The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-06-10 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Council Chambers June 10, 2013 4:00 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 10, 2013 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTERDISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITYCLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. * The agenda now includes time estimates for each section or item. These are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. Call to Order Closed Session 4:00-4:45 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, Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray) Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Manager’s Association (PAPMA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Special Orders of the Day 4:45-4:55 PM 2. Peninsula Council of Lion’s Club Honors Fire and Law Enforcement Officials Who Have Served Their Communities 4:55-5:00 PM 3. Appointment for One Position on the Historic Resources Board for an Unexpired Three Year Term Ending May 31, 2014 (Resignation of Smithwick) 4. Appointments for Two Positions on the Human Relations Commission for Three Year Terms Ending March 31, 2016 (Terms of O’Nan and Verma) 2 June 10, 2013 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 5. Appointments for Two Positions on the Library Advisory Commission for Three Year Terms Ending January 31, 2016 (Terms of Akinola, Moss, and Palaniappan) 6. Appointment for One Unexpired Position on Public Art Commission ending on April 30, 2015 (Walsh Resignation) 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 5:00-5:15 PM Oral Communications 5:15-5:30 PM Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Consent Calendar 5:30-5:35 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 7. Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Eleanor Pardee Park 8. Approval of Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Contract with D. W. Nicholson Corporation in the Amount of $411,500 for the Sedimentation Tanks Equipment Replacement Project at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant - Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-80021 9. Approval of a Five-Year Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Telecommunications Engineering Associates (TEA) in an Amount of $168,972 Per Year For Annual Maintenance Services of Radio Infrastructure and Project Funding Not To Exceed $50,000 Per Year 10. Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for the San Francisquito Creek Bonde Weir Fish Passage Improvement and Channel Stabilization Project 11. Approval of Utilities Compliance Services Contract with Eric Scott, in an Amount Not to Exceed $100,000 for Managing Compliance Activities 3 June 10, 2013 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Covering Electric, Natural Gas, Water, and Wastewater Collection Utility Services 12. Appointment of Michael Alcheck and Eduardo Martinez to the Planning & Transportation Commission for Four Year Terms Ending July 31, 2017 and James Cook and Garth Hall to the Utilities Advisory Commission for Three Year Terms Ending July 31, 2016 13. Approval of: 1) the Palo Alto Landfill Closure Stipulated Notice and Order No. LEA-2013-01-1; 2) Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C12143502 in the Amount of $247,889 for a Total Amount of $461,002 with Golder Associates for Closure Design Service; and 3) Contract C13150284 in the Amount of $250,000 with Toubar Equipment Company for Landfill Closure and Maintenance Services Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 5:35-6:35 PM 14. Consideration of Public-Private Parking Garage on High Street (Lot P) COUNCIL BREAK 6:35-7:00 PM 7:00-7:15 PM 15. Public Hearing – Assessment for California Avenue Area Parking Bonds – Plan G: FY 2013-2014; Adoption of a Resolution Confirming Engineer’s Report and Assessment Roll, California Avenue Parking Project No. 92- 13 (For Fiscal Year 2013-2014) 7:15-10:00 PM 16. Public Hearing: Consideration of 567-595 Maybell Avenue Planned Community(PC), including: (1) Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) Adoption of a Planned Community Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designations from R-2 and RM-15 to Allow a 15 Unit Single Family and 60 Unit Affordable Rental Development for Seniors, including Two Concessions under State Density Bonus Law (Building Height and Daylight Plane); and (3) Approval of a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Designation for a Portion of the Site to Single Family Residential (from Multifamily Residential), for the Project Located at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. *Quasi-Judicial 4 June 10, 2013 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 10:00-10:30 PM 17. Continued Public Hearing and Proposition 218 Hearing: Adoption of Budget Amendment Ordinance for FY 2014, including Adoption of Operating and Capital Budgets and Municipal Fee Schedule; Adoption of 6 Resolutions, including: Adopting a Dark Fiber Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2; Adopting a Water Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and W-7; Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to Increase Storm Drain 10:30-10:35 PM 18. Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the 2007-2014 Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan and Approving a Negative Declaration (continued from May 20, 2013) STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 17, 2013 10:35-10:50 PM 19. Discussion and Consideration of an Additional Council Meeting on June, 24, 2013 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 10:50-11:00 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. