Manager Report #4782 (Santa Clara County Grant) $150,000 Total BAO amounts, City Manager Reports #3865 and #4782 $2,054,183 The annual cost for maintaining and operating the playground is currently estimated at $8,500. Policy Implications This project is consistent with the City’s approved public/private partnership policy as a “joint partnership project.” The proposed project is consistent with existing City policy, including Policy C-26: To maintain and enhance existing park facilities. Environmental Review An Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the subject project and the documents were circulated for public review from April 16, 2014 to May 16, 2014. These documents can be reviewed on the City’s website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/planningprojects. The primary environmental issues addressed in the Initial Study include: air quality, biologic resources, and cultural resources. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment D) has been prepared, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has been recommended for Council approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The Director will approve the Architectural Review application on May 16 which will start the 14-day appeal period. If no appeal is filed, the approval will become effective prior to the second reading of the PIO scheduled for June 2. City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: April 4, 2014 Project Name: Magical Bridge playground Project Location: The project site is located within the southeast portion of J. Pearce Mitchell Park (Mitchell Park), an existing 2l-acre City park located at 600 East Meadow Drive in the City of Palo Alto (City), Santa Clara County, California. The project area is bounded by Mitchell Park to the north and west, existing tennis courts and Abilities United to the east, and Herbert Hoover Elementary School and the Universalist Unitarian Church to the south. Lead Agency Contact: Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Project Proponent: Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works Peter.jensen@cityofpaloalto.org Project Description: The City of Palo Alto in collaboration with the community based non-profit group The Friends of the Magical Bridge have formed a partnership to design and build a playground fully inclusive of all user groups in the community. This would be the first such playground in the Nation. The playground is proposed in an underutilized area of Mitchell Park and is approximately 0.8 acres in size. The proposed playground design is composed of seven play zones, with each zone focusing on a specific type of play. Access to the site is provided by the Charleston access pathway, a major bike path, which parallels the existing tennis courts and crosses over Adobe Creek via an existing bridge. As part of the proposed project, the existing bridge would be removed and replaced with an ADA-compliant structure. II. DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procednres for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: x The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case becanse mitigation measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. em In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project: Air Quality~l: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following actions shall be required of all construction contracts and specifications for the project site: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least onc.e per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. Page 2 of5 Biology-Ia: All potential roosting trees within the project site shall be surveyed for the presence of bat roosts by a qualified biologist. The survey may entail direct inspection of the trees, bridge, or creek banks or nocturnal surveys, and shall be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of tree/bridge removal and ground disturbing activities. If no roosting sites are present, then the trees and existing bridge shall be removed within two weeks following the survey. Biology-Ib: If roosting sites are present and occupied, then a qualified biologist shall determine the species of bats present. If the bats are not found to be pallid bats or any other special-status bat species, then the bats may be evicted from roosts that are to be removed using methods developed by a biologist experienced in bat mitigation and exclusion plans. The biologist shall prepare an eviction plan detailing the methods of excluding bats from the roost(s) and the methods to be used to secure the existing roost site(s) to prevent its reuse prior to removal. Removal of the roost(s) shall only occur after the eviction plan has been approved by the California Department offish and Wildlife (CDFW). Biology-Ie: Tree removal near roost trees shall be conducted without damaging the roost trees. Biology-Id: No diesel or gas-powered equipment shall be stored or operated directly beneath a roost site. Biology-2a: For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (February I through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys no more than 15 days prior to tree pruning, tree removal, ground disturbing activities, or construction activities to locate active nests on or immediately adjacent to the project site. If construction activities are delayed, additional preconstruction surveys, at 15 day intervals, shall be completed until construction is initiated. Biology-2b: If nesting birds are identified on the project site, the locations of active nests shall be noted on the construction drawings and protective measures implemented. Protective measures shall include establishment of clearly delineated (i.e., orange construction fencing) exclusion zones around each nest site. Each exclusion zone shall have a 300-foot radius centered on the nest tree for raptor nests and a 50- foot radius centered on the nest for other birds. Active nest sites shall be monitored periodically throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance. These protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active. Exclusion zones may be reduced in size, if in consultation with the CDFW, a smaller exclusion zone is determined to adequately protect the active nest. Upon completion of construction activities, a report detailing the results of the preconstruction surveys and monitoring shall be prepared and submitted to the City and CDFW. Cultural-I: If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until the archaeologist assesses the finds, consults with agencies as appropriate, and makes recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Adverse effects on such deposits shall be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. Ifthe deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits shall be avoided or mitigated. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report to document the methods and results of the assessment and to provide recommendations for the treatment of the archaeological materials discovered. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15 I 26.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at Page 3 of5 a curation facility. The report shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University within five calendar days of completion of the resource assessment. To address the possibility that archaeological materials may be discovered during project activities when an archaeologist is not on site, the applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the archaeological sensitivity of the entire project site by including the following directive in contract documents: "If prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel should not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. Archaeological resources can include flaked- stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat- affected rock, ash and charcoal, shelifish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and stone- milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Prehistoric archaeological sites often contain human remains. Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls, and other structural remains; debris-ftlled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, metal, and other refuse. " The City of Palo Alto shall verifY that the above language has been included in contract documents before issuance of the grading permit. Cultural-2: If paleontological resources are discovered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until the paleontological monitor has assessed the situation and made recommendations regarding their treatment. It is recommended that adverse effects on paleontological resources be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the. paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. Paleontological resources are considered significant if they possess the possibility of providing new information regarding past life forms, paleoecology, stratigraphy, and geological formation processes. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, they must be avoided, or any impacts must be mitigated. Mitigation may include monitoring of project ground-disturbing activities, recording of the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a technical data recovery report, and accessioning of the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. To document compliance with the mitigation, a report of findings with an appended, itemized inventory of specimens (as appropriate) shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Palo Alto and an appropriate repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology within 90 calendar days of completion of the paleontological monitoring. Cultural-3: Any human remains encountered during project ground-disturbing activities shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the possibility of encountering human remains by including the following directive in contract documents: "If human remains are uncovered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted-if one is not already on site-to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descenaant to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. " Page 4 of5 The City of Palo Alto shall verity that the above language has been included in contract documents before issuing the grading permit. Upon completion oftbe assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of tbe human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the Most Likely Descendent. The report shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University. preparedb~~ L{ /I~/ IL/ Date CA(c..tI~ Adopted by Dire . g and Community Environment Signed after the itigated Negative Declaration has been approved WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THE INITIAL STUDY AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT DESCRIBED ABOVE AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED THEREIN. Page 5 of5 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 2, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code to Change the Regular Meeting Start Time from 7:00pm to 6:00pm; Amend the Council’s Procedures to Reflect the 6:00pm Meeting Start Time This is a second reading of the Ordinance, there were no changes during the passing of the first reading. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Ordinance Changing Council Meeting Start Time (PDF) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 *NOT YET APPROVED* 140512 sh 0140099 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.04.010 (Regular Meeting) of Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Change the City Council Meeting Start Time from Seven p.m. to Six p.m. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: (a) The Palo Alto Charter states that the Council shall set a time and place for its regular meetings. (Charter, Art. III, Section 5.) For many years, the Municipal Code has provided that the regular meeting time is the first three Mondays of each month beginning at seven p.m. (Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.04.010.); (b) In recent years, it has been common for Council meetings to begin at six p.m. or even earlier. Such meetings are noticed as “special meetings” as required by state and local law. (Cal. Govt. Code sections 54954, 54956; PAMC section 2.04.020; Palo Alto City Council Procedures, section 2.4(Q), p. 13.); and (c) Council now wishes to amend the Municipal Code to provide that the regular meeting time be the first three Mondays of each month beginning at six p.m. Meetings noticed for other times will be designated “special meetings.” SECTION 2. Section 2.04.010 (Regular Meeting) of Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.04.010 Definitions (a) The council of the city shall hold regular meetings on the first three Mondays of each month, at sevensix p.m. in the council chambers of the City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, in said city unless the council chambers shall be determined by a majority vote of the council to be inadequate or unavailable for a meeting, in which event the council may designate some other suitable place in the city for the conduct of the meeting. The determination to hold the meeting at a place other than the council chambers may be made by the mayor prior to the regular meeting date; provided, that notice of the change in place for conduct of the meeting shall be published prior to the meeting in a newspaper of general circulation published in the city, setting forth the reasons for the change, and a copy of the notice shall be posted on the council chamber door for at least twenty-four hours prior to the time scheduled for the meeting and during the meeting. If the council adjourns its meeting from the council chambers *NOT YET APPROVED* 140512 sh 0140099 2 to another place, notice to adjourn and the new place for holding the meeting shall be posted on the council chamber door during the time the meeting is being held. (b) Each year, no later than the third meeting in February, the council shall by resolution schedule its vacation for that year. The resolution shall designate the dates of this scheduled vacation and the city clerk will give notice thereof by whatever means are deemed appropriate. During said scheduled annual vacation, there shall be no regular meetings of the council nor of the council standing committees, unless it is an adjourned regular meeting. The mayor or a majority of the council may call a special meeting during the scheduled vacation if necessary. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the provisions of this Ordinance do not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act because it can be seen with certainty that no significant environmental impact will occur as a result of the amended Ordinance. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 4732) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Request for Approval of Funding for Fire Safe Council Agreement Title: Approval of Funding of $50,000 Per Year for Years Two Through Five, for a Total Amount Not-To-Exceed $250,000 for Contract Number S13147834 with the Fire Safe Council for Stewardship Services to Fulfill the Treatment Work Indicated in the Foothills Fire Management Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve funding of $50,000 per year for years two through five, for a total amount not to exceed $250,000, for Agreement S13147834 (approved 1/1/2013) with the Fire Safe Council (FSC) for stewardship services to fulfill the treatment work indicated in the Foothills Fire Management Plan (FFMP) subject to the annual appropriation of funds. Agreement S13147834 is appended hereto as Attachment A. Executive Summary On October 26, 2009, the City adopted the Foothill Fire Management Plan (FFMP) (CMR326:09), which identified several areas in the Palo Alto Foothills that require treatment to address life safety, structure and infrastructure protection, ignition prevention, fire containment and natural resource protection and enhancement. The FFMP is appended hereto as Attachment B. A five year agreement (S13147834) with FSC for stewardship services to fulfill the treatment work identified in the FFMP was approved by Council on October 21, 2013. The Council approved funding for year one of the project. This is a recommendation to approve funding of $50,000 per year for years two through five for the stewardship agreement with the FSC for the aforementioned treatment work and emergency preparation education in the Foothills. Background When the Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the FFMP on October 26, 2009, treatment work was identified and funds provided through a Public Works CIP. These documents define a Fire Hazard Assessment and Fuel Management Plan/Projects City of Palo Alto Page 2 for the wildland/urban interface located in the foothills of Palo Alto. The Council gave direction to staff to explore options to complete this work. A committee was formed to evaluate best practices and to determine the most efficient and effective way to address these plans. The committee consists of staff from the following departments: Community Services, Public Works, Fire, Office of Emergency Services and Utilities. Together this group determined that the non-profit organization the Santa Clara County FSC would be an ideal partner to complete the treatment plans. The FSC was created in 2001 through an initiative by CalFire. Local agencies came together with a small group of community members to discuss wildfire risks and protection for communities in Santa Clara County. The programs that the FSC provides protect thousands of residents and homes and bring together individuals, public and private agencies and companies that share a common, vested interest in preventing and reducing losses from wildfires. Using the Stewardship Agreement with Acterra (CMR 199:97) as a model, the group pursued a plan to initiate a relationship with the FSC with the intention of a long-term public/private partnership. The attached agreement provides both parties an annual opportunity to review progress, define a work plan for the upcoming year and settle on an appropriate financial compensation. It also allows the FSC to do what they do best and that is to provide educational opportunities to the citizens who reside in the affected areas. They have an established “chipping program” that encourages private citizens to annually trim their vegetation and the FSC provides a chipper and volunteers to clean up and dispose of the debris. Their goal would be to expand this program into the north Santa Clara County area and Palo Alto thus enhancing the treatment work for the private lands defined in the FFMP. The first year of the agreement commenced in fiscal year 2014. A project manager defined chipping locations, tracked resident participation and scheduled chipping services. Work crews completed treatment along Arastradero Road including the trimming of brush, trees and grasses. Work on Page Mill Road has been scheduled. Educational materials have been developed and are being distributed through various means, including, but not limited to the FSC website, mailers, meetings and workshops. The City and FSC continue to meet on a regular basis and have developed the work plan for the upcoming fiscal year. The work plan is appended hereto as Attachment C. Resource Impact An allocation of $50,000 for the second year of the five-year stewardship agreement with the FSC is included in the Public Works CIP PO-12003 that was established for the purposes of carrying out the FFMP; an additional $10,000 is recommended to be allocated to the FFMP as part of the FY 2015 Proposed Budget. However, beginning in FY 2016 and through FY 2018 additional funding for this contract will need to be allocated as part of future budget processes. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Policy Implications The proposal to have a nonprofit organization provide services to assist the City in the accomplishment of the goals of the FFMP is consistent with the public/private partnership policy. Environmental Review The Stewardship Agreement represents a continuation of the same use of existing facilities; therefore, it carries a Class I facility exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA. Attachments: FoothillFireMgtPln.v.2 (PDF) Executed CPA Stewardship Agreement (PDF) FSCWrkPln (PDF) WILDLAND FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM Submitted to: City of Palo Alto Attention: Kelly Morariu 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Submitted by: Wildland Resource Management, Inc. Wildland Resource Management 134 Journeys End Alamo, CA 94507 January 15, 2009 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Part A -FIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN/ PROJECTS 1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................................. 8 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 12 2.1 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Planning History ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Scope of the Plan .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Planning Process ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 3 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................................................................. 19 3.1 Fire Hazard ................................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.1 Vegetation and Fire Fuels ................................................................................................................................. 19 3.1.2 Fire Behavior .................................................................................................................................................... 21 3.1.2.1 Fire Behavior Modeling .......................................................................................................................... 21 3.1.2.2 Spatial Input Files ................................................................................................................................... 21 3.1.2.3 User-Defined Inputs ................................................................................................................................ 22 3.1.2.4 FlamMap Results .................................................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Fire Suppression Capabilities........................................................................................................................................ 27 3.3 Access ........................................................................................................................................................................... 28 3.4 Sensitive Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 28 3.4.1 Social and Cultural Features ............................................................................................................................. 31 3.4.2 Environmental Features .................................................................................................................................... 31 3.4.2.1 Species and Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 32 3.4.2.2 Soils and Geology ................................................................................................................................... 37 4 Fuel Management in City Parks.................................................................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Identifying Potential Treatment Areas .......................................................................................................................... 39 4.2 Establishing Project Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 39 4.3 Current Fuel Management Program.............................................................................................................................. 41 4.4 Project Description........................................................................................................................................................ 46 4.4.1 Scope of Recommended Fuel Management Projects ........................................................................................ 46 4.4.2 Project Description Summary ........................................................................................................................... 46 4.4.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 46 4.4.4 Priority .............................................................................................................................................................. 47 4.4.5 Project Locations............................................................................................................................................... 47 4.4.6 Project Dimensions and Post-Treatment Standards........................................................................................... 53 4.4.7 Roadside and Driveway Fuel Modification for Safe Access and Egress........................................................... 54 4.4.7.1 Specific Goal of Action........................................................................................................................... 54 4.4.7.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 54 4.4.8 Fuel Modification for Firefighter Safety Projects ............................................................................................. 57 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 3 4.4.8.1 Specific Goal of Action........................................................................................................................... 57 4.4.8.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 57 4.4.9 Structure and Infrastructure Projects – Defensible Space ................................................................................. 57 4.4.9.1 Specific Goal of Action........................................................................................................................... 57 4.4.9.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 58 4.4.10 Ignition Prevention Fuel Management Projects ................................................................................................ 59 4.4.10.1 Specific Goal of Action........................................................................................................................... 59 4.4.10.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 59 4.4.11 Fuel Modification for Containment Ease .......................................................................................................... 59 4.4.11.1 Specific Goal of Action........................................................................................................................... 59 4.4.11.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 60 4.4.12 Fuel Modification for Ecosystem Health .......................................................................................................... 62 4.4.12.1 Specific Goal of Action........................................................................................................................... 62 4.4.12.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 62 4.4.13 Cooperative Fuel Management Projects for Offsite Fire Containment and Evacuation Ease ........................... 63 4.4.13.1 Specific Goal of Action........................................................................................................................... 63 4.4.13.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 63 5 Implementation Plan ............................................................................................................................................................... 64 5.1 Implementation Strategies............................................................................................................................................. 64 5.2 Priorities........................................................................................................................................................................ 65 5.3 Fuel Management Project Costs.................................................................................................................................... 66 5.3.1 Project Cost Estimates....................................................................................................................................... 67 5.4 Funding Strategies to Support Fuel Management ......................................................................................................... 71 5.5 Grant Opportunities ...................................................................................................................................................... 72 6 Treatment Standards and Methods.......................................................................................................................................... 74 6.1 Treatment Standards for Vegetation Types................................................................................................................... 74 6.1.1 Prescription for Grasslands ............................................................................................................................... 74 6.1.2 Prescription for North Coastal Scrub and Chaparral ......................................................................................... 74 6.1.3 Prescription for Oak Woodlands ....................................................................................................................... 76 6.1.4 Prescription for Riparian Forest ........................................................................................................................ 76 6.1.5 Defensible Space Guidelines............................................................................................................................. 77 6.2 Description of Treatment Methods ............................................................................................................................... 78 6.2.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 78 6.2.2 Timing of Treatments........................................................................................................................................ 78 6.2.3 Hand Labor ....................................................................................................................................................... 79 6.2.4 Mechanical Treatments ..................................................................................................................................... 79 6.2.5 Grazing with Sheep and Goats .......................................................................................................................... 81 6.2.6 Broadcast Prescribed Burns .............................................................................................................................. 81 6.2.7 Eucalyptus Tree Removal ................................................................................................................................. 82 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 4 6.2.8 Herbicide Application to Control Invasive Plants............................................................................................. 83 6.3 Best Management Practices .......................................................................................................................................... 84 6.3.1 Hand Labor ....................................................................................................................................................... 84 6.3.2 Mechanical Treatments ..................................................................................................................................... 85 6.3.3 Grazing with Sheep and Goats .......................................................................................................................... 86 6.3.4 Broadcast Prescribed Burns .............................................................................................................................. 86 6.3.5 Herbicide Application ....................................................................................................................................... 87 PART B – POLCIYREVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1 Evacuation and Refuge ........................................................................................................................................................... 89 1.1 Identification and Notification ...................................................................................................................................... 89 1.2 Regional Cooperation ................................................................................................................................................... 90 1.3 Temporary Refuge ........................................................................................................................................................ 90 2 Codes and Regulations............................................................................................................................................................ 91 2.1 Existing Codes and Ordinances .................................................................................................................................... 91 2.1.1 Fire Code........................................................................................................................................................... 91 2.1.2 Building Code ................................................................................................................................................... 93 2.2 Recommendations......................................................................................................................................................... 93 2.3 Exterior Hazard Abatement .......................................................................................................................................... 95 2.3.1 For parcels of land one acre or less maintain parcel in complete abatement..................................................... 95 2.3.2 For parcels larger than one acre in size ............................................................................................................. 96 3 Fire Protection – Station 8 ...................................................................................................................................................... 98 3.1 Description.................................................................................................................................................................... 98 3.2 Appraisal....................................................................................................................................................................... 99 3.3 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................................................ 100 4 Trail Plan Update.................................................................................................................................................................. 101 4.1 Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Trails Management Plan (March 2001) ...................................................................... 101 4.1.1 Recommended Revisions ................................................................................................................................ 101 4.1.2 Existing Fire Mitigation and Fuel Management in the Arastradero Trails Management Plan ........................ 103 4.1.3 Vegetation Management ................................................................................................................................. 107 4.1.3.1 Brushing and Clearing Defined............................................................................................................. 107 4.1.3.2 Techniques for Maintaining a Clear Passageway.................................................................................. 107 4.2 Foothills Park Trails Maintenance Plan (January 29, 2002) ....................................................................................... 109 4.2.1 Recommended Revisions ................................................................................................................................ 109 4.2.2 Existing Fire Mitigation and Fuel Management in the Foothills Park Trails Maintenance Plan..................... 110 5 References ............................................................................................................................................................................ 113 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: City of Palo Alto Overview............................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 2: 1997 Fire Management Zones. ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 3: Wildland Surface Fuels. .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 4: Spatial Data Required for Fire Behavior Modeling......................................................................................................... 22 Figure 5: Comparison of Torching and Active Crown Fire. ........................................................................................................... 23 Figure 6: Crown Fire and Torching Potential. ................................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 7: Predicted Flame Length................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 8: Predicted Rate of Spread. ................................................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 9: Locations of Cultural and Environmental Sensitive Resources in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve................................... 29 Figure 10: Locations of Cultural and Environmental Sensitive Resources in Foothills Park. ........................................................ 30 Figure 11: Sensitive Species Known or Potentially Occurring in Foothills Park or Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. ...................... 37 Figure 12: Soil Types in Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. .................................................................................. 38 Figure 13: Project Goals and Actions. ........................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 14: Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Current Fuel Management Areas................................................................................... 42 Figure 15: Foothills Park Current Fuel Management Areas. .......................................................................................................... 43 Figure 16: Recent Treatments in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve..................................................................................................... 44 Figure 17: Recent Treatments in Foothills Park. ............................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 18: Listing of Project Locations. ......................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 19: Proposed Treatment Locations in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve.................................................................................. 51 Figure 20: Proposed Treatment Locations in Foothills Park........................................................................................................... 52 Figure 21: Treatment Methods and Intervals.................................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 22: Listing of Project Locations for Evacuation and Access............................................................................................... 55 Figure 23: Evacuation Routes External to Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. ....................................................... 56 Figure 24: Listing of Project Locations for Fire Fighter Safety Fuel Modification. ....................................................................... 57 Figure 25: Listing of Project Locations for Defensible Space. ....................................................................................................... 59 Figure 26: Listing of Project Locations for Ignition Prevention. .................................................................................................... 59 Figure 27: Listing of Project Locations for Containment Ease....................................................................................................... 61 Figure 28: Listing of Project Locations for Ecosystem Health. ........................................................................................................... 62 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 6 Figure 29: Unit Costs for Fuel Reduction Treatment Methods....................................................................................................... 67 Figure 30: Funding Mechanisms. ................................................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 31: Initial Priority of Removal for Brush. ........................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 32: Pruning Example........................................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 33: Pruning Example. .......................................................................................................................................................... 95 Figure 34: Shrub Spacing. .............................................................................................................................................................. 96 Figure 35: Fire Protection Resources.............................................................................................................................................. 98 Figure 36: Emergency/Maintenance Access Points...................................................................................................................... 102 Figure 37: Vehicle Turn-around Design Summary....................................................................................................................... 109 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 7 PART A – FIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN/ PROJECTS City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 8 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fire Management Plan update process addresses a broad range of integrated activities and planning documents to address and mitigate the impacts of fire hazards in the Palo Alto Foothills Area. The area of interest includes the areas west of Foothills Expressway to the city limits of Palo Alto. Fire mitigation project areas include the boundaries of Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve within this area of interest. The Fire Management Plan Update addresses the following key items: • Fire Hazard Assessment • Regional Evacuation Routes • Review of Municipal Ordinances • Staffing of Station 8 • Wildland Fire Management Recommendations and Mitigations • Updates to Pearson-Arastradero Trails Master Plan and Foothills Trail Maintenance Plan • CEQA Documentation • Implementation Plan and Potential Funding Community Participation. Community participation in the development of the plan began with the refinement of the scope of work and selection of the consultant team. Three community meetings were held at key points in the planning process to gather continued input from the community. A stakeholder group made up of adjacent jurisdictions, neighborhood associations, special interest groups, volunteers etc. also participated in the planning process. An environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was undertaken by City Staff in conjunction with the plan development. Fire Hazard Assessment. There are many ways to assess fire hazard. Most utilize the three main factors of fuels, weather, and topography, with possible inclusion of elevation or fire history. Fire behavior was chosen as the means to assess fire hazard since it can identify locations where containment may be easiest, and where access may be precluded during the time of a fire. In addition, fire behavior outputs can identify locations where structures or natural resources may be unduly harmed by a wildfire, as well as locations where fire effects may be inconsequential to natural resources. Not every area identified as a potential fire hazard can be modified to produce low-intensity fires. Not only would this be too costly, but environmental impacts would also be unacceptable. Results of Fire Behavior Analysis. Fire behavior was analyzed for the entirety of the Foothills Area, including adjacent neighborhoods, property owned by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), and Stanford University. Flame length, rate of fire spread and potential for crown fire were three characteristics considered in the analysis. The following are generalities observed: Flame lengths follow fuel types, with long flame lengths in chaparral and untreated grass, and short flame lengths in woodlands and mowed grass. The largest areas of long flames are located in Foothill Park and Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. Low fire spread rates were predicted in woodlands and forests, and fast City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 9 spread rates in untreated grass and chaparral. There is very little active crown fire predicted within the Foothills area, however, the potential for trees to torch is high throughout the treed portion of the Foothills area. Torching is caused by low-hanging limbs, or ladder fuels. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 10 Wildland Fire Management Recommendations and Best Management Practices Treatments were strategically placed to achieve the following goals: • Life Safety • Structure and Infrastructure Protection • Ignition Prevention • Fire Containment • Resource Enhancement Treatments were identified for 51 project areas. The most visible recommended set of projects will be to conduct roadside treatments along Page Mill Road, Arastradero Road, Los Trancos Road, and Skyline Boulevard. Other projects entail the continuation of mowing along trails and some boundaries, grazing along the selected segments of the perimeter of both Parks/Preserves, treatments to install and maintain defensible space around structures, treatments around barbeques to minimize the chance of ignitions, and treatments to bolster the success of fires containment efforts within the parks. Fuel management treatments can also enhance natural resources, through targeting non-native invasive plants as part of biomass removal – potentially with grazing animals, mechanical mowing and hand labor -and conducting prescribed fires in selected areas under conditions consistent with fire control. Best management practices are included for each treatment type, based on the sensitivity of the resource. These include practices that consider the timing intensity of the treatment, or selection of the type of treatment methods (e.g., whether the project would entail mowing or grazing, hand labor or mechanical equipment), the strata of treatment (e.g., whether the project would remove lower tree limbs, or instead involve grass mowing), and the scale of the treatment (e.g., to treat small or large patches). Review Recommendations Regarding Pearson-Arastradero Trails Master Plan and Foothills Trail Management Plan • Addition of fuel management and fuel reduction zones • Location of prescribed burns • Modify fuel break width for performance standards • Modify roadside treatment standards • Include fire hazard in regulatory, warning and education signs (especially prescribed fires) Regional Evacuation Routes The Palo Alto Police Department has responsibility within City limits for evacuation operations under state law. However, multiple jurisdictions will likely be involved in an event in the Foothills. Evacuation routes should not be blocked anywhere, regardless of jurisdiction or ownership; this is especially important because most of the regional evacuation routes span multiple cities, ownership categories and protection jurisdictions. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 11 The following recommendations will help reach a reasonably safe condition along the regional evacuation routes. • Formalize agreements with adjacent landowners for ingress and egress routes (from parks) and offsite refuge areas • Develop partnerships to address regional evacuation routes from residential and public areas (Regional Evacuation Plan, Community Notification (multi-jurisdictional) and Unified Command) Analysis and Recommendations Regarding Staffing of Station 8 An analysis of the staffing level of Station 8 was conducted that considered the distribution and concentration of fire personnel and equipment in relation to the incidents. The recommendation was to maintain current staffing levels. Response times for incidents are significantly longer from other stations, even when considering mutual aid offered by other jurisdictions. The fire behavior analysis indicates the potential for fast-moving fires of high intensity, further justifying the current staffing levels. Review of Municipal Ordinances The existing code is comprehensive; only minor changes are recommended. These include: • Expand Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area (between Foothill Blvd & Highway 280) • Fire Protection Planning: Begin early in permitting process • Expand Defensible Space Requirements: Maintain roof free of materials • Expand Access Requirements: bridge load limits, parking restrictions • Additional guidance for Maintenance of Defensible Space • Ignition Source Control • Fencing • Signage • Mechanical Equipment Ignition Prevention • Restriction on Smoking at Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Implementation Plan and Potential Funding for Fire Management Recommendations Implementation of this plan will be managed by the City of Palo Alto staff, including the Fire Department, the Police Department (evacuation, notification, neighborhood preparedness coordinators), and Open Space (rangers). Volunteer groups, such as Acterra, Friends of Foothills, and other groups should continue to be involved and encouraged to help with the implementation. Further, the City should work with mutual aid government agencies and other stakeholders on an ongoing basis. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 12 Prioritization of Treatments The following is the priority of treatment types: 1. Life Safety 2. Structure and Infrastructure Protection 3. Ignition Prevention 4. Fire Containment 5. Resource Enhancement Cost Estimates The total five-year cost to implement the recommended projects is estimated at slightly less than $700,000. The largest cost, at slightly more than $400,000, is to manage 19 containment areas. The initial treatment for segments of major evacuation routes is estimated to cost almost $178,000. The use of California Youth Authority Crews may offer a means to reduce costs for the hand labor-based treatments. Without volunteers pre-treatment surveys and follow-up may cost $100,000 over the next five years. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 13 2 INTRODUCTION The Palo Alto Foothills consist of a mix of urban, semi-urban and open space lands on the eastern slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Within the city limits of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Foothills area west of the Foothills Expressway and Junipero Serra Boulevard represents a Wildland Urban Interface area (WUI) with significant impacts to public safety, cultural and economic activities, and environmental and natural resource management. The Palo Alto Foothills Area includes two city-managed areas: Foothills Park and the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. In an effort to implement an updated Fire Management program for the Foothills, the City of Palo Alto conducted a review of the fire hazards, mitigation activities, and environmental considerations for the area to develop recommendations for wildland fuels and fire management. Figure 1: City of Palo Alto Overview. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 14 2.1 Goals and Objectives The City of Palo Alto developed, maintains, and executes a Fire Management Plan focused on reducing losses from wildland fire. In support of this long-term objective, the City of Palo Alto initiated an update process for the Foothills Fire Management Plan to prepare recommendations for consideration and possible inclusion in future budgets. This Foothills Fire Management Plan update process focused on the three primary goals: • Develop recommendations for wildland fuels and fire management to reduce fire hazard in Palo Alto’s Wildland Urban Interface west of Foothill Expressway to an acceptable level of risk. • o Review and incorporate the 1982 Foothills Fire Management Plan and 1997 staff update. • o Identify appropriate management recommendations to reduce wildland fuel loads in the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and Foothill Park. • Maintain ecological and aesthetic values of Foothill Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve consistent with fire reduction goals. • Provide a fuel management plan for Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve that is cost effective and sustainable for the City of Palo Alto. The Fire Management Plan update process involved a combination of City staff personnel from a wide cross section of city operations, stakeholders from across the Palo Alto area, and members of the Palo Alto community. In order to ensure that the fire management recommendations addressed environmental and cultural conditions that can affect resource and priority decisions, the update process included a series of specific objectives. • Assess fire hazards within the project area. Develop fuel classification, weather condition assumptions, and other fire hazard inputs used to model the fire hazards for the project area. • Develop wildland fire management recommendations. Identify both developed and sensitive natural resources at risk and develop treatment and best management practices to protect those resources. Prepare appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document. • Consider current refuge areas, ingress and egress routes and make recommendations for evacuation from residential and public areas. • Identify potential funding plans and external funding opportunities. • Update the Foothills Fire Management Plan incorporating input from the community. • Review and recommend appropriate revisions to existing City municipal ordinances pertaining to fire prevention. • Review and make appropriate recommendations to current levels of staffing, equipment and other response resources at Station 8 in Foothills Park. • Recommend revisions to the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Trail Master Plan and Foothills Park Trail Maintenance Plan pertaining to firefighting access or vegetation management for fire hazard reduction along trail corridors. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 15 2.2 Planning History The City of Palo Alto developed a Foothills Fire Management Plan in 1982. The 1982 Plan provides the planning framework for fire control activities for the City and the Palo Alto Foothills Area. The goal of the 1982 Fire Management Plan is “to reduce government costs and citizen losses from wildland fire by increasing initial attack success and/or protecting assets at risk through focused pre-fire management activities.” In 1997, the City of Palo Alto staff developed a draft update to this plan. Although the draft update was not formally adopted, the 1997 Draft Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan provides an updated framework and interim objectives for fire management within the Foothills Area. The 1997 Draft Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan identified four fire management objectives: 1. Identify fire pre-suppression, suppression and post-suppression activities to maintain or enhance the status quo, and prevent adverse impacts on people, structures and natural resources consistent with Palo Alto Fire Department’s fire protection mission. a. Prevent or reduce the threat of death or injury to foothills residents and visitors. b. Prevent or reduce loss or damage to structures and natural resources. 2. Suppress fire in the Hazardous Fire Area before it gets out of control. a. Perform effective initial attack, with Fire Station 8 staffed. b. Develop pre-fire suppression plans (initial attack to 4-hour effort). c. Incident Command System (ICS) training, focusing on multi-jurisdictional response and enhancing Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) skills and abilities in specific ICS positions. 1 Review and update evacuation routes out of the Hazardous Fire Area. 2 When feasible and as part of a regional effort, establish optimal fire frequencies, use pre-suppression control measures (including controlled / prescribed burns) to restore optimal fire regimes and for natural plant communities. The 1997 draft plan identified several hazard mitigation categories to meet Palo Alto’s Fire Management goal and objectives. • Fuel Management • o Roadside clearance – Page Mill Road, Arastradero Road, Los Trancos Road and Skyline Boulevard were identified as evacuation routes as well as firebreaks. • o Fuel Break/ Ignition Control system in Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve • o Prescribed burning to reduce fuel load, re-establish a normal fire regime and educate and inform the public. High fuel loads, limited burn windows and requirements for pre-burn preparations have limited opportunities to date. • • Pre-fire Actions • o Foothills Park/ Pearson-Arastradero Preserve practices including visitor safety islands and evacuation plans, fire-safe park maintenance practices, daily weather taking (establish daily Burn Index), annual pre-fire season staff briefing, interagency training, use restrictions during critical fire City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 16 weather. • o Cooperative efforts with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), the Woodside Fire Protection District, and other partner agencies regarding construction of fuel breaks, identification of evacuation routes and interagency training, public information about evacuation pre-planning. • o Private Dwellings and Open Land including fire codes for new development and public education and code enforcement. • • Suppression and Post Suppression • o Suppression capability including Foothills Fire Facility (Station 8); Mutual Threat Zone/ mutual aid/ automatic aid contracts; interagency/ ICS training. • o Suppression Plan including maintenance of response cards, basing response on nationally-recognized fire danger rating indices, use any and all mutual aid resources to confine fires at initial attack, and to follow fire management zone pre-planning documents. • o Post Suppression Plans. • o Cultural Resources (no significant cultural resources exist in the City Limits, but potential always exists for discovery of new sites). City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 17 The 1997 draft plan strategically divided the Hazardous Fire Area into eight fire management zones (FMZs) to merge individual property and resource concerns with fire control challenges (Figure 2). Each zone has a map showing boundaries, existing control lines and text description of activities to be considered by the Incident Commander, safety precautions and other tactical or site-specific information. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 18 AP – Arastradero Preserve LTW – Los Trancos Woods FP/VH – Foothills Park Vista Hill FP/WVS – Foothills Park Wildhorse Valley South FP/WVN – Foothills Park Wildhorse Valley North CPM – Center Page Mill UPM – Upper Page Mill MBE – Monte Bellow East Figure 2: 1997 Fire Management Zones. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 19 2.3 Scope of the Plan The Fire Management Plan update process addresses a broad range of integrated activities and planning documents to address and mitigate the impacts of fire hazards in the Palo Alto Foothills Area. The area of interest includes the areas west of Foothills Expressway to the city limits of Palo Alto. The fire mitigation project areas include the boundaries of Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve within this area of interest. The Fire Management Plan Update addresses the following key items: City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 20 • Fire Hazard Assessment • Regional Evacuation Routes • Wildland Fire Management Recommendations and Mitigations • Recommendations for the Foothills Park Trails Maintenance Plan and the Pearson-Arastradero Trails Management Plan • Review of Municipal Ordinances • Staffing of Station 8 • Implementation Plan and Identification of Potential Funding 2.4 Planning Process The process used in developing the Update to the Foothills Fire Management Plan involved several departments of the City and many stakeholders. The consultants and City held three meetings with the stakeholders between April and September 2008. Invited Stakeholders included: • Acterra • Arrillaga Property: 500 Los Trancos Road • CAL FIRE • Friends of Foothills Park • Los Altos Hills Fire District • Los Altos Hills: ARES/RACES • Los Trancos Water District • Los Trancos Woods Neighborhood • Menlo Park Fire District • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District • PA Protect Our Open Space • Palo Alto Hills Neighborhood Assoc • Pony Tracks Ranch • Portola Pasture Stables • San Mateo County FireSafe Council • San Mateo County Sheriff • Santa Clara County Fire Dept • South Skyline Association • Stanford Community Residential Leaseholders (SCRL) • Stanford University • Town of Los Altos Hills • Vista Verde Community Association • Woodside Fire Protection District City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 21 There were also three meetings with the community during the same time period. The meetings were held at the Interpretive Center at Foothills Park and at the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club in Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 22 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Fire Hazard There are many ways to assess fire hazard. Most utilize the three main factors of fuels, weather, and topography, with possible inclusion of elevation or fire history. Fire behavior was chosen as the means to assess fire hazard since it integrates the effects of fuels, weather, and topography. Hazard assessments developed by the State and the California Fire Alliance were evaluated for potential use. However, the assessments were larger scale than appropriate for the purposes of this plan. The decision was made to use a more detailed, site-specific hazard assessment. Fire behavior predictions identify locations where containment may be easiest, and where access may be precluded during the time of a fire. In addition, fire behavior outputs can identify locations where structures or natural resources may be unduly harmed by a wildfire, as well as locations where fire effects may be inconsequential to natural resources. 3.1.1 Vegetation and Fire Fuels The Palo Alto Foothills contains a mix of potential wildland fire fuel regimes that, combined with the topography and weather for the regime, pose a potential risk for wildland fire (Figure 3). City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 23 Figure 3: Wildland Surface Fuels. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 24 3.1.2 Fire Behavior 3.1.2.1 Fire Behavior Modeling FlamMap is particularly well suited for the Foothill Fire Management Area fire assessment. FlamMap generates a spatial depiction of simulated fire behavior that may be used to assess relative hazards throughout the area. FlamMap is a computerized fire behavior prediction model developed by the USDA Forest Service at the Intermountain Forest Fire Research Laboratory.1 FlamMap was developed to predict fire behavior characteristics across a landscape. The first such landscape analysis of fire behavior characteristics was performed for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Bay Area watersheds, then applied across the East Bay Hills after the Oakland Hills Fire. FlamMap is currently in the public domain. The heat transfer formulas in FlamMap are based on the software program, BEHAVE, which has been used in wildfire prediction since the 1970's. FlamMap uses the same heat transfer algorithms as BEHAVE along with numerous other algorithms to predict crown fire potential, ember distribution, effects of terrain on wind, direction and slope, and more. FlamMap allows prediction of fire behavior on a spatial basis, by modeling the locations of flame length, heat release, and rate of spread along with type of fire (crown fire, surface fire, or a fire that torches individual trees) throughout an entire area. FlamMap simulations assume the entire area is aflame under the same conditions at the same time to determine spatial differences in fire behavior. 3.1.2.2 Spatial Input Files The spatial data inputs to FlamMap characterize the terrain, weather, and fuels on the site with eleven different data layers. The spatial input data files are described in Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatial Data Required for Fire Behavior Modeling. Level Purpose Source Elevation (feet above sea level) This is necessary for adiabatic adjustment of temperature and humidity between elevations and for conversion of fire spread between horizontal and slope distances. USGS digital elevation models Slope (Percent of inclination from the horizontal) Slope is used to compute steepness effects on fire spread and solar irradiance. USGS digital elevation models Aspect (Azimuth values degree clockwise from north) Aspect is used to compute effects on fire spread and solar irradiance. USGS digital elevation models Fuel Model Fuel models, organized and described according to the FRAP Level Purpose Source Fire Behavior Prediction System in terms of fuel volume, structure, and chemistry. The fuel models were mapped by CalFire in the Forest Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). Canopy Cover Canopy cover is necessary to compute shading and wind reduction factors. Canopy cover was mapped for the LandFire Program City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 25 1 (FlamMap is available from Systems for Environmental Management, PO Box 8868, Missoula, MT, 59807, or from www.fire.org/tools.) Draft (15 January 2009) Figure 4: Spatial Data Required for Fire Behavior Modeling. .lommodets Fuelvolumesandheightsingrazedgrasslandscan alsobereflectedinacu canberaised. 3.1.2.3 User-Defined Inputs The model allows the user to customize fuel models or fuel moisture with special files2. Custom Fuel Model Files -custom fuels can be used to more accurately describe the types of fuel models found on the site. Custom fuel models use a standard fuel model as a base. In cases where especially flammable vegetation are present (eucalyptus and pines), the heat content of the dead and live fuels could be raised. In cases where the foliage are expected to be moister, the initial fuel moisture of the living material For the Palo Alto hazards assessment no custom fuel models were used. Fuel Moisture Files -defines the initial fuel moisture for each size class of fuels, for each fuel model. The moisture content of live woody fuels and live herbaceous fuels are similarly defined for each fuel model. Level Purpose Source Elevation (feet above sea level) This is necessary for adiabatic adjustment of temperature and humidity between elevations and for conversion of fire spread between horizontal and slope distances. USGS digital elevation models Slope (Percent of inclination from the horizontal) Slope is used to compute steepness effects on fire spread and solar irradiance. USGS digital elevation models Aspect (Azimuth values degree clockwise from north) Aspect is used to compute effects on fire spread and solar irradiance. USGS digital elevation models Fuel Model Fuel models, organized and described according to the FRAP Level Purpose Source Fire Behavior Prediction System in terms of fuel volume, structure, and chemistry. The fuel models were mapped by CalFire in the Forest Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). Canopy Cover Canopy cover is necessary to compute shading and wind reduction factors. Canopy cover was mapped for the LandFire Program. LandFire Program Tree Height Tree height is used to compute spotting distance and crown fire characteristics. Decision rules regarding tree heights were applied to FRAP surface fuels. Crosswalk from FRAP surface fuels Crown Base Height or Height to Live Canopy Crown base height is an important parameter for determining the transition from surface fire to crown fire. This value incorporates the effects of ladder fuels in increasing vertical continuity and assisting transition to crown fire. Crown base height was mapped for the LandFire Program. LandFire Program Weather and Wind Weather is important to determine environmental conditions during the simulation. The weather data theme describes the maximum and minimum temperatures and relative humidity, and the time in which the maximum and minimum temperature occurs in order to dry and moisten fuels accordingly. Weather data that CalFire based fire related policy decisions (defined as “average bad” CalFire-defined weather for average bad fire danger City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 26 This file specifies the moisture in the fuels of various sizes, and specifies how much moisture is in leaves. Based on this information, the weather files either dry out or add moisture to fuels depending on ambient conditions. The fuel moisture file used for the Palo Alto hazard assessment portrays the “average worst” fire danger as defined by CalFire. The “average worst” generally applies to the conditions that exist fewer than 10 percent of the time. It is also known as the 90th percentile weather conditions. 2 User-defined inputs could capture the effects of Sudden Oak Death through development of a custom fuel model and associated reduced fuel moisture. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 27 3.1.2.4 FlamMap Results Fire behavior was analyzed for the entirety of the Foothills area, including adjacent neighborhoods, property owned by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Stanford University. Three factors are especially pertinent for prioritizing locations of high fire hazard: crown fire activity, flame length and rate of spread. Crown Fire Potential -Crowning activity indicates locations where fire is expected to travel through and likely consume the crowns. When a fire burns through tree crowns, countless embers are produced and are distributed, sometimes at long distances. These embers can start new fires, which can each grow and confound the finest fire suppression forces. For management purposes, prediction of torching or crown fire is highly correlated with fire severity. Crown fire activity is of concern wherever it occurs because of its impacts and the containment challenges. There is very little active crown fire predicted within the Foothills area, however, the potential for trees to torch is high throughout the treed portion of the Foothills area. Torching is caused by low-hanging limbs, or ladder fuels (Figure 5). The Crown Fire Potential across the Palo Alto area of interest is depicted in Figure 6. Figure 5: Comparison of Torching and Active Crown Fire. Flame Length -Flame length closely corresponds to fire intensity, which can predict fire severity. This factor most influences probability of house damage and ease of fire control. A flame length of eight feet is usually looked at as a cut-off point for decisions whether to attack the fire directly, or instead attempt control through indirect methods. Fire intensity was determined to be the most important factor in many studies of structural damage from fire. Flame lengths are often used as a proxy for fire intensity because they are highly correlated to fire intensity. Long flame lengths may justify treatment where they occur near sensitive values-at-risk. Flame lengths follow fuel types, with long flame lengths in chaparral and untreated grass, and short flame lengths in woodlands and mowed grass. The largest areas of long flames are located in Foothill Park and Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. Predicted Flame Length is depicted in Figure 7. Rate of Spread -The rate of spread is most closely associated with the ability to contain a fire. Rates of spread analyses point to the needs for increased access, detection, reporting, and fuel management to slow fire spread in strategic locations. Low fire spread rates were predicted in woodlands and forests, and fast spread rates in untreated grass and chaparral. Predicted Rate of Spread is depicted in Figure 8. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 28 Figure 6: Crown Fire and Torching Potential. Figure 7: Predicted Flame Length. Figure 8: Predicted Rate of Spread. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 29 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 30 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 31 3.2 Fire Suppression Capabilities The Department's response area in the WUI Fire Area covers nearly 10 square miles, from Skyline Boulevard in the Palo Alto foothills to Foothill Blvd and from Page Mill Road to Los Trancos Road. Approximately 200 residences and large business complexes (some of them exceeding a million square feet in area) are located in Palo Alto’s Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area. The City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (June 2007) notes that 11 health care facilities, 10 schools and 25 government-owned buildings are located in the wildland urban interface threat areas, along with 19 miles of roadway that are subject to high, very high or extreme wild fire threat. The Fire Department has 122 personnel organized in four areas: • Emergency Response (Operations) • Environmental & Safety Management (Fire Prevention Bureau) • Training & Personnel Management (Support) • Office of Emergency Services The Fire Department staffs seven full time stations located strategically throughout the City. To provide coverage in the sparsely developed hillside areas, an additional fire station in the foothills is operated during summer months when fire danger is high. The Fire Department facilities are located as follows: Fire Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue, City Hall Fire Station 1 301 Alma Street Fire Station 2 2675 Hanover Fire Station 3 799 Embarcadero Road Fire Station 4 3600 Middlefield Road Fire Station 5 600 Arastradero Road Fire Station 6 711 Serra Street, Stanford Fire Station 7 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park Fire Station 8 Foothills Park City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 32 Rangers from the Open Space and Parks Division perform a vital service aiding fire suppression, providing detection, notification and initial size-up of fires, along with evacuation or reconnaissance. The Rangers offer detailed local knowledge, and support the Station 8 firefighters. Currently ten staff are fully trained and equipped for first response. There are four trucks with 150-200 gallons of water. The City of Palo Alto has secured many agreements that augment fire suppression capabilities. They participate in the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement and supporting separate agreements. During a proclaimed emergency, inter-jurisdictional mutual aid will be coordinated at the County Operational Area (Santa Clara County OES, or EOC, if activated), or Mutual Aid Regional level whenever the available resources are: City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 33 • Subject to state or federal control. • Subject to military control. • Located outside the requesting jurisdiction. • Allocated on a priority basis. The current Insurance Service Organization rating for the City of Palo Alto is ISO Class 2. 3.3 Access Regional access to the Foothills Area is provided by Highway 280, Foothill Expressway and Skyline Boulevard. Page Mill Road serves as a major north-south connector from Highway 280 to Skyline Boulevard. Los Trancos Road provides access along the western boundary of the Palo Alto Foothills Area from Alpine Road south to Los Trancos Woods. Page Mill Road and Los Trancos Road have several long sections that are steep, windy and narrow. Circulation is limited within the Foothills Area. Arastradero Road links the western and eastern portions. Alpine Road and Los Trancos Road provide access to portions of the western part of the City. Moody Road and Altamont Road are other important circulation routes in Los Altos Hills. 3.4 Sensitive Resources The Palo Alto Foothills Area includes a mix of social and environmental attributes that may be adversely affected by wildland fire or proposed fuel treatments and strategies. Areas that hold cultural or environmental significance enhance the quality of life in the City of Palo Alto and provide habitat for a variety of plant and wildlife species. These sensitive resources are valuable to the Palo Alto community and to the ecosystem; they should be protected and preserved. Actions are proposed that will reduce the risk of fire spreading to sensitive resources and otherwise minimize the damage to those resources. Social and cultural factors that may exist in the area affect fire management planning and include specific land uses such as agriculture and rangeland, the presence of public service utilities and structures, and the presence of historical or cultural artifacts. Environmental concerns include vegetation communities, wildlife habitat, soil and erosion conditions, and water and air quality. Figures 9 and 10 provide an overview of potential sensitive resource locations throughout the two parks. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 34 Figure 9: Locations of Cultural and Environmental Sensitive Resources in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Figure 10: Locations of Cultural and Environmental Sensitive Resources in Foothills Park. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 35 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 36 3.4.1 Social and Cultural Features Social and cultural features are areas and activities that have a special community attribute or contribution ranging from the value of personal property to the functioning of public service and public safety operations. Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve are both open space areas dedicated for park, recreation and conservation purposes. They are generally undeveloped except for park amenities, utilities, public service and safety infrastructure, and roads and trails. The projects in this plan pertain directly to the lands within Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, and along the evacuation routes within the City limits of Palo Alto. The lands adjacent to the parks include residential and private property as well as public and private open space, and are affected by fire management through code modification, fire department staffing, and other non-project measures that reduce the risk of fire spreading to these resources along with minimizing potential damages. The residential and private property adjacent to the parks include: • Open space owned and managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Stanford University • Private residences in the Town of Los Altos Hills, Town of Portola Valley, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, and San Mateo County • Neighborhoods/associations such as Altamont, Los Trancos Woods, Vista Verde, Blue Oaks, Portola Valley Ranch, Palo Alto Hills, Montebello, South Skyline, and others • Privately-held recreation facilities, such as equestrian centers and the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club • The site of what was a private research facility (the American Institute of Research) Both Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve contain utility lines and access roads that are used and maintained by the City of Palo Alto. The Pearson-Arastradero Preserve contains overhead electrical utility lines that enter the Preserve from Arastradero Road and extend along Arastradero Creek. South of Foothills Park, transmission lines run east-to-west across the southern edge of the park near Page Mill Road and Montebello. The Arastradero and Foothills parks contain several reservoirs, booster stations, and water and sewage lines. The external, aboveground portions of this infrastructure represent potential features that must be taken into consideration either as values at risk to wildland fire or included in fire mitigation treatment planning and execution. The primary structures within the two parks include the Foothills Park interpretive center, Pearson-Arastradero Gateway interpretive center, Fire Station 8, a maintenance complex, and three public restrooms. No significant cultural or historical sites have been found within the park areas. However, the Foothills area is similar to other areas in the Santa Cruz Mountains that have provided hunting, fishing, and encampments for Native American tribes. A potential exists for discovery of cultural or historic sites. 3.4.2 Environmental Features Environmentally sensitive areas are those that have specific characteristics which the community, State, or nation has determined to be worthy of protection or preservation. These can include the maintenance of a diverse plant and wildlife ecosystem or the protection of endangered or threatened species. The Palo Alto Foothills hold a specific environmental value within the City of Palo Alto as a conservation area as well as a mixed-use area supporting private and public activities. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 37 Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve consist of a mix of grassland, mixed evergreen, oak woodland, riparian areas (creek, lake), and chaparral. The two parks are located in the watershed of Los Trancos Creek and Arastradero Creek. Foothills Park contains the headwaters of Arastradero Creek and is downstream of Los Trancos Creek and contains Boronda Lake. The Arastradero Creek, an unnamed tributary to Arastradero Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek run through the Arastradero Preserve. The Pearson-Arastradero Preserve also contains a small lake, called Arastradero Lake, and John Sobey Pond. The Palo Alto Foothills contain several environmental areas that deserve specific consideration in the Fire Management Plan. These areas represent the combined contributions of unique wildland habitat capable of supporting a mix of wildlife, a diverse plant and wildlife population containing several protected and monitored species, and a mix of ecosystems ranging from riparian areas to serpentine soils. 3.4.2.1 Species and Wildlife The variety of environmental conditions in Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve provide habitat for a broad range of wildlife and plants – including some designated as protected or sensitive either by the State of California or the Federal government (Figure 11). The parks provide known habitat for two protected species and potential habitat for several others – particularly in the riparian zones and areas near Boronda Lake and Arastradero Lake. The California Red-Legged Frog and Steelhead Trout are known to inhabit Los Trancos Creek. In addition, the riparian areas, grasslands, and oak woodlands above Los Trancos as well as Boronda Lake may provide additional foraging and breeding habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog. Several species of sensitive plants and animals have been locally identified within the parks. In addition, the parks provide potential habitat for a variety of bird and plant species of concern, ranging from plants such as the Santa Clara Red Ribbon to mammals such as the San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat. The potential habitats for these species include the riparian and wetland areas along Los Trancos, Boronda Lake, Arastradero Lake, and John Sobey Pond; the serpentine soil areas identified in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve; and the Oak Woodland and Chaparral zones. In addition to these sensitive species, there are also plant species of local concern, such as Phacelia and bush poppies. The following is a table highlighting sensitive species that may be present in the parks. It is possible that additional sensitive species or habitat areas may be discovered in the future. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 38 Figure 11: Sensitive Species Known or Potentially Occurring in Foothills Park or Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location Endangered Endangered San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) POTENTIAL HABITAT potential habitat in Boronda Lake; suitable habitat in Arastradero Lake. Boronda Lake, Arastradero Lake N/A Protected Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) POTENTIAL HABITAT -Forage habitat in riparian zone; possible nesting in hollow trees in riparian zones. Los Trancos Creek provides most likely habitat. Los Trancos Creek Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A Endangered Point Reye’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes douglasii sulphurea) POTENTIAL HABITAT - freshwater marsh occurs in Arastradero Lake; some wet areas in grassland near Arastradero C k id h bit t Arastradero Lake, Arastradero Creek and tributary grasslands Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location Endangered Endangered San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) POTENTIAL HABITAT potential habitat in Boronda Lake; suitable habitat in Arastradero Lake. Boronda Lake, Arastradero Lake N/A Protected Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) POTENTIAL HABITAT -Forage habitat in riparian zone; possible nesting in hollow trees in riparian zones. Los Trancos Creek provides most likely habitat. Los Trancos Creek Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A Endangered Point Reye’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes douglasii sulphurea) POTENTIAL HABITAT - freshwater marsh occurs in Arastradero Lake; some wet areas in grassland near Arastradero Creek may provide habitat. Arastradero Lake, Arastradero Creek and tributary grasslands Endangered CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) NOT LIKELY -Could possibly occur in wet areas in grassland, although the likelihood is very low. Endangered Endangered San Mateo thorn-mint (Acanthomintha duttonii) UNKNOWN -Info pulled from CNDDB Palo Alto topo map -not mapped. Species of concern DFG: Species of special concern Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) POTENTIAL HABITAT Potential habitat in Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek, and Arastradero Creek; possible sighting in Arastradero Lake; habitat onsite includes Arastradero Creek, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake, and the unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek. Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek, Arastradero Creek, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake, Tributary for Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) KNOWN and POTENTIAL HABITAT -potential breeding habitat at Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek and tributaries, John Sobey pond, and Arastradero Lake; foraging habitat in riparian zones, grassland, and oak woodland above Los Trancos Creek and tributaries; May occur on Los Trancos Trail. (1) Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek and tributaries, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake (2) Riparian Zones (3) Grasslands, Oak Woodlands in vicinity of Los Trancos Creek (4) Los Trancos Trail Threatened DFG: Species of special concern California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) POTENTIAL HABITAT breeding habitat may occur in the “bowl” near the top of the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, which is in proximity to the unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek Unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern North Central Coast steelhead/sculpin stream KNOWN HABITAT -Los Trancos is a known steelhead stream. Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) KNOWN HABITAT -Los Trancos is a known steelhead stream. Los Trancos Creek N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Ben Lomond buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum var. decurrens) POTENTIAL HABITAT Habitat present in chaparral and woodland. Chaparral, woodland Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis) POTENTIAL HABITAT Habitat present in grassland and oak woodland. Grassland, Oak Woodland N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii) POTENTIAL HABITAT -fresh water marsh occurs in Arastradero Lake, and may occur in Arastradero Creek and the tributary to Arastradero Creek. Arastradero Lake, Arastradero Creek and tributary to Arastradero Creek N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Legenere (Legenere limosa) POTENTIAL HABITAT Potential habitat along drainages, Boronda Lake. Boronda Lake Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location Endangered Endangered San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) POTENTIAL HABITAT potential habitat in Boronda Lake; suitable habitat in Arastradero Lake. Boronda Lake, Arastradero Lake N/A Protected Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) POTENTIAL HABITAT -Forage habitat in riparian zone; possible nesting in hollow trees in riparian zones. Los Trancos Creek provides most likely habitat. Los Trancos Creek Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A Endangered Point Reye’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes douglasii sulphurea) POTENTIAL HABITAT - freshwater marsh occurs in Arastradero Lake; some wet areas in grassland near Arastradero Creek may provide habitat. Arastradero Lake, Arastradero Creek and tributary grasslands Endangered CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) NOT LIKELY -Could possibly occur in wet areas in grassland, although the likelihood is very low. Endangered Endangered San Mateo thorn-mint (Acanthomintha duttonii) UNKNOWN -Info pulled from CNDDB Palo Alto topo map -not mapped. Species of concern DFG: Species of special concern Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) POTENTIAL HABITAT Potential habitat in Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek, and Arastradero Creek; possible sighting in Arastradero Lake; habitat onsite includes Arastradero Creek, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake, and the unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek. Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek, Arastradero Creek, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake, Tributary for Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) KNOWN and POTENTIAL HABITAT -potential breeding habitat at Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek and tributaries, John Sobey pond, and Arastradero Lake; foraging habitat in riparian zones, grassland, and oak woodland above Los Trancos Creek and tributaries; May occur on Los Trancos Trail. (1) Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek and tributaries, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake (2) Riparian Zones (3) Grasslands, Oak Woodlands in vicinity of Los Trancos Creek (4) Los Trancos Trail Threatened DFG: Species of special concern California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) POTENTIAL HABITAT breeding habitat may occur in the “bowl” near the top of the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, which is in proximity to the unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek Unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern North Central Coast steelhead/sculpin stream KNOWN HABITAT -Los Trancos is a known steelhead stream. Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) KNOWN HABITAT -Los Trancos is a known steelhead stream. Los Trancos Creek N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Ben Lomond buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum var. decurrens) POTENTIAL HABITAT Habitat present in chaparral and woodland. Chaparral, woodland Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis) POTENTIAL HABITAT Habitat present in grassland and oak woodland. Grassland, Oak Woodland N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii) POTENTIAL HABITAT -fresh water marsh occurs in Arastradero Lake, and may occur in Arastradero Creek and the tributary to Arastradero Creek. Arastradero Lake, Arastradero Creek and tributary to Arastradero Creek N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Legenere (Legenere limosa) POTENTIAL HABITAT Potential habitat along drainages, Boronda Lake. Boronda Lake Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location Endangered Endangered San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) POTENTIAL HABITAT potential habitat in Boronda Lake; suitable habitat in Arastradero Lake. Boronda Lake, Arastradero Lake N/A Protected Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) POTENTIAL HABITAT -Forage habitat in riparian zone; possible nesting in hollow trees in riparian zones. Los Trancos Creek provides most likely habitat. Los Trancos Creek Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A Endangered Point Reye’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes douglasii sulphurea) POTENTIAL HABITAT - freshwater marsh occurs in Arastradero Lake; some wet areas in grassland near Arastradero Creek may provide habitat. Arastradero Lake, Arastradero Creek and tributary grasslands Endangered CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) NOT LIKELY -Could possibly occur in wet areas in grassland, although the likelihood is very low. Endangered Endangered San Mateo thorn-mint (Acanthomintha duttonii) UNKNOWN -Info pulled from CNDDB Palo Alto topo map -not mapped. Species of concern DFG: Species of special concern Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) POTENTIAL HABITAT Potential habitat in Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek, and Arastradero Creek; possible sighting in Arastradero Lake; habitat onsite includes Arastradero Creek, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake, and the unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek. Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek, Arastradero Creek, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake, Tributary for Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) KNOWN and POTENTIAL HABITAT -potential breeding habitat at Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek and tributaries, John Sobey pond, and Arastradero Lake; foraging habitat in riparian zones, grassland, and oak woodland above Los Trancos Creek and tributaries; May occur on Los Trancos Trail. (1) Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek and tributaries, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake (2) Riparian Zones (3) Grasslands, Oak Woodlands in vicinity of Los Trancos Creek (4) Los Trancos Trail Threatened DFG: Species of special concern California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) POTENTIAL HABITAT breeding habitat may occur in the “bowl” near the top of the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, which is in proximity to the unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek Unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern North Central Coast steelhead/sculpin stream KNOWN HABITAT -Los Trancos is a known steelhead stream. Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) KNOWN HABITAT -Los Trancos is a known steelhead stream. Los Trancos Creek N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Ben Lomond buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum var. decurrens) POTENTIAL HABITAT Habitat present in chaparral and woodland. Chaparral, woodland Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis) POTENTIAL HABITAT Habitat present in grassland and oak woodland. Grassland, Oak Woodland N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii) POTENTIAL HABITAT -fresh water marsh occurs in Arastradero Lake, and may occur in Arastradero Creek and the tributary to Arastradero Creek. Arastradero Lake, Arastradero Creek and tributary to Arastradero Creek N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Legenere (Legenere limosa) POTENTIAL HABITAT Potential habitat along drainages, Boronda Lake. Boronda Lake Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location Endangered Endangered San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) POTENTIAL HABITAT potential habitat in Boronda Lake; suitable habitat in Arastradero Lake. Boronda Lake, Arastradero Lake N/A Protected Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) POTENTIAL HABITAT -Forage habitat in riparian zone; possible nesting in hollow trees in riparian zones. Los Trancos Creek provides most likely habitat. Los Trancos Creek Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A Endangered Point Reye’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes douglasii sulphurea) POTENTIAL HABITAT - freshwater marsh occurs in Arastradero Lake; some wet areas in grassland near Arastradero Creek may provide habitat. Arastradero Lake, Arastradero Creek and tributary grasslands Endangered CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) NOT LIKELY -Could possibly occur in wet areas in grassland, although the likelihood is very low. Endangered Endangered San Mateo thorn-mint (Acanthomintha duttonii) UNKNOWN -Info pulled from CNDDB Palo Alto topo map -not mapped. Species of concern DFG: Species of special concern Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) POTENTIAL HABITAT Potential habitat in Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek, and Arastradero Creek; possible sighting in Arastradero Lake; habitat onsite includes Arastradero Creek, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake, and the unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek. Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek, Arastradero Creek, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake, Tributary for Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) KNOWN and POTENTIAL HABITAT -potential breeding habitat at Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek and tributaries, John Sobey pond, and Arastradero Lake; foraging habitat in riparian zones, grassland, and oak woodland above Los Trancos Creek and tributaries; May occur on Los Trancos Trail. (1) Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek and tributaries, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake (2) Riparian Zones (3) Grasslands, Oak Woodlands in vicinity of Los Trancos Creek (4) Los Trancos Trail Threatened DFG: Species of special concern California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) POTENTIAL HABITAT breeding habitat may occur in the “bowl” near the top of the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, which is in proximity to the unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek Unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern North Central Coast steelhead/sculpin stream KNOWN HABITAT -Los Trancos is a known steelhead stream. Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) KNOWN HABITAT -Los Trancos is a known steelhead stream. Los Trancos Creek N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Ben Lomond buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum var. decurrens) POTENTIAL HABITAT Habitat present in chaparral and woodland. Chaparral, woodland Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis) POTENTIAL HABITAT Habitat present in grassland and oak woodland. Grassland, Oak Woodland N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii) POTENTIAL HABITAT -fresh water marsh occurs in Arastradero Lake, and may occur in Arastradero Creek and the tributary to Arastradero Creek. Arastradero Lake, Arastradero Creek and tributary to Arastradero Creek N/A CNPS: Rare, Legenere (Legenere POTENTIAL HABITAT Potential Boronda Lake Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location Endangered Endangered San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) POTENTIAL HABITAT potential habitat in Boronda Lake; suitable habitat in Arastradero Lake. Boronda Lake, Arastradero Lake N/A Protected Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) POTENTIAL HABITAT -Forage habitat in riparian zone; possible nesting in hollow trees in riparian zones. Los Trancos Creek provides most likely habitat. Los Trancos Creek Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A Endangered Point Reye’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes douglasii sulphurea) POTENTIAL HABITAT - freshwater marsh occurs in Arastradero Lake; some wet areas in grassland near Arastradero Creek may provide habitat. Arastradero Lake, Arastradero Creek and tributary grasslands Endangered CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) NOT LIKELY -Could possibly occur in wet areas in grassland, although the likelihood is very low. Endangered Endangered San Mateo thorn-mint (Acanthomintha duttonii) UNKNOWN -Info pulled from CNDDB Palo Alto topo map -not mapped. Species of concern DFG: Species of special concern Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) POTENTIAL HABITAT Potential habitat in Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek, and Arastradero Creek; possible sighting in Arastradero Lake; habitat onsite includes Arastradero Creek, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake, and the unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek. Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek, Arastradero Creek, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake, Tributary for Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) KNOWN and POTENTIAL HABITAT -potential breeding habitat at Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek and tributaries, John Sobey pond, and Arastradero Lake; foraging habitat in riparian zones, grassland, and oak woodland above Los Trancos Creek and tributaries; May occur on Los Trancos Trail. (1) Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek and tributaries, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake (2) Riparian Zones (3) Grasslands, Oak Woodlands in vicinity of Los Trancos Creek (4) Los Trancos Trail Threatened DFG: Species of special concern California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) POTENTIAL HABITAT breeding habitat may occur in the “bowl” near the top of the Unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 39 3.4.2.2 Soils and Geology Soil erosion occurs when soil materials are worn away and transported by wind or water. The soils that comprise Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve include some soil and slope combinations that represent potential erosion hazards that could be accentuated by wildland fire events that remove significant portions of vegetation or some forms of fuel treatments that disturb ground cover. Figure 12 lists the potential erosion hazards posed by soil mapping units that comprise portions of the parks. Due to the presence of several highly and moderately erodible soil types, the areas that represent significant hazards from either fire or treatment are those with slopes in excess of 15 %. Derived from STATSGO2 data and research from City of Palo Alto Trail Management Plans. Soil Mapping Unit Soil Name Location Erosion Hazard Los Gatos-Maymen Los Gatos Gravelly Loam Foothills Park & Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Very High Complex (50-75% slope) Maymen Rocky Fine Sandy Loam Foothills Park Very High Los Gatos Clay Loam (15-30% slope) Los Gatos Clay Loam Foothills Park Moderate Soil Mapping Unit Soil Name Location Erosion Hazard Los Osos Clay Loam (15- 30% slope) Los Osos Clay Loam Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Moderate Azule Clay Loam (15- 30%) Azule Loam Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Slight to Moderate Soil Mapping Unit Soil Name Location Erosion Hazard Los Gatos-Maymen Los Gatos Gravelly Loam Foothills Park & Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Very High Complex (50-75% slope) Maymen Rocky Fine Sandy Loam Foothills Park Very High Los Gatos Clay Loam (15-30% slope) Los Gatos Clay Loam Foothills Park Moderate Soil Mapping Unit Soil Name Location Erosion Hazard Los Osos Clay Loam (15- 30% slope) Los Osos Clay Loam Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Moderate Azule Clay Loam (15- 30%) Azule Loam Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Slight to Moderate Cropley Clay (2-9% slope) Cropley Clay Foothills Park Slight Pacheco Clay Loam Pacheco Clay Loam Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Slight Pleasanton Loam Pleasanton Loam Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Slight Figure 12: Soil Types in Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 40 4 FUEL MANAGEMENT IN CITY PARKS Not every area identified as a potential fire hazard can be modified to produce low-intensity fires. Not only would this be too costly, but environmental impacts would also be unacceptable. Fires that burn in un-treated areas will not benefit from treatment elsewhere. The exception is that the fire may be contained in the treated area, thereby never reaching the untreated area. 4.1 Identifying Potential Treatment Areas Selection of pre-fire fuel treatment areas is based on the probability of the event and the potential damage of that event. Factors taken into consideration are: • Need for enhanced access and egress: Actions to promote life safety and efficient emergency response is of utmost importance. Roadside treatments that aid safer access and evacuation have a high likelihood and magnitude of benefit. • Ignition locations: Treatments are located either where ignitions are likely to occur or could spread into (e.g. a grassy spot near a road, or near a barbeque). Even where an area would burn with great ferocity, if there is only a remote chance of ignition, it has a lower treatment priority. • Adjacency to improvements or other sensitive values at risk from wildfire: The closer the fuel source is to a structure, heavily used area, or environmentally sensitive area, the higher the treatment priority. Therefore, an area in the interior of a Park/Preserve, well removed from other vulnerabilities, should not be treated with the same priority as a hazardous situation near valuable and/or vulnerable resources. • Propensity of the treatment to aid containment: Treatments that facilitate access or create locations where containment is likely to be successful have greater benefit because they improve fire suppression success. Also, a fire that is easy to contain will be more likely to have fewer environmental impacts from the suppression action itself. In the end, the most intense fire, and possibly the largest potential fire size, may not be highest on the treatment priority list. This may be because the likelihood of the event coupled with the potential damage from the fire would not yield the highest risk. 4.2 Establishing Project Objectives Projects are justified by various objectives, spanning the need to keep fires from crossing boundaries, minimizing damage to developed areas, and minimizing damage to natural resources. Others comply with regulations, which themselves are intended to increase access, facilitate fire suppression and minimize resource damage. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 41 The following table (Figure 13) is an outline of project goals and actions: Project Goal Actions Maintain ability for safe • Roadside and driveway fuel modification to reduce fire intensity to allow for access and egress and firefighting vehicles access and ensure safe passage for staff and visitors to pre- refuge during determined safety zones. suppression activities • Improve access to potential wildfire locations to increase effectiveness of firefighting resources (road realignments, access upgrades) • Identify areas for potential use for firefighter safety and refuge during a fire (safety zones) Minimizing damage to • Reduce potential for ember production, developed areas • Manage fuels along borders with structures, anywhere around structures (within 100 feet) • Retrofit structures to make them more ignition-resistant • Enhance firefighting effectiveness • Reduce fuels around other facilities at risk (e.g. communications equipment, high use recreation areas) Reduce damage to • Manage fuels per Defensible Space Guidelines to reduce flame length to 2 feet within structures and developed 30 feet of structures areas from wildfire near structures Reduce potential for • Roadside fuel treatments ignitions • Reduce fuels around barbeque sites and selected electrical transmission lines • Ensure mechanical equipment has features to minimize ignitions • Conduct fuel management in a manner that prevents ignitions Facilitate containment • Strategically compartmentalize fuels in order to facilitate containment and control and control of a fire • Modify fuels to reduce fire intensity and allow firefighters better access to the fire, slow spread of fire and make firefighting actions more effective, • Modify fuels to allow for backfires Reduce the chance of damage to life and property by keeping fire from crossing boundaries – Participate in cooperative projects with adjacent landowners • Fuel management to compartmentalize the landscape • Fuel management along the borders of the Park/Preserve • Modification of the volume or structure of the fuels to reduce chance of ember production • Modification of the volume or structure of the fuels to enhance firefighting effectiveness Minimize damage to • Conduct pre-treatment surveys for sensitive species natural resources • Follow best management practices during fuel management • Fuel management around fire-sensitive areas to reduce fire intensity • Use of modified fire suppression in sensitive areas Fuel modification for ecosystem health • Reduce invasive species • Perform selected prescribed burns to promote fire-adapted native species Figure 13: Project Goals and Actions. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 42 4.3 Current Fuel Management Program Fuel Management is not new in the two parks. The two parks have a long history of managing vegetation to both promote fire safety and to enhance natural resources (Figures 14 and 15). In some cases, projects attain both goals. Previous projects in Foothills Park encompass discing along park boundaries, grazing with goats in Las Trampas Valley, maintenance of a mowed fuel break along various locations, including a broad fuel break sometimes 200-ft wide along Trappers Ridge, and more narrow fuel breaks along the Madrone Fire Road, Shotgun Fire Road, Pony Tracks Fire Road, and around Station 8. Fuel management in Pearson-Arastradero includes discing along park boundaries, mowing 14 different broad areas within the park, and maintenance of vegetation along park roads. Figures 16 and 17 highlight specific mowing and grazing areas for both parks from 2001 to 2008. Grading (of the fire roads) has been a component of the contract between Van der Steen General Engineering and Palo Alto for annual firebreak maintenance. Grading has been performed as part of this contract only in the last three years; low annual rainfall and erosion has not warranted grading. To minimize grading work, city employees from all departments are strictly prohibited from driving the bare soil roadways that do not have asphalt or compacted rock. Grading, as a component of the contract, is specified as only when necessary. Discing has been performed by City staff for the last 7+ years. After trials with several methods, the City found that a two discing cycles work best. The first cycle is performed when the threat of spring rains has diminished, drainages or low areas are dry, and annual grasses are still green. The depth of discing is less than 6-inches, and causes a disruption of the growth of the annual grasses (less biomass). The second cycle of discing is after the annual grasses have cured/dried but there is still some soil moisture. Discing is full depth or up to 10-inches. Completely dry soil makes traction nearly non-existent, which is a safety hazard for the equipment operator, and produces copious amounts of dust to the surrounding area during both discing and grading operations. Mowing is routinely conducted during the early summer by City staff for resource enhancement. Figure 16 indicates the areas within Pearson-Arastradero Preserve that are mowed at least annually. Approximately 200 acres are routinely mowed. Outside of the areas mowed for resource enhancement, large areas are mowed annually in Foothills Park as part of a fuel break. A fuel break is mowed on Trappers Trail, varying from 100-ft to 300-ft in width. Another area routinely mowed is along Pony Tracks Fire Road from the intersection of Los Trancos Trail to Page Mill Road. Most areas are less than 100-ft but the area between Pony Tracks and Los Trancos Trail can reach 300-ft in width. Grazing with sheep and goats is a relatively new component of the fuel management program within the City of Palo Alto Parks. Approximately 5 acres were grazed in 2007 in Las Trampas Valley in Foothill Park, the picnic areas near the road. Defensible Space is maintained near existing structures in Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. This employs the use of hand labor to limb trees and shrubs, cut grass, landscape with fire-resistant plants, and irrigate selected plants. Figure 14: Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Current Fuel Management Areas. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 43 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 44 Figure 15: Foothills Park Current Fuel Management Areas. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 45 Figure 16: Recent Treatments in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 46 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 47 Figure 17: Recent Treatments in Foothills Park. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 48 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 49 4.4 Project Description 4.4.1 Scope of Recommended Fuel Management Projects The scope of the projects encompasses the two parks in the foothills of Palo Alto: Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. In addition, treatments along four roads extend outside the parks themselves but are confined to City boundaries or rights-of-ways: Page Mill Road, Arastradero Road, Los Trancos Road, and Skyline Boulevard. 4.4.2 Project Description Summary Fuel management is proposed on 330 acres of Foothills and Arastradero Parks to protect lives, enhance the safety of improvements in and around the parks and to enhance ecosystem health. Fuel management falls into the following categories: roadside treatments along potential evacuation corridors, creation and maintenance of firefighter safety zones, creation and maintenance of defensible space around structures in the parks, and treatments to aid containment of fires in and within the park. Treatments are performed on a rotational basis with intervals of approximately every five years, with an anticipated area of approximately 100 acres treated annually after the initial treatments are performed. Vegetation types that will be treated include: • Grasslands • North Coastal Scrub • Chaparral • Oak Woodland • Riparian Woodland (limited areas and limited treatment only) 4.4.3 Project Objectives Projects are justified by various objectives, spanning the need to keep fires from crossing boundaries, minimizing damage to developed areas and minimizing damage to natural resources. Others comply with regulations, which themselves are intended to increase access, or facilitate fire suppression. A variety of projects reduce the chance of damage to life and property. There are projects that keep fire from crossing boundaries, which could be in the form of fuel management to compartmentalize the landscape, or fuel management along the borders of the parks, or modification of the volume or structure of the fuels to reduce chance of ember production or enhance firefighting effectiveness. Other projects focus on minimizing damage to developed areas, and may be distinct from efforts to reduce fire size, particularly where fire growth is in the wildland. Methods to minimize damage to structures would encompass the following actions: stop ember production, manage fuels along borders with structures, anywhere around structures (up to 100 feet), retrofit structures to make them more ignition-resistant, and enhance firefighting effectiveness. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 50 While fire is a natural force in the foothills of Palo Alto, fuel management also aims to minimize damage to natural resources within the City of Palo Alto. This may include fuel management around sensitive areas such as riparian corridors, or use of fire where needed for resource management. The skillful application of controlled burning would be justified where fire exclusion is harmful, for example, where species require fire for seed germination, or where native grasslands experience brush encroachment, or where an unnatural accumulation of understory fuels (both live and dead) develops. Enhancing firefighting effectiveness, so that fire response can better apply or restrain fire’s impacts on sensitive natural resources may further justify projects. Finally, some projects are further justified by local regulations. For example, the City of Palo Alto regulations require installation and maintenance of 100-ft defensible space around structures, fuel management for a minimum width of 10-ft along roads, and maintenance of 13.5-ft high vertical clearance over roadbeds. 4.4.4 Priority Fuel management is not possible, nor advisable, on every acre of the wildlands in the two City parks. Not even all the areas of high hazard can be treated with a reasonable level of funding, so prioritization needs to occur. Finding the most effective location and scope is a challenge because of uncertainties around relative fire hazard, erosion, potential, ignition potential, cost of implementation, environmental impacts of the management itself, and social values attached to the project location. Selection of fuel treatment areas is based on several factors, including the probability of the event, the potential damage of that event, ignition locations, adjacency to improvements or other sensitive values at risk from wildfire, and the propensity of the treatment to aid containment. 4.4.5 Project Locations The following table (Figure 18) and maps (Figures 19 and 20) summarize the project locations. Each treatment location was selected to achieve a specific objective. Many treatments are associated with roadsides, structures and City Park/Preserve boundaries. Treatments for containment are strategically located at ridgetops, in places that have access, are not too steep for mechanical treatments, avoid riparian areas, and are not prone to soil erosion. Sections 4.4.7 through 4.4.13 provide additional information regarding project treatments by project type. Figure 18: Listing of Project Locations. Designation Project Description Life S afety Foothills Park F.F1 Firefighter Safety Zone 1 Trappers Ridge & Los Trancos Trail F.F2 Firefighter Safety Zone 2 Trappers Ridge & Madrone Fire Road F.F3 Firefighter Safety Zone 3 Trappers Ridge high point F.F4 Firefighter Safety Zone 4 Trapper Ridge south end Designation Project Description F.E1 Evacuation Route -Page Mill Road Within PA City from Arastradero to southern Pony Tracks F.E2 Evacuation Route -Park Road Entrance to Maintenance Yard Las Trampas Valley F.E3 Evacuation Route -Park Northwest Interpretive Center to the 600-700 block of Los Trancos Road F.E4 Evacuation Route -Park Northeast Boronda Lake to Alexis Drive Wildhorse Valley from Towle Campground to Las City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 51 Designation Project Description Life S afety Foothills Park F.F1 Firefighter Safety Zone 1 Trappers Ridge & Los Trancos Trail F.F2 Firefighter Safety Zone 2 Trappers Ridge & Madrone Fire Road F.F3 Firefighter Safety Zone 3 Trappers Ridge high point F.F4 Firefighter Safety Zone 4 Trapper Ridge south end Designation Project Description F.E1 Evacuation Route -Page Mill Road Within PA City from Arastradero to southern Pony Tracks F.E2 Evacuation Route -Park Road Entrance to Maintenance Yard Las Trampas Valley F.E3 Evacuation Route -Park Northwest Interpretive Center to the 600-700 block of Los Trancos Road F.E4 Evacuation Route -Park Northeast Boronda Lake to Alexis Drive F.E5 Secondary Evacuation Route -Wildhorse Valley Wildhorse Valley from Towle Campground to Las Trampas Valley Pearson-Arastradero A.E1 Evacuation Route – Arastradero Road Arastradero Road Off-site PA.1 Evacuation Route Page Mill Road PA.2 Evacuation Route Arastradero Road PA.3 Evacuation on Los Trancos Road between Santa Clara County boundary and Oak Forest Court PA.4 Evacuation Route Skyline Blvd. Structure a nd Infras truc ture P rotec tion Foothills Park F.D1 Defensible Space Entry Gate and Restroom F.D2 Defensible Space Station 8 F.D3 Defensible Space Restrooms at Orchard Glen F.D4 Defensible Space Interpretive Center F.D5 Defensible Space Maintenance Shop Complex F.D6 Defensible Space Boronda Pump Station at Campground F.D7 Defensible Space Park Tank F.D8 Defensible Space Boranda Water Tank F.D9 Defensible Space Dahl Water Tank Pearson-Arastradero A.D1 Defensible Space Gateway Building and Restrooms A.D2 Defensible Space Pump Station Designation Project Description A.D3 Defensible Space Corte Madera Water Tank Ignition P revention Foothills Park F.I1 Ignition Prevention Lakeside Picnic Area F.I2 Ignition Prevention Shady Cove Picnic Area F.I3 Ignition Prevention Encinal and Pine Gulch Picnic Areas F.I4 Ignition Prevention Orchard Glen Picnic Area F.I5 Ignition Prevention Oak Grove Group Picnic Area F.I6 Ignition Prevention Towle Camp Conta inment Foothills Park F.C1 Containment Trappers Trail F.C2 Containment Pony Tracks south of Trappers Ridge F.C3 Containment Pony Tracks north of Trappers Ridge Designation Project Description Life S afety Foothills Park F.F1 Firefighter Safety Zone 1 Trappers Ridge & Los Trancos Trail F.F2 Firefighter Safety Zone 2 Trappers Ridge & Madrone Fire Road F.F3 Firefighter Safety Zone 3 Trappers Ridge high point F.F4 Firefighter Safety Zone 4 Trapper Ridge south end Designation Project Description F.E1 Evacuation Route -Page Mill Road Within PA City from Arastradero to southern Pony Tracks F.E2 Evacuation Route -Park Road Entrance to Maintenance Yard Las Trampas Valley F.E3 Evacuation Route -Park Northwest Interpretive Center to the 600-700 block of Los Trancos Road F.E4 Evacuation Route -Park Northeast Boronda Lake to Alexis Drive F.E5 Secondary Evacuation Route -Wildhorse Valley Wildhorse Valley from Towle Campground to Las Trampas Valley Pearson-Arastradero A.E1 Evacuation Route – Arastradero Road Arastradero Road Off-site PA.1 Evacuation Route Page Mill Road PA.2 Evacuation Route Arastradero Road PA.3 Evacuation on Los Trancos Road between Santa Clara County boundary and Oak Forest Court PA.4 Evacuation Route Skyline Blvd. Structure a nd Infras truc ture P rotec tion Foothills Park F.D1 Defensible Space Entry Gate and Restroom F.D2 Defensible Space Station 8 F.D3 Defensible Space Restrooms at Orchard Glen F.D4 Defensible Space Interpretive Center F.D5 Defensible Space Maintenance Shop Complex F.D6 Defensible Space Boronda Pump Station at Campground F.D7 Defensible Space Park Tank F.D8 Defensible Space Boranda Water Tank F.D9 Defensible Space Dahl Water Tank Pearson-Arastradero A.D1 Defensible Space Gateway Building and Restrooms A.D2 Defensible Space Pump Station Designation Project Description A.D3 Defensible Space Corte Madera Water Tank Ignition P revention Foothills Park F.I1 Ignition Prevention Lakeside Picnic Area F.I2 Ignition Prevention Shady Cove Picnic Area F.I3 Ignition Prevention Encinal and Pine Gulch Picnic Areas F.I4 Ignition Prevention Orchard Glen Picnic Area F.I5 Ignition Prevention Oak Grove Group Picnic Area F.I6 Ignition Prevention Towle Camp Conta inment Foothills Park F.C1 Containment Trappers Trail F.C2 Containment Pony Tracks south of Trappers Ridge F.C3 Containment Pony Tracks north of Trappers Ridge Designation Project Description Life S afety Foothills Park F.F1 Firefighter Safety Zone 1 Trappers Ridge & Los Trancos Trail F.F2 Firefighter Safety Zone 2 Trappers Ridge & Madrone Fire Road F.F3 Firefighter Safety Zone 3 Trappers Ridge high point F.F4 Firefighter Safety Zone 4 Trapper Ridge south end Designation Project Description F.E1 Evacuation Route -Page Mill Road Within PA City from Arastradero to southern Pony Tracks F.E2 Evacuation Route -Park Road Entrance to Maintenance Yard Las Trampas Valley F.E3 Evacuation Route -Park Northwest Interpretive Center to the 600-700 block of Los Trancos Road F.E4 Evacuation Route -Park Northeast Boronda Lake to Alexis Drive F.E5 Secondary Evacuation Route -Wildhorse Valley Wildhorse Valley from Towle Campground to Las Trampas Valley Pearson-Arastradero A.E1 Evacuation Route – Arastradero Road Arastradero Road Off-site PA.1 Evacuation Route Page Mill Road City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 52 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 53 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 54 4.4.6 Project Dimensions and Post-Treatment Standards The dimensions of the treatments follow in the table below (Figure 21). The treatments that will occur within the project area depend on the vegetation type and treatment method. The post-treatment standards for each treatment type and a description of the treatment methods are also included. Project Types Dimension Treatment Frequency Comments Roadside Treatments Major evacuation routes Secondary evacuation routes 30 feet on both sides of pavement edge 15 feet on both sides of pavement edge Rotate 3-5+ years depending on fuel type Rotate 3-5+ years depending on fuel type Annual for first 10 feet with grass fuels Defensible Space 100-ft from structure Annual Follow-up treatments may not be required annually Ignition Prevention 10-ft from barbeque Annual Firefighter Safety Zones 100-ft radius Annual Containment Fuel Breaks Area treatment Within 300-ft of ridgetop of Trappers Ridge Areas designated goat grazing within park Two designated potential prescribed burn units per map Rotate 3-5+ years Rotate 3-5+ years Rotate 3-5+ years Perimeter treatment Brush/understory Grass Eucalyptus Removal In designated areas within 300 feet of park boundary Discing or mowing 15-45 feet from park boundary, as practical Individual tree removal Rotate 3-5+ years Annual One time Follow up to ensure no stump sprouts Figure 21: Treatment Methods and Intervals. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 55 4.4.7 Roadside and Driveway Fuel Modification for Safe Access and Egress 4.4.7.1 Specific Goal of Action The most important goal for this set of projects is to reduce fire intensity near roads to allow firefighting vehicles to pass and ensure safe passage for staff and visitors to pre-determined safety zones, or safe locations out of the parks. In addition, the projects outside of the City parks/preserves are aimed at facilitating access and egress between different portions of Palo Alto’s wildland urban interface. 4.4.7.2 Location and Description of Projects Projects would be located along roads and driveways of varying width, depending on whether the road is a major or secondary evacuation route. • 10 feet where flames are predicted to be less than eight feet in length (generally in grassy locations and in oak woodlands), such as along Wildhorse Valley in Foothills Park. • 30 feet from pavement edge along major evacuation routes that are Page Mill Road, Los Trancos Road, Arastradero Road, Skyline Boulevard, and the road from the Foothills Park Entry Gate to the Maintenance Shop. Palo Alto should work cooperatively with Los Alto Hills, the Town of Portola Valley, CalTrans, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, and other agencies to ensure vegetation along Page Mill Road, Arastradero Road, Los Trancos Road, and Skyline Blvd. are mowed, trees are maintained, and other treatments are implemented and sustained. Figure 22 lists the location and description of proposed safe access and egress projects. Figure 23 provides a graphical representation of major evacuation routes that are external to the two preserves. Designation Project Description Distance Treatment Method Foothills F.E1 Page Mill Road Within PA City from Arastradero to southern Pony Tracks 13,855 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor F.E2 Evacuation Route -Park Road Entrance to Maintenance Yard Las Trampas Valley 7,211 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor F.E3 Evacuation Route Park North west Interpretive Center to the 600-700 block of Los Trancos Road 1,263 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor F.E4 Evacuation Route Park North east Boronda Lake to Alexis Drive 2,618 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor F.E5 Secondary Evac Route Towle Campground to Las Trampas Valley 2,818 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor Pearson-Arastradero A.E1 Evacuation Route Arastradero Road 6,337 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor Off-site From Foothill Park mowing grazing hand City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 56 3 CalTrans is responsible for treatments within the designated right-of-wa,y which is variable in width (generally 2- 30-ft). Regardless the City of Palo Alto is committed to conduct treatments on City lands adjacent to the road. Designation Project Description Distance Treatment Method Foothills F.E1 Page Mill Road Within PA City from Arastradero to southern Pony Tracks 13,855 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor F.E2 Evacuation Route -Park Road Entrance to Maintenance Yard Las Trampas Valley 7,211 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor F.E3 Evacuation Route Park North west Interpretive Center to the 600-700 block of Los Trancos Road 1,263 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor F.E4 Evacuation Route Park North east Boronda Lake to Alexis Drive 2,618 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor F.E5 Secondary Evac Route Towle Campground to Las Trampas Valley 2,818 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor Pearson-Arastradero A.E1 Evacuation Route Arastradero Road 6,337 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor Off-site PA.1 Page Mill Road From Foothill Park South to Skyline Blvd. 11,980 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor PA.2 Arastradero Road From Page Mill to Arastradero Pk, and from Arastradero Pk to Los Trancos 940 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor PA.3 Evacuation Route Los Trancos Los Trancos Road between Santa Clara County boundary and Oak Forest Court 4,406 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor PA.4 Skyline Blvd. Skyline Blvd.3 7,907 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 57 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 58 4.4.8 Fuel Modification for Firefighter Safety Projects 4.4.8.1 Specific Goal of Action This project goal is specific to the safety of firefighters during emergency response. In times of emergency, a safe refuge comprised of low fuels is vital. 4.4.8.2 Location and Description of Projects These projects would install and maintain four firefighter safety zones within Foothills Park. Specifically, they are located on the Trappers Trail fuel break, at Los Trancos Trail, Madrone Fire Road, at the high point on Trappers Ridge and the south end of Trappers Ridge. 4.4.9 Structure and Infrastructure Projects – Defensible Space 4.4.9.1 Specific Goal of Action • Reduce damage to structures, developed areas and critical infrastructure from wildfire by reducing flame length to two feet within 30 feet of structures by managing fuels per Defensible Space Guidelines in Section 1.6.8. In some cases, treatment will need to extend to 100 feet in order to reduce flames to two feet within thirty feet of a structure. • Minimize negative effects of fuel manipulation on wildlands • Reduce damage to wildlands from wildfire Designation Project Description Acreage Treatment Method Foothills F.F1 Firefighter Safety Zone 1 Trappers Ridge & Los Trancos Trail > 1 acre mow, graze F.F2 Firefighter Safety Zone 2 Trappers Ridge & Madrone Fire Road > 1 acre mow, graze F.F3 Firefighter Safety Zone 3 Trappers Ridge high point > 1 acre mow, graze F.F4 Firefighter Safety Zone 4 Trapper Ridge south end > 1 acre mow, graze Figure 24: Listing of Project Locations for Fire Fighter Safety Fuel Modification. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 59 4.4.9.2 Location and Description of Projects This vital suite of projects is located generally within 100 feet from structures that are currently in use, which includes entry gates, interpretive centers, restrooms, and maintenance or infrastructure facilities. Some of the projects are to protect the water and electrical services provided to the park. In addition, fire-resistant features should be installed when these structures are remodeled or repaired. The structures in the Parks/ Preserve can serve as a demonstration of the types of actions that should occur in private yards as part of compliance with local codes and ordinances. The following lists specify which structures need defensible space established and maintained annually: The area around structures is currently treated, however the actions recommended will bolster survivability of structures. 4.4.10 Ignition Prevention Fuel Management Projects 4.4.10.1 Specific Goal of Action Ignitions from barbeques may occur in Foothills Park. Ignition prevention relies upon fuel management, Designation Project Description Acreage Treatment Method Foothills F.D1 Defensible Space Entry Gate and Restrooms > 1 acre hand labor F.D2 Defensible Space Boranda Water Tank > 1 acre hand labor F.D3 Defensible Space Restrooms at Orchard Glen > 1/2 acre hand labor F.D4 Defensible Space Interpretive Center > 1 acre hand labor F.D5 Defensible Space Maintenance Complex > 1 acre hand labor F.D6 Defensible Space Boronda Pump Station at Campground > 1 acre hand labor F.D7 Defensible Space Park Tank > 1/2 acre hand labor, grazing F.D8 Defensible Space Station 8 > 1/2 acre hand labor, grazing F.D9 Defensible Space Dahl Water Tank > 1/2 acre hand labor, grazing F.D10 Defensible Space Oak Grove Restrooms > 1/2 acre hand labor, grazing Pearson-Arastradero A.D1 Defensible Space and Restrooms Gateway Building > 1 acre hand labor, mowing A.D2 Defensible Space Corte Madera Pump Station > 1 acre hand labor, mowing A.D3 Defensible Space Water Tank > 1 acre hand labor, mowing Designation Project Description Acreage Treatment Method Foothills F.D1 Defensible Space Entry Gate and Restrooms > 1 acre hand labor F.D2 Defensible Space Boranda Water Tank > 1 acre hand labor City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 60 coupled with education, signage, and enforcement of park rules regarding fire safety. Under extreme fire weather conditions, the parks may be closed to the public. The fuel management will consist of the following: • Follow standards for defensible space for a 30-ft radius from the barbeque site. • Remove vegetation to create a non-combustible zone for a 10-ft radius from the barbeque site. 4.4.10.2 Location and Description of Projects 4.4.11 Fuel Modification for Containment Ease 4.4.11.1 Specific Goal of Action The specific goal of modifying fuels in the two parks is to compartmentalize fuels in order to facilitate the containment and control of a fire. The treatment areas are positioned in strategic locations, usually on a ridgetop, with access, avoiding areas that would preclude the use of mechanical equipment such as steep slopes or riparian areas. Fuels are modified to reduce fire intensity and thus allow firefighters better access to the fire, making firefighting actions more effective. Fuel modification also creates more opportunities to backfire, which occurs during wildfires where fire suppression crews create large firebreaks in advance of the fire front. Fuel modification can also slow the spread of a fire, further enhancing fire control efforts. Where trees abut grasslands in the new fuel breaks, it is especially important to limb trees and remove shrubby understory from trees along the edge of the forest canopy in order to break vertical continuity between grass and tree canopy. This action will remove the “ladder fuels” that promote crown fires and hinder fire containment. Designation Project Description Acreage Treatment Method Foothills F.I1 Ignition Prevention Shady Cove Picnic Area > 1/4 ac hand labor F.I2 Ignition Prevention Encinal Picnic Area > 1/4 ac hand labor F.I3 Ignition Prevention Pine Gulch Picnic Area > 1/4 ac hand labor F.I4 Ignition Prevention Orchard Glen > 1/4 ac hand labor F.I5 Ignition Prevention Oak Grove Group Picnic Area > 1/4 ac hand labor F.I6 Ignition Prevention Towle Camp > 1/4 ac hand labor Figure 26: Listing of Project Locations for Ignition Prevention. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 61 4.4.11.2 Location and Description of Projects In Pearson-Arastradero, the projects entail discing and mowing along the grassy perimeter of the preserve, and grazing in the shrubby areas that abut residences. Grazing of shrubby areas near residences need not occur every year, but rather on an approximate three-year rotation. Strips of grass along selected trails are likewise recommended for mowing to enhance containment and access. Two prescribed fires are recommended in the interior of the preserve as another means to remove fuels to reduce wildfire intensity and aid containment during a wildfire. In Foothills Park, a series of fuel breaks are recommended in shrubby fuels. In the fuel breaks, a rotation of the road. Additional mowing/brush cutting would extend to the break in topographic slope, which could be located as far away from the road as 200-ft. This type of mowing would occur in any one location approximately every 3 years; the intent is to maintain the area in a mixture of grass with less than 30 percent canopy cover of shrubs. While treatments may vary over time, the recommended rotation is between rest, mowing/brush cutting and grazing. feetof 03-treatmentsisrecommended.Thefireroadswouldbegradedannually,andgrassmowedwithin10 Designation Project Description Acreage or Distance Treatment Method Foothills F.C1 Containment Trappers Trail 72.51 acres mowing, grazing F.C2 Containment Pony Tracks south of Trappers Ridge 2,975 ft mow annually 10-ft on either size of road, use a brush hog (or grazing animals) to mow areas to the break in slope both under wooded canopy and in grasslands with cover of coyote brush greater than 30% F.C3 Containment Pony Tracks north of Trappers Ridge 2,461 ft mowing, grazing F.C4 Containment Bobcat point 5.28 acres graze with goats F.C5 Containment North of entry Gate 3.47 acres graze with goats F.C6 Containment Valley View Fire Trail 1,459 ft mowing Pearson-Arastrader o A.C1 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Liddicoat 5.39 acres grazing, mowing A.C2 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Stanford and 5,371 ft grazing, mowing City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 62 Designation Project Description Acreage or Distance Treatment Method Foothills F.C1 Containment Trappers Trail 72.51 acres mowing, grazing F.C2 Containment Pony Tracks south of Trappers Ridge 2,975 ft mow annually 10-ft on either size of road, use a brush hog (or grazing animals) to mow areas to the break in slope both under wooded canopy and in grasslands with cover of coyote brush greater than 30% F.C3 Containment Pony Tracks north of Trappers Ridge 2,461 ft mowing, grazing F.C4 Containment Bobcat point 5.28 acres graze with goats F.C5 Containment North of entry Gate 3.47 acres graze with goats F.C6 Containment Valley View Fire Trail 1,459 ft mowing Pearson-Arastrader o A.C1 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Liddicoat 5.39 acres grazing, mowing A.C2 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Stanford and Portola Pastures 5,371 ft grazing, mowing A.C3 Containment Within Redtail Loop Trail, to entire eastern boundary of Preserve 48.72 acres grazing A.C4 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Paso del Robles 7.71 acres grazing A.C5 Containment Property boundary Laurel Glen -north 11.22 acres grazing A.C6 Containment Property boundary Laurel Glen -south 4.05 acres grazing A.C7 Containment Property boundary west of Meadow Lark Trail 9.71 acres grazing, mowing A.C8 Containment Property boundary adjacent to 1791 Arastradero Rd. 8.08 acres grazing (mowing is not possible) A.C9 Containment Property boundary adjacent to John Marthens 1,726 ft mowing A.C10 Containment Arastradero Creek to Arastradero Road 10,222 ft mowing, hand labor near riparian zone A.C11 Containment Meadow Lark to Juan Bautista Trail 8,893 ft mowing A.C12 Containment Meadow Lark 1,569 ft mowing A.C13 Containment Bowl Loop 1,388 ft mowing A.C14 Containment Arastradero to extended split RX1 and RX2 1,830 ft mowing A.C15 Containment Acorn Trail 1,218 ft mowing Figure 27: Listing of Project Locations for Containment Ease. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 63 4.4.12 Fuel Modification for Ecosystem Health 4.4.12.1 Specific Goal of Action Only a few projects that benefit ecosystem health as their primary justification have been identified in this phase; however, many of the other projects enhance natural resources while achieving other management goals. In all cases, the goal of the action is to restore a species distribution and volume of biomass to a condition of effective fire suppression through grazing and prescribed fire. The City should conduct fuel modification to reduce the invasion of coyote bush into grasslands and thus reduce expected heat output. The project located along Trappers Trail consists of mowing chaparral on a rotational basis every two-to three years. This will release native grasses, produce more food for wildlife and provide diversity of age and vegetation structure. Another project is to re-introduce fire in the grasslands of Pearson-Arastradero through prescribed burning a selected interior area on a rotational basis. In both cases, the objectives are to maintain grasslands and restore the native pattern of vegetation on the landscape. A third project to enhance ecosystem health is to graze, with sheep or goats, broad areas that are currently being mowed for grass and invasive weed management. Other fuel management projects also enhance ecosystem health. Reducing the amount and height of understory shrubs creates a vegetative structure that is more open at the forest floor, with less biomass and is vertically discontinuous; this mimics the pre-fire-suppression era. This would be done either with goat herds or with hand labor forces. 4.4.12.2 Location and Description of Projects Designation Project Description Acreage Treatment Method Foothills F.C1 Containment Trappers Trail 72.51 acres mowing, grazing Pearson-Arastrader o A.Rx1 Containment Juan Bautista Prescribe fire north 18.25 acres Rx fire, grazing A.Rx2 Containment Acorn Trail Prescribed fire south 24,45 acres Rx fire, grazing A.C3 Containment Within Redtail Loop Trail, to entire eastern boundary of Preserve 48.72 acres grazing, mowing Figure 28: Listing of Project Locations for Ecosystem Health. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 64 4.4.13 Cooperative Fuel Management Projects for Offsite Fire Containment and Evacuation Ease 4.4.13.1 Specific Goal of Action The goal of this project is to prevent a wildfire from spreading into the parks. The City should work with adjacent landowners to institute and maintain the vegetation in a condition that would facilitate containment and ease evacuation operations. Another cooperative project would be to work to reduce the frequency and impact of sudden oak death, particularly on the western edge of Palo Alto. 4.4.13.2 Location and Description of Projects Cooperation with neighbors is important in the installation and maintenance of fire-safe conditions on lands adjacent to or near the City parks. Most importantly, the enhancement of roadside treatments along Page Mill Road requires cooperation with several other landowners and agencies, as enumerated previously. Cooperative projects also include the formalization of agreements for passage through properties during time of emergency evacuation with public and private land owners and managers. The City should develop partnerships to address regional evacuation routes from residential and public areas, as detailed in the following section. Cooperative projects also include fuel management on City-owned open space adjacent to private structures. In some cases, such as on the western edge of Foothill Park east of Carmel and Ramona Road in Los Trancos Woods, access through private parcels would enable fuel management on City lands that would benefit both parties involved. Sudden Oak Death has been observed in many locations within the Foothills area. At this time the areas are small and consist of one or two trees. The urgency for treatment of these affected areas is related to its location. Dead trees near structures, City property boundaries and along roads should be treated first. For example, dead trees along evacuation routes would get higher priority than those in the middle of remote woodland. However, if entire stands die, or sudden oak death changes the fuel characteristics of the stand, the priority and potential treatments would change. The location and extent of stands affected by Sudden Oak Death should be monitored. Treatment should be consistent with the City policy regarding Sudden Oak Death. Treatments generally entail removal of dead material smaller than six inches in diameter. The trunks of the trees may remain if needed for wildlife habitat, however it is often difficult to retain just the larger material. The proximity of California bay to the foliage of oaks has been linked with the spread of Sudden Oak Death. Removal or trimming of bay trees to separate the foliage is another strategy to prevent further spread. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 65 5 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN However valuable and imperative the plan may be, implementation is the key to achieving the goals set forth by the plan. There are several recommendations that can facilitate implementation of the fire management plan. 5.1 Implementation Strategies The creation of an Implementation Team within the City staff will support implementation. The team would benefit from representatives that could help with project design, cost estimation and budgeting, evacuation planning, and community outreach. The team would include in its mission development of educational material for the community. Implementation Team should include staff from the City Manager's Office, the Fire Department (Chief, Operations, Fire Marshal, CERT), the Police Department (Chief, Homeland Security, Communications/Dispatch, PIO), the Planning Department, Open Space/Parks, Public Works, and Utilities. The City should support the formation of a Midpeninsula Foothills Emergency Forum (MFEF). The MFEF would collaborate on resource management issues. The scope would include pursuit of grants, equipment and resource sharing (such as mechanical equipment and expertise) and joint design of projects especially on City boundaries, or along co-owned/managed roads. The City should work with stakeholder/ partners on common issues. For example, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, Los Trancos Woods, Los Trancos Water Department, MROSD, and private neighbors all have concerns and potentially partial solutions for access and egress constraints. Each partner may have a particular asset to contribute, whether it is available funds or ready volunteers, or expertise in the subject of need. Collaboration creates a stronger base from which fruition of the plan can more readily occur. This interagency organization would be separate from the existing FireSafe Councils; participation would include CEO-level discussions and staff liaisons from each participating agency. The City should participate in local FireSafe Councils, in both Santa Clara County and San Mateo County4. FireSafe Councils can help in obtaining federal funds because the local FireSafe Councils have an already-written Community Wildfire Protection Plan, which is a prerequisite for national funding. Interagency collaboration is also fostered by FireSafe Councils. The local San Mateo FireSafe Council also facilitates access to the use of subsidized California-youth authority hand labor crews. These crews have a long track record of successful fuel management projects at surprisingly low costs. The San Mateo FireSafe Council also has a chipping program to alleviate the burden of disposing of biomass from fuel management projects. The City should also implement projects in City park/preserves through its regular budget process. The City has a history of fuel management that should be continued. Fuel management will continue to be funded through the normal budget process, to encompass continued mowing, occasional grazing, maintenance of defensible space around structures and resource enhancement projects. Funding specific prescribed burns is also expected through the budget process if not funded by grants or conditions tied to this project. For example, a prescribed burn in Alameda County was required as a mitigation measure for a necessary project to expand a facility near a creekbed. Similarly, projects that City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 66 4 Participation in the San Mateo County FireSafe Council would be as an interested party but not to take official action or receive any financial benefit. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 67 enhance natural resources can be used as mitigation measures for worthwhile projects that may have negative impacts. While it is not expected that the City would make a profit from natural resources, the value of its grasslands as feed could be used to offset the cost of using livestock as a resource management tool. Similarly, the City should make an effort to obtain value from wood recovered from dead tree removal, potentially though innovative wood-based art projects. The City has a rich bank of volunteer groups; projects could be implemented with the help of volunteer groups. Relationships with stakeholders such as Acterra, Friends of Foothills, 4-H, and other should be fostered. Roles for these groups could include the performance of pre-treatment surveys, construction and placement of raptor perches, support of grazing operations (movement of portable livestock fences or water sources), or distribution of educational and evacuation directional signs. Corporate volunteerism can be directed to fuel management projects. The adoption of new codes may be less obvious than the implementation of specific projects. Regardless, the adoption of recommended changes in the City code may have more long-lasting and far-reaching effects throughout the City. These recommendations should be pursued. Similarly, the continuation of Station 8 staffing should be viewed as a part of the implementation of this plan. 5.2 Priorities The priority of the projects has been emphasized earlier in this report. Life safety concerns – those focusing on egress and emergency response access – are the highest priority. The projects that address this objective should be immediately pursued. The maintenance of firefighter safety zones is similarly high in priority. Fuel management projects that prevent the ignition of structures are of the next highest priority. This would include the maintenance of defensible space around City structures and vital infrastructure facilities. These projects are mandated by law. Fuel management to prevent the spread of fires to off-site structures from City property are within a level of reasonable care expected from a City; these projects are also considered a type of containment project. Fuel management that promotes containment of fires within City property is next in priority. These projects support the response to infrequent, yet potentially catastrophic fires. In addition, these fuel management projects prevent the more ordinary events from becoming catastrophic. Projects that enhance natural resources are difficult to fund. However, fuel management offers occasions to both enhance natural resources and fire safety. Every fuel management project should be viewed as an opportunity to simultaneously enhance natural resources and promote fire safety. The following criteria (not ordered by importance) can help determine the schedule of recommended fuel treatment project: • Benefit of project in minimizing structure damage or chance of damaging wildfire. • Probability of damaging wildfire (based on fuel loading and vegetation structure). • Potential for ecological benefit (or damage without fire). City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 68 • Divergence of fuel loading and vegetation structure from natural conditions (i.e. deviation from natural fire regime). • A window of opportunity, based on funding timelines, availability of personnel or equipment, or other factors. • If using prescribed fire, some areas may need to be burned in a particular sequence to minimize the potential for escape. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 69 5.3 Fuel Management Project Costs Costs are variable, depending on the project design, site features, access, requirements for insurance, traffic and fencing control, staging, move-in costs, bonding, administration, wage reporting and other city requirements, such as governing regulations, or resource restrictions (i.e. species of concern). Considering only the direct project-related costs, the unit costs of various treatment methods can vary dramatically between the types of treatment methods, but within the treatment methods as well. Similarly, the site conditions, weather, and other external factors that affect unit costs of some treatment methods are: • Height, density, species, and arrangement of existing vegetation; • Desired vegetation conversion and management objectives; • Size, accessibility, slope, soil stability, and vegetation types onsite; • Need for multiple treatment types at a site over a short period of time (cumulative costs); and • Planning and monitoring to develop follow-up treatment prescription. The following table describes unit costs associated with the treatment methods. Treatment Method Estimated Unit Cost ($ per Acre) Notes/Other Considerations Hand Labor Treatments Weed Whipping 1,500 Chaparral Brush Removal 2,140 a Hand-Pulling 2,000 Vista Pruning $1/linear ft / 50-250 b Roadside treatments – no shrubs Mosaic/Drip-Line Thinning $2/linear ft / 3,500 a Roadside treatments with shrubs Organic Mulch 575-1,600 b,c Same as chipping/mulching Treatment Method Estimated Unit Cost ($ per Acre) Notes/Other Considerations Mechanical Treatment Grading 500-600 b,c Mowing 500-600 b,c Chipping/Mulching 575-1,600 b City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 70 a The Sea Ranch Association Fuels Management Implementation, 2002 confirmed 2008. b Applegate, Oregon Fire Plan. http://www.wildfireprograms.com/search.html?displayId=237 c Fire Plan, http://www.wildfireprograms.com/search.html?displayId=237 5.3.1 Project Cost Estimates The following is a compilation of cost estimates for the 51 recommended treatment areas in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Park, and along selected segments of major evacuation routes in the City of Palo Alto. The total five-year cost amounts to approximately $700,000. Costs of Firefighter Safety Zones = $800 annually The costs of each firefighter safety zone was estimated as $200 per zone, based on the cost to mow a grassy area of approximately one acre in size. Mowing costs of unobstructed grass are approximately $200/hr, which includes the cost of the machinery and operator, and a spotter. The production rate of area mowing is approximately one acre per hour. This cost does not include move-in costs, because it assumes the mowing Treatment Method Estimated Unit Cost ($ per Acre) Notes/Other Considerations Hand Labor Treatments Weed Whipping 1,500 Chaparral Brush Removal 2,140 a Hand-Pulling 2,000 Vista Pruning $1/linear ft / 50-250 b Roadside treatments – no shrubs Mosaic/Drip-Line Thinning $2/linear ft / 3,500 a Roadside treatments with shrubs Organic Mulch 575-1,600 b,c Same as chipping/mulching Treatment Method Estimated Unit Cost ($ per Acre) Notes/Other Considerations Mechanical Treatment Grading 500-600 b,c Mowing 500-600 b,c Chipping/Mulching 575-1,600 b Roadside Mowing with Shrubs $1/linear ft Prescribed Burning Broadcast Burning 60-400 b Fixed costs are high, should use $25,000 per burn rather than per-acre costs Grazing Sheep 200 b Goats 500 Chemical Treatment Stump Application 200 Foliar Application 500 Figure 29: Unit Costs for Fuel Reduction Treatment Methods. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 71 for firefighter safety is part of a larger mowing contract. Because the safety zones need to be treated annually, the cost of treating all the firefighter safety zones is $800 per year. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 72 Costs of Initial Treatment along Evacuation Routes = $192,960 initial treatment, $86,400 total for the subsequent 4 years56 The treatment along roads identified as evacuation routes would include a mixture of machinery-based mowing (including mowing with an articulated brush-cutting head that cuts brush) and the use of hand labor. In circumstances where wider areas can be treated, grazing animals, principally goats, can be used to perform initial treatments along evacuation routes. The total length of evacuation routes is slightly more than 12 miles, or 63,740 linear feet, which encompasses those areas highlighted in blue on Figures 17 and 18 and in Section 4.4.7.2. The estimate of costs for this type of treatment assumes an operation that would use the machinery wherever possible as a cost containment measure. One can assume one-half of the length can be treated with machinery for the first 10-ft off the roadside. The remainder of the area would need to be treated by hand. Estimates are based on treating both sides of the road for 30-ft, or a 60-ft wide strip, or almost 24 miles of linear treatment. Treatment recommendations state that areas of oak woodland need be treated for only 10-ft in width because expected fire behavior is relatively calm; however, for cost estimates, every length of the roads were estimated being treated for 30-ft width. The most inexpensive treatment is roadside mowing of grassy areas with few shrubs or trees. This is expected to occur on approximately ¼ of the length of the roadside, for the first 10-ft off the road. Roadside mowing of grass expected to cost approximately $200/hour for the machinery, operator and spotter; production rates generally run around 300 linear feet per hour, or a little less than 18 hours to treat a mile. Production is reduced by the need to pick up the cutting head to move to a new site, and the need to avoid areas of trees. Using this production rate, mowing of approximately 108 hours, or for a cost of $21,600. The next most cost-effective treatment is use machinery to cut roadside shrubs within the first 10-ft of the road. Shrubs near the roads are more common, occurring on approximately ½ of the length of the roads. A cost of $200/hr for the machinery, operator and spotter is used. Production is reduced to 200 linear feet per hour, requiring 26.4 hours to cut brush for a mile. A little more than 316 hours would be required to treat the estimated 12 miles of shrubs, for a cost of $63,360. Machinery has the potential to start fires from causing sparks in dry vegetation. A dedicated fire watch for the operation during fire season is recommended, at an additional cost of $15,000, based on 214 hours of operation during fire season, assuming one-half of the machinery-based work is performed during fire season. The remainder of the treatments will require hand labor to remove shrubs, limb the lower branches of trees smaller than three inches in diameter. This would be required on ¼ of the first 10-ft of the roads, and the entirety of the remaining 20 feet off main evacuation routes. Hand labor crews with a supervisor typically cost $1200/day. The production rate for this type of tree limbing and shrub removal is one-tenth of an acre each day, or $10,000 per acre. Subtracting the areas treated with mechanical equipment, approximately 93 acres will need to be treated using hand labor crews, at a cost of $93,000. 5 Personal communication with J. Squadroni, of Environtech, January 2009, regarding roadside treatment costs. These cost were confirmed, based on worked performed by Environtech, including roadside treatments on Los Trancos Road in early 2000’s and in Carmel Valley more recently. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 73 6 Personal Communication with Mike Philbin, Central Coast Land Clearing, October, 2008. Cost estimates based on work performed in 2008 on roadside treatments in Carmel Valley and in Santa Cruz County. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 74 Government-subsidized hand crews that utilize people in the California Youth Authority system can result in dramatic cost reductions. Costs of hand labor crews can be reduced by a factor of ten. Maintenance would consist of mowing the first 10-ft from the pavement edge yearly, at an annual cost over the next four years of $21,000 per year. Costs of Maintaining Defensible Space around Park/Preserve Structures and Infrastructure = $17,800 Treatments to maintain defensible space around each of the structures and infrastructure facilities in the City Park/Preserve entail the use of hand labor to limb trees, remove shrubs under trees, and to mow grass. Some of the structures, such as the Gateway interpretive Center in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, have little tree cover so mowing would comprise the treatment. Others, such as the pumping station in Pearson-Arastradero will require a higher level of effort because of a greater volume of shrubs and trees within 100 feet of the structure. Limbing and shrub removal need to only be done on a five-year interval, however mowing is required annually. The treatments encompass the red solid circles on Figures 17 and 18 and those described in Section 4.4.9.2. Generally the area of treatments ranges from ¼ acre to 1 acre. Mowing of the area around the structures is estimated as $100/structure, performed annually. Using hand labor to remove shrubs under trees and to remove lower branches of trees is estimated as $1,500/acre, performed every five years. There are nine structures identified in Foothills Park, with a total estimated cost of $14,100 over the next five years; Pearson-Arastradero Preserve has four such structures, with an accompanying $3,700 cost for treatment during the next five years. Costs of Creating/Maintaining Containment Areas $403,486 Containment Areas in Foothills Park Treatments to enhance the actions to contain fires span two different shapes and sizes of treatments. Area treatments are recommended in Foothills Park for Trappers Trail, the Pony Tracks South of Trappers Ridge, the Bobcat Point Containment Zone and the area north of the Foothills Park Entry Gate. Shrubs and lower tree branches should be trimmed within the containment areas on a three-year interval of time. The grass in Trappers Trail and Pony Tracks South of Trappers Ridge will be mowed every three years, with the exception of a width of 30 feet on both sides of the graded trail. Shrubs in the Bobcat Point Containment Zone and the North of Entry Gate Containment Zone are recommended to be treated every five years. Grass in the other containment zones is to be mowed annually in order to bolster containment efforts during fire suppression. Trappers Trail Containment Zone – 72.5 acs. The cost estimate of treatment is based on a rotation of treatments on a three-year cycle, and an annual treatment of mowing of a band of grass for a 30-ft width on both sides of the graded trail. One third of the area would be mowed in any year. One-third grazed, and one-third left to re-grow. This rotational treatment will allow more forage and cover for wildlife, and provide greater diversity of plants and vegetation structure. The cost of grazing one-third of the area, or roughly 25 acres, is estimated at $500/acre, or a total annual cost of $12,500. Costs of grazing are estimated to be lower than other areas because grassy nature of the area will facilitate fencing. Mowing is similarly lower in cost, at $500/acre, or an annual cost of $12,500, also because of previous treatments on the site. The total annual treatment cost for this area would be $25,000, or $125,000 combined for the next five years. ac7–PonyTracksSouthofTrappersRidgeContainmentZone . The cost estimate of treatment is also based City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 75 on a rotation of treatments on a three-year cycle, and an annual treatment of mowing of a band of grass for a 30-ft width on both sides of the graded trail (if the area is not grazed). Because of the small size of the City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 76 yearcostoftreatment-5 sothe ,years-sultinacostof$3850.Thetreatmentintervalisrecommendedtobe5re treatment area, the entire area can be mowed one year, grazed another, and left to rest a third. Using mowing and grazing costs of $500/acre, the five-year cost of treatment would be $14,000. Pony Tracks North of Trappers Ridge Containment Zone – 2460 ft. The treatment cost is based on annual mowing along both sides of the graded trail. Using the production rate of 300 feet per hour and an hourly cost of $200/hr for an equipment operator and spotter, the cost of this treatment is estimated at $1640, or $8,200 for the next five years. Bobcat Point Containment Zone – 5.5 acs. Costs for grazing this treatment area with goats are estimated at $700/acre because the area has not been previously treated and fencing may be challenging. This would would total $3,850. North of Entry Gate Containment Zone -3.5 acs. This area is similar in its treatment recommendation to the Bobcat Point Containment Zone. Grazing costs are estimated at $700/acre, with a 5-year interval between treatments. The one-time treatment cost is $2,450, as is the 5-year treatment cost. Valley View Fire Trail Containment Zone – 1460 ft. The treatment cost is based on annual mowing along both sides of the graded trail. Using the production rate of 300 feet per hour and an hourly cost of $200/hr for an equipment operator and spotter, the cost of this treatment is estimated at $1,000, or $5,000 for the next five years. Containment Areas in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve In Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, fifteen areas are recommended for treatments to facilitate containment during fire suppression. Of these, seven are areas where grazing is recommended, with a total acreage of almost 95 acres. The size of the areas to be grazed ranges from slightly more than four acres to almost 50 acres. Of the area to be grazed, 54 acres is comprised of grass, with few fencing challenges. However, smaller areas that amount to 41 acres to the south and west on the Preserve border are shrubby and have not been previously treated. Given the variability of the condition, the cost for grazing is estimated at $500/acre, or a total initial cost of $47,500. The grassy areas should be grazed annually, at a cost of $135,000. The shrubby areas need by treated only once every five years, at a cost of $20,500. The five-year cost thus totals $155,500. Mowing the grass on both sides of graded trails is a recommended annual treatment. The linear length of this treatment is 26,846 feet, or slightly more than 5 miles. Using the production rate of 300 feet per hour and an hourly cost of $200/hr for an equipment operator and spotter, the cost of this treatment is estimated at $17,897, or $89,486 for the next five years. Two areas are recommended as suitable for a prescribed burn to facilitate containment and enhance natural resources. The costs for this treatment method are especially difficult to estimate because some of the operation serves as training. Often, adjacent agencies provide additional equipment and resources at no cost. A large portion of the costs associated with prescribed burning is involved in planning and obtaining the necessary permits, notification of appropriate agencies and the public and reporting of the results of the burn. Because of the uncertainty regarding the cost, an estimated cost of $25,000 per burn is set. An interval of 5 years is recommended, so a five-year cost for the two treatment areas would total $50,000. Costs of Conducting Pre-Treatment Surveys = $100,000 Pre-treatment surveys and post-treatment follow-up are part of the best management practices associated City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 77 with the recommended treatments. The cost for the pre-treatment surveys and post-treatment follow-up is estimated at $20,000/yr, or $100,000 for the total 5-year cost. This cost can be reduced if knowledgeable volunteers are involved in the survey or monitoring efforts. Estimates for the survey costs assume the City identifies treatments planned for the year and contracts with a biological consulting firm to perform targeted surveys in the treatment areas. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 78 5.4 Funding Strategies to Support Fuel Management Multiple funding sources provide greater stability, more funds, increased continuity, more stakeholders, the potential to expand the scope of work. Each funding mechanism has unique requirements, strengths and weaknesses. Some are best suited for one-time expenditures such as capital improvements while others are aimed at ongoing maintenance activities. The “strings” attached to each mechanism should be considered. It is advisable to match funding mechanisms with priority projects. Figure 30: Funding Mechanisms. A key to expanding funding mechanisms is to demonstrate the value of the projects. Highlighting the value of fuel management is effectively done at a grass-roots level, through collaboration with stakeholders. This is especially important for mechanisms that require community-wide support through votes or donations of money or in-kind services. The discussion under Section 8.1 Implementation Strategies discusses the importance of partnering with other agencies, the use of volunteers to leverage City funds, and the funding of fuel reduction work through the normal budgeting process. This is the most common locally-controlled source of funds, often covering education, code adoption, and capital improvements. While this seems to be the most reliable long-term source of funds, even self-funding projects are vulnerable to a shift in priorities (because these projects need to compete with other community public service needs) or a downturn in economic markets. Funding projects with grants requires that the City match projects with funding sources. Creativity can yield surprising avenues for funding. For example, funds from Homeland Security may be justified to purchase equipment that washes off weed seeds from vehicles because of concerns about decontamination. In this case the same equipment can be used as a solution to disparate concerns. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 79 Bonds may be used for capital improvement projects, especially related to evacuation. These are typically used for very expensive capital improvements such as water supply and distribution or development/ enhancement of improved access. Last, assessment districts can fund specific fuel projects that address specific geographic regions for a specific period of time. For example, assessment districts may co-fund utilities and water improvements. Funding strategies should consider the total amount required, the schedule and duration of funds required, the focus of spending – whether it is capital or maintenance-related projects – the geographic area and the project types. Funding strategies also need to consider the effort required to obtain and administer the funds. Grants may require matching funds in the form of hard cash or in-kind services that can range from relatively simple to complex forms and justification. The National Database of State and Local Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Programs (www.wildfireprograms.usda.gov) presents how other communities have obtained funds and what they have done with those funds. Regardless of funding mechanism, several common challenges need to be considered. When raising money for long-term projects, it is critical to build in factors for inflation and cost-escalation. Raising funds for ongoing maintenance is more difficult than raising seed money for one-time demonstrations. 5.5 Grant Opportunities In the past ten years, an unprecedented amount of federal and state aid has been available for fire hazard reduction. Most federal aid is linked to proximity to federal lands, which may pose a disadvantage for the City of Palo Alto. One exception to this linkage is funding through the Department of Homeland Security. The California FireSafe Council website hosts a “one-stop-shopping” application process where an applicant can obtain an e-grant concept paper. However even this website does not cover all programs. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has a funding program that provides assistance to fire departments through its Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) and the Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program. AFG is limited to fire departments, while the Fire Prevention and Safety Grants are open to a wider range of organizations. FEMA has two disaster mitigation programs: the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program has been declared to mitigate future risk from any type of disaster. Amounts are linked to the total emergency funds. Funds from the PDM facilitate cooperation between state and local authorities with funds awarded competitively for both planning and project implementation activities at the state and local levels as a sub-grantee. This program addresses the more traditional agency focus of earthquakes and floods; the extent of funding for wildfire-related projects is yet to be determined. The State Fire Assistance includes supplemental appropriate allocation through the National Fire Plan, in addition to a regular appropriation distributed by formula to state foresters through the USDA Forest Service. These funds can be used to plan and implement hazard mitigation projects, including fuel management, prevention and mitigation education, and community hazard reduction. The process for obtaining funds is competitive and available nationwide, with 35 percent distributed among the states to meet firefighting preparedness and safety needs. Obtaining funds through grants often involve intricate application process or include administrative burdens associated with monitoring how funds are spent and complex reporting requirements. Using funds for ongoing projects is a concern because the sustainability of grant funding is sometimes questionable. DisasterMitigationProgram(PDM).HMGPfundsareavailabletostatesafteradisaster-andthePre )HMGP( City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 80 Grant opportunities often become available for a short period of time. Requirements and levels of funding change annually. For example, the federal Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency recently announced a new policy for funding wildfire mitigation. On September 8, FEMA Mitigation Chief David Maurstad issued a policy that describes how the post-disaster Hazard wildfire mitigation activities by eligible grant applicants. Activities eligible for funding under these grants include creation of defensible space through removing or reducing vegetation; the application of non-combustible building envelope assemblies, use of ignition-resistant materials, and proper retrofit techniques for structures; and hazardous fuels reduction vegetation management or thinning within two miles of at-risk structures. Check with your state Emergency Management Office or FEMA Regional Mitigation staff (http://www.fema.gov/about/regions/index.shtm) for more information about HMGP and PDM grants. usedfor DisasterMitigationgrantprogram(PDM)canbe-erhePtand )HMGP( MitigationGrantProgram City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 81 6 TREATMENT STANDARDS AND METHODS 6.1 Treatment Standards for Vegetation Types For each vegetation type group, the resulting fuel bed characteristics after treatment are described7. Following the vegetation prescriptions, a set of guidelines for creation and maintenance of a fire safe area (defensible space) around residences and other improvements are recommended. In all vegetation types, preference for removal should be given to non-native invasive species. 6.1.1 Prescription for Grasslands • Mow or graze to no longer than 4 inches in height, or disc • Native grasses should be mowed to a height no shorter than 4 inches and may be mowed later in the year to accommodate seed ripening and seed distribution 8 • • Maintain brush cover less than 30% • o less than 20% where slope steepness is greater than 20% • o Requires annual treatment, usually requiring treatment of all grass near structures within 2 weeks of starting to mow. • Alternatively, prescribed burn in late spring or early fall with a resulting cover of not less than 20% 6.1.2 Prescription for North Coastal Scrub and Chaparral • Mow/grind to cut and mulch shrub tops within treatment area; alternatively, • Create islands of less than 12 feet in diameter or 2 times the height of tallest shrub (whichever is smaller) can remain. Clumps should be natural in appearance including specimens of variable age classes 7 These standards/prescriptions were initially developed by Amphion, Inc. for use by the FEMA-funded East Bay Hills Vegetation Management Consortium (VMC). These standards/prescriptions have been reviewed and adopted by the following agencies in the consortium: Cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and Piedmont; East Bay Municipal Utility District; East Bay Regional Park District; University of California; Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; and PG&E. As part of the review process, a Citizen’s Advisory Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee, which were comprised by a cross-section of members of the public, reviewed and commented on the standards. The reference is Amphion Environmental, Inc. 1995. Fire Hazard Mitigation Program and Fuel Management Plan for the East Bay Hills, prepared for the East Bay Hills Vegetation Management Consortium, Oakland, California. 8 Acterra is available to advise on the timing of native grass seed cycles, especially in relation to invasive weed seed cycles. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 82 • Distance between islands shall be greater than 2 times the height of tallest shrub or a minimum of 8 feet, whichever is greater • Retain between 20-30 percent of brush areas in brush crown cover • • The removal of brush should be based on criteria which are listed in approximate order of importance to fuel management objectives: • o Relative flammability -remove the most flammable species first. • o Plant vigor -remove shrubs of low vigor, dying or dead shrubs. • o Sprouting capability -remove species with sprouting capacity first. • o Effects of plant species on soils -i.e. retain shrubs with slope-holding capacity, that increase soil nutrients (ceanothus). • o Value for wildlife food and cover. • o Aesthetic values. • o The order of priority will change according to local conditions such as the relative abundance of each species. For example, where coffeeberry is not abundant, it may be placed high in priority to retain. Attempts should be made to maintain diversity of species. • Maintain a crown cover of less than 30% • Can convert to grass, especially in fuel breaks • Maintain less than 20% dead material in the shrub canopy • Protect oak, madrone, buckeye and trees shorter than 6 feet in height. Cut out shrubs below drip lines and within 6 feet from edge of tree canopy • Anticipate 3-5 year treatment cycle 6.1.3 Prescription for Oak Woodlands • Prune branches up to 3 inches in diameter for a height of 8 feet. Prune up to a maximum of 1/3 the height of trees that are less than 24 feet tall. • Maintain under 5 tons/acre of duff no deeper than 3 inches. Priority For Removal Follows: Remove Only If Necessary chamise coffeeberry coyote bush buckeye poison oak ceanothus Himalaya blackberry wild currant northern sticky monkey flower California blackberry coastal sage brush bush lupine scrub oak madrone manzanita toyon oaks Figure 31: Initial Priority of Removal for Brush. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 83 • Leave all trees bigger than 8 inches diameter. Leave 1/3 of the trees under 8 inches to retain a range of size categories and species. Maintain a stand density of less than 50 trees per acre as long as canopy is still closed. • Can mulch site to a maximum depth of 2 inches to prevent invasion of noxious weeds. o Treatment cycle is from 7-10 years. 6.1.4 Prescription for Riparian Forest Avoid treatment. Where necessary: • Create or maintain an 8 feet vertical clearance between live needles and understory fuel. Remove all dead material. Prune branches up to 3 inches in diameter. Prune up to a maximum of 1/3 the height for trees less than 24 feet in height. • Maintain less than 10 ton/ac. Depth of duff no greater than 5 inches. • Mulch to between 2 and 5 inches in depth. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 84 o Treatment cycle is between 10-15 years. 6.1.5 Defensible Space Guidelines Palo Alto staff will be responsible for maintaining a 100 feet wide defensible space on all sides of any structure in the two parks. All dead plants and combustible materials shall be removed within 100 feet of each structure to establish and maintain a defensible space. Removal of combustible materials includes, but is not limited to, the following actions: • Cut grass and weeds to less than 4 inches. Cutting of native grass and wildflowers may be delayed until after seed set unless they form a means of rapidly spreading fire to any structures. • Remove all dead plant material from within 100 feet of each structure. This includes keeping the ground, roofs, decking, and balconies free of dead leaves, needles or other plant debris. This also includes removing from trees loose papery bark, and dead branches smaller than 3 inches in diameter, to 8 feet above ground. Remove all dead branches from within live ground covers, vines, and shrubs. Refer to Figure 1 explaining pruning. • All live vines and live branches smaller than 3 inches in diameter shall be cut up to a height of 8 feet above ground. Figure 32 provides a description of pruning best practices. Figure 32: Pruning Example. Prune branches to a height of 8 feet above the ground. In young trees, prune branches on the lower one-third of the height of the tree. Do not disturb or thin the tree canopy, as this promotes growth in the understory, which is more easily ignited. • Remove plants as necessary to break vertical continuity between ground covers, shrubs, trees, and decks or overhangs on buildings. Vertical separation is the distance from the top of shrubs or ground cover to adjacent trees, designed to minimize the spread of fire to the crown of trees or structure roofs. Vertical spacing should be a minimum of 8 feet or 2 times the height of the understory plants to the leaves or needles of adjacent overstory trees, decks or overhangs, whichever provides greater separation. For overstory trees under 24 feet in height, the minimum clearance can be reduced to 1/3 of the overall height of the overstory tree provided this reduced clearance does not form a means of rapid transmission of fire. • In areas without a tree overstory, create shrub islands per the standard for north coastal scrub. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 85 Within 100 feet of improvements, grass between shrub islands should be mowed when cured (dry). • Remove all branches within 10 feet of any chimney or stovepipe including chimneys on adjacent properties. • Chipped materials can remain on the site provided the chipped mulch layer is no greater than 2 inches in depth. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 86 6.2 Description of Treatment Methods 6.2.1 Summary Fuels can be removed on a large scale by prescribed burns, grazing animals, and mechanical treatment. In small open space areas and around structures, hand labor is effective in reducing the fuel load. Eucalyptus tree removal may be effective in specific locations of high risk. Fuels can be redistributed on a large or small scale through mechanical treatments, such as mowing, discing, or grading. In all the following treatments except hand labor, economies of scale are dramatic; the larger the project, the greater the efficiency. 6.2.2 Timing of Treatments The timing of the initial or follow-up treatments is important to achieve the desired fuel management performance standards and resource management objectives. Given the variable nature of fuels through changes in weather and season over time, the schedule of the treatment may often be just as important as the type of treatment selected. For example, treatments in grasslands typically take place when grass cures or dries out. Cutting grass too early will be ineffective, as the grass will usually grow back, negating the treatment. Conversely, cutting grass too late will leave the grass in a hazardous condition during periods of high fire danger. Fuel treatments also need to be conducted when the weather is not too dry or windy, as some treatment types -especially mechanical treatments -may inadvertently start fires. Timing the treatment methods appropriately can reduce potential impacts to special-status species or sensitive wildlife species. It is likely that there will be some months of the year when particular practices need to be implemented (e.g., pre-treatment nesting surveys or avoidance of breeding habitat) to avoid adverse affects to special-status species. Timing treatments to either control or avoid the spread of invasive plant species or insect pests is also critical. For example, treatments performed when plants have set or are setting seed will spread the seed whether it is a native plant or invasive weed. Treatments should therefore take advantage of differences in the timing of seeding of native plant species and avoid periods when invasive species are in seed. Pruning of pines and eucalyptus should be done when insect pests are not flying to minimize the associated spread and damage from these insects. Pruning should take place from November to April to minimize the susceptibility to bark beetles or red turpentine beetles. In most cases, the timing and method of treatment can be modified to accommodate local habitat needs and still reduce fire hazard to an acceptable level. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 87 6.2.3 Hand Labor Hand labor involves pruning, cutting or removal of weeds or shrubs either by hand or with hand-held equipment. This process is slow and expensive, but most selective and has little impact beyond the removal of the target plants. This technique generates considerable debris when pulling, pruning, and cutting vegetation. The debris is not always removed from the site due to the high cost of doing both the clearance and removal by hand. Not removing the debris, however, leaves a significant hazard, possibly greater than pre-treatment because the debris may be voluminous, dry, well aerated, and quite flammable. This method is most commonly used by residents to reduce fuel volume on private lands, or by hand crews on short-term contract with the City of Palo Alto to reduce hazard adjacent to improvements. Some expertise is required to work with trouble species such as poison oak, to prune oaks and control shrubs, and to identify new fuel hazards as they arise. Hand labor encompasses the operations of pruning and weed-whipping, tree removal, pruning, bark pulling, removal of dead wood within the tree/shrub canopy, litter removal and mulching, and establishing new plant material. Hand labor allows use of a wide variety of methods to reduce fuel load, including both chemical and mechanical treatments. Hand Labor -Pruning Trees and shrubs must be hand-pruned to vertically separate fuels. Pruning lower branches of trees is usually done with a hand-held pole saw (with or without a motorized chain saw attached). Lower branches on shorter trees can be pruned with loppers. Hand Labor -Weed-whipping Like mowing, weed whipping reduces fire hazard by reducing the fuel height. However, it is done by hand to avoid harming rock outcrops and desired small plants (such as oak regeneration and landscape material). This treatment is generally limited to small material such as grass or short herbs. Weed whipping may be accomplished any time of the year, and regardless of whether the material has cured. Weed whipping is performed with a hand-held, gas powered tool that cuts grasses and very thin woody material with a fast-spinning fishing-line type of cutter. Because this method is performed manually, it can be used to selectively remove certain vegetation. Most large woody stems are not cut by the treatment, however seedlings (such as oak seedlings) can be severely damaged. Treatments can be completed with greater care than the others (however the height to which plants are cut may be difficult to control if the operator is not experienced) and minimize soil disturbance and erosion. It is also often the only type of treatment possible on steep slopes and in wooded areas. The average weed whipping rate is 750 square feet/hour. The schedule for a skilled laborer should be tailored to the timing of their tasks. For example, selective weed whipping of annual grasses before they set seed while leaving native bunch grasses until after these plants set seed can shift the proportion of vegetative cover over time to more bunch grasses. This shift in type of grasses can shorten the length of time the landscape is prone to ignition. Similarly, thistle reproduction can be minimized by cutting while they are growing, but before they set seed. Pruning should be done from November to April; this schedule avoids spreading destructive bark beetles and/or other pathogens. The cost varies from $10,000 per acre to approximately $1,500 per acre, depending on the time of year, extent of project, and level of detail required. 6.2.4 Mechanical Treatments Mechanical treatments, including mowing, weed whipping, discing, and grading, rearrange rather than City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 88 reduce the actual fuel load. Heavy machinery is usually used in flat areas where terrain and the presence of rocks or numerous trees do not prohibit travel. This type of machinery should not be used on slopes over 30% because of concerns for worker safety as well as erosion control and slope stability issues. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 89 Heavy machinery: attachments to tractors (brush hogs, flail, mowers, tiger mowers) Roadside mowing is a prime example of the use of heavy machinery with attachments. A variety of attachments serve numerous purposes. For example, a brush hog attachment cuts and breaks brush plants off and produces a mulch of the brush debris. Mowers that cut or flail grass and small woody plants are also attached to tractors. Attachments (such as mowers) with articulated arms that reach as far as 20 feet away from the tractor reduce the area over which the tracks must travel, and offer more maneuverability. These articulated arms also cut and/or break off material. Heavy machinery is a moderately fast, and a relatively inexpensive treatment. There is little control over which plants are cut, but machines can travel around isolated areas of concern. Heavy machinery should not be used when the ground is soft in order to prevent ruts and bared soil. Soil movement can be caused by all users on foot, bicycle, equestrian and vehicles (patrol vehicles and fire apparatus). Soil movement can be ruts or minor depressions, which will lead to large ruts or voids. This technique can be used at almost any other time of year, but is faster when done in the summer or fall when brush is brittle and grass has cured. It must not be used during times of high fire danger because the machines can start fires. The under-carriage of the machine and attachments should be washed off after use in areas of weed infestations. Grading and Discing involves stripping a swath of land bare of vegetation with a tractor and blade. It is very effective in producing fire trails 8 to 12 feet across and as a maintenance tool for access routes. Generally, grading is done mid-spring, by a contractor when there is still residual moisture in the soil, but after the threat of spring rains has diminished9. Costs are reasonable, (from $100 to $300 per acre) and relate to the size of the project and condition of trail surface. However, there are several disadvantages to this treatment. By removing all competing vegetation, grading creates an excellent establishment site for weedy species, which may be serious fire hazards. Untimely grading, for example, in mid-summer, can help sow seeds of weedy exotics, such as yellow star thistle, mustard and Italian thistle. In addition, annual grading causes soil disturbance and alters drainage patterns. Runoff, blocked from cross-drainage by the banks on either side of a graded fire trail, is redirected down the trail. This situation favors coyote bush and exotic grasses, leading to a shift in the grassland species composition. Grading spoils will need to be feathered into the sides or smoothed back into grading area annually. Discing involves cultivating or turning over the upper 10" of soil, and produces an uneven surface with a discontinuous fuel distribution and is appropriate only if mowing or grazing is not applicable that year or in a specific location. Rate of production is quite high; normally the operator can disc land parcels of two acres or less within one day. Discing is normally performed annually once grass has cured (so the grass will not grow back that season). A tractor with discer attachment can typically cultivate a swatch 15 feet wide in a single pass. While this is an effective barrier to surface fire spread, it is also an ideal disturbed area with prime growing conditions for weeds and distribution of their seeds. Surface erosion can be significant in areas prone to this process. 9 Residual soil moisture makes the soil pliable or workable, and allows the soil to compact. When grading is performed when the soil is completely dry, the soil is very difficult to work. Pearson-Arastradero has high clay content soils and causes premature soil movement unless the contractor supplements soil moisture with a water truck, which is an additional expense. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 90 6.2.5 Grazing with Sheep and Goats This method includes the intentional use of sheep and goats to consume vegetation thus reducing the amount or density of fuel. These types of livestock are not recommended to create a fuel break, but can be used to maintain this type of pre-suppression feature. Similarly, livestock can prevent grasslands from shrub encroachment, and an oak woodland free of significant understory. The option is effective where the plants are palatable to the animals selected. Control of the livestock and prevention of the impacts of overgrazing is critical to successful use of this technique. As a fuel management technique, livestock need not graze every year. Grazing can reduce or encourage weedy pest plants depending on the timing and intensity of grazing. A range management plan and a grazing monitoring program needs to be established to identify the impacts and ensure that the animals are removed once fuel management goals are met. Perennial grasses may require modifications from management of annual grasses using grazing animals. Because presence of healthy perennial grass stands has many benefits, these modifications are generally recommended. The benefits of perennial grasses are that they cure later in the season, which limits the opportunity for ignition. Mowing typically can be scheduled over a longer time period. Rotation of grazing animals is preferred over greater grazing pressure. Typically, perennial grasses react best when grazing is applied after seed maturation -from late spring through the fall. Goats may import seeds from another weedy site. The herd can be quarantined at goat herd’s ranch for three days where they will be fed alfalfa to clear out their systems. The herder can also use short-haired goats that will carry fewer seeds in their fur. The herding instinct of sheep and goats allows professional herders to range in very mobile bands without the installation and maintenance of permanent fences. Portable electric fences are commonly used to help control the herd and the outcome of their grazing. Goats will browse materials up to 6 feet above the ground creating a desirable vertical separation between the canopy and ground cover. However, measures must be taken to prevent girdling of trees by goats browsing on bark. Herd movement has the advantage of breaking off dead material in a stand as well as punching a humus layer into the soil (if the ground is somewhat moist) and thereby removing available fuel. Grazing treatments need to be repeated, however, following up or alternating with a different, complementary technique can extend its effectiveness. If work is needed to be done during May-July, scheduling can present a challenge because many clients in the greater area desire the service at that time. To minimize the negative effects of grazing on a specific plant, goats should graze after seed set of that particular plant. During initial fuel reduction treatments, goats may be most cost-effective in the late fall or early spring when demand for their services, and possibly price are reduced. Multi-year contracts, and contracts for larger areas typically lower the costs per acre. Providing a place where the herd can stay during the winter also lowers costs for treatment. Providing a water source for livestock is another way to reduce costs. Water sources can be as rudimentary as a plastic wading pool or a portable trough. A herd of 200-300 goats can generally treat one acre per day. Costs can vary from $300 to $1000 per acre with an average of $700 per acre, depending on fencing requirements as well as type and density of vegetation present. The cost includes transportation, the shepherd’s salary, supplements and healthcare for the goats, fencing and insurance. 6.2.6 Broadcast Prescribed Burns Prescribed burning reintroduces fire into the ecosystem as a "natural treatment" and can promote native flora and aid containment of fires by reducing fuel volumes. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 91 Prescribed burns are usually performed by the local fire protection district. CalFire may be willing to participate in a limited prescribed burning program as part of their hazard reduction efforts within the Vegetation Management Program, even though the project area would be outside the State Responsibility Area. If burns were conducted by CalFire, the State would not only assume liability, but also share costs. Regardless, it is likely that CalFire and other nearby fire protection districts and departments would offer mutual cooperation and/or assistance. Several precautions, such as installing firebreaks and notifying various agencies, must be taken before performing a prescribed burn. Treatment boundaries are often road and trail crossings, which reduces the number of fire breaks that need to be created by fire personnel, thereby reducing labor costs and time needed to prepare for the burn as well as minimizing the amount of surface soil disturbance and potential for soil erosion. Prescribed burning requires the development and approval of a prescription or burn plan, which is typically developed by the local fire protection district in consideration of fuel reduction requirements, local weather conditions, and available resources for fire management. The soot and smoke generated, as well as the chance of escape, make prescribed burns a public safety concern. Planning and coordination with interested parties must be an integral part of the program. Broadcast burning may occur throughout the year; however, it is usually conducted during late spring when the ground is still wet or during fall or winter after plants have completed their yearly growth cycle and their moisture content has declined. Spring burns are preferred by some fire staff to ensure a greater measure of public safety, however, there may be impacts to animal and plant reproduction activities. Fall burns are more closely aligned with the natural fire cycle found in California. If a prescribed burn were to be conducted in the fall, the period before leaves or new herbaceous material covers the slopes will be short (possibly a month or two). Prescribed burning can enhance the local grasslands and promote the abundance of wildflowers. Any small oaks or shrubs to be retained will need to be protected during the burn to prevent their mortality. While the abundance of wildflowers the subsequent years is an appealing sight, the burned area will be temporarily blackened. 6.2.7 Eucalyptus Tree Removal By removing eucalyptus trees their canopy no longer contributes to a fire in the form of a crown fire or ember production. Additionally the production of surface fuels is reduced since biomass production (branches, leaves, duff etc.) is decreased. This technique has positive impact on reducing spotting potential, heat output, spread rate and, potentially, ignitability depending upon what replaces the overstory. Tree removal varies from cutting of individual trees, to removal of entire overstory canopy. This process can be slow and expensive, but can be selective with limited impact beyond the removal of the target plants (depending upon scale of removal). Sometimes harvesting techniques can be quie t rpdai f. I tehlt s City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 92 hwoeri not harvested, the technique generates considerable debris (from tree branches) that should be removed using machinery to haul. The boles of trees hauled away and other debris should be either hauled away or may be burned later as a part of a prescribed burn (pile or broadcast). A portion of debris may be left as a sort of erosion control measure and to cover bare spots. And bats may use eucalyptus trees as perches and nesting sites. Replacement perches and nesting platforms for raptors can be constructed, located, and installed prior to removal of the trees to minimize displacement of raptors. If the tree harbors a maternal bat roost, removal should be coordinated with the appropriate wildlife agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Game and possibly the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Volunteers can locate and construct the raptor perches and nesting platforms, with guidance from suitable experts (e.g. Audubon Society or the Point Reyes Bird Observatory). City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 93 Tree removal creates patches of disturbance by the removal operation. Subsequent treatment of the area is dependent upon the species that encroach into these patches. Removal of exotics or weed species on an annual basis should be anticipated until an acceptable stable vegetation type is re-established. Sprout removal is often required as a follow up treatment, involving the application of herbicides and/or other techniques such as grinding the stump or placing plastic over the stump. 6.2.8 Herbicide Application to Control Invasive Plants Using herbicides to control invasive plant species that exacerbate wildfire risk is used as part of an Integrated Pest Management10 program and in combination with other treatment measures (e.g., mowing, burning and hand removal). Application following another treatment method in which plants are trimmed or shortened can increase the effectiveness of the chemical treatment. Herbicides can also be used to kill herbaceous plants in exposed areas, such as roadside grass and weeds, and are typically applied while the grasses and weeds are still actively growing. Foliar treatments are generally not applied within seven days of significant rain because the herbicide may be washed off before it is effective, and not on windy days because of concerns for spray drift. The use of Garlon 4 Ultra herbicide can be used to treat areas of eucalyptus resprouting, removing the need to completely uproot or grind down the eucalyptus stump. Foliar application of Roundup to eucalyptus re-sprouts is another typical, successful chemical treatment, and can be used to eliminate small-diameter fuels in areas of high ignition risk. The use of a thistle-specific herbicide, Transline, is effective in controlling the spread of yellow star thistle, artichoke thistle, and bull thistle. Herbicides do not remove any vegetation from an area’s fuel load; the dead plant matter continues to exist at the site and could continue to be a fire hazard if not collected and disposed. Health, safety and environmental concerns have limited the widespread use of chemicals over the past 20 years, and repeated use of chemicals is not preferred due to the prevalence of unwanted species building resistance to herbicides. Additionally, concerns regarding water quality and other potential environmental impacts that may occur with prolonged use of and exposure to herbicides and other chemical applications further limit their frequent or widespread use as a treatment. Application of herbicides is typically performed by hand, and can include sponging, spraying, or dusting chemicals onto unwanted plants. Hand application provides flexibility in application and is ideally suited for small treatment areas. Roadside application of herbicides may employ a boom affixed to or towed behind a vehicle. Herbicide application requires specific storage, training and licensing to ensure proper and safe use, handling, and storage. Only personnel with the appropriate license are allowed to use chemicals to treat vegetation. Herbicide application is also only applied per a prescription prepared by a Pesticide Advisor licensed in that county. Personal protection equipment is essential to limit personnel exposure to chemicals. 10 Integrated Pest Management is a strategy that uses an array of biological, mechanical, cultural, and hand labor, to control pests, with the use of herbicides as a least-preferred method of control. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 94 6.3 Best Management Practices The protection and preservation of culturally and environmentally sensitive areas is one of the primary drivers for development of an updated Fire Management Plan. The development of a comprehensive plan not only protects these features from the affects of fire, but ensures that vegetation treatment, fuel management, or fire mitigation efforts are planned and executed in a manner that prevents potential additional adverse impact. The following steps are considered best management practices for the continued protection of environmental areas. These steps are ideally suited to on-going fire management planning and the execution of specific fire management actions described within this plan. • Detailed site inventory prior to treatment to determine the location of sensitive sites. Exploration into the use of knowledgeable volunteers to conduct a more detailed, site-wide survey is warranted. • Site planning and design to determine specific vegetation treatment actions based on fire management benefits, environmental impact, and required mitigation activities. • Protection during vegetation treatment using best management practices tailored to impacted sensitive resources. • Protection of disturbed environmentally sensitive areas following either specific fire management actions. The above vegetation treatment actions have been commonly used throughout the State of California. Through their implementation, a series of best practices has emerged to limit their adverse impact on the environment and to assist in the selection and planning of their application. 6.3.1 Hand Labor Dutthe direct relationship of personnel to the environment in which they operate, hand labor can represent eoan approach that provides the least adverse impact to environmentally sensitive areas. However, specific fire management goals and the characteristics of the sensitive area or resource must be assessed to develop an actual work plan and associated activities. The following management practices and considerations should be implemented during site planning and project execution. • Provide or confirm adequate training, experience, and oversight to ensure that personnel are familiar with hand labor operations and planning, site conditions, potential and identified sensitive resources, and the identification of specific environmental features or conditions that must be avoided. • Avoid treatment actions during conditions that may affect water or run-off including during storms or severe weather or immediately following severe weather. • Avoid excessive foot or vehicle traffic on slopes, unimproved or non-designated trails, or outside of preexisting roads or access points. • Inspect areas for nesting birds to determine if activity should be postponed or adjusted by the establishment of a buffer area. • Clean all tools and equipment following actions and prior to movement into new environmental areas to prevent the spread of invasive or non-native plants. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 95 6.3.2 Mechanical Treatments Due to the potential for large equipment use, rapid action, and large-scale area operations, mechanical treatments can have significant adverse impacts on sensitive areas. As a result, pre-planning and site supervision are extremely important for any planned mechanical treatment actions. The following management practices and considerations should be implemented during site planning and project execution. • Provide or confirm adequate training, experience, and oversight to ensure that personnel are familiar with mechanical treatment operations and planning, site conditions, potential and identified sensitive resources, and the identification of specific environmental features or conditions that must be avoided. • Avoid treatment actions during conditions that may affect water or run-off including during storms, periods of precipitation, or immediately following severe weather. In addition, avoid scheduling any treatment actions during seasons with significant predicted precipitation. Cease operations or postpone planned operations including movement of vehicles or equipment during precipitation conditions that may combine with vehicle activity to cause damage to roads, trails, or adjacent land areas. • Plan treatment actions and equipment selection to minimize damage or alterations to existing soils. Determine locations of potentially erosive soils prior to treatment. Restrict operations that may adversely affect sensitive soil systems such as serpentine soil areas, erosion prone soils, or riparian zones. Restriction may include using road-based operations only, and avoiding riparian set-backs established by regulatory agencies. • Maintain a buffer of 25-50 feet between operations and water bodies or designated riparian areas. Avoid crossing drainage channels, run-off areas, or dry streambeds. Install and manage run-off barriers for rainwater in all treatment and operating areas. Restrict mechanical removal of trees to areas further than 50 feet from drainage channels. • Restrict vehicle traffic to preexisting roads or pre-planned access points based on equipment size and operations. Limit transport and support equipment to existing roads. Limit heavy equipment useto slopes less than 30%. Install erosion control measures on all vehicle roads and traffic areas. • Maintain strict monitoring and control of fueling and maintenance operations. All maintenance actions that may produce spills should be executed in areas with secondary containment protection, away from any water bodies or drainage areas. Clean up of all spills should be done on-site, with materials ready for use. Inspection of equipment for new leaks and mechanical problems should be performed daily, prior to operations. • Inspect areas for nesting birds to determine if activity should be postponed or adjusted by the establishment of a buffer area. • Clean equipment following actions and prior to movement into new environmental areas to prevent the spread of invasive or non-native plants. • Plan operations around expected seeding conditions of targeted species (either prior to or sufficiently afterwards) to ensure efficiency of treatment action. • Cease actions during periods of high fire danger or during red flag conditions. Ensure that all mechanical equipment have approved spark arrestors and comply with California Public Resources Code (PRC) sections 4431, 4435, 4442, and 4437 to limit potential for ignition of incidental fires. • Maintain on-site fire suppression resources to include shovel, water pump, fire extinguisher, and two-way radio or communications for fire reporting. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 96 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 97 6.3.3 Grazing with Sheep and Goats • One of the primary adverse impacts of grazing is over-grazing and the resulting exposure of bare ground. Over-grazing can increase the potential for soil erosion, water run-off and drainage, elimination of native plant species, and spread of non-native plants and weeds. Prepare a grazing management plan by a certified range specialist that specifies goals, stocking levels, grazing periods, installation of range improvements (such as water sources) to evenly distribute utilization of feed, and monitoring and performance criteria. • Develop a site-specific annual grazing plan that includes project-level plans for stocking, timing, and resource management goals. • Prior to introduction, all animals should be quarantined and fed weed-free forage to limit spread of invasive or unwanted plant species as well as prevent spread of livestock diseases. • Limit grazing to non-riparian areas. 6.3.4 Broadcast Prescribed Burns Prescribed burns can have significant impacts on sensitive areas both from environmental and cultural standpoint. The planning and execution of a prescribed burn must be carefully developed. A prescribed burn can adversely affect the duff layer, generate large and unpredicted amounts of smoke, and transition from a controlled event to one that is uncontrolled and dangerous. • Provide or confirm adequate training, experience, and oversight to ensure that personnel are familiar with broadcast prescribed burn operations and planning, site conditions, potential and identified sensitive resources, and the identification of specific environmental features or conditions that must be avoided. • Develop a smoke management plan describing desired outcomes and specific actions for onsite personnel including a test burn, continual evaluation of smoke dispersal, monitoring of wind patterns, and monitoring of potential visibility impacts to primary roads and highways. • Develop public safety plans to be executed throughout the prescribed burn cycle including press and information releases, signs and notifications, patrols on roads and access points, and development of a fire contingency plan. • Maintain a buffer between the prescribed burn area and water bodies or drainage into riparian zones. Buffers should be a minimum of 25 feet for 5% slopes, 75 feet for 5-10% slopes, and 250 feet for 10% or greater slopes. No prescribed fires should be ignited near streams or in riparian zones. • Plan the prescribed burn to minimize post-fire erosion into water bodies and drainages through natural barriers, proper construction of fire lines along contours, and proper erosion control barrier deployment. Minimize prescribed burning in areas with highly erodible soils. • Cultural and social sites and structures shall be excluded from burn area through planning, hand-lines, or other fire protection operations. On-site personnel will be briefed on locations and features of cultural or social sites to include incident command or response personnel. Avoid prescribed burns in areas with utility infrastructure, existing property or structures, or archeological sites. • Manage fuel moisture through pre-fire assessment and potential fuel modification. Prior to prescribed burn, remove ladder fuels into the tree canopy to increase safety and reduce torching. • Conduct prescribed burns only on designated burn days as authorized by BAAQMD. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 98 • Inspect areas for nesting birds to determine if activity should be postponed or adjusted. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 99 6.3.5 Herbicide Application The application of herbicides for vegetation treatment should focus on the goal of applying the least amount of chemical required to achieve a desired outcome, consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s Integrated Pest Management policy. Best management practices for herbicide application are centered on limiting adverse or unintended impacts of herbicides due to run-off, wind-spread, or post-treatment exposure. • Provide or confirm adequate training, experience, and oversight to ensure that personnel are familiar with herbicide operations and planning, site conditions, potential and identified sensitive resources, and the identification of specific environmental features or conditions that must be avoided. Herbicide application is only applied per a prescription prepared by a Pesticide Control Advisor licensed in that county, and applied by a licensed Pesticide Control Applicator. • Develop public safety plans to be executed throughout the treatment cycle including press and information releases, signs and notifications, and fencing or area restrictions. • Develop a spill contingency plan and maintain strict monitoring and control of operations. Clean up of all spills should be done on-site, with materials ready for use. • • Chemical treatments within habitat of California Red-legged Frog should be conducted according to • U.S. District Court injunction and order covering 66 pesticides (Oct 2006) and subsequent EPA effects determinations. • Clean equipment following actions and prior to movement into new environmental areas. • Avoid treating areas adjacent to water bodies, riparian areas, and primary drainage access. Follow all herbicide labels and directions in determining applications near water resources or riparian habitats. Limit aerial application to greater than 100 feet from water resources. Limit ground and hand application to greater than 50 feet. • Avoid treating areas used for livestock operations or intended as grazing areas. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 100 PART B – POLICY REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 101 1 EVACUATION AND REFUGE 1.1 Identification and Notification The complexity of jurisdictional boundaries and responsibilities necessitates that the City of Palo Alto participate in 1) a standing forum that includes all stakeholders and 2) creating of coordinated, regional plans. Emergency Public Information (EPI) is generally disseminated via broadcast radio (the Emergency Alert System and KZSU 90.1 FM), telephone and e-mail, two-way radio contact with neighborhood leaders and Disaster Service Workers Volunteers (via ARES/RACES ham radio and other systems), and via public address systems such as speakers on first responder vehicles. New mass-communication systems for telephone and e-mail have recently been deployed in local jurisdictions: • Palo Alto: Community Alerting Notification System (CANS) • Los Altos Hills: a similar systems to CANS • Stanford: also CANS • San Mateo County: a county-wide system, www.smcalert.info <http://www.smcalert.info/> • Santa Clara County: a county-wide system is pending These systems are currently not coordinated, An incident that starts in Palo Alto and spreads to Woodside could cause 1) a failure to notify all involved or affected and 2) inconsistent or conflicting information. The National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides that events where multiple jurisdictions are involved may establish a Joint Information Center (JIC) to coordinate the efforts of all Public Information Officers (PIOs). In addition, Open Space and Park Division radios lack adequate channels (especially tactical channels) for the growing need. This will be more crucial as affected agencies switch to digital communication systems. We recommend that a pre-plan for a Foothills JIC be created which would include notification procedures for all potentially-involved dispatch centers, and that the Open Space and Park Division radios be updated. A regional evacuation plan for the Foothills should also be created: "Foothills Regional Emergency Response and Evacuation Plan (FREREP)". This plan would provide for standardized signage and evacuation route nomenclature and protocols. The Palo Alto Police Department has developed a draft plan that could be an initial model. Furthermore, locked gates on evacuation routes must be properly labeled and signed and first responders (including, in some cases, authorized local residents) must have keys or other access methods. For example, the Los Trancos Road gate to the back of Foothills Park is not labeled. In another example: A Los Trancos Neighborhood Preparedness Coordinator could be issued a key and given an assignment to open that gate in the event of an emergency. Existing evacuation plans should be reviewed, updated as needed, and integrated into the FREREP. For example, the Los Trancos/Vista Verde Neighborhood evacuation plans are posted at the following location: City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 102 http://www.vistaverdeca.org/emergency_response_info.html The (private) Pony Tracks Ranch provides emergency vehicle egress (into Palo Alto via the "stub" of Alpine Rd. on to Page Mill) as well as a safe refuge area: http://www.vistaverdeca.org/about9.html 1.2 Regional Cooperation After the tragic Oakland Hills Fire of 1991, several local jurisdictions came together to form the East Bay Foothills Forum. The same underlying conditions and principles support the formation of a similar group in the Palo Alto area, which could perhaps be called "The Midpeninsula Foothills Emergency Forum (MFEF)". 1.3 Temporary Refuge Places of temporary refuge are located in areas of low hazard, in places that are regularly maintained (at least annually) in a low-fuel volume condition. Los Trampas Valley is the best example of a suitable location, however this site may also be used as by incident management teams during longer duration fires. To enhance the effectiveness of these temporary refuges, the park staff should perform an evacuation drill. The firefighters safety zones on Trappers Ridge are NOT temporary refuge areas for anyone but firefighters with proper training and equipment. There are opportunities for off-site refuge; private properties in the area could provide temporary refuge, but agreements between the City and property owners would need to be formalized. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 103 2 CODES AND REGULATIONS The 2007 California Building Standards Code became effective statewide on January 1, 2008. Included in the new code are the 2007 versions of the California Building Code (based on the 2006 International Building Code), and California Fire Code (based on the 2006 International Fire Code). With Ordinance 4975 and 4976, the City of Palo Alto adopted these codes and local amendments to the State model codes with supportive Findings of Fact, which were filed with the State Building Standards Commission. These codes became effective in Palo Alto on January 1, 2008. The codes are comprehensive and have included the key elements recommended by the model codes. 2.1 Existing Codes and Ordinances Codes related to wildland urban interface fires can be found in both the building code and fire code. 2.1.1 Fire Code Title 15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code adopted the California Fire Code, 2007 Edition, including Appendices B and C, and Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 25 and Chapter 1 Appendix of the International Fire Code. Sections 15.04.520 – 15.04.587 address wildland urban interface fires. Key components of the fire code include: • Definition of the Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area: “…all areas west of Highway 280 and all other areas recommended as “Very High fire Hazard Severity Zone” by the director of CDF.” (Section 15.04.520). • Requirement for Preparation of Fire Protection Plan: Addition of section 4703.1 through 4703.4 requires a site specific wildfire risk assessment be prepared by an applicant when required by the fire code official. (Section 15.04.530) • • Requirements for Defensible Space: Addition of section 4707.1 – 4707.2 define the requirements for an effective defensible space within 30 feet of buildings, with an additional defensible space 100 feet when required by fire code official due to site conditions. This section also defines corrective actions and the ability of the executive body to correct conditions and make the associated expense of such correction a lien upon the property. (Chapter 15.04.530). In addition, Section 15.04.130 adds Section • 304.1.2.1 that provides authorization for the fire chief to cause removal of weed or combustible materials. • • Access Requirements: Addition of sections 4714 through 4714.3 establishes access requirements for all driveways and fire apparatus roads. (Section 15.04.550) • o Driveways require clearances of 12 feet wide and 13.5 feet high. The code requires turnarounds for driveways greater than 150 feet in length and turnouts and turnarounds for those greater than 200 feet in length and 20 feet wide. It requires that vehicle speed limits be posted on entrances to bridges, on driveways and private roads. • o Fire apparatus roads require clearances of 20 feet width and 13.5 feet height. Dead end roads greater than 150 feet in length are required to have turnarounds. • In addition, Section 15.04.170 amends Section 504.4 to require that access control devices (including bars, grates, gates, electric or magnetic locks or similar devises that could inhibit rapid fire department emergency access) be approved by the fire code official and be provided with an approved means for deactivation or unlocking by the fire department. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 104 • Water Supply: Addition of sections 4715 through 47159 defines water supply requirements including water sources, hydrants, adequate water supply, obstructions, identification, testing and maintenance, clearance of fuel and standby power. (Section 15.04.560) • Automatic Fire Sprinklers: Addition of Sections 4716 through 467716.3 adds the requirement for new buildings to be provided with an approved automatic fire sprinkler. Existing buildings are required to provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler when modifications are made that increase the building area. (Section 15.04.570) • Requirements for Suppression and Control: Addition of Sections 4717 through 4717.3.5 add general requirements applicable to new and existing properties to provide necessary fire protection measures. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 105 These include vegetation control, maintenance of defensible space with measures that increase the requirements of Section 4707 (Section 15.04.530). These measures address (Section 15.04.580): • o Trees: Maintain horizontal clearance of 10 feet from any structure. Pruning to remove limbs located less than 6 feet. Regularly remove deadwood and litter from trees. • o Roadway Clearance: Clear brush or vegetative growth within 10 feet on each side of portions of fire apparatus access roads and driveways. • o Electrical Transmission and Distribution Lines: Clearance requirements provided for the various line voltages between electrical lines and vegetation. • o Access Restrictions: Provides the authorization for the fire code official to close WUI areas to entry (exceptions made for residents, and authorized police or fire personnel.) • Ignition Source Control: Additions of Sections 4717.4 through 4717.4.10 provide regulations to prevent the occurrence of wildfires. These sections address clearance from ignitions sources; smoking; equipment generating heat, sparks or open flames; fireworks; outdoor fires, outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbecues and grills; reckless behavior. (Section 15.04.584) • • Control of Storage: Addition of Section 4717.7 provides additional requirements for storage of • hazardous materials; liquefied petroleum gas installations; explosives and combustible materials. (Section 15.04.585). • Dumping: Additions of Section 4717.6 provides regulations related to dumping of waste material and ashes or coal. (Section 15.04.586) • Protection of Pumps and Water Storage Facilities: Addition of Section 4717.7 added regulations to increase the reliability of water storage and pumping facilities and protect such systems from intrusion by fire. (Section 15.04.587) • Land Use Limitations: Addition of Section 4717.8 places limits on land use to reduce the potential threat to life safety by requiring permits for temporary fairs, carnivals, public exhibitions and similar uses. • Emergency Communications: Section 15.04.190 requires, by the addition of Section 5.11.1, that new buildings or buildings expanding by more than 20%, or that change occupancy classification must provide an approved system or equipment that will allow for adequate emergency radio coverage. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 106 2.1.2 Building Code Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code adopted the California Building Code, 2007 Edition. In general these sections support the adopted Title 15 Fire Code. Key components of the building code that address wildland urban interface fire include: • Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Area: The same definition as in Title 15 applies and amends Section 702A of the California Building Code. (Section 16.04.140) • Sprinkler System: Section 903.2 is amended to provide an automatic sprinkler system throughout all buildings designated in the WUI Fire Areas (except any non-habitable structures accessory to a single family residence that have a gross floor area of 500 square feet or less). It also includes the requirement for modifications to existing structures that expand the gross floor area as listed in the Fire Code. (Section 16.04.150) • Roofing Requirements: Section 1505.14 amends the roofing requirements in the WUI Fire Area. A Class A fire retardant roof covering is required where more than 50% of the total roof area is replaced within any one year period, for new structures and in the alteration, repair or replacement of the roof of existing structures. Roofing requirements shall also comply with Section 704A.1. (Section 16.04.170) Chapter 7A of the California Building Code provides additional requirements for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. It expands the roofing and attic ventilation requirements that came into effect for new buildings applying for a building permit after December 1, 2005. This portion of the code addresses: • Roofing assemblies, coverings, roof valleys and roof gutters. • Attic ventilation, eave or cornice vents and eave protection. • Exterior wall coverings, openings, vents, exterior glazing and window walls and exterior door assemblies. • Decking, floors and underfloor protection. • Ancillary buildings and structures. 2.2 Recommendations There are several areas that could be expanded to further improve safety in the Palo Alto WUI Fire Area. These could be done as code revisions to further enhance the code or as guidelines that are used in enforcement of existing codes. Other best practice measures may be incorporated into City contracts and used in public education: City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 107 • Expand Section 15.04.520, the Area Defined as Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Area, to include the lands between Foothill Expressway / Junipero Serra Boulevard and Highway 280. • Expand Section 15.04.530 General Requirements for WUI Fire Areas (4703.1 Fire Protection Plan Preparation) to require that Fire Protection Planning begin early in the planning/ permitting process so the location of access roads, driveways and structures can be influenced to increase fire safety and emergency response. Require the plan to also address implementation and funding of defensible space vegetation management (especially important for commonly held private open space). • Expand Section 15.04.540 Defensible Space (4707.1 General Item 5.) to include all ground, decking and balconies in addition to the specified “maintain roof of a structure free of leaves, needles or other dead vegetative growth.” • Expand Section 15.04.550 Access Requirements (4714.2 Driveways and 4714.3 Fire Apparatus Roads) to add standards related to gradient and horizontal and vertical curvature, bridge load limits, parking restrictions during high fire danger weather and requirements for emergency vehicle access. • Expand Section 15.04.580 General Requirements for WUI Fire Areas (section 4717.2 Vegetation Control) to provide additional guidance for Maintenance of Defensible Space (see following guidelines). • Expand Section 15.04.584 Ignition Source Control (section 4717.4.7 Outdoor Fires) to identify that abatement by burning is unlawful unless by permit and unless all other applicable permits are obtained from appropriate governing jurisdictions. Burn permits are only issued to working agricultural properties. • Fencing: Add a section requiring fences be constructed of either noncombustible material or of timbers with a minimum of one-inch nominal thickness. For example a typical fencing might consist of open wire mesh with four-inch posts and stringers that have a minimum one-inch nominal thickness. Fences should be designed with removal panels or gates so during a wildfire they do not convey fire to adjacent structures. • Signage: Add a section requiring street, road and building address signs to have a minimum letter height of 4 inches, be 1/2 inches thick, reflectorized, painted a color contrasting with the background color of the sign, mounted on non-combustible poles and visible within 100 feet traveling from both directions. • Mechanical Equipment Ignition Prevention: Requirements should be included in all City contracts for construction or maintenance work in the WUI Fire Area that address ignition prevention such as equipment (spark arrestor, overheating protection etc.), refueling, clearance of work area, cessation of work during periods of high fire danger weather and requirements for fire suppression equipment. This is becoming more critical for new diesel-powered vehicles because clean air/emission require exhaust particulate burning systems can more easily start fires if the vehicles are taken off-road. • Smoking: More stringent rules regarding smoking in Pearson-Arastradero Park are recommended. Restrictions should be similar to those in place at Foothills Park. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 108 2.3 Exterior Hazard Abatement The following information is provided as a set of guidelines that can be developed into educational material to facilitate compliance with existing codes. The code currently addresses treatments for exterior hazard abatement in a general way; this section provides more specificity regarding the spacing of vegetative fuels. 2.3.1 For parcels of land one acre or less maintain parcel in complete abatement. • For a distance of 30 feet a structure on slope steepness less than 30 percent grade, or 70 feet on slopes greater than 30 percent grade, from all property boundaries cut dry grass and non-woody vegetation to less than 3 inches yearly, no later than June 1. • o This may require re-mowing if late season rains promote grass growth after the first cutting. • o With prior approval of the Fire Department cutting of native grass and wildflowers may be delayed until after seed set provided they do not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire to any structures. • Leaves and humus may not exceed two inches in depth anywhere in a landscaped area; however, bare earth should not be exposed in over 50% of the site and no one bare patch should be larger than 15 square feet. • All dead vegetation (i.e. dry grass, leaves and humus) must be removed under trees and within shrubs, vines and semi-woody plants every year by June 1. • Dead branches must be removed from mature trees and all vines, to 8 feet above ground. Figure 33: Pruning Example. Prune branches to a height of 8 feet above the ground. In young trees, prune branches on the lower one-third of the height of the tree. Do not disturb or thin the tree canopy. This promotes growth in the understory, which is more easily ignited. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 109 • Limbs of trees and large-form shrubs that are smaller than three inches in diameter shall be pruned to provide clearance of three times the height of the understory plant material or 8 feet, whichever is higher. Trees shorter than 24 feet in height shall be pruned of the lower one-third branches (Figure 33). • The vertical distance between the ground and the lowest tree branches should be 3 times the height of any shrubs planted beneath the trees or 6 feet whichever is higher. Plants under trees should generally be shorter than 18 inches in height. Taller shrubs, including vines, semi-woody species and all chaparral species, may be near (six horizontal feet from tree crown) but not under trees. • Remove all dead trees deemed a fire hazard by the Fire Department. • Individual plants or shrub masses will be separated so that groupings/shrub masses will be no wider than two times the grouping height, or 120 square feet in area. Distinct groupings of shrubs (which includes vines, semi-woody species, all types of brush, and all chaparral species) will be designed to dampen the spread of fire. Alternatively, shrubs can be cut and maintained to a height of two feet. * Figure 34: Shrub Spacing. Design groups of plants small enough to provide horizontal separation between groups. This allows proper maintenance and helps slow the spread of fire. Each shrub or group of plants should measure no wider than two times its height, or less than 120 sq.ft. (or 6 ft x 20 ft). The space between groups should be greater than three times the height of the shrubs, or at least a 12 ft. distance • A vertical clearance of 5 feet shall be maintained between roof surface and portions of trees or other vegetation overhanging any building or structure. • Wood piles must be enclosed in a non-combustible storage unit. 2.3.2 For parcels larger than one acre in size • Maintain the area (space) within 100 feet of any structure on the parcel per the specific requirements for lots less than one acre in size. • • Maintain the area (space) within 100 – 250 feet from any structure on the parcel per the following specific requirements: • o Shrub masses will be separated so that groupings will be no wider than two times the grouping height, or 120 square feet in area. Distinct groupings of shrubs (which include vines, semi-woody species, all types of brush, and all chaparral species) will be designed to dampen the spread of fire. Alternatively, shrubs can be cut and maintained to a height of two feet. • o All dead vegetation (i.e. dry grass, leaves and humus) must be removed under trees and within shrubs, vines and semi-woody plants every year by June 1. • o Dead branches must be removed from mature trees and all vines, to 8 feet above ground. • o Trees, and large tree-form shrubs, shall be pruned to provide clearance of three times the height of the understory plant material or 8 feet, whichever is higher. Limbs that are smaller than three inches in diameter are to be pruned up to eight feet off the ground, and in trees shorter than 18 feet, the lower one-third of the height of the tree. See Figure 33. • o The vertical distance between the ground and the lowest tree branches should be 3 times the height of any shrubs planted beneath the trees or 6 feet whichever is higher. Plants under trees should generally be shorter than 18 inches in height. Taller shrubs, including vines, semi-woody species and all chaparral species, may be near (six horizontal feet from tree crown) but not under trees. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 110 • If a structure is within 100 feet of property boundary on adjacent lot, provide 30-foot firebreaks following as closely as possible to the property line and along one side of all fence lines. Fire breaks are a continuous strip of ground that is mowed to three-inch height, or disced, or dozed. • Remove all dead trees deemed a fire hazard by the Fire Department. • Trees on the top of ridges shall be maintained to limit torching, through pruning to provide clearance of three times the height of the understory plant material or 8 feet, whichever is higher. Limbs that are smaller than three inches in diameter are to be pruned up to eight feet off the ground, and in trees shorter than 18 feet, the lower one-third of the height of the tree as in Figure 33. • Within 15-feet of all public or private roadways or driveways, all grass must be mowed, disced or sprayed to 3 inches height. • In grasslands, 30-foot firebreaks and crossbreaks that divide the parcel into approximately 5-acre sections. Firebreaks and crossbreaks are a continuous strip of ground that is mowed to three-inch height, or disced, or dozed, following as closely as possible to the property line and along one side of all fence lines, ditches, and on top of all ridges. When terrain is too steep or rugged for a tractor, a hand-mowed firebreak may be required. • Active Pastureland: 15-foot wide firebreaks and crossbreaks are required if a sufficient number of animals are present to steadily reduce height of grass during the summer months to 3 inches or less by the end of August. If not active, 30-foot width is required. • Active Cropland: 15-foot wide firebreaks and crossbreaks required if crop is to be harvested by mid-June. If later, 30-foot width is required. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 111 3 FIRE PROTECTION – STATION 8 The following is a description, appraisal and recommendation regarding staffing of, equipment for and other response resources related to Station 8 in Foothills Park. 3.1 Description Fire Station number 8 of the Palo Alto Fire Department is located at 3300 Page Mill Road in Palo Alto, CA. It is a seasonal fire station that is only staffed during the daylight hours. This amounts to 12 hours per day. The period of time it is staffed is usually from July 1st to November 1st of each year. This is essentially the fire season for the area being protected and involves about 120 days of coverage. Whenever there is a declared high fire danger day or the burn index indicates an ignition threat the station may be staffed beyond the 12hour period and outside of the fire season when appropriate. The staffing of the station currently includes 1 Captain, 1 Apparatus Operator/Engineer and 1 Firefighter. These positions are filled through overtime allocations rather than being post positions. Initially a fire response unit located at Foothill Park was staffed with only 2 persons. It was upgraded to 3 persons following the Arastradero Fire of 1985 in the lower foothills to be consistent with contemporary fire staffing practices and when Station #8 was constructed. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 112 The apparatus that responds from this station is a Type III Engine Company. This is an apparatus that is primarily designed to respond to wildland fires instead of structure fires. This is similar to the types of companies used by major wildland agencies. The station provides an initial attack capability to an area that involves about 25 square miles of urban-wildland interface area. There are approximately 150 dwellings in the area, but that is not the primary risk. The fire history of this specific area is relatively free of major events in the past decades. The last reported major fire in the vicinity of the upper foothills was in 1912. Significant fires in the lower foothills (primarily light fuels) occurred in 1985, 1992, 2000 and 2007. However, that one factor creates an impact upon existing fuel loads. The lack of major fires in the past has resulted in fuel densities that may be ready to support a wide area fire. It has been estimated that the medium and high density fuels are about three times their normal density. The secondary response units into this area are deployed from the “El Monte” fire station of Santa Clara County Fire located to the north and the Palo Alto Stations #2 and #5. The County Fire Station is equipped with Type I and Type IV engines. Currently there is no direct link to this station in the dispatching of equipment. Depending upon who reports an emergency in the area the call could go directly to the City of Palo Alto or it could be routed through the Santa Clara County Communication Center and Palo Alto would then be notified. The standard response into this area varies upon the level of dispatch. On medium or high dispatch days the Palo Alto Fire Department responds Engine 8 to reports of wildland fires and supports it with another Type III (3 personnel) that is cross staffed by the truck company from Station #6 on the Stanford Campus, one Type I from Station #2 (3 personnel), 2 Type IV cross-staffed patrol units from Stations #2 and #6 (6 personnel), one Paramedic ambulance from Station #2 (2 personnel) and one Battalion Chief from Station #6. Furthermore, the dispatch system provides a brush unit from the Santa Clara County El Monte Fire Station in Los Altos Hills at Foothill Community College (4 personnel from 1000-1900 hours) and can respond an additional 4 Type I’s (12 personnel) and 3 Type IV Brush units (9 personnel). Lastly, the system has the depth to provide additional resources from other mutual aid entities in the same area (e.g. Cal Fire Ranger Unit resources located in Cupertino and San Martin). These include additional Type III units (3 or more), air assets, hand crew resources, bulldozers and command staff to complete an overhead requirement in the event of a major fire. Other Type 1, Type III and Type IV resources may be made available through the Santa Clara County Mutual Aid System. The City of Palo Alto does currently not have an adopted Standards of Cover document, but operates with an informal response goal of 5 to 6 minutes for attendance of at least 90% of its calls for service. The department also provides paramedic (advanced life support – ALS) response to the basic built out portion of the city within 8 minutes for at least 90% of those types of calls (these response goal benchmarks are exclusive of the foothills area). Station 8 has not normally been considered an ALS resource. In the past 2 years a priority has been established to staff Engine 8 with an ALS resource whenever possible. The staffing for the station is provided in the overtime budget. Last year the amount set aside to provide coverage was $200,000. 3.2 Appraisal The primary purpose of placing a wildland unit into this area is to prevent any ignitions from spreading City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 113 beyond a reasonable fire perimeter before an adequate full fire alarm assignment and an effective response force can be placed on the scene. The first 10 minutes of a wildland fire are critical to restricting the size of the ultimate fire. Depending upon the fuel type and density, the slope and aspect and the effects of wind upon a flame front, the period of time that it takes to get initial control of an incipient fire is very important. This is especially true in light fuels, when a fuel is running uphill and/or when fire conditions that consist of high temperatures, low humidity and wind conditions exist. The fire behavior assessment of the Foothills Area indicates a high potential for fast-moving fires. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 114 The secondary purpose of having the unit in place is to establish a point of control for the development of an incident command system in place to address the escalation of the fire, if it is not controlled in the first 10 minutes. The first purpose addresses the need for “distribution”. In the language of response coverage the distribution of resources is the placement of companies, based upon risk factors to be readily available to handle the first few minutes of fire or emergency control. The second purpose addresses the need for “concentration”. This terminology is used to describe the deployment of an adequate amount of resources to deal with the ultimate size of the fire. These two concepts are inter-related in that fires that are controlled early do not need as many resources to be eventually deployed. Therefore, early intervention is a form of cost avoidance. This is the basic operating assumption of all seasonal fire resources. Major wildland agencies such as Cal-Fire, the U.S. Forest Service and other wildland agencies use the concept of seasonal and part time staffing configurations to minimize fire size to as small an area as possible. 3.3 Recommendation The staffing of this station by utilization of overtime fire personnel is a reasonable method of addressing the risk and hazards in the area. It is a cost effective way of reducing the impact of potential wildland fires in the study area. The elimination of this company places the responsibility for initial attack upon fire companies that are more remote and therefore are more likely to have lengthy response times into the area. The staffing pattern of 3 fire fighters is the minimum for the safe and effective operation of an initial attack unit for a wildland fire. This station and its current staffing configuration should be retained in the future. In addition, staffing a police officer and maintaining a ranger staff presence in the Foothills Area during high fire risk days should be considered. This type of personnel offers extra fire detection capability and is available to assist with evacuation should an incident require that particular action. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 115 4 TRAIL PLAN UPDATE 4.1 Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Trails Management Plan (March 2001) The Trails Master Plan for Pearson-Arastradero Preserve recognizes that the preserve is located in the Hazardous Fire Area (Section 3.3). The plan identifies management objectives, strategies and recommended actions to meet Fire Department objectives. It recognizes the need to coordinate with the Fire Department to develop and implement a fire suppression plan that will maximize the safety of the users and the adjacent properties, without adversely impacting the natural environment. It includes fire prevention methods for firelines on the perimeter, as well as fuel reduction zones to compartmentalize the preserve for fire suppression in the event of a fire. 4.1.1 Recommended Revisions Since the Trails Master Plan was adopted in 2001, there have been new facilities developed at the Gateway Interpretive Center and a new access to Foothills Park. Fuel management recommendations take into account these new facilities, as well as recommend the following additions and modifications to the 2001 Trails Plan: • Addition of fuel management along the evacuation route (Arastradero Road) and management of defensible space around the Gateway Interpretive Center, parking lot and staging area to include projects A.E1 and A.D1, A.D2, A.D3 and A.D4. • Addition of fuel reduction zones within the interior of the preserve along existing trails for containment including projects A.C9, A.C10, A.C11 and A.C12. • The Master Plan identifies an option for the Fire Department to use controlled burns as a part of their wildland fire prevention plan. Two potential areas are recommended: Juan Bautista Prescribed Fire North (A.Rx1) and Acorn Trail Prescribed Fire South (A.Rx2). • Modify firebreak width and performance standards. • Addition of roadside treatment standards to Clearing and Brushing for those trails that also serve as emergency vehicle access for clearances of 13.5 feet vertical clearance and 10 feet horizontal clearance. • Addition to Regulatory, Warning and Educational Signs regarding fire hazard signs, education information on fuel management and prescribe fire. Figure 36: Emergency/Maintenance Access Points. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 116 Map depicts the emergency/maintenance access points of entry, trail travel routes to be maintained for use by the Fire Department and Utilities Department when servicing the Preserve. This map also shows disc lines and indicates those sensitive resource areas in the Preserve that should not be accessed by heavy vehicles. The map has been modified to incorporate the new facilities and associated modifications to fire control treatment areas. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 117 4.1.2 Existing Fire Mitigation and Fuel Management in the Arastradero Trails Management Plan Hazardous Fire Area: The Preserve is identified in the Hazardous Fire Area. (Section 3.3) Utilities: Access for maintenance and repair of existing utilities facilities is by all-weather surface roads that can accommodate heavy vehicles for repairs. Primary entrance is Gate B. Clearance of fuels for 10’ radius around poles having operable devises. Tree trimming is generally done every 2 to 3 years with ground clearing done annually. (Section 3.4) Management Objectives, Strategies and Recommended Actions. Objective is to coordinate with Fire Department to develop and implement a fire suppression plan that will maximize the safety of the users and the adjacent properties, without adversely affecting the natural environment (Section 4.5 and Map 4): • Access: Provide adequate access for Type 3 and 4 vehicles. • Fire Prevention Techniques: Use least environmentally intrusive prevention methods • Firebreak and Control Strategies: Prevent fires from spreading on adjacent properties as well as coming into the preserve. Firebreaks/disc lines should be implemented only where they serve their intended function in fire prevention and suppression. • Temporary Closures: Provide an option for park staff to close the Preserve when conditions such as high fire danger could pose a threat to the public. Access (Section 4.5 pg 4-9 and Section 7-2 pp 7-7-7-9). • Provide a 40 to 45 foot “drive” between Arastradero Road and Access Gates A and B to provide a safe place for Fire Department staff to safely park their Type 3 and 4 vehicles when opening the Preserve entry gates. o Ensure that all six access points can accommodate fire vehicles at all times. These access points include: • The parking lot • The access gate on Arastradero Road adjacent to the west of the parking lot • Gate A (access limited to the existing turn-around on the west side of the first concrete bridge spanning Arastradero Creek) • Gate B, which serves as the primary Utilities Department access • Gate C, which is located off John Marthens Lane • Gate D -Vista Hill Gate in Foothills Park (one-way uphill, except in emergency situations) • o Close, restore and annually mow designated emergency access routes within the Preserve as needed to create a circulation route for Type 3 and 4 vehicles in the case of emergency. • • Provide emergency turn-around capability where access roads dead-end (hammer-head configuration needed for vehicle turn-around). • o To minimize potential impacts to the natural resources, these designated vehicle 'turnarounds' will be the only acceptable turning points for motor vehicles within the Preserve. The final siting of new 'turn-arounds' (#2, 5 and 9) should be flagged prior to construction and the Open Space and Parks Division Manager should be advised of pending construction. • Each turn-around should be clearly delineated and mapped to prevent removal of or impact to sensitive biological resources. Refer to Table 9 – Vehicle Turn-around Design Summary. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 118 • o Recognizing that these turn-arounds are to be used for routine maintenance, construction and patrol. In special circumstances where larger fire trucks and over sized utility vehicles must access the Preserve, these vehicles may not be able to use the turn-arounds and will have to travel through the Preserve in a one way direction. In this case, it is recommended that the vehicles enter and leave through Gates B and D. In the case of a wildfire, public safety will override resource protection. In this case, the Fire Department may be required to override these vehicle guidelines to be able to suppress a fire. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 119 Refer to Map 36 Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access for: City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 120 • Emergency/maintenance access points of entry. • Trail travel routes to be maintained for use by the Fire Department and Utilities Department when servicing the Preserve. • Disc lines. • Sensitive resource areas in the Preserve that should not be accessed by heavy vehicles. • Use a uniform maintenance gate at all major entry points with a universal locking device to facilitate routine and emergency access into the Preserve by multiple department staff. Fire prevention methods (Section 4.5 pg 4-9 and Section 7.5 Vegetation Management pg 7-39) • Fire prevention methods to be used at the Preserve include: • o Establishing fire lines on the perimeters of open space lands, leaving the interior areas in their natural condition. These cover many of the recommended containment projects including: A.C1, A.C2, A.C3, A.C4, A.C5, A.C6, A.C7 and A.C8. • o Posting signs indicating the severity of the fire danger (low, moderate, high, very high, and extreme) during the fire season. • o Posting signs “No Fireworks” June 20 to July 10. • o Use herbicides as approved by the Open Space and Parks Division Manager, where appropriate in implementing the wildland fire prevention plan. Refer to Map 4 Fire Protection & Emergency Access of the Trail Master Plan for disc lines and areas that are to be mowed annually to maintain emergency vehicle access through the Preserve. This map also indicates those sensitive resource areas in the Preserve that should not be accessed by heavy vehicles. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 121 Firebreak and Control (Section 4.5 pg 4-10 and Section 7.5 Vegetation Management pg 7-39) • Firebreaks should be disced 24 feet wide or 1 ½ times the fuel height adjacent to the road, structures and where they can compartmentalize an area to reduce the risk of a fire igniting and/or spreading. • Firebreaks should be eliminated where they are not providing any benefit to fire prevention or suppression. • Ideally discing should be performed twice a year, first in late spring and then when the disc lines have “cured.” • If new activities/developments occur inside or adjacent to the Preserve perimeters, then the location of the disc lines should be reevaluated and expanded as appropriate. In addition, though not currently used, maintain an option for the Fire Department to perform controlled burns in the future as part of their overall fire prevention plan. Temporary Closures (Section 4.5 pg 4-10) of the Trail Master Plan The City Fire Department in consultation with Open Space staff may close the Preserve when there is a threat to public safety. When such emergencies occur, the Fire Department is to notify the Police Department and the Open Space and Parks Division staff of emergency closures so they can notify the public. Emergency closures may occur when: • Weather conditions create a critical fire danger; • Arsonists are known to be present in the area; • Staff resources have been pulled away for other emergencies; and/or • Other threats to public safety are present or suspected. High Maintenance Trails -Clearing and Brushing (Section 6.2 Trails Maintenance System & Section 7.5 Vegetation Management) The trail clearing limits for down logs and tree limbing should be 10 feet high and 3 feet wide on each side of the trail. (Refer to Section 7, Figure 16 of the Trail Master Plan for trail clearing and brushing limits). Trail brushing limits for shrubby and herbaceous plant species extending into the trail should be 10 feet high and 3 feet wide on each side of the trail. These plants should be cleared to ground level. Clearing widths should be directed to providing clear passage and providing an average sight line of 100-feet. Low growing and slow growing shrubs and ground cover less than two feet in height should be left undisturbed. Specific Trail Recommendations for Trails (Section 6.4) • Acorn Trail -Segment 1 (Ac1): Maintain existing vehicle turn-around at booster pump station. Refer to Map 4 of the Trail Master Plan-Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access -Turnaround Point 3. • Arastradero Creek Trail -Segment 2 (ArC2): Providing a new vehicle turn-around in a hammerhead configuration near intersection of former Acorn Trail (now Route F) to accommodate Type 3 and 4 emergency fire vehicles. The turn-around area should be defined using the following: grading a level area and landscaping. Such vegetation should consist of native species, similar to nearby, existing vegetation and should be placed in a natural configuration to prevent the vegetation from creating an unsafe condition or adverse visual impact. The final siting of the turn-around should be completed under the advisement of the City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 122 Open Space and Parks Division Manager. Refer to Map 4 of the Trail Master Plan -Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access – Turn-around Point 5. • Arastradero Creek Trail -Segment 3 (ArC3): Locate an emergency/maintenance vehicle turn-around in a hammerhead configuration at the existing gate on the east side of the trail. Move the gate back to accommodate Type 3 and 4 emergency fire vehicles. Improvements to the turn-around area should be confined to the existing, flat graded pad. Minimize annual pruning to area necessary to provide for vehicle access. Refer to Map 4 of the Trail Master Plan-Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access -Turn-around Point 6. • Corte Madera Trail -Segment 2(CM2): Mow the area at junction with Bay View Trail to provide room for Type 3 and 4 emergency vehicles to perform a hammerhead vehicle turn-around following procedures outlined in Section 7.2. Maintain a minimum cover of 2 inches to minimize potential erosion impacts. Refer to Figure 36 Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access -Turnaround Point 4. • Gateway Trail -Segment 1 (Ga1): Providing a 40 to 45 foot “driveway” between Arastradero Road and Access Gate A to allow a safe pull out for maintenance and emergency vehicles accessing the Preserve11. Design of maintenance drive must take into account the existing 10-foot wide crossing over a concrete culvert. The culvert is located approximately 28 feet from the edge of pavement. • Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail -Segment 2 (JB2): Develop turn-around in a hammerhead configuration to accommodate Type 3 and 4 emergency fire vehicles. Locate on west side of bridge in the area that is nearly flat and already contains hardened surfaces and non-native grassland. Avoid nearby riparian habitat and serpentine soils. Refer to Map 36 Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access -Turn-around Point 2. • Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail -Segment 4 (JB4): Mow an area near the junction of the Portola Pastures Trail to provide room for Type 3 and 4 emergency fire vehicles to turn-around following procedures outlined in Section 7.2. Maintain a minimum cover of 2 inches to minimize potential erosion impacts. Refer to Figure 36 Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access Turn-around Point 10. • Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail -Segment 5 (JB5): Developing an emergency Type 3 and 4 vehicle hammerhead turn-around at the junction with Segment 4 of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail. Improvements to the area should be confined, to the greatest extend possible, to the existing graded area at the trail junction. Refer to Map 4 -Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access – Turn-around Point 9. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 123 11 Like many of the recommendations, this has already been accomplished. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 124 • Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail -Segment 5 (JB5): Providing a 40 to 45 foot “driveway” between Arastradero Road and Access Gate B to allow a safe pull out for maintenance and emergency vehicles accessing the Preserve. • Stanford Pastures Trail (SP): One year after the trail tread has been established mow an area near the boundary of the Preserve to provide room for Type 3 and 4 emergency fire vehicles to turn-around following procedures outlined in section 7.2. Maintain a minimum cover of 2 inches to minimize potential erosion impacts. Refer to Map 33 Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access Turn-around Point 1. • Meadowlark Trail (MeL1): Develop a hammerhead vehicle turn-around for Type 3 and 4 emergency vehicles to turn-around near the old barn site. Improvements to the turn-around should be confined to the existing graded pad that formerly served as the driveway for the old barn. Refer to Map 33 Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access – Turn-around Point 7. • Woodland Trail Segment 1(Wo1): Maintain existing, paved vehicular turn-around that encircles the water tank for utility vehicles. Note that this turn-around is not suitable for Type 3 and 4 fire vehicles due to the tight turning radius around the tank. Refer to Map 4 -Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access – Turn-around Point 8. 4.1.3 Vegetation Management 4.1.3.1 Brushing and Clearing Defined Brushing and clearing constitutes the removal of vegetative materials as required to provide adequate vertical and horizontal clearance for safe passage along a trail. 4.1.3.2 Techniques for Maintaining a Clear Passageway Vegetation on the south sides of the trail should be pruned to allow passage, but should be preserved, as much as possible, to protect the aesthetic quality of the trail. Typically, vegetation is cleared to a height of 10 feet and 2 to 3 feet to either side of the trail edge to accommodate equestrian use. A minimum sight distance of 100 feet should be maintained, where feasible to facilitate safe shared use of the trail system. Good pruning practices should be followed, including cutting branches almost flush with the limb, and cutting stumps at ground level or below. Large limbs should be pruned almost flush with the trunk. Dead and dying limbs and snags, which may fall on the trail, should be removed. Typically, ground cover plants and low shrubs should not be removed except on the actual trail tread. Where specific trail segments (Refer to Section 6) recommend controlling invasive, non-native plants, the Arastradero Preserve Management Plan management strategies should be used. This means that vegetation management adjacent to the trails should be performed in a way that maximizes the safety of the users and minimizes adverse environmental impacts. Appropriate management techniques include in order of preference, control with “beneficial insects”, where they have been determined through study not to have detrimental environmental impacts, removal by hand pulling, or pruning with weed whips or (as a last choice) with chemicals. When weed whips are employed, a 2-inch minimum cover should be retained to minimize exposure of bare earth and resulting impacts from splash erosion and gullying. Herbicides should only be used as approved by the Open Space and Parks Division Manager. In addition, the chemicals must be applied in accordance with California State law and must adhere to the conditions set forth in the City’s City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 125 “Integrated Pest Management Plan” to ensure the safety of staff, visitors and wildlife and to reduce or eliminate the possibility of chemicals entering the creek. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 126 Where a trail is located on a side slope, the vegetation on the uphill side will be more intrusive and should be cut back more severely than on the downhill side. Low growing vegetation should be allowed to return to cut slopes to increase soil stability. Replant areas with vegetation indigenous to those areas or compatible with plantings already in place. Overhanging limbs should be cut back flush with the tree trunk, brush should be grubbed out and disposed of out of sight of the trail and scattered not stacked. Excess rock should be disposed of in the same manner as brush and limbs. All loose roots protruding over one inch above the trail tread should be cut out to at least 4 inches beyond the margins of the tread and to a depth of 4 inches below tread level and removed. Holes resulting from root removal should be filled and compacted with mineral soil and or rock, not exceeding 2 inches in diameter. Advance warning of all vegetation management activities in the Preserve shall be given to the Open Space and Parks Division Manager at least one week in advance of the work. Turn-aroun d Existing Conditions Recommended Actions #1 Trail: SP Mowed grassland dominated by non-native plants Mow area near boundary of the Preserve for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles to turn-around. Maintain 2” min. grass cover. #2 Trail:JB2 Area is nearly flat & already contains hardened surfaces and non-native grassland Perform minor grading to develop hammerhead turn-around for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles on west side of bridge in the area that is nearly flat. Avoid nearby riparian habitat and serpentine soils. #3 Trail: Jct. ArC & Ac Existing hardened surface adjacent to lake & utility booster station. Maintain the existing vehicle turn-around at booster pump station. No grading or vegetation removal required. #4 Trail: CM2 Mowed grassland dominated by non-native plants Mow area at junction of Bay View Trail for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles to turn-around. Maintain 2” min. grass cover. #5 Trail:ArC2 Grassland dominated by non-native plants on opposite side of utility road from creek & does not affect creek zone Perform minor grading to develop hammerhead turnaround in area that is nearly flat near junction of Route F (now scheduled for closure) for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles. Define area with native vegetation in a natural configuration. Avoid nearby riparian habitat. #6 Trail: ArC3 Existing dirt driveway. No grading or vegetation removal required Locate at existing gate on the east side of the trail. Move gate back to accommodate Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles. Confine turn-around area to existing graded pad. Minimize annual pruning to area necessary for vehicle access. #7 Existing drive to old barn site. No grading or Confine turn-around to existing graded pad that formerly served Trail: MeL1 vegetation removal req. as the driveway for the old barn. #8 Trail: Wo1 Existing road around the water tank. Tight radius will not accommodate Type 3 & 4 vehicles Maintain existing, paved vehicular turn-around that encircles water tank for utility vehicles. #9 Trail: Jct. JB 4 & 5 Flat grassland area at junction of two trails. Minor grading may be necessary Perform minor grading to develop hammerhead turnaround at the junction Juan Bautista de Anza Trail Segs. 4 & 5. Confined work (to the greatest extend possible) to existing graded area at the trail junction. #10 Trail: JB 4 Mowed grassland Mow an area near junction with Portola Pastures Trail to provide room for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles to turn-around. Maintain 2” min. grass cover. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 127 Final siting of all turn–around to be approved by Open Space and Parks Division Manager prior to initiating any grading. 4.2 Foothills Park Trails Maintenance Plan (January 29, 2002) The Trails Master Plan for Foothills Park recognizes that the preserve is located in the Hazardous Fire Area (HFA) and Mutual Threat Zone (MTZ). The plan identifies the existing fuel break system but focuses on maintenance of the existing trails. 4.2.1 Recommended Revisions The following are recommended additions and modifications to the 2002 Trails Maintenance Plan: • Addition of fuel management along the additional evacuation routes to northwest (Interpretive Center to The 600-700 block of Los Trancos Road), northeast (Boronda Lake to Alexis Drive), and from Towle Campground along Wildhorse Valley to Las Trampas Valley. • Addition of four Firefighter Safety Zones along Trappers Ridge Trail at Los Trancos Trail, Madrone Fire Road and two highpoints (high point and south end); projects # F.F1, through F.F4. • Addition of annual maintenance of defensible space around the Interpretive Center, parking lot and staging area, campgrounds, pumping stations to include projects F.D1 through F.D8. • Addition of annual maintenance ignition reduction projects at picnic sites and campgrounds to include projects F.I1 through F.I7. • Addition of fuel reduction zones along existing trails for containment including projects F.C1 (Trappers Trail), F.C2 (Pony Tracks south of Trappers Ridge), F.C3 (Pony Tracks north of Trappers Ridge), F.C4 (Bobcat Point) and F.C5 (north of entry gate). Turn-aroun d Existing Conditions Recommended Actions #1 Trail: SP Mowed grassland dominated by non-native plants Mow area near boundary of the Preserve for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles to turn-around. Maintain 2” min. grass cover. #2 Trail:JB2 Area is nearly flat & already contains hardened surfaces and non-native grassland Perform minor grading to develop hammerhead turn-around for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles on west side of bridge in the area that is nearly flat. Avoid nearby riparian habitat and serpentine soils. #3 Trail: Jct. ArC & Ac Existing hardened surface adjacent to lake & utility booster station. Maintain the existing vehicle turn-around at booster pump station. No grading or vegetation removal required. #4 Trail: CM2 Mowed grassland dominated by non-native plants Mow area at junction of Bay View Trail for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles to turn-around. Maintain 2” min. grass cover. #5 Trail:ArC2 Grassland dominated by non-native plants on opposite side of utility road from creek & does not affect creek zone Perform minor grading to develop hammerhead turnaround in area that is nearly flat near junction of Route F (now scheduled for closure) for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles. Define area with native vegetation in a natural configuration. Avoid nearby riparian habitat. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 128 • Modify tables for managing trails within specific vegetation types to accommodate fuel modification performance standards for the containment projects. • Addition to Regulatory, Warning and Educational Signs regarding fire hazard signs, education information on fuel management and prescribed fire. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 129 4.2.2 Existing Fire Mitigation and Fuel Management in the Foothills Park Trails Maintenance Plan Staff Responsibilities (Executive Summary, page 104) The foothills parks are staffed by rangers that are based out of the Foothills Park office. Park rangers are responsible for patrolling, monitoring and maintaining Foothills Park. They oversee the fieldwork of the California Conservation Corps (CCC) work program, as well as other volunteer work programs at the Park. Rangers also lead guided nature walks and give nature slide shows. In addition, while the primary responsibility for fire and medical emergencies lies with the City Fire Department, rangers will typically be the first response team for fire and medical emergencies within the park. Park Maintenance/Utility/Emergency (e.g. fire) (Section 2.4 pg 2-5) There are three other entry points off Page Mill Road that maintenance and emergency vehicles use to provide access from Page Mill Road. These are labeled as Gates 2, 3 and 4. Gate 2 provides access to the Charlie Brown firebreak and Toyon Trail. Gate 3 provides access to the Park Reservoir, a 1.5 million gallon city water reservoir. Gate 4 provides access to the Trapper’s Fire Trail and to the southern portion of the Los Trancos Trail. In addition, utility vehicles and park maintenance/patrol vehicles wanting to access the Arastradero Creek Trail (Segment 3) within Arastradero Preserve enter Foothills Park and access this trail from Gate D. Gate D is located on the one-way road that leads from the Interpretive Center to Vista Hill in Foothills Park. There is also an access easement from Los Trancos Road in Portola Valley connecting to the service yard at the north end of the park. This easement is only accessible by park staff. Hazardous Fire Area (Section 2.4 pg 2-6): The Park is identified in the Hazardous Fire Area because of the tremendous vegetation fuel load and the potential for extended response times in the event of a fire due to limited access/egress into the park. The area has also been designated as a Mutual Threat Zone (MTZ) by agreement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. This means that a fire within the City’s jurisdiction is a threat to the State’s jurisdiction and vice versa. Firebreaks (Section 2.4 page 2-6 – 2-8): To meet the City’s objective of “reducing government costs and citizen losses from wildland fire by increasing initial attack success and or protecting assets at risk through focused prefire management objectives” a fuel break system has been designed and implemented for Foothills Park. The main firebreak (by distance and location) is the Trapper’s Firebreak Trail. It is two miles long, essentially running along the spine of the park. There are also several smaller breaks that are maintained as access roads for fire response. These branching firebreaks, which are located throughout the park, and the Trappers Firebreak Trail, are graded and compacted to a width of 10 feet or greater to accommodate the City Fire Department’s Type 3 and 4 vehicles. These firebreak trails have the potential to be reduced in width, or substituted with shaded fuel breaks if environmentally desirable. (A shaded fuel break allows annual grasses to return to the land, but not medium or heavy fuels.) Evacuation (Section 2.4 Page 2–8): In addition to the firebreak trail network, “safety islands” have been identified in the park and an evacuation plan has been developed for the park. The primary evacuation route (as identified in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan) is Page Mill Road. The main road through the park connects to an access easement that provides an alternate evacuation route between Page Mill Road and Los Trancos Road. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 130 Natural Resources Management Objectives Adjacent to the Trail (Section 3.4 pg 304). Retaining native vegetation except in areas where City personnel determine that plants are creating a fire or safety hazard, or where vegetation is located within the tread of routinely maintained roads, trails and designated firebreaks Noxious Plants and Pathogens (Page 4-17 – 4-24): Control and prevention of non-native invasive plant species is recognized as quite important. Infestations of non-native invasive plant species have been found to alter ecosystem functions such as nutrient cycles, hydrology, and wildfire frequency. Non-native invasive plant species pose a complex problem, but the management of the spread is a key factor in preventing long-lasting and negative effects on the native ecosystem. The plan recognizes that trail maintenance activities need to address the fact that most of these species gain a foothold by invading soil that has been disturbed, such as through re-grading or vegetation clearing that results in the removal of ground cover plants adjacent to the trail tread. The plan includes a table of the non-native invasive plants of greatest ecological concern. (Table 4-6 page 4-18 – 4-24.) Sudden Oak Death (SOD) (page 4-24 – 4-25): Sudden Oak Death is caused by the pathogen Phytophthora ramorum that kills oaks and several other California woodland species found in Foothills Park. The pathogen appears to kill trees and shrubs swiftly and has greatly affected the visual integrity and diversity of the California Oak woodland as it is defined today. First discovered in California on Tan Oaks in 1995, it has now been confirmed in ten California counties, including Santa Clara County. Note: Information available on this SOD has expanded since the maintenance plan was developed in 2002. Trails Maintenance Program Development (Section 5.2 pg 5-2): Trail inspections are integral to all trail maintenance operations. Inspections should occur on a regularly scheduled basis, the frequency of which will depend on the amount of trail use, the location, age, and the types of structures and the types of soil/terrain. At a minimum, all trail and trail structures/features should be inspected at least once a year at the close of the winter “wet season”. All trail inspections should be documented in writing in a field log. Conditions that have the potential to be the most hazardous to the public, which should be watched for during field inspections, include: • Heavy fuel loads which could create a high or critical danger fire hazard in the park. Other Staff Duties Related to Park Protection & Trail Activities (Section 5.3 pg 5-9): While the primary responsibility for fire and medical emergencies lies with the City Fire Department, Park Rangers will typically be the first response team for fire and medical emergencies within the Park. Foothills Park Rangers have received various limited levels of fire fighting training and are dispatched as a resource to fires and other emergency calls. They are a valuable resource as they provide enhanced local knowledge of the area, and can be used to augment Engine Eight or to perform other tasks, such as evacuation or reconnaissance. The Palo Alto Fire Department has rated the Rangers control of public areas and Park maintenance practices, which augment the City’s fuel management system as outstanding (Palo Alto Draft Fire Management Plan, April 1997). Trail Maintenance Guidelines (Section 6 pages 6-1 – 6-81): Section 6.3 provides an overview in table format of the existing trail characteristics (Table 6-1 page 6-4 through 6-8). The tables currently do not include information regarding whether the trail segments are a part of the firebreak system. Section 6.5 (pages 6-10 through 6-21) includes management strategies for maintaining hiking trails. A series of tables provides a summary of managing trails within grasslands/ oak savanna (Table 6-2), chaparral (Table 6-3), mixed woodlands (Table 6-4) and bay woodlands (Table 6-5). These tables include treatments of the vegetation ground plan, middle plane and overhead canopy. They do not specifically address management practices to be used if the trail is a part of a fire containment area. Section 6-8 includes Vegetation Management Recommendations text that expands upon the summary tables with additional City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 131 descriptions and standards (pages 6-56 – 6-63). City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 132 Trail Communication Tools (Section 6.11 pg 6-77 through 6-81): Trail signs include temporary/ permanent closures for hazards associated with critical fire danger (page 6-80). Interpretive trail guides and programs offer the opportunity to educate visitors about the biological diversity of Foothills Park and the importance of staying on trails to avoid damaging this unique resource (page 6-81). City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan 15 January 2009 Page 133 5 REFERENCES Acterra -Action for a sustainable earth, www.acterra.org, 3291 East Bayshore Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94303, meetings September 2008. Anderson, H.E. 1983. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. INT-122. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration – Andrew Molera State Park / Pt Sur State Historic Park Water System Improvements, April 2006. California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, August 2001 City of Palo Alto, Final Arastradero Preserve Trails Management Program, 2001 City of Palo Alto, Final Foothills Park Preserve Trails Management Program, 2002 City of Palo Alto, Geospatial Information System Data, provided May 2008 Environmental Protection Agency, Frogs and Pesticide Hazards, December 2006 Finney, M.A. 2006. An overview of FlamMap modeling capabilities. USDA Forest Service Proceedings. RMRS-P-41. 213p. Grijalva, Ruben, Fire Chief, Martin, Bruce, Project Manager, Palo Alto Fire Department, Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan, April 1997 Ministry of Water, land, and Air Protection, British Columbia, Environmental Best Management Practices for Urban and Rural Land Development, June 2004 Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Game, Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List, July 2008 Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Game, Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants List, July 2008 Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Game, Special Animals List, Feb 2008 Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Game, Endangered and Threatened Animals List, May 2008 Rothermel, Richard. 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires, USDA Forest Service Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-143. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO2) for California. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of Interior. The National Map LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE National Existing Vegetation Type (2006 September – 2008, May). 䘀椀最甀爀攀. ...................................................................... STEWARDSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE SANTA CLARA FIRE SAFE COUNCIL INC. This Stewardship Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of July 01, 2013, is made by and between the City of Palo Alto, a California chartered municipal corporation (the "CITY"), and the Santa Clara Fire Safe Council Inc., dba the Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council, a California public benefit corporation organized under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law (the "STEWARD") (individually, a "Party" and, collectively, the "Parties"), in reference to the following facts and circumstances: RECITALS: 1. The CITY owns certain Palo Alto real properties, including the property commonly known as Foothills Park, and surrounding Palo Alto properties, as described in the Foothills Fire Management Plan Update dated January 15, 2009 (collectively, the "FFMP Project Area"), and shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. The CITY'S goals applicable to the FFMP Project Area, enunciated in the Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update dated January 15, 2009, are "to reduce fire intensity near roads to allow firefighting vehicles to pass and ensure safe passage for staff and visitors to pre-determined safety zones, or safe locations out of the parks. In addition, the projects outside of the City parks/preserves are aimed at facilitating access and egress between different portions of Palo Alto's wildland urban interface." 3. The CITY adopted a plan for the FFMP Project Area, the Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update dated January 15, 2009, and shown in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 4. The success of the Plan is directly related to the active support and involvement of the community. 5. The STEWARD provides various Hazardous Fuel Reduction and Community Outreach and Education programs in Santa Clara County. 6. , The STEW ARD intends to benefit the CITY and the general public by providing services in accordance with the CITY's referenced policy and the Plan. By this Agreement, the STEW ARD will, under the direction of the CITY's City Manager, or designee, and through the use of independent contractors and supervised volunteers, provide education and fuel reduction programs, and perform a variety of road clearing and other fuel reduction activities in the FFMP Project Area. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following covenants, terms and conditions, the Parties agree;-as--foHows:---------------------------------- SECTION 1. PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to have both parties cooperate in the preservation, protection and enhancement of the FFMP Project Area. Trimming Page Mill -Stewardship Agreement $13147834 SECTION 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES 2.1 The STEWARD shall: A. Coordinate all of its activities in the FFMP Project Area with the City Manager or designee. B. Under the direction of the CITY, perform road clearing and other fuel reduction activities in accordance with the Plan. C. Under the direction of the CITY, provide and staff educational programs to educate the public about Defensible Space and wildfire protection. D. Under the direction of the CITY, provide chipping and other fuel reduction services to City resident and homeowners. E. Under the direction of the CITY, mobilize volunteers for STEW ARD' s FFMP Project Area projects and programs. F. Under the direction of the CITY, organize fundraising efforts for STEWARD's FFMP Project Area projects and programs. G. Within sixty (60) days after the Parties' execution of the Agreement, and thereafter on or before October 1 of each year during the term of this Agreement, the STEW ARD shall submit to the City Manager, or designee, a proposed written annual work plan of activities to be carried out in the FFMP Project Area during the current fiscal year (the "Work Plan"). On or before December 1 of each year, the STEW ARD shall submit a proposed budget and any request for CITY funding for the following fiscal year. The STEW ARD and the City Manager, or designee, shall jointly review the Work Plan, the budget, and any request for CITY funding, and shall jointly develop performance objectives and standards for the STEWARD'S activities to be incorporated into the Work Plan. The annual Work Plan approved by the City Manager, and all subsequent annual Work Plans approved in succeeding years, shall be incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit D. Upon approval, the City Manager, or designee, shall forward any budget request to the City Council in accordance with the CITY's annual budget process. Any payments from approved requests for CITY funding will initially be made on the date first above written and thereafter, on a quarterly basis beginning on the first day of the calendar year quarter after this Agreement is fully signed. Activities that may be included in annual Work Plans may include, but are not limited to the issues identified in this section. H. As of September 1, 2013, and on or before September 1 of each succeeding fiscal year during the term of this Agreement, the STEW ARD and the City Manager, or '----------------"""""". gnee, shall conduct a performance review, _indicating the acthd.ties-1hatllav<leen----- carried out in the FFMP Project Area for the past fiscal year, and conformance to the agreed upon performance objectives and standards. The performance review shall serve as a basis for consideration of any requests for extension of the term of this agreement and related funding. Trimming Page Mill -Stewardship Agreement 813147834 I. The STEW ARD may perform other services related to the preservation, protection and enhancement of the FFMP Project Area, as approved, in writing, by the CITY. 2.2 The CITY will: A. Provide overall management of the FFMP Project Area. B. Review all activities proposed for the FFMP Project Area. All activities of the STEW ARD must be pre-approved by the City Manager. C. Be responsible for maintenance of all utility facilities within the FFMP Project Area, including those that do not benefit the FFMP Project Area directly. D. Be responsible for maintenance of all roads within the FFMP Project Area, signage, tree trimming and tree removal, fire management, law enforcement, and lake management. 2.3 The CITY may: A. Provide its own educational programs, conduct research, perform habitat restoration, remove and control non-native, invasive weeds, trail maintenance and repair, litter removal, erosion controls, raise funds, and supervise volunteers or contract with others to perform these duties. 2.4 As compensation for the services fully and faithfully provided during the Term specified in Section 3 .1 by the STEW ARD hereunder, the CITY will pay the STEW ARD at the beginning of each calendar quarter, commencing July 1, 2013, upon receipt of the STEWARD'S invoice, the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), for a total annual compensation of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00). 2.5 The payment amount set forth in Section 2.4 above will be adjusted on each July 1 of FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17. The amount of the adjusted compensation will be negotiated by the Parties on or before July 1 of 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively, and be based on an adjustment factor reflected in the Consumer Price Index -All Urban Consumers for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose MSA. FY 2013-14 will be considered the base year 100 for purposes of the adjustment calculation. SECTION 3. TERM: EXTENSION; TERMINATION 3.1 The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall be five (5) years, commencing on May 1, 2012, unless it is earlier terminated as herein provided. 3.2 The Term may be extended by the Parties for additional five-year periods. Each Party shall notify the other Party six months before the Term ends if they do not intend to extend the agreement 3 .3 Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice given to the other Party. Upon such written notice delivered to STEW ARD, it will promptly discontinue its performance of services. Trimming Page Mill -Stewardship Agreement 813147834 3.4 Ownership of Materials. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. STEW ARD agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and STEW ARD waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY, but retains a non-exclusive right to continue to use all such items, which are not the CITY's confidential materials or documents. STEWARD makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work nor use by the CITY or others in the future. 3.5 Upon a suspension or termination, STEW ARD shall thereafter deliver to the CITY Manager, within a reasonable time, a copy of the studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, which have not been previously delivered to the CITY, prepared by STEW ARD or its contractors, if any, or given to STEWARD or its contractors, if any, and are connected with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 3.6 Upon a suspension or termination by CITY, STEWARD will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by STEWARD, CITY will be obligated to compensate STEW ARD only for the greater of the portion of STEW ARD' s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY or the portion(s) which the CITY may utilize, as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. 3.7 No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 4. CONTROL OF HOURS, PRICES AND PROCEDURES 4.1 The STEW ARD shall have access to the FFMP Project Area for the uses specified in Section 2 during normal business hours, including weekends, in the FFMP Project Area. The STEW ARD shall at all times maintain a written schedule, setting forth the operating hours and operating procedures for each service provided in the FFMP Project Area. 4.2 At the written request of the CITY, the STEW ARD shall furnish to the City Manager, or designee, a copy of the schedules and procedures. Should the City Manager, or designee, decide that any part of these schedules or procedures is not responsive to the needs of the public, the STEW ARD, upon receipt of written notice from the City Manager, or designee, shall modify the schedules and/or procedures to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager, or designee. Prior to issuing such notice, the City Manager, or designee, shall personally review and confer with the STEW ARD or its representative. 4.3 Because the FFMP Project Area is public property and the STEW ARD is acting for and on behalf of the CITY, the STEW ARD, its officers, employees, agents and representatives shall conduct themselves in a courteous and efficient manner and be neat in appearance while they are working in the FFMP Project Area. The STEW ARD shall hire and retain active, qualified, competent, and experienced personnel and/or independent contractors to monitor the STEWARD'S operations in the FFMP Project Area. The STEW ARD shall make reasonable Trimming Page Mill -Stewardship Agreement 813147834 efforts to closely monitor volunteers and otherwise ensure the highest standards of service to the public are maintained. SECTION 5. INSURANCE 5.1 Minimum Limits and Forms of Coverage. The STEWARD shall obtain and maintain the following insurance coverage acceptable to the CITY in full force and effect during the Term. A. B. c. POLICY WORKER'S COMPENSATION COMPREHENSIVE AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY including hired, and non-owned automobiles COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY including products & completed operations, broad form contractual, and personal injury. MINIMUM LIMITS OF LIABILITY NIA Bodily Injury $1,000,000 Property Damage $1,000,000 Bodily Injury $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Property Damage $1,000,000 Personal Injury $1,000,000 ea. person ea. person ea. person ea. occurrence aggregate ea. occurrence ea. occurrence 5.2 Required Clauses. Insurance shall be in full force and effect during the Term. Every insurance policy required by this Agreement shall contain the following clauses: A. "This insurance shall not be canceled, limited in scope of coverage or nonrenewed until after thirty (30) days written notice has been given to: City of Palo Alto/Superintendent Open Space and Sciences, PO Box 10250, Palo Alto, Cal. 94303". B. "All rights of subrogation are hereby waived against the CITY OF PALO ALTO and the members of the City Council and elective or appointive officers or employees, when acting within the scope of their employment or appointment." C. "The CITY OF PALO ALTO is added as an additional insured as respects operations -----------'of-the-named-insured-in-or-frnm-the-EEMP~roject-Area~."--------------- D. "It is agreed that any insurance maintained by the CITY OF PALO AL TO will apply in excess of, and not contribute to, insurance provided by this policy." 5.3 Evidence of Insurance Coverage and/or Changes Trimming Page Mill -Stewardship Agreement 513147834 A. Certificate of Insurance. STEW ARD agrees to deposit with CITY'S Superintendent, Open Spaces and Sciences, effective as of the date of this Agreement, certificates of insurance necessary to satisfy CITY that the insurance provisions of this Agreement have been complied with, and to ensure that such insurance is kept in effect, with the certificates on deposit with CITY, during the entire term of this agreement. Should STEWARD, if it is available, not provide evidence of such required coverage at least three (3) days prior to the expiration of any existing insurance coverage, CITY may purchase such insurance, on behalf of and at the sole expense of STEWARD, to provide six-months coverage after first providing STEWARD with ten (10) days advanced written notice. B. Review of Coverage. CITY shall retain the right, at any time, to review the coverage, form, and amount of the insurance required hereby. If, in the opinion of the Risk Manager, the insurance provisions in this Agreement do not provide adequate protection for CITY and for members of the public using the FFMP Project Area, the City Manager, or his designee, may require an amount to provide adequate protection as determined by the Risk Manager. CITY's requirements shall be reasonable and shall be designed to assure protection from and against the kind and extent of risk which exists at the time a change in insurance is required. C. Changes in Coverage. The City Manager, or his designee, shall notify STEW ARD in writing of changes in the insurance requirements; if STEW ARD does not deposit copies of acceptable insurance policies with CITY incorporating such changes within sixty (60) days of receipt of such notice, or in the event STEWARD fails to ensure that the required insurance coverage is maintained in effect, this Agreement shall be in default without further notice to STEWARD. However, if these new insurance requirements increase STEW ARD' s insurance cost by more than 10% percent, then CITY will pay for such increase. D. No Limit of Liability. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance shall not be construed to limit STEWARD's liability hereunder nor to completely fulfill the indemnification provision and requirements of this Agreement. Notwithstanding said policy or policies of insurance, STEW ARD shall, subject to other provisions of this agreement, be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss to the extent caused by or connected with STEW ARD's obligations under this Agreement, or with the STEWARD's use of the FFMP Project Area. E. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:X. 5.4 STEW ARD shall utilize commercially reasonable means to ensure that any employer of any agent, contractor, or other person performing work in connection with this Agreement at the FFMP Project Area obtains and maintains in full force and effect during the Term of this Agreement, Workers' Compensation Insurance, in statutory form, which provides for compensation payments to its employees, or their dependents, for any injuries or death arising out of and in the course of employment in connection with their work and activity on behalf of STEW ARD at the FFMP Project Area. Trimming Page Mill -Stewardship Agreement 813147834 SECTION 6. INDEMNITY 6.1 Except as provided under section 6.2, the STEW ARD hereby waives all claims, liability and recourse against the CITY, including the right of contribution for loss or damage of or to persons or property arising from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or related to this Agreement. The STEWARD agrees to protect, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the CITY, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents, against any and all claims, losses, liability, demands, damages, costs, expenses or attorneys' fees to the extent arising out of the STEWARD'S negligent performance or nonperformance of its obligations under the terms of this Agreement. In the event the CITY is named as co-defendant, the STEW ARD shall notify the CITY of such fact and shall represent the CITY in such legal action, unless the CITY reasonably determines STEW ARD is not providing an adequate defense to it and then undertakes to represent itself as codefendant in such legal action, in which event the STEW ARD shall pay to the CITY its reasonable litigation costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 6.2 The CITY agrees to protect, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the STEW ARD, its officers, employees and agents, against any and all claims, losses, liability, demands, damages, costs, expenses or attorneys' fees to the extent arising out of the CITY's negligent performance or nonperformance of its obligations under the terms of this Agreement. 6.3 The Parties agree to first seek recovery under available insurance coverages including under STEWARD's contractors insurance for any claim against STEWARD under this Section 6's indemnity provisions before either the CITY's or STEWARD's direct responsibility as applicable is to be triggered. SECTION 7. NO PROPERTY RIGHTS 7 .1 The Parties agree that this Agreement shall not confer any property right upon the STEW ARD or its officers, employees, members or volunteers. Any work performed for the benefit of the FFMP Project Area and any improvements placed or constructed in the FFMP Project Area shall conform to the CITY's standards and approved by the City Manager, or designee, and shall, upon acceptance, become the property of CITY, SECTION 8. ASSIGNMENTS 8.1 As the CITY has relied on the specific background and capabilities of the STEWARD in the award of this Agreement, any mortgage, pledge, hypothecation, encumbrance, transfer, sublease, or assignment (collectively referred to as "Encumbrance") of the STEWARD'S interest in the FFMP Project Area or any part or portion thereof, is prohibited. Any attempted Encumbrance shall be null and void and shall confer no right, title, or interest in or to this Agreement. SECTION 9. NOTICES -----9-:-1--tJnless otherwise required-by theterms and--oonditions oftms-A:greemenr,-whenever notice is required to be furnished by this Agreement, it shall be mailed, first class, postage prepaid, to the following: Trimming Page Mill-Stewardship Agreement $13147834 To CITY: City Clerk City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 with a copy to: To STEWARD: Allan Thompson, Treasurer Santa Clara Fire Safe Council Inc. 16174 Highland Drive San Jose, CA 95127 Superintendent, Open Space and Sciences City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 SECTION 10. MEDIATION Any controversy or claim arising out of, or relating to, this Agreement, or the making, performance, or interpretation of it, shall first be attempted to be settled by mediation in Santa Clara County, California within thirty (30) days after any Parties' written request to the other. The Parties shall agree on a mediator within ten (10) days thereafter and if not the Santa Clara County Superior Court may choose one. At least ten (10) business days before the date of the mediation, each Party shall provide the mediator with a statement of its position and copies of all supporting documents. Each Party shall send to the mediation a person who has authority to bind the Party. Any Party who is later successful in an arbitration or lawsuit but who has declined to participate in mediation will not be entitled to an award of their attorney's fees despite otherwise being entitled to them as the Prevailing Party. SECTION 11. MISCELLANEOUS 11.1 Severability and Attorneys' Fees. If one or more provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable under applicable law, such provision, or such portion of such provision as may be necessary, shall be excluded from this Agreement and the balance of the Agreement shall be interpreted as if such provision were so excluded and shall be thereafter enforceable in accordance with its terms. In the event of any claim, dispute, litigation, arbitration or action concerning or related to this Agreement, or any alleged breach of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees, costs of suit and any disbursements in addition to any other remedies or damages which may be properly awarded or awardable. This section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 11.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement together with the Exhibits referred to herein set forth the entire Agreement and understanding between the Parties concerning the subject matter of their agreement. No subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this agreement shall be binding upon either party unless in writing and duly signed by both of them. 11.3 Consent. Any consent required herein shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed by any Party. 11.4 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and such counterp~rts together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Trimming Page Mill -Stewardship Agreement 513147834 1. DEFINITIONS EXHIBITB GENERAL CONDITIONS CITY shall mean the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take any actions under this Agreement. Clauses in this Agreement refer to specific officers or employees of CITY. Should these positions be eliminated or the title changes, it is understood and agreed that such references shall be considered to be to the new title for renamed positions or to the replacement official designated with the responsibilities of any eliminated position. 2. NONPROFIT CORPORATE. AUTHORITY & LIABILITY If STEW ARD is a nonprofit corporation, each individual signing this Agreement on behalf of STEW ARD represents and warrants: A. he is duly authorized to do so in accordance with an adopted Resolution of STEWARD'S Board of Directors or in accordance with the Bylaws of the nonprofit corporation; and B. STEW ARD is a duly qualified nonprofit corporation authorized to do business in Santa Clara County. 3. TIME Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 4. PERMITS AND LICENSES STEW ARD shall be required to obtain any and all permits and/or licenses which may be required in connection with the operation of the FFMP Project Area as set forth in this Agreement. 5. AMENDMENT ORGANIZATION AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION Words of the masculine gender shall be deemed and construed to include correlative words of the feminine and neuter genders. Unless the context otherwise indicates, words importing the singular number shall include the plural number and vice versa,' and words importing persons shall include corporations and associations, including public bodies, as well as natural persons. The terms "hereby", "hereof, "hereto", 'herein', "hereunder and any similar terms, as used in this Agreement, refer to this Agreement. All the terms and provisions hereof shall be construed to effectuate the purposes set forth herein, and to sustain the validity hereof. The titles and headings of the sections of this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only, are not to be considered a part hereof and shall not in any way modify or restrict of the terms or provisions hereof or be considered or given any effect in construing this Agreement or any provision hereof in ascertaining intent, if any question of intent shall arise. 6. AMENDMENTS This Agreement sets forth all of the agreements and understandings of the parties and any modifications must be written and properly executed by both parties. Trimming Page Mill -Stewardship Agreement 513147834 7. UNLAWFUL USE STEW ARD agrees that no improvements shall be erected, placed upon, operated, nor maintained upon the FFMP Project Area, nor any business conducted or carried on therein or therefrom, in violation of the terms of this Agreement, or of any regulation, order,oflaw, statute, or ordinance of a governmental agency having jurisdiction over STEWARD'S use of the FFMP Project Area. 8. NONDISCRIMINATION STEW ARD and its employees shall not discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, sex, national origin, disability or sexual preference. STEWARD shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because ofrace, color, religion, ancestry, sex, age, national origin, disability or sexual preference. STEW ARD covenants to meet all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. If STEW ARD is found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of the State of California Fair Employment Practices Act or similar provisions of federal law or executive order in the conduct of its activities under this Agreement by the State of California Fair Employment Practices Commission or the equivalent federal agency or officer, it shall thereby be found in default under this Agreement, and such default shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. CITY shall then have the power to cancel or suspend this Agreement in whole or in part. 9. DISPOSITION OF ABANDONED PERSONAL PROPERTY If STEW ARD abandons the FFMP Project Area or is dispossessed thereof by process of law or otherwise, title to any personal property belonging to STEW ARD and left on the FFMP Project Area forty-five ( 45) days after such abandonment or dispossession shall be deemed to have been transferred to CITY after 30 days notice to STEW ARD. CITY shall have the right to remove and to dispose of such property without liability therefore to STEW ARD or to any person claiming under STEW ARD, and shall have no need to account therefore. 10. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES A. Definition. As used herein, the term 'Hazardous Materials" means any substance or material which has been determined by any state, federal or local governmental authority to be capable of posing risk of injury to health, safety, and property, including petroleum and petroleum products and all of those materials and substances designated as hazardous or toxic by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Water Quality Control Board, the U.S. Department of Labor, the California Department oflndustrial Relations, the California Department of Health Services, the California Health and Welfare Agency in connection with the Safe Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or any other governmental agency now or hereafter authorized to regulate materials and substances in the environment. Without limiting the generality pf the foregoing, the term "Hazardous Materials" shall include all of those materials and -~s~u'bstances defined as 'toxic materials"mSections ooo80-th:rougllo608SOfTttle22ofllleCal1fo-m~1a-----~ Code of Regulations, Division 4, Chapter 20, as the same may be amended from time to time. B. STEWARDS Use of FFMP Project Area. During the term of this Agreement, STEW ARD shall abide and be bound by all of the following requirements: Trimming Page Mill -Stewardship Agreement 513147834 i. STEW ARD shall comply with all laws now or hereafter in effect relating to the use of Hazardous Materials on, under or about the FFMP Project Area, and STEW ARD shall not contaminate the FFMP Project Area, or its subsurfaces, with any Hazardous Materials. ii. STEWARD shall restrict its use of Hazardous Materials in the FFMP Project Area to those kinds of materials that are normally used in the performance of its agreed activities/services. Disposal of any Hazardous Materials in the FFMP Project Area is strictly prohibited. Storage of such permissible Hazardous Materials is allowed only in accordance with all applicable laws now or hereafter in effect. All safety and monitoring features of any storage facilities shall be approved by CITY'S Fire Chief in accordance with all laws. iii. STEW ARD shall be solely and fully responsible for the reporting of all known Hazardous Materials releases to the appropriate public agencies, when such releases are caused by or result from STEWARD'S activities in the FFMP Project Area. STEW ARD shall promptly inform CITY of any release of Hazardous Materials, whether or not the release is in quantities that would otherwise be reportable to a public agency. However, excluded from this subsection are those materials or substances normally utilized by STEW ARD per ii above and which have not resulted in a reportable release. iv. STEWARD shall be solely and fully responsible and liable for such releases in the FFMP Project Area, or into CITY'S sewage or storm drainage systems. STEW ARD shall take all reasonably necessary precautions to prevent any of its Hazardous Materials from entering into any storm or sewage drain system or from being released in the FFMP Project Area. STEW ARD shall remove releases of its Hazardous Materials in accordance with all laws. In addition to all other rights and remedies of CITY hereunder, if the release of Hazardous Materials caused by STEW ARD is not removed (assuming it is and can be effectively removed and so required by the applicable law and governmental agency to be so removed) by STEW ARD within ninety (90) days after discovery by STEWARD, CITY or any other third party, CITY may pay to have the same removed and STEW ARD shall reimburse CITY for such reasonable costs within thirty (30) days of CITY'S demand for payment, v. STEW ARD shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY from and against all loss, damage, or liability (including all foreseeable and unforeseeable consequential damages) and reasonable expenses (including, without limitation, the cost of any cleanup and remediation of Hazardous Materials) which CITY may sustain as a result of the presence or cleanup of Hazardous Materials utilized by STEW ARD in the FFMP Project Area. Trimming Page Mill -Stewardship Agreement 813147834 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4698) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract Amendment No. 2 Power Line Clearing Project Title: Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C09127935 in the Amount of $543,744 With Utility Tree Service Inc. for Power Line Clearing Services for a Total Contract Compensation of Not-to-Exceed $6,646,774 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the attached Contract Amendment No. 2 (Attachment A) in the amount of $543,744 as compensation for a period of six months with Utility Tree Service Inc. for power line clearing services for a total contract compensation amount of not-to-exceed $6,646,774, subject to approval of the Fiscal Year 2015 budget. Background The City has ‘contracted out’ power line clearing work since the mid-1980s to ensure the clearing of trees and other vegetation from electrical conductors, poles, substations, fiber optic lines, traffic signals, and street lights throughout Palo Alto in compliance with state law and industry safety standards. In October 2008, the FY 2009 contract (with the option to extend for up to four additional years) was awarded to Asplundh Tree Expert Company (Asplundh) to provide these services. The option to extend the contract was exercised during each of the following four years due to Asplundh’s effective performance of the work, its motivated on-site superintendent, and its consistent staffing of the project. On June 30, 2013, the five year contract expired and Contract Amendment No. 1 was approved by Council, extending the contract for a sixth year. The amendment was necessary due to the unplanned retirement of the City City of Palo Alto Page 2 of Palo Alto Project Manager overseeing the contract and inadequate insight about desired modifications by the City to the scope of services. On September 1, 2013 of this extension period, Asplundh transitioned its vegetation management operations in California to Utility Tree Service, Inc. (UTS), but maintained the same management team and employees serving the City of Palo Alto and its customers. UTS is a subsidiary of Asplundh that has been operating in California for more than 10 years. The total six-year contract amount is $6,103,030, so this contract amendment of $543,744 increases the not-to- exceed compensation in the amount to $6,646,774 over a 6.5 year contract term. Discussion The Public Works Department’s Urban Forestry (Tree) Section administers the contract for power line clearing work, which is paid for by the Utilities Electric Fund. The current contract will expire on June 30, 2014. The Utilities and Public Works Departments are developing a new five-year contract, which will be the basis for a competitive solicitation. The goal of this new contract is to increase financial efficiency, which would require utilizing unit-cost work to the maximum extent feasible. In order to achieve this goal, the Project Manager is requesting a six-month extension to design the Request for Quotes, which will include the results of the assessment of the best mix of unit price and hourly priced work. It is recommended that UTS be retained to provide the essential power line clearing service during the bid solicitation process and until a new contract, if any, is awarded. If the contract amendment with UTS is not approved, there will be an approximately three-to six-month’s delay in utility line clearing work until a new contract can be advertised for bids and approved by Council. Due to the anticipated dry summer conditions, it is staff’s recommendation that the City must retain the services of UTS on an interim basis to maintain the ability to respond to tree-trimming needs. Resource Impact Funds in the amount of $543,744 for this contract amendment are available in the FY 2015 Utilities Department operating budget scheduled for City Council adoption on June 16, 2014. In accordance with contract provisions and by mutual agreement, the contractor’s FY 2014 rates will be increased by 2.4% for FY 2014, consistent with the Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) of 2.4% for the San Francisco- City of Palo Alto Page 3 Oakland-San Jose area. Policy Implications This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. Environmental Review The recommended action is CEQA-exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(h) (maintenance of existing landscape). Attachments: Attachment A: AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO.C09127935 (PDF) AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO.C09127935 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND UTILITY TREE SERVICE, INC. This Amendment No. 2 to Contract No.C09127935 (“Contract”) is entered into June 2, 2014, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and UTILITY TREE SERVICE, INC, a Pennsylvania corporation, located at 708 Blair Mill Road, Willow Grove, PA 19090, Telephone Number 215.784.4200 (“CONTRACTOR”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of power line clearing project; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract a second time; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 3 TERM is hereby amended to read as follows: “The term of this Agreement is from October 10, 2008 to December 31, 2014, subject to the provisions of subsection 3(b) and Section R of the General Terms and Conditions. CITY has the right to extend the term of this Agreement based upon the same conditions of the initial term, subject to adjustments for compensation as set forth in Section E of the General Terms and Conditions. CITY shall notify CONTRACTOR, in writing, of its exercise of its option for an Additional Term not less than thirty (30) days prior to the end of the then current term. CITY’s exercise of it right to extend the term of this Agreement is not a waiver of the “time is of the essence” provision in Section 4.” SECTION 2. Section 5 COMPENSATION is hereby amended to read as follows: 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: A sum, calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of seven hundred ninety-seven thousand eighty dollars ($797,080) for the first year, one million sixty-two thousand dollars 1 140428 sm 010 DocuSign Envelope ID: 643E8903-9D0A-4924-A870-AE2F1DC833A4 ($1,062,000) for each additional year, and five hundred forty three thousand seven hundred forty four dollars ($543,744) for the six-month extension period of this Amendment No. 2. CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY.” SECTION 3. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. APPROVED: __________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney UTILITY TREE SERVICE, INC. By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ ATTACHMENT: EXHIBIT C – COMPENSATION 2 140428 sm 010 DocuSign Envelope ID: 643E8903-9D0A-4924-A870-AE2F1DC833A4 Executive Vice President Gregg G. Asplundh EXHIBIT C COMPENSATION CITY shall compensate CONTRACTOR for performance of the Services according to the following schedule, with the maximum amount of compensation not to exceed of $543,744 for the duration of the extension, subject to adjustments for compensation as set forth in Section E of the General Terms and Conditions: Item FY2014 rate Unit Cost Line Clearing $64.14 Hourly cost Line Clearing $124.82 Unit Cost Pole Clearing $46.42 Unit Cost Pole Clearing & Spraying $48.62 All Payments are based upon City’s acceptance of Contractor’s performance of the phase as evidenced by successful completion of the Deliverable for that Phase. City shall have no obligation to pay unless Contractor has successfully completed and City has approved the Project Phase for which payment is due. The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to Contractor, including both payment for services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed five hundred forty three, seven hundred forty four dollars ($543,744). Any 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. 3 140428 sm 010 DocuSign Envelope ID: 643E8903-9D0A-4924-A870-AE2F1DC833A4 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 2, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Approval of Sister City Reaffirmation Agreement with Oaxaca, Mexico Motion Staff recommends that the Council reaffirm the Sister City Agreement with Oaxaca, Mexico and direct the Mayor to sign the attached agreement. Background During the week of June 8, 2014, Mayor Shepherd, Vice Mayor Kniss, Council Member Scharff, and City Manager Keene will travel to Oaxaca, Mexico along with members of the Palo Alto Neighbors Abroad. Fifty years ago the Cities of Palo Alto, CA and Oaxaca, Mexico signed a Sister Cities Agreement to further the friendship between the two cities and affirm their mutual aspiration to work in unison and friendly cooperation for the benefit of both cities and nations. The reaffirmation of this Agreement is to promote and broaden exchanges between the two cities in the area of the arts, music, dance and other cultural activities. Exchanges also will be promoted in education and educational institutions, including such fields as science, technology, sports, health, youth activities and any areas that will contribute to the further development of friendship between the people of the two cities. ATTACHMENTS: x Oaxaca, Mexico and City of Palo Alto Sister City Reaffirmation Agreement (DOC) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 (City Seal ) (City Seal) REAFFIRMATION OF SISTER CITIES DECLARATION adopted by The Honorable Nancy Shepherd The Honorable José Javier Villacaña Jiménez Mayor of Palo Alto, California Mayor of Oaxaca de Juárez . Oaxaca United States of America United Mexican States ON JUNE 13, 2014 On this the FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY of the signing of a Sister City agreement , in order to further the traditional links of friendship between Oaxaca and Palo Alto and to reaffirm their mutual aspiration to work in unison for the benefit of their cities and nations, the Honorable José Javier Villacaña Jiménez, Mayor of the City of Oaxaca and the Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto , on this thirteenth day of June 2014 do hereby acknowledge and reaffirm the Sister Cities agreement between the City of Oaxaca and the City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto and the City of Oaxaca on the basis of friendly cooperation , equality and mutual benefit will continue to develop a Sister Cities relationship to promote and broaden cultural exchanges between the two cities. In addition, exchanges will be promoted in the area of the arts, such as exhibits, music, dance and other cultural activities. Exchanges will be promoted in education and educational institutions, including such fields as science, technology, sports, health, youth activities and any areas that will contribute to the further development of friendship between the people of our two cities. __________________________________ ____________________________________ The Honorable Nancy Shepherd The Honorable José Javier Villacaña Jiménez Mayor of Palo Alto Mayor of Oaxaca City of Palo Alto (ID # 4764) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: El Camino Real Sidewalk Ordinance Title: Public Hearing - Council Adoption of an Ordinance Modifying: (1) Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to: (a) Address Sidewalk Width and Building Setbacks (Setback and “Build-to” Line Standards, and Context Based Design Criteria) Along El Camino Real, and (b) Reduce the Allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN Zoned Sites Where Dwelling Units are Permitted at 20 Units Per Acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to Adjust the Definition of Lot Area and Add a Definition for “Effective Sidewalk”. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) (THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED BY COUNCIL MOTION ON APRIL 21, 2014 TO JUNE 2, 2014) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation On April 21, Council continued this item to the June 2, 2014 Council meeting. This report, prepared for the April 29, 2014 Council meeting, was provided in advance to allow Council an additional month of review. Staff recommends that Council take one of the following actions: (1) Adopt the proposed ordinance included as Attachment A, (2) Defer adoption of the ordinance until the issues it addresses can be reviewed in a broader context during the Comprehensive Plan Update, as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), or (3) Adopt a modified ordinance reflecting the Architectural Review Board (ARB)’s recommendation to omit changes to density (Floor Area Ratio or “FAR”) and permit effective sidewalk widths of nine feet where appropriate in front of retail uses. Executive Summary In April 2013, the City Council requested that staff work with the PTC to prepare a draft City of Palo Alto Page 2 ordinance(s) for its consideration that would increase sidewalk widths along major thoroughfares in the City. In January 2014, the City Council also requested that staff work on an ordinance to reduce the FAR for a limited number of sites that are zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and allow for residential densities of 20 dwelling units per acre due to their listing on the housing inventory. This FAR change was envisioned as a way to encourage smaller dwelling unit sizes. Because Palo Alto’s major thoroughfares are not homogeneous, and there is no “one size fits all” approach that can be used to address sidewalk widths City-wide, Staff approached this task by focusing first on El Camino Real. The attached draft ordinance would modify development standards in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapters 18.16 and 18.04, making a number of adjustments aimed at increasing the effective sidewalk width along El Camino Real. The ordinance would also reduce the FAR of 32 properties that are zoned Commercial Neighborhood (CN) if the owners choose to build out at residential densities of 20 units per acre rather than 15 units per acre. Staff has received input from property owners and others over the last several months, and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the PTC have each considered the draft ordinance on multiple occasions and provided their recommendations. The community input and the recommendations are briefly described in this report and documented further in the attachments. Background In April 2013, the Council gave direction to staff following discussion of a Council Colleagues’ memo regarding sidewalk widths. The Council’s direction was for the staff, ARB, and PTC to “review sidewalks widths and how buildings address the street with a focus on El Camino Real… and return to Council with suggested zoning amendments that implement the vision expressed in the Grand Boulevard Plan, and revise the South El Camino Guidelines and zoning as appropriate to make them consistent with this vision.” The Council’s direction also requested that other thoroughfares “be addressed in this context, as Staff feels is appropriate at this time.” In July, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) met to jointly study the sidewalk width issue and highlighted areas for further discussion or subcommittee work. The Council’s meeting minutes and Colleagues’ Memo were included as attachments to the July 31, 2013 PTC/ARB meeting document, and are available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/35274. Other attachments include a list of El Camino Real projects constructed between 2003-2010, lane configurations from the 2003 El Camino Real Master Schematic Design Plan, the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) vision and principles, Bike Plan sections, and more. On January 13, 2014, Council approved a housing density increase from 15 to 20 units per acre for CN-zoned housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element. This action City of Palo Alto Page 3 implemented a program in the City’s Housing Element and responded to a provision in State law stating that sites meeting a “default density” of 20 dwelling units per acre are “deemed appropriate to accommodate” low income housing. However the Council was concerned about the change, and adopted a motion requesting staff and the PTC to consider reducing the FAR so as to achieve smaller unit sizes. The Council motion also requested consideration of the retail proportion of the FAR, including ground floor retail requirements. Staff began work on a draft ordinance in early 2014 and quickly realized that addressing sidewalk widths along all major thoroughfares would be infeasible, because conditions along the thoroughfares vary so greatly. As a result, the draft ordinance and community discussions have focused on El Camino Real. Staff also realized that increasing the FAR requirement for ground floor retail use along El Camino Real (as implied in the Council’s January 2014 motion) would be infeasible if new projects are required to meet the City’s current parking standards. On February 20 and March 20, 2014, the ARB conducted public hearings to discuss staff’s draft ordinance and the issues involved. On February 26 and April 9, 2014, the PTC conducted hearings on this topic. Minutes from these meetings are attached, along with the staff report from the April 9, 2014 PTC meeting. The ARB and PTC’s recommendations are included in the Discussion section below. Discussion The discussion below provides a brief summary of major provisions of the ordinance, a summary of the ARB and Planning Commission recommendations, and a brief summary of the community input to date. Ordinance Summary The attached draft ordinance would modify Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16, Neighborhood, Community and Services Commercial Districts, Sections 18.60.060 (Tables 3 and 4) and 18.60.090 (Context-Based Design Criteria), and Chapter 18.04, Definitions. The modifications would add a definition of effective sidewalk width (PAMC Section 18.04.030, item #50) and modify the development standards for front yard setbacks (18.16.060(a) and (b)) in an attempt to achieve greater effective sidewalk widths for properties fronting on ECR. The new front yard setback standards would apply to new development along the corridor (i.e. existing buildings would not be affected), and provide for flexibility based on context, including “land use, adjacent and nearby properties, existing building setbacks, proposed or adjacent building design, lot size and similar consideration.” In other words, the City could impose setbacks up to 10 feet on new development in order to achieve an effective sidewalk width of 18 feet if appropriate. However, where there are adjacent buildings with different setbacks, extremely small lots, or other site conditions that warrant lesser setbacks, the City could require setbacks of only 4 feet, for an effective sidewalk width of 12 feet. The current code requires an effective sidewalk of 12 feet. City of Palo Alto Page 4 It should also be noted that the standards cannot and do not require the dedication of land for sidewalk purposes, only that a setback be provided. As an “effective sidewalk,” the setback could include furnishings, plantings (including street trees), and building columns supporting upper floors of the building, provided the recessed/shaded area provides “a comfortable clear width for pedestrian access.” The City would review the design of the setback in conjunction with the rest of the building. Also, the ordinance would modify the definition of “lot area (PAMC Section 18.04.030, item #85) such that greater setbacks would not result in a smaller lot size for purposes of calculating FAR. The draft ordinance would also modify the “build-to-line” development standard that requires all new development to have a percentage of its building frontage along the line. (The intent of this “build to line” is to encourage pedestrian-oriented development and avoid surface parking lots in front of the buildings; it also creates what urban designers call a consistent “street wall” that helps to define the edge of a wide boulevard like ECR.) The modifications would eliminate the build-to requirement for frontages not on El Camino Real, clarify that Stanford Shopping Center and Town and Country Center properties are not subject to the requirement, add a build-to requirement for frontages along ECR that are zoned Community Commercial (CC and CC2), and allow flexibility so that the requirement can be met by upper floors when the ground floor is set back. Several of these changes are intended to eliminate the need for Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE), whereby applicants request relief from the build-to-line standard. Finally, as indicated earlier, the ordinance would affect the building density (FAR) of properties that are zoned CN and allowed residential densities of 20 dwelling units per acre because of their inclusion in the City’s inventory of housing sites. Specifically, the ordinance would give property owners of these sites along ECR the option of building at 15 du/ac and a residential FAR of 0.5:1 (total FAR of 1.0:1) or building at 20 du/ac and a residential density of 0.4 (total FAR of 0.8:1). ARB & PTC Recommendations On April 9, 2014, the PTC recommended that Council not adopt the proposed ordinance, and instead, incorporate the discussion of sidewalk width, with building height and density, and other development standards, as part of the Our Palo Alto (Comprehensive Plan) discussion, to realize the Grand Boulevard Initiative. The staff report and minutes for the April 9, 2014 PTC meeting are attached (Attachment E). Minutes and the staff report for the February 26, 2014 PTC meeting are also attached (Attachment D). On March 20, 2014, the ARB recommended that Council adopt a modified ordinance, eliminating the floor area reduction provision of the ordinance for new developments proposing 20 units per acre on CN-zoned sites in the housing inventory, and modifying the minimum setback requirement to allow a minimum nine foot effective sidewalk for ground floor retail uses on small lots, under specific conditions. The March 20, 2014 ARB meeting minutes are attached (Attachment F), as are minutes from the ARB meeting of February 20, City of Palo Alto Page 5 2014 (Attachment G). Community Input On April 1, 2014, staff conducted an outreach meeting with affected El Camino Real property owners and business owners. Correspondence from these owners is provided within the public correspondence in Attachment C. The ARB and PTC also heard from property owners and others raising a number of concerns including, but not limited to, the following: Concerns that the decrease in FAR for CN zoned properties in the housing inventory will make affordable housing infeasible; Concerns that increasing setbacks will make redevelopment of small parcels infeasible, potentially forcing lot consolidation; Concerns that increasing setbacks will harm the viability of retail uses along ECR; Concerns that increasing setbacks could be considered a “taking” of property; Concerns that ECR will never be a hospitable place for pedestrians; Suggestions that the requirement for greater setbacks be paired with additional height or relaxed requirements for ground floor retail. Observations & Next Steps Throughout the process of developing the draft ordinance, staff has observed a general lack of information and understanding about the Grand Boulevard Initiative and how Palo Alto’s local ordinances do or don’t respond to that regional vision. This represents an opportunity that can be seized by the Comprehensive Plan update process, or in a separate endeavor. As a first step, staff has arranged a public presentation and discussion with the PTC about the Grand Boulevard Initiative at their meeting of May 14, 2014. The following is a link to the video section of the Grand Boulevard Initiative web site, for people who are unable to attend the presentation: http://www.grandboulevard.net/library/videos.html. Even if our vision for ECR were clear, the ARB and PTC’s recommendation indicate that some find it difficult to consider one building standard like setbacks or “build-to” lines in the absence of a broader analysis of other building standards, parcel sizes, and land uses. A comprehensive code review like this would be resource-intensive, however staff would welcome the City Council’s identification of this as an important next step after the Comprehensive Plan Update, as well as Councils’ direction on any intermediate next steps. Resource Impact The proposed ordinance affects development standards and would not require an expenditure of City funds. Environmental Review The proposed ordinance would make minor adjustments to existing development standards and is considered exempt from the provisions of CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). City of Palo Alto Page 6 Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance (PDF) Attachment B: PAHC letter to PTC re CN district changes (PDF) Attachment C: Public Correspondence (PDF) Attachment D: PTC Staff Report and Minutes of February 26, 2014 (PDF) Attachment E: PTC Staff Report and Draft Minutes of April 9, 2014 (PDF) Attachment F: ARB Minutes of March 20, 2014 (PDF) Attachment G: ARB Meeting Item 4 on February 2, 20 14 (DOC) NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 18.04.030 (Definitions) and 18.16.060 (Development Standards for CN, CC, and CS Districts) and 18.60.090 (Context-Based Design Criteria of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code To Modify the Build To Requirements, Encourage Wider Sidewalks and Decrease FAR on CN Sites Where Dwelling Units Are Permitted to Exceed 15 Units Per Acre The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. A. Recently new developments have been built, particularly along El Camino and Alma Street, that are inconsistent with local and regional visions for vibrant boulevards. B. Recent developments have generated consternation in the community and a strong negative reaction by members of the public as to how close the buildings are to the street, how they loom over the roadway and how the buildings turn their backs on the public right of way due to inadequate setbacks and building articulation and openings to reduce the building mass. C. The Grand Boulevard Initiative, a vision developed by cities and agencies along El Camino Real, recommends an 18-foot sidewalk width. Palo Alto currently has a 12-foot “effective sidewalk” width requirement for new buildings D. As new developments are occurring on El Camino Boulevard there is a unique opportunity to redefine the existing streetscape in order to bring it closer in line with Comprehensive Plan polices and the Grand Boulevard Initiative. E. Improving the walkability of this corridor with strong, interesting, appealing building frontage furthers the goals of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Grand Boulevard Initiative F. The Grand Boulevard Initiative and El Camino Real Guidelines encourage “reinforcement of the importance and definition of the street with front-placed buildings that provide a presence in scale with El Camino Real.” SECTION 2. Section 18.040.030 Definitions (a)(50) (reserved) and (a)(85) (Lot Area) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows: (50) “Effective Sidewalk Width” means the width from face of curb (facing the street) to building face at the ground floor level, inclusive of furnishings, plantings (including street trees), and building columns (as long as such columns are set back at least nine feet from the curb) where the ground floor wall plane is set back significantly from the curb to provide recessed/shaded sidewalk area, 1 140328 jb 0131172-C NOT YET APPROVED with the intent to provide a comfortable clear width for pedestrian access. Effective sidewalk width shall not include special bulbouts for purposes of transit stops, street trees or bicycle parking. (85) “Lot area” means the area of a lot measured horizontally between bounding lot lines, but excluding any portion of a flag lot providing access to a street and lying between a front lot line and the street, and excluding any portion of a lot within the lines of any natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood control or drainage easement and excluding any portion of a lot within a public or private street right-of-way whether acquired in fee, easement, or otherwise. However, any private property area dedicated to and accepted by the City for public use as a sidewalk shall be included in lot area. SECTION 3. Section 18.16.060 (Development Standards for CN, CC, and CS Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.16.060 Development Standards (a) Exclusively Non-Residential Uses Table 3 specifies the development standards for exclusively non-residential uses and alterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS districts. These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. TABLE 3 EXCLUSIVELY NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in Section Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft2) Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft) None Required Minimum Setbacks Front Yard (ft) for properties not on El Camino Real 0–10’ to create an 8’- 12’ effective sidewalk width, depending on context None Required (8) 0 – 10’ to create an 8’ – 12’ effective sidewalk width, depending on 0 – 10’ to create an 8’ – 12’ effective sidewalk width, depending on context Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code 2 140328 jb 0131172-C NOT YET APPROVED CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in Section (1), (2), (8) context (1), (2), (8) (1), (2), (8) Front Yard (ft) for properties fronting El Camino Real 4-10’ from property line to the ground floor main building wall to create a 12’- 18’ effective sidewalk, depending on context; upper floors may have a zero setback, depending on context (1),(2),(8) 4-10’ from property line to the ground floor main building wall to create a 12’-18’ effective sidewalk , depending on context; upper floors may have a zero setback, depending on context (1),(2),(8) 4-10’ from property line to the ground floor main building wall to create a 12’-18’ effective sidewalk , depending on context; upper floors may have a zero setback, depending on context (1),(2),(8) 4-10’ from property line to the ground floor main building wall to create a 12’-18’ effective sidewalk , depending on context; upper floors may have a zero setback, depending on context (1),(2),(8) Rear Yard (ft) None required Interior Side Yard (ft) Street Side Yard (ft) 20’ (2) None required Minimum Yard (ft) for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10’ (2) 10’ (2) 10’ (2) 10’ (2) Build-To-Lines (applicable to properties facing El Camino Real only) • Minimum of 50% of frontage build to setback(7) Minimum of 33% of side street built to setback (7) • Wall % can be via upper floors where the ground floor is set back farther 3 140328 jb 0131172-C NOT YET APPROVED CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in Section Stanford Shopping Center and Town and Country Center properties are not subject to the buil-to- line standard. • Front wall can be placed within a range of 0-10’ from property line (8’ – 18’ from curb) • Wall % based on Context Based Design Criteria and site context including land use, adjacent and nearby building context, lot size, building design and similar considerations Minimum setbacks from alleys for structures other than public parking garages (ft) (3) Corner lots, from rear lot line on the alley Not applicable 8’ Not applicable Corner lots, from side lot line on the alley None All lots other than corner lots 20’ Maximum Site Coverage 50% None Required Maximum Height (ft) Standard 25’ and 2 stories 50’ 37’ (4) 50’ Within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 35’ 35’ 35’ Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 2.0:1 0.4:1 18.18.060(e) Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Hotels N/A - (5) 2.0:1 2.0:1 18.18.060(d) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC zone Initial Height at side or - (6) - (6) - (6) - (6) 4 140328 jb 0131172-C NOT YET APPROVED CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in Section rear lot line (ft) Slope - (6) - (6) - (6) - (6) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. Front yards of El Camino Real fronting properties are not subject to the landscaped screening requirement. (3) No setback from an alley is required for a public parking garage. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (5) See additional regulations in subsection (e) of this Section 18.16.050. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) Twenty-five-foot wide driveway access permitted regardless of building frontage. build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. For purposes of front yard setback, context shall include the property’s land use, adjacent and nearby properties’ existing building setbacks, proposed or adjacent building design, lot size and similar considerations. (b) Mixed Uses Table 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use developments. These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. TABLE 4 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CN CC C C(2) CS Subject to regulations in: Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft2) None required Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft) 5 140328 jb 0131172-C NOT YET APPROVED CN CC C C(2) CS Subject to regulations in: Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may apply Front Yard (ft) for properties not on El Camino Real 0’ – 10’ to create an 8’ – 12’ effective sidewalk width, depending on context (8)(10) None Required 0’ – 10’ to create an 8’ – 12’ effective sidewalk width, depending on context (8)(10) 0’ – 10’ to create an 8’ – 12’ effective sidewalk width, depending on context(8)(10) 6 140328 jb 0131172-C NOT YET APPROVED CN CC C C(2) CS Subject to regulations in: Front Yard (ft) for properties fronting El Camino Real 4-10’ from property line to the ground floor main building wall to create a 12’-18’ effective sidewalk, depending on context; upper floors may have a zero setback, depending on context (8),(10) 4-10’ from property line to the ground floor main building wall to create a 12’-18’ effective sidewalk , depending on context; upper floors may have a zero setback, depending on context (8),(10) 4-10’ from property line to the ground floor main building wall to create a 12’-18’ effective sidewalk , depending on context; upper floors may have a zero setback, depending on context (8),(10) 4-10’ from property line to the ground floor main building wall to create a 12’-18’ effective sidewalk , depending on context; upper floors may have a zero setback, depending on context (8),(10) Rear Yard (ft) 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Rear Yard abutting residential zone district (ft) 10’ Interior Side Yard if abutting residential zone district (ft) 10’ Street Side Yard (ft) 5’ Build-To-Lines (applicable to El Camino Real properties only) • Minimum of 50% of frontage built to setback (1) • Minimum of 33% of side street built to setback(1) • Wall % can be via upper floors where the ground floor is set back farther 7 140328 jb 0131172-C NOT YET APPROVED CN CC C C(2) CS Subject to regulations in: • Front wall can be placed within a range of 0-10’ from property line (8’ – 18’ from curb) • Wall % based on Context Based Design Criteria and site context including land use, adjacent building context, lot size and building design Permitted Setback Encroachments Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and similar elements may extend up to 6’ into the setback. Cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and similar architectural features (excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of interior space) may extend up to 4’ into the front and rear setbacks and up to 3’ into interior side setbacks Maximum Site Coverage 50% 50% 100% 50% Landscape/Open Space Coverage 35% 30% 20% 30% Usable Open Space 200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer units (2), 150 sq ft per unit for 6 units or more (2) Maximum Height (ft) Standard 35’ (4) 50’ 37’ 50’ Within 150 ft. of a residential zone district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 35’ 35’ (5) 35’ (5) 35’ (5) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line Residential Density (net)(3) 15 or 20(9) See sub- section (e) below 30 30 Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.5:1 (4) 0.6:1 0.6:1 Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 2.0:1 0.4:1 Total Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.9:1 (4) 2.0:1 1.0:1 Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR (6) 0.15:1 0.15:1 0.25:1 (7) 0.15:1 Parking See Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 (Parking) 18.52, 18.54 8 140328 jb 0131172-C NOT YET APPROVED CN CC C C(2) CS Subject to regulations in: (1) Twenty-five-foot wide driveway access permitted regardless of building frontage build-to requirement does not apply to CC district (2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. (3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. (4) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential). (5) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet. (6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels and eating and drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations. (7) If located in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District. (8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. For purposes of front yard setback, context shall mean the property’s land use, adjacent and nearby properties’ existing building setbacks, proposed or adjacent building design, lot size and similar considerations. (9) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre only on Housing Inventory Sites identified in the 2007-2014 Housing Element. Notwithstanding note 4, for any CN zoned site listed on the City’s housing inventory that elects to exceed the standard 15 dwelling units per acre, the Maximum Residential Floor Area (FAR) shall be 0.4:1, the Maximum Non-Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) shall be 0.4:1 and the Total Mixed Use Floor Area (FAR) shall not exceed 0.8:1. (10) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (1) Residential and nonresidential mixed use projects shall be subject to site and design review in accord with Chapter 18.30(G), except that mixed use projects with four or fewer residential units shall only require review and approval by the architectural review board. (2) Nonresidential uses that involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to dry cleaning plants and auto repair, are prohibited in a mixed use development with residential uses. (3) Residential mixed use development is prohibited on any site designated with an Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District overlay. 9 140328 jb 0131172-C NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. Section PAMC Sections 18.16.090 (b) (2) (H), (b) (3) (E) and (b) (3) (F) (Context Based Design Criteria) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements such as: A. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create strong, direct relationships with the street (Figure 2-1); Figure 2-1 B. Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass (Figure 2-2); Figure 2-2 (dimensions to be amended prior to Council) 10 140328 jb 0131172-C NOT YET APPROVED C. Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size and type of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale; D. Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward; E. Elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies that are visible to people on the street; F. All exposed sides of a building designed with the same level of care and integrity; G. Reinforcing the definition and importance of the street with building mass; and H. Upper floors set back to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. The ground floor may be set back farther than the upper floors when a greater first floor setback is established to provide a wider sidewalk. (3) Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks through elements such as: 11 140328 jb 0131172-C NOT YET APPROVED A. Rooflines that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies (Figure 3-1); B. Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest (Figure 3-1); C. Corner buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important intersections and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles (Figure 3-1); Figure 3-1 (dimensions to be amended prior to Council) D. Building facades articulated with a building base, body and roof or parapet edge (Figure 3-2); Figure 3-2 (dimensions to be amended following Council action) E. Buildings set back from the property line to create an effective 12'-18’ sidewalk on El Camino Real, 8'-12’ elsewhere (Figure 3-4). The width of the sidewalk shall be dependent on context including property’s land use, adjacent and nearby properties’ existing building 12 140328 jb 0131172-C NOT YET APPROVED setbacks, proposed or adjacent and nearby building design, lot size and similar considerations. The comfortable pedestrian clear width can be designed in a “meandering” fashion. Figure 3-3 (dimensions to be amended following Council action) F. A majority of the building frontage located within 0 to 10’ of the street property line at the setback line (Figure 3-3) along El Camino Real. Properties subject to a special setback shall follow that setback. On El Camino Real, placement of building frontage shall be based on context including property’s land use, adjacent and nearby properties’ existing building setbacks, proposed or adjacent and nearby building design, lot size and similar considerations. Figure 3-4 (dimensions to be amended following Council action) G. No side setback for midblock properties, allowing for a continuous street facade, except when abutting low density residential (Figure 3-3). SECTION 5. CEQA. This action is categorically exempt (per Section 15305 (Class 5) of the CEQA Guidelines) from the provisions of CEQA as they comprise minor alterations to land use limitations and can be seen to have no significant environmental impacts. 13 140328 jb 0131172-C NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment 14 140328 jb 0131172-C PALO ALTO HOUSING C: C> R P C> R A I I C> N 725 Alma Street• Palo Alto, CA 94301 • (650) 321-9709 • Fax (650) 321-4341 April 7, 2014 Dear PTC Commissioners: On January 13, 2014, the Council adopted an ordinance increasing density from 15 to 20 units per acre for certain CN zoned parcels. Affordable housing development on these parcels will be more financially feasible now that the acquisition and development costs can be spread across a higher number of units. The Council's action will have a positive impact on affordable housing development along El Camino. However, the proposed reduction in residential FAR on these parcels will undermine the benefits of the density increase. The 20% drop in residential FAR to 0.4:1.0 will have the unintended consequence of reducing the number of affordable units that can be developed along El Camino Real. Neighboring jurisdictions have recently increased the FAR along El Camino in preparation for future growth. Mountain View has eliminated density maximums for parcels along El Camino and has instead raised its FAR to 1.85:1.0, effectively motivating developers to build a higher number of smaller units. If Palo Alto's goal is to encourage the development of smaller units along El Camino, a change in FAR and density similar to that of Mountain View's could achieve this goal. Market forces will continue to drive what types of units a developer, affordable or market-rate, will chose to build. Regulatory changes can have a positive impact on these decisions. However, affordable housing developments are already driven to build smaller units by the need to keep costs low. A reduction in residential FAR for CN zoned parcels along El Camino may not have a major impact on market-rate development, but it will have negative, unintended consequences for affordable housing development along the El Camino corridor. We ask you to please consider the negative impact of the FAR reduction will have on affordable housing development and to delete footnote (9) in Table 4, 18.16.060. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at cgonzalez@paloaltohousingcorp.org or (650) 321-9709. Sincerely, au-r--------- Candae Gonzalez Executive Director Palo Alto Housing Corporation 1 Ellner, Robin From:Linnea Wickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, April 10, 2014 5:45 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Dump "Build-to-line" Commissioners, Though I was unable to attend the April 9th meeting, I hope you will approve the proposed ordinance requiring building set-backs of at least 15 feet. 18 feet would be better. Arcades, pillars would be fine. We live with the consequences of build-to-line every day down in south Palo Alto. It’s ugly and uninviting, even to vehicle traffic. And the sidewalks themselves, already at the curb rather than set off by a planting strip, are so narrow and full of impediments such as signs, transformers, and streetlight posts that two can’t even walk abreast along El Camino down here. Hoping for some room for people walking, or even just going to a bus, Linnea Wickstrom 450 Monroe Drive Palo Alto THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS 7 5 Years in PALO ALTO ENTERED INTO PUBLIC RECORD ON ' l-\-ce-14 FOR mE _ _.£'-'\"""'l'..,""----MEETING. 3921 E. Bayshore Rd., SUITE 209 •PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 • 650/903-0600 • www.twvpaloalto.org April 4, 2014 Planning and Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Floor area ratio; Amend Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal, code table 4.footnote #9 to reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted @ 20 units per acre. Dear Chairman Michael and Commissioners, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto believes increasing the density of housing along the El Camino transit corridor is wise to increase our supply of housing and ultimately improve the environment by encomaging the use of mass transit. Thus, we were glad to see the increased density for the housing invento1y sites identified in the Housing Element 2007-2014 approved by City Council last January. However, the League does not support the current proposal to reduce the FAR for the residential units in the designated CN sites along El Camino from 0.5 to 0.4 per acre. By increasing the density to 20 units per acre while not changing the FAR, the size of potential units has already been reduced. As there is no minimum density requirement, a market rate developer can put in as few units as the market will allow, but a non-profit affordable housing developer is required by funding mechanisms, such as tax credit requirements, to build for a greater density. In addition, affordable housing developers are often required to provide other amenities such as · community rooms to create a welcoming environment for residents. This eats into the available square footage available for the unit itself. Furthermore this change would limit the types of housing that could be built. The LWV of Palo Alto believes that placing denser housing along transportation corridors is good for the environment and our transportation systems as well as for the people who reside in those residences. However, please do not create further barriers to the development of affordable housing along this corridor. Please do not reduce the FAR for residential units where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per acre. · Sincerely, 7/t~tf/h~ Mary Alice Thornton, President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto PALO ALTO HOUSING C: C> R P C> R A I I C> N 725 Alma Street• Palo Alto, CA 94301 • (650) 321-9709 • Fax (650) 321-4341 April 7, 2014 Dear PTC Commissioners: On January 13, 2014, the Council adopted an ordinance increasing density from 15 to 20 units per acre for certain CN zoned parcels. Affordable housing development on these parcels will be more financially feasible now that the acquisition and development costs can be spread across a higher number of units. The Council's action will have a positive impact on affordable housing development along El Camino. However, the proposed reduction in residential FAR on these parcels will undermine the benefits of the density increase. The 20% drop in residential FAR to 0.4:1.0 will have the unintended consequence of reducing the number of affordable units that can be developed along El Camino Real. Neighboring jurisdictions have recently increased the FAR along El Camino in preparation for future growth. Mountain View has eliminated density maximums for parcels along El Camino and has instead raised its FAR to 1.85:1.0, effectively motivating developers to build a higher number of smaller units. If Palo Alto's goal is to encourage the development of smaller units along El Camino, a change in FAR and density similar to that of Mountain View's could achieve this goal. Market forces will continue to drive what types of units a developer, affordable or market-rate, will chose to build. Regulatory changes can have a positive impact on these decisions. However, affordable housing developments are already driven to build smaller units by the need to keep costs low. A reduction in residential FAR for CN zoned parcels along El Camino may not have a major impact on market-rate development, but it will have negative, unintended consequences for affordable housing development along the El Camino corridor. We ask you to please consider the negative impact of the FAR reduction will have on affordable housing development and to delete footnote (9) in Table 4, 18.16.060. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at cgonzalez@paloaltohousingcorp.org or (650) 321-9709. Sincerely, au-r--------- Candae Gonzalez Executive Director Palo Alto Housing Corporation Minor. Beth From:. Sent: To: Subject: Tracy May <hassenmattb@gmail.com> Tuesday, May 27, 2014 12:47 PM Council, City Ci I y OF PALU AUO. ex . CITY CLERK'S OFFICE El Camino real side walks and building restrictions I am outraged at the proposition of the city taking my land and using it to widen the sidewalks of El Camino. The same land that I have worked my hands to the bone for. Palo Alto property is valuable. The property is difficult to secure and finance as a small business owner and resident of this beautiful city. Even if this proposition does not affect me in the near future, it will unjustly bring about excessive losses to those that have worked diligently to secure properties like mine. I am a simple florist. The business is not all that profitable and in my old age ( 60 years) learning new trades is an arduous and bleak endeavor. I am in no way greedy and I have worked for every dollar I have. I have worked 15 hours a day, 7 days a week for longer than I can remember. Securing this property has taken a toll on me and my family life. It just does not seem fair for the city to take away a part of all that I have to live off of and to support my children with. I am completely opposed to the idea of using private properties to expand the sidewalks of El Camino. Please contact with any other information about what I can do as a business owne:r and resident of Palo Alto to prevent this outrageous proposal. -Hassan Bordbari 3 Minor, Beth From: Cl I 9 OF PALO ALI O. CA brian knudson <calpig2000@yahoo.com> CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Sent: To: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 12:14 PM Council, City I~ HAY 28 AH $: lfl Subject: El Camino Real sidewalk widening and land use restrictions Dear City Council, I am a citizen extremely opposed to the taking or using, {or changing the Ordnance to accomplish the taking) of private property by the City of Palo Alto. Your plans to widen sidewalks along El Camino Real by using private property and imposing other severe land use restrictions takes away the owners rights to their property, while decreasing its value. How would you view this if the city or a branch of government was taking {let's call it what it really is ... taking) your private property, and, limiting its use and value? What would you do? What if the same thing happened years ago to your property and now the government wants a larger portion then they took before and to restrict your freedom to use whatever you have left? This proposed plan is not just or right. I hope you agree with me and vote accordingly. Sincere.ly, Brian Knudson 4 Minor. Beth From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council members, Theron <takakit@cs.com> Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:05 AM Coundl, City Sidewalk usage proposal CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I~ HAY 28 AH 8: lfl I am a citizen, property owner and a business owner that is opposed to the City using private property to widen sidewalks on the El Camino Real, or any where. else. Private property is just that, private. If you wish to use it or take it the owner must be fairly compensated. As a business owner, this will negatively impact my business revenue generating ability at least by 25% if I have to relinquish any footage. As a property owner this will impact my ability to charge the rent that is require to service my mortgage payments. Please respect the property owners rights to their own property and vote accordingly. Sincerely, Theron Takaki Takaki Inc., President 2200 El Camino Palo Alto LLC Memb.er 6 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Subject: Noella <noellamay@hotmail.com> Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:42 AM Council, City Widening of sidewalks on El Camino Real Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, 01f't or PALO ALI O.CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICt I 4l1AY 28 At1 8: ft'5 My name is Noella May and I live in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. I would like to express my concern of your proposal to widen the sidewalks on El Camino Real. It appears that the business owners have not been fairly included in the discussions surrounding this proposal. It is vitally important for all local governments to advise property owners (both business/commercial and residential) of proposals which will directly affect them. In this situation it has become apparent that this has not been the case. I strongly urge you to table this proposal to allow the proper discussions to take place among the parties affected. Business owners deserve your time in answering their questions such · as: Why is the widening necessary? Have you considered that some properties will be seriously devalued if you widen the sidewalks? What is the gain for the business owners? What is the gain for the City of Palo Alto? What is the urgency of this proposal? Why has not the proper communication taken place? (it seems to have come as a surprise to business owners and they are now faced with scrambling to understand and tryillg to delay/stop the proposal as a voting date looms) Thank you for listening to me ..... your northern neighbour! ·I have gone through this type of situation here in my hometown where the local government has not done due diligence and the community is seriously affected by the outcomes. Please take the time needed for all concerned citizens of your beautiful city ... both they and you deserve it! Sincerely, Noella May 7 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Palo Alto City Council - Simon Cintz <simoncintz@gmail.com> Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:09 PM I It HAY 28 AM 7: If! Burt, Patrick; Berman, Marc; Holman, Karen (internal); Klein, Larry; Price, Gail (internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Schmid, Greg; Shepherd, Nancy (internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City Gitelman, Hillary; French, Amy El Camino Sidewalk Ordinance Grand Blvd Design from Pamphlet page lSJpg The "Grand Boulevard" plan and the proposed "El Camino Sidewalk Ordinance" for Palo Alto's El Camino Real will hurt small mom & pop businesses that make up a majority of the community serving businesses along much of Palo Alto's El Camino. I spoke to this point at the Planning & Transportation Commission public meeting on April 9, 2014. I was surprised to hear one of the commissioners say that he did not see how the proposed ordinance would hurt existing small businesses. Please allow me to explain why Palo Alto's plan for El Camino will hurt many small businesses. · We own the property located at 3567 El Camino Real. Our tenant, Kraft Mattress; has successfully been in business at this same location for over 40 years. Over those years, thousands of Palo Alto residents have purchased mattresses from this business. This business depends heavily on it's visibility to vehicle traffic on El Camino. This is the primary reason that Kraft Mattress has remained at this location for so many years. At the heart of the proposed "Sidewalk Ordinance" is CHANGING El Camino from a currently vehicle oriented street to a future pedestrian oriented "Grand Boulevard". This proposed change will make EXISTING SMALL BUSINESSES less visible to vehicle traffic. For example, varying building setbacks and including more trees along the sidewalks will make it difficult to see these small businesses from passing vehicles. These small businesses will virtually "disappear" and not be visible to most of the people who DRIVE along El Camino. Attached is a drawing of what the "Grand Boulevard" may look like. It is taken from the "Grand Boulevard Initiative" pamphlet (page 15): 1 I I Exampit· ( '.01·1•ith•r Pwtntypt> nntl D(·sign ll:-:c.:-1Hion.s Please note how making the street "pedestrian oriented" results in making it more difficult for drivers to see businesses and their signage along the street. ·Typically, these mom & pop businesses are in small buildings with limited signage exposure. Turning El Camino into a pedestrian oriented street will kill many of these small businesses. They can't afford to relocate to Stanford Shopping Center, University A venue, or California A venue. Turning El Camino Real into a pedestrian oriented street begs the questions: Who will these pedestrians be? When will these pedestrians use the sidewalks? Most of Palo Alto's El Camino has very few high density offices. Instead, it is surrounded by residential areas. These people usually go to ·work during most of the week and are usually walking on El Camino on weekends. Small businesses CANNOT survive iftheir PRIMARY source of customers comes only from nearby residents walking on the sidewalks on weekends. Clearly, the City of Palo Alto does not intend to eliminate small community serving businesses from El Camino Real. Nonetheless, implementing the City's proposed "Sidewalk Ordinance" will result in a significant future hardship which will likely result in the closure of many of those businesses. I hope the City Council considers these unintended con$equences on many of the businesses along El Camino Real, in deciding how to vote. Simon Cintz Cintz Commercial Properties, LP P.O. Box 1216 Palo Alto, CA 94302 831-247-2387 2 Minor. Beth From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City council members Sandy Simonton <sarreva@gmail.com> Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:12 AM Council, City widening sidewalks bad idea CITY CLERK'S OFFIC~ 14RAY 28 AH 7: 41 I am a citizen and am opposed to the city using private property to widen sidewalks on El Camino Real or anywhere else. Private property is just that, private. If you wish to use it or take it the owners must be fairly compensated. Please respect the property owners rights to their own property and vote accordingly. What would you do if it was your property. Do the right thing. Sincerely Sandy Simonton Concerned Citizen 1 Minor, Beth· From: Sent: ken w < kenw2020@gmail.com > Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:45 PM Council, City 81TV tJI PALU All u GA 14 HAY 28 AH 7: a.r, To: . Subject: El Camino Real Zoning Changes proposal on widening sidewalks Dear city council members, I would first like to express my appreciation for your service to the city. As a property owner and a citizen, I am writing to voice my opposition to widening sidewalks along El Camino Real. The proposed zoning changes relating to widening the sidewalks affect many lots along El Camino Real. These zoning changes seem very arbitrary in nature, impacting many smaller lots; especially since the sidewalks have previously been moved from 8 to 12 feet and numerous buildings exist with narrower sidewalks. The city has not studied how these zoning changes would impact future developments. These changes may actually result in disincentives for developments ·and loss of property value. The city is currently going through an unprecedented planning process. I believe good plans can be developed by creating incentives for improving El Camino Real. Therefore, I strongly oppose the proposed zoning changes as they would diminish the value of the affected properties. Sincerely and Thank you for listening, Ken Weng, 2 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council Members, Kyle Takaki <ktakaki70@gmail.com> Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:16 PM Council, City Sidewalk widening on El Camino Real ('!I¥ OF Mb:~ aA;LT9: 9A CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 14 HAY 28 AH 7: lt4 I am a business owner that is opposed to the City widening the sidewalks along El Camino Real. By widening the sidewalks my business would be negatively affected to the extent that it would hinder my financial income and ultimately could take me out of business. I rely on the throughput of vehicles on my property as well as the parking area that would be taken away if this law passes. By widening these sidewalks you will be increasing the ability for bicyclist to break the law and ride on the sidewalks as they do now and possibly create a greater risk for injury to pedestrians. Widening of the sidewalks is not going to increase foot traffic or business along the El Camino. If this law passes you will be taking away private not public property and the property owners must be compensated and property tax must be adjusted accordingly. Please consider voting against this law as if it were your property and business being affected. Please look at it from our point of view. Kyle Takaki Business owner Palo Alto Shell 1 Minor, Beth . i -~· ..• CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA · harleystarmay@aol.com CITY CLERK'S OFFICE From: ,. ,~ ·f'1,<?n9~y, May 26, 2014 12:28 AM ' ·· Co'Jricil, City 14 AAY 27 AH 7: 51 Sent: To: Subject: Widening sidewalks on El Camino Real and other proposed land use restrictions Re. Widening sidewalks on El Camino Real and other proposed land use restrictions. Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, My name is Tracy May. I own the property at 2080 El Camino Real in Palo Alto. I was born in Palo Alto and raised in my dad's retail store on the El Camino Real, where BBQ Galore is located today. I worked in my dad's store for over 30 year and have a keen knowledge of the pedestrian usage along the El Camino Real from Stanford Ave to California Ave --from the early 60's to the present. No one wants to walk ECR--back then or now. People walk it, only when they have to and only in short segments. People in Palo Alto don't want to walk or eat along a busy state highway because there are much nicer places in town for those activities. So, it is not an issue of build wider sidewalks and the pedestrians will come. Widening the El Camino Real sidewalks 15-18 feet serves no useful purpose other then to restrict property owner's freedoms and rights of the use of their own land, by denying their Constitutional property rights. I am vehemently opposed to forcing property owners to give the city free use of their land for City sidewalks or beautification projects, which devalue the properties along the ECR --or anywhere else. This plan will hurt and destroy the little person --the "mom and pop" places that helped to build this town. My father was one of those people; He worked his hands to the bone for 50 years to keep that property and to make a life for our family. Now, the city wants to take some 600 square feet of this property away for no reasonable purpose. I have recently learned that in 2005 the City took away 400 feet of my property to widen the sidewalk from 8 to 12 feet, without notifying me or any other property owners along the El Camino Real. Amy French was kind enough to look into this for me, and told me that the City never notified the owners, just put notice of meetings in the local newspaper. Most people, including myself, who own property on the El Camino Real do not live in Palo Alto or read the Palo Alto newspaper. Most people don't read the paper these days. Now the City wants more of my property for even wider sidewalks ... all total: 1000 square feet of my private property! 8 Some businesses and properties on ECR are so small that if they had to rebuild, they would have nothing left to build upon. Past and proposed restrictions have and will make it impossible for these people to sell their properties. At the City held neighborhood meeting, at the Creekside Inn, when these concerns were broached with the staff --owners were told, repeatedly that these are "challenges." I believe the staff is using the wrong verbiage. A death sentence would be a more appropriate way to describe the owner's dilemma. Challenges can be overcome. What is happening to these small business and property owners 9annot be overcome. Visibility is important to the survival of the businesses along the El Camino Real. The City's plan to be "flexible" in building setbacks regarding which buildings will have the best visibility and which buildings will be more hidden from view is unfair, as this will dictate which business will thrive and which will not. As I understand it, laws are supposed to be just and stand for equality, not to give some an advantage while denying others that same advantage. I support the ARB' s suggestion for an exception to limit sidewalk width to 9 feet in front of retail 'stores. So these small businesses can maintain the visibility along the ECR that is so vital to their survival. Sincerely, Tracy May 9 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Gouncil members, Jane Ham <janedonham@yahoo.com> Monday, May 26, 2014 8:47 AM Council, City '.El camino CITY Of PALO AP01 CEA, CITY CLERK'S OFFlC '4 f1A~ 21 At1 1: 51 · I am an American citizen, born and raised in California. I am opposed to the City using private property to widen sidewalks on the El Camino Real, or any where else for that matter .. Private property is just that, private. If you wish to use it or take it the owner must be fairly compensated. Please respect property owners rights to their own property and vote accordingly. Sincerely, 6 Minor, Beth From: sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council members, Koyin Chao <koyinchao@yahoo.com> Friday, May 23, 2014 5:35 PM Council, City Side walk CITY CLERK'S OtFICiA 14HAY27 AH 7:31 I am a citizen and lives in Palo Alto for many years. I am opposed to the City using private property to widen sidewalks on the El Camino Real, or any where else. Private property is just that, private. Please respect the property owners rights to their own property and vote accordingly. I also don't think the widen of side walk is necessary nor an important issue, let alone to consider taking people's private property away. Sincerely, Koyin Chao 7 Minor, Beth •";·: From: S Weng <ssweng@gmail.com> Sent: To: t, ''. l {: , .. '1 .. \ ; Friday, May 23, 2014 4:28 PM • .~; ' ·' ' 1 · Council; City Subject: Opposing Widening of El Camino Side Walk Dear Palo Alto City Council members, GI I i OF PALO All O. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. 14 HAY 27 AH 7: scf I am a citizen and owns properties on El Camino. in Palo Alto and Mountain View. I am opposed to the City using private property to widen sidewalks on the El Camino Real, or any where else. Private property is just that, private. If you wish to use it or take it the owner must be fairly compensated. Please respect the property owners rights to their own property and vote accordingly. Sincerely, Sam Weng 8 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Subject: carydavis@aol.com Monday, May 26, 2014 9:00 AM Council, City El Camino Real Boulevard widening CITY OF PALO ALTO CA CITY CLERK'S OFF'ICE 14 HAY 27 AM 7: 39 I am a citizen and am opposed to the City using private property to widen sidewalks on the El Camino Real, or any where else. Private property is just that, private. If you wish to use it or take it the owner must be fairly compensated. Please respect the property owners' rights to their own property and vote accordingly. Sincerely, Cary Davis 5 Minor, Beth · C\TY Of PAL~ AGO.GA Jane Ham <janedonham@yahoo.com> C\TY CLERKS OFFICE From: Mond~y, t:'1ay 26, 2014 8:47 AM · . 1~ !~ \I Council, City \ 4 tUW l8 "' · Sent: To: ~Bl camino Subject: · ..... Dear City Council members, I am an American citizen, born and raised in California. I am opposed to the City using private property to widen sidewalks on the El Camino Real, or any where else for that matter .. Private property is just that, private. If you wish to use it or take it the owner must be fairly compensated. Please respect property owners rights to their own property and vote accordingly. Sincerely, 6 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Dear City Council Folks, jane4cookin@caltel.com Monday, May 26, 2014 11:19 AM Council, City Please be aware that I am a US citizen .... born and raised in this Area. I think it is terrible that any of you would think it OK to take private property to widen the side walk on El Camino. I am very upset that this whole thing is going on. This is private property which should stay in the hands of the owners .... not used to widen sidewalk. The sidewalk in fine. Stop this madness now. Don Ham 3 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Subject: nttY OF PALO Add.CA Rob <robjyee@netscape.net> "en¥ CLERK'S OFflCE Monday, May 26, 2014 7:49 PM .· council, City .,.t.;l'\Al 21 ·~i11: 3,s Proposal to widen setback on El Camino Rea Dear City Council members, I am a property owner on El Camino Real. I've already lost one tenant because there is insufficient room to make remodeling feasible. Widening of the setback requirement to 18 feet would be a strong disincentive for prospective tenants to bid on my property. Therefore I think changing the current ordinance would only increase blight on El Camino Real. The parcels in my neighborhood are pretty small. Please don't crowd us any further. Sincerely, Robert J. Yee 1 Minor, Beth From: . . r.r:rv CLERK'S OFFICE Kimberly Maher <k1mberlymaher@gm'aI.com> .· Cl I I 01 PAte Jl<l::Tft, eA Sent: To: Saturd.ay, ~ay 24, 2014 10:08 PM I It HAY 21 AH 7: 5 l Council, City · Subject: El Camino Sidewalks Dear City Council members, I am opposed to the City using private property to widen sidewalks on the El Camino Real, or any where else. Private property is just that, private. If you wish to use it or take it the owner must be fairly compensated. Please respect property owners rights to their own property and vote accordingly. -Kimberly Maher 12 Midtown Neighbors & Friends Neighbors Helping Neighbors Occupy ~oodCity Occupy San Jose Palo Alto Frien4~_,Meeting • Peninsula Direct Action Peninsula Interfaith Action Peninsula Peace and Justice Center Santa Clara County Single Payer Healthcare Coalition Trinity Methodist Church of Mountain View Women's International League for Peace and Freedom 11 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Dear City Council members, Sue Alford <forsue@pacbell.net> Sunday, May 25, 2014 2:32 PM Council, City 81T';' er PALO ALI o.ex CITY CLERK'S OFFIC£ 14HAY 27 AH 7: 51 We are American citizens and are opposed to a City using private property to widen sidewalks on the El Camino Real, or any where else. Private property is just that, private. If you wish to use it or take it the owner must be fairly compensated. Please respect property owners rights to their own property and vote accordingly. Sincerely, Robert and Carole Alford 5 From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council members, Arnold Talbot <arneltalbot@hotmail.com> Sunday, May 25, 2014 2:23 PM Council, City CITY OF PALO AU6 .. eA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 14 t1A121 At11: 58 FW: Will you help me to stand up for our rights by clicking send? I am a property owner in the United States and am opposed to any City using private property to widen sidewalks. I understand that the city of Palo Alta wants to use a portion of the El Camino Real for sidewalks, with no compensation to the property owners. Private property is just that, private. If you wish to use it or take it the owner must be fairly compensated. Please respect property owners rights to their own property and vote accordingly. Sincerely, Ellen Talbot 6 Minor, Beth From: raj@sunnyvalevet.com Sent: To: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:11 AM Council, City 14 HAY 28 AH ll·f aa. Subject: Re: El Camino Real plans for sidewalk widening and land use restrictions. Re: El Camino Real plans for sidewalk widening and land use restrictions. Dear City Council, I am a citizen and I am opposed to the City of Palo Alto's plan to use private property to widen city sidewalks and other changes that would remove the use of our private property along the El Camino Real. Private property owners have rights, and I hope the City Council respects them and votes against this proposal. Sincerely, Raj Singh 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4448) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 2/26/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Code Changes: CC, CS and CN Zones Build-To Line; FAR limit on CN housing inventory sites; and Lot Ar Title: Review and Recommendation of an Ordinance modifying: (1) Chapters 18.16 and 18.60 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address building setbacks (the “build-to” line standard) in the CN and CS District and (b) reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of Lot Area in order to encourage wider sidewalks. From: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Lead Department: Planning & Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and discuss the concepts for a draft ordinance (Attachment A): (1) Addressing the build-to-line requirement for sites within the CN and CS zone districts found in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16, Section 18.60.060, to clarify that: a.Buildings may be placed farther back than: (a) the required 12 feet from the curb along El Camino Real and (b) the required 8 feet from the curb along other thoroughfares; and b.To allow more flexibility in how much of the front building wall must be located at the setback line, with respect to the rules for building wall filling 50% (particularly, as applied to large parcels with potentially long building walls at the setback line). (2) Addressing the Context Based Design Criteria Considerations and Findings found in PAMC Section 18.60.090 (b), item (2) Street Building Facades, to modify sub-item (H) City of Palo Alto Page 2 upper floor placement, and item (3) Massing and Setbacks, to modify sub-items (E) and (F); specifically: a. (2)(H): currently calls for upper floors set back to fit in with the context of the neighborhood; add that the ground floor may be set back farther than the upper floors when a greater first floor setback is established to provide a wider sidewalk; b. (3)(E): currently calls for a 12 foot sidewalk width on El Camino Real and an 8 feet sidewalk width elsewhere; to note that an increased width may be appropriate based on context, given a desired sidewalk width range of ‘12-18 feet on El Camino and 8 to 12 feet elsewhere’; and c. (3)(F): currently calls for a majority of the building frontage located (exactly) at the front and side setback lines (to achieve a continuous street façade at the build-to-line); to build in flexibility based upon context, so that the majority of the front building wall is placed within (specified setback such as 20 feet) of the front property line (unless subject to special setback). (3) Reducing the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per acre, also in Section 18.60.060 of Chapter 18.16; and (4) Modifying the definition of lot area, in PAMC Chapter 18.04, Section 18.04.030, to encourage provision of wider sidewalks. Executive Summary The Planning and Transportation Commission is asked to provide feedback on the key elements of a draft ordinance that would impact front building setbacks, the design review criteria, allowable floor area and lot size definition for properties located within certain commercial corridors of Palo Alto. Staff anticipates this discussion will take place over two meetings. In the first meeting, staff requests the PTC to provide feedback on the key design issues identified in numbers 1 and 2 above. In the second meeting, staff will bring back a more refined ordinance based on feedback received by the PTC. These changes would primarily affect certain properties in the Commercial Neighborhood and Commercial Service zoning districts. This draft ordinance is a result of several separate, but related Council actions. In addition, the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission have had related discussions over the last several years. A summary of these past meetings and other details can be found in this report. A version of this ordinance will be ultimately considered for approval by the Council. Background City of Palo Alto Page 3 City Council Direction on Sidewalks On April 15, 2013, Council gave direction to staff following discussion of a Council Colleagues’ Memo regarding sidewalk widths. The Colleagues’ Memo and discussion describe several issues, including: Buildings “turning their backs” on public rights of way due to inadequate setbacks and lack of building articulation and openings that would better reduce building mass; Right of way width at 12 feet (the required “effective sidewalk” setback, i.e. from curb face to building face) is not wide enough; and Grand Boulevard Initiative recommended 18 feet sidewalk inclusive of an eight foot wide walking zone, a four-foot wide “spill out” zone (adjacent to the building face), and a six-foot wide “amenity” zone. The link to the Grand Boulevard Initiative is http://www.grandboulevard.net Council voted unanimously, as follows: “Staff, the PTC and ARB (shall) review sidewalk widths and how buildings address the street, with a focus on El Camino Real and with reference to Grand Boulevard Design Guidelines, and return to Council with suggested zoning amendments that implement the vision expressed in the Grand Boulevard Plan, and revise the South El Camino Real Guidelines and zoning as appropriate to make them consistent with this vision. Other major thoroughfares, including but not limited to Alma, Downtown, California Avenue and Charleston should be addressed in this context, as staff feels is appropriate at this time.” City Council Direction on Floor Area On January 13, 2014, Council took action to implement a program in the 2007-14 Housing Element to increase the allowable density on Housing Inventory sites in the CN zone from 15 to 20 units. As part of this action, Council directed staff to also examine a modest corresponding reduction of overall floor area ratio (FAR) for those CN-zoned housing sites appearing on the Housing Inventory. (This affects approximately 32 CN zoned sites on El Camino). One of these sites is 3339 ECR, which is zoned both CS and CN but included in the 32 CN zoned sites.) As a secondary issue, Council directed staff to also study reducing FAR on all CN and CS parcels. The total number of CN zoned parcels is 135, including CN, CN(GF)(P), CN(L) and CN( R) parcels as well as property parcels not including “air parcel condominiums.” The total number of CS zoned parcels in Palo Also is 149, including CS, CS(H), CS (AD), CS (AS1), CS(D), and CS(L) parcels as well as property parcels not including “air parcel condominiums.” Given the extensive noticing and outreach involved on this secondary issue, staff will examine this on a separate track. Joint Planning & Transportation Commission and ARB Meeting (2013) City of Palo Alto Page 4 On July 31, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) jointly studied the sidewalk width issue and highlighted areas for further discussion or joint subcommittee work. The report for the PTC/ARB joint meeting stated, “the purpose of this session is to study the issue and highlight areas for further discussion or joint subcommittee work, before staff returns with proposal(s) for consideration by both bodies separately or in a second joint meeting.” The staff report and attachments prepared for the July 31, 2013 joint retreat of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and PTC and meeting minutes are available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/35274 ARB’s 2012 through 2014 Efforts ARB retreats were held in May 2013 and March 2012, and a study session was held in November 2010, following Council direction for staff to revise certain aspects of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. At that time, Council gave authorization for limited consultant use and specifically suggested consideration of the following: setbacks for different streets, land uses, height step backs, break-up building length, and Retail frontage. In addition, following the ARB/PTC joint meeting, the ARB had divided into two teams to study El Camino Real development. The goal was to understand actual conditions and study the potential for greater building setbacks and sidewalk widths, with respect to the nodes and corridors cited in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The ARB met on January 30, 2014, to present their findings, and discuss the effort to bring forth this ordinance. On February 20, 2014, the ARB held a noticed public hearing. There was one public speaker who commented on sidewalk use and floor area ratio. The attached draft ordinance was provided at places. The ARB provided comments on five concepts/questions asked in the report. A member of the ARB will attend the Commission meeting to convey a summary of the ARB’s discussion, answer questions, and then bring back guidance from the PTC to refine the concepts for a final version of the ordinance. Staff has briefly summarized the February 20th discussion below. Sidewalk Width: The ARB supports a 9 to 15-foot sidewalk width (curb to building). The nine- foot sidewalk would be for retail uses with display windows. The ARB cited that a 15-foot wide sidewalk along El Camino Real was recommended in the rail corridor study, and the 15-foot City of Palo Alto Page 5 setback required in the South of Forest Area plan for mixed use buildings in the RT zone district. The 15 foot wide section provided by consultant Bruce Fukuji (previously shared in the July 31, 2013 PTC/ARB report) was referenced. The ARB does not support a requirement for a continuous width of 18 feet along El Camino Real, given that it is a highway, though the board acknowledged that in certain locations, a much deeper sidewalk is nice (citing the plaza at Café Barrone in Menlo Park). The ARB suggested the City retain a consultant to provide visual examples of sidewalks and concepts for amenities to enliven the area in front of buildings. The ARB noted that visual aids would help Council act on an ordinance. Lot Area Definition: The ARB supports the proposed lot area definition change to allow applicants to provide additional sidewalk width on private property and not deduct the area removed from private use from the lot area available for calculating building square footage. However, the ARB does not consider this an incentive (only additional floor area would be an incentive). Variables for Criteria on Wider Sidewalks: The ARB suggests including land use among the criteria – to determine on a project by project basis whether additional sidewalk width is needed – allowing discretion for ARB determination. A building’s land use and front wall articulation would affect how far back a building would be located. A building with ground floor retail with display retail windows can be located closer to the sidewalk, whereas retail with a big, windowless wall (Alma Plaza mixed use building was cited) should be located farther from street, with more landscaping. A building with office or residential use at the ground floor would also be better located farther back from the sidewalk, with additional planting. Building Front Wall: The ARB suggested the City either remove the build-to-line requirement and allow the ARB to determine appropriate setback in each case, or retain the build-to-line requirement and allow exceptions for different land uses. The ARB is in favor of encouraging or allowing building overhangs on upper floors extending to the build-to-line to meet the 50% building frontage requirement, and allowing the ground floor to be set back further to provide a wider sidewalk. The ARB also noted there is a height relationship that should be included in the discussion. Street Trees: Street trees should be encouraged as part of sidewalk landscaping. Although the ARB is not required by the Municipal Code to recommend changes to the Municipal Code, it is appropriate in this case given these past ARB discussions about sidewalk width and street setbacks, and about the El Camino Real Design Guidelines Update. El Camino Real Development and DEEs for Relief from Build-To-Line At the July 31, 2013 ARB/PTC meeting, staff presented photos and a list of El Camino Real (ECR) properties redeveloped since the South El Camino Real Guidelines were in effect, constructed City of Palo Alto Page 6 2002-2013 (Attachment D). There have been several Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) requested and approved since the 2005 Zoning Code update, to allow a greater setback than the Build to Line regulation prescribed or to allow less than the required percentage of building placed at the build-to-line. The Build-to-Line regulations of Chapter 18.16 followed the recommendations of the 2002 SECRDG. There were other DEEs requested and approved for mixed use projects (some are listed in Attachment D) to encroach into a 25 foot setback requirement in place prior to the 2005 Zoning Code Update but following the 2002 SECRDG publication. Approved ECR projects that weren’t constructed prior to 2013 and therefore not on the list include: 1845 ECR (mixed use on small lot; build-to-line DEE, and DEE for smaller-than-minimum ground floor retail area (.06 where .15 required)) 711 ECR (The Clemente Hotel – met build-to line), 180 ECR (Bloomingdales – CC zone where no build-to-line requirement), 180 ECR (Flemings Steakhouse – CC zone where no build-to-line requirement), 2209 ECR (mixed-use on small corner lot – met build-to-line), and 3159 ECR (mixed-use – build-to-line DEE for side street, ECR met build-to-line). Recently proposed major projects include 2500 El Camino Real (Mayfield DA mixed use, not in the CN or CS zone), 3225 El Camino Real (preliminary ARB only to date, for a mixed-use project on the Foot Locker site), and 3877 ECR (preliminary ARB only to date, for a mixed-use project on the former Compadres site). Below are other projects that were not located along El Camino Real but, due to the properties’ location in CN or CS zone, requested DEEs for relief from the build-to-line requirement to achieve greater front setbacks: 2995 Middlefield Road (CN zone, yoga center, constructed), and 441 Page Mill Road (CS(D) zone, Site and Design Review application on file) Discussion Background on “Build To” Lines South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (SECRDG) City of Palo Alto Page 7 The Build-to line concept was first introduced in the SECRDG, and then incorporated into the development standards tables in Chapter 18.16. According to the SECRDG, “buildings should be built up to the sidewalk to reinforce the definition and importance of the street; the building mass/façade is built up to the setback line continuously, except for articulation such as doorways, recessed window bays, small plazas, driveways and small parking areas to the sides of buildings.” The guidelines note that in node areas, a minimum of 75% of the frontage must be comprised of building mass built up to the build-to/setback line, and in corridor areas, a minimum of 50% of the frontage must be comprised of building mass built up to the build- to/setback line. The guidelines further describe that, on corner parcels in nodes, 50% of side street property frontage should have building mass at setback line, and corner parcels corridors, building mass for 1/3 the property frontage located at the setback. Chapter 18.16 Tables 3 and 4 In Chapter 18.16, this guideline was translated into code requirement for building mass along 50% of frontage at the build-to-line (zero to ten feet) and 33% of the side street frontage to be building mass located at the setback line (Tables 3 note 7 and Table 4 note 1 cite that the build- to-line is not applicable to CC district properties). Some properties were able to achieve a 75% of frontage building mass along El Camino Real per the SECRDG, beyond the minimum 50% of frontage building mass. Some properties along other arterials, Middlefield and El Camino Real, were not able to achieve the 50% requirement, and DEEs were requested in those cases. Draft Ordinance Approach The Development Standards for CN and CS zones are contained in Tables 3 and 4 of Chapter 18.16 (Attachment A).a Build-To Line There are two approaches for addressing Council’s direction to re-examine sidewalk widths and buildings facing the street: (1) Eliminate the build-to line requirement, which is required for all CN and CS zoned parcels, and address potential consequences deletion of build-to line requirement could bring up by adjusting the context based criteria, or otherwise modify this, or (2) Rename the build-to-line requirement “maximum front setback” and cite a specific distance such as 10 feet from property line (unless specific lengths of a roadway would benefit from a wider sidewalk, or where there is a special setback, typically 24 feet wide); along with this concept, a concept for placement of a percentage of the ‘building frontage’ within the first 10 feet of the property’s depth. The concept is that, if a 19’ sidewalk width is desired on El Camino Real in certain, specified segments, but the City of Palo Alto Page 8 existing right of way width is only 9 feet, a percentage (50 to 75%) of the building wall would need to be placed at the 10 foot setback line. Staff favors the second approach because having some building frontage is good urban design, complies with the Grand Boulevard initiative and is an important policy design principle of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (SECRDG). In addition, staff recommends amending Section 18.16 to provide additional flexibility in achieving the original design principles while encouraging wider sidewalk widths in certain areas and avoiding the strict application of build to lines on wider lots. The majority of the building would still be ideally located within the first 20 feet of the property to avoid “missing teeth” even if the build-to-line requirement were eliminated. The possible changes to 18.16.090 are: (b)(2)H: add “except where a greater first floor setback is provided for a wider sidewalk”. Criteria suggests upper floor be set back for context; however, along El Camino and other arterials, particularly for small parcels, suggest first floor could have a greater setback for a wider sidewalk and second floor could overhang (still within private property though) to recapture lost floor area – and shade/weather cover for pedestrians. (b)(3)E: “12 to 17 foot sidewalk on El Camino Real, and 8 to 12 feet elsewhere pursuant to context”. Provides a minimum width and a width range for ARB flexibility based on context. (3)F: A majority of the building frontage located (strike) “at the setback line” (and replace with) “within 20 feet of the front property line unless the property is subject to a special setback”. Staff note on this was: The intent was to not have “missing teeth” along the ECR frontage – but the teeth should not have to all be in the same plane; should allow building to be primarily forward on the lot. Feedback is needed on whether 20 feet is the correct width. Lot Area With certain projects, property owners have cooperated with the City in dedicating additional sidewalk right of way. However, with smaller lots and increasing legal constraints on cities’ abilities to require dedications, staff anticipates these voluntary dedications will become more difficult. Therefore, staff is recommending an incentive based program to encourage voluntary sidewalk dedications. Staff is recommending modifying the Lot Area definition found in Chapter 18.04, to clarify that greater building setbacks provided to increase the public right of way will not reduce the lot area for the purpose of calculating allowable floor area. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Additional Issues Actual Conditions Additional study of actual conditions, setback potential and sidewalk sections along major thoroughfares may be needed related to additional code modifications prescribing sidewalk width and setbacks for properties within the City also zoned CN, CC and CS. It will be helpful to have a study of amenities within the “effective sidewalk width”. One source to reference for past sidewalk width concepts is the Downtown Urban Design Guide, where there are ‘desirable streetscape examples’ for different land uses and transitions between the uses. It may be helpful to have studies for each El Camino Real ‘segment’ and those of other CS and CN zoned commercial arterials, such as Middlefield, San Antonio, and Alma. Setbacks by Land Use As to building setbacks, the ARB had previously discussed differing ground floor setbacks per Land Use type (e.g. face of building for hotel or residential use on the ground floor must be set back 25 feet from curb, versus face of building for retail storefront at 15 feet from curb). The study of building form will need further discussion, as greater ground floor setbacks would have a relationship to upper floor setbacks and incentivizing different land uses. For this, staff will be discussing an additional consultant effort and citizen participation in upcoming outreach meetings. At the recent retreat, ARB members noted that a 12-foot sidewalk width is still desirable where fronting uses (such as hotels) do not warrant a sidewalk greater than 12 feet, but that they are studying the possibilities for 16 foot, 17 foot and 19 foot wide sidewalks. The Grand Boulevard Initiative concept is 18 feet from curb to building face. Second Floor Overhang Concept At the retreat, the ARB noted the concept of a first floor greater setback and a second floor overhang which could compensate for lost ground floor area, as well as expanding the range of sidewalk width. The ARB discussed the concept of the upper floor(s) extending forward when ground floor front wall is set farther back, in order to help developers to provide sidewalks wider than the required 12 feet. A suggestion was made to add an ARB finding regarding the interface between building and curb and requiring a minimum ‘clear width’ for walking (where the clear width need not be straight but could meander). City of Palo Alto Page 10 Street Trees The ARB expressed concern about location of trees at the curb line conflicting with Caltrans requirements for clearance, and suggested looking at rectangular tree grates (sized 4 feet by 8 feet) to encourage tree growth. Conflicts between street trees and utility easements can also be problematic to achieving vertical landscaping within the effective sidewalk width; Public Works policy considers trees to be structures when utility easements are involved, and do not allow trees to be installed in those locations due to maintenance issues. Outreach and Further Study Staff is considering holding outreach meetings, inviting property owners in particular, the week of March 1, 2014. Timeline February 20, 2014: ARB public hearing to discuss and refine code change concepts February 26, 2014: PTC public hearing of draft ordinance March 1-5: Outreach Meetings, CN and CS property owners March 6, 2014: ARB follow-up meeting as needed regarding sidewalk width March 12, 2014: PTC follow-up meeting as needed March 17-27, 2014: Additional discussions with property owners April 21, 2014: City Council first reading May 5, 2014: City Council second reading Resource Impact No consultant was used to develop concepts for this draft ordinance. Consultant use is anticipated for further study of increasing sidewalk width requirements throughout in Palo Alto. Environmental Review Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per section 15305. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment B: February 20, 2014 ARB staff report (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 February 26, 2014 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Planning and Transportation Commission review of a Draft Ordinance modifying - (1) 7 Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address building setbacks (the 8 “build-to” line standard and context-based design criteria) in the CN and CS District and (b) 9 reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 10 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of Lot Area in order to 11 encourage wider sidewalks. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA 12 per section 15305. (Amy French – amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org) 13 14 Acting Chair Keller: So the next agenda item is Agenda Item Number 3 and this is for the 15 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review of a draft ordinance modifying Chapter 16 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address building setbacks (the “build-to” 17 line standard and context-based design criteria) in the CN and CS District and (b) reduce the 18 allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20 19 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of Lot Area to encourage 20 wider sidewalks. So do we have, by the way I don’t see any comments for the members of the 21 public so if you want to speak on that please submit a card and let’s start out with a staff 22 report. 23 24 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: Thank you and good evening once again. I will give a short 25 intro and then turn it over to our Chief Planning Official. This item is here before you tonight as 26 a result of a couple different Council actions and directions that almost went back, one of them 27 went back almost a year ago. The first one had to do, it was a colleagues’ memo related to 28 sidewalk width on El Camino that had somewhat of a more expanded definition of what they 29 would like to do, but the main point of it was to take a look and increase sidewalk widths along 30 the El Camino. 31 32 The second part of it and you’ll see all the separate motions in here, another more immediate 33 need is related to the Housing Element and places that were on, properties that were on our 34 housing inventory list. We took those from a 15 unit per acre to a 20 unit per acre and that 35 was approved as part of our Housing Element process. After that approval the Council looked, 36 asked us to look into reducing FAR on those sites. As we are going through this process we 37 realized that there was a number of other things that could be done to make the code more 38 sound and we included some of those. For tonight’s action though staff, and Amy will go more 39 into this, would like the end result to be a Planning Commission recommendation on at least 40 and specifically focused on the El Camino aspects of it and FAR reduction aspects of it. And 41 what we would propose is that later this month, potentially later this month or in late March we 42 have a joint meeting with the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The ARB also reviewed these 43 ordinances and had a number of good suggestions. They also suggested that the Planning 44 Commission and the ARB meet. So staff concurs that’s a good idea; however, given the Council 45 direction related to the El Camino sidewalk and as well as the FAR reduction we would like to 46 see some type of recommendation specifically related to that to the Council tonight to come out 47 of the Commission and then we could later talk about other nuances of the code at a later 48 meeting. So I’ll turn it over to our Chief Planning Official. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Thank you. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. So you’ve 2 read the agenda, which correctly notes that it’s Chapter 18.16 of the PAMC that we are going to 3 address tonight as well as Chapter 18.04. There was a bit of a typo on the attached ordinance, 4 Attachment A; just wanted to call that out. 5 6 So what we, Aaron covered what the Council had done recently about the housing, so that’s 7 covered. The reduction, a modest reduction of FAR on those CN zoned housing sites and there 8 are approximately 32 of those sites along El Camino Real. As far as the sidewalk width the 9 Council’s concern was how buildings address the street. Some of that is dealt with already in 10 the context based design criteria, which was derived from the El Camino Real Design 11 Guidelines. So that is actually in the zoning code once again. 12 The vision that was being looked at with the Grand Boulevard was an eight foot walking zone, a 13 six foot amenity zone, and then they had an additional four feet as a spill out area. So what 14 that would have required an 18 foot sidewalk would be a 10 foot setback on the private 15 property, the building to the right of way and so that’s the question that the ARB has been 16 wrestling with, looking at the various options there. And then of course at some point revising 17 the South El Camino Real Guidelines to be consistent with the zoning that we’re kind of trying 18 to focus on here is to get the low hanging fruit, which we think is the sidewalk width; the build 19 to line, kind of address that head on. 20 21 The Council had noted something about other thoroughfares in their Motion back in April. And 22 those other thoroughfares are not CN and CS zoned the exception of Charleston Road, so we 23 believe that further study is needed and perhaps outreach that those other streets have some 24 different characters than El Camino Real and different, it’s not necessarily a regional roadway as 25 is the El Camino Real. So again we’re focused on CN and CS districts. The Chapter 18.16 does 26 also have the CC district, which is a zone that is also on California Avenue. But again we’re 27 pretty much focused on sidewalk width on El Camino and addressing the building setback as 28 well as the definition of lot area. And the reason we have the definition of lot area is because 29 lot area has an impact on how much floor area can be in a building. Ok so we just are focused 30 on that tonight as well and that’s in 18.04 in the attachment. 31 32 So looking at the slide I have up there the floor area, the proposal is a .8 FAR for mixed-use 33 and that would be .4 residential and .4 non-residential. Those are for those housing sites 34 where they propose a greater than 15 development units per acre. Ok, so then the sidewalk 35 and building frontage the ordinance our goals here are again, increase the El Camino Real 36 sidewalk width beyond what’s required now, which is 12 feet. Twelve feet is currently required, 37 which requires the property owners to set their buildings back and provide sidewalk basically 38 four feet onto their private property. That’s what currently is required. We wanted to clarify or 39 modify the build to line requirements. This is the requirement that says you have to put 50 40 percent of your building right there at the zero setback or whatever setback to make that 41 twelve foot effective sidewalk. 42 43 And so again we feel that we will have additional study at a later date for other thoroughfares 44 besides the El Camino Real. The El Camino Real is really the focus, that’s where we started and 45 the Council did acknowledge that that’s the focus at this time. Again effective sidewalk width is 46 not a definition in Chapter 10.04. It is described and illustrated in the context based guidelines 47 in Chapter 18.16, but one concept is to actually formally put a definition of that that would say 48 it’s from curb to building face and it’s inclusive of plantings and furnishings. That’s what we 49 have been dealing with as effective sidewalk width. The other definition change is lot area. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Again it’s to say that if they do dedicate their private property, and we’re talking about more 1 than four feet at this point, that that area would not be deducted from what they’re calling lot 2 area for the purpose of calculating how much floor area they can put on their site at whatever 3 floor. Ok, and then one question is, is that something the lot area that we want to consider 4 broadening to other zones beyond the CS and CN? So CD, in other words, we have some 5 projects downtown where they did make a wider, a setback and that is walkable. Perhaps that 6 lot area definition we can use that in beyond El Camino. 7 8 The next one, the build to standard, it’s the build to line and there was discussion about 9 possibly eliminating that standard, but what we want to still preserve is some kind of 10 presentation to the street that doesn’t involve too much back and forth from building to building 11 with those setbacks. So what is the appropriate setback? This is what the ARB’s been 12 wrestling with. Is it worth having a build to line and having exceptions such as we’ve been 13 seeing coming through the process exceptions for allowing greater setback or are there other 14 things we can do? So there are special factors such as land use and lot size that the ARB is 15 looking at. When you have a very large parcel you’re going to have a longer building wall and 16 so that’s a consideration. 17 18 So then the concept of do you do a build to line standard or do you do an average setback? 19 This is a concept. One phrase that could be considered is where there’s let’s say on El Camino 20 put it out there 15 feet if you do a 15 foot effective sidewalk on El Camino then that would 21 mean you’re going to place the building front wall at 7 feet from the front property line. Seven 22 feet of private property dedicated plus the eight feet right of way that’s currently there. 23 The other concept is again going back to that build to line and what are we trying to achieve, 24 consideration of a maximum setback. Are you going to have buildings setback farther than 10 25 feet from the front? That would be an 18 foot. There are places along El Camino that make 26 sense to have a city center, a kind of a Cafe Borrone effect with plazas, etcetera. So how far 27 back do we want that to go? And what’s the concern about placing it farther forward? One of 28 those concerns is parking. Well, there’s a context based guideline that says don’t put parking in 29 front of the building. So we’ve already got that in our zoning code, that says don’t put parking 30 in front of the building, but there are circumstances where that might be a place that it has to 31 go from a feasibility standpoint. So, but any case we could consider adding to the tables, Table 32 3 and 4, something about parking is prohibited in the front yard or something along those lines 33 like it says in the context based design criteria, which is what I have up next. 34 35 The concept of the upper floors, currently the context based design criteria says the upper 36 floors shall be setback. Well, there might be a place where we want to have the first floor 37 setback to allow for the walking and then the upper floors set forward; the colonnade effect, 38 the arcade. We might want to have some flexibility for that and I have an example here in 39 Redwood City. The measurement from the curb to the columns is nine in some places to the 40 white columns and then it goes back a bit further in the distance there to 10 or 11 feet and 41 then the front wall of the building beyond that arcade is about I believe 19 feet. There are 42 some opportunities there to consider some flexibility. Ok? This is then the context based 43 criteria that talks about we had started to approach it as a range. When we discussed the 44 range with the ARB their recommendation came back as a 9 foot to 15 foot range. Ok? So if 45 we’re thinking of nine feet on thoroughfares elsewhere what we have is eight feet required now 46 other than El Camino in the CN/CS and we have a 12 foot required now. ARB’s recommending 47 take that to 15 rather than going to 18 feet as in the Grand Boulevard, ok? And then the other 48 concept is an average building frontage. So thinking about you have this seven feet. If you’re 49 going to do fifteen feet then the seven feet from the property line to the building could that be 50 City of Palo Alto Page 4 an average setback rather than 50 percent of the building has to be at the seven feet. You 1 might look at it that way. 2 3 One thing I should say about 15 feet. It was discussed at the joint meeting back in July with 4 ARB and Planning Commission. It is, has been employed elsewhere. One place is the Rail 5 Corridor Study. Another place is the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) RT zone that’s near 6 downtown here. And then also Menlo Park has a 15 foot standard that they’ve implemented 7 with their Specific Plan. So that concludes the presentation. There’s some pocket slides in the 8 back if anyone needs additional information. We’ve got some other images, maybe I’ll roll to 9 those and let those hang around. Again here’s the Grand Boulevard and here’s a concept for 15 10 feet that our consultant had generated some time before. Now Randy Popp is here to present 11 as well the ARB’s discussion and we’re here for questions. 12 13 Acting Chair Keller: Do you want to add anything to that Board Member Popp, ARB Board 14 Member Popp? 15 16 Randy Popp, ARB Board Member: Good evening, Randy Popp here representing the ARB. First 17 I want to thank the Council for pushing this issue. I think it’s important for us to be discussing 18 this and Amy you’ve done a great job, you and your staff articulating the specifics of our 19 discussion here. I do want to reiterate a couple of the major points. 20 21 First of all in terms of the width that 9 to 15 foot dimension that Amy has illustrated for you is 22 really a range. We really like to see that as a range. And the goal here would be to allow 23 flexibility and to promote a varied character in the environment along the El Camino corridor. 24 This idea that 15 feet is nervous about creating a number, right? A very specific number that 25 everybody feels like they need to hold to. Each project is different. We looked at the entire 26 length of El Camino, we studied the different lot sizes, different lot dimensions; there is no one 27 size fits all solution here. And so it’s important to have some flexibility for design. And this idea 28 that at very wide lots, the Menlo Center is a great example of this in Menlo Park where Cafe 29 Borrone exists, that places really can recess to a greater degree and still promote fantastic life 30 right at the street front with a building that still has some nice presence. And with that we 31 think that it is critical that we engage a consultant to develop some diagrammatic examples of 32 suggestions in a number of different situations for different lot sizes, different usable widths, 33 placement of accessories and plantings, etcetera so that people really understand clearly the 34 intent and then can launch from that point. 35 In regard to the lot area where we are suggesting that the sidewalk width be extended over 36 private property it’s important to understand that the ARB felt strongly that there be no 37 reduction in FAR, but we did not see this in any way as an incentive. We felt that this was 38 really just maintaining the rights of people and again we’re trying to encourage here is the right 39 kind of redevelopment and get people to take down the buildings that are unpleasant and don’t 40 meet the standards that we’re trying to achieve and encourage the right kind of growth. So 41 we’re not suggesting adding area, but we certainly are suggesting that there be a way to 42 maintain all of the rights that you would have even with the extension of the sidewalk width. 43 44 In regard to the build to line and I think the big question here is why a variance in the build to 45 line and I don’t mean a variance in the wrong sense of the word here, variability in the build to 46 line. This is what the ARB is for. We can look at each individual project. We can look at them 47 as they come, we can study this, we can evaluate whether people have got the right amount of 48 building frontage close mass far away tiered back, whatever the solutions are, but on a project 49 City of Palo Alto Page 5 by project basis. And again the idea here is to promote some varied character along this 1 corridor. 2 3 The last thing that I want to just quickly address is the inclusion of a discussion about trees. 4 And one of the things that are very clear in my discussions with Dave Dockter and certainly as 5 you drive along El Camino you can see this. The location of trees relative to a curb is really 6 critical, particularly with respect for the building’s placement in terms of the canopy. And if the 7 building is too close to the trees the canopy cannot grow properly. It gets misshapen. We hold 8 the buildings back in the right way at the right places, get the right rhythm it really can be an 9 elegant boulevard and it will really help to further this concept of something magnificent as you 10 cruise through Palo Alto. Again, this is something that we all felt should very much be a part of 11 the diagrams the consultant develops. Quick summary, if you have other questions I’ll hang 12 around for a little while here if there are any other questions I can answer. Thank you. 13 14 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you very much. And we have one speaker from the public. Since we 15 don’t have many people here you’ll have five minutes. 16 17 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Herb Borock. 18 19 Herb Borock: Good evening Acting Chair Keller and Commissioners. On the question of the 20 sidewalk setback first I mean I don’t believe that the objections that we’ve heard from the 21 community about a number of projects are primarily due to the amount of floor area and the 22 decisions that the Council has made to allow that amount of floor area to fit on a site and the 23 real problem that needs to be addressed are the decisions that the Council’s made both in 24 adopting Planned Community (PC) zone districts in some cases and in the past the problem of 25 changing what can be built on a site in a particular zone district both in terms of its allowable 26 floor area and its setbacks. Fifteen years ago staff reports from the Planning Division had 27 histories of how we got to where we are, but the previous City Manager felt that that shouldn’t 28 be there, all you should get essentially would be a sentence saying what would happen if you 29 voted yes or you voted no on a proposal. And that’s essentially the culture that we have now. 30 31 In terms of trying to find the proper setback on a State Highway, El Camino, as if it’s going to 32 be a place that people are going to be spending lots of time walking along I don’t think reflects 33 either what El Camino Real is now or what it can possibly be in the future. There’s also a 34 question which was discussed at the ARB of the difference between a public sidewalk and a 35 wide area that can be appropriated for private use by businesses. A number of years ago at 36 the start of a Council vacation the administrator in the Planning Department whose skills are in 37 utility resource planning, he, that’s where he works now, sent out an interpretation that was 38 signed by the then Director of Planning Mr. Emslie that said they changed their interpretation, 39 people can put tables and chairs on the sidewalks on University Avenue essentially at will, 40 completely ignoring the past policy that if they are increasing the number of seating that they 41 have then that has to be reflected in payments for parking. And so now we don’t have as wide 42 a sidewalk we used to have on University Avenue because they’re occupied by tables and 43 chairs. So a number of members of the ARB when they were talking about a 9 to 15 foot 44 sidewalk were talking about a 9 to 15 foot sidewalk so that a portion of it could be occupied by 45 the private business. It’s called a sidewalk and as Council Member Rosenbaum indicated when 46 people were talking about the sit-lie ordinance, it’s not a place for sitting and laying it’s a place 47 for walking. It’s not a place for business to take place; it’s a place for people to walk. If you 48 really want a wide enough sidewalk to get that kind of feel where people would want to walk on 49 it. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 6 In regard to the other part of the proposal from Council on the amount of floor area for sites on 1 El Camino that are reflected in the Housing Inventory Sites for the requirement for meeting the 2 State’s Housing Density Bonus Law, under that law because of the size of the City that we have 3 we have to have sites with a minimum density of 20 units per acre and we have some sites that 4 are 15 units maximum. And so we had to agree to make those 20, but when that proposal was 5 approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in California it 6 was based upon what the current zoning regulations are for those sites. So there are two 7 things: one I don’t know if you can do it at all, the second is maybe the only way you can do it 8 is if you reduce the FAR for everything in those zone districts so that when a developer comes 9 in and wants to take advantage of the incentives and concessions that include increasing the 10 floor area by a certain amount, I believe the Council finally agreed the maximum was 25 11 percent, they get the ability to use that bonus. But by saying first that we get approval from 12 the State to get a certain site approved for a bonus and then say we’re taking away the base, 13 I’m not sure that that’s even legal. Thank you. 14 15 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So let’s bring that back to the Commission. Who wants to lead 16 us off? Commissioner Alcheck. 17 18 Commissioner Alcheck: I think this is an extraordinary idea the Grand Boulevard. It’s a vision 19 that I have a hard time visualizing because maybe the fact that I grew up in this neighborhood, 20 I grew up in Los Altos. Maybe just having grown up off the El Camino it’s just hard to imagine 21 it any other way that it is. And my, when I think of El Camino it does not bring any sort of 22 warm and fuzzy feelings. It’s just… so the notion that the City is sort of considering something 23 much more visionary I think is awesome and I have a lot of faith in the direction that we have 24 received from the ARB being specialists in the field of architecture. 25 26 With regard to sort of providing the flexibility of a range of setbacks that allow that hopefully 27 will help us avoid something that’s too monotonous it’s hard to imagine what’s the hotel, is it 28 the Plaza? The Crown Plaza on El Camino? It’s sort of hard to imagine, you see that hotel it’s 29 so set back and has this huge parking lot. Last time we had this meeting we talked about how 30 a lot of sites aren’t even that deep. So if we create this setback what are we doing to these 31 lots? Are we destroying their sort of feasibility because we’re making them too narrow or 32 whatever? Too shallow, thank you. You can see that without a very well-articulated plan, 33 there’s not ever going to be a visionary result for the Grand Boulevard. You’re going to have 34 hotels with 400 car parking lots and they’re just distant. I don’t know what the, do we have a 35 name for the site on the corner of Page Mill that has like a movie theatre in it and it’s a bunch 36 of office buildings? 37 38 Ms. French: That’s Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino. 39 40 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so Palo Alto Square is another sort of site that just seems so 41 inaccessible from the street and then right across the street is sort of a retail front. It just 42 seems so opposite. You would want your, I would hope that this boulevard plan would 43 articulate an opportunity for people to really create a uniform sort of feel on the El Camino that 44 encouraged walkable retail. I mean it’s hard to imagine, but who knows? El Camino could be 45 like a monorail one day and we’re all walking off of it, right? And it’s the only place to put that 46 monorail and so everybody’s sort of accessing it. We have no idea, but it’s certainly, it’s 47 suffered from I guess a lack of vision. And so I like the idea of creating a framework that is 48 both suggestive but flexible. Not, it’s hard to imagine that we know the right answer right now 49 for the whole, the whole street. And so I like the idea of there being sort of a range of 50 City of Palo Alto Page 7 setbacks that sort of create maybe spaces where you can walk underneath an overhang. That 1 actually seems like an excellent idea, the arcade. You see a lot of that in sort of major 2 metropolitan, I shouldn’t say major, in metropolitan areas in Europe where they sort of focus a 3 lot more on the notion of walkable boulevards if you will. And we sort of don’t, we have them 4 as main streets, but they seem to have them everywhere. So this sort of notion that you have 5 the arcade as one option and then the plaza as another potential option I think that’s great. 6 And so I think having a Cafe Borrone style, what did you call it? The Palo Alto Plaza, that’s 7 what that property is called? 8 9 Ms. French: The Palo Alto Square is the movie theatre. 10 11 Commissioner Alcheck: So I know this, so it’s, I mean just this notion of having plazas next to 12 arcades sounds fantastic because it’s a diversity of approaches and so especially since this is, 13 this is a hard to envision vision I would support the idea that we created a flexibility in the 14 approach, but still articulated this notion of yeah, this needs to be walkable and this needs to, 15 there needs to be much more space than we normally require from… in our building code on 16 the sidewalk. 17 18 I think that’s an interesting idea the idea of sort of the FAR, the area you’re taking away you’re 19 going to allow somewhere else in the building. I’m a really strong advocate for height. I think 20 we have a very negative view about it and we have, we have there are limitations that sort of 21 guide us in our approach to height whether it’s our current restrictions or daylight planes and I 22 think we should explore flexibility there too on the Grand Boulevard especially since you’re 23 talking about taking something away. So I like this. 24 25 Acting Chair Keller: Why don’t we do Commissioner King next? 26 27 Commissioner King: Ok, thank you for the report. So I guess I’m just I’m trying to, the agenda 28 item seems there’s a little bit of a license to ramble in here and maybe that’s what we’re 29 supposed to do. There’s not a goal, we’re not supposed to try and draft any, we’re not trying 30 to draft any wording ordinance, we’re just supposed to give you feedback, is that our goal? 31 And fairly limited to El Camino Real? 32 33 Ms. French: Feedback is great. We do have a draft ordinance that could be tweaked if there 34 was some kind of straw poll to provide guidance for the next step that we could come back 35 with. 36 37 Commissioner King: Ok, so at a minimum though you’re just looking for how, our response to 38 these, the items that you’ve delineated here restricted to El Camino Real? 39 40 Mr. Aknin: I would like to add that if you did have a recommendation that you would like to 41 make related to the El Camino specifically and a recommendation related to the FAR reductions 42 we would like that because we would at least like to take that portion of the ordinance on to 43 the Council as soon as possible and then bring back the other points for further discussion with 44 the Planning Commission as well as the ARB. 45 46 Commissioner King: Ok and it seems it just in my mind a bit of a challenge. One, we’re not a 47 design, you know, as Commissioner Alcheck mentioned really ARB are the ones who are the 48 design experts. So I would, I if you said, “Oh, Carl, please write us up an ordinance right now,” 49 I would feel that that is over my head. So I’m going to limit myself. Now Commissioner Keller 50 City of Palo Alto Page 8 he might be the man to do that, but in any event so I’m going to limit myself to just addressing 1 and asking some questions. 2 3 So and when I will, I’ll just go right to kind of down the list. One of the things that is an 4 interesting thing about the, I totally understand and in concept agree with the fact that if the 5 building developers agree to widen the sidewalk at the expense of their lot line or setting back 6 their building and therefore they’re giving up space there that we would allow the same FAR. 7 However, on the other hand as you do see then if that same once the building is developed and 8 now the lessee is in there and then they say, “Oh, and we want to put tables out here,” then 9 they’re effectively getting an enhancement. I know there’s somewhere in here I couldn’t find 10 the wording again, but we’re not looking to give them an enhancement, but in fact by default or 11 in practice it could be an enhancement. Then they’re going to take back that floor area so 12 they’ll both get the FAR created by maintaining the lot size and then they’re going to take back 13 that sidewalk area for commercial use. And so maybe if you want to address that now, one 14 how is that, am I missing something? It seems… and then two, if in fact that is a risk, how do 15 we handle that? Do we say, “Oh, we’re going to count obviously exterior space,” well, actually 16 I’m not a restaurateur, I don’t know. Is it more favorable per square foot? Do they make more 17 money by having outdoor seating for that amount of space or is it less favorable? And so then 18 is there a way we use an adder or subtractor for that space outside relative to the interior FAR? 19 20 Mr. Aknin: So I wouldn’t even take, I mean my opinion we wouldn’t even take it to the financial 21 analysis standpoint. I think is, do we want outdoor dining is something that we want as a 22 community? As far as we incorporate into our land use decisions or is it something that we 23 don’t want? I think outdoor dining in a climate like Palo Alto is a pretty popular thing and even 24 though restaurants might be making additional revenue related to that, still it is a, it seems to 25 be a pretty popular amenity for Palo Alto residents as well as people who visit Palo Alto to eat. 26 So I think in general if our policies encourage that that would be consistent with what people 27 have wanted to see in the past. 28 29 Commissioner King: Well and I, ok, so there are the commercial profitability and numbers 30 aspects, but then there’s also the ok, well every one of those tables is going to when we’re 31 talking about transit, parking is an issue, every one of those tables that’s seated outside in an 32 area that we’re calling, that we’re adding to the base FAR is another car that’s coming in and 33 parking. I mean it’s also dollars to the community, but that we obviously don’t have unlimited, 34 give people unlimited FAR so it seems to me that you’re going to both add people, parking 35 there, and then the FAR that’s being retained for the building itself, the interior portion, that’s 36 filled with people. And so you’re really adding more load to the transportation systems at a 37 minimum. Again I’m not sure about your point, the fairness of it’s something we want to 38 encourage, but you are giving a bonus to the developer relative to having lot lines at the street 39 where they currently are or the sidewalk and you’re then adding traffic, people traffic, which in 40 general is car traffic. Am I missing something? 41 42 Mr. Aknin: No, I think you’re, yeah, I think you have some good points there. I think the 43 overall traffic impact of tables I guess it depends how big it is, right? I mean if you have a few 44 tables out there there’s not going to be a huge traffic impact. If you have something like Cafe 45 Borrone where there’s dozens of tables out there there’s going to be a larger traffic impact. But 46 I think that’s something that we’d probably have to look at independently as part of the overall 47 development approval process, but I hear you what your point is on that. 48 49 Commissioner King: Ok. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Ms. French: Can I add something as well? So if it’s truly right of way, dedicated right of way 1 there’s a process that requires an encroachment permit. We also have the ARB process for 2 looking at the style of tables they’re putting out there to make sure they’re up to City 3 standards. The other thing is, we find a lot of times the seasonal when it’s sunny folks may be 4 sitting outside. In the winter or rainy they go inside. So it’s sometimes of the year you’ll have 5 seating in both areas, maybe it’s a really popular restaurant, but, we’ve been having this 12 6 foot setback for years now where they’re dedicated, they have a 4 foot additional sidewalk and 7 so we haven’t found it to be a problem with the 4 feet. So an additional three feet on top of 8 that I don’t know that it’s, we haven’t seen a lot of seating. We’d like to see seating. I think 9 it’s in our context space guideline that that’s encouraged to enliven the street, vibrant retail. 10 That’s part of the vibrant retail. 11 12 Commissioner King: Got it. Ok, well I would just say I have concern that then we’re, because 13 basically we’re saying thank you for the sidewalk, for increasing the sidewalk for the benefit of 14 the public and so for that we’re allowing you to maintain your FAR in the interior spaces and 15 then they’re saying, “Oh, that’s great,” and then they’re taking that sidewalk back for their 16 private uses. And it may be great and vibrant, but I just, I’m seeing that the, I have concerns 17 about that. 18 19 Ms. French: The other thing about that, we wouldn’t have permanent covering over that so it 20 would not be considered lot area or lot coverage or FAR. 21 22 Commissioner King: Well and that’s my exact point. Is that they, but they use it for commercial 23 generation of revenues, it really is a public space. Just as we’ve had this issue with some of the 24 PC’s where they are public spaces, but during lunch hour or when they want to seat people for 25 dinner they’re not public spaces and so I, I just have a real concern over that. So we can move 26 on, we can discuss it as it moves down the road, but that is a concern. 27 28 Mr. Aknin: The one thing I would add to that is what cities typically do, the cities all up and 29 down the, actually cities all over the country, is they would issue some type of encroachment 30 permit to go within that area if it was considered public right of way then there would be some 31 charge associated with that encroachment permit as well as conditions or performance 32 standards that that restaurant would have to make. So that’s kind of the typical industry 33 standard of the way that you do it. I mean obviously we see sidewalk dining everywhere in the 34 country and that’s a typical process that someone would go through. 35 36 Commissioner King: Ok, but I will add the natives with the pitchforks and torches are on 37 parking and growth, appropriate or not or not liking growth is that we are really adding, we’re 38 growing where currently the FAR’s do not support growing. And as a sidelight and I know I’m, 39 should be out of time here, I’m stuck on one subject is if we really believe we’re this green city 40 and that we want to support environmental stewardship all those outdoor restaurants they, I 41 mean you could not have a cartoon more showing global warming than having those heaters 42 that just heat the outdoors. I mean that is the definition of global warming, having a heater 43 trying to heat the outdoor ambient environment. And so I’m not going to tackle that, but I do 44 have concerns. I don’t know if anybody’s done any math on hey, just how much what is that 45 the equivalent of miles driven all our outdoor restaurants, which is becoming more and more 46 common. 47 48 Acting Chair Keller: Can I, before you address that I think Board Member Popp wanted to 49 address some of your issues with respect to the issue of setback. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member Popp: Thank you so much for the opportunity. Commissioner King I think the 1 thing that I wanted to just mention, first of all I think your points are great about FAR and what 2 that means to a developer. I don’t want to get into the aspects of the finances of it. ARB is 3 about character and quality. And in regard to that what I would describe is that this 15 foot 4 goal for setback is really an aesthetic goal. And it can incorporate objects such as tables and 5 chairs and all these things, but our intent really is to get the building face, the mass of the 6 building away from the street in a way that gives you a visual sense of a certain width as you 7 move down this boulevard. And having street life, and having chairs and tables, and having 8 whatever might occur out there is part and parcel of what will make that character and the 9 interest really vibrant in that street. And so I would certainly leave it to you guys to figure out 10 how we manage the financial benefits of what that might be and what a developer might get 11 from that, but I can tell you that the ARB is very much in favor of maintaining a certain width. 12 It’s very usable, but that additional couple of feet, few feet, whatever it might be that might 13 give space for tables and chairs could be terrifically valuable to the public overall in terms of 14 how that space feels. Thank you. 15 16 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Commissioner King you wanted to… you want to address the 17 question that you had already? 18 19 Commissioner King: Yeah, so I guess my feedback would be I would say that you don’t give 20 them the extra. I see it I say, well you get to retain rights to that strip of sidewalk for your 21 commercial uses with your building, but you do not get the, but it counts as FAR that you’re 22 not, it’s still, because it is useful space for the building. So I don’t know exactly how that would 23 translate into the draft, but I don’t think I see it that they’re getting an enhancement when we 24 may not want that. 25 26 Ms. French: I would weigh in on that. Just land use could be a critical piece of this, is a critical 27 piece. We’re just looking at it as if it’s all restaurants, but when you have a 15 foot requirement 28 let’s say and you have an office there, which is allowed in the CS zone. If you have personal 29 services something like that, you’re not going to have people going out and drying their 30 pedicure in front in the chairs. 