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful. 5 June 10, 2013 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Supplemental Information Standing Committee Meetings Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Special City Council Retreat Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summary Fourth Quarter Sales (October - December 2012) Public Letters to Council SET 1 SET 2 SET 3 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3877) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 6/10/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Lions Club Award Recognition Title: Peninsula Council of Lion’s Club Honors Fire and Law Enforcement Officials Who Have Served Their Communities From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Background Now in its 48th year, the Peninsula Council of Lion’s Club honors Fire and Law Enforcement Officials who have served their communities, demonstrated heroism and valor. Several members of the Palo Alto Fire Department were recently recognized. Two Community Service awards recognized Fire Captain Carter French and Firefighter Jon Matsumoto for their important and unique contributions to the community. The crew of A Shift, Engine 2 and Medic 2 includes Fire Captain Mark vonAppen, Apparatus Operator Paramedic Jesse Aguilar, Firefighter Paramedic Daniel Fortino, Firefighter Paramedic Adam King and Firefighter Paramedic Jesse Wooton. This crew of five was honored for heroism after saving the life of an 11 year old child who had been struck by a car while riding his bike to school. The Community Service award is designed for a firefighter who has performed a great service to their department and/or community. It is for someone who takes initiative to develop a new or innovative program that was put into action with positive results to connect with or benefit our community. Fire Captain Carter French initiated and organized a community focused pancake breakfast to raise funds for Project Safety Net, whose mission supports youth well-being in Palo Alto. Captain French has always been one to be part of the solution, this time with his vow of “Changing the Community, one Pancake at a time!” Over 800 guests attended and more than $4,700 was raised in four hours. A second Community Service award recognized Firefighter Jon Matsumoto for his “Letters from Santa” campaign. During the holidays when funds are tight and families are faced with the City of Palo Alto Page 2 deluge of expectations it takes a special connection and individual to meet this need and bring a smile to children faces. Firefighter Jon Matsumoto came to the Fire Department from the Postal Service and he knows the joy that a simple letter can bring. Firefighter Jon Matsumoto’s program provides letters, gifts and a holiday meal from Santa Claus. The Heroism award recognizes the crew of Engine 2 and Medic 2 for their actions on November 5, 2012. Fire Captain Mark vonAppen and his crew of Jesse Aguilar, Daniel Fortino, Adam King, and Jesse Wooton were dispatched to a report of a bicyclist down in the roadway near the area of Sherman Avenue and Park Boulevard. As the units arrived on scene the crews instantly recognized the severity of the situation; a car traveling 30 mph struck an 11-year-old boy who was riding his bicycle. He lay unconscious and unresponsive in the roadway. Although at an emotionally charged scene, the crew immediately set about treating the boy for his injuries and preparing him for transport to Stanford University Hospital, the nearest trauma center. The trained expertise of the crews supported an impressive onscene time of seven minutes. This is remarkable given the severity of the patient’s injuries, the amount of care that must be rendered prior to leaving for the hospital, and the emotional nature of the call. The prompt and professional actions by our firefighters and paramedics gave this young boy the best chance of survival. Not only did the crew expertly treat this child for his injuries, they maintained contact with the family through this difficult ordeal and recovery demonstrating equal amounts of compassion and family support. These seven professionals represent a small sample of the experts and compassionate members of the City of Palo Alto Fire Department. They represent the best of what we offer our community on a daily basis. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 10, 2013 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointment for One Position on the Historic Resources Board for an Unexpired Three Year Term Ending May 31, 2014 (Resignation of Smithwick) On Monday, June 10, 2013 the City Council should vote to appoint one term ending May 31, 2014 to the Historic Resources Board. The Candidate, Margaret Wimmer, interviewed on June 4, 2013. Voting will be by paper ballot. Five votes are required to be appointed. ATTACHMENTS:  Wimmer (PDF) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 ) CITY OF PALO ALTO Historic Resources Board SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Margaret Wimmer Date: 2/21/2013 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes No • Historic Resources Board W (Date: ____ -.I.) D 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Historic Resources Board? Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D ?mail from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D Other, Please Specify: asked Steven Turner about it 3. Check Any That Apply: The Daily Post: D FlyerlBookmark: D D I own or occupy a category 1 or 2 historic structure, or a structure in a historic neighborhood W I am an architect, a landscape architect, a building designer, or other design professional W I have an academic education or practical experience in history or a related field 4. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations. Past member of the Junior League PA-MP. Past volunteer for the Cantor Center for the Visual Arts thru the "Next-Gen" group. Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/31/2011 5. What is it about the Historic Resources Board that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Historic Resources Board? I have always been interested in Historic Architecture and design, as it is the foundation of the homes that are designed today. I have a degree from the College of Architecture at Arizona State University. I am a self-employed residential designer based in Palo Alto. I have worked on Historic Projects (lastly, The Chambers Residence at 450 Kingsley Avenue) that has required presentation to the HRB. 6. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? I don't think I can accurately answer this question without more information. In general, I would be supportive of the board and offer my thoughts and educated opinions as best I can in regard to changing any roles, etc. 7. What are the current issues facing the Historic Resources Board? Maintaining the current Historic Inventory and preserving the historic architectural character of the city. Also to have a format and enforcement abilny to do so. 8. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Historic Resources Board achieve? Greater public awareness. Ease of ability to work with the owners of historic structures in a way that allows them to maintain and utilize the structures as necessary, while being obligated to follow the historic guidelines and requirements that are enforced by the city. Bds/Commissions -702-23 8/31/2011 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 10, 2013 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointments for Two Positions on the Human Relations Commission for Three Year Terms Ending March 31, 2016 (Terms of O’Nan and Verma) The Human Relations Commission terms of Jill O’Nan and Sunita Verma expired on March 31, 2013. The following Candidates interviewed for these terms on June 4, 1013: ZuChong Liu Adrienne Murphy Jill O’Nan Greer Stone Staff is requesting Council vote to appoint two positions on the Human Relations Commission ending on March 31, 2016. Voting will be by paper ballot. Five votes are required to be appointed. The first two candidates that receive at least five votes will be appointed. ATTACHMENTS:  Liu (PDF)  Murphy (PDF)  O'Nan (PDF)  Stone (PDF)  Liu Handout (PDF) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 ) 5 How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it . were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? . / fi tt,t/~ ~/JtTtJIPr2'I.IZ. m~c 111:/ I"<?h 4! ct bUd rot' /J7~''''' r/ I w.el"te!;;5 lh:r im!dirfHh{1 I Z( ~e$~1r-~<4!I //"'I;</a>f' ~7JZeZ;~> lJe/d t?// ~4. ~c<!?neI ~..,r.ft:l':Y' "'+ ~J /%"U'''~, -ft/) ~/lQW ...;J~ l1~wJ/ lJI4#"(;-t"I"'S~l ~~/IU d/,te~ /4~ )~~Ll/l ;t4~;n~· Ii] &Jk/' Cdtll/Hd/fd. )</"1 C-t;,./>IJPrp?:,,,n,,ec!n># eJ,'/Pv ,,;~ C'en;YT(!':/ an#(' j!JRr~t:¥.5 /hl/.e-J:;;! tJ ~ ~ ~",.eI f..e ~> ~ f #' f'I ~;e.C. e l1.r..tJJ-:> -r 0 ,.$' Ct j" .e.d t!m d r ..e-c,,»Jh? ltndl','-"1 p"I''«;:J I're:;:uz( 4 C,~ .. ,-/.' If i6 w,/'..: "'" ~4 .ffi>!y f'" e,4"'Je-eurr..,~c ""'/'$. /1.1 :51/"t<rI~/e. {I'I" '.6. ?r6 "~/''}j re.q/,'tzec(. 6. What are the current issues facing the Human~elatlOns CommIssIon. / -fi,,~k -{Ifni f-If.,re /5~'tt/JZ ft/J1~ Linul f"t»1e~r/l fi~ ~i.s ~c4f'i 1/'/ ~ Jt'&i~o:€. . tJl'<!j ,;f' _ / • . ,.. ./ !Jk#!~ ('.e/a7i"4?1.,5 ~P~//.(t .{A/f4h// P~ /'n cu;/'k-" ~~5'·/I~.s5/ (.4)/1- t(~taH~ 5r;.tI~4t /lktS-P/,,!:/7p/ !~e)/ r~l'p-l:.r,.. o/~ ~""S"cA~i. 5(1 ~€ );l1.cA?P~ /i'<f?/~/,,,:;> c,;;m/J?lf":J;:4·:1z,'/~'kl.el c;:,~~~~ ~ J?q ,~£ .,.~~~ w.~~e. /bJjfrd/"y / et';lt1'eJ,/ ,g!'.s!$ j tr'7;rp,/4 /;1"'> P;(r"'~.;(, @c/e.-C'e,7.'.!i4/ iJ""fIf >tJ?-t~ /n..:tZ,/,,'4fJ".; P"""'''Z:r Ci7/,'.ti1$ ~ A/>t.?J >1-~/~rm~~ IJP/':'r,,'A~ C;'Ap#7/+~/~' "".J/>u.d ~<n #~ r/Lf"J 1'/ce.e,f'/v 7. rtapp~1ed,4~.fs{eJmc·goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve? JWod/tI 11/rJ-P It.? 5~ /h~ Pvn4n--jfe.fq1i~~ CPmfr1/.r;f'i'~ a cvhl€1/"e. lA~$'e, ://ltX's'! (. tid-olf -)i.e., J'';u6r f-"i' ,.,9...z ;'#'" ./&<41<2. ~."d (k't>//;'d'e Y71.tZ Ckf/e'?I/'1Jl?1ee... 10 5ec~ ~~ /h~7r..ekr, 50ff~l'k ~ eaAY to ~/};'~ e,J; 1"1,/ 71t~ )JPhQ~;?~?>4It/PI1..,J cP/I?fr11 ~~/"n.; ;;1, ~eu:J#<.-r.~t: 6/ T1{< hg-t:~ ('_doL t>/-~ A'/~/t: 5~p I P-n r:I f '1!,j'£<-$ti 1~ a ef 01 71 e. C'tP'"-f;,,., tf " ';)"~< ,r,;,-/&f/' e. -/qr-' /,"Jt" /),sIA/ /ml?'1~V'"'~"'~ u4fb /iVd /~ p;.e (//i,:~d1 5(A~5': J. l.?4t.h~ Ii> /",&;17",,,,,, > ~.e Jrjuse.um.--'>7"7 .;-:' J"""', /;/ ,r','$fl- a ,,' }?J..sz 1) /c~r..LS ./ /11 :? rl"u..e r.,' t> 11 '-~ PI'" '~ .-!I'f?I(:.'t1 cP"P ./1'r-4f't'/~ • ~ -' / ...../ '7 '1/" ~~<€~Z: ;U5/y ",.f 7Jt..p C;'~ ~.rj7a/p ,4~. #,./"'£ rlt.£ d'.;/ti)'/p,.t ~~ T:/....-{"> 7:". i/-.J t7i-J'1 ,Y',.4rI]_ .:t /$.{(> ~,rQ e k t: -> //'~... /trrtJ 1"'4 7:'d4' S • (JRS-/c/.L~, >1~/1..e 4/.1'"<7 ot>:Sfl4f 7~~ jJ/er;;;r~ £lndi' /n.:l7n.e<t'!;;~, n:, ; I)/~dcf~ (:'J2...-/hJi ~¢k.. ~<'I-~~ »4m~11 .R..e~h';t'> ~">?1/J7,=S</ v'¥t..,/~8 t71"lt..er /'.fJ.5ifP",/"C!~> tJ.."tf' r/~ /"'u/J/<, NJu/'a-...r,.n?$,1 )nP/'I3/";: u,'pr. dtll4' PP,I'e/',;i. .. 9/1/2011 (7'.1 rl e~ BdsjCommlsslons -702-23 r . Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 ) CITY OF PALO ALTO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Adrienne Murphy PhD, MBA Date: 3/8/2012 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? • Human Relations Commission Yes D (Date: _____ --4) No [l] 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? Community Group: [Z] Palo Alto Weekly: D The Daily Post: D Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D Flyer/Boolanark: D Other, Please Specify: I was unaware of this Commission, but very happy to have found it. 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I work with college educated mothers to enable their ambition retention once children arrive. Volunteer at Ohlone School, Casa Dei Bambini -Diversity Council, Santa Clara School of Engineering Gender Awareness, Watermark Women. 4. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Human Relations Commission? My hands on business experience ensuring diversity in human resources. My Ph.D is focused on the lived experiences of college educated women, and I am engaged in gender and diversity promotion with Watermark Women, Santa Clara University, and the Diversity Council Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/1/2011 t· ., '\ , 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? As a board member I would undertake any assignments from the Council. I would become fully acquainted with current programs and processes and best in class opportunities. I would remain fully aware risks and limiters associated with all change and create a co-operative pathway. 6. What are the current issues facing the Human Relations Commission? Citizens United rulings and concerns regarding money and politics Equal opportunity and access Mediation Developmental Assets 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve? Create awareness of the emergence of gender, diversity equity seals, and gender diversity management practices globally and position Palo Alto to be a leader in this emerging trend. Evaluate consequences of management structures, budgets, work schedules or allocation of city resources on pathways to producer,consumer,leadership and investment opportunities across our diverse population. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/1/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do youhave any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members Or commissioners? . • Are YOlJ available and committed to complete the tenn applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and Commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices CommiSSion, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an inves1ment in. or do you serve as an officer or cfuector of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business With the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? if you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-2171 to arrange an appointment. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application.· Please contact the City Attorney's OfflCe at 650-329-2171 to arrange an appointment. ~MPLOYMENT Present or last employer Self-employed x x x x x NmneofCompany: _w __ a __ ---------------------Occupation:· Freelance writer and editor (If retired, indicate former occupation) Signature of Applicant ) HUMAN RE.LATIONS COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office ofthe City Clerk 250 Hamilton'Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place NI A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. Stone Greer NAME: __ ------------------__ -------------Last First RESIDENCE 751 Layne Ct. Apt. 15 ADDRESS: ____________ ~--------------------- Street Palo Alto CA City State Education: Palo Alto High School -2007 University of California, Irvine -2010 Santa Clara·School of Law -Present 94306 Zip HOME PHONE: (650) 575-0405 WORK PHONE: ____ ~ ______ __ CELL PHONE: ____________ __ EMAIL: gstone22@gmail.c List relevant trainirr; and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or llrofessional registration: Alcohol & Other rugs rask Force: I was the only full time s udent representative on the task force while at UC-Irvine. The task force meets six times during the school year to discuss issues and share data related to alcohol and other drugs as they impacted the campus community. The task force is comprised of departments and offices within the universtiy as well as local community agencies. . . • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their fmancial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer Shezan Name of Company: Signature of Applicant Occupation: Date: D D Law Student No D D D (If retired, indicate former occupation) 03/01/2013 0/' /..,/,\" Please Return to: CITY OF PALO ALTO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL 9UESTIONNAIRE Greer Brannan Stone Name: \ 1 Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 --------------------------------------- Date: 03/0112013 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, ifnecessruy, to complete your answers. l. Have you attended the following meeting? • Human Relations Commission Yes c=J (Dare: __________ ~) 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? No o Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D The Daily Post: D Email from City Clerk: I V I Librruy Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBookmark: D Other, Please Specify: ____________________________________ ----, ____________ _ 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I was a substitute teacher for the Palo Alto Unified School District during the 2011- 2012 school year. I had the opportunity to teach in nearly every school in the district. For the past five years, I have also intermittently volunteered at Ohlone Elementary. These experiences not only gave me a window into the teaching profession, but also afforded me the opportunity to connect with the young people of Palo Alto. 4. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Human Relations Commission? See supplement, page 1. a/,/"n" City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM ) California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or apPointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: [2J I Greer Stone give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. 751 Layne Ct. Apt. 15, Palo Alto, CA, 94306 Address (650) 575-0405 Phone gstone22@gmail.com ~~~ O_3_ro_1_~_0_13 __________________ _ Signature* Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. 0/1 /')('111 '. ; ) 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? See supplement, page 2. 6. What are the current issues facing the Human Relations Commission? See supplement, page 3. 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve? See supplement, pages 4 -5. 0/1/..,n11 \ y 4. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Human Relations Commission? Tolerance is the foundation for any great community. It is the respect for others, awareness of our differences, and aversion towards discrimination that will teach us to love our neighbors-regardless of race, creed, or sexual preference. Having grown up in the Bay Area, one of the most diverse areas in the world, I have learned the importance of tolerance by experience. I also studied it as a political science major at UC Irvine. The Human Relations Commission is trusted with the job of promoting such awareness and rooting out any discrimination in our community. We must also ensure that every group in our community has a voice. If I was on the commission, I would bring novel ideas and a dedication to ensuring that all members of our community are protected from injustice. I am particularly concerned with the members of our community who are so often invisible-children and young adults. As a former student of the Palo Alto School District and a current law student, I understand the problems that the youth in our community have. I have lived the horrors of fellow students taking their own lives. I have known the family and friends of those that ended their lives and felt a part of their pain. I know from firsthand experience the pressures that students face in our schools, the difficulties of getting involved in the community, and the helplessness that many young people feel in a community that is otherwise so forward looking. To supplement my firsthand experience, I have also studied discrimination I extensively. My degree in political science allowed me to take a myriad of classes dedicated to various issues plaguing our society. Discrimination has easily been one of the most prevalent and destructive issues of our time. I have studied the chilling effects of gender discrimination on business productivity, the deleterious consequences of racial animosity with regards to education, and the disgraceful treatment of the LGBT community. My legal training has allowed me to objectively assess both sides of any argument. I would bring this skill to the commission, objectively understanding each side of the debates and bringing my own set of experiences into the equation to help reach the best conclusion. As Yo-Yo Ma said, "our cultural strength has always been derived from our diversity of understanding and experience." Palo Alto is in one of the most diverse areas in the world; as such, we must fight every day to ensure that our citizens and visitors are treated with the upmost respect and tolerance, by embracing our differences we will learn to come together and strengthen our community. 1 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making. such changes? I believe that every board member's primary responsibility is to bring his or her own diverse experiences to each meeting, and to view each problem in a two- step manner. The first of these steps is to assess the problem in an objective manner, seeing both sides of the story. Secondly, they must analyze the problem through the lens of their own experiences to understand the human aspect of the story. As a board member I would use my law school training to objectively assess any issue that comes before the board, and I would use my own set of experiences to empathize with the various demographics of Palo Alto. I would also be a representative for the under thirty segment of the community. Approximately 30% of the population is under the age of thirty, but this segment of our population is significantly underrepresented in the Council. One of my primary roles on the board would be recognizing the problems that my demographic faces. This would ensure that not only are the young members of our community not being discriminated against, but would also encourage more young people to take part in community organizations and civic engagement. I have always noticed a dearth of community involvement from the youth in our community. Many young adults and teenagers feel that their voices are not being heard. I believe as a member of this board I would show other young adults that they can be heard in our community. As a board member for the Human Relations Commission, it is essential to empathize with all members of our community. No one member should be so focused on one issue that they cannot change roles when necessary. I would . welcome any role change because change allows us to get out of our comfort zone and explore new avenues of thought. 2 'l J '\ 6. What are the current issues facing the Human Relations Commission? The issues that face the Human Relations Commission are as diverse as our city. These concerns range from a dearth oflowrincome housing to mental health plaguing our youth to civil-rights violations in our schools. Palo Alto home prices have been continuously on the rise over the past few decades and today Palo Alto is one of the most expensive areas in the country to buy a home. Although high home values are indicative of respectable communities, it also makes it much harder for low-income families to purchase property or even afford rent. With the pending closure of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park, and the displacement of nearly 400 residents who live there, Palo Alto is soon to have the largest one-time eviction of residents since 1942. With the economy on the upturn and real estate values growing again, the possibility that all 400 residents will find comparable housing in Palo Alto is slim. Even with the Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance that was passed in 2000, the likelihood of displacing these residents elsewhere is unlikely. With the real estate values being so high, low- income families will continue to struggle in Palo Alto, and similar cities in the Bay Area, until we can find a comprehensive strategy that will work. Another issue facing our city is the pandemic of mental health issues affecting our youth. It has become a far too common occurrence for Palo Altans to pick up the Daily and have their hearts broken to learn of another teen suicide. These tragedies, though too common, cC!n and must be eliminated. It is my belief that this should be the cities number one priority until the problem is completely addressed and solved. This issue requires a multifaceted approach and the cooperation of all city departments, and through our commitment to eliminating this horror we will succeed. An additional issue that will likely come to the board's attention is the civil rights violations of a middle school student. As a student in the Palo Alto School District, and as a substitute teacher, I recognized first hand the effects of bullying on our students. It not only has a deleterious affect on the learning environment but can also lead to mental health issues if proper actions are not taken. The Human Relations Board will undoubtedly face more pressure in the future from parents and citizens alike urging the city to take more preemptive actions regarding bullying in our schools. This is an issue that has been prevalent in our society for ages, but is just now getting the public attention it deserves. As a community we must take the proper actions to eliminate these issues and protect our students physical and emotional well-being. These three issues only scratch the surface of the myriad of problems facing the Human Relations Board. My diverse background and unique perspective on the various issues makes me a candidate that will bring fresh new ideas to the board and a youthful perspective that is typically lacking in city departments. It is my firm belief that the most vexing questions typically have the simplest answers, we merely need the courage to pursue those solutions. 3 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve? If appointed to the commission, I would work hard to achieve two primary goals. First, I believe that safeguarding our youth's mental health should be priority number one. Youth mental health covers abroad range of issues, including teen suicide, bullying in schools, and overall life satisfaction. My second priority would be ensuring that there is affordable housing for low-income families in our community. When it comes to improving youth mental health, no option should be off the table. As a community we should approach this issue in a collaborative way and ensure that every department and office is doing their part. The city has already implemented various programs to combat these issues, such as Project Safety Net, but the issue is so pervasive that we need a comprehensive approach that addresses the core issues of youth depression. These include bullying, overbearing schoolwork, and lack of civic engagement. In recent years the issue of school