31 32 Commissioner King: So in that case I would say that it’s tied to whether the public has full 24 33 hour access subject to curfews or whatever there are, 24 hour access to that space, the 34 additional sidewalk space or whether the business has the right to use that for their commercial 35 purposes. Ok. Thanks, and then I’ll just take another minute just to flip through the other 36 items. 37 38 So in general I think it’s great to have the flexibility. Obviously we’ve all seen the buildings 39 people don’t like when they’re the unintended consequences of this; the buildings moved up to 40 the front has happened so I’m fully in favor of the general concept. And then what are you 41 trying regarding then the FAR change? So you’ve presented some things that look like dropping 42 it to .8. What do you want from us? To me that sounds like a good idea. I think the general 43 idea is we’re allowing more units, but then we want them to be smaller residential units is the 44 goal. And so I’m in general favor of that. 45 46 Mr. Aknin: That’s correct. So I mean that’s what we would like your Motion to move forward 47 with that portion of it. 48 49 Commissioner King: Ok. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Mr. Aknin: Eventually, not right now. 1 2 Commissioner King: Understood. Ok, ok, well then I’m done and will look forward to someone 3 else who might want to craft the Motion. Thank you. 4 5 Acting Chair Keller: Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka. 6 7 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok, so in general I like what I see here. I think supporting the Grand 8 Boulevard makes a lot of sense and I think in general I think this is headed in the right 9 direction. So I think I head that there are 32 projects affected or could be affected? Maybe 10 you could clarify? 11 12 Ms. French: That’s with, sorry, CN housing site’s FAR reduction. That’s specific to that piece of 13 the ordinance. The others, you know there are many more sites on El Camino that would be 14 affected by the sidewalk width and build to line. 15 16 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok, and will all of these projects that will be affected are they going 17 to be notified or will the property owners like, you know, be alerted as to some of these things 18 going on? 19 20 Ms. French: I’ll let Assistant Director Aknin address the Housing Element piece with the floor 21 area. I know that it was stated in the Council meeting that that was a direction and I imagine 22 that those housing sites property owners were very much aware of that process. 23 24 Mr. Aknin: We’ll notify any of those property owners before the Council meeting. 25 26 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok, that makes sense. I think it’s important that they know. Ok, and 27 then my other point here is I think there’s many ways to accomplish what’s being done here. 28 I’ve heard Acting Chair Keller also mention that perhaps one way of doing this also is to say, 29 “Well, there’s no parking in front” and so I guess I’m just thinking about the mechanics and 30 what is the best ways in terms of mechanics to vote on something like this. I was wondering if 31 staff had some thoughts about the pros and cons of different ways of accomplishing this, this 32 goal? 33 34 Ms. French: Sure. In the context based guidelines currently there’s a statement about this. It’s 35 called, one of the guidelines, I think it’s Guideline 6 is parking design. And so this is the place 36 where and it’s in the zoning code so it is a pretty much a requirement. It’s a context based 37 design criteria and I’m looking for the quote from there, but it is a legitimate way of providing 38 direction to applicants to state that we don’t have parking lots in front of buildings per the 39 context based guidelines. We do provide these guidelines to applicants prior to them coming 40 into the process. It could be strengthened with an out and out prohibition in the table, Tables 3 41 and 4, if that’s a desire to make it crystal clear, but the context based guidelines do provide 42 some flexibility on this point. It talks about feasibility. There might be a situation where, there 43 might be a situation with a historic building or something where it’s an existing parking lot out 44 front. I don’t know. There’s some potential need for flexibility there, but the majority of cases 45 especially a new building we would want to look to have the parking in the rear and we’ve done 46 that with all of the projects that have come through since the adoption of the El Camino Real 47 Guidelines is to have that condition. 48 49 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok, thank you. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So first of all thank you to the Council for referring this to us 2 and to the staff and to the ARB for having analyzed the issues and also for our joint meeting 3 where we discussed these and were able to consider the issues. So the first thing I want to talk 4 about is the FAR. So firstly, it does make sense from my point of view not to penalize the 5 developers who have essentially had that land and then they’re giving that setback to the City 6 that their land area for the purposes of counting FAR should include the area that they’re 7 dedicating to the City. And I think that that is a reasonable general rule because I think that 8 there have been people who have, developers who have avoided dedicating additional land to 9 the City for that or for example some of the special setbacks on the sides of streets in 10 downtown because of the loss of FAR and I think that that is a fairness issue. But there’s a 11 wrinkle here that hasn’t come up and that wrinkle has to do with arcades. So when you have a 12 setback and then you have an arcade, which means you sort of come out from that setback 13 further forward and then what happens is they decide to put tables under that arcade you lose 14 a lot of the visual sense of the space because it’s taken up by people and tables. Now that may 15 be a good thing and may be a bad thing, but in some sense what it addresses is the issue of if 16 you have arcades and you’re contemplating the ability of having tables then the issue of how 17 open that is and how high the arcade is, is it a one story arcade, is it a two story arcade 18 depending on the height of the building? That may appropriately address the issue and still 19 give that open feel even if there are tables in there, but essentially if you have tables in there 20 the effective sidewalk width, the logical effective sidewalk width is somewhat narrowed with an 21 arcade and tables. So it’s that interaction that I’m mostly concerned about. 22 23 Ms. French: I’ll jump in there. With the Redwood City example I think that’s what the ARB was 24 commenting on. If you have a range on El Camino of 9 to 15 feet that’s a perfect example. 25 You still have the 9 foot walkable between the curb and the columns and then you have 26 another in that case it was 19 feet back to the front wall under that arcade. So there could be 27 reasons to have less than 15 feet let’s say if it’s a situation such as the arcade. 28 29 Acting Chair Keller: Yeah, particularly if the arcade is sufficiently open and attractive and has a 30 high enough or whatever so that you actually have the visual thing there. Ok the next thing 31 I’m going to on a roll here with respect to FAR I think that there’s something ironic about 32 reducing the FAR for CN zone for 20 when 20 dwelling units per acre is allowed and not 33 reducing it for the situation when 15 dwelling units per acre is allowed. And it seems to me in 34 general that the limit to how many dwelling units you can put in is primarily FAR and parking. 35 And that’s the first thing. 36 37 The second thing about that is that when you have the increase for the Housing Bonus Density 38 Law that will affect situations that are in the Housing Inventory Element as well as not in the 39 Housing Inventory List. And so it seems to me that in either case there should be a reduction. 40 So I would be in favor of applying the CN reduction across the board and having that when it 41 comes back to us noticed appropriately so that that change could be made particularly since the 42 bonus applies on either case, so I’m not sure that the bonus only applies in El Camino 20. I’m 43 wondering if staff has any comment about that? 44 45 Mr. Aknin: I mean at this point I would say we would stick to our original recommendation 46 because that was the direction given to us by the City Council. I think it makes sense because 47 there was additional incentive given for the, on the Housing Inventory and we needed 48 something to balance that. We haven’t analyzed what the potential impact could be for more 49 widespread look at that and we probably want additional community outreach before it happens 50 City of Palo Alto Page 13 as well as additional Council input. But right now we’re focused on what the Council direction 1 was and that was specifically related to the houses, the properties in the Housing Inventory. 2 3 Acting Chair Keller: I think that’s fair enough. I just wanted to point that out. And when this 4 comes back to us we could also look at the CS zone. And when we look at the CS zone for 5 hotels we might also want to incorporate some of the degree of retail in hotels. I think that 6 some of the hotels that have been along El Camino you get a hotel, you get no retail, it sort of 7 doesn’t enliven the street in that way and so if we had for example if the hotel had a restaurant 8 and that restaurant was open to the public that would be fine. But if the hotel doesn’t have a 9 restaurant and there’s nothing open to the public it’s sort of deadens the street. So I think that 10 that’s not helpful. 11 12 So then there was a discussion about the nature of the setback on El Camino Real. And so I’m 13 going to suggest first of all the idea that we don’t have a build to requirement and that instead 14 there’s an explicit limit that you have no parking in front. So we have a setback requirement I 15 want to talk about in a moment, but in terms of the build to requirement essentially the if 16 there’s no parking allowed there if the developer wants to set it back further and the developer 17 has a reason for doing that it’s, then let them. Economically the desire for most developers is 18 to push it as far to the street as they can because of how they can fit the massing in the 19 building. So essentially if the developer has an aesthetic, a good reason for not having the 20 building come up to the sidewalk we shouldn’t require a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) 21 or require a variance. It’s a reasonable thing and I think that it actually adds visual interest to 22 El Camino to actually have more varying frontage and it allows for planting more trees and 23 things like that. So I would suggest eliminating the build to line and replacing that with an 24 explicit prohibition against parking in the front of the building. And I’m wondering if staff can 25 comment and then ARB Member Popp can comment on that and then if we can have a straw 26 poll among the Commission? 27 28 Ms. French: Yeah, I’m happy to. I mean I, conceptually the concept I understand it. There 29 may be a case where we want to consider a maximum setback, I don’t know. It hasn’t been 30 fully studied that way, but I understand the concept. And our ARB member is here and I know 31 you’ve said perhaps there’s a reason to weigh in, so. 32 33 Board Member Popp: Yeah, tough discussion, right? Whether we should force someone to 34 meet a certain criteria when there’s such a wide variety in choices and lots and options for what 35 people might build, and it’s hard to predict what would be right and would fit all of these 36 different sites. But again I think this is an area where the ARB comes into play and it’s our role 37 to help assess whether buildings are placed properly on the site. Is the setback enough? Is it 38 too much? Is the building massing appropriate? The thing we want to avoid is this concept of 39 missing teeth. Right, that as you drive down El Camino there’s some big gap that just looks 40 wrong. 41 42 I want to be clear in saying that and I’ll carefully use this as an example, right? We, this is not 43 us and it’s not what we want to be, but if you look at something like the Champs-Élysées, right, 44 where there’s this incredibly consistent pattern of building after building and these beautiful 45 wide sidewalks and people strolling and dining happening outside, it’s elegant and it’s 46 wonderful, but it’s not what we’re trying to achieve here. Right? There are these visions for 47 what Grand Boulevards might be and again I want to really reinforce the ARB’s position that 48 variation and really high quality character are what we’re trying to achieve here. And the 49 variability that might be present in treating one site differently than another, again this idea 50 City of Palo Alto Page 14 that we should get a consultant to come and put together some concepts for different types of 1 sites so that people have an idea about what we are looking for so that when they come 2 forward with a proposal they have the best chance of success and they’ve got the best 3 guidance that we can give them and then they bring it forward and we have a discussion and 4 we take these one at a time as they come. 5 6 Acting Chair Keller: So to operationalize the question from my point of view does the build to 7 line help you or hinder you? And if we got rid of that and replaced it with a parking, no parking 8 requirement, which I assume people would do anyway, they wouldn’t put parking in the front 9 and the reason I’m doing that is so that you don’t set the building back and put parking in the 10 front so that has to go with it. I’m wondering whether your normal process of having a good 11 design review whether that would be satisfactory in that environment. 12 13 Board Member Popp: So there are five of us. I would tell you my opinion since I don’t have all 14 the others here to speak for it and feel free to chime in if you recall something from the hearing 15 that I don’t remember clearly, but I think there are two separate issues. And requiring no 16 parking in the front setback can be one issue and a second issue can be whether or not we 17 have a build to line. And I welcome your discussion and your thoughts about that, but again 18 my opinion here is that it’s important to try to describe some goals and to promote variation 19 within the guidelines so that people can come forward with the best possible concept for each 20 individual site. And completely eliminating the guidelines makes for a tough discussion in my 21 opinion. It makes it hard for us to talk to an applicant about what is or is not appropriate. 22 23 Design is subjective and even within the Board we have agreement and disagreement about 24 these types of things. I think that the expectation I have is that there is some range of 25 appropriate build to line and whether it’s an average or whether it’s some forward some 26 backward a certain number that we try and give I’d rather the DEE’s or these other devices that 27 people come forward for an exception are the really the exception and not the rule. What’s 28 happening now is that every project that we’re looking at is coming forward with some type of 29 a DEE because it just doesn’t work. Perhaps someone from staff can remind me, 3159 El 30 Camino? 31 32 Ms. French: Yes. 33 34 Board Member Popp: Is the Equinox site? 35 36 Ms. French: Yes. 37 38 Board Member Popp: And this is, I want to just bring this forward as a, what I consider to be a 39 very nice example of thoughtful design and careful planning and a successful project moving 40 through the process. 3159 El Camino is the Equinox site and they had done a very elegant job 41 of holding the building back, creating a portion that approaches the street so it holds the street 42 edge nicely, that there’s an arcade area where it’s appropriate and where the uses really 43 encourage that within the buildings. So I think there’s an idea that there’s a restaurant in there 44 and there are spaces that do all these things, but there are nodes along El Camino where these 45 types of things are appropriate and there are places where you just wouldn’t want to have that. 46 And so giving some guidance about what is appropriate is very valid in my opinion. 47 48 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, thank you. 49 50 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Board Member Popp: Thank you. 1 2 Acting Chair Keller: Does any staff also want to weigh in? 3 4 Ms. French: Well I was just checking my notes about what was said at the ARB to confirm what 5 Randy said. So the ARB did kind of discuss either deleting the build to requirement and just 6 allowing the ARB to determine the appropriate setback and percentage at the front in each case 7 because we have different land uses and large and small lots so to acknowledge that and make 8 that a valid choice or retain the build to line requirement and then have reasons why exceptions 9 to that are allowed. Again, different land uses. If you have a hotel for instance or residential 10 then that’s a reason to not come forward and to have more landscaping between the sidewalk 11 and the building or a building that has less articulation because of the use, less retail display 12 windows, that building could go back further. So you could get a little bit more specific if you 13 wanted or again you could just leave it up to the ARB to make that judgment on a case to case 14 basis. I think the main thing is the missing teeth and making sure that we’re still holding that 15 building line and not having to go through a DEE per se each time somebody wants to do 16 something less than right at the setback line or for percentage of the building frontage. I mean 17 that’s where we get into some trouble. 18 19 Acting Chair Keller: So perhaps, when would this come back to us and would there be an 20 opportunity for the ARB to have a meeting in between (interrupted) 21 22 Ms. French: Yes. 23 24 Acting Chair Keller: So that they could review and sort of add feedback to this potential? 25 26 Ms. French: We are looking at March 26th if that works for all to have some kind of a, if a joint 27 meeting is desired. I know and Aaron had said and our Director is asking that we kind of move 28 forward and maybe some other things get talked about, but that’s kind of in reserve as a joint 29 meeting if needed. The ARB is planning on meeting next on March 20th to hopefully bring back 30 what the PTC had to say about it and have another discussion at the ARB on March 20th. 31 32 Acting Chair Keller: Well I don’t want to push this too far forward, but I’m wondering if the ARB 33 meets on March 20th would there be an opportunity from that to incorporate things for our 34 meeting on the 26th? 35 36 Ms. French: Sure, the noticing process is still in the same chapters. We tweak things certain 37 ways. I think the only thing that’s, if there’s something that comes up at the ARB on the 20th 38 and we need to do some sort of outreach we might want to get some cards out and notices for 39 something like that. 40 41 Acting Chair Keller: And also I’m not, this is separate from the issue of what the setback would 42 be because we’d have, in other words there’s a setback and the build to line so I’m suggesting 43 replacing the build to line by parking in front of the building. So I’m wondering and any 44 Commissioner want to weigh in quickly on the issue of whether to replace, whether to eliminate 45 the set, the build to line, give the discussion to the ARB, but have the proviso that you can’t 46 have parking in the setback area? Commissioner King. 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Commissioner King: Yea, thank you. Based on Board Member Popp’s comments I hesitate to 1 and the reading of the minutes from their meeting, I hesitate to flip that back over without a 2 more thorough understanding, which I do not possess. 3 4 Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner Alcheck? 5 6 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, no I don’t think that I would support that. At least not one at the 7 expense of the other and I want to add another thing. Another sort of element here, which is 8 that and it’s too bad Director Gitelman isn’t here because there’s this sidewalk in Napa that’s 9 boulevard like that’s associated with a new development that they did sort of in the I guess 10 southern quadrant of Napa like just when you’re coming in across the little river. God, I don’t 11 know anything about Napa. But anyway there’s this little sidewalk and they have when Board 12 Member Popp was talking about sort of the use of the sidewalk and how it’s not really about the 13 commercial or financial sort of viability of the sidewalk and which tenants are likely to use it or 14 which tenants are not likely to use it because people don’t necessarily build space specific for 15 service or retail when they’re doing ground floor service and retail they sort of they build it for 16 all comers, right? But anyway, in this sort of notion there’s this section of sidewalk in Napa 17 where they have this floor sculpture and it’s essentially the cha-cha-cha dance, like the 18 footwork of the cha-cha-cha dance on the sidewalk right in the middle of your walking area. 19 And so like the one foot is 1 and there’s 2 and there’s 3 and there’s 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 20 then the person that faces you they’re feet are also like that. So if you both step on foot space 21 and you get, you all get what I’m saying? Anyways, my point is I was sitting at a restaurant 22 like right next to that and I swear to you for the whole hour and 15 minutes that I was at this 23 restaurant not a single group that walked past this foot thing didn’t try it. Right? So you see all 24 these people are doing this and I thought like, God, you know whoever thought of that they will 25 never know how appreciated; how profound an impact they had on my dinner. Because it was 26 just, it was amazing. And it was, it did create life on a street. 27 28 I will argue that there is no life on El Camino. I’ve never walked down El Camino, ever. I don’t 29 think I’ve ever parked on El Camino. One time maybe I stopped at Mike’s Bikes and even that 30 was sort of scary because I couldn’t get out of my car. It is not what it, it certainly not what it 31 could be and I don’t think we’re going to get there by being too restrictive because it’ll just sort 32 of discourage maybe the thoughtful development we’d like to see. So I think the notion of 33 increasing flexibility certainly we don’t, not every single part of our El Camino, Palo Alto’s El 34 Camino has to be walkable, right? There should be, we should be focusing on the low hanging 35 fruit. There should be, I’m fully confident that the ARB will be able to identify the right projects 36 that you know what? We really want to see more X from you. We think that this setback 37 should be a little farther back because you’re right next to X and Y and Z and this is starting to 38 look like a nice little walkable area and we should encourage that in the redevelopment. And I 39 think that’s really the key; encouraging redevelopment of assets there that are no longer 40 appealing. So, so again I don’t think I would support the notion of just eliminating the build to 41 line and then having or the setback, I guess it’s the maximum? I think that having the, having 42 a setback range is more effective at articulating the vision idea than solely saying we don’t want 43 parking in the front. 44 45 And I want to say one other thing. I’m hoping that the ARB will handle the issues related to the 46 height of the arcades and the depth of the arcades and we won’t really ever deal with it. And I 47 think we shouldn’t consider the use of this is sort of in response to Commissioner King’s 48 comments. I’m not sure really we should be weighing into consideration whether a potential 49 tenant would use outdoor space into whether the developer who’s investing a tremendous 50 City of Palo Alto Page 17 amount of money into rehabilitating an asset or even reinvesting, redeveloping an asset. We’ve 1 all had conversations about encouraging ground floor retail, ground floor service, ground floor 2 restaurants and the like and I think you’re talking about a decision that they would have to 3 make so far in advance about how they would use their floor area that you would be maybe 4 encouraging people to shy away from restaurants because immediately if there was a potential 5 for using space for tables they’d be like “No, no, no, no restaurants. We’ll just be retail here 6 because we want that space on the fifth floor.” And so every time we create sort of a… they 7 are going to find a way to make, to get the space they want and it may be, the result may be 8 no restaurants for a quarter mile and maybe that’s something we didn’t really want because the 9 dollar per square foot of the space is so valuable that they’re just saying no to it. So it’s 10 important. 11 12 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka do you want to weigh in? 13 14 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Sure. I think a lot of interesting points by my fellow Commissioners. 15 I also I’m not sure about the proposal. I think it would be good to get the ARB’s take on it, but 16 I did have some other thoughts. It’s been awhile since I’ve been at the Champs-Élysées in 17 Paris, but last time I went there it was kind of like a freeway in the middle. I mean there’s like 18 a lot of cars, it’s not like very slow moving traffic, it’s a fairly wide boulevard and so I was 19 thinking at least car wise it’s not that different from El Camino except that El Camino’s a lot 20 shabbier, not nearly as exciting, some serious redevelopment probably should happen. I also 21 don’t have many fond memories walking along El Camino. But I for one would love to see 22 something grand like that. A true Grand Boulevard. Something that people would walk down 23 and go “Wow.” I don’t know if it’s possible and we’re pretty far from that right now, but I think 24 having things that help facilitate that is actually a good thing. 25 26 Because I’ve been thinking also like when I drive down El Camino and it’s kind of surprising 27 there’s still like vacant lots or there’s still places where there’s incredible underutilization of 28 actual land and so I think Commissioner Alcheck is right that we do need to encourage or have 29 things to encourage redevelopment. I think that’s probably one of the biggest issues on El 30 Camino, but I think generally I still like what this, direction where this, you know trying to have 31 wider sidewalks, trying to make it more walkable, but I do think we should, you know we are a 32 fairly high end city and I think we should have higher sights and I don’t think it’s unreasonable 33 for us to try to shoot for Champs-Élysées. I think that’s something that we should try to do. 34 Thanks. 35 36 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. I’m just going to encourage the ARB to think about this issue 37 and weigh in at your next meeting and see which way makes sense and whether an approach 38 like this would increase your flexibility or cause more problems than would otherwise be. This 39 is separate from the issue of setbacks and I am, I would actually at least for El Camino like to 40 be a little bit more directive and suggest something along the lines of a minimum setback from 41 the curb of being 12 feet, arcades being allowed within that setback, and an average setback 42 from the curb being in a range 15 feet to something maybe a little more than that depending 43 on the nature of that. And obviously the average setback only counts where you have building. 44 If you have a driveway the average setback is not to the rear, that space doesn’t count. And so 45 I’m wondering if Board Member Popp would like to weigh in on that notion? We’re trying to 46 make it worth your while to actually have come to the meeting. 47 48 Board Member Popp: No, it’s good. I’m glad I showed up. So specifically you’re looking for 49 some feedback about the idea of average setback? 50 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Acting Chair Keller: The idea of a minimum setback at an average that’s somewhat greater than 1 that and realize that that could be modified by virtue of the arcade. 2 3 Board Member Popp: So I would say squarely minimum setback, yes. Right, important to say 4 we need at least X square feet in some cases, might go up to 15 feet is what we’re suggesting, 5 maybe even more. I think again the issue here is that there are so many different types of 6 sites along El Camino. Staff was great, they produced all these maps for us and we were able 7 to look at all these things. We each took different sections and studied. There’s no one size 8 fits all certainly and I really I don’t think even establishing an average setback would be 9 beneficial. I think that’s too restrictive. I think what we need to do is really take this side by 10 side, state some goals, identify some concepts, and say tell us what is right for this site and we 11 provide feedback as the ARB to help assess whether or not it’s appropriate in its context. 12 13 Acting Chair Keller: If you had the tool of being able to deal with minimum setback and a 14 minimum average setback and in terms of flexibility on that as an alternative to a fixed build to 15 line, would that be helpful? 16 17 Board Member Popp: Yes, I think it would. 18 19 Acting Chair Keller: So maybe that’s something to consider in the mix? 20 21 Board Member Popp: Yeah, absolutely. And I’ll give as an example we were just presented with 22 one of the sites along Alma where currently there’s a special setback along Alma. There’s these 23 garages that are in the front setback right now. Really the very first building has come forward. 24 Say we want to knock down that old decrepit thing and build a new building that was 25 completely within the envelope of what’s allowed in zoning, but the ARB pushed back on the 26 applicant and said it’s about the context and although by right you should be allowed to have 27 this height and this certain setback and build it the way you described it, it’s just not right 28 because you’re the first one out of the gate. And if there were others around you this would be 29 a perfectly compatible and appropriate solution, but because there aren’t others that are 30 developed yet it’s challenging for us to move it forward. And I think that’s exactly the case 31 here as well where there, the hope is that these unpleasant structures that are along El Camino 32 come down and we get buildings that are farther back and we get sidewalks that are pleasant. 33 It becomes this really nice space and all of a sudden it becomes some place that you would 34 want to go for a walk or you’d feel safe parking your car and getting out, but until we get a 35 momentum about this I think we’re going to need some flexibility in order to incorporate these 36 projects in and around other things that are there. We’re not going to just start out with the 37 accelerator at 100 miles an hour. We need to ramp up into this a little bit. 38 39 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. I hope we don’t accelerate to 100 miles an hour on a 35 mile 40 an hour street limit street, sorry. 41 42 Board Member Popp: Point taken. 43 44 Acting Chair Keller: Anybody else want to weigh in on anything else? Yes. 45 46 Ms. French: Could I just because if I might you did say minimum setback of 12 feet. In our 47 Tables 3 and 4 there is a minimum setback and the way it’s phrased is zero to ten feet. If you 48 put it at zero that’s when you’re trying to, you’re right at the, you’re doing the eight foot right 49 at the property line. If you’re doing the 10 feet that’s going to be 18 feet, ok, really. So if 50 City of Palo Alto Page 19 you’re looking at a 12 foot effective sidewalk requirement, which is currently what we have on 1 El Camino, that’s really a four foot setback from the front property line to the building rather 2 than a 12 foot setback. You know its terminology. 3 4 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. I’m really referring to a 12 foot effective sidewalk width and a 5 setback appropriately related to that. Thanks for the correction. Anybody else on the 6 Commission wish to weigh in before? Yes, Commissioner Alcheck. 7 8 Commissioner Alcheck: Do we, I’m just curious do we know what the Champs-Élysées setback 9 is? Just out of curiosity? Because I was in Paris like maybe a year and a half ago and I thought 10 it felt like 50 feet. 11 12 Ms. French: You know I think this is kind of funny I guess. I heard at the July 31st meeting I 13 thought I heard Eduardo say he was going to do his research on the Champs-Élysées. I don’t 14 know if that happened. Does anyone know if he went and did the research? Because he’s not 15 here. Yeah, we can look that up and be ready at the next meeting. 16 17 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m, I’m looking at pictures from my trip so you know, but I mean I, 18 we’re far away from (interrupted) 19 20 Ms. French: Must be a dimension. 21 22 Commissioner Alcheck: I feel like the size of El Camino is the setback on the Champs-Élysées it 23 was, you could literally have a marching band stand next to each other and still be on the 24 sidewalk, but it would be interesting in my opinion and I think we said this last time. I think I 25 said this last time, but I’m not 100 percent sure to see what other cities are doing and what 26 they’re in this context especially since this Grand Boulevard is actually not just our idea. I think 27 there are other cities on the El Camino that are contemplating this. So I’m almost positive I 28 made this point last time, I’ll have to go through the notes, but I feel like it would be very 29 informative to sort of see what are they doing in Redwood City about this, in Mountain View, 30 and then what do others, what’s happening in Brooklyn and in Tel Aviv and how do they 31 compare to this idea? 32 33 Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner King. 34 35 Commissioner King: Thank you. Yes, so I did have a question of staff and Board Member Popp. 36 What input have the local practicing design development professionals had into these changes? 37 Have you spoken to them, do they feel this would make things easier, better, harder, more 38 expensive? 39 40 Ms. French: Randy Popp’s here representing the ARB and certainly this conversation has been 41 going on for a while in retreats and such and Randy’s connected with other architects and as 42 are the ARB so I’m sure there’s been some informal conversations, but we have not had any 43 formal outreach outside of the retreats and public hearings that we’ve had to date. 44 45 Mr. Aknin: The one thing I would add is that regionally there have been a lot of architects and 46 developers engaged in the Grand Boulevard principles not necessarily in Palo Alto, but 47 throughout the peninsula. And I think what developers want more than anything is certainty. 48 So to the extent that we can provide certainly through this ordinance because there isn’t much 49 City of Palo Alto Page 20 certainty right now in Palo Alto given the current dynamic, as much as we could work through 1 these issues and provide some certainty in our code I think it would be looked upon favorably. 2 3 Commissioner King: And so you’re saying that this provides more certainty then currently exists. 4 Is that correct? 5 6 Mr. Aknin: Correct, yes because right now we have the Council direction that has gone forward 7 and hasn’t reached a conclusion yet. 8 9 Commissioner King: I understand. So it may be, ok. So it may be more uncertain than existing 10 ordinance, but it’s more certain than what the, the fact that there’s in play right now so they 11 don’t like the fact that it’s in play (interrupted) 12 13 Mr. Aknin: Correct. 14 15 Commissioner King: They want a faster resolution, but it may end up providing less flexibility to 16 them. 17 18 Mr. Aknin: Yeah, even if I think even something that provides a little less flexibility in the end 19 but certain is better than something that’s uncertain. 20 21 Commissioner King: Got it. Ok, thank you. 22 23 Board Member Popp: The fact that we’re presented with the choice to evaluate a DEE time and 24 time and time again is very challenging. As an architect who has done projects like this I can 25 tell you that when you are not clear you get to, it’s a gating item in your project and you cannot 26 move forward until you get the yes that you need to get or the no so you know which way to 27 go and it can come at enormous cost just enormous cost to have to wait like that on a project. 28 So anything we can do to streamline the process and to remove unknowns and barriers in the 29 approvals is helpful not just to applicants, but also to those of us who are tasked with reviewing 30 the projects. 31 32 Commissioner King: And then I’ll ask a general question. When you described the situation 33 which the applicant came to you with a project which was on paper met all of our criteria and 34 yet they, the ARB said, “Well yeah it does, but we don’t want to approve that.” I assume you 35 have the power to actually tell them they can’t build that building even though it fits our 36 criteria? Is that correct? 37 38 Board Member Popp: And I’m going to ask staff to clarify this for me, but my understanding is 39 that we make a recommendation to the Planning Director and the Director issues direction to 40 the applicant in regard to approval or not. 41 42 Ms. French: I think in this case they’re and I don’t want to get too far into it because if for 43 instance they ask for a variance to allow something in the special setback because the context 44 is that way, that could potentially come to the Planning Commission. So you could end up 45 getting involved with that one, so (interrupted) 46 47 Commissioner King: Ok, yeah let’s just we’ll cancel that. 48 49 Ms. French: Yeah. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Commissioner King: Cara will smile when I cancel that I’m sure. Ok, great. Thank you. That’s 1 all, the only questions I had. 2 3 Acting Chair Keller: Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka do you want to add anything? So I’m going to 4 close by basically suggesting something to think about. And so firstly what’s interesting about 5 this is that we were specifically directed by the City Council to make El Camino wider and a 6 greater effective sidewalk. And I’m not convinced that the ordinance as presented to us does 7 that because it could be a 12 foot sidewalk, effective sidewalk and it appears that that could 8 satisfy the ordinance. And so effectively I’m not sure I see an actual change in what is 9 required, per se. Because it does give a range of 12 to 18 foot and 12 foot is within that range 10 and 12 foot is what we require now. So it doesn’t necessarily create that. 11 12 So what I would suggest that we consider as an alternative and I’m not here to make this a 13 Motion, but I’d like the ARB to consider it is first of all a minimum setback from the curb of 12 14 feet. Secondly, an average, a minimum average setback from the curb of 15 feet, sorry, an 15 average setback from the curb of a range of 15 to 18 feet, no build to line requirement and no 16 parking in front of the building. So that’s something to play with. And by having an average 17 setback in the range of 15 to 18 feet, that basically does provide the effectiveness of something 18 close enough to the sidewalk to be usable. It also gives a minimum of; since the minimum of 19 the average is 15 feet it means that you do effectively have the buildings further back by at 20 least 3 feet on the average. I would exclude from that calculation places where there is no 21 building, so for example a driveway or whatever to the back doesn’t count. So an average 22 setback from the curb, an average setback from the curb, average effective sidewalk width of 23 being at least 15, between 15 and 18 feet. I’m just suggesting that as a way of dealing with 24 the issue. And if there’s no, are there any other comments about that? Commissioner King. 25 26 Commissioner King: Are you asking for comments on your specific comment or? Oh, no I do 27 not. 28 29 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Any other comments people wish to add before I guess we’ll need a 30 Motion. But is there any other comments before we make a Motion? 31 32 Commissioner King: Well that’s sort of my question, the Motion. So in staff’s goal if we were to 33 say we move to recommend to Council Items 1 through 4, is that the direction you’re hoping 34 for? 35 36 Ms. French: Well it’s certainly a direction. I think again we’ve identified that we are going back 37 to ARB on the 20th. We heard Acting Chair Keller’s request and that’s what the ARB was 38 requesting to get some guidance, some alternatives perhaps to the ordinance and then the next 39 meeting that we see you for we would; we could capture this in a revised draft ordinance as an 40 alternative. Yeah, certainly if you wanted to do a straw poll on what you wanted to see with 41 respect to this ordinance you could do that. 42 43 Commissioner King: Ok. So what I’m hearing is it’s not really that helpful. You’re certainly not 44 going to go home mad if we don’t refer this, these items as written here to Council? 45 46 Mr. Aknin: No, we wouldn’t go home mad. What we were hoping for… yes, we have thick skin. 47 I think in general what we were looking for coming into here was some type of Motion related 48 to Numbers 1 through 4 that’s specifically about El Camino Real. So we would say move 49 forward, you know, the Motion, move forward as staff’s recommended for Motions 1 through 4 50 City of Palo Alto Page 22 as they relate to El Camino Real because we had a broader scope initially. Now if there is 1 something, for instance Acting Chair Keller’s recommendations that could slightly modify these, 2 that would be fine as well too. But we would like 1 through 4 moved forward as specifically and 3 specifically focused on El Camino. There’s no huge heartbreak if it doesn’t happen, we could 4 have another follow-up meeting, but that’s what we would like to see. 5 6 Commissioner King: Ok. Well I will so move that we move, recommend to Council and we’re 7 not actually asking for action because we don’t have an ordinance, correct? So we’re just 8 review or… 9 10 Mr. Aknin: There is an ordinance. 11 12 Ms. French: Attachment A, but it needs some cleaning that ordinance that’s there. So it’s as to 13 be modified, but the concept of going wider than 12 feet, perhaps the 15 feet as a target if 14 that’s what I’m hearing. We’d like to have ARB look at one more time. 15 16 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: If I could clarify? The ordinance is there for 17 guidance in case you wanted to get into more detail. I think at this point it’s more helpful for 18 staff to just have the guiding principles and then we will go back to the ordinance to 19 incorporate your guiding principles and move it on to the Council. 20 21 MOTION 22 23 Commissioner King: Ok so a Motion could be to support staff in further advancement of these 24 items as they relate as Items 1 through 4 as they relate to, specifically to the El Camino Real 25 corridor. Ok. And then I would add for discussion that I would ask relative to Item 4 that we 26 ask staff for further study as to whether the additional sidewalk width provided by applicants 27 shall be dedicated for public use or whether applicant may retain for private or restricted use 28 that sidewalk area. 29 30 Acting Chair Keller: So is that your Motion? Or? 31 32 Commissioner King: That is my Motion. 33 34 Acting Chair Keller: So can you get, I have to write it down so you’re basically moving staff 35 recommendation? Your microphone. 36 37 Commissioner King: Supporting staff’s further study of Items 1 through 4 specific to their 38 application in the El Camino Real corridor. And then I’m adding that we ask staff for the rider 39 on there that I mentioned. 40 41 Acting Chair Keller: And could you give me the wording of that? 42 43 Commissioner King: Yep. That we ask staff for further study as to whether the additional 44 sidewalk width provided by applicants shall be dedicated for public use or whether it may be 45 retained for private or restricted use by the applicant. 46 47 Acting Chair Keller: Ok. If you could say it a little slower, I’ve got to write this down because 48 I’ve got to give it to the staff tomorrow morning. So ask staff for further study of? 49 50 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Commissioner King: As to whether the additional sidewalk. 1 2 Acting Chair Keller: As to whether the additional… 3 4 Commissioner King: Sidewalk width provided. 5 6 Acting Chair Keller: Sidewalk width provided. 7 8 Commissioner King: By applicants shall be dedicated for public use or may be retained for 9 private or restricted use by the applicant. 10 11 Acting Chair Keller: Or can be retained for private use by applicant? 12 13 Commissioner King: May be, yeah, may be retained for private or restricted use by the 14 applicant. 15 16 SECOND 17 18 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, I’ll second that. Ok. Do you want to speak to your Motion? 19 20 Commissioner King: No. 21 22 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 23 24 Acting Chair Keller: Ok. Hold on a second. I’d like to make a friendly amendment if I may? 25 And the friendly amendment is to add to this to ask the staff and ARB to consider the potential 26 for a combination of minimum setback and average setback so that’s the first amendment. 27 28 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 ACCEPTED 29 30 Commissioner King: I accept that. 31 32 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 33 34 Acting Chair Keller: And the second friendly amendment I have to offer is that the ARB consider 35 whether in conjunction with that consideration there’s a potential for eliminating the build to 36 requirement provided that there’s no parking in front of the building. 37 38 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 ACCEPTED 39 40 Commissioner King: I accept that. 41 Acting Chair Keller: Ok. So I think we’ve beat this to death enough. Are there any other 42 amendments? Commissioner Alcheck. 43 44 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 45 46 Commissioner Alcheck: I think it wasn’t really present in our discussion here today, but I don’t 47 think you can have a conversation about setback for many of the parcels on El Camino without 48 having a discussion about height and I think my friendly amendment would be to suggest that 49 staff also add a concept related to increasing height in conjunction, increasing the flexibility 50 City of Palo Alto Page 24 with respect to height in conjunction with these “range” of setbacks. I know we talked a little 1 bit about floor area and sort of reallocating that, but I think it would also make sense to talk 2 about height and so that’s my friendly amendment. 3 4 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 FAILED 5 6 Commissioner King: I’m going to reject that, not because I think it’s necessarily a bad idea, but 7 because I would like to use this opportunity as a straw poll to see if we want to incorporate 8 that. 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: Sure. 11 12 Commissioner King: Ok. So let’s consider it an unfriendly amendment. 13 14 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1, SECOND 15 16 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, that’s considered an unfriendly amendment. Does anybody with to 17 second that unfriendly amendment? So we have an amendment by Commissioner Alcheck, 18 second by Commissioner, by Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka. And could you give me the wording of 19 your? 20 21 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I mean this is all sort of loose. We’re just suggesting the further 22 study of concepts. So it would be adding the concept of increasing height to the suggested… 23 look, they’re going to build an ordinance out of these idea concepts. So one of the concepts is 24 the setback. The second concept would be increased height as a result of increased setback. 25 26 Acting Chair Keller: So let me ask a clarifying question to your motion? 27 28 Commissioner Alcheck: I think any specificity that you’re looking for here is going to be lost on 29 me because the whole point is, is that what we’re really asking them to do is spend some more 30 time thinking about something? 31 32 Acting Chair Keller: Well let me ask my question and then you can figure out whether it will be 33 lost on you. I don’t think so. My question is whether your intention is to initiate a study of 34 height that will take place in the next month before this new ordinance comes back to us or 35 whether your idea of initiating a study on height is of longer term and not as part of this rush 36 ordinance that we were asked to for this Council? 37 38 Commissioner Alcheck: So let me put it to you this way. If I asked the staff to look into the 39 setbacks that other cities along El Camino are considering with respect to the Grand Boulevard 40 and what other Grand Boulevard locales are considering would you feel uninformed if you didn’t 41 also know what the height limits were in those areas? Wouldn’t you feel like you were literally 42 looking at just one half of an equation? So my point is, is that this is such an integral part of 43 the discussion, the height, that to not have a bullet, to not have one of our approaches to this 44 Grand Boulevard include flexibility with respect to height needs to be addressed. 45 46 Acting Chair Keller: So you’re suggesting that a consideration of height be made within this 47 ordinance in this cycle? 48 49 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m saying (interrupted) 50 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Acting Chair Keller: That’s what I’m trying to clarify. 1 2 Commissioner Alcheck: Absolutely. 3 4 Acting Chair Keller: I think the staff wants to under, I think the staff needs to know whether 5 your intention is to consider height with respect to the cycle we’re going to have this come back 6 to us in a month or so or whether your initiating a long (interrupted) 7 8 Commissioner Alcheck: No. I’m… look, I’m perfectly… I think we’ve had a number of 9 discussions about the Grand Boulevard that if City Council reviewed our minutes they would be 10 very well informed about what we think. So I’m not suggesting they come back to us. I’m 11 suggesting that they add that concept to the discussion and take it to the, I’m very comfortable 12 sending this right back up. We were asked to sort of increase the sidewalk. These are some 13 ways to accomplish that and I think the discussion that we’ve had has been informed. And so 14 (interrupted) 15 16 Acting Chair Keller: Can I ask (interrupted) 17 18 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m going to support the Motion, but I would have been more 19 supportive of a Motion that just sort of pushed this process along. They are going to go back to 20 the ARB for sort of a consult, but I don’t think they need to come back to us, but (interrupted) 21 22 Acting Chair Keller: Well let me ask this of staff. Is it the expectation, your expectation that 23 after the ordinance is drafted, after the ARB that this does come back to the Commission? 24 25 Ms. French: Yes, I think we, you know, certainly what’s in front of us today has some additional 26 changes so ideally we get the final product that we think is going to Council to you so for your 27 full vote. And it would be nice to have the rest of the Commission (interrupted) 28 29 Mr. Aknin: Well, actually I’ll add one correction to that. We, what we’re asking for now is we 30 would clean up as directed by you and we would bring the ordinance to the Council without 31 checking back to the Planning Commission. However, there’s these greater issues, which I 32 definitely think we need to address like height, like a number of other urban design type issues 33 that we need to work through thru our entire code, actually not our entire code, but specifically 34 focused portions of our code that we do need to come back to the Commission as well as the 35 ARB with other the next few months. But for this one specific ordinance we weren’t intending 36 to come back to you. 37 38 Commissioner Alcheck: Just to clarify my position I would’ve supported a Motion more sincerely 39 that moved this process along, but since we’re sort of asking for a lot more study I’m tacking on 40 this notion that height be considered. But if there was a way for me to propose a Motion that 41 moved this process to the ARB for their tweaking of this, the issue that’s in front of us and then 42 to the City Council for sort of a discussion of how they want to make this a reality and then in 43 theory a second Motion that brought these topics up to us for further study session I would 44 support that more than, but I don’t want to fight this the majority here. So. 45 46 Acting Chair Keller: So, what I’m trying, ok, what I understand that you’re saying is that, correct 47 me if I’m wrong, I think you’re saying the height should be considered by the ARB in their 48 review process? Or what are you suggesting? What is the text of your amendment? 49 50 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Commissioner Alcheck: I would suggest that concepts be developed related to increasing height 1 as a result of increasing setbacks. 2 3 Acting Chair Keller: And is there a timeframe? I mean is this something that you’re expecting to 4 be in the ordinance in a month from now? 5 6 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m not amending a Motion. 7 8 Acting Chair Keller: No, I don’t (interrupted) 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t know. 11 12 Acting Chair Keller: I think it’s interesting to say are you expecting this to come back when this 13 goes before us and goes to Council? 14 15 Commissioner Alcheck: I didn’t, I was hopeful that we would be able to have a Motion that 16 went straight… I was hopeful that we would be able to move this process along, but since my 17 sense is that the mover has suggested that he would like to hear more on the topics that he 18 requested further study, which I think was the way he started his Motion I am suggesting that 19 we add this topic for further study to the topics he’s asking for further study on. So the 20 assumption here is that the mover and seconder have, would like this to come before us at 21 least one more time before the ordinance is designed. My personal opinion is the ordinance 22 just be moved along, but since we’re going it looks like the route of further study the timeframe 23 is the same timeframe that our mover and our seconder need for further study of all these 24 topics. 25 26 Mr. Aknin: Through the Chair? 27 28 Acting Chair Keller: Yeah. 29 30 Mr. Aknin: One question. I did not understand your Motion to say come back to us again 31 before we go to the Council. Is that what you were saying? 32 33 Commissioner King: Well, (interrupted) 34 35 Mr. Aknin: That wasn’t the staff’s recommendation so. 36 37 Commissioner King: Yeah and this is why humans speak to each other because there’s 38 sometimes lack of clarity. So I used the words “further study,” which I fully understand that 39 Commissioner Alcheck took to mean, took the words for what they say. In reality upon 40 reflection I realize what I really meant was for discussion as you move this forward. 41 42 Mr. Aknin: Ok, that’s what I was thinking. 43 44 Commissioner King: That I would not want it to get to Council without having people discuss, 45 “Hey, how are we going to treat this?” because I believe this is an important consideration. I’m 46 not saying I don’t know what the right answers is, but I think it’s important consideration that 47 people think through the topic which I have (interrupted) 48 49 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Mr. Aknin: We would put further analysis in for and a recommendation in before we went to 1 Council. 2 3 Acting Chair Keller: So then I take your Motion as that. You’re recommending that this not 4 come back to the PTC, but that perhaps we be told about it at the next meeting as to what the, 5 what was decided for the ARB? 6 7 Commissioner King: Exactly. 8 9 Mr. Aknin: And we’re going to have a joint meeting with the ARB and the PTC coming up and I 10 think these greater issues are something that we have to talk about during that meeting. 11 12 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So I’m not going to support the unfriendly amendment 13 precisely because I don’t think it should be in this quick process for going to the Council. And I 14 (interrupted) 15 16 Commissioner Alcheck: Are you still seconding the Motion as it is now? Is that how you 17 (interrupted) 18 19 Acting Chair Keller: I seconded the original Motion. 20 21 Commissioner Alcheck: But are you, as… 22 23 Acting Chair Keller: I’m, there’s an amendment on the floor, it’s an unfriendly amendment 24 (interrupted) 25 26 Commissioner Alcheck: No, I know, but the Motion was sort of re-clarified so are you still in 27 support of that? 28 29 Acting Chair Keller: I’m fine with the Motion as it is stated. That it’s not coming back. Ok, 30 that’s fine. In any event what I’m saying is that I don’t think that the consideration 31 (interrupted) 32 33 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 WITHDRAWN 34 35 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m withdrawing my amendment though because… 36 37 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, you’re withdrawing your amendment? 38 39 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, because now the discussion isn’t coming back to us in which case 40 I’m pretty sure they’re going to have that discussion anyway. So I’m withdrawing the 41 amendment because I have full faith that the ARB and the City Council will have a discussion 42 about height when they talk about this so I’m withdrawing that Motion. 43 44 Acting Chair Keller: Ok. I’ll actually (interrupted) 45 46 Commissioner Alcheck: Amendment, sorry. 47 48 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. I’ll actually indicate that I think that a discussion about 49 increasing heights in this City is a larger discussion that should not be put as part of this 50 City of Palo Alto Page 28 ordinance and if there’s a consideration of height it needs to be a broad based discussion not 1 buried in a Motion, not buried in an ordinance that’s really a quick fix. So I would not support 2 that moving forward. So I don’t agree with that and I’m not sure if anybody else wants to 3 weigh in? 4 5 Commissioner Alcheck: It’s withdrawn. 6 7 Acting Chair Keller: I’m just, I understand it’s withdrawn, but since the idea has been presented 8 I’m indicating my disagreement with it. Anybody else wish to weigh in? 9 10 Ms. French: I’m going to weigh in because the ARB has already had a discussion about how 11 height should be a part of it so they would probably have that discussion again on the 20th. 12 You know whether that gets incorporated in this we haven’t put it in here and we probably 13 won’t; however, it’s in the record that will go to the Council in the minutes so they will see 14 that’s it’s a consideration that is related to this. It is just isn’t in the ordinance. 15 16 Acting Chair Keller: Great, thank you. Unless there’s anything else? Any other comments? 17 Anybody? Then I’ll call the question. All in favor of the Motion as amended, which is to move 18 the support staff in further study of the El Camino, the South El Camino Design Guidelines, is 19 that right? What’s (interrupted) 20 21 Ms. French: That’s an adjunct. That’s a related project, but it’s not this. This is the ordinance 22 going forward. 23 24 Acting Chair Keller: So we recommend that the PTC has reviewed and discussed the contents of 25 the draft ordinance and recommends points one through four as decided by, as indicated in the 26 staff report with the additional provisions of 1) ask staff for further study as to whether the 27 addition of sidewalk width provided by the applicant should be dedicated to public use or may 28 be returned for private or restricted use by the applicant; 2) consider the combination of 29 minimum setback and average setback as a way of accomplishing increased setbacks as desired 30 by the Council; and 3) consider the combination of eliminating build to lines and no parking in 31 the front as a way of accomplishing the goal along with that. Yes? 32 33 Commissioner King: I believe you missed the words specific to El Camino Real, items 1 through 34 4 specific to El Camino Real. 35 36 Acting Chair Keller: Items 1, 2, and 3 are specific to El Camino Real, yes. 37 38 Commissioner King: Ok. Ok. 39 40 Acting Chair Keller: Alright? 41 42 Commissioner King: Is that accurate for staff? And the word, you said the word “returned” by 43 the applicant relative to my addition, but it should be “retained.” You may have just been 44 misreading it and will correct it, but it is will the sidewalk use be retained by the applicant. 45 46 Acting Chair Keller: Oh right. I wrote down retained. Thank you. Retained by the applicant. 47 Yes? What? Sure, go ahead. Commissioner Alcheck has a question of Cara. 48 49 City of Palo Alto Page 29 Commissioner Alcheck: So I am just curious from your perspective is there a component of this 1 setback that’s required? So let’s say we increase the size of the setback. Does that have any 2 effect on the designation of that area of land as public or private? 3 4 Ms. Silver: It depends on how the ordinance is framed. If it’s framed in terms of an effective 5 sidewalk width then it really doesn’t matter if it’s public or private. If we want to encourage an 6 actual public dedication of the private property for exclusive right of way use then of course it 7 becomes public property and there’s some other related issues associated with requiring an 8 additional dedication of sidewalk for properties that already have a sidewalk in front of them. 9 So I think it is, I think it’s an issue. It’s certainly involved in the mix. 10 11 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, I just I’m only asking that question because I think I’m a little bit 12 confused about your first addition to the set. And not, I actually don’t even, I don’t think it’s 13 time well spent to sort of figure it out. I think I’m going to support the Motion, but I think it’s a 14 little, I’m a little unclear what you’re going for with your first addition, but we can talk about 15 that later. 16 17 Acting Chair Keller: Anything else? Ok, all in favor say aye (Aye). All opposed? The Motion 18 carries unanimously. Motion made by Commissioner King and seconded by Acting Vice-Chair, 19 Acting Chair Keller and with amendments. 20 21 MOTION PASSED (4-0-2, Chair Michael and Commissioner Martinez absent) 22 23 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner King, second by Acting Chair Keller, as 24 amended by Acting Chair Keller with concurrence of Commissioner King to support staff 25 recommendation of the four items in the staff report with the following items relating to El 26 Camino Real, suggested for further study: 27 28 1. Whether the additional sidewalk width provided by the applicants shall be dedicated for 29 public use or may be retained for private or restricted use. 30 2. Consider the combination of minimum effective sidewalk width of 12 feet and a larger 31 average effective width of 15 to 18 feet should be adopted for El Camino Real (not 32 counting driveways, etc., where there is no building). 33 3. Consider the combination of #2 plus eliminating the build-to requirements and adding a 34 no-parking requirement in the front of buildings for El Camino Real. 35 36 Passed unanimously 4-2 with Chair Michael and Commissioner Martinez absent. 37 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4565) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/9/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: El Camino Real Sidewalk Ordinance Title: Recommendation of a Draft Ordinance modifying: (1) Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address sidewalk width and building setbacks (setback and “build-to” line standards, and context based design criteria) along El Camino Real, and (b) reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of Lot Area and add a definition for “Effective Sidewalk”. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). From: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and recommend that Council adopt the draft ordinance (Attachment A) relating to setbacks for new buildings on El Camino Real and adjusting design review criteria to promote a more walkable and comfortable urban environment. The ordinance modifies Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapters 18.04 (Definitions) and 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial Districts (CN, CC, CS Zones), particularly for properties along El Camino Real. Executive Summary The Council has directed staff to evaluate the urban streetscape of all major thoroughfares. Staff is doing this in two phases. The first phase focuses on El Camino Boulevard. The draft ordinance focuses on properties fronting El Camino Real and synthesizes the comments received to date from the ARB and PTC. The ordinance addresses front building setbacks and sidewalk width, design review criteria, allowable floor area and definitions of lot size and effective sidewalk for properties located along El Camino Real in Palo Alto. The ordinance also deletes the current build-to requirement for non-El Camino Real fronting properties, and City of Palo Alto Page 2 deletes the 33% build to requirement for building faces of side streets that intersect with El Camino Real. The second phase will be to study standards for building setbacks, heights and sidewalks, particularly buildings along other thoroughfares. The joint meeting of the ARB and PTC, originally noticed for March 26, 2014, was postponed due to the lack of a quorum. Staff will schedule the joint meeting to a date following the Council review of the draft ordinance to discuss these issues. The study session will also discuss the purpose of the existing special setbacks on those thoroughfares and possible incentives for public use of sidewalk across private property. Contents of the current draft ordinance are summarized: Effective Sidewalk Width: The ordinance includes a definition for “Effective Sidewalk Width”. The definition would be placed in PAMC Section 18.04.030(a), using #50 (Reserved). The purpose is to ensure a common understanding of this phrase, currently described in the context based guidelines of PAMC 18.16.090, as the width between the face of curb to the building face, inclusive of furnishings and plantings. The building face is also the build-to-line. On El Camino Real, the build-to-line has been 12 feet from curb face to building face since adoption of the 2005 zoning code. The definition clarifies that the ground floor building wall is the critical “building face” from which to measure the effective sidewalk width. The definition allows building columns of an arcade to be included in the width, as long as these columns are set back at least nine feet from the curb face. The definition also references a comfortable clear width for pedestrians. Lot Area: The ordinance amends PAMC Section 18.04.030(a) definition #85 “Lot Area” to state “any private property area dedicated to and accepted by the City for public use as a sidewalk, shall be included in lot area.” This change would allow for the calculation of allowable building floor area to be based upon the current size of the lot, even if sidewalk area is provided via dedication of private property for a public sidewalk. Front Yard and Build-to-Line: The ordinance amends these development standards and associated footnotes, found in Tables 3 and 4 of PAMC 18.16.060 Development Standards. These changes are designed to: (1) eliminate the need for Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) requests for development that is setback from the current build-to-line, and City of Palo Alto Page 3 (2) allow the City to carefully consider, on a case by case basis, placement of building elements based on land use, adjacent and nearby building context, building design, lot size and modified context based design criteria. (3) continue to “reinforce the importance and definition of the street with front- placed buildings that provide a presence in scale with El Camino Real” advocated by both the Grand Boulevard Initiative and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Front Yard: The ordinance table now has a separate row with the front setback standard for El Camino Real properties. The setback requirement is stated as a range of “four to ten feet as measured from the property line to the ground floor building wall to create a 12’ to 18’ effective sidewalk width, depending on context”. The second statement is “upper floors may have a zero setback, depending on context”. The three footnotes related to this zoning standard confirm that: o no parking is allowed in the first ten feet of property line, o front yards on El Camino are not subject to the landscape screening requirement, and o what is included in context, which is “land use, adjacent and nearby properties’ existing building setbacks, proposed or adjacent building design, lot size and similar considerations.” Allowances Based on Context: The ordinance states the setback to the ground floor wall is a minimum four feet to ten feet. Staff added the phrase “depending on context” to allow for context-based consideration during the review process. The ARB would be able to recommend the desirable setback at both the ground floor and upper floors. The Director would be able to make a decision based upon this recommendation, on a case by case basis. Staff added a footnote (new Footnote #8) to both Tables to clarify what is meant by the term ‘context.’ Staff also added a new footnote (Footnote #10) on Table 4 to repeat the Table 3 footnote (existing Footnote #1) prohibiting parking and loading spaces on the first 10 feet of the property. Build-to-Line: The ordinance modifies this standard to clarify its applicability only to El Camino Real fronting properties. This change involves: Implementing the build-to restriction on CC-zoned El Camino Real properties (approximately 33 properties); Lifting the restriction from all non-El Camino Real fronting properties in the CN and CS zones that have previously been subject to the build-to-line standard. City of Palo Alto Page 4 This includes lifting the restriction of 33% build-to-line on building frontages on side streets meeting El Camino Real; Clarifying that required 50% percentage of building frontage can: a. Be located on upper floors if the ground floor is set back farther, and b. Be within a placement range rather than all on one line, and c. Be a flexible percentage, given context based design criteria and context including land use, adjacent and nearby building context, lot size and building design for each project. Floor Area Ratio: The ordinance amends Table 4, Footnote #9 to reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites, where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per acre, also in Section 18.16.060 of Chapter 18.16. Context Based Design Criteria: The ordinance amends PAMC Section 18.16.090, Context Based Design Criteria Considerations and Findings, (b), item (2), Street Building Facades, and item (3) Massing and Setbacks: o upper floor placement, (2)(H): This criteria currently calls for upper floors set back to fit in with the context of the neighborhood; Amend to add that the ground floor may be set back farther than the upper floors when a greater first floor setback is established to provide a wider sidewalk; o building set back, (3)(E): This criteria currently cites a 12 foot sidewalk width on El Camino Real and an 8 feet sidewalk width elsewhere; Amend to note that an increased width may be appropriate depending on context, clarifying the meaning of context, and cite the effective sidewalk width range is now 12-18 feet on El Camino and 8 to 12 feet elsewhere; o majority of building frontage, (3)(F): This criteria currently calls for a majority of the building frontage located (exactly) at the front and side setback lines (to achieve a continuous street façade at the build-to-line); Amend to note placement within zero to ten feet of street property line on El Camino Real, and based on context, defining the meaning of context, and to reference the applicability of any special setback. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Background ARB Consideration ARB Hearing March 20, 2014 The ARB report (without attachments) is provided as Attachment D. Written comments from the public, and draft action minutes are also provided as Attachment E. Four members of the public spoke during the hearing regarding the item; three spoke regarding the hardship of a setback increase. Several speakers expressed concern about smaller lots, noting that it may prompt the owners of small properties to sell their land to developers, who would then merge properties and make a larger building. One speaker stated concern about the loss of ground floor retail space located close to the sidewalk. One speaker stated that retail space on the second floor would not make up for the loss of ground floor space, and noted that it is hard for stores to retain business on El Camino Real. Speakers and several ARB members noted that, in many places, El Camino Real is not desirable for walking. The fourth speaker, from Palo Alto Housing Corporation, requested that Council consider retaining the existing FAR standard, or even increasing the maximum FAR for housing sites, citing concessions as a valued tool for affordable housing and use of this tool for FAR was not desirable. The ARB provided the following input: 1. The ARB voted "not in favor" of the FAR reduction for CN zoned housing element listed sites with mixed use projects above 15 units per acre; 2. Effective sidewalk width definition: The ARB asked staff to clarify it is the "width from face of curb (facing the street) to building" and delete the word "structural" (referring to columns); 3. Build-to Lines, Table 3: The ARB asked staff to add to the fourth bullet "adjacent building and nearby context" and fix the inadvertent omission (add the fourth bullet from Table 4 build-to-lines standard that states, "front wall can be placed within a range of 0'-10' from property line (8' - 18' from face of curb);" City of Palo Alto Page 6 4. Clarify, in Table 3 Footnote #2, that the front yards of El Camino Real fronting properties are not subject to the landscaped screening requirement; 5. Add into the context based design criteria the concept of the "meandering" pedestrian clear width; and 6. Add a noted that Stanford Shopping Center and Town and Country Center properties are not subject to the build-to-line standard. The attached ordinance incorporates the ARB’s suggestions, though it does not specifically state that retail windows could be located as close as nine feet from the face of curb, which was the ARB’s preference. The ordinance states that a minimum ground floor setback of four feet from El Camino Real property line is required, but that context consideration will be employed. ARB Hearing February 20, 2014 The PTC staff report of February 26, 2014 (Attachment B) summarized the February 20th ARB public hearing. At that time, the ARB had expressed its preference for a minimum 9 foot effective sidewalk (distance from curb face to some building elements such as columns, or to the ground floor wall only if the ground floor land use were retail) and an effective setback range of 9 to 15 feet (from curb face to ground floor of building). The ARB cited some opportunities along El Camino Real for greater than a 15 feet setback, to achieve the Grand Boulevard Initiative concept of 18 feet from curb to building face. The ARB had noted it would be best to determine setback on a project by project basis, based on criteria such as land use, lot size, and building design. Verbatim meeting minutes of both the February 20th (Attachment F) and March 20th ARB discussions will be transmitted to Council. PTC Consideration PTC Hearing February 26, 2014 The PTC held a public hearing and heard testimony from one individual and an ARB representative, and excerpt verbatim minutes were provided to the ARB and are attached (Attachment C). The PTC supported (on a 4-0-2 vote) staff’s recommendation on staff report items one through three as relates to the El Camino Real corridor. The PTC asked staff to further study item 4, prior to presenting the ordinance to City Council, as to whether the additional sidewalk width provided on private property should be dedicated for public use or be retained for private/restricted use. The PTC also asked that staff and the ARB consider: Eliminating the “build-to-line” standard; City of Palo Alto Page 7 Establishing a minimum 12 foot setback (curb to building) along El Camino Real; Establishing an average setback of 15 to 18 feet (curb to building) along El Camino Real; Prohibiting parking facilities within the required front yard setback. The attached ordinance adds the parking and loading space prohibition within the first 10 feet of the property depth to the Mixed Use Projects Table (Table 4); this prohibition is already included as Footnote #1 of Table 3 (Nonresidential projects). Footnote 1 of Table 3 states, “No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard.” Since the Council’s direction was to consider an 18 foot sidewalk/setback, and a 10 foot building setback would yield an 18 foot wide effective sidewalk (curb to building face), the current language in Table 3 already addresses this for non-residential projects (as does Context Based Guideline #6, requiring parking to be located behind buildings, below grade or where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, etc.) The ARB representative informed the PTC that the ARB: Recommends an effective sidewalk width (curb to building face) ranging from 9 feet to 15 feet, with some opportunities along El Camino Real for greater than a 15 foot setback, based on criteria such as lot size, building design and land use; Believes a minimum 12 foot setback plus 15 foot average setback would be too restrictive; Supports the change to the lot area definition, so that no reduction in FAR results from the use of private property for increased sidewalk width (maintaining FAR rights); Supports eliminating the build-to-line, in favor of reviewing projects on a case by case basis to determine appropriate massing and setbacks; Supports “varied” and “high quality” character along El Camino Real, comprised of both aesthetic and street-life character. Acknowledges one size (one regulation) does not fit all land uses, and suggests use of a consultant to provide concepts for different sized sites; Encourages furthering the El Camino Real street tree canopy concept contained in the original El Camino Real Guidelines; to show on diagrams. Community Outreach City of Palo Alto Page 8 Staff mailed notice cards to owners of properties fronting El Camino Real for this meeting; the cards also invited them to the April 1, 2014 outreach meeting. Staff also mailed notice cards for the March 20, 2014 ARB hearing. Newspaper and website notifications conveyed information regarding the ARB hearings of February 20 and March 20, and PTC hearings of February 26 and April 9. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to conduct a public hearing to review the ordinance on April 21, 2014. Notice cards will be mailed prior to that hearing as well. At the April 1, 2014 meeting, the participating property owners stated the following concerns: 1. A number of owners suggested that small lot development is already restricted by abutting residential daylight plane and height restrictions, and by parking requirements, such that the loss of floor area at the front of buildings is difficult. One owner commented that all the rules combined do not make sense, and they have gotten tougher every year, making it difficult to develop along ECR. 2. These owners said the City will not get agreement on the sidewalk unless the owners get an agreement from the City to allow additional building height. They asked what the property owners are getting in return. 3. The property owners expressed concern that the ordinance encourages property owners to sell so that developers can buy several lots and combine them to build one large building. One owner asked whether a big developer is behind this effort. 4. Another owner raised the issue of the alley use, noting that the City has restricted access to parking lots behind buildings in the past. 5. The owners questioned how it will help if one owner redevelops with a 12-foot wide sidewalk and the adjacent properties don’t, and asked how the city will get consistency. 6. One owner asked that the City not require mixed use when residential is proposed, but allow the development of residential-only projects on small lots with few redevelopment options. Discussion 1. PTC Consideration Items and Staff Responses City of Palo Alto Page 9 Eliminate the Build-to-Line Standard. This requirement currently applies to all CN and CS zoned parcels on the following streets (some of which have “special setbacks” of 24 feet to 30 feet): o Major thoroughfares: El Camino Real, Middlefield Road, San Antonio Avenue, California Avenue, Page Mill Road, and Embarcadero Road; and o Minor thoroughfares: North to College Terrace/Cal Ave: Wells, Encina, Park Blvd and Ave, Leland, Stanford, Oxford, College, Cambridge, Sherman, Grant, Sheridan; Park, Birch, Ash; Cal-Ventura to southern end: Pepper, Olive, Acacia, Portage, Hansen, Lambert, Fernando, Margarita, Matadero, Kendall, Wilton, Barron, Curtner, La Selva, Ventura, Los Robles, El Camino Way, West Meadow, Camino Court, James, Maybell, Arastradero, W. Charleston, Dinah’s Court, Monroe, Cesano, Leghorn Staff Response: The Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) does delete the 50% build-to-line standard for streets other than El Camino Real, and does delete the 33% build-to-line standard for side streets intersecting El Camino Real. The 50% wall build-to-line standard for El Camino Real would remain, altered to allow flexibility on a case by case basis, so that Design Enhancement Exceptions would not be needed. The build-to-line standard will now apply to the CC zoned properties on El Camino Real as well. The proposal modifies the current standard by allowing flexibility, as follows: (1) The 50% of the building wall can be placed within a range of zero to ten feet from property line (which is 8 to 18 feet from face of curb) – rather than requiring all of the 50% wall area to be placed in the same plane 12 feet from the curb. (2) Upper floors can come up to the zero setback line, even if the ground floor is set back significantly to allow wider “effective sidewalk”; the upper floor walls are allowed to serve as the required ‘50% of building wall’ in those cases. (3) The 50% can be adjusted based on context based criteria and site context that is defined. A joint PTC/ARB discussion following Council adoption of the El-Camino centric ordinance will be scheduled to address other thoroughfares and other related topics. The ARB is prepared to address the “missing teeth” concern during individual project reviews and any unintended consequences of the deletion of the build-to line standard on other thoroughfares Implement a Combination of 12’ Minimum Setback and 15’ -18’ Average Setback. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Staff Response: The draft ordinance proposes a range of 12’ to 18’ setback from face of curb to the ground floor building wall. The existing code requires a 12’ minimum setback from face of curb to building face on El Camino Real. The existing code language also treats this as the maximum setback for 50% of the building wall, via the build-to-line standard. Further, the existing context based design criteria state that upper floors should be set back further than the ground floor. Adding specificity and flexibility within the tables and context based design criteria for front setback and build-to-lines, per the draft ordinance, will help. The ordinance prescribes placement of 50% of the ‘building frontage’ within the first 10 feet of the property’s depth rather than all along the 12 foot from curb line, and allows flexibility based on context (and defining context), including allowing the upper floor front walls to be placed forward of the ground floor front wall. The concept for a 15’-18’ Average Setback (from curb) combined with Minimum 12’ Setback (from curb) is different than the concept of a specific percentage of the ‘building frontage’ placed within the first 10 feet of the property depth. With multiple story buildings, the current 50% standard is complex, but the “average” equation may be even more complex. The PTC asked for staff’s analysis of pros and cons. Pros: Building front wall placement between 12 feet minimum and 15 feet on average, could have interesting urban-scale results for retail uses, but there would need to be flexibility based upon context. Cons: Office, hotel and residential uses with building walls at 12 feet minimum to 15 feet on average could be problematic. Office, hotel and residential uses along El Camino Real may be better placed at a minimum 15 foot or greater setback (three feet from the 12’ wide sidewalk, to allow additional landscaping.) Ground floor retail uses employing display windows would benefit if these windows were located as close as possible to the right of way (which is currently eight feet wide). Given existing context and location in pedestrian nodes, the PTC may want to weigh in on the ARB’s suggestion about placing retail display windows at a distance of nine feet from the face of curb, rather than the current requirement of 12 feet or the Grand Boulevard standard of 18 feet. Question whether restaurant with outdoor seating could encroach on right of way without paying City. Staff Response: Under the proposed ordinance, it’s likely that café and restaurant seating would occur on the private property portion of the “effective sidewalk.” To extent it spilled over to the public right of way portion, the City has an existing encroachment permit system that allows for these types of uses. The ARB also discussed this issue and noted that this is the type of use that the City wants to promote on an active boulevard. City of Palo Alto Page 11 2. Consultant and Citizen Participation The Downtown Urban Design Guide includes ‘desirable streetscape examples’ for different land uses and transitions between the uses. It may be helpful to have studies for each El Camino Real ‘segment’ (nodes/corridors) to determine where an 18 foot sidewalk is desirable. As Council directed, staff is to study other commercial arterials, such as Middlefield, San Antonio, and Alma. A consultant’s assistance to communicate different streetscape examples for those streets may be critical. A consultant could provide studies of building form and show ways to incentivize different land uses. As noted, staff will report verbally to the PTC as to the outcomes of the April 1, 2014 outreach meeting with the El Camino Real property owners. 3. Street Trees The Council Colleagues memo contained a statement regarding street trees: “It is worth noting that 8-foot sidewalks limit the species of trees to those with vertical growth and thus results in a smaller canopy that can be accommodated in areas with greater setbacks.” The Urban Forestry Department has a standard condition of approval requiring a specific volume of soil to support the growth of street trees. Staff considered placing footnotes in the ordinance’s tables to reference a requirement for adequate soil volume, but did not do so because project approval conditions address this requirement. The next iteration of zoning ordinance amendments will include sidewalk treatments focused on thoroughfares in all commercial zones. Staff can include a specification for rectangular tree grates (4 feet by 8 feet) to encourage robust street tree growth through the City, and other ideas that may be generated during outreach and with consultant assistance. Staff can add these ideas to the Context Based Design Criteria found in the commercial zone district chapters. In the case of Chapter 18.16 (addressing CS, CN and CC zones), staff could propose specificity in Context Based Design Criteria (b)(1), Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment, promoting pedestrian walkability through design elements. The criteria include Item C, which currently states, “Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the areas streetscape environment such as street trees, bulb-outs, benches, landscape elements, and public art.” 4. Height Staff will forward to Council the meeting minutes that capture the ARB and PTC discussions regarding the relationship to building height. 5. Public Use of Private Property The draft ordinance does not require property owners to dedicate additional private property for sidewalk use. Given the small sizes of some of the properties along El Camino, the existing 8 foot sidewalk already in place, the relatively nominal impact that some of the projected new City of Palo Alto Page 12 development would have on sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities, and the evolving state of the law relating to dedications, staff does not recommend a dedication requirement be included in the ordinance. Instead, staff believes the streetscape concerns raised in the Colleague’s Memo are largely due to the zero setback standards in the existing Zoning Code. To alleviate the feel of overpowering buildings located close to the curb, staff recommends implementing a front yard setback. This provides property owners with more development options for their property while creating the look and feel of a wider sidewalk. Timeline (all dates are tentative) April 1, 2014: Property owner meeting at Creekside Inn April 9, 2014: PTC public hearing April 21, 2014: City Council first reading May 5, 2014: City Council second reading Environmental Review The proposed ordinance is considered “categorically exempt” from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Categorical Exemptions, Section 15305, or “Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations”. Class 5 allows “changes that do not result in any changes in land use or density” to be considered categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents, because the project is considered not to have a significant effect on the environment. Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance for 4 9 14 PTC (PDF) Attachment B: February 26, 2014 PTC without attachments (PDF) Attachment C: February 26, 2014 Excerpt minutes (DOC) Attachment D: ARB 3 20 14 without Attachments (PDF) Attachment E: 3 20 14 ARB action and comments (PDF) Attachment F: ARB excerpt Minutes of 2 20 14 (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 April 9, 2014 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Public Hearing: 7 Recommendation of a Draft Ordinance modifying: (1) Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal 8 Code (PAMC) to (a) address sidewalk width and building setbacks (setback and “build-to” line standards, 9 and context based design criteria) along El Camino Real, and (b) reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio on 10 CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to 11 adjust the definition of Lot Area and add a definition for “Effective Sidewalk”. Environmental Assessment: 12 Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per section 15305 13 14 Acting Chair Keller: A public hearing, recommendation of a draft ordinance modifying Chapter 18.16 of 15 the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to address sidewalk width and building setbacks (setback and 16 “build-to” line standards, and context based design criteria) along El Camino Real, and (b) to reduce the 17 allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per 18 acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of Lot Area and add a definition for “Effective 19 Sidewalk.” So I’ll open the public hearing. I guess we’ll start with staff report. 20 21 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Thank you Chair Keller. The last time we met with you on this item 22 was February 26th at which time you suggested that staff visit with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) 23 with a couple of concepts. We did that on March 20th. We also had an outreach meeting with some folks 24 that we sent notice to. We had several folks show up, property owners along El Camino Real; had a 25 good conversation. Tonight we have before you the ordinance that we are intending to take to Council. 26 The intent of the ordinance is new buildings. I have a little background on the El Camino zoning and 27 guidelines. I have a few images of buildings both constructed and approved. And I just want to clarify 28 the focus of the ordinance is to allow for flexibility in the review of buildings coming forward along El 29 Camino. This is a, the first phase of a two phased approach and we will be coming back to discuss other 30 thoroughfares. We can also come back and discuss the issue of height in the future phase. 31 32 So let me go ahead and show you a few images. This first is the right of way of El Camino indicating that 33 the existing sidewalks are eight feet wide. And many buildings are placed at eight feet wide. The 34 existing buildings that are out there on El Camino can remain even though the sidewalk may not be a 35 comfortable pedestrian width for several pedestrians. It is serviceable and the existing buildings can 36 remain and be modified without chopping off a portion of the building to widen the sidewalk. I wanted to 37 show you an image from back in the day before we had the South El Camino Real Guidelines. In the CN 38 zone we used to require a 10 foot front yard as a landscape screen. So there was an 18 foot curb face to 39 building wall back in the day. The El Camino Guidelines of 2002 they were not adopted by Council, but 40 they were incorporated into the 2005 Zoning Code. The vision is a vibrant corridor with one or more 41 distinct centers rather than a commercial strip that has been the history of El Camino. The goal is to 42 have diverse uses and pedestrian nodes linked by corridors. 43 44 In 2002 the Design Guidelines were updated. We had a consultant; we had public meetings on this. 45 That is the origin of the 12 foot effective sidewalk width that includes trees and planters. And it did make 46 a note in those guidelines that we would like to see it wider than 12 feet and seating where appropriate. 47 There were some other ideas about arcades, about a number of windows in the wall, ample amount of 48 windows, and this concept of the build-to lines. As I said, the build-to lines and the effective sidewalk 49 were concepts that were then incorporated into the 2005 Zoning Code and approved by Council. There 50 was another document called the El Camino Real Master Schematic Design Plan and it highlighted some 51 improvements in the right of way and that was brought to Council as well. 52 53 City of Palo Alto Page 2 I have images of El Camino Real buildings that were constructed following those guidelines of 2002 and 1 the zoning code of 2005 where the effective sidewalk width and the build-to line was addressed. I’m 2 going to go through those now. The first is a Planned Community (PC) the Sunrise Assisted Living. 3 Considered a commercial use it is residential in nature and having a deeper setback makes sense for 4 ground floors and upper floors even that are residential along a busy corridor. You can see also in the 5 distance the building, that the sidewalk is not a straight shot. It adjusts going north. Here is the Arbor 6 Real project; again, residential, greater setback, and two trees an allee of trees providing a comfortable 7 experience for pedestrians. Again, ground floor residential. Here’s a mixed-use project. We’ve had a 8 number of mixed-use projects over the last 10 or so years. Here is an example of a 12 foot effective 9 sidewalk width from curb face to building inclusive of the street trees. So in essence it’s a front yard 10 setback of four feet from the property line to the building. Here’s the Keys School; not too many 11 windows, the function of this did not support windows along the street. It’s unfortunate to have no 12 windows along the street. We hope for that and you can see there are not a lot of street trees. 13 14 More recently we’ve had projects come though, mixed-use projects on small lots where the ground floor 15 is structured parking and a little lobby to get you up to the office and one residential unit above. Most 16 folks on small lots propose one residential unit because it only requires two parking spaces. Here’s 17 another project approved recently, a mixed-use project with a bank on the bottom, office in the middle, 18 and some residential and again one residential unit. In this case you can see the allee was used to 19 achieve parking as well as the assessment district. Here’s the project you all saw as a site and design. 20 In this project there was a request for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) on a side street to be 21 setback further than the build-to line. We are suggesting elimination of the build-to line for all other 22 streets except El Camino Real and then again we are suggesting flexibility in that line to be a range. This 23 shows the detail. They had a deeper setback to the ground floor wall and some columns that came out 24 here. The columns happen to be at the 12 foot line. I thought I’d point out there’s a bicycle bulb out. 25 We would not really consider this as part of the effective sidewalk width. This is an aberration. We don’t 26 see much of this, but that’s something you may want to discuss. Here’s a recently recommended by the 27 ARB a mixed-use project as well and we can see there’s some pockets of deeper setback and glassy 28 walls. 29 30 When we met with ARB back in July of 2013 there was the concept of modified zoning and looking at the 31 right of way and considering where we’re going to get this additional sidewalk. So we’ve started with the 32 zoning process and that’s where we are today. I have bullets on what it means to be depending on 33 context. Again, this is something that ARB would be looking at. We have a quite a difference in uses 34 when there’s a residential or hotel we expect that would be setback farther. When there’s retail, nice to 35 have the storefront windows right up at the sidewalk so we can have a look in those windows. Lot size 36 makes a difference, large lots versus small lots. 37 38 Again, this is the draft ordinance with the key items. And I have some additional slides that you want to 39 see some additional images, I’m happy to show those. I will finish there and answer questions. 40 41 Acting Chair Keller: Do we have any clarifying questions from members of the Commission? Even though 42 I said I would do it in a different order I’m going to call a representative of the ARB now before the public 43 comment. 44 45 Randy Popp, Vice-Chair of the Architectural Review Board: Thank you very much for including me 46 tonight. I appreciated the conversation. Randy Popp representing the ARB today and I think what I 47 want to relay is that we didn’t have much further discussion about the sidewalk setback as it were. We 48 talked briefly about the concepts that were brought forward here and I think the consensus within the 49 Board was that we really should stick with this idea of having a range of depths available, a minimum, 50 but a range beyond that. And the Board confirmed their commitment to individual project by project 51 context based evaluation as we go forward. 52 53 The one thing that I think the Board reacted strongly to and I guess I’m jumping forward here a little bit, 54 but in regard to the CN zone language change that was being proposed there was not any concern in 55 regard to the increase of density from 15 to 20 per acre, but we all felt it was, there was really not just a 56 City of Palo Alto Page 3 unanimous but a very strong opinion that a reduction in FAR in conjunction with that was a real mistake 1 and that the expectation is that if we allow for greater number of units the FAR will of course just get 2 divided by that greater number of units we’ll get smaller units anyway and to take a use which is so 3 important in our town and to limit them further from being able to provide what their mission is for us 4 would be a terrible mistake. And so I really wanted to bring forward the Board’s opinion that we 5 encourage you not to support any reduction in FAR in the CN zone if a project takes advantage of the 6 increased density of 20 per acre. Thank you. 7 8 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you and we’ll now switch to public comment. And you’ll have three minutes 9 each. 10 11 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The first speaker is Yatin Patel followed by Kamal Nair. Can, is Yatin here? 12 13 Yatin Patel: Good evening, my name is Yatin Patel. I’m a local real estate attorney and a hotelier and we 14 own a property on El Camino Real just south of Page Mill Road. So we did attend the town hall style 15 meeting about a week, week and a half ago and there was a lot of concern about sort of the impetus of 16 why we’re going through this discussion, what’s the impetus for wanting wider sidewalks along what 17 amounts to really a highway. El Camino Real is not necessarily, not really pedestrian friendly. There 18 aren’t very many pedestrians walking up and down El Camino generally and a lot of the owners along El 19 Camino felt that for pedestrian friendly type things we’ve got California Avenue, we’ve got University 20 Avenue, we’ve got Midtown, that there are other places to sort of achieve this pedestrian, there are other 21 areas in Palo Alto that are pedestrian friendly certainly not the king’s highway. 22 23 Specifically with respect to the proposed amendment there were several scenarios, I know it addresses 24 flexibility of depending on what use you have. There was some real concern about whether what 25 happens in the case if there’s a fire and it burns your building down well now are you governed by the 26 new amendment because technically you’re redeveloping or you may need to redevelop or are you still 27 grandfathered in? So these are some of the things that we didn’t feel like were addressed. 28 29 The other thing is I think most people wanted to know again why are we going through this exercise? Is 30 it because there’s a public clamoring for buildings not to be so close to the lot line in reaction to the 31 supermarket on Alma or is there some real some other reason why we’re pushing for this? I personally 32 brought up the fact that if you’ve got one property that’s redeveloping and the neighbor’s not 33 redeveloping well then you might have an 18 foot sidewalk for maybe 50 feet and then when you get to 34 the next portion of the sidewalk well now you’re going to have an 8 foot sidewalk. So the inconsistency 35 of, the potential inconsistency of the sidewalks even on the same block. So these are just some of the 36 concerns we don’t feel I think the last point I know I’m supposed to sum up here, but the last point is 37 that a lot of owners felt like it amounts to… 38 39 Acting Chair Keller: You can finish your sentence. 40 41 Mr. Patel: Ok. A lot of owners felt that it amounted to a taking of their property. You know if they want 42 to sell in the future then they basically have to forfeit 10 feet if they’re selling to a developer the 43 developer is going to take that in a factor and their property values may go down. 44 45 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. 46 47 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Kamal Nair followed by Ken Weng. 48 49 Acting Chair Keller: To save some time when you’re name is called as being next could you position 50 yourself over by the, behind the speaker so we can switch quickly? Thank you. 51 52 Kamal Nair: Good afternoon everyone, thank you for giving me the chance to address my concern. I am 53 at 3305 El Camino Real and I’ve been there since 1973. And I agree with Yatin because he says 54 everything that we all believe in and I think it’s a wrong idea for us to give that now because if we do 55 now like what’s going to happen to us in the future? We don’t care about now, which makes sense, but 56 City of Palo Alto Page 4 what about in the future? If we decide we want to sell it to the it will deplete the amount for our 1 property so I strongly believe that I don’t support it and that’s the way I feel about it because I think it’s 2 going to hurt and the inconsistency is what I don’t like: 18, 4, I mean it’s going to look terrible. This is El 3 Camino. Nobody is going to walk on El Camino. I’ve been there since ’73 and I don’t see people walking 4 there. There are many areas where they can go to walk and I see it’s just not going to help the property 5 owner. Thank you. 6 7 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. 8 9 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Ken Weng followed by Tracy May. 10 11 Ken Weng: Hi, my name is Ken Weng and I’m an owner of a property at 3700 El Camino Real. We have 12 lived in the area for more than 30 years and over the past 20 years we have looked into redeveloping our 13 property, but we faced numerous zoning each time. In the early 1990’s our property was approved for a 14 sizeable office space plus eight residential units. Today it pencils out to be about 3,500 square feet of 15 retail space due to parking and other requirements. 16 17 I have many questions about properties on El Camino Real. Why are small retail businesses struggling 18 and not prospering? Why are the run down properties not being developed? Why are the developers not 19 buying up these properties? The truth is that the owners are trapped and holding properties with ever 20 restrictive land use. Now you ask us to make the sidewalk 18 feet comprising ten to twelve percent of 21 our 100 feet deep property. Parking lots need to be replaced in the back and we’ll lose more space due 22 to layouts. The result is insignificant loss in useable footage and the value of the property. Why are 23 small property owners bearing the disproportionate burden of this change? The new larger buildings and 24 the construction all have less than 12 feet sidewalks. The Grand Boulevard will be full of six feet to eight 25 feet sidewalks for decades. Palo Alto City seems to be focused on larger development is obvious, 26 oblivious to small property owners. Cafe Borrone is often used as an example of an ideal development 27 the Grand Boulevard, but it’s on a two acre lot with totally underground parking. Mountain View has 28 done a lot of economic analysis; they are increasing FAR beyond 1.85 and working on creative solution 29 for parking spaces. They realized having mixed-use on small lots does not make much sense. The small 30 properties face negative incentive development before redevelopment. Instead of putting more 31 restrictions I think we need to provide more positive incentives. Palo Alto can stand tall and help small 32 property owners on El Camino Real who have been suffering disproportionately zoning. We’d love to see 33 a lively El Camino Real, but 12 foot sidewalk is more than wide enough for small lots. 34 35 Here are some proposals that can help some of the El Camino Real properties; allow small lots to be 36 residential only and at a higher density and taller. Residential use has the most effective land use in 37 these traffic nodes. Allow shallow lots to have shallow sidewalks and reduce the rear setbacks. And 38 many alleys are totally underutilized. 39 40 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. You can sum up, just (interrupted) 41 42 Mr. Weng: Ok, I’m almost done. Yes. Allow them to be used for parking access and allow them to be 43 setback to allow higher building to be built. The, I understand that we don’t have a Grand Boulevard 44 Champs-Élysées like style, but guess how many years you take? 45 46 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Next speaker please? And who’s up? 47 48 Tracy May: Hi, my name is (interrupted) 49 50 Acting Chair Keller: One second. 51 52 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Sorry, Tracy May followed by Cary Davis. 53 54 Ms. May: Sorry. Hi, I’m Tracy May the property owner of 2080 El Camino Real in Palo Alto. I was born I 55 Palo Alto and raised in my dad’s retail store on the El Camino where Barbeques Galore is located today. I 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 worked in my dad’s store for over 30 years and I have a key knowledge of the pedestrian usage along 1 the El Camino Real from Stanford Avenue to Palo Alto, I mean to California Avenue from the early Sixties 2 to the present. No one walks the El Camino. They don’t want to walk it back then or now. People walk 3 it only if they have to and only in short segments. Widening the El Camino Real sidewalks 15 to 18 feet 4 serves no useful purpose other than to restrict property owners’ freedoms and rights of the use of their 5 own land forcing them to give the City free use for their sidewalks and devaluating the properties along 6 the El Camino Real. 7 8 People in Palo Alto don’t want to walk or eat along a busy State highway because there are much nicer 9 places in town for these activities. Some businesses are so small that if they had to rebuild they would 10 have nothing left to build upon. Past and future restrictions have and will make it impossible for these 11 people to sell their properties. At the last meeting when these concerns were broached with staff, 12 owners were told repeatedly that these are challenges. I believe that staff is using the wrong verbiage. 13 A death sentence would be a more appropriate way to describe the owner’s dilemma. Challenges can be 14 overcome. What is happening to these small businesses and property owners cannot be overcome. I 15 support the ARB’s suggestion for exceptions to limit the sidewalk width to nine feet in front of retail 16 stores so these small businesses can maintain the visibility along the El Camino that is so vital to their 17 survival. 18 19 I am also reading for someone who can’t come today their speech, Melissa Coudenhaw. As an owner of 20 the property at 3876 El Camino Real I do not support the City’s proposition regarding setbacks and use of 21 private property to widen the sidewalks of El Camino. I find it absolutely unreasonable and absurd that 22 the City would try to take away private land that my family has struggled and worked for for years to 23 hold onto. This proposition does not only forcibly strip land from us property and business owners, but it 24 decreases our revenue directly by making business less visible for customers. Therefore, if the 25 proposition passes it will make it impossible for me to be able to afford to remodel my property. Thank 26 you very much. 27 28 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. 29 30 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Cary Davis followed by Brian Knudson. 31 32 Cary Davis: Good evening. I’d first like to speak for Mr. Hussein Boardbari who is the owner of the 33 location at 3880 El Camino and this is how it reads: I am outraged at the proposition of the City taking 34 my land and using it to widen the sidewalks of El Camino. The same land that I have worked my hands 35 to the bone for. Palo Alto property is valuable. The property is difficult to secure and finance as a small 36 business owner and resident of this beautiful City. Even if this proposition does not affect me in the near 37 future it will unjustly bring about excessive losses to those who have worked diligently to secure 38 properties like mine. I am a simple florist. The business is not all that profitable and in my old age of 60 39 years learning new trades is an arduous and bleak endeavor. I am in no way greedy and I have worked 40 for every dollar I have. I have worked 15 hours a day, seven days a week for longer than I can 41 remember. Securing this property has taken a toll on me and my family. It just does not seem fair for 42 the City to take away a part of all that I have to live on and also my children. 43 44 And this is from myself; I would just like to add my voice to those who have spoken this evening in 45 opposition to the proposed restrictions along El Camino Real. We who own properties derive our 46 livelihoods based on the square footage of our stores. Basically and fundamentally if you reduce the 47 amount of useable square footage of our properties you reduce the incomes derived from that lost 48 square footage. Furthermore, if you wish to sell our properties at some later time because of this 49 proposal it will reduce the property’s value. I’m not a lawyer and I’m not familiar with the legalities of 50 this proposal, but my own basic innate sense of right and wrong tell me that legislation intended to seize 51 one’s property for public use, in this case a sidewalk, without the owner’s consent and without 52 compensation is patently and unarguably wrong. You can call it what you want, but this is what it boils 53 down to. A new proposal has been issued by the ARB establishing a nine foot sidewalk, which given the 54 nature of the businesses of this area makes real sense and has my wholehearted support. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. 1 2 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Brian Knudson followed by Sal Giovannetto. 3 4 Brian Knudson: Hi, good evening. My name is Brian Knudson and I’m connected to 2082 El Camino Real. 5 My concern is the proposal to widen the sidewalk on the El Camino. In 2005 the sidewalk was increased 6 to a 12 foot. Now the proposal is asking for up to 18 feet. Based on context although there is flexibility 7 in the plan if it is codified I would have to assume up to 18 foot is possible. This would further limit your 8 ability to use your land to its full potential. Small properties are affected even more so. I believe it 9 would discourage property improvements if the City requires even more dedication of private property for 10 sidewalk. I feel a nine foot sidewalk can be practical, safe, and attractive. Thank you. 11 12 And I was also asked to read for Matthew Boardberry. He’s out of town today. He owns the property at 13 3878 El Camino and he has asked me to read this on his behalf. And he says the City’s proposal to widen 14 the sidewalk on El Camino using private property is ridiculous. I plan on remodeling the building at 3878 15 El Camino Real at some point and this proposition in the long run will cost me a fortune that I do not 16 have. I love this City and I would like to see wider sidewalks, but not by forcefully removing rights from 17 private property owners. Matthew Boardberry. Thank you. 18 19 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. 20 21 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Sal followed by Phyllis Cassel. 22 23 Sal Giovannetto: My name is Sal Giovannetto. I’m not a good speaker so and sometimes I’m a little be 24 hard when I talk, but let me tell you a little bit. I hear some people complain here about small lots. I am 25 here to complain with a lot of big lots. El Camino has always had bad zoning and that’s why nobody, I 26 haven’t built. I own those sites, I own two sites on both sides of El Camino about an acre and a half 27 each and they don’t make sense at all to build the way the zoning was. Now the way they want to do 28 now is to seal forever that that will I never develop. So right now I have tenants and that’s the only 29 people that you know rent on El Camino go from full massage to back massage to hand readers, car 30 repairs. So I think I agree with the Palo Alto Housing that if you really wanted somebody to do 31 something and build something you have to increase the floor ratio, you have to raise the density and the 32 ideal would be remove this commercial requirement on the first floor. Every tenant I have they don’t get 33 in from El Camino, they get in from the back alley or they get in through another neighbors. Nobody 34 wants to get in. 35 36 I have an office building called the Tan Building. It’s an office building which is located on El Camino and 37 the front doors are sealed. I’ve been owner of the building 10,000 square, 9,000 square feet or more 38 less, food store vacant since when I bought it seven years ago. No takers. So I think the only way the El 39 Camino can be valuable is allowed to put a housing, high density. As a matter of fact that’s what you say 40 I read on the paper all this and the lot should be residential. On the other hand then you tell people no, 41 don’t do, we want you to put commercial on the first floor. We want to limit your FAR. We want to 42 make sure you’re setback. So it’s not, it just doesn’t make sense. So if you want a valuable El Camino 43 just allow higher density and maybe remove this commercial requirement on the first floor. Thank you 44 very much. 45 46 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. 47 48 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Phyllis Cassel followed by Ben Cintz. 49 50 Phyllis Cassel: Ok, I’m Phyllis Cassel and I’m speaking for the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto in 51 place of Mary Alice Thornton our President. The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto believes 52 increasing the density of housing along El Camino transit corridor is wise to increase the supply of 53 housing and ultimately improve the environment by encouraging the use of mass transit. Thus we were 54 glad to see the increased density for the Housing Inventory Sites identified in the Housing Element 2007 55 to 2014 approved by the City Council last January. However, the League does not support the current 56 City of Palo Alto Page 7 proposal to reduce the FAR for the residential units in the designated CN sites along El Camino from 0.5 1 to 0.4 per acre. By increasing the density to 20 units per acre while not changing the FAR the size of 2 potential units has already been reduced. As there is no minimum density requirement a market rate 3 developer can put in as few units as the market will allow, noticed all the one residential units in the ones 4 that were done recently. Now I lost my place. 5 6 As there is no minimum density requirement the market rate developer can put in as few units as the 7 market will allow, but a nonprofit affordable housing developer is required by funding mechanisms such 8 as tax credit requirements to build for a greater density. In addition, affordable housing developers are 9 often required to provide other amenities such as community rooms to create a welcoming environment 10 for residents. This eats into the available square footage available for the unit itself. Furthermore this 11 change would limit the types of housing that could be built. 12 13 The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto believes that placing denser housing along transportation 14 corridors is good for the environment and our transportation systems as well as for the people who reside 15 in those units. Please do not create further barriers to the development of affordable housing along this 16 corridor. Please do not reduce the FAR for residential units where dwelling units are permitted at 20 per 17 acre. Thank you. 18 19 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. 20 21 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Ben Cintz followed by Simon Cintz. 22 23 Ben Cintz: Hi, my name is Ben Cintz. I live at 2823 Kipling Street in Palo Alto and my family owns two 24 properties on El Camino, one at 3885 El Camino the other at 3565 El Camino. And my brother will 25 address the particular properties and the history and so on. What I’d like to do is to say that I see this as 26 really involving two issues. One is that the build-to line requirement that the City has had, which has 27 resulted in reaction from the public because of large projects that have been built where that 28 requirement has been in place and I think of Miki’s Market and some other large developments. I think 29 the build-to line removing the build-to line requirement makes sense. It makes sense for those large 30 properties where all of a sudden you have a big mass at the street. That’s not an issue where you have 31 a 100 feet wide or a 50 foot wide piece of property, one that might be setback 8 feet, one that might be 32 setback 12 feet, it’s not an issue for those small properties. So I see, I think it’s a good idea to remove 33 the build-to line requirement, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to require a setback beyond that or to give 34 the implication that a setback is going to be required. 35 36 The second issue is this Grand Boulevard idea. And a lot of people have spoken about this and I’ve lived 37 in Palo Alto a good part of my life and I would agree with what they say. One doesn’t go to El Camino 38 for a stroll. One goes to El Camino because one has a particular purpose of doing something and then 39 getting back on that highway and going to wherever they’re going. And I think to use this Grand 40 Boulevard concept as a basis for action is only going to hurt the property owners in Palo Alto and force 41 them to sell to developers and I don’t think the City wants to force people to sell their property to 42 developers in order for them to be able to build something here. Thank you very much. 43 44 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. 45 46 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Simon Cintz followed by our last speaker, which is Joseph. 47 48 Simon Cintz: Hello, my name is Simon Cintz. You just heard my brother. He and I very rarely agree on 49 anything because we’re brothers of course, but in this case I do agree with what he has to say. I want to 50 talk a little bit about the history of the properties and whatever. One of our properties is located on El 51 Camino. You may be familiar with many people, it’s called Kraft Mattress. They’ve been there for over 52 40 years now. There have been about three different owners over that 40 years. The one that’s there 53 currently has been there for 20 some years. If you walk along that area you’ll notice that these are all 54 small mom and pop businesses. These are how people make their livings. This is really important to 55 them and the changes that you folks are proposing are hurting these small businesses. They are not 56 City of Palo Alto Page 8 going to move to Stanford Shopping Center, ok? El Camino is the environment they’ve been there. 1 They’re there because they make money, ok? And why do they make money is because they serve the 2 people of Palo Alto, people of Palo Alto come in those businesses, Kraft Mattress in our case or auto 3 repair… El Camino is one of the few places in Palo Alto where you find a variety of things. I mean you 4 don’t find that on University Avenue or California Avenue. There’s a variety of businesses on El Camino 5 and the sorts of things you’re proposing here are hurting the small businesses, are hurting the small 6 business owners, and they really have nowhere else to go. 7 8 And it, I was not able to attend the community meeting a few weeks ago, but I did get a copy of this 9 proposed ordinance here. It says findings and then lists various things like bicycling and consternation in 10 the community about, so on and so forth. The one finding that you didn’t find is that businesses and 11 commercial property owners are concerned that these changes will negatively impact the viability of the 12 El Camino Business District. And you’ve heard all of these people yet that’s not a finding. Maybe 13 because you didn’t ask, ok? No one asked me. I didn’t even find out about this until I got one of these 14 cards a month or so ago about the ARB meeting. Businesses in Palo Alto especially the ones on El 15 Camino really need the support of the Planning Commission and the City Council and they don’t need 16 what you folks are proposing. Thank you. 17 18 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you, and our final speaker? 19 20 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The final speaker is Joseph Rizza. 21 22 Joseph Rizza: Hi, my name is Joseph Rizza. I own the property at 3401 El Camino. It’s on the corner of 23 Fernando, which is the, I guess the northernmost boarder of the Barron/Ventura node. I’m asking the 24 City to delay voting adopting and implementing the proposal for wider sidewalks until or at least until we 25 can discuss other changes within the codes for FAR for height restrictions and the like. Built in flexibility 26 is not an objective measurement, but a 9 foot sidewalk or a 12 or 18 foot sidewalk is an objective 27 measurement. I’m on the east side of El Camino and I have the alley that’s about three or four blocks 28 long which severely limits the size of the lots. I am limited to about 70 feet of useable space, 80 feet is 29 the property line that goes into the alley. And taking up to 10 more feet from the property line for 30 setback should we, when we decide to improve the building will severely impact parking. We’re not in a 31 parking district as are most of those projects that were shared with us earlier. And it just limits any uses 32 of the building especially if we have to have 50 percent frontage on El Camino. Accessing parking is not 33 congruent with setting the building back and requiring 50 percent of the setback. 34 35 So I’m asking to delay this and have the City Planning Department discuss with the building owners 36 there’s a reason why these buildings have not been improved. Most of us have come to the City at one 37 point or another to improve these buildings only to get shut down and be told of the limitations that our 38 properties have. I have less than a quarter of an acre. So to be able to improve these buildings we want 39 to work with you to improve these buildings, not get further restrictions. Thank you. 40 41 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So first thank you to all the speakers and I’ll return it back to staff. You 42 may wish to address some of the comments made by the speakers. Do you want us to ask you questions 43 or do you want to go ahead and address them on your own? 44 45 Ms. French: I mean I’m happy to answer questions. We were there both the Director Gitelman and 46 myself were at the outreach meeting. We heard the concerns. The ARB we heard that recommendation 47 for the nine feet. We had Council direction and so we’re as asked by the Council we are coming back to 48 the Council with the recommendation that they directed us to do. They will be privy to all this, the 49 minutes, the discussion, and they can choose to delay adoption if they, if that’s what they want to do for 50 further discussion, but we committed to a timeline getting it to them. 51 52 Acting Chair Keller: Great, so let’s start off with a three minute session for each of us in terms of asking 53 any questions or and if we need to go a little longer let’s just ask questions of staff and in particular if 54 you want to ask questions that may have been asked by members of the public that’s fine. So who 55 wants to lead us off? Commissioner Alcheck. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. At our recent retreat we discussed being more efficient with our time and 2 specifically using our commentary to articulate our views clearly highlighting areas where we have 3 concerns quickly so that we can engage in more rounds with each other. So with that in mind I’m going 4 to do that. 5 6 During our February 26th meeting I shared my support for the Grand Boulevard Initiative. We should 7 have a grand vision for this thoroughfare. Our City is not the only city working on this. I think over 30 8 cities from San Jose to Daly City are attempting to grapple with the issues involved here and I would 9 argue that so far Redwood City has demonstrated the greatest level of competency with respect to this 10 initiative. And to be clear on my view the vision is not that residents from all over, from all corners of 11 Palo Alto will get in their cars and drive to El Camino and walk up and down the sidewalks. I think the 12 idea is to create a more inviting framework for a mixed-use residential development all along El Camino. 13 And the idea is that future residents of this area can enjoy a walkable retail and restaurant friendly 14 community. 15 16 I think the soul of this initiative is about increasing density. In fact, I think any effort to reduce the 17 potential of a lot’s redevelopment is unacceptable and I feel like I’m being put in a very difficult position 18 here because I support this vision. I think that we have to articulate an ordinance that considers 19 increasing the FAR. Not keeping it the same, dramatically increasing it. I can’t imagine a scenario and I 20 said this last time I think or I think I said it when we talked about the design guidelines, I don’t 21 remember. There’s just, we, I refuse, I’m and I say this to you guys directly; I refuse to support any 22 initiative where we increase the sidewalk space, we reduce the developable square footage on these lots 23 without dramatically increasing height. I think the idea is about redevelopment. With all due respect to 24 our palm readers and massage therapists and our car repair facilities I hope they continue to be 25 successful, but our goal here is to increase the walkable livability of this place. And I think we do that 26 with dramatic increases in density. 27 28 And I think we get greater density with greater height. And this should be a canyon. I think someone 29 described it as a canyon, not like a two-story or one-story Route 66 style thoroughfare. So I just want to 30 throw it out there. I have serious problems with the idea we don’t have greater height allowances. I 31 know that the City said something like they’re going to explore height increases at a later time. I think 32 that’s a mistake and it’s such a big mistake that I can’t support this initiative without us considering 33 height increases and density increases so that all of these business owners come back to us and say, “I 34 think this is the greatest idea ever, I cannot wait to redevelop my property. It’s going to have a florist on 35 the first floor and there will be six stories worth of awesome office space and retail and restaurants.” Not 36 all restaurants have to be on the first floor by the way. 37 38 Acting Chair Keller: Before I go on to the next speaker I’ll just ask a clarifying question about from the 39 City Attorney. And that is in terms of the notice for this meeting do we have scope to be able to address 40 the issues that Commissioner Alcheck brought up? In terms of the ordinance, would there be sufficient 41 notice for doing that? 42 43 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Yes, Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. You certainly 44 can talk about them in terms of an overall recommendation on further things to explore and as sort of 45 conditions or caveats to your recommendation, but we can’t get into the particulars of drafting a Motion 46 without further notice to concerned property owners. 47 48 Acting Chair Keller: So the suggestions that Commissioner Alcheck he can make them as ideas, but we 49 can’t put them in the formal ordinance that we recommend to the City Council? 50 51 Ms. Silver: Yes, that’s correct. 52 53 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. The next person anyone? Commissioner King, do you wish to go ahead? 54 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: So I have a question for staff. So the way the draft is, the ordinance is drafted 1 right now can you walk through in terms of in your mind is there a loss of development for the property 2 owners or is this mitigated? And maybe you can explain either way. 3 4 Ms. French: Setting back a building further from the property line along El Camino can result in the loss 5 of ground floor retail space or other space that’s forward towards the street. One of the factors is the 6 size of the lot. A larger lot might access from a side street let’s say, might be able to use the 7 underground area for parking in which case there’s more ground floor to extend that ground floor retail 8 area let’s say farther back into the property. So I think it’s a balancing act when there’s a lot size 9 concern I think as these property owners are mentioning it’s quite burdensome in a smaller property the 10 partial setting than in a large parcel. We’ve seen assemblage of parcels such as the Equinox 11 development where they can go underground or they can make use of the property size to not be as 12 affected. The City Attorney, the Assistant City Attorney may have other comments about that taking. 13 14 Ms. Silver: Yes, I don’t in the answer to a question of whether this is considered a taking of property 15 rights, which would be legally compensable; the answer is no we don’t think that is the case. This is a 16 development standard and so cities have well established powers to adopt development standards on 17 properties: setbacks and height limits and those types of things are very common development standards 18 that all cities impose. And of course it should be emphasized that this particular ordinance the way it’s 19 drafted does not require property owners to dedicate that extra setback to the City to be used as a 20 sidewalk or right of way. It’s framed in terms of a setback rather than a dedicated right of way. 21 22 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok great, thank you. So for the cases of the smaller property owners how can 23 that in fact be mitigated? Because I think some of the property owners make a good point that this is 24 kind of a disincentive. So maybe can staff talk a little bit about how some of this is mitigated in this 25 ordinance, in this draft proposal? 26 27 Ms. French: Again, I think the flexibility provisions that we’ve placed in here I think do allow the ARB to 28 provide a recommendation as to allowing the building to be closer. Again, based on context which we 29 tried to give indications about what those types of things including land use, property size, and other 30 factors including nearby buildings and such. If it’s a retail use having the building come farther forward 31 towards the sidewalk and not having it farther back probably makes sense on a smaller lot. And so I 32 think there is flexibility in the ordinance to allow for that. If it’s an office use the second floor might be a 33 good place to put the office and that can come forward a bit as long as there’s room for street trees to 34 grow. So if the ground floor is setback to allow comfortable walking and maybe some landscaping the 35 upper floor can come forward and maybe make up the difference at the second floor level for the floor 36 area not at the ground floor. Again, they get, the property owners do get squeezed because of parking 37 requirements. They’ve got to put it somewhere. So that’s going to restrict what can go on the ground 38 floor anyway. 39 40 Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner King? 41 42 Commissioner King: Thank you. So let’s see, regarding and I’m trying to follow here, I see on ARB their 43 recommendation did not go with the reduction in FAR and I’m trying to find that in the… a reference to 44 the changes that you made in the, so are we as the ordinance is written now are you saying we are 45 reducing the FAR? As it’s proposed? 46 47 Ms. French: Correct. The provision on the CN zoned sites that allow per Council direction up to 20 units 48 per acre it’s not a requirement to provide 20 units per acre, but it’s an allowance for that if the property 49 owner so chooses to provide 20 units per acre then the floor area is reduced as the ordinance suggests 50 or states. If they choose to do a 15 unit per acre product the floor area is the same. It’s a 1 to 1 along 51 El Camino. 52 53 Commissioner King: Remains the same as it is currently? 54 55 Ms. French: Correct. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 Commissioner King: Ok. And so part of that goal I believe was to, the thought was the more studio if 2 you focus studio/one bedroom that then you’re going to get less impact on the schools, probably more 3 people who use transportation. Do we believe that the market conditions would be such that those units 4 would be built smaller? I guess under the two scenarios, higher FAR or the lower proposed FAR and 20 5 units per acre, what do we think would happen with the type of units to be built? 6 7 Ms. French: Well we have had some feedback from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) that 8 believe that this is not a good idea as they’ve communicated because it’s again a challenge to provide 9 more units and yet be further restricted with the floor area. So I guess that’s a comment from an active 10 user of increasing density for affordable housing. 11 12 Commissioner King: Ok. And then I guess my other question is regarding this issue around smaller lot 13 sizes and the impacts on them. Have we done any, I mean for me it would be good to have concrete 14 numbers that oh on this and maybe take a real parcel and say currently this is what could be developed 15 on this small parcel under existing ordinance and with the new ordinance this is what would be, they 16 would be possible. So we’d have an understanding of the magnitude of the impact to small lot owners in 17 particular. 18 19 Ms. French: I can respond thorough the Chair. I think it’s a good idea to show graphically, visually what 20 the ordinance would manifest in implementation. 21 22 Commissioner King: Ok, because I just if I understand that we believe legally we’d have the capacity to 23 make these changes, but there’s also if I saw oh well some person’s their development rights are going 24 to be cut by 50 percent in seeking our goal here, then I would be certainly less likely to vote for it if it 25 were a more nominal impact. And overall I understand the goal of the project and there were many 26 comments by particularly by the property owners that oh well nobody wants to walk El Camino Real and I 27 think an overarching goal here is to make it so that people would want to walk El Camino Real and so 28 there’s a chicken and egg thing there. So I’m supportive that it would be better to be walkable, but I 29 want to understand better the impacts to those property owners. So, ok. Thank you. 30 31 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you, so a few questions. Firstly, if existing businesses are, if the existing small 32 businesses in a property and the property isn’t redeveloped in other words the existing small businesses 33 can stay that’s less likely to hurt the businesses then if the existing businesses of the property is 34 redeveloped or am I confused? 35 36 Ms. French: I think you’re saying if the existing business stays they don’t have to do anything. I mean 37 that’s, and if they redevelop then they do have to do something. 38 39 Acting Chair Keller: The existing business has to move somewhere else, right? 40 41 Ms. French: Well… 42 43 Acting Chair Keller: Or close. 44 45 Ms. French: They don’t have to move, but yeah if they redevelop the entire property and they’re currently 46 at eight feet and they want to put an office there they will face coming forward to an ARB that takes a 47 look at the use, ground floor office let’s say, and they may suggest that go farther back from the 48 sidewalk. 49 50 Acting Chair Keller: But I’m saying if you tear down the building and build a new building the existing 51 business has to go somewhere else. 52 53 Ms. French: Oh, I see what you’re saying. I didn’t get that. Yes, there’s a time period for construction 54 where it’s pretty hard to operate a business. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Acting Chair Keller: Right, so for existing businesses redevelopment doesn’t help existing businesses. It 1 might help the new businesses that go in there, but not the existing businesses. The second thing is in 2 terms of walkable community, if we basically only build housing and don’t build retail how does that help 3 a walkable community? Or maybe it doesn’t. 4 5 Ms. French: Well there is housing on El Camino. Arbor Real is one such project and for better or for 6 worse it’s there. There are trees on both sides of the sidewalk and I think the vegetation has grown in 7 nicely and I think it’s no longer the poster child for something that’s horrible. I think there is a possibility 8 that residential works in certain situations. We want to encourage to have ground floor commercial or 9 non-residential, but it’s worth a discussion. 10 11 Acting Chair Keller: If we had more, if we had retail dispersed through El Camino then would, then for 12 the housing that’s added would that increase its walkability or if we had 100 percent housing and no 13 retail would that improve its walkability? 14 15 Ms. French: I don’t think we want 100 percent residential along El Camino. I don’t think that would 16 improve walkability. No. 17 18 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Ok, so and in terms of transportation corridors the consideration is to the 19 extent that people live on El Camino, do we expect them to only use the transportation? Do we expect 20 people to be driving at all? I mean what; do you have an idea of what the mix is there? 21 22 Ms. French: We would hope that some would choose to use public transit and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 23 when that comes along. Maybe not so much bicycles along El Camino, but…we would hope that. We 24 wouldn’t expect that everyone would choose to use transit. 25 26 Acting Chair Keller: But the BRT stations are at Downtown Transit Station, California Avenue, 27 Charleston/Arastradero, and those are the only BRT stations in the City. Is that right? 28 29 Ms. French: That’s the plan. They don’t exist today, but eventually. 30 31 Acting Chair Keller: At least the 522 stations. They’re not going to plan on anymore I don’t think. 32 33 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: Correct, well the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is going to be 34 released soon so there’s no determination made yet for the BRT. I think to your overall point though the 35 question isn’t whether or not people are not going to drive. I think the overall goal is to have people 36 drive at a reduced rate because they’re near different types of uses, they’re near a corridor where there’s 37 different options versus in single-family home neighborhoods there is no option except the car. 38 39 Acting Chair Keller: Great, thank you. 40 41 Mr. Aknin: I think that’s the overall goal is reduce rates of auto ownership and driving, but not complete 42 elimination of it. 43 44 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you, and I’ll ask one question of the City Attorney about that was brought up 45 about disaster replacement, because I don’t think that was addressed. And if a building which is there 46 existing and presumably nonconforming with the new zoning were to be burned down or destroyed in an 47 earthquake could they rebuild the exact same building in the exact same space if they didn’t add any 48 square footage and didn’t change the footprint of the building, didn’t change the everything? Can they 49 rebuild it exactly in the same place? 50 51 Ms. Silver: I’ll defer to Amy on that one. 52 53 Ms. French: I have my finger on the pulse of the fire damage here in the code. We do have the 54 noncomplying facility replacement provision here. It talks about if the cost to replace or reconstruct a 55 noncomplying portion of the facility does not exceed 50 percent then the damaged portion may be 56 City of Palo Alto Page 13 replaced or reconstructed. So if it’s 50 percent of the building goes down in a fire they can build it back 1 to what it was. If the entire thing burns down then they get to keep the amount of, per this one section 2 they get to keep the amount of floor area that was there before, but they do need to follow the rules for 3 other, the other development standards such as height, setback, etcetera. 4 5 Acting Chair Keller: So I guess we’ll go around in the same order. Commissioner Alcheck and why don’t 6 we give people five minutes to have longer comments? Thank you. 7 8 Commissioner Alcheck: I know that you had suggested that to a certain extent these changes that I’m 9 mentioning can’t be incorporated because of the way that notice was put out. I’m suggesting that 10 moving forward on this version would be imprudent because it lacks those fundamental components. So 11 I’m not suggesting that our recommendation tonight include a vast number of changes, I think our 12 recommendation should be this is not ready because it lacks… I think we should not recommend. I’m 13 seeing our City Attorney’s face look quizzical, but my suggestion is that we don’t recommend this draft 14 ordinance in its current form. 15 16 I want to say, I want to share with you guys I recently attended a three day conference that was for the 17 Planning Commissioners that was hosted by the California League of Cities and on the third day of the 18 conference the keynote for the closing session was this gentleman named Tony Seba of Stanford 19 University and his presentation was entitled “The Future of Transportation, Mega Transit Will Soon 20 Disrupt Public and Private Transportation.” And I’m not going to, I can’t articulate everything he said, 21 but the gist of it was that in 15 years this professor of Clean Technology and Entrepreneurship at 22 Stanford, the gist of it was in 15 years or in 15 years’ time the market penetration for self-driving 23 automobiles will be overwhelming. So whether or not you believe that in 15 years’ time you are actually 24 going to buy a self-driving car, I think sort of the point I’m trying to make is that Mr. Seba suggested that 25 self-driving cars could operate in lanes that were half the size of our current lanes. Our current lanes are 26 sort of twice the size of cars. 27 28 Now the point is that we are very inefficiently using our highway and road space and when I’m 29 suggesting these density increases and these height increases and people look around and they go how 30 the heck is this going to get parked and my lot’s only X square feet and how could I possibly have a retail 31 space and six floors of mixed-use and be able to park it? We should, the point here is not to create an 32 environment where it’s quid pro quo; well we took away some sidewalk space, but we gave them a little 33 more FAR. I think our goal here should be to encourage redevelopment. So we should be giving a lot 34 more than we’re taking. Or we should be presenting an environment that is rich with opportunity versus 35 like some sort of fair trade space. I understand it’s within our reign the issues of taking are really not 36 relevant, but I’m just trying to make this point that we should be encouraging the kind of redevelopment 37 we want as opposed to making it just as hard as it is now or less easy and I think it wouldn’t be prudent 38 for us to make these decisions solely based on how we’ve been redeveloping these properties in the past. 39 I think we have to consider what the 15, these buildings that are going to get redeveloped all of these 40 owners who are considering redevelopment their buildings should hopefully last 60 to 50 to 60 years. I’m 41 hoping. Many of our buildings in the downtown are that age that is being considered for redevelopment. 42 So in 60 years I hope I just push a button and I get to work, but that’s beside the point. 43 44 The point is that we need to encourage this redevelopment and the PAHC doesn’t support some of these 45 components of this ordinance because it discourages housing. And I think that you heard Board Member 46 Popp suggest that that was a problem from the ARB’s perspective. And I think we need to echo that we 47 have those concerns too and maybe we can’t discuss amending the, I guess the recommended 48 ordinance, but I do think we could ask I do think our recommendation could encourage City Council to 49 consider amending it. And I do think our recommendation could encourage Planning to bring to City 50 Council changes, etcetera that are properly noticed. I don’t, there’s a part of me that doesn’t believe that 51 the Planning Department is opposed to these ideas. I think that they’re trying to achieve as much as 52 they can and I think I get the sense that they’re trying to bite off small portions of this vision. So I would 53 encourage you guys to be more bold, but. 54 55 Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner, Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka do you want to be second as before? 56 City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Sure. I largely agree with Commissioner Alcheck. I think if I look at El Camino 2 Real there’s a lot of property there that could be redeveloping in terms of I’m not sure that it’s the best 3 use of land as it is today and so I think encouraging redevelopment is actually a good thing. I’m not sure 4 we have the right notice to discuss all the issues, but I think having incentives to make it a better place is 5 actually a good thing and we should try to encourage that. 6 7 I think the goals of what this is trying to do in terms of having a wider sidewalk is actually very, is 8 actually very important as well. And just because it’s not walkable today doesn’t mean it’s not good to be 9 walkable. I think it is in generally good and I think the future might be very different in terms of the 10 importance of the car or maybe new technologies or new ways of transportation. So I largely agree with 11 Commissioner Alcheck on this one. 12 13 Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner King. 14 15 Commissioner King: Thank you. Let’s see, so this I definitely think this is one of the more complex issues 16 that’s come before us and I’m not an urban planner. I am only trying to apply the reasonable person 17 tests and does it make sense to me? Right now the impacts are unclear to me of this. We’re trying to 18 solve an aesthetic problem, which is always a challenge because not everyone will agree on the problem 19 and the solution. And then the part that I’m hesitant on moving forward is that the impacts are unclear 20 and I think it would be helpful to have the two analyses I’d like to see fleshed out are: what are the 21 impacts if you took three different lot sizes one at the small end of the range and again it would be ideal 22 to see a real, an actual parcel if that’s if we’re allowed to do that, at the smallest end of the range, the 23 largest end of the range, and a midsized parcel the median sized parcel and understand ok, here’s what 24 would happen if that property would be developed to its maximum today and then post ordinance. And 25 then the other analysis I’d like to understand is and this won’t be as clear, but is what really would 26 happen particularly when you look at the non-affordable housing or not a PAHC type project, but a what 27 would a developer build under the new increased density and then the two scenarios for the FARs. That 28 would help me understand what we think is going to be the impact of making this change to reduce the 29 FARs for a 20 unit per acre zoning parcel. 30 31 There’s obviously an, I also think and this is not atypical that we didn’t hear a lot early when it first came 32 to us there weren’t a lot of people here. Now it’s reaching a phase where things are getting closer and 33 so interested parties, affected parties are now raising their voices. I don’t understand I don’t follow all 34 the logic; for instance, the part about people being forced to sell to developers. If they’ve got an existing 35 use and an existing building then it seems to me that they won’t be impacted by this so I don’t quite 36 follow that. I don’t follow if people are making their living from their existing mom and pop buildings 37 how this change will affect them. In fact I don’t want to say it’s the right thing, but if it makes 38 development of that property less likely then they probably have more chance of staying there and 39 certainly if they’re on a lease. I mean I look down El Camino Real and I don’t, I can’t think of one single 40 building that’s been redeveloped and the owners of that building and of the existing business stayed in 41 that building. I just I’m going down the Chipotle, the First Republic Bank, the State Farm, the dentist all 42 of those someone new comes in and at much higher rents. So I’m not quite following the logic that this 43 is going to put people, tear people out of their current use, mom and pop use. But I do understand that 44 it would impact people’s net worth and so maybe if you owned that lot and you’re the mom and pop 45 store in there now an you want to sell then that could impact your net worth, but I do not see how its 46 impacting existing uses. To the contrary actually. 47 48 So I using my reasonable person test don’t think or I’m not there to move this forward to Council and say 49 that we should adopt this without further study and ideally further input from the community. I’m not 50 sure of the best format or venue to open this up to continued discussion, but I would not move forward. 51 52 Hillary Gitelman, Director: Chair Keller if I could make a suggestion? 53 54 Acting Chair Keller: Sure. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Ms. Gitelman: You know I think the ARB set an example here that the Commission may wish to follow. 1 Obviously we could continue studying this as Commissioner King indicates, but we’ve been through a lot 2 of meetings on this already. I wonder if the Commission would consider a recommendation to Council 3 outlining those things that you would like changed. It means that Council could like if they accepted your 4 recommendation they couldn’t adopt the ordinance on the spot, they’d have to direct us to go back and 5 make those changes. But for example the ARB articulated a recommendation to adopt, but with the 6 change to the nine foot sidewalk width and with the elimination of the reduction in FAR for those sites at 7 20 units to the acre. The Commission could similarly I think embrace the vision of the Grand Boulevard 8 and this idea of a walkable corridor and improving the mix of uses and the amount of pedestrian 9 amenities along the corridor and there’s some good things in this ordinance that I think all of you agree 10 with the changes to the build-to line, the ability to be flexible in terms of setback based on lot size and 11 use, but perhaps the Commissioners could agree on those things that you don’t like in the ordinance and 12 like the ARB recommend that those be deleted or amended. Just a suggestion. 13 14 MOTION 15 16 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So a couple things. So firstly I think that the issue of increasing height, 17 which is not something that I agreed with initially, is something that will require significantly more study. 18 And it is something that is not simply a zoning ordinance type thing. It is really an issue for the Our Palo 19 Alto process and we’re going through this Our Palo Alto process that’s essentially a two year process, 20 little bit less than two years now where we are figuring out how much we want Palo Alto to grow, where 21 and how and when. And so that’s really the right venue for the decision of how high we should have the 22 buildings on El Camino Real, how much increased FAR we may wish to have on El Camino Real. This is 23 not the proper venue for that and we should not consider El Camino Real in that regard in isolation of 24 that discussion. So I would encourage us to defer that kind of discussion and wrap it into the Our Palo 25 Alto process. 26 27 The second thing is that because the minimum is currently 12 feet setback and the ordinance has a 28 minimum of 12 feet setback as proposed it is possible to build if the ARB agrees based on context and a 29 bunch of criteria it’s possible to build more or less what is basically the existing zoning. The difference is 30 that there is a limitation that at 20 people, if a developer builds at 20 units per acre then there’s a reduce 31 in the FAR allowable on CN zoned properties on the Housing Inventory. So firstly, I think that that is a, 32 that combination is a bad idea. And the reason the combination is a bad idea is because I think we want 33 to encourage smaller units in general. There have been a lot of big units being built in Palo Alto, but 34 there’s a shortage of small units. And the demographics in Palo Alto says we’re going to have more 35 seniors and we also have a lot of young people 20 and 30 something’s without kids. We need housing 36 for them and smaller units provide housing for them. This is a disincentive to provide housing for these 37 smaller units. And therefore essentially what I’d like to see is the opposite. 38 39 The idea is that if you want to reduce FAR, reduce it across the board and not reduce it when you 40 increase the density. In fact, I think that the main requirements for density should be based on parking 41 and FAR and building envelope and things like that and people build whatever they make sense within 42 those requirements as opposed to simply saying ok we’re going to have some arbitrary number of units 43 that you can require and I think that makes more sense because if somebody wants to build small units 44 and they can park it and they can fit it within the FAR God bless them from my point of view. We want 45 to encourage that not discourage that. 46 47 So I think we were directed with these changes essentially by the City Council and these changes came 48 from them. They started it in colleagues’ memo. It was voted on the City Council to direct us to do this. 49 So I think that we should to the extent that we can make incremental changes to what we’re being 50 proposed that’s fine, but to the extent that we can move forward on this under the Council direction I 51 think that that is a good idea. In particular I have a few things that I think will be worthwhile clarifying. 52 One of those things clarifying was mentioned by staff and that is if you have a street bulb out for a BRT 53 or for example for tree or whatever that that should not be considered part of the effective sidewalk 54 width, because you really you want that space for something else. You don’t really want the building 55 coming out to take away the space that’s meant for BRT. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 The second thing is that the staff narrative talks about removing the build-to setbacks on side streets; 2 however, that has not been removed from the ordinance. So on Pages 3 and 7 of the ordinance I would 3 suggest deleting that. And the third thing is that there’s a difference in language for Table 3 on Page 3 4 and Table 3 on Page 7 with respect to on Page 3 it says “minimum yard for lot lines abutting opposite 5 residential districts or residential BC districts,” and the language in Table 7 is different from that and I 6 would suggest conforming that language if that could be possible. And I’m not going to make that as 7 something in a Motion, but that’s something I would suggest staff do before it goes to the Council. 8 9 So I am going to offer a Motion that we recommend to the City Council that they first adopt the 10 ordinance as proposed by staff with the two changes that we, that they ignore street bulb outs for the 11 purposes of transportation or street trees and second that we delete the provision for minimum of 32 12 percent of side street build-to setback on Tables 3 and 4. That’s the first element. The second thing is 13 that further consideration of height and FAR be part of the Our Palo Alto process and be considered in 14 the evaluation of future growth plans for the City. 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: Just a question on the Motion. Was it your intention I was trying to follow your remarks, 17 was your intention to recommend against the reduction in FAR for the sites that are at 20 units to the 18 acre? Or that’s something you want to put in that future study as well? 19 20 MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND 21 22 Acting Chair Keller: I’m going to leave that there and I don’t think any, I’m not sure if any of my fellow 23 Commissioners would suggest that or not, but to the extent that any of them want… I guess I will put 24 that in there. That also remove the reduction of the FAR on 20 units per acre and I guess I’ll let my 25 remarks stand on the conditions on which I think that that makes sense. Do we have a second? We 26 have a Motion being offered by Commissioner Alcheck. 27 28 MOTION 29 30 Commissioner Alcheck: I would like to suggest that we recommend that City Council direct staff to 31 incorporate this sidewalk discussion into the greater discussion that revolves around I guess Our Palo Alto 32 and the height limit. And I guess that implies that we would be recommending that they don’t adopt the 33 current draft ordinance. There was a… and I want to say that there’s a, and the reason why I’m 34 suggesting this is because there’s a part of me that doesn’t believe that the City Council has the political 35 capital right now to have the sort of discussion that they need to on this issue. And I think that if we 36 incorporate it into the envelope of Our Palo Alto and allow it to be a part of a discussion that includes a 37 lot of changes it’ll be a more complete process and potentially a more successful one. 38 39 And I guess while I have the mic real quick I want to add that there was sort of a median, medium point 40 here and many of these really small lots may get consolidated and it may be really difficult to look at a 41 particular parcel and go how would this ever get redeveloped if the sidewalk got increased and I lost 42 some floor area, but another developer may look at a series of four or five or six adjacent parcels and see 43 some much bigger opportunity. And so I think there’s I think that this is a, this, I think when City Council 44 directed staff to go down this road it was a different political climate maybe. I don’t know, but I think 45 this discussion should be broader and so my Motion is that we recommend that they don’t adopt this 46 draft ordinance and alternative incorporate this discussion into a greater discussion related to issues like 47 height and density and potentially the Our Palo Alto Initiative. 48 49 Acting Chair Keller: Could you repeat that so I could get it down? So you recommend that not adopt the 50 draft ordinance and instead? 51 52 Commissioner Alcheck: Incorporate this discussion of the, I guess sidewalk size into a discussion that is 53 more multifaceted and includes height and density and potentially in the envelope of the Our Palo Alto 54 discussion. I don’t know. I mean when we started this discussion it had to do with the Grand Boulevard 55 City of Palo Alto Page 17 and we’ve gotten to this very specific component of it and ignored all the other factors that may or may 1 not have a huge impact on the Grand Boulevard success. 2 SECOND 3 4 Acting Chair Keller: Ok. Do we have a second? So second, Motion by Commissioner Alcheck second by 5 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka. Commissioner Alcheck do you wish to speak to your Motion? 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck: I think I’ve done it justice. 8 9 Acting Chair Keller: Great. Commissioner, Vice-Chair, Acting Vice-Chair Alcheck, I mean Acting Vice-Chair 10 Tanaka. Sorry. 11 12 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Thank you. I support this, I support it although for a different reason and my 13 reason is more just that I think the concept is right. I think Grand Boulevard concept is right, but I think 14 when City Council asked for this to be, to go forward I think in a sense they are asking for us to do 15 homework, right? I think they’re asking for us to see well, what are the ramifications? They’re not 16 blindly asking us to say, “Ok, do this.” So I think there’s some implications that are involved in this and I 17 think there’s some important elements that still need to be considered to really make this thing complete. 18 So that’s why I support this Motion as well. Thank you. 19 20 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Commissioner King do you wish to speak? 21 22 Commissioner King: Yes, but first I would like to ask a question of staff is that? 23 24 Acting Chair Keller: Sure. 25 26 Commissioner King: Am I wrong? Ok, so can you explain to me on the process so now the ARB has sent 27 along their recommendation to Council, correct? And so now we’re being asked to do or that’s staff’s 28 proposal that we do the same. And so if now we say either we don’t, we come to no Motion that we can 29 all support or a majority support or we move along with recommending to Council not to adopt the 30 ordinance as is the current Motion what will happen? 31 32 Ms. Gitelman: Well the Council will receive the recommendations and they will have the ability to either 33 adopt the ordinance or reject it and ask us to go back and change it. 34 35 Commissioner King: Ok, regardless if we pass no Motion tonight or if we pass Commissioner Alcheck’s 36 Motion the ordinance would still go to Council for review? 37 38 Ms. Gitelman: I believe that’s true, yes. 39 40 Commissioner King: Ok. Ok, alright then I’m, I, again I’m hesitant to support the ordinance as it stands 41 now and I’m not quite sure I don’t have the information to even make a reasonable person proposals for 42 changes to that and so I think that and I apologize to staff because I know opening up a big discussion is 43 probably, I don’t think that was on your work plan for this upcoming year so I apologize for the intent of 44 opening up more discussion, but I think that’s the right thing to do in the big picture. 45 46 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, I’ll reiterate that I think that we could have passed this ordinance and made 47 some improvement as directed by the City Council with some minor changes to it. I think that this 48 ordinance in and of itself would not that adversely affect property owners in particular especially if we 49 reduced the, if we eliminated the reduction in FAR then essentially it would be a design decision that we 50 give more flexibility to property owners in terms of the build-to and we also give more flexibility to the 51 ARB in terms of exactly how much setback that they would’ve allowed to have. I think that the also the 52 removal of build-to lines in the rest of the City is something that wasn’t noticed and is actually a 53 considerable improvement there. I think the clarification of the fact that we’re not allowing parking in the 54 setback on all properties and in fact that wasn’t originally there, that was a clarification that was added to 55 the ordinance before it came back to us. I think that’s an improvement that is not there. So there are a 56 City of Palo Alto Page 18 number of things that merit this ordinance moving forward absent the larger discussion. And I think the 1 larger discussion should happen as part of the Our Palo Alto so I will not be supporting this ordinance 2 and I would encourage the City Council to go ahead and pass the ordinance according to the lines of my 3 Motion that failed to receive a second. 4 5 So with that if nobody else is speaking I’ll call the question. Yes? 6 7 Ms. Gitelman: Could I just clarify the Motion so we make sure we have it correct? So the Commission’s 8 Motion is to recommend the Council direct staff to incorporate the modification of sidewalk width and this 9 question of FAR for CN zoned parcels into a larger discussion of height and density in the context of the 10 Comp Plan Update and not adopt the current ordinance. 11 12 Commissioner Alcheck: You know I don’t want to be really specific about height and density. I think my 13 goal there’s so many components that you could possibly consider when you change the development or 14 redevelopment landscape: parking, build-to line, I mean the point is is to incorporate this discussion into 15 a broader discussion of how we could encourage development along El Camino in an effort to realize the 16 Grand Boulevard Initiative. I don’t want to say it’s just about density and height. There are a lot of 17 factors that should be considered. I just think it needs to be put in the envelope. So I was using those 18 as an example. 19 20 Ms. Gitelman: Ok. Can I try again then? I want to make sure I get this right. So the recommendation is 21 that Council direct staff to incorporate the modification of sidewalk width and this change to the CN FAR 22 into a broader discussion of redevelopment along El Camino and the Grand Boulevard Initiative and not 23 adopt the current ordinance. 24 25 Acting Chair Keller: Can I clarify? And I assume that you’re talking about a broader discussion as part of 26 the Our Palo Alto discussion is that what you’re suggesting? 27 28 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I feel like I made it worse. 29 30 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, can I try? 31 32 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah. The idea is we’re focusing on a very small piece of the redevelopment 33 options and I think we should look at the big picture. So we had residents say height should be 34 considered in conjunction with this change, right? As a sort of you’re giving us something and taking 35 something away at the same time or you’re affecting our redevelopment in one way but you’re enhancing 36 it in another way. So I guess I would like to see I think my suggestion is that we reevaluate this idea in 37 a, within a conversation that deals with a larger number of options which we can’t do now. 38 39 Acting Chair Keller: So may I try to put words in your mouth? 40 41 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah. 42 43 Acting Chair Keller: By wording a Motion for you? 44 45 Commissioner Alcheck: Absolutely. 46 47 RESTATED MOTION 48 49 Acting Chair Keller: And see if you agree with it? So you recommend that the Council not adopt a draft 50 ordinance and instead incorporate this discussion of sidewalk depth or width with height and density and 51 other development standards as part of Our Palo Alto discussion to realize the Grand Boulevard Initiative. 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: That’s so beautiful. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, actually I would prefer not applause and boos from the audience. Thank you. So 1 that, is that the Motion by the Maker? Is that the Motion accepted by the seconder? Ok so we have 2 affirmation on that. Any other questions before we move to a vote? Ok. Then all in favor say aye (Aye). 3 All opposed? So the Motion passes on a 3-1 vote with Commissioner Alcheck, Commissioner Acting Vice-4 Chair Tanaka, and Commissioner King saying, voting yes, and Chair, Acting Chair Keller voting no and 5 Commissioner Chair Michael absent. Yes? 6 7 MOTION PASSED (3-1-1, Acting Chair Keller nay, Chair Michael absent) 8 9 Ms. Gitelman: Chair Keller if I can just make one remark? At the outset we said this was scheduled for 10 the Council on April 21st. Given the Commission’s action this evening we may need another day or two to 11 prepare our staff report. So I’m going to suggest that it’s more likely it will go to the Council on April 12 28th. We’ll have to think about that and we’ll be sure to let people know who have received notice and 13 who are here this evening. 14 15 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you very much. So we’ll take a five minute break and then proceed with Item 16 2 on our agenda. Thank you all for people who attended, thank you, and participated. 17 18 Commission Action: Recommendation to Council to not adopt the draft Ordinance and to incorporate 19 sidewalk width with height, density and other development standards as a part of Our Palo Alto 20 discussion to realize the Grand Boulevard Initiative. Motion by Commissioner Alcheck, second by Acting 21 Vice-chair Tanaka, Motion passed 3-1-0 (Commissioner Alcheck, Commissioner King, Acting Vice-chair 22 Tanaka – Aye; Acting Chair Keller – Nay; Chair Michael – Absent) 23 24 City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 ===============MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26================= This agenda is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. 2 3 4 Thursday, March 20, 2014, 5 Architectural Review Board Meeting 6 8:30 AM, Council Chambers 7 Excerpt Verbatim Minutes Item 3 8 9 10 ARB members present: Chair Lee Lippert, Vice-chair Randy Popp, Board Members Alexander Lew, 11 Clare Malone Prichard, Robert Gooyer. 12 13 Staff: Amy French, Chief Planning Official; Russ Reich, Senior Planner; Diana Tamale, Administrative 14 Associate 15 16 Public Hearing Item 3: 17 18 Review and Recommendation of a Draft Ordinance modifying: (1) Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto 19 Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address sidewalk width and building setbacks (setback and “build-to” line 20 standards, and context based design criteria) along El Camino Real, and (b) reduce the allowable Floor 21 Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC 22 Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of Lot Area and add a definition for “Effective Sidewalk”. 23 24 Chair Lippert: Ok, so I’m going to introduce the next project. It is review and recommendation of a Draft 25 Ordinance modifying (1) Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address sidewalk 26 widths and building setbacks (setback and “build-to” line standards, and context based design criteria) 27 along El Camino Real, and (b) reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on CN zoned sites where 28 dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of 29 Lot Area and add a definition for “Effective Sidewalk.” Staff would like to introduce this item. 30 31 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, thank you. I see that the number of people in the chambers 32 has been reduced. I just wondered - I know I received some e-mails this week due to the notification 33 and I was a bit curious as to how many of the folks in the audience were here for this item as well. So 34 let me go ahead and start. 35 36 The City Council directed the staff, the Planning Commission, and Architectural Review Board (ARB) to 37 examine several items. One of them, the most recent direction, came in January of this year regarding 38 the FAR reduction on the CN zoned housing sites. The second direction was received almost a year ago 39 now regarding the sidewalk width and how buildings address the street. with a focus on El Camino Real 40 and with reference to the Grand Boulevard guidelines. We were directed to come back with zoning 41 ordinance amendments to implement the vision, and here we are. 42 43 This is an image of the Grand Boulevard Initiative that suggests that sidewalks be 18 feet wide from curb 44 to building face. The Council did mention other thoroughfares; however, there is a lot of discussion that 45 would go into other thoroughfares, which have different zoning. So the staff has focused initially on El 46 Camino Real and has adjusted the ordinance to focus on El Camino Real, which is zoned CN, CS, and CC. 47 48 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES Attachment F City of Palo Alto Page 2 The item about the FAR reduction - we have had a comment about that. Again this was directed by 1 Council to be a .8 to 1 FAR total for a mixed-use project on those housing sites where they’re getting 2 additional dwelling units per acre. It should be noted that concessions, if it’s an affordable housing 3 project, can be used to regain the residential FAR and concessions can be requested to regain the 4 commercial floor area, but it does require a pro forma analysis. 5 6 The sidewalk and building frontage - before you is an ordinance; the Planning and Transportation 7 Commission (PTC) did review a version of this ordinance that we have since modified. Therefore we are 8 going back to the Planning Commission on April 9th and would appreciate a representative from the ARB 9 attend that meeting as well. The ordinance in front of you does look at several things. This is the 12 feet 10 width on El Camino Real that currently exists in our code, the 12-foot effective sidewalk. But the way it is 11 written right now, folks that want to go farther back than that with their building need to come in with a 12 Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) request, and we want to stop that from having to be a process 13 that’s needed to go farther back. We want to have flexibility based on the context. We’ve defined 14 context as inclusive of land use, lot size, building design, and adjacent conditions. 15 16 The effective sidewalk width - we’ve identified as being to the ground floor wall, and inclusive of supports 17 for upper story overhangs - would allow supports to come down as close as nine feet to the curb in order 18 to allow for an arcade effect. The lot area definition - we have added a clarification so that folks that do 19 choose to allow public access on their property will not be penalized as to the amount of lot area 20 considered for the FAR, for building size floor area on the site. 21 22 The PTC asked us to consider removing the build-to line altogether, which was an approach that staff had 23 considered initially. We have done so in this draft for elsewhere, because again we’re concentrating on El 24 Camino and on El Camino, the goal of the build-to line is - we don’t want to throw that baby out with the 25 bathwater for El Camino - we want to still see kind of a building presence on that very wide street, we 26 just want to have a little bit more flexibility built in. So to allow flexibility, again based on context based 27 design criteria, we’ve provided footnotes that clarify what all of that means. 28 29 Right now on El Camino there is basically a four-foot minimum setback for buildings, because the 30 sidewalk right of way for the right of way along El Camino is about eight feet from curb to property line. 31 So in essence, the existing zoning ordinance does call for a 4-foot wide setback from the property line, to 32 achieve that 12-foot effective sidewalk width. So what we’re clarifying there is to say 4 feet to 10 feet 33 and that allows for a 12 to 18 foot effective sidewalk; again, to be evaluated case-by-case, based on 34 context. The ARB is the appropriate body, as you have clarified. This was an important part of this 35 effort, to understand that each land use, each building has a different circumstance. 36 37 The PTC had noted that they would like the ARB and staff to study the concept of a combined minimum 38 12-foot setback from curb to building and an average setback ranging from 15 to 18 feet. So this is 39 something that staff did look at. We did not end up with that, but we have the alternative 40 recommendation that we have in the ordinance. Again, Council had asked us to study 18 feet and we are 41 not saying 18 feet has to be provided. 42 43 Here is the image that our past consultant had shared with us. It shows a concept of two street trees to 44 green up the corridor on El Camino. And that shows a 15 to 18 foot concept including two trees. This is 45 not something that we’ve studied at length. I just wanted to again share that for those of us who have 46 seen this image before and those who haven’t. Again, part of our effective sidewalk width definition has 47 a mention of a comfortable clear width for pedestrians to traverse the sidewalk. And I think that’s a 48 concept that is an important one. We aren’t putting a number on that. Again, we’ve heard from folks 49 and from the ARB, this is something you want to have - comfortable walking, two people passing each 50 other. It can meander based on the street trees and the placement of various furnishings and amenities. 51 52 Again, the ARB had said a 9 to 15 foot dimension, and we kind of pulled that into a concept to say the 53 arcade could be 9 feet. And this is based on this Redwood City example where, from the column here to 54 the curb is 9 feet, but then the front wall, the ground floor wall is set back something like 19 feet from 55 the curb. So this kind of illustrates that we can have flexibility to come closer than 12 feet. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 The Planning Commission also suggested that we restrict parking in the front yard. Now the ordinance 2 already does that, for nonresidential buildings. So, for mixed-use buildings we now have that same note 3 apply - no parking in the first 10 feet of the property. The context based design guideline also talks 4 about parking located behind buildings as important, where feasible or screened by landscaping and low 5 walls, if not feasible to put behind the building. The context based criteria - a couple of items there to try 6 to clarify and be consistent. This allows a tool for the ARB, as well as clarification for applicants. 7 8 So City Assistant Attorney Cara Silver is here (sorry if I pronounced your title incorrectly) for questions as 9 well, as there’s been some discussion and concern about takings and what are we doing here by 10 potentially having the sidewalk go to 18 feet, in some cases. And we can talk further about that. 11 12 Chair Lippert: Would you like to talk about takings? 13 14 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Oh, I never turn down that opportunity. Cara Silver, Senior 15 Assistant City Attorney. Just wanted to introduce one of the legal concerns, with respect to this particular 16 ordinance, is that when you start to require property owners to dedicate additional property for right of 17 way or for sidewalk, you do get into the realm of possible takings. Court decisions have made it more 18 difficult for cities to require those types of what we used to consider standard dedications. And especially 19 in a case such as this, where there are already existing sidewalks in place, and the City wants to expand 20 those. In those situations, a court is going to look at that situation more strictly. So what we suggest, 21 and what we have incorporated into this ordinance is, instead of requiring a dedication of sidewalk, that 22 the ordinance be instead recast as an additional setback. So that’s where we have introduced this 23 concept of an effective sidewalk. There is some flexibility built into it, as properties redevelop. One of the 24 questions we’ve received is, “does this ordinance take effect immediately?” Of course it does not require 25 the tear down of existing buildings in order to effectuate that new setback. But as buildings redevelop 26 what we want to do is encourage them to set their buildings back further in order to create sort of that 27 illusion of a wider sidewalk, and the definition of effective sidewalk then is incorporated into the 28 ordinance. So that’s our basic concept on this ordinance. Thank you. 29 30 Chair Lippert: Thank you. Ok, I’m going to ask Board Member Popp, Vice-Chair Popp to just simply 31 report on the PTC meeting of February 26th. 32 33 Vice-Chair Popp: Very happy to do that and I’ll just note that in the staff report they did an excellent job 34 of recapping kind of the major points of that discussion and I would say that actually it was an unusual 35 meeting in that way. It was much more of a discussion and I really appreciated that interaction. I did 36 relay what our comments were to the PTC. There was a bit of discussion in regard to the economic 37 benefit that applicants might receive from creating a wider sidewalk and yet retaining all of the FAR 38 inside their building. And the concept here is that you set your building back and you still get all the FAR, 39 but then you can put tables out on the sidewalk effectively increasing the size of your restaurant. That 40 might be something that would need to be studied. I think Amy did a great job of explaining to the PTC 41 that there is a process by which people have to apply to be able to use the street frontage in that way, 42 and so I think there is a methodology for regulating that, but I think there was some concern on their 43 part about the value of the economic benefit and what they might receive as a result of that. My 44 interaction about that was that that seemed like a good tradeoff to me. That if we can encourage people 45 to set their buildings back in the way that we’re hoping to, and create life on the street, that does just 46 what we’re trying to get to. So I was very much in favor of that in the discussion. 47 48 And I think the other thing I really tried to reinforce and to push forward was this idea that there really is 49 a varied character and the sense that we want something that is of high quality and that a one size fits 50 all really doesn’t work. And the very clear point that that’s exactly what this Board is charged with: 51 looking at projects on a case-by-case basis, and making a determination relative to immediate context in 52 regard to the appropriateness of the design. 53 54 I think there was some discussion about clear width, relative to furnishings and fixtures. And I do think 55 that, and I’ll just reinforce again, the concept of engaging a consultant to create some examples or to 56 City of Palo Alto Page 4 develop some illustration that will help applicants to understand what the overarching goals are, so they 1 can enter the discretionary process with the highest degree of likely success, would be a benefit to 2 everyone. 3 4 Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. Ok with that I’m going to open the public hearing. I have four 5 speaker cards. If there’s anyone else that wishes to speak to this item, please fill out a speaker card and 6 hand it to one of the staff members. We’ll have Tracy May followed by Cary Davis and you’ll each have 7 three minutes. 8 9 Tracy May: Yes, my name’s Tracy May and I’m attached to the property at 2080 El Camino Real, Palo 10 Alto. You know most of the properties on the El Camino are run by little businesses. Some have been 11 handed down from generations. My property is run by Barbeques Galore right now who is a renter of 12 mine. They rented it for some years now. Before that it was Stanford Sport Shop. It was my father’s 13 store. He was a little business man in Palo Alto since 1936, helped build this City. And I think by taking 14 away, which is hard enough I don’t know if you folks even have any idea how hard it is to stay in 15 business on the El Camino Real. And every time we turn around, we’re getting things to hide our 16 buildings, to set back our buildings, to make us less visible. I don’t know if you realize how many people 17 walk that street, but with six lanes of highway that runs along there, nobody wants to go there. I mean 18 the way you get to a business is to drive there and park. We have so many beautiful places in Palo Alto 19 and I was born and raised pretty much on that property, worked there since I was six years old, lots of 20 people have lots of other beautiful places to walk. And it’s not like a downtown area nor will it ever be, 21 because you have six lanes. I mean just walking down a couple of blocks and you’re kind of choking on 22 the exhaust, okay; I mean it’s not a very desirable walking area. Widening sidewalks has nothing to do 23 with adding people, to end up with people walking it. It just takes away from the value of the property, 24 to the value of trying to resell the property, the value of useable space, and taking away our freedoms to 25 be able to use our space on the El Camino. Now I see there’s quite a few places there that depend upon 26 little business, that depend upon the parking that they have on their property in front of their stores. I’m 27 not one of those; however, there were many people here for this issue today that had to leave to go 28 open their little businesses around 9:00, 9:30, 10:00ish that have talked with me about the concerns 29 here. 30 31 I would like to mention that you’re talking about two stories, I’ll make it real brief, and talking about two 32 story buildings to compensate for the footprint being smaller. For little stores, two story buildings makes 33 no sense to them. They can’t survive on that and put up an elevator and all the rest. So I’m hoping that 34 you will consider that and consider that it is a hardship on the people who are trying to make a business 35 there and also trying to employ three and four people to try and make a living as well and the families. 36 Thank you. 37 38 Chair Lippert: Thank you. Cary Davis followed by Brian Knudson. 39 40 Brian Knudson: Morning. Good morning, my name is Brian Knudson. Cary Davis had to leave so he’s not 41 able to be here. My concern was on the proposal for wider sidewalks. I can see the aesthetics of it is 42 very nice and my concern is if it goes into an actual law then, rather than 12 foot it could be as much as 43 18 feet. I think, on a voluntary basis for new development, it can look very nice and really add to the 44 way the buildings all look, but I don’t like to see an actual ordinance stating that there needs to be 45 anywhere from 8 to 18 to 20 or 18 feet of space along El Camino Real between there and the business 46 for a sidewalk. I don’t see it as a safety item and I think it just limits the landowner’s ability when and if 47 he develops. I think it’s just adding on another limitation to what can be done with that particular 48 property. Thank you. 49 50 Chair Lippert: Thank you Mr. Knudson. Jessica De Wit followed by Ben Cintz. Thanks. 51 52 Jessica De Wit: Good morning Commissioners, I’m Jessica De Wit and I’m speaking on behalf of Palo Alto 53 Housing Corporation (PAHC). We’re a nonprofit affordable housing developer located here in Palo Alto 54 and we’ve recently submitted a letter to you regarding the proposed design criteria updates on El Camino 55 Real. We appreciate all of the work that staff has done on these updates; however, we do believe the 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 newly proposed reduction in FAR for the CN zone will have a negative impact on affordable housing. 1 We’d really like you guys to look or at least consider retaining the current FAR requirements or possibly 2 looking at other jurisdictions nearby that have a lot greater increase in FAR and actually had minimalized; 3 have no density and looked only to the FAR. 4 5 I know staff mentioned that the FAR could be used as a concession for us for affordable housing, but I 6 know you guys probably already know that it’s really, really difficult to build affordable housing and make 7 it feasible. So we really value those concessions and hope that one isn’t just automatically reserved for 8 an FAR. That’s it. Thank you so much. 9 10 Chair Lippert: Thank you. Ben Cintz and if there are any other speakers please get a speaker card in. 11 12 Ben Cintz: Hi, my name is Ben Cintz. I live in Midtown. My family owns some properties, small 13 properties in Palo Alto including two on El Camino at 3565 El Camino, 3565-67 El Camino where Kraft 14 Furniture or Kraft Mattress is downstairs and 3885, which is where Starbucks is located. Those properties 15 have been in our family for many years and I want to thank staff for their hard work on this and also to 16 echo the comments that have already been made. Part of the difficulty is that there have been a number 17 of different rules on El Camino on the block that Kraft Mattress is on. There are three buildings; ours is 18 the oldest, it is the furthest set back. The other two buildings each have different setbacks. This will add 19 yet another layer of further, yet another setback requirement that’s different than the ones that have 20 been there so far. 21 22 But I think the biggest concern is that these requirements will make, pose a hardship on the individual 23 property owners when they want to improve or develop their property, because I think it’s going to make 24 it more difficult for these small parcels to be developed economically. I think the result is that the 25 property is going to be sold to developers and combined into multiple parcels and I think that really goes 26 against what Palo Alto is about, which is to be a warm friendly community that wants to encourage the 27 people who own the property to do things that will improve the City, rather than having to sell the 28 property to others in a complex set of regulations; to be able to do something that should be fairly 29 straightforward. Thank you very much. 30 31 Chair Lippert: Thank you. Is there any other speaker? Ok. What we’ll do is I’ll close the public hearing 32 now and we’ll return to the Board for comments and hopefully a Motion. And I’m just going to ask Board 33 Vice-Chair Popp if you’ll lead the discussion. Lead off. 34 35 Vice-Chair Popp: So I’m pretty clear on what’s all in here now. I studied this quite a bit, but I do want to 36 ask just a brief question about what the decision behind reducing the FAR from .5 to .4 in the CN zone 37 relative to the all residential and the 20 unit per acre increase is about and where that comes from. Can 38 you help me understand what the rationale behind that might be? 39 40 Ms. French: It’s the Council’s rationale; it was requested that we because we’re allowing more units. This 41 pretty much forces those who are doing beyond the 15 units per acre to have the micro units, the smaller 42 studio type units. It’s reducing the FAR so those 20 units per acre would be smaller units, smaller FAR 43 per unit. 44 45 Vice-Chair Popp: Ok, that’s helpful. So everybody has an opinion about this and I understand theirs. I 46 am absolutely against that. And I have to say that I think that we are so challenged right now in 47 complying with the obligation to provide housing that we have all kinds of other limitations that are in 48 place that will restrict size and density in other ways and telling people that if they want to provide more 49 smaller units, 20 to the acre, that they don’t have as much square footage to do that within is really a 50 very negative message and I cannot support that at all. The idea that on a 7,500 square foot lot - let’s 51 say you’d lose a 750 square foot unit - it just seems so contrary to increasing the density that I just can’t 52 follow the logic and just won’t support that. 53 54 Everything else that’s in here feels very comfortable to me. I will say that I do not support the PTC’s 55 concept that we have a minimum setback of 12 feet. Again, I think that variation and compatibility are 56 City of Palo Alto Page 6 the key and I hear very clearly comments brought forward by the public that there are a range of 1 conditions and challenges for sites and each one needs to be evaluated on its own merit and in its own 2 basis within a range, and I’d like to confirm that I felt that the 9 to 15 foot was appropriate. I am 3 comfortable with an average of 12 to 18 feet, but that the limitation of a minimum doesn’t seem 4 appropriate to me. Thank you. 5 6 Chair Lippert: Board Member Gooyer. 7 8 Board Member Gooyer: There are a couple of things and one of the speakers said the same thing. I’m 9 sorry, but I keep hearing this Grand Boulevard, but El Camino is a freeway. It’s six lanes basically and I 10 sure as heck wouldn’t want to sit there and enjoy a meal when there are three lanes of cars going by at 11 40 miles an hour; it just…I just don’t see it happening. There are other communities that have tried to 12 go to the same thing and most of the other ones have determined that the most important thing that 13 people want to do on El Camino is get from point A to Point B and they really don’t want to do that 14 walking. They want to do that driving. But having said that, the 18-foot width I think is inappropriate. I 15 think 15 feet is more than adequate. 16 17 I also agree that I don’t like the FAR reduction and I also agree that I don’t think there should be a 18 minimum setback. The other items in there I’m fine with. 19 20 Chair Lippert: Board Member Lew. 21 22 Board Member Lew: I have some questions for staff. So I think in previous discussions we were talking 23 about just CS and CN. I don’t recall talking that much about the CC zone. So I looked at the CC zones 24 and some of the ones around California Avenue and so I think that makes, I think I see the logic there. 25 The CC also includes things like the shopping center and Town and Country and maybe others and I’m 26 not quite sure we’ve all really sort of discussed that at that level and so you mentioned that there were 27 12 parcels, but I was wondering if you could just explain that further? 28 29 Ms. French: Well, so the California area, the Stanford Shopping Center and the (I’m getting my map 30 here)… Town and Country and Stanford Shopping Center, those are both I believe CC and so that is true. 31 They were provided noticed they are zoned CC; however, Stanford Shopping Center and Town and 32 Country are kind of a different animal. 33 34 Board Member Lew: Yeah. 35 36 Ms. French: In that they’re a shopping center. So that is a good point and though the trend in Stanford 37 Shopping Center has been to come farther towards the street and we have discussed the El Camino 38 Guidelines with respect to those, there has not been a build-to line for those and I don’t think it makes so 39 much sense on those. So certainly it would be good to note that in the ordinance, those two centers 40 (interrupted) 41 42 Board Member Lew: The shopping center has a cap, right? I mean they are at the cap and so if they 43 want to do more, they’re going to have to what, rezone? They’re going to have to come up with 44 something? 45 46 Ms. French: Tear something down. 47 48 Board Member Lew: Right, they’re going to have to do something significant to be able to do more. 49 50 Ms. French: Yeah. 51 52 Board Member Lew: And I’m not sure about Town and Country, but yeah. 53 54 Ms. French: Yeah. So we can make a reference in the ordinance to exclude those two shopping centers. 55 Thank you for pointing that out. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 Board Member Lew: And on the removal of the build-to line in areas outside of El Camino, I think I can 2 support that. And then I think there was just one little tiny area that I thought that popped out in my 3 mind, which was the College Avenue sort of in back of the College Terrace Center project. So I think the 4 idea, I mean I think the concept of removing the build-to line in areas like Midtown and Charleston 5 Center, whatnot, is that those areas have the special setbacks and then this one little block of College 6 there is I think many of the buildings are built right up to the sidewalk and there is no special setback 7 there. So I was just pointing out that there’s a little anomaly there. And I don’t think the ordinance 8 helps or hurts or anything. I mean it gives them, they still have the flexibility to do whatever they want 9 there, but it’s just in previous discussions I think I had said that everything is all of the CN and CS are in 10 special setback areas and that, I just wanted to correct myself. That’s not quite the case. There are still 11 other streets such as Encina. I think there are still some little pockets of other zones. I had a question 12 for you. You’re prohibiting - you still want to prohibit parking in the required front setbacks? 13 14 Ms. French: Yes. The ordinance for Table 3 currently does that so it’s adding it to Table 4, which is a 15 mixed-use product. 16 17 Board Member Lew: And so my question is for hotels, does all that loading zone area - does that count as 18 parking? 19 20 Ms. French: Yeah, I think we really mean a parking space where somebody’s going to put their car and 21 it’s going to stay there. I understand the porte-cochere is where I think we’re going with this. People 22 dropping folks off at a hotel might want to use kind of a portico share arrangement. 23 24 Board Member Lew: Right, and so I was just saying that the loading area, I mean I think as I was 25 reading the actual language, you’re saying no parking or loading space. 26 27 Ms. French: Oh. 28 29 Board Member Lew: Whether required or optional should be located in the first 10 feet. And I think I 30 understand your intent and I agree with it and I was thinking on some of the other hotels that we’ve had 31 the Board’s been a little critical of having the entrances on the sides of buildings instead of on the front 32 facing the street and I think that this would sort of contribute to that. 33 34 Ms. French: Ok, so… 35 36 Board Member Lew: They are inclined, they are going to be inclined to put things on the side and I think 37 we’ve been criticized for not having, not requiring more entrances on the front face of the buildings. 38 39 Ms. French: So this would be a change to the existing ordinance. We haven’t suggested a change to that 40 existing wording. So are you suggesting that we consider removing the loading space from that wording? 41 42 Board member Lew: No, I was actually just asking what you were, I was just trying, I was asking for 43 clarification. 44 45 Ms. French: We just duplicated the existing language of the ordinance. 46 47 Board Member Lew: Got it. 48 49 Ms. French: From Table 3 to Table 4. 50 51 Board Member Lew: Ok. 52 53 Ms. French: Yeah. 54 55 Board Member Lew: And then… 56 City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 Ms. French: Russ Reich made a point that this; there’s loading and there’s loading - loading of boxes, 2 UPS, and that kind of thing might be a different scenario than passenger loading, valet, this kind of thing. 3 4 Board Member Lew: Got it. 5 6 Ms. French: Yeah. 7 8 Board Member Gooyer: Wouldn’t it be easier then just to get rid of the wording? Rather than worrying 9 about what kind of loading; is it loading of bodies or loading of boxes? 10 11 Ms. French: Yeah, I mean we could remove that prohibition of loading space so we can eliminate the 12 speculation and then just see what comes in. 13 14 Chair Lippert: Anything else? 15 16 Board Member Lew: I do have yeah a couple more things. Are we working on the five minute time limit? 17 Ok. I just want to comment that I did review the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) diagrams for 18 sidewalks and stuff, and then they I think they mentioned the four different zones of it and I think that 19 my hope was in increasing the sidewalk, effective sidewalk width that we would actually get an actual 20 furnishings zone, which doesn’t really work so well in 12 feet. And I think the ITE thing does support 21 that, that in 12 feet you don’t really get any furnishing. There’s no buffer zone. It’s like between the 22 sidewalk and the front door of the building. And I think we’ve had people complain about like sidewalks 23 on University Avenue again like the cafés like things that they sort of spill out into the sidewalk and 24 narrow the effective walking area. And so I think that the extra width actually gives businesses more 25 flexibility in putting things out there. 26 27 And I think there’s been, I know some people are sort of very skeptical about El Camino becoming a 28 boulevard and I’m on the fence on this one. I do understand the skepticism and I think it’s well founded 29 here, but whenever I go down to Los Angeles (LA) and look at what they do on big four and six lane 30 boulevards, I’m actually always surprised at how much they do there with storefronts and how many 31 people are on Melrose or Sunset or Abbot Kinney, Culver City Boulevard, like they are not afraid of the 32 street and traffic as we are. Maybe because they don’t have much choice, as many choices as we do; I 33 don’t know what it is, but I think it’s possible to have a nicer street than what’s out there. I mean I think 34 it’s within the realm of possibility. And to the extent that this tries to refine that, I will support the 35 zoning, this proposed zoning change. 36 37 And then my last question for staff is, I think you’re not asking for any recommendation at this time, 38 right? I think Chair you mentioned a Motion and I think we’re not it’s my understanding this is just a 39 discussion and that we still have a PTC/ARB meeting… 40 41 Ms. French: No, let me clarify that. Because we are…the April 9th meeting with the PTC wasn’t going to 42 be the joint meeting it was just going to be PTC making the formal recommendation to Council. So this 43 is really your opportunity today to make a formal recommendation to Council on the qualitative aspects of 44 this and the Planning Commission is technically the one to recommend an ordinance change. So we do 45 want to plan a joint meeting with the PTC/ARB, but I believe it’s going to be following the April Council 46 meeting where this kind of quicker ordinance gets adopted or is requested to be approved. And that 47 meeting would go over some other items that the ARB has been interested in, such as height at the other 48 thoroughfares and maybe some of these qualitative drawings, to help the applicants to come forward 49 with what we’re looking for. 50 51 Chair Lippert: Yeah I just want to clarify that it was mentioned earlier that we need to send a 52 representative next to the PTC on April the 9th I believe it is. So while we’re not the acting body on it, 53 what we do have to do is formalize what our thoughts are and put it into some sort of direction that we 54 can go back to PTC with for their ultimate recommendation to the City Council. Correct? Ok, Board 55 Member Malone Prichard. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 Board Member Malone Prichard: Ok, first I want to say I’m absolutely opposed to that CN zoning 2 reduction of FAR for residential sites. I understand what they are trying to do is, they’re trying to 3 counteract any of the benefit one might get from a Density Bonus Law and I think that’s not in the spirit 4 of density bonus laws. 5 6 Couple of other things, we are still maintaining a side street build-to line in this ordinance and I think 7 that’s something we probably should discuss at some point as to whether that ought to be eliminated 8 because we are trying to create a wall along El Camino. I’m not quite sure what we’re trying to do on 9 the side streets. Not a discussion for today. 10 11 Somebody had mentioned the meandering walk widths and I am in support of that. I don’t recall 12 whether that was actually in this draft ordinance or whether it would just end up in the guidelines. 13 14 Ms. French: Yeah we do put the words in the definition for effective sidewalk - just comfortable 15 pedestrian width - those words we used, instead of saying “meandering” because then it’s a qualitative 16 look by the ARB at how they accomplish that comfortable walking. 17 18 Board Member Malone Prichard: I would suggest that it be offered up as an option in the guidelines but 19 not the ordinance just to clarify it for future Board’s use for those who don’t remember this discussion. 20 So just wanted to clarify for the record my understanding is the current rule on El Camino Real is that a 21 12 foot is the minimum sidewalk width required. Is that correct? 22 23 Ms. French: Effective sidewalk. So yeah, the way the ordinance currently reads is “a 0 to 10 foot setback 24 in order to create a 12 foot effective sidewalk on El Camino Real.” And instead of defining it with words 25 the effective sidewalk width is shown in pictures in the context based guidelines. 26 27 Board Member Malone Prichard: That was my understanding. So I just wanted to let people know that 28 we’re not going to be requiring 18 foot sidewalks. This gives developers the option to have an 18 foot 29 effective sidewalk width if they want to. Because the way the ordinance is currently written they have to 30 build that 12 feet. So this is an option not a requirement. 31 32 And then I just have some very detailed things to go through. If we go to Attachment A in Section 2 33 where the definition of effective sidewalk widths, it states that it includes structural building columns as 34 long as they’re nine feet back from the curb. I understand what you’re trying to do there. I would take 35 away the word structural because there can be columns there that aren’t actually structural. 36 37 Ms. French: Yeah I think the concept there was so folks understood it was that there was the overhang 38 and so they’re kind of needed. 39 40 Board Member Malone Prichard: Right. 41 42 Ms. French: But yes. 43 44 Board Member Malone Prichard: They’re needed but because they look right. 45 46 Ms. French: Right. 47 48 Board Member Malone Prichard: In the build-to lines in the, in Table 3 and also probably Table 4 we’re 49 saying the wall percentage is based on context based design criteria and site context including land use, 50 adjacent building context, lot size, and building design. I would like to expand that to adjacent and 51 nearby building context. Because a building two or three doors down may be important as well. 52 53 There’s also something left over I see it in Table 3 in the notes, Note #2 says, “Any minimum front street 54 side or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscape screen.” I don’t think that’s what 55 City of Palo Alto Page 10 we’re trying to achieve on El Camino if we’re trying to get a wider effective sidewalk. So that’s just 1 something to look at and see whether that needs changing. 2 3 Ms. French: Again I think this is, this chapter was broadly written so that El Camino is different than this, 4 but it’s definitely not clear. 5 6 Board Member Prichard: Yeah, and I know what kind of properties they’re talking about; an office 7 building with a big setback should have a landscaped front yard, but that’s not what we’re trying to do on 8 El Camino. 9 10 There is in Table 4 the build-to lines applicable to El Camino Real only states that the front wall can be 11 placed within a range of 0 to 10 feet from the property line, but I think that’s only showing up in the 12 mixed-use table, not in the commercial only table. Is that on purpose? 13 14 Ms. French: Yeah that should be duplicated in both Table 3 and Table 4 to clarify. Again, and we’re 15 looking at primarily an upper floor zero setback rather than the lower floor setback, but yeah. 16 17 Board Member Malone Prichard: That was my understanding that was for both mixed-use and 18 commercial. 19 20 Ms. French: Yeah. 21 22 Board Member Malone Prichard: I think that’s just an omission. 23 24 Ms. French: It’s just it needs to be corrected. Thank you. 25 26 Board member Malone Prichard: And the next one is really esoteric, but it’s something that actually gets 27 discussed a lot in offices, believe it or not. Item 50 back to Attachment A, the first page of Attachment A 28 and the definition of effective sidewalk widths, it’s the width from curb to building face. The question 29 often comes up which face of the curb? The curb is six inches wide. And I think what we mean and 30 what we show in the diagrams is widths of the curb when you’re looking down on it. A curb is a six inch 31 wide strip of concrete typically. So I think what we’re talking about is the roadway face of the curb. I 32 have had people try to tell me that it’s from the other face of the curb, which would push everything six 33 inches further in. So I think that should be clarified. 34 35 Ms. French: I think how we think of it is it’s the face of the sidewalk that faces the street. Yeah, it is 36 what we mean by curb. 37 38 Board Member Malone Prichard: Engineers don’t think that way. 39 40 Board Member Gooyer: There are a lot of people that consider there’s a curb and then the sidewalk starts 41 behind the curb. 42 43 Ms. French: Got it. Ok, yeah there’s… 44 45 Board Member Gooyer: So you have to be specific as to where… 46 47 Vice-Chair Popp: (Unintelligible) absolutely right about this. 48 49 Ms. French: Face of curb is what we say here, but it should be… 50 51 Board Member Malone Prichard: Face of curb facing the roadway. 52 53 Ms. French: Ok, facing. 54 55 Board Member Malone Prichard: Or adjacent to the roadway. Yeah. That’s all I’ve got. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 Chair Lippert: I need clarification on Page 17, the table there where it talks about maximum residential 2 floor area. In there under the CN zone it’s .5 to 1 FAR. Are we looking at going to .4? 3 4 Ms. French: That’s exactly what we were directed to do. 5 6 Chair Lippert: Ok because I’m in agreement with Board Vice-Chair Popp with regard to the idea of 7 reducing residential density is antithetical to what our obligation is in terms of meeting the what’s defined 8 in our Comp Plan as our housing allocation. And so if you look at that number there what we’re saying is 9 that it’s a reduction of really 10 percent of the maximum allowable floor area of a building. That’s a big 10 chunk right there. And then for low-income housing developers and particularly having a greying 11 population, having senior housing also which can use the Housing Density Bonus Law, it’s not what the 12 intent is here. And so just right off the bat I would say you know if it’s market rate housing or other than 13 senior housing I’m ok with limiting it to the .4, but not for low income housing or senior housing and 14 especially with a greying population. They’re going to need to live closer to transit. So I think there 15 needs to be some sort of an exception carved out in that. 16 17 Where I think the fly in the ointment really is, is the blended rate that we get, which is, in this case 18 you’ve used .9 to 1 FAR. What happens with that blended rate is that they’re not required to build the 19 residential square footage. They can use, apply some of it to commercial square footage and in this case 20 what I would say is we really want the developers to build all of the residential housing and that that 21 shouldn’t be that blended rate, really needs to be that .5 for the .4 to 1 FAR even if it carves into the 22 commercial space. So it needs to be far more equitable. We need more housing. It’s the jobs/housing 23 imbalance where we have more jobs to housing. Let’s get more housing in here. So right off the bat, 24 I’m not inclined to support a reduction in allowable floor area in the CN zone and I think that that needs 25 to be looked at much more closely. 26 27 With regard to effective sidewalk, I just want to clarify when you say effective sidewalk, it’s not the 28 concrete sidewalk width we’re taking about. I’m clarifying this for the members of the public here. What 29 we’re talking about is, it’s really both landscaping and sidewalk and anything else that should happen in 30 that space, correct? Ok. 31 32 And then just to clarify again we’re not talking about existing buildings, legally existing nonconforming 33 buildings that are built into that sidewalk width, it’s only if those sites were to redevelop or they have that 34 space. Is that correct? 35 36 Ms. French: That is correct. We are not planning to do any kind of amortization period for existing 37 buildings or anything along those lines. It’s only when a property owner elects to come forward with a 38 new building that would be subject to these changes. 39 40 Chair Lippert: Ok, so for Ms. May and Mr. Cintz I’m just clarifying, having staff clarify for you that this 41 really isn’t a taking your existing building. As long as it’s there in perpetuity you’re good. The minute 42 you sell the building or somebody redevelops the building, builds a multi-story building there or 43 redevelops the lot, that’s where that would happen. Staff is clarifying this for you and you can speak 44 again at the PTC hearing on this. 45 46 Ok so with that, what I’d like to do is move forward with direction that, and I see no reason that we can’t 47 send Vice-Chair Popp back if you’re available on the 9th? Ok. So what I’d like is a Motion just to clarify… 48 huh? Want to make a Motion? Ok. 49 50 Vice-Chair Popp: Yeah I’d be happy to carry our Motion if there’s another Board Member (unintelligible) 51 just taking notes. 52 53 Chair Lippert: Ok. Anyone else care to make a Motion that we can give direction to Vice-Chair Popp? 54 55 MOTION 56 City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 Board Member Malone Prichard: I will move that we recommend that this modified ordinance go forward 2 with the revisions that I stated. Do you have those recorded well enough so I don’t need to restate 3 them? And with the statement that the Board is not in favor of the reduction of FAR in the CN zone 4 which is currently in this draft ordinance. 5 6 Chair Lippert: Ok, do I have a second on that? 7 8 SECOND 9 10 Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second. 11 12 Chair Lippert: Board Member Gooyer. Do you have anything you wish to add to that? 13 14 Board Member Gooyer: No. 15 16 Chair Lippert: Any additions or any friendly amendments here? Ok. So let’s vote on the Motion. All 17 those in favor say aye (Aye). Opposed? Ok, that passes 5-0-0 and I appreciate you going back to the 18 PTC. Thank you. 19 20 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0) 21 City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 ===============MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26================= This agenda is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. 2 3 4 Thursday, February 20, 2014, Meeting 5 8:30 AM, Council Chambers 6 Excerpt Verbatim Minutes for Item 4 7 8 9 Members Present: Chair Lee Lippert, Vice-chair Randy Popp, Board Members Alexander Lew, 10 Clare Malone Prichard, Robert Gooyer 11 12 Staff: Amy French, Chief Planning Official; Russ Reich, Senior Planner; Diana Tamale, 13 Administrative Associate 14 15 Item 4: Architectural Review of a proposed Draft Ordinance modifying: (1) Chapter 16 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.16.060 to (a) address building 17 setbacks (the “build-to” line standard and context based design criteria) in the CN and CS 18 Districts and (b) reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units 19 are permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 Section 18.04.030 to adjust the 20 definition of Lot Area in order to encourage wider sidewalks. The Draft Ordinance is scheduled 21 for Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation to Council on 22 February 26, 2014. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per section 23 15305. 24 25 Chair Lippert: Ok, so Item Number 4, Architectural Review of a proposed Draft Ordinance 26 modifying Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.16.060 to address 27 building setbacks (the “build-to” line standard and context based design criteria) in the CN/CS 28 Districts and (b) reduce the allowable floor area on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are 29 permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 Section 18.04.030 to adjust the 30 definition of Lot Area in order to encourage wider sidewalks. The Draft Ordinance is scheduled 31 for Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and recommendation to Council on 32 February 26, 2014. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from provisions of California 33 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). And I just wanted to make a note that when we do take 34 action on this today or make a recommendation today we will need a representative to go to 35 the PTC next week to present our recommendation. So with that if you’d like to introduce the 36 item Amy? 37 38 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, thank you Lee. So the item before you: there’s a staff 39 report there that had presented the background, and why we’re here now, and the past efforts 40 of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), as well as the joint meeting that was held last July 41 with the PTC to discuss the sidewalk issue in particular. This ordinance that is at places today, 42 and it’s also at the back table for the public, does go farther than that, as advertised, to address 43 the recent Council directive about the affordable housing sites along El Camino and elsewhere 44 that are zoned CN that have a restriction now proposed for the total amount of floor area. So 45 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 2 that’s kind of a sideline that came out of that recent Council. We’re folding that into this 1 ordinance because we’re addressing this ordinance at this time. 2 3 So the first item: I’m going to go ahead and take the first item that’s in the ordinance as a 4 question, I have questions for the ARB to help us focus this. And as you’ll notice in the draft 5 ordinance, we do have some highlighted areas and some places that are annotated for your 6 help. So the first item is, for lot area definition, would the modification of the lot area definition 7 help incentivize the dedication of additional sidewalk width? So the corollary on that as well is, 8 should this definition be broader to include the downtown commercial zone as well? For right 9 now what we’re focused on is just this one ordinance that is CN and CS and CC. Chapter 18.18 10 is where the CD zone regulations are located and we would have to come back and advertise 11 that separately, but it’s worth asking that question. Sorry, the lot area definition is contained in 12 Chapter 18.04 (which was advertised) so we could expand that as we think about the 13 downtown as well. So it wouldn’t have to be re-advertised. 14 15 So basically the reason for this, in this ordinance, was because we have a lot area definition 16 that talks about the lot area excluding the portion within a public or private street right of way 17 whether acquired in fee, easement, or otherwise. So the thinking is that if people are giving 18 their property for sidewalk width, perhaps it’s an incentive to not reduce their lot area and 19 therefore their building size. So this is why we kind of proactively went after this piece of our 20 zoning code. So maybe we could just take that piece first as a discussion item and then move 21 to the next piece, or did you have another thought about how you might want to discuss this 22 and then get to the ordinance? 23 24 Chair Lippert: What I was hoping is that the subcommittees that were, the teams that were 25 actually broken up and looking at sidewalk widths would be able to report on what they thought 26 appropriate sidewalk widths were. Did any of the groups convene, I guess it was on the 6th of 27 February, or around there? Or have any discussions here? Alex you haven’t had a chance to… 28 have you had a chance to think about it at all? 29 30 Board Member Lew: I did. So Randy and I did not meet, but I’ve been looking at sidewalks and 31 measuring them and stuff in the zone. 32 33 Chair Lippert: Do you want to illuminate on this a little bit about your thoughts? 34 35 Board Member Lew: Well, I think that Amy gets into it in some of it in the staff report. Which is 36 I think that there are, there were distinctions to be made between the different zones and they 37 were different and I don’t think it’s a one size fits all and I think there are situations where this 38 is partly designed, tied to building design. It’s not just narrowly focus on the sidewalk. But 39 generally if you have a very wide frontage, something, greater setback or more stepping back 40 on the height of the buildings would be warranted. I think last time we met on the retreat I 41 think we were talking about some of the sidewalk widths and I actually went and measured the 42 Alma Village sidewalks and those are five feet with a five foot planting strip and maybe like a 43 whole foot of landscaping in front of the building. So that’s our, that’s like 11 feet. I think the 44 general consensus is that doesn’t look good and so, so generally it makes sense to go to me it 45 makes sense to go wider in locations like that. 46 47 Chair Lippert: Ok. 48 49 Board Member Lew: And then I would say just one last thing is I think that if we go back to the 50 Council memo, I mean they were sort of opening it up for the whole City, but if you look at the 51 City of Palo Alto Page 3 zoning map the vast majority of Palo Alto, the commercial properties, have the special setback. 1 And I think Amy mentioned it in the staff report is generally 24 feet, sometimes it’s less than 2 that. And then also areas in Midtown and Charleston have special zoning overlays or 3 designations with uses like ground floor retail and so it really seems to me the focus should be 4 on… the thing that I’m worried about most about is actually El Camino, because we have lots of 5 CS zones and where it’s not near, not next to residential, there’s a 50 foot height limit. So I 6 mean to me that’s the area to worry about. 7 8 Downtown, it’s mostly, we generally have more smaller lots; there’s a lot of context that the 9 Board can respond to. But on El Camino, we don’t generally like the context and it seems to me 10 it would be hard to hang it all on a context based findings if we don’t like, if we don’t 11 necessarily like the context. So it seems to me that having a more concrete fixed standard is 12 needed in that situation. 13 14 Ms. French: Yeah, one of the troubles that we’ve had on staff in trying to prepare a one size fits 15 all code here for adoption, recommendation, is that we do have older building stock along El 16 Camino. And so the hope, I guess, of the El Camino Guidelines was that eventually the 17 buildings would come down, the ones that aren’t precious, and we gradually increase that 18 sidewalk width all along, but you will have situations where buildings will be there for the next 19 50 years. Some of those buildings will be there and they’re not going to go back to 18 feet for 20 a while as per the Grand Boulevard recommendations. I guess what it comes to here is that 21 somehow we need to be able to get to a point where we can say we have changes that will 22 mean wider sidewalks than 12 feet where they’re desired. And how do we – there’s probably a 23 longer process to determine where that 18 feet would be appropriate, but we have to have a 24 code that allows for that, because right now with the build-to line the way it’s written it doesn’t 25 allow to be set back that far. So that’s kind of the quick fix that we’re looking at. 26 27 Board Member Lew: I just had a quick question for you. Maybe I might… I can, we can defer 28 this later if it makes more sense, but I was looking in the RT zoning for South of Forest Avenue 29 (SOFA) and then for mixed-use it says that the setback for commercial, mixed-use, residential, 30 and there are different setbacks and I think for the one for mixed-use it says it’s 15 feet, but it 31 could be reduced to 0 based on Planning staff and ARB recommendations. And I was 32 wondering we don’t get very many RT projects, but I was wondering if you thought that would 33 be a… is that a way to go for the zoning or is that too open ended? 