bullying has grabbed the national spotlight. In February we learned that our very own school district was involved in a federal civil-rights investigation into a middle school special-education student who was constantly harassed and bullied for his disability. These kind of distractions not only interrupt the school's ability to teach, but also hinder its students' abilities to learn. I believe that when a school is both physically and emotionally safe, students are able to perform at their fullest potentials. Today, bullying has evolved past physical abuse into psychological harassment in the form of cyber bullying we can learn from other states and school districts that have implemented policies to combat these issues. For example, the Michigan State Board of Education recently released a model anti-bullying policy. Their program creates a comprehensive health education curriculum that teaches students about the consequences of their actions on the mental health of themselves and other students. The program also mandates annual training for school employees and volunteers to insure significant contact with students and how to recognize and combat bullying. I believe we should also provide training for interested parents, which would help them detect if their children are being bullied and give them the tools to remedy these problems. Finally, because cyber bullying has become so prevalent we must create strong policies that allow the city and school district to take administrative actions to prevent this kind of harm. The second issue that I believe must be addressed is the dearth of low- income housing in Palo Alto. If the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park closes, we will see the displacement of around 400 residents. Many of these residents are members of minority groups, and many more have students that attend the various schools in the area. Displacing these residents risks these families having to move into dangerous neighborhoods in other cities. This move would also take these students out of the Palo Alto School District, one of the greatest school districts in the country. This displacement is not only unfair, but also de facto socioeconomic discrimination. The commission must work hard to find an area within the confines of the city to build more low-income housing. What defines our city is not the money we make, but rather the values we share. People should not be denied access to this 4 great city for economic reasons. We must find a way to allow those families a chance to enjoy the Palo Alto way of life. 5 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 10, 2013 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointments for Two Positions on the Library Advisory Commission for Three Year Terms Ending January 31, 2016 (Terms of Akinola, Moss, and Palaniappan) The Library Advisory Commission Terms of Akinola, Moss, and Palaniappan all expired on January 31, 2013. Additionally the resignation of Commissioner Bakhtian has not been filled. However because of a recent Council decision to reduce the size of the Library Advisory Committee from seven to five members, only two terms require appointment. The following candidates interviewed for these terms on June 4, 2013: Jared Bernstein Sheena Chin Don McDougall Robert Moss Joan Reid Greer Stone Staff is requesting Council vote to appoint two positions on the Library Advisory Commission ending on January 31, 2016. Voting will be by paper ballot. Five votes are required to be appointed. The first two candidates that receive at least five votes will be appointed. ATTACHMENTS:  Bernstein (PDF)  Chin (PDF)  McDougall (PDF)  Moss (PDF)  Reid (PDF)  Stone (PDF) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 ) f 3 M~,R I 2 AM II: 13 LmRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/ A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME: Bernstein ~ Last RESIDENCE 1330 Tasso St ADDRESS: Street Palo Alto City Education: Jared First CA State 94301 Zip HOME PHONE: 650 325 1129 WORK PHONE: 6504703501 CELL PHONE: 650 327 2929 EMAIL: jaredaterosenfeld.com Ph.D., Psycholinguistics University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) 1976 M.A., Linguistics University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) 1975 B.A. Philosophy University of Arizona (Tucson, Arizona) 1971 List relevant training and 'experience, certificates oftraining, licenses, or professional registration: (2002-2005) Under contract to National Center for Educational Statistics (Dept. of Education), developed automatic scoring system for National Assessment of Adult Literacy, and built an Oral Reading Fluency data management system for National Assessment of Educational Progress. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or serviees for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer Tasso Partners Name of Company: Occupation: Signature of Applicant ;: Digitally Signed by Jared Bernstein J a red Be rn ste I, ~,DN: ~n=Jarad Bernstein. o=Tasso P.rtn .... OU, ., .. 8QlII=jared@eroaenfeld.com. c=US ~ Date: 2013.03.1123:19:19~O7'OO' Date: D D D D o Educational Research (If retired, indicate former occupation) 3/11/13 Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 ) CITY OF PALO ALTO LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL OUESTIONNAIRE Name: Jared Bernstein Date: 11 March 2013 ) Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes No • Library Advisory Commission c==J (Dme: --~~-~ 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Library Advisory Commission? Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: [ZJ The Daily Post: D Website: c==J (if yes, please identify website) ____________ _ Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBookmark: D Other, Please Specify: __________________________ _ 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: For the past year or two, I've tutored math at the Boys&Girls Club of the Peninsula (BGCP). 4. What is it about the Library Advisory Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Library Advisory Commission? I use our library a lot. I also use the Stanford Library and project Gutenberg. I have experience with computational linguistics (for text analysis and search). I co-founded a relatively successful company and I have managed several large government projects at SRI International. I read several languages (slowly), and I have experience with other cultures (lived in Iran, Egypt, and Argentina). Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 ) ) 5. How would you see your role as commissioner when recommending policy and working with the Council? Responding to Council requests for analysis, and providing fair analysis of opti9ns, summaries of community input, and well-supported recommendations. 6. What do you see as some of the key challenges in implementing the recommendations of the Commission's December 2006 report to Council "Library Services Model Analysis and Recommendations: http://WWW.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendasllibrary.asp Among the challenges noted in the report, there are two that seem most important: a) providing inviting spaces for study and recreation, with modern support services, & b) digital outreach to provide service to those who cannot or prefer 'not to visit a branch. Modern research is rarely paper-based and will become less 50 quickly. PACL needs to find an affordable way to stay up-to-date on delivery of digital materials in branches and to people at home. At the same time, the branch should be a convenient place to study and browse 5010, while it can also be a place for small collaborative projects of many kinds. Finding affordable ways to meet these goals will take some digging and/or creativity . 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Library Advisory Commission achieve? I have no specific goals, but to offer my time and attention to issues relating to policy and budget. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 ) / City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: [l] I Jared Bernstein give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached' Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address Phone Email Jared Bernstei f; Digitally signed by Jared Bernstein ON: cn=Jared Bomstein, o=Ta .. a Partn."" au, ._ iI=jared@arosanfeld.oom,c=US 3/11/13 '. • • -I I Signature* Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 must continueto use Internet "as a major source to communicate with Palo Altans. Secondly, introduce more E- books, which now is the trend. E-books could increase library~s collections without actually occupying lots pf storage rooms. In addition, more readers could enjoy the same E-book at the same time. Thirdly, increase the number of electronic devices such as computers and tablets that residents can use in the library or can loan to ,. . home. 2 Co-Founder;' PinGrow.com2008 -present -Provide Chinese learning and respond to local issues promptly. -Develop, organize, create and write materials for website contents. -Produce video and audio clips to enrich the website~" ,-Handle viewers' requests and promote PinGrow.com to the public. -Visitor statistics grow stably. Community Manger, Zhouyu cultural foundation, Los Altos, CA 2004 -2010 -Develop and implement communication plan for the non-profit organization. Reach out the target~ groups and build up' the public relationships. Build up image and reputation for the organization. Write on.;line newsletters for members and the public. Prepare, organize and present media briefing. Drive and coordinate media coverage for library's activities. , Design, create and implement major events for members and non-members. Plan, organize and host special events for major holidays. Update and create website contents for news and events. Chinese Teacher,Woodland School, Portola Valley, CA 2009 -2010 -Initiatedschool Mandarin program for students from k to 3rd grade. -Customized design and developed Mandarin materials and activities to students at different I'anguage levels. -Incorporated Chinese culture into teaching materials. -Executed Mandarin classes 2 hours per week. Chinese Teacher, Palo Alto Chinese School, Palo Alto, CA 2007 -2011 -Initiated Mandarin program for pre-school kids for both Mandarin and non-mandarin speakers. -Designed and developed Mandarin materials and curriculums to meet various needs. Implemented Mandarin instructions 2 hQurs per week. -Actively participated in academic research and won several awards on Chinese Learning. -Incorporated. Chinese culture in Mandarin teaching. News Writer/Reporter/Editor, KTSF 26, Brisbane, CA 2003 -2004 -Responded to time-intensive topics and breaking news. - . Rewrote, translated and' edited news stories taken from scripts, wires and other TV news stations to meet local needs. -Developed and createq compelling, and succinct stories from raw materials. Performed and prepared scriptwriting, voice over, and video editing. -Worked closely with the show producer, writing scripts for air, editing copy, and making show run-down suggestions. -Operated AP NEWSCENTERlENPS and managed CNN feed services. 2 Author of "The Digital Revolution in TV Industry", ISBN 957-98520-8-1 1999 -2000 -Researched various topics related to digital technology such as risks and opportunities while digitizing. Interviewed high-level management of major 1V networks in the US. -One of the major resources about digital media for 1V professionals in Taiwan . . Reporter/News Host/Anchor/Producer, China Television Company (CTV), Taipei, Taiwan 1992 -2000 . -Anchored live morning news and hosted news show for in-depth coverage. -Specialized in field and live reporting and prompt interviews . . -English News anchor and writer. News reported in English and Chinese scripts translated to English. , -Built up/maintained good relationship with news sources. -Covered headlinelbreaking· news stories, producing news clip from scripting writing and voice-over. ' Served as a leader in the newsroom with ouiStand,ing hosting profession, excellent writing skills and solid news Judgment. . -'Supervised the production group to CQmplete news packages/news shows. -Generated subjects, ideas and followed up stories to boost rating. -Involved with marketing of programslviewers, managed budgets and responsible for rating. -Conducted weekly finanCial market reviews. -Team member of News On-Line production. Assisted launching website for China Television Company including writing , , HTML scripts. Instructor, National Taiwan College of Arts, Taipei, Taiwan 1997 -1999 -,Offered classes to students in news writing and news production. -Coached tactics in news coverage, report, announcement and anchor. News Host/Editor, Broadcast of China Corporation (BCC), Taipei, Taiwan 1991 -1992 -Served as Prime-time news announcer and hosted news shows. Re$ponded to prompt news stories and planed in-depth coverage. Responsible for financial news and prime-time