34 35 Ms. French: Well, let’s see. If you, so the ordinance…yeah, I don’t want to be answering a 36 question with a question. But we do have the table. Ok, so I think if we focus on our Table, 37 Table 3, Table 3 and Table 4 are very much alike. First Table 3 is for non-residential only and 38 the second one is for mixed-use. They both have this range that allows 0 to 10 foot setback, 39 the purpose being in order to create an 8 to 12 foot setback. Now we are talking about that 40 should be gray, actually, to expand that to say 8 feet to 18 feet so it gives us a broader range 41 and then the question is when you say “based on context”? That’s where the ARB and staff 42 have work to do. And can we identify some other factors? So we, down below under build-to 43 lines, we start identifying lot size as one factor and where wider sidewalks are desired, which is 44 to be determined where that is desired. There could be another factor such as land use. We’ve 45 had this discussion; if it’s a hotel do we want an 18 foot wide sidewalk or not? So I guess 46 helping on defining the criteria would be great if there’s a way to do that. It’s maybe a longer 47 discussion than just today, but the zoning code could say that it’s subject to criteria that we 48 continue to work on. 49 50 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Lippert: Yeah, we don’t have very much time because we need to move forward with 1 some sort of guidance that we can give Planning and Transportation whether we revisit the 2 item or not. I think that this is going to be a push/pull type of thing. So what we need to do is 3 today formulate some sort of consensus here that we’re able to then give some guidance to the 4 PTC, have them take it in, decide whether they want to use it or not in their recommendation to 5 the City Council. So I think that any direction that we can give is going to be particularly 6 helpful. I really like what Alex has to say, but I’m interested in getting other Board Members to 7 weigh in and have a discussion on this. So Robert, why don’t you go next? 8 9 Board Member Gooyer: Clare and I did meet and I think we’re, I think a similar opinion that for 10 in most cases a 9 to 12 foot wide sidewalk is sort of an ideal… 11 12 Unidentified man off microphone: Sorry, what was the numbers? 13 14 Board Member Gooyer: 9 to 12. And, but I happened to mention 18 feet. I don’t see any 15 situation where an 18 foot sidewalk is necessary. I mean that’s my own personal opinion. I 16 understand the whole grand concept, the Grand Boulevard concept, but I’m sorry, El Camino 17 Real is never going to be a Grand Boulevard. It’s not the Champs-Élysées where you want to 18 sit there and have a cup of coffee watching cars go by at 40 miles per hour. I mean it’s a 19 highway and it will never be anything other than a highway. But even for the larger areas that 20 I think that ought to be somewhere in this, we were talking maybe 12 to 15 and not 18 feet. Is 21 that it? That’s it. 22 23 Chair Lippert: Randy? 24 25 Vice-Chair Popp: Yeah, I have to say I’m absolutely in agreement with what the other Board 26 Members are already saying. You know the only thing that I would point out is one of the really 27 nice spaces in the area is Bob Peterson’s Menlo Center. That public space that’s out in front of 28 that building that has some landscape area and the fountain and Cafe Borrone comes out to 29 that, it’s really very nice. And that’s much deeper than 18 feet. So there are exceptions where 30 something special might happen, but I think those are the exceptions and not the rule and I 31 appreciate your thought about 18 feet as a norm being too much and that the 9 to 12 seems 32 much more reasonable. 33 34 In terms of giving direction there were some specific questions that were asked in the staff 35 report and I’ll try and address a couple of those quickly. First, the build-to line in regard to the 36 two different directions on that, I’m definitely in favor of the one staff’s recommending, which is 37 Option 2. And I’m in favor of the changes proposed to 18.16 and in particular this B3E item. I 38 think we should as quickly as possible contract with Bruce Fukuji, am I saying that right, Fukuji? 39 For his study and recommendations to help support and guide us in this and I think that that’s 40 true as well for 18.04 when we’re talking about clarification for lot area in regard to Floor Area 41 Ratio (FAR) and how we’re going to handle that very delicate issue. And having some studies 42 or concepts not just for sidewalk widths, but also in consideration of what amenities need to be 43 placed within those widths and how that might reduce or encroach or enliven the sidewalk 44 landscape would be really helpful to me. 45 46 There was a paragraph about outreach that was not really clear to me how we’re talking 47 about…let’s see if I can find that quick thing… oh, I’m sorry, on Page 9 of the staff report 48 you’ve got something about outreach and further study. And I think that the, there’s some just 49 in the editing of that paragraph something got lost and I just wasn’t quite able to follow what 50 was there, but if you could just read through that and maybe that needs to be re-crafted, but 51 City of Palo Alto Page 5 for me I think I’m very much aligned with the direction staff is headed on this and I think that 1 having Bruce help to bring some closure to this quickly is really a great way to go about it. 2 3 The last item I guess I wanted to point out is that on Attachment C where you’ve got your 4 really excellent table talking about all these different aspects and the pros and cons of them the 5 second to last page where you’re talking about the CD zone you made a great statement about 6 that seeming a little wacky to you and I think I just wanted to understand. What about that is 7 challenging for you or I’m just I’m not quite clear on the criteria about 640 Waverly and what 8 was happening there, but if you could… can I ask you to jump in and explain that? 9 10 Ms. French: Sure, I think the way the CD zone, which we’re not addressing today, but we can 11 just talk briefly about that again, is do we need to come back and look at the CD zone. The 12 way the CD zone is set up if you have a mixed-use project there’s a different front setback than 13 if it’s a commercial building and the wacky part, I guess colloquial use of that… 14 15 Vice-Chair Popp: Wacky is fine. 16 17 Ms. French: Is that it just seems odd to me that you would have a greater setback when it’s 18 mixed use than when it’s commercial because across from residential; so at 636 Waverley 19 there’s it’s a mixed-use, so it has to be deeper. If 640 Waverley came along with full 20 commercial it could be closer, but if they do come back with mixed-use, then they’re across 21 from residential and they’d have to get, they’d have to be deeper. 22 23 Vice-Chair Popp: So you’re absolutely putting an exclamation point on my concern, which is I 24 think we need to be looking at all of this at the same time, not just the CS, but the CN and all 25 these things because… 26 27 Ms. French: Right. 28 29 Vice-Chair Popp: They are going to occur next to each other. We are going to have these 30 issues where one is in context and our whole goal here is to try and get an overall methodology 31 so that we don’t have to look for exceptions and we don’t have to look for, there are no 32 questions and there aren’t a lot of loopholes in this. And so I think that to the degree we can 33 we should put everything on the table all at the same time and solve this at once and… 34 35 Ms. French: Yeah, in concept I agree, but there’s certainly pressure to get something to the 36 Council. There’s a work plan, there’s this kind of thing. And so, El Camino - being that we’ve 37 been at that for a while and that’s strictly CS and CN with some CC thrown in and the build-to 38 lines where we’ve been seeing these Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) come forward, are 39 only applicable in the CN and CS - that was kind of the low hanging fruit, in my opinion. We’ve 40 had these DEE’s to the build-to line. I have to say there is good urban design reason for 41 maintaining a street wall, but we have to have some flexibility there. And so looking at, is that 42 a maximum setback, so we don’t have buildings that are farther than 10 feet from the front 43 property line - is that a way to get to it? But there’s this thing about the 50 percent of the 44 building wall has to be at that zero lot line - the way it’s written now - and so it’s to try and free 45 some of that up, but not lose…you know, not throw the baby out with the bathwater. 46 47 Vice-Chair Popp: Absolutely in favor of the direction this is headed. I just think that if there was 48 a way to, I don’t know how you’d do this, is there a way to include some language that 49 suggests that for projects of similar character in other zones, the same considerations might 50 apply? 51 City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 Ms. French: Yeah, and we can do that without touching this ordinance in particular. We can, 2 you’re saying, now we can set this up for the next chapter that we tackle - the 18.18. 3 4 Vice-Chair Popp: Ok. 5 6 Ms. French: We can set up the logic now, the reasoning, right? 7 8 Vice-Chair Popp: Great. Thank you. 9 10 Chair Lippert: Board Member Malone Prichard do you have any thoughts on sidewalks here? 11 12 Board Member Malone Prichard: Board Member Gooyer accurately described our conversation 13 that the 9 to 12 is typically a reasonable sidewalk width and it could expand to 12 to 15 along El 14 Camino. The 18 seems excessive especially given the depth of the lots that are there. Did 15 want to answer one of the staff questions about whether or not there is an incentive given to 16 property owners to provide more sidewalk if they don’t have to subtract that from lot area. 17 That’s not an incentive. No. It’s sort of a no harm no foul, but it’s not going to say great I’ll go 18 ahead and give you more sidewalk because it’s not going to come from my lot area. They’ve 19 got their lot area either way. So it’s not an incentive. It’s fair, but it’s not an incentive. 20 21 Ms. French: I think the concern that staff has is, if they provide a sidewalk on their private 22 property and the City wants to have the public walking on it, then because of the way the lot 23 area definition is written now, that it may be an interpretation to say that doesn’t count for lot 24 area for you and therefore you have to have a smaller building based on your lot area. 25 26 Board Member Malone Prichard: Yeah, I understand that. It’s not a fair interpretation to be 27 taking property and I think City Attorney has mentioned that there’s a legal issue with that as 28 well. So yes, take it out, but don’t view it as an incentive. 29 30 I’m coming at this from a slightly different angle perhaps than other Board Members. I see that 31 we’ve got a problem with sidewalk widths because of the way the zoning ordinance was written 32 that required a build-to and we’re trying to fix that by changing some numbers. It’s just going 33 to be a different set of problems. I think what we need to do is either remove the build-to 34 requirement, and write some language that allows for architectural review to decide what the 35 appropriate setback is, or we need to leave it the way it is and add exceptions for uses that 36 enliven the street. Because what you don’t want is a blank wall that’s 18 feet back from the 37 street. You want that space to be used somehow and not just be concrete sidewalk. But that’s 38 something you can’t put in the zoning ordinance specifically. You just can’t do it. There are too 39 many different properties out there, too many different situations. So I’m really not in favor of 40 tweaking the numbers because they’re going to be wrong again. They’ll just be wrong in a 41 different way. 42 43 Chair Lippert: Ok, well I’m the odd man here. I’m supposed to team up with Russ and 44 unfortunately the only time I had to meet with him was on a 980 Friday and you were already 45 gone. But with that, there are a number of things that I’ve heard here which I’m in agreement 46 with; first of all I think that the idea of building width dictating or beginning to talk about 47 setback I think is particularly important and hasn’t really entered into this discussion before and 48 it’s something to consider. I think that the Alma Plaza project, which I’ve yet to vote in support 49 of on any front, has been an abysmal failure and part of it is the sidewalk. I love the idea that 50 there’s retail and a supermarket up on the ground floor there against Alma Street, but there’s a 51 City of Palo Alto Page 7 wall there. There’s no visual connection between Alma Street and that market. And so in order 1 for there to be some sort of enhancement there, you need to have visual access. And so in 2 some ways when we talk about the use and the visual connection, the more visual connection 3 there is really the closer it can be to the street and the sidewalk. The less visual connection 4 there is, the building should be forced to actually move back away from the street. 5 6 So I’m thinking about trends in architecture, if you look at the modernist, midcentury modernist 7 notion the building was an object, an extruded object in the middle of a site with parking 8 around it, it moved away from the street. In the postmodern era even the high-tech era, which 9 overlapped, it was building, taking the building and making it almost a neoclassical element or 10 again an object. And so today, as we move into this movement of the building being an 11 environmental machine and looking at livable/walkable communities, the sidewalk and the 12 building need to interact and work together. And so I don’t think it’s a one size fits all scenario 13 and it is the use of that building and how that use complements the sidewalk that should 14 dictate that sidewalk width. If you take for instance Arbor Real, the failure of Arbor Real, I 15 mean Arbor Real is set back quite a ways from El Camino and from Charleston. That’s not the 16 fault of the placement of the building, even though repeatedly again and again and again it’s 17 characterized as such. The failure of the building is that the residents there, the front doors 18 don’t adequately address the streets and give those buildings a street presence in essence like 19 a mews or like townhouses generally do in an urban environment. And so again it’s the use 20 that’s driving that relationship to that sidewalk. 21 22 And so there’re a couple of things that we can do to incentivize wider sidewalks and one of 23 them is that retail uses are important - that they actually come up and abut the sidewalk, 24 whereas a commercial office use really in some ways should be stepped back away from the 25 street. Again, I think a residential element you want to have some sort of a buffer between the 26 sidewalk and the residence. So again, if it’s a ground floor residential unit or the entrance to 27 apartments above that should be setback away from the street to create that buffer, a 28 buffering. So I don’t think it’s a necessarily a one size fits all. 29 30 I am in agreement with Board Member Gooyer and Malone Prichard in terms of the 9 to 12 foot 31 sidewalk width. And what I would generally say is that there are situations where the property 32 line and the curb don’t have 9 to 12 feet, but those are required to be 9 to 12 feet right from 33 the get go. That’s the starting point. And so those buildings must step back, but there’re 34 opportunities for encroachment. One of them would be columns could encroach into that. I 35 think upper stories should still be forced to comply with the build-to line so that they’re right on 36 the property line and that in some ways maybe that’s where we look at the 50 percent is that 37 we look at upper level structures be forced to come forward to the property line. What we can 38 also look at is, we want to incentivize mixed-use buildings a lot more, so there’s going to be 39 more floor area, more density. Again, the ground floor we want that to step back, but with that 40 you get the added density. So I think again there’s not a one size fits all and I’m in agreement 41 with Vice-Chair Popp that we really need to look at not just El Camino Real, but we also need to 42 look at the other areas in town and let this discussion happen based on not just El Camino Real, 43 but also Cal Ave., downtown, midtown, etcetera. 44 45 So with that why don’t we do this… first of all I’m going to open the public hearing. There are 46 members of the public that wish to speak to this item - you may do so. Mr. Borock if you would 47 like to speak you may do so and then just fill out a speaker card when you’re done and you’ll 48 have, I’ll give you three minutes. 49 50 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Herb Borock: Thank you, I don’t think I’ll need that much. Board Chair Lippert and Board 1 Members (interrupted) 2 3 Chair Lippert: Turn on, is the mic on? Yeah, ok, great. Ok. 4 5 Mr. Borock: The (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Lippert: Lift the mic up please. 8 9 Mr. Borock: The discussion refers to 9 to 12 foot sidewalk. Well, that’s something to walk on 10 and one of the Board Members talked about what use would be made; you need 9 to 12 feet so 11 you can use it for something. Well, if you want to privatize, take the public space and privatize 12 and say for tables and chairs for a business it’s no longer a sidewalk. And so the real question 13 you have to figure out is if you’re talking about a particular area where you want a certain width 14 of sidewalk, say a commercial area where you feel it needs to be that wide then it should not 15 be appropriated for private use. 16 17 The second issue my recollection is that what Council was concerned about were just those 18 properties that were being included in the list of properties to meet our Regional Housing Needs 19 Allocation (RHNA) and those were required because of the size of our community to have a 20 minimum residential density of 20 units per acre compared to say 15 in the CN zone. So the 21 idea is that there was a bonus allowed in the Housing Density Bonus Law that it was the idea to 22 bring it down to what the number would have been without the bonus. So it’s only talking 23 about specific properties rather than all the properties in the zone district. And now this is sort 24 of morphed into discussion first from dealing with the properties that would get an increased 25 density under the Housing Density Bonus Law in terms of floor area and worrying how to make 26 that not happen to referring to all the properties in those districts and now referring to all the 27 properties on all parts of the City because those properties in the City’s action on the Housing 28 Density Bonus Law were focused on El Camino and it just seems to grow. I think the most 29 helpful thing to be would be to start with our award winning zoning districts many years ago 30 and see how they’ve changed, which has essentially been intensifying, which has created this 31 problem. Thank you. 32 33 Chair Lippert: Thank you Mr. Borock. If you would please fill out a speaker card and give it to 34 one of the staff members I’d appreciate it. Amy, do you have anything you’d like to add? 35 36 Ms. French: Yeah, I thought I would try to help a bit on the FAR piece, based on what the 37 speaker just mentioned. The FAR piece is strictly in this ordinance focused on the CN 38 properties, which was the action by Council. And so we’re not expanding that piece of this 39 ordinance to any other zone, it’s just the CN zone for the purpose and it’s kind of an add-on to 40 the ARB’s effort and the Planning Commission’s effort that has been ongoing for a while to 41 address the sidewalk width. Hopefully that clarifies it for the speaker. 42 43 Chair Lippert: Ok, so I will close the public hearing and will return to the Board and I’m going to 44 begin with Board Member Lew and why don’t we go through and simply discuss the sidewalk 45 width first and then we can talk about the 20 percent housing as a separate issue. 46 47 Board Member Lew: So I would actually argue that the sidewalks should be wider on El Camino, 48 more so than what I think the majority of the Board is arguing for. If you actually look at El 49 Camino we’re not going to get - I think it’s doubtful we’re going to get - bike lanes on there. 50 It’s doubtful that we’re ever going to get, that there’s ever going to be a lane reduction or a 51 City of Palo Alto Page 9 road diet. And if you walk on El Camino as I’ve done, you see actually most of the bicyclists are 1 actually on, are actually riding on the sidewalk. And in the places where we have the old 2 sidewalk width, which is whatever, I don’t know what it is, six feet or whatever, it’s just 3 incredibly narrow. I think the 12 feet is working in some places, but the 12 feet is encroached 4 by a lot of storm water drainage and stuff in some projects. And at the Hilton Garden Hotel we 5 had a 12 foot sidewalk, but we also had a big portico share with big curb cuts and storm water 6 drainage. And to me it didn’t really all fit together very well. I mean it, they did it, but it’s we’ll 7 see, I mean it’s under construction now. But to me it wasn’t an ideal situation in that case. 8 9 There are definitely places on, where there are smaller lots where it seems, yeah, I would agree 10 going wider than 12 feet doesn’t make any sense. But there are definitely locations on the 11 southern part of Palo Alto where I think we could go wider. And I think the other thought that 12 I have on the sidewalks is the planting. In some cities they are doing wider swales, and they 13 are actually draining instead of dumping everything in the storm drain - they are putting it in 14 the planter strips and the planter strips are very different than what we’ve ever seen in town, 15 but they’re…Mountain View has one on Grant Road. I know Phoenix and other places are doing 16 that. And I’ve worked on one project on El Camino where there was a storm drain issue and I 17 know that College Terrace Center did a whole green roof to try to address the lack of storm 18 water storm sewer near their site, and so to me that’s another factor. We’ve seen, there’s 19 some projects like the Medical Foundation where they had a big raised planter right in front of 20 their building and that was partly to address the storm water issue. And so to me that’s a really 21 important factor and that should be included in this. It’s not clear to me like what’s the best 22 way of handling those situations and that’s something new that we haven’t really had to deal 23 with that much. It’s appeared on the AT&T building on Page Mill Road and also the Hilton 24 Garden Inn. So I think that we should try to do something like make it a nice design feature, 25 not just squeeze it in these tiny little planting strips. So I think that was all that I have to say at 26 this time. Thanks. 27 28 Chair Lippert: Let me ask you a question here. If we started with the 12 foot wide as the 29 sidewalk, how much width would be too wide? 30 31 Board Member Lew: Effective sidewalk. We’re actually saying ‘including planting’. 32 33 Chair Lippert: Correct. 34 35 Board Member Lew: Right. 36 37 Chair Lippert: Yeah, so if we started 12 feet and you said, “Gee, it could be wider,” what would 38 you see as being too wide? 39 40 Board Member Lew: Yeah, I would actually say that from the projects that I looked and were 41 shared at the retreat that 18 feet seems really wide. And I think that the Rail Corridor Study, 42 which is saying 15 seems to me to be fair. It’s like a balance. And then in certain places where 43 there’s a greater context of everything is built at 10 or 8 or 10 or 12 or whatever there’s some 44 places say like near College Terrace where there is actually already a consistent street wall, 45 then I would just say maintain the existing context. 46 47 Chair Lippert: Ok, so you’re saying, I’m just trying to get a handle on this; so you’re weighing in 48 that somewhere between 9 to 15 feet would be appropriate as effective sidewalk where we say 49 you have planting strip, sidewalk, and then some landscaping before the building starts? 50 51 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member Lew: And I would actually agree that there are maybe a couple of places on El 1 Camino or could be even larger than 15. There are some on the Research Park side, which I 2 think people think are in the Research Park, but they’re not. Right? I mean there are some, a 3 couple projects, lots that aren’t part of Stanford. So I would argue again, it’s just context that if 4 Stanford has 50 foot setback, then those projects might need to have something more. And 5 then again in my mind, I’m connecting buildings and sidewalks. Buildings and sidewalks are 6 separate (interrupted) 7 8 Chair Lippert: Ok, I’m just looking for a range that we can begin to hang each other’s discussion 9 on here. So Robert, Mr. Board Member Gooyer? 10 11 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I think if you’re going to do a range, I think 9 to 15 at the two 12 extremes is very reasonable. It shouldn’t probably be less than 9 and I don’t think it should be 13 over 15, unless you want to do something as you said, where the bottom floor backs up 14 because you want to do a larger seating area or something, but that is outside of the purview 15 of the sidewalk. 16 17 Chair Lippert: Vice-Chair Popp what are your thoughts? 18 19 Vice-Chair Popp: Yeah, I’m in agreement with the 9 to 15 dimension. I think again my concern 20 is what occurs within that space and how does that occlude movement/inhibit the use of that 21 space? And so again, I’ll go back to staff’s recommendation that we get some studies done and 22 we talk about what other amenities might be within that space and have some examples 23 prepared that really illustrate how we want that space to be used, but if you’re looking for just 24 a specific range of numbers today, I think 9 to 15 sounds very reasonable. 25 26 Board Member Lew: Can I have a quick follow up for staff? 27 28 Chair Lippert: Sure. 29 30 Board Member Lew: So Amy, we’ve had a couple cases where Transportation or the County, I 31 think Transportation, would not allow street trees. And so I was wondering, I think that maybe 32 should be a factor. So if you have a really busy arterial road and no parking and there’s a 33 travel lane right against the curb and then they say, “Oh you can’t have trees,” then I think we 34 have to come up with some other design standard for that situation. 35 36 Ms. French: So I’m reading between the lines, subtext, is we’d want to have a greater setback 37 requirement when there’s no parking, and we want street trees, so that we allow placement of 38 trees farther back from the curb, since if we put it at the curb they won’t be able to grow with a 39 decent canopy of any kind, on one side at least. 40 41 Board Member Lew: Or something. Or there has to be a planted façade or whatever it is. But I 42 mean it seems like or maybe there’s just a different standard altogether. 43 44 Ms. French: On the inside of the sidewalk or…? 45 46 Board Member Lew: I mean somehow in the history of cities, there are lots of beautiful cites 47 without any street trees so I don’t want to say that you have to have a tree in front of your 48 property, right? But then the building has to be better. So I’m just thinking there’s a… the 49 projects on Page Mill Road - actually they are in process, I can’t mention them. 50 51 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Lippert: Board Member Malone Prichard. 1 2 Board Member Malone Prichard: So a range of sidewalk widths of 9 to 15 is a reasonable 3 request. 4 5 Chair Lippert: Ok. I think I’m in agreement. I think that that is a reasonable request of 6 applicants. We’re not being abusive here and I don’t think it really represents a taking since we 7 do require landscaping onsite anyway. So my feeling about it is twofold. Number one, I think 8 we want to make it very clear to the recommending body that street trees are a very big 9 important element here, the landscaping…how, what the use of that sidewalk is. And if 10 Caltrans is not permitting plantings or street trees on El Camino Real and the reasons being, my 11 guess is number one maintenance… you want to correct me here? 12 13 Russ Reich, Senior Planner: It hasn’t been Caltrans that’s been the issue on El Camino. It’s the 14 County on Page Mill Road. Being a county expressway, they have a seven foot minimum 15 distance away from the curb so the problem has been… 16 17 Chair Lippert: The County? 18 19 Mr. Reich: Page Mill is with the County, not with Caltrans. 20 21 Chair Lippert: Yeah, I don’t see that as much of an issue. What I’m concerned about is that 22 street trees incorporated into the sidewalks are particularly important. Landscaping is 23 particularly important. We do have the issue however of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, actually 24 it’s not an aqueduct it’s a tunnel, running underneath El Camino Real and I know that that’s 25 problematic in terms of trees seeking out water. But I think that they’ve resolved that pretty 26 much. You just can’t go very deep underneath where those are. 27 28 With regard to the setback I think 9 to 12 feet is just fine. I think that there should be allowed 29 for encroachment into that effective sidewalk, meaning that as long as it’s on the property line I 30 think street furniture, columns, building… certain building elements are allowed. And I would 31 still encourage that the upper floors up to 50 percent be required to build to the property line. 32 33 Board Member Gooyer: Could we make it the face (interrupted) 34 35 Chair Lippert: You’ll get a chance to weigh in. So, and I think that it’s important in terms of 36 capturing the street and making the corridor a room and getting eyes on the street. I think 37 that’s particularly important. I also would incentivize that ground floor retail has the ability to 38 move up closer to the property line, whereas if it was ground floor office or residential, that 39 would have to step back or step away from the property line. And my thought about that on 40 the ground floor is that I think we have the ability to begin to memorialize retail, ground floor 41 retail and simply using that as an enforcement tool to say, ok if this is going to exist as ground 42 floor commercial space where it’s located closer to the street, it can’t be office. It needs to 43 remain retail. And it’s fairly easy I think for a property owner or tenant to move that ground 44 floor façade back if they wanted to then put in commercial office space. They use that they 45 lose that ground floor office space, but they create a wider effective sidewalk there. And so 46 that’s the way I would simply approach it is that the use drives in some ways that sidewalk 47 width. Mr. Board Member Gooyer you had some thoughts you wanted to add to that? 48 49 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Gooyer: No, I was just going to say that, as far as the 50 percent requirement, 1 make it the face of the building as you said so that even if the first floor is stepped back the 2 second or third or whatever would allow that 50 percent to be met. 3 4 Chair Lippert: Vice-Chair Popp? You’re in agreement? Just nodding in agreement, okay. Board 5 Member Malone Prichard? 6 7 Board Member Malone Prichard: Regarding the retail coming out to the closer to the sidewalk, I 8 think it is great for retail to come out closer to the sidewalk. I would disagree that it’s easy to 9 remove square footage later when the use changes and I would also point out that our zoning 10 ordinance already has very straight regulations on whether or not you can put office on the 11 ground floor if retail has already been there. So I don’t think we need to go there and modify 12 that. But I do agree that we should allow a smaller sidewalk when it is a retail use. 13 14 Chair Lippert: You know where I was going with that is that, because of the threat of more, we 15 had a threat several years back of commercial office poaching the ground floor retail in the 16 downtown. What the PTC basically did was they said, “Ok, we’re going to protect University 17 Avenue, we’re going to protect some of the side streets here, we’re going to seed portions of 18 Hamilton Avenue and Lytton and allow those to become ground floor office spaces.” And my 19 thought was that well, because we’re looking at the whole notion of sidewalks, what we could 20 do is allow for those façades to actually be closer to the street as retail, but once they became 21 commercial they would have to come back away from the street. And I know that a lot of the 22 buildings are actually supported by columns or… steel columns or other devices where the 23 façade could actually be pulled back away from the street different from the actual structural 24 you know, so it’s a current wall system. It’s not a structural wall. 25 26 Board Member Malone Prichard: So the issue with that I think is that you’ve got a 6,000 square 27 foot building and now you want to change it, the ground floor, to office now you’re going to 28 have a 5,000 square foot building I think you’ve taken away development rights from them. 29 It’s going to be hard for them to add that 1,000 square feet somewhere else in an existing 30 building. I think it’s a big can of worms you don’t want to go into. 31 32 Chair Lippert: Any thoughts from staff on that? 33 34 Ms. French: Well certainly there is that zoning, a piece of the zoning code, that talks about 35 conversion if it was retail. The language was written in a way that doesn’t, isn’t quite as tight 36 as it should be to preserve retail in the CS zone. Right, well there’s CN zone, there’s CS zone. 37 So we probably should, and we’ve had some concern in the past that maybe what was adopted 38 in 2001 in haste doesn’t have the kind of protections that people think it has, because of the 39 way it’s written. So that’s something probably we need to take a look at… I think it’s really 40 tough as a staff person, when somebody comes in for a Use and Occupancy Permit and if 41 commercial is allowed on the ground floor to say well, but your building doesn’t allow it so you 42 can’t. It’s a trick. How do you write that into a code? I can tell you writing, trying to do 43 something that fits, with language in a code, is really tough. Again, because context and 44 existing uses, it gets very specific for each property that comes in and each owner. And it’s 45 tough to kind of try to write something, when you could write something to say for instance, 46 amortizing all of the existing buildings that are close, to say you must do retail there. We would 47 have a firestorm, because there’re people that already have office and what are you going to… 48 and then you’re going to say well the next use that goes in can’t do office anymore. I mean 49 you’re kind of, that’s kind of a bit of a taking. You get into some legal trouble that way. So it’s 50 hard to craft. 51 City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 Chair Lippert: Let me give you an overall picture where I’m going with this, ok? And I think 2 height plays an important factor into this. During our retreat, Vice-Chair Popp gave a very 3 compelling presentation in terms of floor to floor heights and ultimate building height and what 4 was required in terms of mechanical systems and what was desirable. And, in that illustration it 5 really talked about having greater height when there was a retail use on the ground floor. And 6 the driving force - where I’m going is that, it’s not necessarily existing buildings or legally 7 existing nonconforming uses or existing uses and trying to flip them or change them. But I think 8 it’s the new development, because the opportunity here is that we could really benefit greatly 9 from more mixed-use buildings and with Planned Communities (PC) currently in a state of yeah, 10 we pushed the pause button on it. I think that there are ways to begin to use allowable uses, 11 densities, some of the Bonus Density Law, additive floor areas and begin to manipulate that 12 whole issue along with the building height issue as to where we encourage density and 13 memorialize things like retail, ground floor retail uses. And by saying you want that extra 14 square footage at the ground floor level that approaches the street or approaches the sidewalk 15 there, abuts the sidewalk, well then you definitely have to have a retail use there. And with 16 that you get the added height, but it has to be ground floor retail. And then when you begin to 17 add the other uses on the floors above you get greater density so what we’re doing is we’re 18 being proactive. We’re actually incentivizing and approaching more of a form code than we are 19 relying on development regulations. Any thoughts on that? Did I lose everybody or does what 20 I say make any sense? 21 22 Mr. Reich: As a staff person that implements the code, the issue that I see or something that 23 would need to be addressed is, I understand how that works for new development, but you 24 have a lot of existing development that then suddenly becomes nonconforming. Or how do you 25 address that new development 10 years down the road when they want to change uses? And 26 suddenly you have this retail use and they want to go to office or something else that wouldn’t 27 be allowed to have those heights and then suddenly you have this building that’s not, obviously 28 you’re not going to modify the heights of the building to be able to change the uses. And then 29 that property owner is stuck into forever having this one particular use and that use may not be 30 appropriate in that location anymore as things change up and down the street, and we just 31 need to think though that very thoroughly. 32 33 Chair Lippert: Well, you know I appreciate what you’re saying, but if you apply everything to all 34 the zones then you don’t have a problem because everybody is the rules, the regulations have 35 been changed for everybody in that zone. So if you had a retail use and the building owner 36 wanted to convert over to office space, yes it might be problematic. Ok? However, if it’s office 37 space already and it’s just simply flipping and putting another office in there it’s still the same 38 legal existing nonconforming use and so it’s not a problem. It’s only when you begin to 39 introduce a change of use and that happens all the time. We do impose additional regulations 40 on new tenants when the use changes. If it was going say from retail space to a restaurant, 41 well if it’s over 800 square feet we require that they actually go to a different model in terms of 42 the seating arrangement or they begin to sprinkler the building if it’s not already sprinklered. 43 That’s an example of another regulation that’s added. So do my fellow Board Members 44 understand where I’m going with this and understand or are they in agreement or not in 45 agreement or? 46 47 Board Member Malone Prichard: I’m in agreement for new buildings. I’m not in agreement as it 48 would affect existing buildings. 49 50 Chair Lippert: Ok. I think that’s fair. Board Member Vice-Chair Popp? 51 City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 Vice-Chair Popp: I agree with that. 2 3 Board Member Gooyer: So do I. 4 5 Chair Lippert: Board Member Lew? 6 7 Board Member Lew: I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but I think the situation’s much 8 more complicated. 9 10 Chair Lippert: It is. 11 12 Board Member Lew: And I don’t know, I think my hunch is that retail and development, the way 13 developments are being done, has changed so much that I don’t know that if that kind of 14 incentive is really going to take it where I think you envision it to go. I mean I think that, if you 15 just look at what’s being built now like the hotels and we have like Elk’s Club and private 16 schools and stuff on El Camino, I’m not sure that they would be so inclined to add retail. I 17 don’t know. I’m not a developer. 18 19 Chair Lippert: That’s a very good question. I think that the only thing that really matters here 20 are the new buildings, because frankly, the sidewalk and the building façade are already fixed 21 in place, so you’re not going to go in and where they’re renovating an existing building, the 22 building’s built. They’re just renovating the building. They’re not going to move the sidewalk. 23 Yeah, slice off five feet of the building. Yeah, unless it’s Menlo Park which did that on the west 24 side of El Camino Real where it came and the reason why the movie theatres don’t have any 25 lobbies is that those facades were actually just sliced off to make El Camino Real wider and 26 that’s why the sidewalk is so narrow there. But (interrupted) 27 28 Board Member Malone Prichard: Sorry, go ahead. 29 30 Chair Lippert: Sorry, no go ahead. 31 32 Board Member Malone Prichard: I just wanted to just say that in all of my dealings with 33 developers, really the only incentive that gets them to do anything, is more square footage. 34 That’s what drives them. That’s what they’re all about. So if, and that’s why you’re seeing 35 mixed-use developments in the CS zone, because you can build more square feet as a mixed-36 use than you can as any other use. That’s why it’s happening. 37 38 Chair Lippert: Ok, so just I just want to find some sort of closure or direction on this. So if we 39 went back to the PTC for the time being giving guidance that we feel that a 9 to 15 foot 40 effective sidewalk is the direction that they should be looking at, are we in agreement with that 41 pretty much? 42 43 Board Member Gooyer: I think so, yeah. 44 45 Chair Lippert: Ok. And so what do my colleagues think about the idea of requiring that upper 46 floors come out to the build-to line, still require upper floors to come to the build-to line up to 47 50 percent of the façade? 48 49 Board Member Malone Prichard: I feel comfortable allowing it, but not requiring it. 50 51 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Vice-Chair Popp: Exactly. I don’t think we can make that a requirement, but I think we could 1 encourage it. 2 3 Chair Lippert: Ok. 4 5 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I agree. That goes back to the same thing I said as far as the 6 whole face of the building becomes part of that 50 percent. 7 8 Chair Lippert: Ok. Board Member Lew. 9 10 Board Member Lew: I think my answer would be it depends. 11 12 Chair Lippert: Ok. 13 14 Board Member Lew: I’m with you I think on the 35 foot height limit. I’m not sure I’m with you 15 on the 50 foot height limit areas. 16 17 Chair Lippert: Ok. Do we want to talk a little bit about the taking off the density, the residential 18 density, the 20 units per acre? 19 20 Ms. French: You can talk about it, but the Council has kind of given that direction. I mean 21 certainly adding value to the conversation would be great. I feel like there’s still other stuff to 22 do with respect to this context, the way we’ve set up in the ordinance to kind of fold in the 23 context based guidelines and if we could just get some input there. I mean definitely it’s 24 helpful to get that 9 to 15 foot, so we’re going from it used to be 8 to 12 feet and now it’s 25 going to say 9 to 15 feet wherever we have those - that range. So that’s clear. Maybe I could 26 go back and ask questions at some point when you’re ready. 27 28 Chair Lippert: No, go ahead. Please. 29 30 Ms. French: Ok. Alex had (interrupted) 31 32 Board Member Lew: I just had a quick one - so we’ve got the effective sidewalk width, but then 33 what happens where there’s a special setback? So I know you have your, you have it in your 34 table (interrupted) 35 36 Ms. French: Right. 37 38 Board Member Lew: So I guess the thing that’s in the back of my mind was, you know the 39 there’s a Middlefield project, Ken Hayes’ project on Middlefield right next to the Winter Lodge 40 and he was arguing, I mean it didn’t meet the 50 percent build-to line or it was an 41 interpretation? 42 43 Ms. French: I believe it was a DEE, a Design Enhancement Exception, because they didn’t get to 44 50 percent solid wall. 45 46 Board Member Lew: Right, it had a porch or something. 47 48 Ms. French: Yes, some kind of canopy that we counted. 49 50 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Board Member Lew: I guess my question for staff is, what difference does it make? If you have 1 a 20 foot, that much of a setback and there’s no continuous wall, then what are we trying to 2 do? 3 4 Ms. French: Yeah, I don’t think these guidelines were written for the special setbacks. I think 5 they were written less specifically for El Camino, because they were taken from the El Camino 6 Guidelines that were prepared in 2002 to apply to El Camino, where we were trying to establish 7 that building wall as continuous as much as possible, given the fact that you have to have 8 driveways, etcetera. So yeah, the Middlefield example it’s wacky, to quote myself, but to have 9 that much that you have to put at 25 feet back, it’s sort of silly, right? Yeah. 10 11 Board Member Lew: So it seems to me like in your table like you just have them in separate 12 columns, right? You have special setback lines imposed by the special setback map and it 13 seems to me that there should be some sort of connection between the or some sort of 14 separation, or some sort of way to reconcile those two. Or maybe, I don’t know, maybe there 15 are situations where you want them both? I don’t know. 16 17 Ms. French: Right, so again to use a project, a real project that’s built, the Alma Plaza had a 18 special setback requirement along that roadway of 24 feet or maybe it was 30 feet. I think it 19 was 30 feet at that point. And so, but there’s no build-to line in that zone as it was PC, 20 basically all bets were off. There was no requirement for it to do the build-to. So anyways that 21 was through the PC process to have that come closer. If that were a CN on Middlefield again 22 with a build-to line in place for CN districts, which again was written more for El Camino, but it 23 does apply still for any CN zone property. We could probably go into this ordinance and say 24 we’re really talking about El Camino here, because there’s other - I listed all the streets that are 25 CN, right? There’s CN on Antonio, and CS. There’re lots of roadways here and some of those 26 are impacted by that special setback. So the build-to line kind of allows you to violate the 27 special setback if you will by saying put it 0 to 10 feet from the property, front property line 28 you’re saying you can now violate that 24 foot setback because we’re requiring you to put it 29 there. 30 31 Chair Lippert: I just want to put some legs on the whole notion of the special setbacks. That 32 the idea I believe when that was implemented was that we were more of a car oriented society 33 and that the idea was that the City wanted to be able to hold the option of being able to 34 eventually widen Middlefield Road in order to create more of a either Alma Street or something 35 that was more of an arterial in this City. Since then, I think everyone has pretty much set on 36 the meandering notion of Middlefield Road and that it’s not really an arterial. And I believe that 37 the same thing occurred on some of the downtown streets where we had special setbacks and 38 the idea was that, at some point, Bryant Street would be widened and made into more of an 39 arterial street. So that’s where a lot of the special setbacks actually come from, even though 40 it’s not described in that manner. 41 42 Ms. French: Yeah, I think the special setbacks is something that kind of makes us glaze over 43 and probably needs to be handled in a future, separate discussion just because we have to go 44 back to the origins, and see if there is any reason to keep them around and all of that. I mean 45 for instance, in the Research Park, you have 50 feet setbacks. You know? Let’s say that was 46 Page Mill Road or some other streets. Do they really want to have that wide of a roadway, or is 47 some of that because they want that green front lawn look, which is no longer sustainable, but 48 there might be other reasons for that special setback besides roadway that we’d have to do 49 some more study about. 50 51 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Lippert: But just to get around that whole discussion of special sidewalks because that’s 1 not part of this is, that it doesn’t affect our recommendation here because we’re looking at a 2 minimum effective sidewalk width here. And so the special setbacks are actually outside of 3 that. 4 5 Ms. French: Yeah, I think it’s only if we eliminated the build-to line then it would rear its head, 6 the whole special setbacks thing, because then we’d be looking at again the missing teeth by 7 observing the special setback. Yeah. 8 9 Chair Lippert: Good, good catch there. I like that. Missing teeth, pumpkin teeth. 10 11 Vice-Chair Popp: I understood that there are five specific things that you wanted us to give you 12 some input on, ok? Build-to line including the sidewalk widths; I think we’ve talked about that. 13 Lot area clarifying FAR should not be taken. Setback by land use. Overhang concept, I think 14 we talked about that and street trees I think we’ve addressed that. So I’m comfortable saying 15 go ahead to Council with the information, I’m sorry, Planning Commission with the information 16 that you’ve got here and with the one very clear statement from me that we need to get Bruce 17 involved. We need to get some examples made, we need to get some precedent evaluated and 18 really clearly exhibit for people what it is we want to have happen, but there’s nothing here 19 that’s challenging for me at this point and I think that we should try and move this forward 20 quickly so that we get rid of all the confusion and the swirl and the loopholes and get some 21 clarity and direction for people so that we don’t have to go through this on project after project. 22 Let’s just do it. 23 24 Ms. French: And since you’re going to appoint somebody to come to PTC to explain why not 18 25 and 12 at this point where we’re identifying this range, to be followed by further understanding 26 where that applies along El Camino in particular with Bruce Fukuji’s help perhaps, and then we 27 get a Council contract approval of a contract for a consultant to help. 28 29 Vice-Chair Popp: And I think we can probably go to Planning Commission and tell them what it 30 is we’re interested in, give them a narrative of why we want it and then get Bruce to further 31 illustrate that as we go forward, but we don’t need to wait for Bruce in order to take care of 32 that. 33 34 Ms. French: Sure. So I’m just, you know right now we have it kind of quasi-set for 35 recommendation to Planning Commission, but I’m feeling like we might want to pull back on 36 that and have the first meeting next week with them as a more discussion and to be continued 37 to come back with further amendments if they take that up and want to have further 38 discussion. 39 40 Chair Lippert: I don’t have a problem with that. I just want to make sure that they understand 41 where we’re at and that it’s beginning to boil or bubble and simmer, but it’s not soup yet. Not 42 stone soup. Would you like to weigh in a little bit about what Randy has just contributed? 43 44 Board Member Malone Prichard: I like that he’s distilled it back down to the five things we’re 45 supposed to be talking about because this is a huge topic otherwise. I think we did deal with 46 the build-to and setback, sidewalk widths, and the lot area. I’m not sure setback by land use 47 we really addressed except that we all agreed that it should vary by land use and I was hearing 48 we should either require or allow upper floors to overhang out to the property line; was that to 49 the property line or was that to the build-to line? Street trees are important and that’s a Bruce 50 Fukuji thing. 51 City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 Chair Lippert: Board Member Lew do you have anything to contribute? 2 3 Board Member Lew: No. 4 5 Chair Lippert: Board Member Gooyer? 6 7 Board Member Gooyer: I’m fine too. 8 9 Chair Lippert: Ok. I just want to try to understand here a little bit since we’re talking about use 10 and setbacks and effective sidewalk width so are my colleagues in agreement that if it was a 11 retail, ground floor retail use that in fact a 9 foot, something closer to a 9 foot sidewalk width 12 would be acceptable because we want to get people excited about the retail that’s going on 13 there and that if it was a different use that it would then be more of a 12 foot effective sidewalk 14 width? Is that what we’re saying here? 15 16 Board Member Malone Prichard: I think it is, but I think it’s important to state whether we’re 17 talking about allowing them to come to nine feet or requiring them to come to nine feet. And 18 I’m in favor of leaving it up to the applicant to design their building appropriately, but allowing 19 them to come to nine feet if it’s retail. 20 21 Chair Lippert: Ok, when it comes to use and zoning that’s really the PTC’s purview. So what I 22 would do is I would give them some guidance here and then allow them to weigh in and sort of 23 thresh that out and then maybe when the soup is closer to being ready when there are 24 ingredients we can finalize our recommendations here. 25 26 Ms. French: If I might just weigh in on that? So if just for, because of building form really, 27 which is your area of expertise particularly, if you have a nine foot sidewalk for retail then we 28 talked about the upper floors being at this 50 percent. Do those also continue on this nine foot 29 even though they’re office or do we have those ones step back to the twelve foot or whatever it 30 might be? These are other kind of questions that come up for me when I think, well we allow it 31 to come forward, but is the, you know, if it’s a 50 foot wide building are the upper floors also at 32 9 feet? And then that’s going to protrude forward. I guess it’s a question. 33 34 Chair Lippert: My (interrupted) 35 36 Board Member Malone Prichard: That’s what architectural review is for. 37 38 Chair Lippert: Yeah. My feeling is that I prefer… there’s a reason why we have a build-to line, 39 but it’s getting in the way of what’s happening at the ground floor plane with sidewalks. 40 Sidewalks don’t happen at the upper level. And so my thought is that you still encourage the 41 build-to for the upper stories particularly and I’m looking at either curtain walls, balconies I 42 think work well, and it doesn’t need to happen at all the floors. It could step back when you 43 get to the third floor, so. 44 45 Vice-Chair Popp: I guess I’m not interested in being dictatorial about these regulations, right? 46 Each project stands on its own. We need to evaluate each one as an individual piece. The one 47 certainty is change and if someone designs a project for retail today there’s no guarantee it’s 48 going to be retail five years later. It could become something different and so I think what’s 49 important is to recognize part of the reason the ARB exists is to help evaluate buildings and to 50 look at all of these different variables and setting one set of rules that is so precise I think is 51 City of Palo Alto Page 19 going to be very problematic and that’s something that Planning Commission needs to 1 understand clearly is that we’re entrusted with managing some of this and design and character 2 are something that needs to be assessed on a site by site basis. 3 4 Chair Lippert: Ok, so it’s now 20 of twelve. What I’d like to try to do is at this point get a 5 Motion and that captures the discussion that we’re having today and while that is not a formal 6 action or recommendation to the director it is guidance or talking points to provide to the PTC 7 so that they can have their discussion and hopefully this can return to us and we can continue 8 the discussion and fine tune some of this. 9 10 Vice-Chair Popp: Is that a Motion? 11 12 Chair Lippert: No, because there’s no content. I want to make sure that we capture the 13 content. So what I’m looking for is a consensus of agreement. So if there was a member here 14 that wants to make that Motion? Ok. 15 16 MOTION 17 18 Vice-Chair Popp: Ok, I can try. I’d like to move that we move forward to a discussion with the 19 Planning Commission with the five elements that are requested for comment and discussion in 20 the staff report with the direction established today by the Board including recommendation for 21 a 9 to 15 foot sidewalk width, lot area modifications should not reduce FAR, that setbacks by 22 land use could be variable and need to be evaluated on a project by project basis, that building 23 overhangs may extend to the build-to line, but don’t necessarily have to, and that street trees 24 wherever possible should be encouraged as part of the sidewalk landscape. 25 26 Chair Lippert: Well done. Do I have a second on that? 27 28 SECOND 29 30 Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second. 31 32 Chair Lippert: Ok. We have a second on that. Any discussion? Ok. I just want to say as Chair 33 here I have to apologize for being so forceful here, but if we don’t get moving on this 34 somebody else is going to tell us what to do and so I want to make sure that we weigh in on 35 this and we do it in a measured and thoughtful way and so I really appreciate your 36 perseverance with this. I don’t like making anybody do anything, but it really has to get done 37 and it has to get done expeditiously. I’ve had a couple of conversations with Planning and 38 Transportation Chair Mark Michael and I’ve told him that we are sending a representative 39 forward and that we are making progress on this. And so it’s important that we deliver and we 40 make that feedback and that guidance very deliberate and measured in this case. And so what 41 I see as the follow up actions are that we then agendize a follow up meeting getting the 42 feedback from the PTC, we take a couple of more meetings probably to formalize that and 43 incorporate the discussion of height, we then have a joint meeting with the PTC in which we 44 begin to formalize the recommendations with them and we can actually agendize it and do it in 45 a way that both boards can take action. And that we move forward at that point with a 46 recommendation to the City Council and we do right now we’re trying to get a joint meeting 47 with the City Council and perhaps we make our final recommendation or presentation at that 48 point. 49 50 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Vice-Chair Popp: The only thing I might add to that very appropriate list is outreach meetings, 1 which were identified in the staff report. I think there was a timetable for that and it looked 2 like there might be an opportunity for some CN and CS property owners to weigh in on the 3 process and give us some feedback and I’d like to get that earlier rather than later. 4 5 VOTE 6 7 Chair Lippert: Ok, well maybe when that returns to the ARB. So with that why don’t we vote on 8 the Motion. All those in favor say aye (Aye). Opposed? Ok, that’s unanimous and I will ask 9 Vice-Chair Popp to make the presentation to the PTC next week. Ok? Ok, thank you very 10 much. 11 12 MOTION PASSED (5-0) 13 14 Recommendation 15 Staff recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and discuss the concepts 16 for a draft ordinance (Attachment A; this was provided at places): 17 18 (1) Addressing the build-to-line requirement for sites within the CN and CS zone districts 19 found in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16, Section 18.60.060, to clarify 20 that: 21 Buildings may be placed farther back than: (a) the required 12 feet from the curb 22 along El Camino Real and (b) the required 8 feet from the curb along other 23 thoroughfares; and 24 To allow more flexibility in how much of the front building wall must be located 25 at the setback line, with respect to the rules for building wall filling 50% and 33% 26 of the main and side street frontage at the minimum setback line (particularly, as 27 applied to large parcels with potentially long building walls at the setback line). 28 29 (2) Addressing the Context Based Design Criteria Considerations and Findings found in 30 PAMC Section 18.60.090 (b), item (2) Street Building Facades, to modify sub-item (H) 31 upper floor placement, and item (3) Massing and Setbacks, to modify sub-items (E) and 32 (F); specifically: 33 (2)(H): currently calls for upper floors set back to fit in with the context of the 34 neighborhood; add that the ground floor may be set back farther than the upper 35 floors when a greater first floor setback is established to provide a wider 36 sidewalk; 37 (3)(E): currently calls for a 12 foot sidewalk width on El Camino Real and an 8 38 feet sidewalk width elsewhere; to note that an increased width may be 39 appropriate based on context, given a desired sidewalk width range of ‘12-18 40 feet on El Camino and 8 to 12 feet elsewhere’; and 41 (3)(F): currently calls for a majority of the building frontage located (exactly) at 42 the front and side setback lines (to achieve a continuous street façade at the 43 build-to-line); to build in flexibility based upon context, so that the majority of the 44 front building wall is placed within (specified setback such as 20 feet) of the front 45 property line (unless subject to special setback). 46 47 (3) Reducing the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are 48 permitted at 20 units per acre, also in Section 18.60.060 of Chapter 18.16; and 49 50 (4) Modifying the definition of lot area, in PAMC Chapter 18.04, Section 18.04.030, to 51 City of Palo Alto Page 21 encourage provision of wider sidewalks. 1 2 Architectural Review Board Action: Vice Chair Popp moved seconded by Board Member 3 Gooyer to move the ordinance for discussion with Planning Transportation Commission (PTC) 4 and bring back the ordinance with Commission comments for more discussion with the Board. 5 The Board also requested a joint meeting with the PTC and requested that the discussion 6 include building height among the topics discussed. Briefly, the ARB: 7 1. Supports a 9 to 15 foot sidewalk width, face of curb to building, where the 9 foot width 8 would be appropriate for retail uses. 9 2. Does not support a requirement for a continuous width of 18 feet along El Camino Real. 10 The ARB suggested the City retain a consultant to provide visual examples of sidewalks 11 and concepts for amenities to enliven the area in front of buildings. 12 3. Supports the proposed lot area definition change to allow applicants to provide 13 additional sidewalk width on private property and not deduct the area removed from 14 private use from the lot area available for calculating building square footage. However, 15 the ARB does not consider this an incentive (noting that only additional floor area would 16 be an incentive). 17 4. Supports including land use among the criteria for context to determine on a project by 18 project basis whether additional sidewalk width is needed and allowing discretion for 19 ARB determination. 20 5. Supports removal of the build-to-line requirement to allow the ARB to determine 21 appropriate setback in each case, or retain the build-to-line requirement and allow 22 exceptions for different land uses. 23 6. Supports encouraging or allowing building overhangs on upper floors extending to the 24 build-to-line to meet the 50% building frontage requirement, and allowing the ground 25 floor to be set back further to provide a wider sidewalk. The ARB also noted there is a 26 height relationship that should be included in the discussion. 27 7. Supports encouraging street trees as part of sidewalk landscaping. 28 29 Vote: Approval, 5-0-0-0 30 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4873) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Recommendation on Santa Clara County Transportation Sales Tax Draft Letter Title: Approval of Letter Regarding Santa Clara County Transportation Project Sales Tax Increase From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation The Policy & Services Committee recommends that Council review and approve the attached draft letter regarding the proposed Santa Clara County transportation tax. Background Over the past few years, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) has been exploring a transportation tax initiative to improve and expand existing transportation infrastructure in Santa Clara County. On April 24, 2014 the Silicon Valley Business Journal published an article titled Poll finds 73% would support new sales tax to fund transportation projects in Silicon Valley. In this article, SVLG President & CEO Carl Guardino referenced exceptionally high polling figures and stated that due to these high results the SVLG may accelerate its push for a Santa Clara County transportation tax initiative from a November 2016 election to a November 2014 election (which is less than six months away). Even more crucial is that little time would be available for City and public input into the design of a measure, given the deadline for submission of any ballot initiative is less than three months away. According to the article, “The Leadership Group tested both a hypothetical ballot question and more specific questions about particular types of transit improvements in order to capture voter sentiment.” The article went on to give a brief rundown of the findings: 73% of 600 likely Santa Clara County voters support the idea of a 30-year, quarter cent sales tax increase to fund transportation improvements to area City of Palo Alto Page 2 roads and some public rail services; 67% support phase two of a planned BART extension from San Jose's Berryessa district to downtown San Jose and the City of Santa Clara; 73% support increased Caltrain commuter rail service from Gilroy to Palo Alto; 87% support street maintenance and pothole repairs in Santa Clara county's 15 cities; 82% support easing congestion on all eight county expressways; 88% support improved safety for walking and biking near schools; and 86% support increased transit service for seniors and the disabled. At the May 19, 2014 Palo Alto City Council meeting Guardino presented to the Council on the proposed tax measure. During his presentation he estimated that a county-wide quarter cent sales tax increase would generate approximately $3.5 billion dollars over the 30 year life of the tax. Under his current proposal one-seventh of that $3.5 billion in revenue, or $500 million, would go towards Caltrain improvements with the remaining funds going towards other improvements such as roads, freeways, highways, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and other transportation improvements. The following evening, on May 20, 2014, the City’s Policy & Services Committee made recommendations for what the City should request in order for Palo Alto to support the proposed tax measure. The key recommendation, as identified in the attached draft letter (Attachment A), is that the proposed tax measure should be increased from a quarter cent to three-eighths cent with the additional one-eight cent going exclusively towards Caltrain modernization including grade separations. The Policy & Services Committee felt that under the three-eighths cent proposal the funding for BART and Caltrain would be much more equitable and balanced, recognizing both systems play a critical role in the public transportation ring around the Bay. Attached to support review of the draft letter is a copy of the City’s most recent Rail Committee Guiding Principles (Attachment B), a summary of the 2004 San Mateo County transportation tax measure (Attachment C), and a summary of the 2000 Valley Transportation Authority transportation tax measure (Attachment D). Council may also want to consider recommending an extension of the term of the sales tax increase from 30 to 35 years and/or sending the attached draft letter in conjunction with other Northern Santa Clara County cities that also depend heavily on Caltrain to meet transportation needs. Attachments: A - Draft SCC Transportation Sales Tax Initiative Letter_6-2-2014 (PDF) B - Rail Committee Guiding Principles_6-24-2013 (PDF) C - San Mateo County Measure A Transportation Tax_11-2-2004 (PDF) D - VTA Measure A Transportation Tax_11-7-2000 (PDF) June 2, 2014 DRAFT Mr. Carl Guardino President & CEO, Silicon Valley Leadership Group 2001 Gateway Place, Suite 101E San Jose, CA 95110 Re: City of Palo Alto Comment Letter on the Proposed 2014 Santa Clara County Transportation Sales Tax Initiative Dear Mr. Guardino: Thank you very much for taking the time to come and speak to our City Council regarding the proposed 2014 Santa Clara County transportation sales tax initiative on Monday, May 19th. Your presentation provided us with the necessary information to begin forming a policy position on the issue. At our June 2nd Palo Alto City Council meeting, at the recommendation of our Policy & Services Committee, we voted to recommend that the proposed sales tax initiative be increased from a quarter cent to three-eighths cent for 30 thirty years with the entire additional one-eighth cent going towards Caltrain modernization including grade separations. We particularly want to stress the need for funding of grade separations. Without them increases to Caltrain capacity may be negatively offset by increased auto traffic delays at Caltrain grade crossings. Additionally, this increase would allow the $500 million currently allocated for Caltrain to go towards other county transportation needs. Caltrain is critically important to the overall success of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) by helping complete the regional public transportation ring around the Bay. Caltrain provides essential service to Silicon Valley, the economic heart of the Bay Area. Under the present quarter cent proposal a significantly higher percentage of funding would go to BART, rather than Caltrain. Under the three- eighths cent proposal the funding for BART and Caltrain would be much more equitable and balanced. The three-eighths proposal would fund Caltrain projects needed to enhance operations, service, capacity, and performance which would benefit all systems and users. The high costs of grade separations would not be covered by $500 million in funding over 30 years especially when factored in among other Caltrain needs. The City of Palo Alto also stresses the importance of outlining a clear process for project fund allocation while providing some flexibility within each category in case that is needed. The 2004 San Mateo County transportation tax (Measure A) provides a model for how such a tax could be structured. In conclusion, the City of Palo Alto feels that a three-eighths cent sales tax increase would provide the most benefit for Santa Clara County and the entire Bay Area, an objective I know we are all trying to achieve. Thank you for your time and effort and we look forward to your response. Sincerely, Nancy Shepherd Mayor, City of Palo Alto c: Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Manager Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Metropolitan Transportation Commission Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Valley Transportation Authority Peninsula City Mayors PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE GUIDING PRINCIPLES Background (not shown in redline format, as Background section was completely revised) In November 2008 California voters approved Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond measure, for High Speed Rail (HSR) service from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The San Jose to San Francisco segment of the selected route will take HSR rail service through Palo Alto. This segment is now proposed to be a “blended system”, primarily relying on existing Caltrain right-of-way and track. Caltrain is proposing to modernize this segment, including electrification of the trains, partially utilizing HSR funds. However, the costs and environmental impacts of this “blended system” continue to evolve, and have not yet been fully defined, studied or mitigated. The most recent HSR business plan sets the initial cost of the overall HSR system at approximately $68 billion. While this cost reflects a reduction compared to recent cost estimates, it still significantly exceeds the $33 billion cost estimate advertised in Proposition 1A. In this revised business plan, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) also continues to use the debatable and highly optimistic ridership forecast models, and does not address numerous inconsistencies that had been noted by experts in previous business plans. This analysis, therefore, creates an unreliable framework for accurate fiscal and environmental review of the HSR system. Moving forward, the initial construction segment (ICS) for HSR will be in the Central Valley. In July 2012, legislation was enacted that allocated approximately $8 billion of state and federal money for construction of the ICS, and for investments in Northern and Southern California commuter rail systems in anticipation of the future operation of HSR trains on these tracks as part of a Blended System. However, at least $55 billion of unidentified funding remains necessary for completion of the Los Angeles to San Francisco system. Therefore, important funding and environmental issues remain undecided, and must be critically examined prior to final decisions being made. An ongoing, detailed analysis is even more critical for the complex, blended San Jose to San Francisco segment. Guiding Principles The City Council adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making framework and the actions of the Committee: The City of Palo Alto believes that the HSR project should be terminated for the following reasons: 1. The current project fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters under Prop. 1A in 2008. The voters approved the measure based on grossly underestimated construction costs, overstated ridership numbers and underestimated fares. The voters also required that HSR could operate without a subsidy and that funding sources would be identified and environmental review would be complete prior to construction of an Initial Operating Segment. 2. Given that the revised HSR Business and Funding Plans do not meet the projected ridership, fare, job creation, and other significant requirements, the City believes that the voters were not given the accurate information during the 2008 election necessary to make an informed decision on a HSR project for the State of California. The City realizes, however, that there is momentum at the Federal and State level to make HSR a reality, despite the conflicts with Prop 1A. There are many evolving aspects of HSR, however, that have not yet been studied or decided. Therefore, if the State should move forward with the HSR project, the following Guiding Principles shall apply to the City’s positions on HSR: 1. The City supports a non-elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto. 2. The City’s preferred vertical alignment of fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade. 3. When examining the potential impacts of vertical rail alignments equal attention shall be given to all Palo Alto neighborhoods. Adopted mitigation measures should be proportionate to the impacts identified in the studies. 4. The City believes that the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Central Valley to San Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the CHSRA should reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route. 5. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, State Auditor, and the HSR Peer Review Committee regarding the viability and accuracy of the CHSRA’s Business Plan on such matters as the ridership projections, the identification of sufficient and reliable funding sources, project management, and operation of HSR. 6. The City favors legislation which would enable implementation of the HSR Peer Review Committee authorized by AB 3034. 7. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our economic development strategies, transportation goals, and rail corridor vision. HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals and strategies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions process for HSR and Caltrain that is funded and implemented by the CHSRA. 9. The CHSRA should provide sufficient funding to affected cities to allow them to hire experts to study reports requiring feedback and sufficient outreach to the community to capture their concerns and suggestions. 10. Proposed changes to the Caltrain corridor by either the CHSRA or PCJPB should provide both realistic renderings of the various alternatives and simulations that would help provide an understanding of the system’s sound and vibration impacts. 11. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present or improved levels of service. 12. Palo Alto supports the modernization of Caltrain. However, whether the City supports electrification cannot be determined until all potential impacts are identified, studied and suitable mitigation measures are implemented. 13. Palo Alto supports Caltrain as the lead agency for all system improvements in the Caltrain corridor. 14. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and Caltrain issues of mutual concern through agencies such as the Peninsula Cities Consortium. 15. Palo Alto expects all current rail crossings to remain open to automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians. In the event that the modernization of Caltrain and/or HSR increases train service from current 2012 levels, Palo Alto will consider grade separation solutions for the Alma, Churchill, East Meadow, and East Charleston crossings. These improvements must be funded by Caltrain, HSR and/or other external funding sources. 16. A detailed and transparent environmental analysis of all proposed improvements must be completed. Therefore, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) shall not be modified in any way that (1) exempts the HSR or Caltrain Modernization projects, either in whole or in part; or (2) reduces the obligation of the HSR or Caltrain Modernization project sponsors to conduct a full environmental review process that allows for a detailed analysis of all potential impacts and mitigation measures at a level that is not less than the level currently required by law. 17. The overall environmental review should be comprised of two separate Environmental Impact Reports. The first EIR should be for the Caltrain Modernization Project. The second EIR should address any subsequent improvements proposed or necessary for HSR operation in the corridor. 18. Palo Alto strongly supports revisions to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) governance structure that more accurately reflect the distribution of Caltrain ridership. Additionally, such revisions should be made at or prior to a ballot measure seeking a dedicated funding source for Caltrain operations, should one occur. 19. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates by reference Council adopted written comments to the CHSRA, PCJPB, and other relevant agencies. In case of any conflict in policies the most recent language prevails. Last updated: June 24, 2013 Previously updated: December 19, 2011 October 12, 2011 May 17, 2010 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 1/13 This is an archive of a past election. See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/sm/ for current information. League of Women Voters of California Education Fund San Mateo County, CA November 2, 2004 Election Measure A Transportation Tax County of San Mateo 2/3 Approval Required 147,234 / 75.3% Yes votes ...... 48,227 / 24.7% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures Results as of Dec 15 1:37pm, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (522/522) Information shown below: Yes/No Meaning | Impartial Analysis | Arguments | Full Text Shall San Mateo County Ordinance No. 04223, THE SAN MATEO COUNTY SAFE ROADS, TRAFFIC RELIEF AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MEASURE be approved: To repair neighborhood streets; expand senior and paratransit services; improve Caltrain; construct bicycle/pedestrian paths; support existing BART service; assist water transport; reduce congestion; shall the Transportation Authority extend the current 1/2 cent sales/use tax for 25 years, implement the County Expenditure Plan and issue limited tax bonds not exceeding proceeds, with no increase in taxes, and with citizen participation and annual audits? Meaning of Voting Yes/No A YES vote of this measure means: A "yes" vote on this measure would continue the existing onehalf of one percent sales tax for an additional 25 years up to December 31, 2034. The proceeds of the tax shall be used for highway and transit improvements as set forth in the Transportation Expenditure Plan. A NO vote of this measure means: A "no" vote on this measure would not allow the continuance of the existing one-half of one percent sales tax past December 31, 2008. Impartial Analysis News and Analysis San Mateo County Times Title of article: Future of County Transportation 09/04/04 Search Google News for Measure A Partisan Information in favor :http://www.YesOnMeasureA.com Suggest a link related to Measure A Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement. 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 2/13 Impartial Analysis In 1988, the voters of San Mateo County approved a ballot measure known as "Measure A," which increased the local sales tax in San Mateo County by one-half of one percent with the tax revenues to be used for highway and transit improvements pursuant to the Transportation Expenditure Plan, that included a provision for the creation of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. "Measure A" provided that the additional sales tax would be imposed for a period not to exceed 20 years, ending December 31, 2008. This new measure proposes to continue the sales tax for an additional 25 years up to December 31, 2034. In order to continue the local sales tax, a new Transportation Expenditure Plan ("Plan") must be developed and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority has prepared a new Plan, a copy of which is in the sample ballot materials. This Plan provides for a program of transportation projects and includes implementation guidelines to meet current and future transportation needs. This Plan reflects input from the public, elected officials and technical committees. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, all the cities within the County and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors have each approved the Plan. The Plan authorizes the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to issue bonds not to exceed the total amount of the sales tax proceeds. State law requires that the continuation of the one-half of one percent sales tax be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate. The proceeds of the tax shall be used in accordance with applicable law and solely for the highway and transit improvement projects and purposes set forth in the Plan. A "yes" vote on this measure would continue the existing onehalf of one percent sales tax for an additional 25 years up to December 31, 2034. The proceeds of the tax shall be used for highway and transit improvements as set forth in the Transportation Expenditure Plan. A "no" vote on this measure would not allow the continuance of the existing one-half of one percent sales tax past December 31, 2008. This measure passes if two-thirds of those voting on the measure vote "yes." Arguments For Measure A Arguments Against Measure A We urge your YES vote on Measure A. For 16 years, San Mateo County residents have supported local transportation and road improvements Measure A is an irresponsible and irrational tax. Its proponents claim that it is a reauthorization of the 1/2 cent sales tax approved by county voters in 1988, but the two have little in common. 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 3/13 through a 1/2 cent sales tax. Those funds have been used in every city and community for traffic relief, to fix local streets, improve highways, provide paratransit service for seniors and disabled, and support shuttles and Caltrain. Measure A renews this 1/2 cent measure. It will NOT increase taxes. A YES vote on Measure A will raise $1.5 billion to fund pothole repairs in your community, improve Caltrain, maintain existing BART service, relieve traffic congestion on highways, streets and roads, improve transit services for seniors and disabled, and build new bicycle and pedestrian paths. Measure A funds will be leveraged to generate an additional $1.5 billion in state and federal dollars for transportation in San Mateo County. o This plan requires 22.5% of the funds, over $337 million, to be distributed to every city in San Mateo County for local streets and road work. o Transit improvements, including Caltrain and existing BART services, receive $420 million. o Highway improvements for traffic congestion relief on 101, 280, 92 and local roads receive $412 million. o Caltrain grade separations for pedestrian safety and traffic flow receive $225 million. o New pedestrian and bicycle paths receive $45 million. o Water Transit service to take cars off Highway 101 receives $30 million. Measure A requires the involvement of a Citizens Committee and annual public audits to ensure adherence to the voter approved Plan. Measure A has the support of every City Council, the Board of Supervisors, League of Women Voters, Committee for Green Foothills, San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA), San Mateo Labor Council and hundreds of local Under the new tax, millions of dollars will be siphoned away from desperately needed projects to support a proposed ferry service for two county communities and to subsidize the San Mateo County BART extension. Compared to the few dollars required for every new bus passenger, the boutique ferries will serve a small number of commuters and cost in excess of $22 per person based on MTC projections. The BART subsidy included in the measure will cost taxpayers $30 million over the life of the tax to support a service that was never supposed to require additional funding. Since its opening in June 2003, the BART extension has consistently lost money and cost county taxpayers up to $30 million according to Samtrans. This irresponsible diversion of local tax dollars will not buy San Mateo County a seat on the elected BART board. Voluntarily submitting to taxation without representation, and thereby forfeiting control over local money, is simply irrational. Proponents of Measure A are squandering an opportunity to make wise investments in local transit with a poorly constructed tax plan. This new version will also extend five years beyond the original for a total of 25 years, locking county taxpayers into a bad deal far into the future and burdening the next generation with this reckless tax. Our investments should result in the largest increase in transit rider ship and the most congestion relief for the smallest cost. This irresponsible tax does not come close to meeting such a standard. Join environmental and taxpayer groups, transit advocates and community leaders in voting NO on MEASURE A. /s/ Matt Grocott August 10, 2004 Citizens for Better Transit, Chair /s/ Louis J. Papan August 10, 2004 Retired State of California Assemblyman 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 4/13 residents and business owners. Please join us to keep San Mateo County moving. Yes on Measure A. /s/ Onnolee Trapp August 9, 2004 Transportation Director, League of Women Voters of San Mateo County /s/ Michael D. Nevin August 10, 2004 Member, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors /s/ Lennie Roberts August 9, 2004 Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills /s/ Arthur D. Levinson August 12, 2004 Chairman and CEO, Genentech /s/ Deborah Wilder August 10, 2004 Chair, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Rebuttal to Arguments For Measure A will waste scarce taxpayer dollars by diverting funds to support new transit services while existing services continue to be cut. Proponents ignore the fact that the old tax funded only capital improvements to existing and proven transit systems. The new measure allocates $30 million taxpayer dollars to fund a BART extension that has lost money since it opened. In addition, $30 million will be diverted to support a new ferry service catering to the pharmaceutical companies in South San Francisco at a cost of $22 per new ferry passenger. Year after year, the county bus service has been reduced to pay for the expansion of low-use systems such as BART, isolating residents who live on the coast side, as well as county youngsters and students, senior citizens, and low income residents. San Mateo County taxpayers deserve well maintained highways, grade separations for Caltrain to improve pedestrian safety, and consistent investment in existing transit options that serve a range of needs. But this /s/ Chris Pallas August 9, 2004 Council Member, City of San Bruno /s/ Miles Gilster August 13, 2004 Libertarian Party of San Mateo County Central Committee /s/ Pam Rianda August 9, 2004 School Teacher Rebuttal to Arguments Against Measure A renews our funding source to fix roads, streets, potholes, highways, upgrade Caltrain, and provide shuttle service throughout all of San Mateo County. These funds are generated in this County and stay in this County for projects that have, and will, improve our transportation systems. Sacramento or Washington D.C. can't get their hands on these funds. Sixteen years ago, County residents approved this funding source. Unless Measure A is renewed, these critical voter approved funds will expire. Imagine the traffic nightmare without the $1 billion in traffic improvement projects made over the last 16 years! Imagine traffic in the future if Measure A is not renewed! Independent studies demonstrate that funded projects have relieved traffic congestion, reduced commute times, improved air quality and saved lives. But more needs to be done. Nearly a quarter of these funds will go directly to your community for road and street repairs. Highway projects, Caltrain, SAMTRANS shuttles, paratransit for seniors and disabled citizens, pedestrian and bike access, existing BART service, and water transit all receive an appropriate share. An extensive participation process involving the public and concerned groups helped craft the Plan embodied in Measure A. All 20 cities, including nearly 90% of our City Councilmembers in San Mateo County, approved this Plan. 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 5/13 new, 25-year, tax will support a fragmented transit system and fund boutique, costly service for corporate interests. It is imperative that scarce transit tax dollars benefit the greatest number of San Mateo County residents by funding economically sound transit improvements and programs. This new irresponsible tax serves the fewest residents for the greatest cost. Measure A is opposed by transit advocates, local civic leaders, environmentalists, and political organizations. Join responsible taxpayers and transit advocates in voting no on Measure A. /s/ Matt Grocott August 23, 2004 Chair, Citizens for Better Transit /s/ Lou Papan August 23, 2004 Retired State of California Assemblyman /s/ Chris Pallas August 23, 2004 Council Member, City of San Bruno /s/ Miles Gilster August 23, 2004 Libertarian Party of San Mateo County Central Committee /s/ Pam Rianda August 23, 2004 School Teacher Annual public audits are required. Please join business groups, environmental organizations, labor representatives, large and small employers, County elected officials from Congress to School Board members and traffic experts in voting to renew this crucial funding. Yes on Measure A. /s/ Carole Groom Mayor, City of San Mateo /s/ Jerry Hill August 10, 2004 San Mateo County Supervisor /s/ James R. Pouliot August 19, 2004 CEO, California State Automobile Association (AAA) /s/ Dale Edwards August 19, 2004 San Mateo County Paratransit Coordinating Council Chair /s/ Mark Church August 19, 2004 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Chair Full Text of Measure A AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, THE EXTENSION OF THE ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX, THE ISSUANCE OF LIMITED TAX BONDS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, State of California, ORDAINS as follows: 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 6/13 Article 1. General SECTION 1. Title. This ordinance shall be known as the "2004 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Ordinance." Such Authority shall be referred to as "Authority." This ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Mateo, which shall be referred to herein as "County". SECTION 2. Purpose. Pursuant to Division 12.5 of the Public Utilities Code, San Mateo County Ordinance No. 03135, passed in 1988 and subsequently approved by the voters, created the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, imposed a one-half of one percent transactions and use tax for a period of twenty years, and authorized issuance of limited tax bonds to finance the transportation improvements set forth in the Transportation Expenditure Plan, and will expire at the end of 2008. This ordinance, if approved, would continue the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, authorize the Authority to extend the one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax for an additional 25 years and authorize the Authority to issue limited tax bonds to finance the transportation improvements set forth in the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan, which has been approved by the Board of Supervisors and all of the Cities in the County. Hence, this ordinance is hereby adopted and should be interpreted so as to achieve the purposes set forth herein: a. to continue the San Mateo County Transportation Authority; b. to extend the one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax for 25 years upon the expiration of the tax pursuant to Ordinance No. 03135, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Revenue and Taxation Code section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Public Utilities Code section 131100 et seq., which directs the County Board of Supervisors to adopt this tax ordinance for voter approval, exercising the taxing power granted to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority in Public Utilities Code Section 131102 on behalf of said Authority; c. to adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates provisions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation code; d. to adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and provides a measure therefor that can be administered and collected by the State Board of Equalization in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the State Board of Equalization in administering and collecting the California State Sales and Use Taxes; e. to authorize administration of the retail transactions and use tax ordinance in a manner that will, to the degree possible, be consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this ordinance; f. to improve, construct, maintain, and operate certain transportation projects and facilities contained in the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County and all of the Cities in the County, which Plan is incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, as that Plan may be amended from time to time pursuant to the Plan and applicable law; g. to set a maximum term of twenty-five (25) years during which time this tax shall be imposed pursuant to the 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 7/13 authority granted by section 131102(c) of the Public Utilities Code; and h. to authorize the Authority to issue limited tax bonds, from time to time, to finance transportation projects in the 2004 Plan, provided that the maximum bonded indebtedness will not exceed the total amount of proceeds of this retail transactions and use tax, estimated to be $1.5 Billion (2004 dollars). SECTION 3. Continuance of Authority. Upon voter approval of this Ordinance, the Authority will continue to serve as the administering agency of the tax; be composed of seven members as specified in the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan; have all of the powers set forth in Division 12.5 (commencing with section 131000) of the Public Utilities Code; have all of the powers set forth in the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan; and have all the powers incidental or necessary to imposing and collecting the tax and administering the tax proceeds and the 2004 Plan. SECTION 4. Contract with State. Prior to the operative date of the tax, the Authority shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this retail transactions and use tax; provided, that if the Authority shall not have contracted with the State Board of Equalization prior to the operative date of the tax, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date of the tax shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract. SECTION 5. Transactions and Use Tax Rate of One-Half of One Percent. For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of this County at the rate of one-half of one percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in this County on and after January 1, 2009. This tax shall be imposed for a maximum period of twenty-five (25) years beginning January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2034. SECTION 6. Place of Sale. For the purposes of this ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the state or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization. SECTION 7. Use Tax, Rate of One-Half of One Percent, and Term. An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in this County of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after January 1, 2009 for storage, use or other consumption in this County at the rate of one-half of one percent of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made. This tax shall be imposed for a maximum period of twenty-five (25) years beginning January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2034. SECTION 8. Adoption of Provisions of State Law. Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this ordinance as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 9. Limitations on Adoption of State Law and Collection of Use Taxes. In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of the Authority shall be substituted therefore. The substitution, however, shall not 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 8/13 be made when the word "State" is used as part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California; when the result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against the Authority or any agency, officer or employee thereof rather than by or against the State Board of Equalization, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this ordinance; in those sections, including but not necessarily limited to, sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the substitution would be to provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remains subject to tax by the state under the said provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or; Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to tax by the state under the said provisions of that code; and in sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The name of the "County" shall be substituted for the word "state" in the phrase "retailer engaged in business in this state" in section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase in section 6203. SECTION 10. Permit Not Required. If a seller's permit has been issued to a retailer under section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor's permit shall not be required by this ordinance. SECTION 11. Exemptions, Exclusions and Credits. a. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any stateadministered transactions or use tax. b. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax gross receipts derived from: (1) Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the County in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government; (2) Sales of property to be used outside the County which is shipped to a point outside the County, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the County shall be satisfied; (i) with respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-County address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his principal place of residence; (ii) with respect to commercial vehicles by registration to a place of business out-of-county, and a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address; (3) Sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance; and 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 9/13 (4) A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance. For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), above, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract of lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. c. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this ordinance, the storage, use or other consumption in this County of tangible personal property: (1) The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance; (2) Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California; (3) if the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance; and (4) If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance. (5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), above, storage, use or other consumption, or possession, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time during which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. (6) Except as provided in subparagraph (7), retailer engaged in business in the County shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the County or participates within the County in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the County or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary or person in the County under authority of the retailer. (7) "A retailer engaged in business in the County" shall also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the County. d. Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions or 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 10/13 reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for a transaction tax pursuant to Chapter 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property, the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax. SECTION 12. Proposition. There shall be proposed to the voters of San Mateo County the following proposition: Shall San Mateo County Ordinance No. 04223 THE SAN MATEO COUNTY SAFE ROADS, TRAFFIC RELIEF AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MEASURE be approved: To repair neighborhood streets; expand senior and paratransit services; improve Caltrain; construct bicycle/pedestrian paths; support existing BART service; assist water transport; reduce congestion; shall the Transportation Authority extend the current 1/2 cent sales/use tax for 25 years, implement the County Expenditure Plan and issue limited tax bonds not exceeding proceeds, with no increase in taxes, and with citizen participation and annual audits? SECTION 13. Authorization and Limitation on Issuance of Bonds. The Authority is hereby authorized to issue limited tax bonds, from time to time, pursuant to the provisions of Public Utilities Code Sections 131109 et seq. and the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan provided that the maximum bonded indebtedness will not exceed the total amount of proceeds of this retail transactions and use tax, estimated to be $1.5 Billion (2004 Dollars). SECTION 14. Use of Proceeds. The proceeds of the tax imposed by this ordinance shall be used in accordance with applicable law and solely for the projects and purposes set forth in the 2004 County Transportation Expenditure Plan, or as that Plan may be amended from time to time, and for the administration thereof. SECTION 15. Amendments. All amendments to Part I of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance shall automatically become a part of this ordinance; provided, however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this ordinance. SECTION 16. Enjoining Collection Forbidden. No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action, or proceeding in any court against the state or the Authority, or against any officer of the state or the Authority, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected. SECTION 17. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 18. Operative Date; Period of Tax Imposition. This ordinance relates, in substantial part, to the levying and collecting of the Authority's retail transaction and use taxes and will become effective at the close of the polls on the day of election at which the Proposition in Section 12 is adopted by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the electors voting on the Proposition, except that the tax imposed under this ordinance, which extends the tax imposed under Ordinance 03135, will become operative on January 1, 2009 or upon the first day of the calendar quarter following the execution of a contract with the State Board of Equalization pursuant to Section 4 hereof, whichever last occurs. The maximum period during which the tax will be imposed is the twenty-five (25) year period from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2034. ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2004 TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 11/13 - Developed with extensive public input - Approved by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, each of the 20 cities within San Mateo County and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission SUMMARY Measure A: Effective and Essential The 1988 voter approval of Measure A, San Mateo County's half-cent transportation sales tax, adopted under provisions of the California Public Utilities Code commencing at Section 131000, has provided the County with a resource to meet its multi-faceted transportation challenges during the past 16 years. The measure also marked the development of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (hereafter referred to as the TA), the agency created to administer the sales-tax funds. Because the measure ends in 2008, its extension is at the heart of the County's ability to continue meeting its growing transportation needs. Growth in employment during the 1990s has increased traffic congestion along several highway segments in the County. Significant progress has been achieved in the County through investments in Caltrain and highway improvements; however, the task is not yet complete. As the economy rebounds and then continues to grow, we need to maintain our infrastructure to accommodate the accompanying traffic congestion in commute corridors and on local streets and roads. Continuing traffic growth also has underscored the importance of additional safety measures, particularly grade separations along the Caltrain rail line and safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Local transit service, especially for the elderly and people with disabilities, has become increasingly important in communities throughout the County. The extension of Measure A will provide San Mateo County with the resources to continue shaping the transportation program to best meet the needs of County residents. In nearly 20 years since the drafting of the current Transportation Expenditure Plan, the County has seen the emergence of a new set of challenges, which must be met if the quality of life in the County is to be preserved. Developing the Next Transportation Expenditure Plan The Transportation Expenditure Plan for the extension of Measure A began with a blank sheet of paper and was assembled through a process which embraced the many and varied constituencies that make up San Mateo County. Beginning in the Spring of 2003, we embarked on a process that included melding technical evaluations with the feedback from the public and elected officials throughout the County. The TA provided an important forum for public input into the Transportation Expenditure Plan by sponsoring focus groups, three public workshops and hosting more than 30 outreach events to civic organizations, service groups and neighborhood associations. Through this public process, the TA gained perspectives of residents representing both the general public and groups with special needs. The opinions and suggestions heard at these public outreach events were evaluated by professional staff from the TA, cities and local agencies who worked together to recommend a program which addresses both current and anticipated congestion needs. While all projects were considered for the Transportation Expenditure Plan, not every project could be included because the total estimated cost of all the suggested projects was more than the current estimated income of an extended Measure A. The Transportation Expenditure Plan reflects programs and projects identified by cities and 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 12/13 local agencies plus additions from public workshops. When creating the Transportation Expenditure Plan, the TA focused on building a balanced plan, consistent with the Countywide Transportation Plan, reflecting the wants and needs of the public combined with the recommendations of engineers and the support of elected officials. Plan Vision Through this multi-party process, a strategy has emerged. o Target key, congested corridors for highway and transit improvements o Continue to improve connections with regional transportation facilities o Enhance safety in all aspects of the transportation system. o Meet local mobility needs, especially those of seniors and people with disabilities o Meet the Cities' and County's unique local transportation needs o Leverage local, state and federal funds o Encourage transportation projects that support transit-oriented development These broad themes have been translated into a balanced plan which provides for the multi-faceted needs of San Mateo County. Specific programs and projects have emerged as components in a countywide strategy. Transportation Expenditure Plan Program Categories The Transportation Expenditure Plan provides for investment in six program categories. Each program category receives a percentage share of sales tax revenues, currently estimated at $1.5 billion (in 2004 dollars) over a 25- year period. Program Category Percent Share 25-Year Estimated Revenue 1. Transit 30 % $450 Million 2. Highways 27.5 % $412.5 Million 3. Local Streets/Transportation 22.5 % $337.5 Million 4. Grade Separations 15 % $225 Million 5. Pedestrian and Bicycle 3 % $ 45 Million 6. Alternative Congestion Relief Programs 1 % $ 15 Million Up to one percent of the revenues is allocated for TA staff salaries and benefits. Further detail on the specific program within each category is provided in the Transportation Expenditure Plan Summary and Project Description sections of this plan. 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 13/13 Oversight and Administration The implementation of the Transportation Expenditure Plan will be the continuing responsibility of the current San Mateo County Transportation Authority. The TA is composed of seven elected officials representing the Cities in the County, the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Transit District. The TA will be responsible for developing and updating a strategic plan to guide allocation decisions. The TA will develop the initial strategic plan by December 31, 2008, and prepare and update it at least every five years during the term of the Measure. The Citizens Advisory Committee established under the original Measure A will continue to advise the TA. The TA also will work closely and cooperatively with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the San Mateo City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) on the programming of grant funding for Transportation Expenditure Plan programs and projects. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION on the TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN, see pages 33-54 of the Combined Sample Ballot for San Mateo County. That document may be reached via the link http://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/nov2004/documents/SampleBallot_Combined_All.pdf. San Mateo Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback Created: December 15, 2004 13:37 PST Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/> Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund http://ca.lwv.org The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4758) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Housing Element Update Title: Council Direction to Staff on Potential Housing Site for Inclusion in the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update and on Submittal of an Administrative Draft for the State's Initial Review From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommended Motion: Council direction to Staff to 1) include the following residentially-zoned sites in the Administrative Draft of the 2015-2023 Housing Element to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirement and provide a buffer likely to be acceptable to HCD (23 existing units at the Colorado Park development, 32 residential second units (i.e. small accessory or “in- law units”), 146 additional units at Fry’s site, 340 Portage Ave., and 168 units at the CS zoned San Antonio sites; 2) to submit the Administrative Draft to HCD for preliminary review by end of June; and 3) to continue to identify more transit-rich housing sites in downtown and the California Avenue area after HCD certification as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process and consider exchanging sites along San Antonio and sites along South El Camino that are outside of identified “pedestrian nodes” for the more transit-rich identified sites after the City has met the statutory deadline for housing element certification. Recommendation Receive a summary of the State’s requirement that the City update its housing element by January 31, 2015, and the discussions and recommendations of the Community Panel, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC) regarding: Housing sites from the City’s existing Housing Element that can be carried forward to accommodate an estimated 1,819 units, The estimated 369 additional units that must be accommodated to meet the City’s RHNA and provide a buffer acceptable to the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), The ability to use 23 existing units to meet a portion of the City’s RHNA and to get credit for 32 second units likely to be constructed during the planning period, City of Palo Alto Page 2 Additional sites that are already zoned for multi-family housing that could be included within the Housing Element Update to accommodate 314 additional units, Consideration of existing sites that could be eliminated and replaced with additional sites as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update following HCD certification of the Housing Element; and To provide direction to staff regarding sites that should be included in the Administrative Draft of the Housing Element for HCD’s initial review at the end of June and to provide comments and direction regarding the partial Administrative Draft of the Housing Element that was transmitted to Council on May 22, 2014. Executive Summary The Housing Element is the City’s primary policy and planning document for housing and is one of the seven mandated elements in a Comprehensive Plan; it is the only element that requires approval by the State. Under State law, the City must prepare an updated Housing Element for the period 2015-2023 and receive approval (“certification”) from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by January 31, 2015. The City faces significant risks and penalties if it does not receive HCD’s certification by this date (although there is a 120-day contingency period). The most significant risk is the potential loss of local control over zoning and land use decisions in the event the City is sued and a court assumes jurisdiction until the Housing Element update is completed. Luckily, the City’s current Housing Element was approved on August 15, 2013, and much of the City’s Housing Element Update for the period 2015-2023 can be based on the current document. Specifically, many of the identified housing sites, goals, policies and programs can be “carried forward” in the update, although some revisions and adjustments are required to bring the document up-to-date. The Housing Element Update process has been under way since December 2013 and staff meets monthly with the City Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC) to review progress and receive direction. Staff has also convened a community panel which is meeting monthly to provide input from a variety of perspectives, and has received input from the Planning and Transportation Commission. In late April, the City also held two Community Workshops to discuss housing affordability and the many challenges and potential solutions for housing in the City. Identifying potential sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA is the most challenging part of any housing element update, particularly when there is a State-imposed deadline that constrains the City’s ability to undertake a more lengthy exploration of alternatives. Staff, working with the RHMC, Community Panel, and PTC quantified the need for up to 369 net new units to meet City of Palo Alto Page 3 the City’s RHNA and provide an ample buffer.1 The RHMC, Community Panel, and PTC each considered a number of potential options using an online spreadsheet tool and maps. A summary of the Community Panel’s suggestions is included in the Discussion section below, and informed a robust discussion at the RHMC where a motion similar to the Recommended Motion above failed to receive majority support on May 8, 2014.2 The Recommended Motion utilizes existing, residentially-zoned sites, and thus would not require any rezoning or amendment to the Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. It addresses suggestions that residentially-zoned sites along San Antonio and South El Camino should be eliminated in favor of additional sites in Downtown and the California Avenue Area by directing staff (and potentially the Community Panel) to continue an investigation of potential alternative sites as part of the Comprehensive Plan process after Housing Element certification. Alternative sites that have been suggested include City-owned parking lots, the 27 University site, parcels that are smaller than 10,000 (which was the criterion used in the 2007-2014 Housing Element), and more. A partial administrative draft of the Housing Element Update was provided to the City Council, the PTC, and the Community Panel and made available to the public on May 22, 2014. (The partial draft does not include the to-be-completed chapter on housing sites, pending Council direction this evening.) The RHMC, Community Panel, and PTC will have the opportunity to review and comment on the Administrative Draft over the next few weeks. Staff is also seeking City Council comments and direction on the Administrative Draft. The work plan/schedule developed in conjunction the RHMC calls for a complete, revised Administrative Draft to be submitted to HCD for their initial review at the end of June. The workplan is included as Attachment B. Upon receipt of HCD’s comments, another revised version will be circulated for public review, recommendations by the Community Panel, PTC, and RHMC, and consideration by the Council. Given the tight timeline, staff would appreciate an indication whether the Council would like to schedule another session to review the Administrative Draft on June 9 or 16, 2014 or delegate that task to the RHMC. Background The City of Palo Alto is required to update its Housing Element on a regular basis per State Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.). Housing elements identify the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of a community, including the homeless and persons with disabilities, and promote a variety of housing types, including multifamily rental units, transitional and other types of supportive housing. Housing elements 1 The RHMC has suggested that the City’s initial submittal to HCD could include a smaller buffer in the first draft submitted to HCD, and provide a larger buffer in the revised draft if HCD requests one. This would mean identifying sites for somewhat less than 369 units. 2 No alternative motion was discussed. The PTC is expected to make a recommendation to Council on May 28, 2014. City of Palo Alto Page 4 also define the policies and programs that a community will implement to achieve the goals and objectives it develops and adopts to address housing needs. The State deadline to update the Housing Element for the time period 2015-2023, is January 31, 2015. For this update cycle, the State legislature has enacted legislation that imposes a strict penalty if certification is not approved by the deadline (although there is a 120-day grace period). If the Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD’s) certification is not received on time, jurisdictions must update their Housing Element every four years instead of on an eight year cycle. In addition, the City risks potential litigation if it does not update its housing element on time and a plaintiff could request the court to compel the City to comply with the housing element statutes, and to retain jurisdiction over City planning and permitting until the City comes into compliance. This potential loss of local control over zoning decisions is perhaps the most significant risk of noncompliance, however the City would also be ineligible for certain regional transportation funding programs. California State Housing Element law requires each city and county to provide sites for sufficient new housing to meet their fair share of the regional housing need. As part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, the City has been assigned an allocation of 1,988 units. The allocation is broken down by income categories as follows: City of Palo Alto Page 5 City of Palo Alto RHNA Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total 691 432 278 587 1,988 It is important to note that under State law, the City would receive a RHNA allocation and be required to identify sites to accommodate multifamily housing even if it withdrew from the Association of Bay Area Governments. However, Housing Element law only requires the City to provide residential zoning opportunities to accommodate its RHNA allocation. The law does not require the City to approve or construct housing, although there is a requirement that the City actively monitor housing production and implement programs to further housing objectives. In past housing cycles, the City has identified sufficient sites for its RHNA, but has never seen all of those units actually built. Discussion On August 15, 2013, the State Department of Housing and Community Development certified the City’s 2007-2014 Housing Element (HE) as compliant with State housing element law. Soon after, staff began discussing the HE Update with the RHMC, and issued an RFP for Housing Element consultants. MIG Inc. was chosen as the consultant and has prepared a first (partial) Administrative Draft document which includes every chapter except for the one about housing sites, which will be prepared following this evening’s meeting. Because the current HE was certified relatively late in that cycle, much of the current HE was used in the administrative draft. However, there were some areas of the current HE that required revisions. The majority of the revisions include updates to much of the data using more recent sources. Chapter 1, Chapter 2 (Housing Needs Assessment) and Chapter 4 (Housing Constraints) required the most updates. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) compiled a Housing Database with all the data required for all jurisdictions within its region. HCD has approved the ABAG methodology; the updates used in the Administrative Draft are from the ABAG Housing Database. The main sources of the ABAG data come from the 2000 and 2010 Census, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 3-year and 5- year data files, the State Department of Finance and HUD homeless data. Chapter 3 (Housing Resources and Inventory) requires Council direction, and Chapter 5 (Past Accomplishments and New Housing Goals, Policies and Programs) would benefit from additional input from the Community Panel, RHMC, PTC following site selection. 1. Identifying new housing sites to replace previously developed sites The City’s 2014-2022 or 5th cycle RHNA requirement is 1,988 units. (Please note that the RHNA cycle is from January 1, 2014 - October 31, 2022 and the Housing Element period is from January 31, 2015 – January 31, 2023). In addition, HCD routinely requires a surplus of units over the base requirement to insure that if identified sites are not developed with housing, the City of Palo Alto Page 6 jurisdiction is still able to meet its RHNA requirement. Staff anticipates that a surplus of about 200 units will be sufficient to secure HCD approval. Therefore, the City must include sufficient sites to accommodate a total housing unit need of approximately 2,188 units. (The RHMC discussed the potential for submitting an administrative draft to HCD with somewhat less than the 200 unit surplus, and suggested the City could then add more units if needed based on HCD comments.) Based on staff’s analysis, HCD will likely allow the City to “carry over” sites sufficient to accommodate 1,778 units from the previous 2007-2014 Housing Element. The 1,778 units represent 399 units in the planning/building pipeline and 1,379 dwelling units from the existing inventory of housing sites (i.e. sites that are still “available” for housing). A list of the existing sites are included as Attachment C. There are an additional 41 units that can be accommodated on sites that were not identified in the inventory, and therefore the City has a total of 1,819 units it can apply towards the 2,188 requirement. Thus, staff believes the City will need to identify additional sites for 369 units in its updated Housing Element. A summary is provided below. 2014-2022 RHNA Requirement 1,988 Required Surplus (Estimated) 200 Total Units Needed 2,188 2007-2014 HE Carry Over Sites (1,379) Units in Planning/Building Entitlement Process (399) Units not from previously identified sites (41) Subtotal of Carry Over Units (1,819) Total Units Needed on New Sites 369 Site Selection Criteria for Current Housing Element In 2010, for the 2007-2014 Housing Element, the City Council provided the following criteria in identify housing sites: Sites should be located within one half mile radius of transit stations or within a quarter mile of El Camino Real if served by existing or future transit; • All sites should have mixed used potential, provide accessibility to services, neighbors, compatibility with existing neighborhoods, close to jobs and schools and accessible to transit; • A preference for smaller sized units for inventory sites and higher density development to minimize housing impacts on schools and other public facilities, including units for seniors, particularly for the two transit oriented areas (California Avenue and Downtown); City of Palo Alto Page 7 • Areas zoned for single-family or two-family uses should generally not be identified for new multi-family housing; • Do not allow rezoning of commercial sites to residential, but allow mixed use with no decrease of retail sites throughout the City, and • Authorized staff to evaluate the potential to allow limited exceptions for building heights in excess of 50 feet when proximate to fixed rail. Staff further refined Council direction to include additional criteria: Do not consider sites that have improvements that were constructed within the last 20 years; Consider sites with areas equal to or greater than 10,000 sq. ft. that could yield five units or more; Consider sites with an assessed valuation (A/V) ratios of less than 1.5, or with assessed value (A/V) ratios of greater than 1.5 that were determined to have an artificially low assessed land value (parcels under the same ownership for more than 10 years), with the assessed land value is far below current market land values. For example, if a property is assessed a land value of $1 million and the improvements on the property are assessed at $4.5 million, the A/V ratio would be 4.5. Therefore this means that since there are substantial improvements on the property, the owner is less likely to redevelop the property. In contrast, using the same property, if the assessed improvements were only valued at $1.25 million, the A/V ratio would be 1.25. The improvements on these lower A/V ratio parcels are much older and thus better candidates for redevelopment. Consider sites identified during a windshield survey of underdeveloped residential or commercial sites consisting of 1 or 2 story structures. Underdeveloped commercial sites were defined as Class B office space structures or older buildings with wood construction. The above criteria were chosen based on the types of sites that had been redeveloped with mixed use or residential projects within the past several years. With the above criteria, staff was able to identify sufficient sites to accommodate 1,680 units for the 2007-2014 Housing Element. Identifying New Housing Sites Since March 2014, both the RHMC and the Community Panel have been discussing new sites that could be identified to accommodate the 369 needed units. To assist the discussion, staff created a “Sites Inventory Tool,” which is an Excel spreadsheet containing seven possible categories or “tiers” of housing sites that could be selected to meet to accommodate the remaining 369 units. The tiers were selected based on the same criteria used to select sites in the current Housing Element. Based on RHMC and Community Panel input, the tool was modified to allow users to subtract and replace existing housing sites if needed, and to add their own “tier” (Tier 8) if desired. The Sites Inventory Tool can be found online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/housing_element_update_2015_2023.asp City of Palo Alto Page 8 A summary of the tiers are provided below. A map of the tiers (with existing sites) is included as Attachment D. Tier 1 – 32 Residential Second Units: Over the eight year planning cycle, it is anticipated that 32 residential second units (i.e. “in law” or accessory dwelling units) will be approved. These units can be built “by right” in the R-1 zone on lots of a certain size. Because of the high rent levels in the City, these units would be categorized as moderate income or above moderate units. Tier 2 – 174 units – 340 Portage: Also known as the “Frys” site, this 12.47 acre parcel is zoned RM-30, which meets the State default density of 20 units per acre. Using the realistic capacity of 20 units per acre, this site could accommodate 249 units. 75 units have been applied in the previous cycle, leaving 174 units available to use for this RHNA cycle. (The Recommended Motion includes somewhat fewer units --- 146 units – based on discussions at the RHMC and the Council’s previously expressed concerns about densities on this site.) Tier 3 – 168 units - CS sites on San Antonio Ave: The 14 sites on San Antonio allows for mulitifamily residential development as part of a mixed use development. Exclusive residential development is not allowed. These sites do not include the CS zoned sites with an Automobile Dealership (AD) overlay, and based on a consensus of the RHMC, the Summerwinds nursery site was removed from this Tier and the number of units was adjusted from 195 to 168. Mixed use development are not allowed on parcels with the AD overlay. If included, these sites would require an analysis to demonstrate that this area is likely to redevelop to mixed use developments. Yields are calculated at 20 units per acre. Site Parcel Size Address Unit Yield Automotive Service 0.57 768,790,796A San Antonio Ave 11 Automotive Service 0.42 780 San Antonio Ave. 8 Automotive Service-Jiffy Lube 0.32 4201 Middlefield Rd. 6 Automotive Service, General Business Service 1.27 744 San Antonio Ave. 25 General Office 0.65 760 San Antonio Ave 13 General Business Service 0.65 748-750_San Antonio 13 Personal Service 0.43 808-810_San Antonio Ave 9 General Business Office 0.43 800-802 San Antonio Ave 9 Personal Service, Retail 0.43 792-796B San Antonio Ave 9 0.48 910 Charleston Rd 10 0.49 840 San Antonio Ave 10 0.44 824 San Antonio Ave 9 0.44 816-814_San Antonio Ave 9 General Business Service, 1.36 716-720 San Antonio Ave. 27 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Light Industrial, Grocery Total 168 units Tier 4 – 60 units – California Avenue Surface Parking lots: Staff selected parking lots larger than 0.5 acre (three total sites) that produced a yield of 60 total units, using the realistic capacity of 20 units per acre. These sites were chosen because their proximity to the CalTrain station and could be included as part of the California Avenue Concept Plan. The sites are zoned Public Facility (PF) therefore a zone change would be required as multifamily uses are not allowed in the PF zone district. The three sites are: Site Parcel Size Address Unit Yield Lot C-6 1.22 acres 250 Sherman Ave. 25 Lot C-7 .93 acres 350 Sherman Ave. 19 Lot C-8 .79 acres 450 Sherman Ave. 16 Tier 5 – 37 units – University Avenue Surface Parking lots: As with the California Avenue parking lots, only those lots larger than 0.5 acres were included. Three sites were selected with a yield of 37 units. These sites would also require a zone change. Site Parcel Size Address Unit Yield Lot D .67 acres 375 Hamilton 13 Lot H .69 acres 530 Cowper St. 14 Lot O .52 acres 460 Emerson St. 10 Tier 6 – 68 units – Miscellaneous sites: Three sites are included under this category: Table 4: Tier 6 -- Miscellaneous Sites Site Parcel Size Address Zone Unit Yield YWCA 4.1 acres 4111 Alma R-1 22 Achieve School 1.9 acres 3860 Middlefield RM-30 39 Medical Office .48 acres 1515 El Camino Real RM-15 7 These have long term non-residential established uses on each site. However, because they are already zoned residential, if there was a change of ownership, these parcels could be developed for residential uses without a zone change. Tier 7 – 181 units – Increasing Yield on Inventory Sites: In calculating the yield for sites in the previous RHNA cycle, the realistic capacity of 20 units per acre was used on a majority of sites. However, many of the sites have zoning that allows for maximum densities higher than 20 du/acre. In using 20 du/acre, this represented approximately 67% of the overall zoning capacity of the those density. By increasing it to approximately 85% of zoning capacity in all zones, it could potentially generate an additional 358 units. However, a major issue is proving to HCD that the City has been approving projects at 85% of zoning capacity. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Additional Sites for Consideration Based on RHMC and Community Panel direction, additional sites were added for review. There has been some discussion about these sites but a recommendation has not been made. San Antonio Avenue sites with AD (Automobile Dealership) overlay - As part of the Tier 3 (San Antonio Ave.) sites, there were several parcels that included an AD overlay. An AD overlay does not allow for mixed used development. The following parcels have the AD overlay: Address Parcel size Realistic Capacity 762 San Antonio Ave. .93 acres 18 units 710 San Antonio Ave. .26 acres 5 units 4233 Middlefield Rd. .77 acres 15 units 4225 Middlefield Rd. .54 acres 10 units TOTAL 2.5 acres 48 units Therefore, by removing the AD overlay, another 48 units can be counted towards the RHNA requirement. Removal of the AD overlay requires a zone amendment. Arastradero Sites - At a RHMC meeting, a member of the public recommended several sites along Arastradero Road. The RHMC requested additional information and suggeested these sites could accommodate workforce housing. Located at 687-693 Arastradero Road, the proposal would require a rezone the four sites from R-1 (10,000) to RM-30. If rezoned, the sites would yield a maximum of 88 units. But using the realistic capacity of 20 du/acre, the yield would be 57 units. Below is a summary of the parcels: Address (Arastradero) Use Parcel size Max Density (RM- 30) Realistic Capacity (20 du/acre) 687 Parking lot 1.0 acres 30 20 689 Church .71 acres 21 14 691 Home .69 acres 21 13 693 2 Homes .51 acres 16 10 TOTAL 2.9 acres 88 Units 57 Units Since the sites are zoned R-1, the proposal would require going through the zone change process, which would be quite controversial given the location of the sites and magnitude of the change. The proposal is attached as Attachment B. 27 University Avenue - A number of Community Panel members suggested that this site be added to the list of housing sites. This site, at approximately 7 acres, has not been previously identified for housing and there have been no calculations of potential units that could be accomodated on the site. There are a number of challenges at this site, including: City of Palo Alto Page 11 The site would require a rezone from Public Facility (PF) to a zone district allowing housing development, There is a historical resource, the Hostess House (aka McArthur Park Restaurant), is located on the site, and The property is owned in Stanford University, and it’s unclear whether the university would support housing in any future development. Existing Units State law allows jurisdictions to meet up to 25% of their RHNA requirement using existing units. Under stringent rules, the law allows housing element credit for three types of programs: Conversion of existing market-rate apartments to affordable units: Preservation of existing affordable units at risk of loss: and Rehabilitation of existing units. Other requirements include: Commitment of financial assistance within the first two years of the planning period Existing rents must be higher than low or very low income rents Must include a program in the Housing Element Must have a 55 year deed restriction. If conversion, jurisdiction must agree to provide State relocation benefits. At the direction of the RHMC, staff contacted the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to see if they had any units that were able to meet the criteria. They were able to identify 23 units at the Colorado Park development. These 23 units will be applied towards the unmet need of 369 units. The units have been without a deed restriction since 2012 however they are still being rented out to low income households at low income rent levels. These units are voluntarily kept at low income rents. The Housing Corporation has requested financial assistance from the City for rehabilitation work in exchange for a 55 year deed restriction on the units. PAHC’s letter has been included as Attachment F. The PAHC request is scheduled to be heard by the Council on August 4. Community Panel Action In their review of sites, the Community Panel agreed that residential second units (Tier 1, 32 units) and the Fry’s site (Tier 2, 174 units) be included as housing sites in the Housing Element. They were not in agreement about the possible inclusion of Tiers 3-7 were appropriate as housing site although a majority of the panel agreed that sites along San Antonio warranted consideration, as did additional sites in Downtown, including parking lots, 27 University, and sites smaller than 10,000 square feet. A majority of the panel also agreed that sites along El Camino Real should be grouped within previously identified “nodes” of higher density, and not uniformly spread along the corridor. This suggestion would require eliminating some of the existing sites along El Camino, and finding new sites to accommodate more than 369 units. In an earlier Community Panel meeting, the Panel was presented with the sites criteria that the City of Palo Alto Page 12 Council provided in selecting housing sites in the current Housing Element. The Panel recommended including other criteria in selecting the additional sites. The additional criteria included: A high walkability score, as provided at www.walkscore.org; Housing sites near job centers (like the Stanford Research Park); Proximity to transit, and Minimal impacts on automobile traffic. The Community Panel will continue their discussion of sites and programs at their May 29 meeting and staff will report to the Council the results of the meeting. Regional Housing Mandate Committee Action At the RHMC’s May 8 meeting, there appeared to be agreement to use the 32 residential second units and to accept the 23 existing units at Colorado Park. But there was less agreement about which sites to designate to meet the remaining unmet need. Recognizing that the short update timeline, a motion was proposed to accept the 23 existing units at Colorado Park and designate Tiers 1, 2 and 3 with minor revisions to meet the unmet need of 369 units and to continue identifying more transit-rich housing sites after HCD certification as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process with the intention of possibly replacing the approved sites with the more recently identified sites at a later date. However, the motion did not pass. In lieu of a Committee recommendation regarding housing sites, the RHMC recommended that staff provide a recommendation to the full Council. As noted earlier, staff’s Recommended Motion is similar to the motion supported by a minority (two members) of the RHMC. Planning and Transportation Commission Action The PTC conducted a study session on May 14, 2014 about the HE revisions and potential sites. After a discussion of the potential housing sites, especially about the proposed San Antonio sites, the acting PTC chair introduced the failed RHMC motion in the form of a straw poll. There was PTC support for the proposed motion. Since it was a study session, no official action was taken however the PTC directed staff to come back to the PTC on May 28 with the proposed motion as an action. In addition, the PTC provided staff with other discussion items to include for the May 28 meeting. Staff will report to the Council on results of the meeting. 2. Revisions to goals, policies and programs based on achievement and effectiveness. Each Housing Element is required to provide a review of past accomplishments in light of the Element’s Goals, Policies and Programs. Based on our past accomplishments, staff has proposed to remove some programs, asthose programs have either been completed or are no longer applicable. The RHMC was presented the current Goal, Policies and Programs along with proposed programs to be removed. Below is a table of the proposed programs to be removed, the rational in removing the program and the RHMC response. The underline/strike-out indicates RHMC comment. (These changes were incorporated into the Administrative Draft City of Palo Alto Page 13 disseminated on May 22.) Program Reason for Removal RHMC Direction H1.1.3 Provide incentives to developers such as reduced fees and flexible development standards to encourage the preservation of existing rental cottages and duplexes currently located in the R-1 and R-2 residential areas. Very few sites to qualify Retain H2.1.6 Consider Encourage density bonuses and/or concessions including allowing greater concessions for 100% affordable housing developments consistent with the Residential Density Bonus Ordinance. Not adopted as part of Density Bonus ordinance Retain with proposed revision. H2.1.7 Amend the zoning code to develop a small residential unit overlay district to allow higher densities in areas designated Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD). PTOD overlay district already allows for 40 du/acre w bonus. Support recommendation for removal H2.1.10 Consider aAmending the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the consolidation of smaller lots identified as Housing Inventory Sites, such as development review streamlining, reduction in required parking for smaller units, setback modifications, or graduated density when consolidated lots are over one-half acre. Lot consolidation is occurring because of the market. Incentives not needed. Retain with proposed revision. H2.2.1 Adopt an ordinance for density bonus concessions to promote more flexible concessions and incentives to projects that propose smaller units at a higher density, to encourage development of suitable housing sites currently planned and zoned for non-residential use with mixed use projects to contribute to the City’s fair share of the region’s housing needs. Adopted Support recommendation for removal 2.2.5 Revise the Zoning Ordinance to increase the density of up to 20 units per acre on CN-zoned parcels included in the Housing Inventory Sites. Adopted Support recommendation for removal 2.2.6 Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning Lot consolidation Support City of Palo Alto Page 14 incentives that encourage development on and consolidation of smaller lots, such as development review streamlining, reduction in required parking for smaller units, setback modifications, or graduated density when consolidated lots are over one-half acre. and redevelopment is occurring because of the market. Incentives not needed. recommendation for removal H2.2.7 Rezone property at 595 Maybell Avenue from the RM-15 and R-2 zone districts to the PC zone district to allow for development of 60 units of extremely low to low income senior affordable rental housing units and 15 market rate units. Adopted and rescinded by the voters Support recommendation for removal H2.2.8 To maintain adequate sites are available throughout the planning period to accommodate the City’s RHNA, on a project basis, pursuant to Government Code Section 65863, the City will monitor available residential capacity and evaluate development applications on Housing Inventory Sites in mixed use zoning districts. Should an approval of development result in a reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to accommodate the remaining need for lower-income households, the City will identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall. With the proposed surplus of sites, staff will advocate for the removal of this program. Support recommendation for removal H3.1.10 Adopt a revised density bonus ordinance that allows up to a maximum zoning increase of 35 percent in density and grants up to three concessions or incentives. The density bonus ordinance will meet State standards for the provision of housing units for very low- and lower-income renters, seniors and moderate-income condominium buyers in compliance with Government Code Section 65915, et seq. Adopted Support recommendation for removal H3.3.8 Amend the Zoning Code to allow transitional and supportive housing by right in all multifamily zone districts Adopted Support recommendation for removal City of Palo Alto Page 15 which allow residential uses only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. H3.5.1 Amend the Zoning Code to allow emergency shelters by right with appropriate performance standards to accommodate the City’s unmet need for unhoused residents within an overlay of the ROLM zone district located east of Highway 101. Adopted Support recommendation for removal The RHMC and the Community Panel will continue their discussions about programs in the upcoming months, and the RHMC has requested information about “workforce housing” to inform this discussion (see Attachment H). 3. Public outreach efforts The City has established the Community Panel consisting of housing stakeholders in the City. The Panel roster is included as Attachment G. The panel has been meeting monthly to provide recommendations to staff and the RHMC about site selection, programs and other items. The City also held two Housing Affordability workshops on April 28 and April 30 as part of the “Our Palo Alto” series of events. There were approximately 30 attendees at each workshop and they provided a number of comments about housing challenges and possible solutions. These comments will be integrated into the update in the form of Housing Needs (challenges) and programs (solutions). The April 30 workshop was video-recorded and is available for viewing. The full workshop can be found at this link: http://midpenmedia.org/watch/pacc_webcast/April/PASM_043014.html A shortened version of the meeting will be posted on YouTube. Staff will notify the the Council when the video becomes available. The City is maintaining a website for the Housing Element update. The website contains information and schedules of meetings concerning the Housing Element update. The link to the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update website is: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/housing_element_update_2015_2023.asp In addition to the housing feedback received at the Affordability workshops, the City wants to receive further input from the public. An on-line questionraire designed to solicit input regarding housing needs and possible solutions was prepared. The results of the survey will be included in the Update. Here is the link to the questionnaire: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PaloAltoHousingSurvey. City of Palo Alto Page 16 The survey has also been translated into Spanish. https://es.surveymonkey.com/s/CuestionarioPaloAlto 4. Updates to housing and demographic data based on new information such as the 2010 Census. ABAG has recently standardized the demographic data needed for the Housing Element for all the jurisdictions in the ABAG region by drawing the data from a number of governmental agencies. HCD has approved ABAG’s methodology therefore any jurisdiction using ABAG data to update their Housing Element is approved by the State. (Jurisdictions always have the option to add supplemental information.) The consultant has incorporated the updated demographic information into the Administrative Draft disseminated on May 22, 2014. Resource Impact Substantial staff time is necessary to update the Housing Element for the 2015-2023 period. Activities associated with the update include assembling updated data about housing and housing needs in Palo Alto, conducting required public outreach meetings, and preparing draft and final documents for review and adoption. Staff has executed a contract of approximately $57,000 with MIG Consultants to assist with the data collection and analysis, public outreach efforts, and preparation of the Housing Element document. The City Attorney may also have costs associated with retaining outside legal counsel with specific expertise in Housing Element law. The State and the region (ABAG/MTC) are continuing to place a greater importance on certifed housing elements and now require a certified housing element in order for agencies to be eligibile for funding. This year, the City received over $4.0 million in competitive and non- competitive One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) transportation funds. The City would have been ineligible for these funds if the City did not have a certified Housing Element. Policy Implications Cities and counties which do not meet the statutory deadline for the housing element update will be faced with the requirement to update their housing elements more frequently. Also, without compliant housing elements, jurisdictions may be faced with costly legal challenges pursuant to housing element law and/or fair housing law. Based on a legal challenge, a court may restrict local jurisdictions from issuing building permits and may assume jurisdiction over zoning and land use decisions necessary to bring the jurisdictions into compliance with the law. Also, if the City fails to identify or make available adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA assignment within a given planning cycle, the City may be required to carry those units over into the next planning cycle, thus increasing the number of sites to be identified in the upcoming cycle. Attachments: Attachment A: Partial 2015-2023 Housing Element Administrative Draft (previously provided to City Council on May 22) (DOCX) City of Palo Alto Page 17 Attachment B: Housing Element Workplan (PDF) Attachment C: List of Existing Housing Element Sites (PDF) Attachment D: Map of Proposed Site Tiers (PDF) Attachment E: Arastradero Sites Proposal (PDF) Attachment F: Palo Alto Housing Corporation Colorado Park Proposal (PDF) Attachment G: Housing Element Community Panel Roster (PDF) Attachment H: Workforce Housing (PDF) ATTACHMENT A PARTIAL 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT (previously provided to City Council, P&TC, Housing Community Panel and Libraries) 2015-2023 Housing Element Update Schedule Revised May 1, 2014 Date Task 1. December 2013 • RHMC HE Work plan presentation (Completed) • PTC Review of Zoning Update Package #1 2. January 2014 • Council Consideration of Zoning Update Package #1 and Density Bonus Ordinance (Completed) • Release HE Consultant RFP 3. February 2014 (Completed) • Feb 13 RHMC: Work Plan Status & Outreach Plan; Use of Existing Units 4. March 2014 (Completed) • March 11: Convene Community Panel; intro to the Housing Element • March 13 RHMC: Work Plan Status, Demographics & Site Options • March 27 Community Panel: Sites Options • Other Community Input: Surveys by Consultant, launch HE website, identify potential focus groups • Start preparation of Nexus Study 5. April 2014 (Completed) • April 1: Submit HCD Housing Element Annual Performance Report to HCD & OPR • April 10 RHMC: Site Options continued; Goals, Policies and Programs & Streamlined Update Checklist • April 21: Informational Report to Council • April 24: Community Panel: Site Options continued; Goals, Policies and Programs • April 28: Community Workshop #1 (North Palo Alto), Lucie Stern Community Ballroom, 3-5 pm • April 30: Community Workshop #2 (South Palo Alto), Palo Alto Elks Lodge, 6-8 pm • Other Community Input: Questionnaires by Consultant 6. May 2014 • Mid May: Consultant submittal of Administrative Draft • May 8 RHMC: Housing Sites and Goals, Policies and Programs continued • May 14: PTC discussion of Sites Inventory & Housing Element revisions • May 29: Community Panel: Review Admin Draft & Streamlined Update Checklist 7. June 2014 • June 2: City Council Study Session • June 12 RHMC: Review Admin Draft & Streamlined Update Checklist • June 25: PTC review of Admin Draft and Streamlined Update Checklist (tentative) • June 26: Community Panel: Admin Draft (cont.); HE Update & Streamlined Checklist • Initiate preparation of the environmental document (initial study) • End of June: HCD consultation with submittal of draft 8. July 2014 • Continued consultation with HCD • Disseminate draft environmental document • Break/Catch Up 9. August 2014 • August 14: RHMC: TBD (Review of Initial HCD input if available) • August 20: PTC begins review of draft Updates and CEQA review • August 28: Community Panel: Community Panel makes its recommendation 10. September 2014 • September 11 RHMC: begins discussion of its recommendation to Council on Draft Update and CEQA document (Possible Consultation with HCD) • September 17: PTC completes its review of revised Draft and CEQA • Completion of Nexus Study 11. October 2014 • Oct. 9 RHMC: makes its recommendation to Council on Draft Update and CEQA document 12. November 2014 • Nov 10 Council Consideration of Draft Update and CEQA Document • Nov 24: Second Council Hearing Date (if needed) • Nov 25: Submit HE Update to HCD for 60 day review 13. December 2014 Break/HCD Q&A 14. January 31, 2015 HCD Certification Deadline* • HCD does allow for a 120 day post deadline grace period under certain conditions City Housing Element Update Website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/housing_element_update_2015_2023.asp APPENDIX B-1 Housing Sites Notes: 1. CN zoned parcels maximum density increased to 20 du/acre in January 2014 2. Parcels with an Assessed Value Ratio greater than 1.5 were determined to have an artificially low assessed land value from parcels under the same ownership for more than 10 years; the assessed land value is far below current market land values. APN SITE ADDRESS ZONING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED MAXIMUM YIELD LAND USE DESIGNATION LOT SIZE (ac) REALISTIC CAPACITY EXISTING USE ONSITE CONSTRAINTS - OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSED VALUE RATIO 132-41-085 3707 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 3 CN 0.18 3 1 Story Personal Service; Retail Existing Commercial Use; Current 0.99 124-32- 013 470 Cambridge Av CC (2) 30 du/ac 7 CC 0.23 5 1 Story Religious Institution: Surface Parking Existing Non- Residential Use 1.64 124-33- 005 410 Sherman Av CC (2) 30 du/ac 7 CC 0.24 5 2 Story Office Commercial Existing Commercial Use 4.17 124-29-007 251 California Av CC (2)(R)(P) 30 du/ac 7 CC 0.26 5 1 Story retail Existing Commercial Use 1.19 124-32- 035 334 California Av CC (2)(R)(P) 30 du/ac 8 CC 0.27 5 2 Story Retail; Eating Drinking; Commercial Existing Commercial Use 0.74 124-33- 061 479 California Av CC (2)(R)(P) 30 du/ac 7 CC 0.24 5 1 Story commercial; Financial Service Existing Commercial Use 0.55 120-15- 090 595 Bryant St CD-C (GF)(P)/ 40 du/ac 8 CC 0.22 5 1 Story Retail; Eating Drinking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.75 120-03- 021 581 University Av CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 10 CC 0.26 5 1 Story Financial Service Existing Commercial Use 0.73 120-03-037 578 University Av CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 8 CC 0.22 5 1 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 3.45 120-03- 067 541 Cowper St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 9 CC 0.23 5 1 Story commercial Existing Commercial Use 1.47 120-15-007 401 Waverley St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 8 CC 0.22 5 1 Story Retail; personal Service Small lot consolidation opportunity 1.09 120-15- 013 420 Cowper St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 10 CC 0.25 5 2 story office Existing Commercial Use 2.12 120-26- 109 542 High St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 10 CC 0.25 5 ! Story Commercial; Retail office Existing Commercial Use 1.38 124-31-059 2101 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Retail; Personal Service; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.91 132-40- 062 480 Wilton Av CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.91 132-46- 106 4112 El Camino Wy CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 2.41 137-01- 116 2000 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.27 5 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 1.13 137-08- 078 3636 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 0.09 137-08- 097 3666 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Retail: Commercial; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.44 137-11-091 3972 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 Gas Station Underground Storage Tanks 0.27 137-11- 098 3780 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.24 5 1 Story Retail; Commercial; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.13 132-38-011 3275 Ash St CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.27 5 1 Story Office; Commercial; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 2.47 132-38-017 460 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.22 5 Surface parking Small lot consolidation opportunity 0.04 132-38- 018 460 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.22 5 Surface parking Small lot consolidation opportunity 0.04 132-38-025 455 Portage Av CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.22 5 1 Story Commercial Office Small lot consolidation opportunity 4.26 132-38- 047 3260 Ash St CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.22 5 SFD Small lot consolidation opportunity 5.62 137-08-079 3516 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.23 5 1 Story Personal Service Existing Commercial Use 0.09 137-08-088 3508 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 7 CS 0.24 5 Automotive Service; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.16 124-28- 003 2260 Park Bl CC (2) 30 du/ac 8 CC 0.29 6 Surface parking Parking serving adjacent commercial uses 0 124-32- 034 300 California Av CC (2)(R)(P) 30 du/ac 8 CC 0.27 6 2 Story Eating Drinking; Commercial Existing Commercial Use 0.73 120-15-045 353 University Av CD-C (GF)(P) 40 du/ac 12 CC 0.3 6 1 Story Commercial; Retail; Office Existing Commercial Use 2.95 120-16- 020 635 Waverley St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 12 CC 0.31 6 2 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 0.9 120-27- 038 658 High St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 12 CC 0.32 6 2 Story Commercial Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.89 124-30-015 1963 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 6 CN 0.28 6 Gas Station Underground Storage Tanks 0.04 132-35- 045 3705 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 6 CN 0.28 6 1 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 0.26 120-33-004 67 Encina Av CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.27 6 1 Story Commercial; Office Existing Commercial Use 1.17 132-37-055 3051 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.3 6 1 Story Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.45 132-38-058 320 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.28 6 1 Story Office Commercial; Light Industrial Existing Commercial Use 6.46 132-38- 060 280 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.28 6 1 Story Office Commercial; Light Industrial Existing Commercial Use 0.53 132-38-061 292 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.32 6 1 Story Office Commercial; Light Industrial Existing Commercial Use 0.93 132-39-087 455 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.32 6 1 Story Commercial Existing Commercial Use 0.56 142-20-055 3160 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.29 6 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.03 132-31- 071 2747 Park Bl GM 40du/ac 6 LI 0.3 6 Vacant Lot Within PTOD 0.51 124-32- 040 414 California Av CC (2)(R)(P) 30 du/ac 11 CC 0.37 7 2 Story Financial Services; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.49 120-15-015 469 University Av CD-C (GF)(P) 40 du/ac 13 CC 0.34 7 1 Story Commercial; Retail; Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 1.7 120-15- 103 360 University Av CD-C (GF)(P) 40 du/ac 13 CC 0.34 7 1 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 1 120-16-011 630 Cowper St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 13 CC 0.34 7 1 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 0.45 120-26-002 130 Lytton Av CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 13 CC 0.34 7 2 Level Parking Structure Parking serving adjacent commercial uses 0.36 132-46- 100 4115 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 7 CN 0.35 7 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use; 1.03 137-08- 081 3630 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 7 CN 0.37 7 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 0.36 137-11-078 3700 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 7 CN 0.36 7 1 Story Personal Service; Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 0 137-11- 083 3896 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 7 CN 0.32 7 1 Story Retail; Eating Drinking; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 0.56 132-37-033 2905 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.32 7 2 Story Commercial: Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.17 132-37- 052 2951 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.32 7 1 Story Retail; Commercial Existing Commercial Use 0.62 132-37- 056 3001 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.33 7 1 Story Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.08 132-38- 048 268 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 10 CS 0.35 7 1 Story Office Commercial; Light Industrial Existing Commercial Use 0.64 132-41-088 3801 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 10 CS 0.35 7 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.14 132-46- 119 4195 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 10 CS 0.35 7 1 Story Automotive Services Existing Commercial Use 0.88 132-46- 120 4193 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 10 CS 0.36 7 1 Story Medical Office; Automotive Services Existing Commercial Use 0.56 124-33- 066 2585 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 8 CN 0.4 8 Surface parking Parking serving adjacent commercial uses 0 132-40-059 3609 El Camino Real CN 15 du/ac 8 CN 0.42 8 Gas Station Underground Storage Tanks 0 132-41- 083 3783 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 8 CN 0.42 8 1 Story Eating Drinking; Retail; Commercial: Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.33 137-01-070 2200 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 8 CN 0.41 8 Gas Station Underground Storage Tanks 0.11 132-38- 027 425 Portage Av CS 30 du/ac 12 CS 0.4 8 1 Story Commercial; Office Existing Commercial Use 0.31 132-38-045 3200 Ash St CS 30 du/ac 11 CS 0.39 8 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 4.6 132-38- 046 3250 Ash St CS 30 du/ac 11 CS 0.38 8 2 Story Office Commercial Existing Commercial Use 1.13 148-09-010 4335 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 12 CS 0.4 8 2 Story Commercial; Office Existing Commercial Use 1.21 120-34-014 98 Encina Av CC 30 du/ac 13 CC 0.44 9 Surface parking Parking serving adjacent commercial uses 0.01 124-30-017 1921 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 9 CN 0.43 9 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.97 132-46-104 4128 El Camino Wy CN 20 du/ac 9 CN 0.45 9 2 Story Office Existing Commercial Use; 0.32 137-01-113 2280 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 9 CN 0.43 9 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use; 0.06 137-01- 125 2257 Yale St CN 20 du/ac 9 CN 0.43 9 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 1.23 132-38-026 435 Portage Av CS 30 du/ac 13 CS 0.45 9 1 Story Commercial Office Existing Commercial Use 0.34 132-39-071 429 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 13 CS 0.45 9 1 Story Automotive Services; Office Existing Commercial Use 0.23 167-08- 036 4232 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 12 CS 0.43 9 1 Story Daycare School Existing Commercial Use 1.07 137-01- 069 559 College Av CN 20 du/ac 10 CN 0.47 10 2 Story Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 1.81 124-33- 067 2501 El Camino Real CN; CC (2) 15/30 du/ac 10 CN 0.51 10 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use; Current Max Res Density is 20 du/ac on portion of lot 0.33 132-39- 090 415 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 15 CS 0.51 10 1 Story Commercial Existing Commercial Use 3.44 132-41- 096 3885 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 14 CS 0.47 10 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 3.51 167-08- 030 4230 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 15 CS 0.52 10 1 Story Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 0.04 167-08-035 4200 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 14 CS 0.48 10 1 Story Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 0 124-29- 020 150 Grant Av CC (2) 30 du/ac 17 CC 0.59 12 1 Story Commercial; Office Existing Commercial Use 0.23 132-38-062 435 Acacia Av CS 30 du/ac 18 CS 0.62 12 1 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 7.47 167-08-042 4256 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 17 CS 0.59 12 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 0.14 132-36-077 2675 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 13 CN 0.63 13 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use; 0.59 132-44- 022 4115 El Camino Wy CN 20 du/ac 13 CN 0.64 13 1 Story Commercial: Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 0.75 137-08-080 3606 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 13 CN 0.65 13 Vacant Lot Current 0 120-34- 001 841 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 19 CS 0.64 13 Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 0 167-08-037 4222 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 19 CS 0.63 13 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 0.41 132-43-153 4085 El Camino Way CN 20 du/ac 14 CN 0.71 14 1 Story Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 0.7 132-38-042 3201 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 20 CS 0.68 14 1 Story Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.27 132-44- 100 4135 El Camino Way CN 20 du/ac 15 CN 0.75 15 2 Story Office; Underground Parking Existing Commercial Use; 4.06 137-01-129 2390 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 15 CN 0.76 15 2 Story Commercial Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 0 142-20- 054 3150 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 22 CS 0.75 15 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.3 132-39-088 3399 El Camino Real CS; CN 30/20 du/ac 15 CS;CN 0.74 15 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.29 137-08-083 3400 El Camino Real CS (H); RM-15 30/20 du/ac 19 MF;CS 0.96 19 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 1.74 132-38- 056 430 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 30 CS 1.03 21 2 Story Office Commercial Existing Commercial Use 4.49 124-28-045 154 California Av CC (2)(R)(P) 30 du/ac 34 CC 1.14 23 2 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 0.29 148-09-014 4291 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 34 CS 1.16 23 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.33 132-31-042 130 Sheridan Av GM 34 LI 1.13 34 Within PTOD Needs Rezoning to allow Residential Use 0 142-20-035 3128 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 35 CS 1.18 24 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.93 120-27-073 718 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 2 1 Story; Automotive Service Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.53 120-28-084 918 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.08 2 1 Story; Automotive Service Small lot; consolidation opportunity 0 120-27- 072 721 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Professional Office; Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.93 120-28- 004 160 Homer Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.05 120-28- 033 839 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Personal Service; Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.02 120-28-036 825 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Personal Service; Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.31 120-28-080 943 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.11 3 1 Story Professional Office Small lot; consolidation opportunity 1.04 120-28- 081 935 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.11 3 1 Story Personal Service Small lot; consolidation opportunity 0.59 120-28-082 929 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.11 3 1 Story SFD Small lot; consolidation opportunity 0.01 120-28- 085 926 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.11 3 2 Story Personal Service; Office Small lot; consolidation opportunity 0.34 120-28-090 931 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 story light manufacturin g Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.19 120-28- 091 925 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 5 SOFA II CAP 0.14 3 Vacant; Auto Storage Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.01 120-28-093 960 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Automotive Service Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.59 120-30-048 1027 Alma St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Professional Office Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.79 120-30-049 1019 Alma St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Retail; Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 1.25 120-28-003 815 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.13 4 1 Story Professional Office Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 1.55 120-28- 005 160 Homer Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 5 SOFA II CAP 0.14 4 Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.02 120-28-051 190 Channin g Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 6 SOFA II CAP 0.17 5 1 Story Professional Office Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 1.45 120-28- 092 940 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 6 SOFA II CAP 0.18 5 1 story light manufacturin g Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.62 120-28-094 145 Addison Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 6 SOFA II CAP 0.17 5 1 Story Professional Office Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.77 120-28- 099 829 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 6 SOFA II CAP 0.19 5 1 Story Personal Service; Office; Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.89 120-27-048 700 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Professional Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.55 120- 27-049 701 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.22 6 1 Story Personal Service; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.04 120-28- 040 849 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Professional Office Existing Commercial Use 0.89 120-28-050 901 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 11 SOFA II CAP 0.32 6 Vacant; Auto Storage Existing Commercial Use 0 120-28-095 999 Alma St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 1.3 120-30- 050 100 Addison Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0 120-28-097 925 Alma St RT-50 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Professional Office Existing Commercial Use 1.2 120-28- 038 882 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.25 7 2 Story Personal Service; Medical Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 8.86 120-28-086 930 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.25 7 1 Story Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 2.04 120-28-089 965 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 12 SOFA II CAP 0.35 9 1 Story Professional Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.47 120-27-046 700 High St RT-50 25-50 du/ac 12 SOFA II CAP 0.36 9 1 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 1.64 120-27-075 774 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 16 SOFA II CAP 0.48 13 1 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 1.76 120-28- 037 840 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 16 SOFA II CAP 0.48 13 Surface Parking Parking serving adjacent commercial uses 0.03 132-41- 025 397 Curtner Ave. RM-30 30 du/ac 6 MF 0.19 4 2 story duplex Existing Residential 0.73 003-02- 021 725 University Av RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.25 5 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.4 003-02- 022 489 Middlefield Rd RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.25 5 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.12 120-04- 043 704 Webster St RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.22 5 1 Story Professional Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.67 120-16-046 720 Cowper St RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.23 5 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.49 124-27-038 2185 Park Bl RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.25 5 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.21 124-27- 039 2149 Park Bl RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.25 5 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.74 120-03-038 610 University Av RM-40 40 du/ac 8 MF 0.22 5 2 Story Professional Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.22 003-02- 043 575 Middlefield Rd RM-30 30 du/ac 8 MF 0.28 6 2 Story Office; Podium Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.19 003-02-048 547 Middlefield Rd RM-30 30 du/ac 10 MF 0.36 7 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.61 124-28-043 2211 Park Bl RM-30 30 du/ac 10 MF 0.34 7 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.26 003-02-047 720 University Av RM-30 30 du/ac 12 MF 0.41 8 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.37 137-01- 121 531 Stanford Av RM-30 30 du/ac 12 MF 0.4 8 2 Story Hotel: Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 4.91 120-16- 041 400 Forest Av RM-40 40 du/ac 18 SOFA I CAP 0.45 9 1 Story Medical Office; Podium Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.6 120-16-042 430 Forest Av RM-40 40 du/ac 20 SOFA I CAP 0.51 10 1 Story Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 0.91 137-37- 004 4102 El Camino Real RM-30 30 du/ac 19 MF 0.64 13 1 Story Religious Institution Existing Non- Residential Use 0.02 137-24-034 4146 El Camino Real RM-15 20 du/ac 15 MF 0.77 15 Vacant Lot 127-15-023 4151 Middlefield Rd RM-15 20 du/ac 18 MF 0.93 18 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.46 132-42-074 3945 El Camino Real RM-30; CS 30 du/ac 26 MF;CS 0.89 18 1 to 2 Story Professional Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.35 132-42-073 3901 El Camino Real RM-30 30 du/ac 33 MF 1.1 22 2 Story Motel; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.39 132-38-059 340 Portage Ave RM-30 30 du/ac 374 MF 12.47 75 1 Story Commercial/ Retail Existing Commercial Use 4.68 000-00-000 1170 Welch Rd RM-40 40 du/ac 84 RO 2.11 73 Vacant Lot Opportunity for expansion of adjacent existing multifamily residential 0 San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Charleston Slough Matadero Creek San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Adobe CreekAdobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Junip e r o S e r r a Boule v a r d M i l l Road E l C a m i n o R e a l San Antonio A v e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R o a d 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 A v e n u e 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t Camino Real R F oothi l l Ex H i l l v 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 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 Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Cereza Drive Los Robles Avenue Villa Vera Verdosa DriveCampana DriveSolana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthur' Maybell Way Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Florales Drive Georgia AvenueAmaranta Avenue Amaranta Ct Ki sCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vista Avenue Wisteria Ln Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Pl Pomona Avenue Arastradero Road Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa Real El Camino Way Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue Maclane Emerson Street Ventura Ct Park Boulevard Magnolia Dr South El Camino Real Cypress Lane GlenbrookD Fairmede Avenue Arastradero Road Irven Court Los Palos CirLosPalosPl Maybell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way Los Palos Avenue Suzanne Drive Suzanne Drive rive El Camino Real Suzanne Ct Lorabelle Ct McKellar Lane El Camino Way James Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way Camino Ct West Meadow Drive Thain Way Barclay CtVictoria Place Interdale Way West Charleston Road Tennessee Lane Wilkie Way Carolina LaneTennessee Lane Park Boulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev Monroe Drive Wilkie Way Whitclem Pl Whitclem DriveDuluth Circle Edlee Avenue Dinah's Court Cesano Court Monroe Drive Miller Avenue Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ferne Avenue Ben Lomond Drive Fairfield Court Ferne Avenue Ponce Drive HemlockCourt Ferne Court Alma Street Monroe Drive San Antonio Avenue NitaAvenue Ruthelma Avenue Darlington Ct Charleston Road LundyLane Newberry Ct Park Boulevard George Hood Ln Alma Street eltCircle Lindero Drive Wright Place StarrKingCircle Shasta Drive Mackay Drive Diablo Court Scripps Avenue Scripps Court Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creekside Drive Greenmeadow Way Ben Lomond Drive Parkside Drive Dixon Place Ely Place Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) ChristopherCourt CalcaterraPlace Ely Place Ely Place Adobe Place Nelson Court ByronStreet Keats Court Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Court Duncan PlaceMumford Place Charleston Road San Antonio Avenue East Meadow Drive Emerson Street Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircle RedwoodCircle South Leghorn Street Montrose Avenue Maplewood Charleston Ct Charleston Road Seminole Way Sutherland DriveNelson Drive El Capitan Place Fabian Street Loma Verde Avenue Bryson Avenue Midtown Court Cowper Street Gary Court Waverley Street South Court Bryant StreetRamona Street Alma Street Coastland Drive Colorado Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Court Moreno Avenue Coastland Drive El Carmelo Avenue RosewoodD Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Place Wellsbury Ct AvalonCourt FlowersLane Mackall Way Loma Verde Avenue KiplingStreet Cowper Street South Court Waverley Street El Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way La Middlefield Road St Claire Drive Alger Drive Ashton Avenue St Michael Drive St Michael Drive Maureen Avenue Cowper Court Rambow Drive East Meadow Drive Ashton Court Murdoch DriveCowperStreet Murdoch Ct St Michael Court MayCourt Mayview Avenue Middlefield Road Ensign Way Bibbits Drive Gailen CtGailen Avenue Grove Avenue San Antonio Avenue Commercial Street Industrial Avenue Bibbits Drive Charleston Road Fabian Way T East Meadow Drive Grove Avenue Christine Drive Corina Way Ross Road Corina Way Louis Road Nathan Way Transport Street Ortega Court East Meadow Drive yneCourt alisman Loma Verde Avenue Allen Court Ross Court Loma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Richardson Court Holly Oak Drive Ames Avenue CorkOakWay Middlefield Road Ames Ct Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way RorkeWay Stone LaneToyon Place Torreya Court Lupine Avenue Thornwood Drive DriftwoodDrive Talisman Drive Arbutus AvenueRoss Road Louis Road Aspen WayEvergreen Drive East Meadow Drive Corporation WayElwell Court Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway rive Ellsworth PlaceSan Carlos Court Wintergreen Way Sutter Avenue Sutter Avenue Clara Drive Price Court Stern Avenue Colorado Avenue Randers Ct Ross Road Sycamore Drive Sevyson Ct Stelling Drive Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling DriveStelling Ct ManchesterCourt Kenneth Drive Thomas Drive Greer Road Stockton PlaceVernon TerraceLouis Road Janice Way Thomas DriveKenneth DriveLoma Verde Avenue CliftonCourt ElbridgeWay Clara Drive BautistaCourt Stockton Place Morris Drive Maddux Drive Piers Ct Louis Road Moraga Ct Old Page Mill Road CoyoteHillRoad Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia Street Bowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street Miranda Avenue Laguna Ct Barron AvenueJosina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos Ct La CalleLaguna Avenue ElCerrit Paradise Way Roble Ridge (Private) LaMataWay Chimalus Drive Matadero Avenue oRoad Paul Avenue Kendall Avenue Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Los Robles Avenue Laguna Way ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street TimlottLa Jennifer Way Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue LosRobles Avenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle Crosby Pl Georgia Avenue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive eroRoad La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Orme Street Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley Street Princeton StreetOberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford AvenueEl Camino Real Churchill Avenue Park Boulevard Park Avenue Escobita Avenue Churchill Avenue Sequoia Avenue Mariposa AvenueCastilleja Avenue Miramonte Avenue Madrono Avenue Portola Avenue Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford Avenue Birch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan Avenue Jacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue Santa Rita Avenue WaverleyStree Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colorado AvenueStreet Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado AvenueAlma Street Alma Street HighStreet t Emerson Waverley Oaks Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StreetNevada Avenue North California Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Ramona Street High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expressway Marion Avenue Ramona Street Colorado Avenue Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton CourtNevada Avenue Tasso Street Tasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl Webster Street Middlefield Road Ross Road Warren Way El Cajon Way Embarcadero RoadPrimrose Way Iris Way Tulip Lane Tulip Lane Garland Drive Louis Road Greer Road MortonStreet Greer Road Hamilton Avenue Hilbar Lane Alannah Ct Edge Rhodes Drive Marshall Drive FieldinMoreno AvenueMarshallDrive Dennis Drive Agnes Way Oregon Avenue Blair Court Santa Ana Street Elsinore DriveElsinore Court El Cajon Way Greer RoadNorth California Avenue gDrive Colorado Avenue Sycamore Drive Amarillo Avenue VanAukenCircle Bruce Drive Colonial LaneMoreno Avenue Celia Drive Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue West Bayshore Road Sandra Place Clara Drive Colorado Avenue Greer Road Colorado AvenueSimkins Court Otterson Ct Higgins PlaceLawrence Lane Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle MoffettCircleGreer Road East Bayshore Road ardinalWay Santa Catalina Street ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot Terrace Oregon Avenue Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Drive East Bayshore Road woodDrive Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St Francis Drive Wildwood Lane Watson Court Laura Lane Sandalwood Ct O'Brine Lane (Private) Embarcadero Road FaberPlace Embarcadero Road Geng Road Embarcadero Way Sand Hill Road Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Quarry Road Sand Hill Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embarcadero Road Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma Street Alma Street PaloAltoA El Camino Real venue Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33 PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Churchill Avenue Lowell Avenue Seale AvenueTennyson Avenue Melville Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street North California Avenue Coleridge Avenue Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Kellogg Avenue Kingsley Avenue Portal Place Ross Road Oregon Avenue Garland Drive Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitman Court Kellogg AvenueEmbarcadero Road Kingsley Avenue Lincoln AvenueAddison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant StreetRamona Street Addison Avenue Scott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytton Avenue Guinda Street PaloAltoAvenue Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Forest Avenue Webster Street Kellogg Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Boyce Avenue Forest AvenueHamilton Avenue Homer Avenue Guinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Avenue AltoAvenue Chaucer Street Chaucer Street University Avenue Channing Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Regent Pl Guinda StreetLincoln Avenue Fulton Street Melville Avenue Byron Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue Hamilton AvenueHamilton Court Forest AvenueForest Ct Marlow Maple Palm Stre Somerset Pl Pitman Avenue Fife Avenue Forest Avenue Dana Avenue Lincoln Avenue University Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Fulton Street Cowper Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Northampton Drive West Greenwich Pl Middlefield Road Newell RoadGuinda Street East Greenwich Pl Southampton Drive Webster Street Kirby Pl Kent Place Tevis Pl Martin Avenue Center Drive Harriet Street Wilso n S t r e e t Cedar Street Harker Avenue Greenwood Avenue Hutchinson Avenue Channing Avenue Hopkins Avenue Embarcadero Road Ashby Drive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue Southwood Drive West CrescentDrive Univers Center Drive Crescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell Pl Sharon Ct Erstwild Court Walter Hays Drive Walnut Drive Newell Road Parkinson Avenue Pine Street Mark Twain Street Louis Road Barbara Drive Primrose Way Iris Way Embarcadero Road Walter Hays Drive Lois Lane Jordan Pl Lois Lane Heather Lane Bret Harte Street Stanley Way De Soto DriveDe Soto Drive Alester Avenue Walter Hays Drive Channing Avenue Iris Way tDrive Dana Avenue Hamilton AvenueNewell RoadKings Lane Edg ewood Drive Island Drive Jefferson Drive JacksonDrive Patricia LaneMadison Way EdgewoodDrive Ramona Street Addison AvenueChanning Avenue Waverley Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Marion Avenue Welch Road Sedro Lane Peral Lane McGregor Way Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Miller Court Briarwood Way Driscoll Place Paulsen Ln Community Lane Lane 15 E Court Madeline Ct David Ct Green Ct Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Page Mill Road Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressway Cerrito Way Emerson Street Miranda Ave Lane 20 W Lane 20 E Oregon ExpresswayUniversity Avenue Jacob's Ct CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Clark Way Durand Way Sandhill Road Swain Way Clark Way Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orchard Lane Vineyard Lane Oak Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Lane 66 Bryant Street Ramona Street Blake Wilbur Drive West Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Fabian Way Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way London Plane Way Plum Lane Sweet Olive Way Pear Lane Lane 66 La Selva Drive Grove Ct Stanford Avenue Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Lasuen Street Serra Mall Escondido Road Olmsted Road Phillips Road Pistache Place Santa Ynez Street Lane B Lane C El Dorado Avenue Oak Creek Drive Clara Drive Bellview Dr Everett Avenue Homer Avenue La Calle SAN ANTONIO AVENUE Matadero Ave Colorado Pl Los Robles Avenue Timlott Ct Vista Villa PaloAltoAvenue Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Kenneth Drive Fabian Way Page Mill Road Middlefield RoadChristine Drive Louis Road Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Chimalus Drive Hanover Street Community Lane Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Avenue Maplewood Pl Mackay Drive Santa Teresa Lane Byron Street Varian Way Quail Dr Quail Dr Paloma Dr Paloma Dr Trinity Ln Heron Wy Feather Ln Stanislaus LnTuolumne Ln Plover Ln Sandpiper Ln Curlew Ln Mallard LnEgret Ln Klamath Ln Deodar StAlder LnSpruce Ln Rickey's Ln Juniper Way Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Ju n iper Lane Emerson Street Boronda Lane Tahoe Lane Lake Avenue Donner Lane Almanor Lane Fallen Leaf Street Berryessa Street Cashel StNoble St Hettinger Ln Pratt Ln Emma Court Galvez Mall Federation Way Abrams Court Allardice Way Alta Road Alvarado Ct Alvarado Row Angell Court Arguello Way Arguello Way Avery Mall Ayrshire Farm Lane Barnes CourtBonair Siding Bowdoin Street Cabrillo Avenue Cabrillo Avenue Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Capistrano Way Casanueva Place Cathcart Way Cedro Way Cedro Way Churchill Mall Comstock Circle Aboretum Road Aboretum Road Blackwelder Court Campus Drive Cathcart Way Constanzo Street Cookse y Lane Coronado Avenue Cottrell Way Cottrell Way Cowell Ln Crothers Way Dolores Street Dolores Street Dudley Lane Duena Street Electioneer Road Escondido Mall Escondido Mall Escondido Road Escondido Road Escondido Road Esplanada Way Estudillo Road Fremont Road Frenchmans Road Frenchmans Road Galvez Mall Alvarado Row Galvez Street Galvez Street Galvez Street Gerona Road Gerona Road El Escarpado Gerona Road Hoskins Court Hulme Court Jenkins Court Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Knight Way Lagunita Drive Lane L Lane W Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Street Lathrop Drive Lathrop Drive Lathrop Place Lathrop Drive Links RoadLinks Road Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita DriveLomita Court Lomita Mall Los Arboles Avenue Masters Mall Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue McFarland Court Mears Court Mears Court Memorial Way Mirada Avenue Mirada Avenue Museum Way N Service Road N Tolman Ln Nelson Mall Nelson Road North-South Axis Oberlin St Comstock Circle Escondido Mall Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Palm Drive Palm Drive Pampas Lane Panama Mall Panama Mall Panama Street Panama Street Pearce Mitchell Pl Peter Coutts Circle Peter Coutts Road Peter Coutts Road Pine Hill Court Pine Hill Road Quarry Extension Quarry Road Quillen Ct Raimundo Way Ra i mundo Way Raimundo Way Roble Drive Rosse Lane Roth Way Roth Way Roth Way Running Farm Lane Ryan Court S Service Road S Tolman Ln Salvatierra Street Salvatierra St Salvatierra Walk Samuel Morris Wy San Francisco Terrace San Francisco Court San Juan St San Juan St San Rafael Pl Santa Fe Avenue Santa Maria Avenue Santa Teresa Street Santa Teresa Street Santa Ynez Street Searsville Road Sequoia Wy Serra Mall Serra Street Serra Street Serra Street Sonoma Terrace Stanford Avenue Stanford Avenue Stock Farm Road Thoburn Court Tolman Drive Valdez Place Valparaiso Street Vernier Place Via Ortega Via Palou Via Pueblo Mall Welch Road Wellesley St Wilbur Way Wing Place Yale St Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Nathan Abbott Way Sam McDonald Road Sam McDonald Mall Vista Lane Bowdoin Lane Arguello Way Governors Avenue Governors Avenue Governors Avenue S Governors Lane Pasteur Drive Lagunita Drive Alma Village Lane Alma Village Circle R e s e r voir R o a d Reservoir Road Reservoir Road Ranch Road Ryan Lane O'Connor Lane Gene CtBrassinga Ct Cole Ct This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Quarter Mile Radius from El Camino Real Half Mile Radius from Caltrain Station 2007-2014 RHNA HOS 2007-2014 RHNA HOS Pipeline Projects Pipeline Project Sites not previously identified Tier 2 - 340 Portage (Fry's) @ 20 du/ac Tier 3 - CN/CS Zoned San Antonio Sites Tier 4 - Cal Ave Surface Parking Lots Tier 5 - Downtown Surface Parking Lots Tier 6 - Miscellaneous Residential Zoned Sites 0'2072' DR A F T 20 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 Ho u s i n g O p p o r t u n i t y S i t e s v0 3 1 2 1 4 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE 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 2014 City of Palo Altorrivera, 2014-03-17 11:03:27 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Name of Representative Organization Greg Tanaka Planning and Transportation Commission Ray Bachetti Human Relations Commision Heidi Emberling Palo Alto Unified School District Faith Brigel PTA Council Sheri Furman Midtown Neighborhood Association Lisa Landers Barron Park Neighborhood Association Tom Dubois Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning Paula Wolfson Avenidas Deborah Sue Stevens Silicon Valley Independent Living Center Jessica Epstein Silicon Valley Association of Realtors Doris Peterson League of Women Voters Bonnie Packer Palo Alto Housing Corporation Tony Carrasco Mixed Use Developer Lydia Tan Related California Dena Mossar Housing Advocate Caryll-Lynn Taylor Neighbor Helping Neighbors Elaine Uang Member-At-Large Housing Element Community Panel 1 Memorandum To: Regional Housing Mandate Committee From: Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment Date: May 27, 2014 Re: Ability to Incorporate Workforce Housing Programs into Housing Element The Committee has requested some general information regarding “workforce” housing. Workforce housing is sometimes used interchangeably with affordable housing or Below Market Rate (BMR) housing, and sometimes used more broadly to describe housing that serves employees working within a geographic area. In general, BMR housing is affordable to those with incomes between 60 and 120 percent of the area median income adjusted for household size. (In Palo Alto, median household income was $118,936 in 2012.) Housing affordability in the San Francisco Bay Area has been a persistent problem, even during the recent economic and housing market downturn. (See Urban Land Institute’s 2009 Report titled Priced Out: Persistence of the Workforce Housing Gap in the San Francisco Bay Area; Attachment A.) As of 2009, every county in the Bay Area fell within the 15 percent least affordable in the country, and only New York City ranked less affordable. The high cost of housing is particularly challenging for “workforce” employees who work in growth industries such as education, health care and professional services. And for every high tech job added to the local economy four jobs in support services fields are created. Housing affordability is not only a problem for lower income service workers. According to an annual survey administered by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Silicon Valley CEOs have pinpointed affordable housing as their No. 1 challenge for the past 11 years. Regional Programs Bay Area cities recognize that housing affordability is a regional problem. There are ongoing regional planning efforts occurring in the Bay Area. Silicon Valley Leadership Council has an affordable housing working group that teams private and public sectors. The Housing Trust has raised considerable money from both private and public sources. Most recently, Palo Alto is partnering with San Mateo County cities in conducting an affordable housing nexus study. Staff also hopes that creative partnering opportunities will come out of that collaboration. Similar efforts are occurring in other metropolitan areas. (See Workforce Housing Study: Westside Subregion; Attachment B.) Local Programs Cities are also recognizing the importance of addressing workforce housing in their Housing Elements. Because legislating who can live in a particular housing unit triggers a series of legal hurdles (such as fair housing, privacy, takings and right to travel), the overwhelming trend has been to provide incentives, rather than mandates. Programs to incent higher density, especially around transit; use of city or agency 2 owned land for housing, strategic distribution of housing near employment; reduced parking requirements, allowance for micro-units and density bonus programs are becoming key programs in Housing Elements. (See Attachment C; excerpt from Santa Monica’s Housing Element adopted December 10, 2013.) The recent Facebook announcement that it was partnering with a housing developer to build 394 units of housing in close proximity to its new Menlo Park Campus caused many commentators to ask whether the century old “company town” concept was coming back. (See Attachment D; Wall Street Journal Article titled “Facebook’s Company Town” dated October 3, 2013.) Traditionally in Palo Alto, commercial housing projects have paid affordable housing development impact fees, rather than provide affordable housing on site. Some cities however have imposed inclusionary housing requirements on commercial housing projects. The Building Industry Association has been litigating the constitutionality of inclusionary housing programs and a case challenging San Jose’s inclusionary housing program is currently pending before the California Supreme Court. It is not clear whether that case will reach the issue of commercial inclusionary housing programs. Given the evolving legal issues in this area, the Council could choose to include a broad program in the Housing Element Update to “Explore additional options for workforce housing, such as development incentives and innovative private sector programs.” This would be similar to Santa Monica’s “Program 2.g: Facilitate the Development of Housing that is Affordable for Santa Monica’s Diverse Workforce,” which reads as follows: Explore the development of housing that is affordable to the City’s workforce, including rental, ownership, and forms of employer-provided transitional housing, with “Workforce Housing” defined as between 120% and 180% of the County Average Median Income (AMI). In addition to the Affordable Housing Production Program, prioritize incentives to develop workforce housing units, with particular emphasis on housing for larger households in need of units with two or more bedrooms. Possible parameters of the program are as follows: • Provide regulatory development incentives, particularly in locations with proximity to transit, in the Zoning Ordinance or in specific and area plans to encourage inclusion of units affordable to households defined as moderate income or “workforce.” Incorporate incentives such as: Floor-area-ratio (FAR) calculation based on reduced floor area for square footage in moderate or moderate and workforce units in projects that also provide on-site affordable housing in compliance with the AHPP. Expedited processing of projects that provide housing units guaranteed through deed restrictions or other means to be maintained at rent levels affordable to moderate or workforce households as defined above. Flexibility with open space requirements, such as substituting or partially substituting common for private open space. • Encourage workforce housing as a community benefit that supplements but does not replace the provision of deed-restricted affordable housing.” Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D City of Palo Alto (ID # 4872) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Funding Proposal, Preliminary TOT Approval, and Polling Authorization Title: Review and Approval of the Revised Draft Infrastructure Project Funding Proposal, Preliminary Approval of the Transient Occupancy Tax Ballot Language, and Authorization to do Final Polling on the Transient Occupancy Tax and Utilities User Tax Modernization Measures From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council review and approve the revised draft infrastructure project funding proposal, provide preliminary approval of the transient occupancy tax ballot language, and give staff authorization to do final polling on the transient occupancy tax measure and utilities user tax modernization measure. Background At the March 3, 2013 Palo Alto City Council meeting Council reviewed a draft infrastructure project funding proposal that had been recommended by the Infrastructure Committee for Council review (Attachment A). Additionally, at the March 3, 2014 Council meeting Council considered the Infrastructure Committee’s recommendation to move forward with a three percentage point transient occupancy tax (TOT) increase. Following Council discussion at the March 3, 2014 meeting, Council approved a reduction in the proposed TOT increase from three percentage points to two percentage points. Due to this reduction in the proposed TOT increase, Council referred the draft infrastructure project funding proposal to the Infrastructure Committee for consideration of changes to the $132.2 million project list in light of the reduction in proposed TOT funding. Revised Draft Infrastructure Project Funding Proposal Reconciliation between the draft infrastructure project funding proposal presented to Council on March 3, 2014 and the Infrastructure Committee’s revised draft infrastructure project funding proposal is attached for your review (Attachment B). This attachment displays the $132.2 million in projects recommended by the Infrastructure City of Palo Alto Page 2 Committee to Council on March 3, the project reductions recommended by the Infrastructure Committee to close the funding gap created by the reduction in the proposed TOT increase, and the funding sources required for the infrastructure work. To close the $15.4 million gap, staff recommended to the Infrastructure Committee that the following projects be reduced or postponed from the $132.2 million plan. As seen below, the reduction proposed by staff at the May 20, 2014 Infrastructure Committee meeting is not $15.4 million but instead $13.9 million. This is because staff was able to identify an additional $1.5 million in funding to help offset the TOT reduction. To reconcile the delta between project costs and revenue sources, staff used its best judgment for where proposed project reductions should occur. A high level overview of staff’s justifications for the proposed project reductions are below: There will likely be future grant opportunities to fund the Bike/Pedestrian Plan reducing the need for City funding. Similar to other projects previously removed from the draft infrastructure project funding proposal by the Infrastructure Committee, Parks Catch-Up work and part of the proposed Byxbee Park improvement work can be either delayed or funded within the City’s Capital Plan, revenue permitting. While in need of modernization, especially seismic improvements, Fire Station 4 remains functional and continues to provide fire suppression services in the absence of a major natural disaster. A full reconstruction of Fire Station 3 is still included in the plan. Staff Projects Proposed for Postponement Reduction (in millions) Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan $1 Parks Catch-Up $4.6 Byxbee Park $0.8 Fire Station 4 $7.5 Total $13.9 Following Committee review, and a presentation by staff on future revenue sources not identified, available, or allocated at the time of the original staff report, the Infrastructure Committee recommended that the City Council approve the revised draft infrastructure project funding proposal, including the reductions recommended by staff, with the exception of retaining Fire Station 4 in the revised draft infrastructure project funding proposal to be funded by future revenue source(s). Examples of potential future revenue sources include, but are not limited to, increases in revenue from a revised utility users tax (UUT), future development impact fees, and Police Building rent revenue once the new Public Safety Building (PSB) is constructed. City of Palo Alto Page 3 A summary of the revised list of projects proposed for postponement by the Infrastructure Committee is below. Committee Projects Proposed for Postponement Reduction (in millions) Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan $1 Parks Catch-Up $4.6 Byxbee Park $0.8 Total $6.4 The recommendation to reduce the three percentage point TOT increase to a two percentage point TOT increase has resulted in the postponement of $6.4 million worth of projects. Staff feels this is an aggressive, but realistic, reduction plan. The result of this is $125.8 million of the $132.2 million worth of projects proposed to Council on March 3, 2014 (under the assumption of a three percentage point TOT increase) will still be constructed despite a $15.4 million reduction in TOT revenue. To demonstrate that adequate resources are available for $125.8 million in infrastructure work please see the revised draft infrastructure project funding proposal (Attachment C). This attachment shows the uses and sources for the proposed projects. In the “Sources” section of the attachment, one-time funds are shown to total $53.77 million. These consist of the same sources the Infrastructure Committee has been discussing since its inception, such as Stanford Development Agreement funds and Infrastructure Reserve monies. The use of these funds is shown by year. $64.5 million will be financed using COP’s. The revenue streams necessary to support this annual debt service will be derived from new hotels tax receipts and the two percentage point TOT increase. The final $7.5 million for Fire Station 4 will be funded by future revenue sources including, but not limited to, increases in revenue from a revised UUT, future development impact fees, and Police Building rent revenue once the PSB is constructed. Again, together with available one-time funds, all of the infrastructure projects outlined in this plan can be achieved. In addition, revenues in excess of debt service in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 can be used for other projects, or to reduce out-year borrowing, on a cash flow basis. When the new PSB is built a new revenue stream will be generated by renting the old Police Building located at City Hall. Once completed and occupied, the old Police Building is conservatively estimated to yield $1.4 million annually. There are; however, multiple variables that can, and will, impact expenditures and revenue streams. Examples are, but not limited to, future construction costs, land costs, the sensitivity of TOT revenue streams to economic cycles, interest rate movements, City of Palo Alto Page 4 the City’s credit rating as its borrowing increases, and the bond market’s view of municipal debt. Another component to consider is that the resource plan discussed here does not account for other, potential significant General Fund expenditures and loans the City is considering or for which it is committed. For example, it does not incorporate a potential purchase of the downtown Post Office (PO). Although the PO will generate a rental stream justifying its purchase and eventually offsetting expected debt, the purchase will affect the near term cash flow outline presented in this report and the debt level the City will bear. Likewise, with anticipated construction of a new Golf Course, it is staff’s intent to be able to optimally balance the use of available cash to minimize capitalized interest costs as well as to cover costs by potentially advancing some funds until the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) remits its mitigation payment. This too could affect the cash flow picture. Eventually, $6.1 million of debt (excluding issuance costs and capitalized interest) will be issued to cover part of Golf Course capital costs and Golf Course revenues are expected, after ramping up rounds, to cover this debt as well as operating expenses. Finally, up-front cash will be needed to make improvements to the Airport. Eventually, 90% of the capital expenditures will be reimbursed by the federal government, but this will create a draw on cash resources in the short-term. When needs outside of the infrastructure project funding proposal are incorporated in the funding proposal, the cash flow picture becomes more complicated and dependent on the timing of projects and revenue streams. As the infrastructure project funding proposal and other projects unfold in the future, Council will see a variety of temporary “transfers” and/or “loans” via Budget Amendment Ordinances (BAO’s) to fund projects and minimize borrowing costs. In conclusion, at this point in time, despite it being an aggressive plan there are adequate resources to move forward with the projects identified in the revised draft infrastructure project funding proposal. The proposal, plus other capital acquisitions and projects, will require careful year-to-year cash flow monitoring with the objectives of minimizing debt obligations and additional expenditures. Proposed TOT Ballot Language: Rate Increase and Language Update Below is draft ballot language prepared by the City Attorney’s Office and recommended by the Infrastructure Committee: 1. “To provide funding that cannot be taken away by the State for general fund infrastructure and City services such as earthquake safe fire stations; pedestrian and bike improvements including safe routes to school, streets, sidewalks, paths, and bridges; and maintaining parks and recreation facilities, shall the City City of Palo Alto Page 5 increase the hotel/motel tax by two percentage points and update language to confirm equal treatment of traditional and online bookings?” This language reflects the Council’s direction to increase the TOT to 14%. In addition to the rate increase, staff recommended, and the Infrastructure Committee agreed, that it would be prudent to use the opportunity of a ballot measure on the TOT to update the TOT ordinance to clarify that the tax applies fully to online hotel brokers (such as Expedia and Priceline) and “sharing economy” businesses such as Vacation Rentals By Owner (VRBO) and Airbnb. The Online Travel Companies (“OTCs”) generally operate under one of two business models: the agency model or the merchant model. In the “agency” model, the OTC acts as a hotel’s agent, and recovers their service charge directly from the hotel or sometimes the customer. Under this model, the hotel collects and remits TOT based on a percentage of the full amount of money the customer is charged for the room rental (the “retail” rate). In general, the customer pays TOT on the full room rate and this tax is collected and remitted by the hotel. Palo Alto’s existing TOT ordinance adequately addresses the “agency” model of online bookings. Under the “merchant” model, the OTC contracts with a hotel, agreeing to pay the hotel a negotiated “wholesale” rate for a room or block of rooms. The OTC then allows customers to book rooms using its website, acting as the merchant of record in the transaction with the customer. The OTC may charge whatever it wants for room reservations and the hotel is obligated to honor reservations made through the OTC’s website. Under this model, the OTC collects and remits TOT pursuant to its contract with the hotel, but typically only remits TOT based on the “wholesale” rate it pays the hotel, not the higher “retail” rate it charges the consumer. This is because most TOT ordinances were drafted long before the online “merchant” model became popular, and therefore do not clearly address the new pricing practice. Several cities have sued to collect rent on the full “retail” rate but courts have denied most of these claims. The courts’ decisions have turned on the particular language of the local TOT ordinance at issue. In light of this unsuccessful litigation, it is likely that many cities will begin updating their ordinances to clarify that TOT should be collected on the rent actually paid by the customer, rather than the rent collected by the hotel. Staff recommends that the TOT be updated to ensure that the City’s TOT ordinance applies to the “merchant” model of online bookings. In addition, staff recommends updating the TOT language to confirm that online intermediaries or brokers (including Airbnb) are responsible to collect the tax. (Note this TOT update is unrelated to short-term rentals of homes, condos or apartments, in whole or in part, is permitted under the City’s Zoning Code. The Planning Department intends to conduct a separate policy discussion next year on this broader land use City of Palo Alto Page 6 issue. The proposed TOT update is not intended and should not be viewed as implicitly permitting use of structures as hotels where such use does not comply with the Zoning Code.) Staff will bring the suggested ordinance language to the full Council for approval on June 16, 2014 along with the Resolution calling the election. Polling Staff recommended and the Infrastructure Committee agreed that Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) should conduct a final round of opinion research on the draft ballot language for both the TOT increase and the UUT clean-up (which has already been approved by Council). FM3 would poll on these two ballot questions: 1. “Shall the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance to reduce the tax rate for the telecommunications portion of the Utility Users Tax (which helps fund basic City services and projects) from 5% to 4.75%; modernize its provisions to ensure equal treatment of taxpayers regardless of telecommunications technology used; and eliminate a discounted tax rate paid by a small number of commercial large users of gas, electric and water services?” 2. “To provide funding that cannot be taken away by the State for general fund infrastructure and City services such as earthquake safe fire stations; pedestrian and bike improvements including safe routes to school, streets, sidewalks, paths, and bridges; and maintaining parks and recreation facilities, shall the City increase the hotel/motel tax by two percentage points and update language to confirm equal treatment of traditional and online bookings?” The approximate cost for this service is $20,000. Currently, there is $33,500 reaming in the $90,000 FM3 contract. The turn-around time for FM3 from the time they receive the draft ballot measure language to the time they provide polling results to the City is conservatively estimated at two weeks but likely less. Infrastructure Committee Motions Below are the motions approved by the Infrastructure Committee at their May 20, 2014 meeting: Motion 1 Chair Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Burt, that the Infrastructure Committee recommend the City Council 1) approve the revised draft infrastructure project funding proposal, 2) approve the draft transient occupancy tax ballot language, and 3) provide direction on whether additional polling should occur including the following changes: 1) Retention of Fire Station 4 in the revised draft infrastructure project funding proposal City of Palo Alto Page 7 2) Reduction of $1 million for the Bike/Pedestrian Plan; 3) Reduction of $4.6 million in parks catch-up; 4) Reeducation of $0.8 million in Byxbee Park funding to be covered by other sources such as COPs and/or Development Impact Fees. Motion Passed: 3-1 with Scharff dissenting Motion 2 Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Berman, that the Infrastructure Committee approve the transient occupancy tax ordinance with updated changes to reflect the full retailed rent and the rent be redefined to include any form of merchant of short-term occupancy rental. Motion Passed: 4-0 Motion 3 Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff for the Infrastructure Committee direct Staff to poll for the transient occupancy tax and Utilities users tax modernization. Motion Passed: 4-0 Also, attached for your review, is the most recent TBWB update (Attachment D). Attachments: A - Infrastructure Project Funding Proposal_3-3-2014 (PDF) B - Draft Infs Project Funding Proposal vs Revised Draft Infs Project Funding Proposal_5- 20-2014 (PDF) C - Revised Draft Infrastructure Project Funding Proposal_5-20-2014 (PDF) D - TBWB Communication Update_5-20-2014 (PDF) DRAFT Infrastructure Project Funding Proposal Status Quo Step 1 Step 2 (Public Safety Building using existing funding)(Use remaining existing funding and 3% TOT increase) Public Safety Building & Land 57 Bike Bridge 1.7 Bike/Pedestrian Plan 28.5 Byxbee Park 3.6 Funding Cal Avenue Garage (+158 spaces)9.6 New Hotels - COPs 33.6 Downtown Parking Garage (+214)13 FY 2013 Surplus 8.5 Fire Stations (2)14.2 Stanford Funds - Infrastructure 14.9 Parks Catch-up 4.6 Sum:57 Sum:75.2 Funding Stanford Funds - Infrastructure 7.2 Stanford Funds - Sustainability 12.3 Stanford Funds - Interest 1.5 Parking In-Lieu Fund 4 FY 2014 Surplus (projected)4 TOT Increase 3% - COPs 46.2 Sum:75.2 Unfunded Projects Cost Remaining Unfunded Projects Cost Remaining Unfunded Projects Cost Bike Bridge 1.7 Bike Bridge 1.7 Cal Avenue Garage (+114 spaces)6.9 Bike/Pedestrian Plan 28.5 Bike/Pedestrian Plan 28.5 Downtown Parking Garage (+89 spaces)5.4 Byxbee Park 3.6 Byxbee Park 3.6 Parks Catch-up 4.3 Cal Avenue Garage (+272 spaces)16.5 Cal Avenue Garage (+272 spaces)16.5 Sum:16.6 Downtown Parking Garage (+214 spaces)13 Downtown Parking Garage (+214 spaces)13 Downtown Parking Garage (+89 spaces)5.4 Downtown Parking Garage (+89 spaces)5.4 Fire Stations (2)14.2 Fire Stations (2)14.2 Parks Catch-up 8.9 Parks Catch-up 8.9 Public Safety Building & Land 57 Sum:91.8 Sum:148.8 Remaining Existing Funding Amount Remaining Existing Funding Amount Existing Funding Amount New hotels - COPs 33.6 Stanford Funds - Infrastructure 7.2 Infrastructure Reserve 8 Stanford Funds - Infrastructure 22.1 Stanford Funds - Sustainability 12.3 Stanford Funds - Sustainability 12.3 Stanford Funds - Interest 1.5 Stanford Funds - Interest 1.5 Parking In-Lieu Fund 4 Parking In-Lieu Fund 4 FY 2014 Surplus (projected)4 FY 2013 Surplus 8.5 Infrastructure Reserve 8 FY 2014 Surplus (projected)4 Sum:37 Infrastructure Reserve 8 Sum:94 City Hall Police Area Lease - COPs*19.6 Total Sum:113.6 Other Factors to Consider: 1) Potential costs for shuttle system improvements and parking lot 2) Potential cost of post office construction project 3) *Infrastructure Reserve of $8 million and projected $19.6 million through COPs from lease of current police space upon completion of Public Safety Building project are not allocated to projects in this scenario, allowing these funds to be programmed through a future process. 4) **Parking garage cost estimates are based on additional parking spaces and the City's In-Lieu Parking Fee ATTACHMENT B Draft Infs. Project Funding Proposal vs. Revised Draft Infs. Project Funding Proposal ‐000s‐ Projects and Costs @3% TOT @2% TOT Recommend Changes Public Safety Building 57,000 57,000 Bike Bridge 1,700 1,700 Bike Ped Plan*21,000 20,000 (1,000) Arastradero 7,500 7,500 Byxbee Park 3,600 2,800 (800) California Avenue Garage**9,600 9,600 Downtown Parking Garage**13,000 13,000 Fire Stations 14,200 14,200 Parks Catch‐Up 4,600 ‐ (4,600) Total Costs 132,200 125,800 (6,400) 1 % TOT reduction = ($15.4) million (15,400) ‐ ‐ for project expenses New Project Total 116,800 125,800 Sources As of 2/24/14 As of 5/20/2014 Stanford Infrastructure (SI)22,100 22,072 includes interest earned Stanford Sustainability (SS)12,300 12,400 includes interest earned Stanford Interest 1,500 ‐ Infrastructure Reserve 8,500 8,500 FY 2014 Surplus 4,000 4,000 Parking In‐Lieu Fees by June 30, 2014 4,041 4,041 Park Impact Fees ‐ 2,761 New Hotel Revenue COPs 33,600 33,600 TOT increase of 3%/2%46,200 30,800 Available revenue from TOT 126 Future Revenue Sources TBD***7,500 Grand Total 132,241 125,800 *Potential grants not reflected in above numbers. **Potential resources from public/private partnerships in building garages not reflected in above numbers. ***Potential future revenue sources may include, but are not limited to, increases in UUT revenue , development impact fees, and and Police Building rent revenue. ATTACHMENT C Revised Draft Infrastructure Project Funding Proposal FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Totals Uses/Projects Public Safety Building 14,900 42,100 57,000 Downtown Garage 1,300 11,700 13,000 Bike Pedestrian Plan/Arastradero 1,200 3,200 7,700 7,700 7,700 27,500 Bike Bridge (gap funding)1,700 1,700 Byxbee Park 2,800 2,800 California Avenue Garage 9,600 9,600 Fire Station 3 670 6,030 ‐ ‐ 6,700 Fire Station 4 7,500 Total Costs 1,200 20,070 29,930 49,800 17,300 125,800 Sources Stanford Infrastructure 14,339 7,733 22,072 Stanford Sustainability 1,200 3,200 7,700 300 12,400 Infrastructure Reserve and FY 2014 Surplus 1,231 2,965 4,304 4,000 12,500 Downtown Parking In‐Lieu Fees 1,300 2,741 4,041 Park Impact Fees 2,761 2,761 Subtotal of One‐Time Funds 53,774 Finance (COP's)‐ 6,030 45,196 13,300 64,526 Future Revenue Sources TBD 7,500 Total Sources 20,070 29,930 49,800 17,300 125,800 NOT INCLUDED: POST OFFICE, GOLF COURSE, AIRPORT 400 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | Phone: (415) 291-1894 | Fax: (415) 291-1172 | TBWB.com TO: Infrastructure Committee, City of Palo Alto FROM: Charles Heath and Amanda Brown-‐Stevens, TBWB Strategies RE: Communication Update on Funding Measure DATE: May 20, 2014 Earlier this year, the Palo Alto City Council voted to move forward with preparing a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for the ballot and conduct related community outreach. This memo summarizes outreach so far and next steps. Drafting and Vetting Ballot Measure Language TBWB has worked with city staff to develop draft ballot language. This has been vetted by the City Attorney’s Office and is now ready for review by the Infrastructure Committee. This language will then be reviewed by Council on June 2 and tested in a tracking survey before going to the City Council in mid-‐June for final adoption. Informational Voter Communication City staff has conducted targeted outreach to community leaders and stakeholders to get input and feedback on the potential measure. In order to reach a broader audience, TBWB has drafted an informational mailer for this committee to review. This brochure will raise awareness of the city’s high-‐priority infrastructure needs and a potential funding measure. We recommend this mailer be sent in early June before the Council makes the final decision whether to place the measure on the ballot. A second informational mailer will be sent shortly after the Council’s vote to place the measure on the ballot. This final piece will provide the details of the measure and information about voting in the election. Tracking Research To make any final refinements to the ballot measure and ensure support remains at a sufficient level to justify going to the ballot, a tracking poll should be conducted in early June. This will provide up-‐to-‐date opinion data that can be presented to the Council on June 16 along with the final resolution calling for the election and establishing the specifics of the measure. Qualifying for the Ballot To place a measure on the November 4, 2014 ballot, the City Council must adopt a resolution calling for the election no later than August 8, 2014. Accordingly, we recommend bringing the resolution to the Council for final adoption on June 16 before the Council’s July recess. 400 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | Phone: (415) 291-1894 | Fax: (415) 291-1172 | TBWB.com Updated Schedule and Key Milestones May ¥ Complete stakeholder outreach ¥ Infrastructure Committee meeting to review project list, ballot language and informational mailer – May 20 ¥ Develop tracking survey to test final ballot language June ¥ Present final policy direction from the Infrastructure Committee to the full City Council regarding the infrastructure plan and a potential measure on November 2014 ballot – June 2 ¥ Mail first informational brochure – June 5 ¥ Conduct final tracking survey ¥ Review survey results and adopt resolution calling for election – June 16 July ¥ Mail second informational mailer informing voters of the actions taken by the Council to put the measure on the ballot – third week of July August ¥ City Clerk files resolution – by August 8