news rundown. -Rewrote/edit stories from scripts, wires and other materi~ls. EDUCATION , MBA study, Univ. of Nebraska, Omaha, Nebraska Northwestern Polytech University, Fremont, CA MA in Journalism, National ChengChi University, Taipei, Taiwan SA in Journalism, Chinese Culture University, Taipei, Taiwan 3 AWARDS • Awarded paper "ZhuYin (Chinese Phonics) instruction through technology" for Luncheon Presentation atAmerican Council on the Teaching of Foreign languages ,(ACTFl2011) Denver, Colorado • Awarded paper "Technology boosts ZhuYin (Chinese Phonics) Characters teaching" for International Conference on Internet Chinese Education 2011 (ICICE2011) . • Awarded paper "Mobile Chinese Teaching" forthe Sixth International Conference and Workshops on Technology and Chinese Language Teaching (TelT 6),2010, Columbus, Ohio • Awarded paper Web 2.0 Storytelling" for International Conference on Internet Chinese Education 2009 (ICICE 2009), Taipei, Taiwan • Winner of the Scholarship from the National Press Council, Taiwan, 1999 • Winner of the National Outstanding Journalist Award, Taiwan; 1998 CERTIFICATION • California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST) • California Subject Examination for Teachers (CSET), Mandarin I, II, III PUBLICATON • "ZhuYin (Chinese Phonics) instruction through technology", 2011 • "Technology boosts ZhuYin (Chinese Phonics) Characters teaching" 2011 • "Mobile Chinese Teaching", 2010· • 'Web 2.0 Storytelling", 2009" • "The Digital Revolution in TV Industry", 2000, ISBN 957-98520-8-1 4 Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Don McDougall Date: 3/22/13 ) Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes No • Library Advisory Commission D (Date: ______ -L) 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Library Advisory Commission? Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D The Daily Post: D Website: D (if yes, please identify website) _____________ _ Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBookmark: D Other, Please Specify: Midtown Enews ----------------------------- 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Currently board member, TheatreWorks Silicon Valley Over the last few years I travelled extensively to Australia which made it difficult to commit to community.organizations. I now look forward to the opportuniy to be acitve in local voluteer and civic activities. 4. What is it about the Library Advisory Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Library Advisory Commission? Richard Florida has written in "The Rise of the Creative Class" and elsewhere that local arts activities are important for a community to have a vibrant and innovative environment. Palo Alto has enjoyed the experience and reputation of being an innovative environment The Library is an important arts platform for Palo Alto. The Library provides access to the arts through literature, periodicals, video, and other media but faces the challenges of budgets, funding, and resouce allocation. I would like to use my experience to help the Library address these challenges and to realize new opportunities. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 " '~',- 5. How would you see your role as commissioner when recommending policy and working with the Council? , The role of the commission and commissioner is to actively provide consideration of and advice on delivery of service, allocation of investment, development and maintenance of property, and engagement in partnerships. The commissioner must provide awareness of and actively review legislation and other relevant plans and activities of state (and local) governments. A commissioner should also engage in the review of community interests and statements both direct and through social media. A commissioner's role also include suggestions, review, and support of Library fund raising. 6: What do you see as some of the key challenges in implementing the recommendations of the Commission's December 2006 report to Council "Library Services Model Analysis and Recommendations: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/library.asp The key challenge for the commission is to optimize the use of available funds to meet the Recommendations' sometimes conflicting goals. Growing collections, enhancing programs, or expanding hours can be at odds with staffing and facilities investments. Maintaining the optimal volume, level, and categories of collections for a community of changing literacy and interests requires exploring and understanding new technologies. Successfull and useful enhancement of programs requires understanding rapidly changing demographics and interests. Balancing professional staffing with volunteer programs and developing new versus mainaining exising facilities requires careful analysis and trade-offs to meet community requirements. 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Library Advisory Commission achieve? I would like to see the Library Advisory Commission position the Libary as an example of vibrancy and innovation within the community while optimizing resources to show fiscal responsibility and interest in providing community services. The Libary should continue to grow as a place of literacy and community. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 Please Return to: CITY OF PALO ALTO LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Robert Moss Date: ·.~ j Qffice of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 ----------------------------------------- Please print or type your answers to the fonowing questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, jf necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? • Lihrary Advisory Commission Yes o (Date: All for 3+ yrs) No o 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Library Advisory Commission? Community Group: 0 Palo Alto Weeldy: 0 The Daily Post: ( I Website: 0 (if yes, please identifY website) _______________________ _ Email from City Clerk: 0 Library Bulletin Board: 0 FlyerlBook:mark: 0 Other, Please Specify: Commission terms expiration date. 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, vo~eer and civic organizations: Barron Park Association Foundation -Treasurer, Barron Park Association -Past Treasurer & Chair Creek Committee & Past Chair Zoning & land Use Committee; Past Community Co-Chair, Moffett Field Restoration Advisory BoardPast President, Palo Alto Civic League; Palo Alto Civic League Citizen of the Year. 1983 ; Past President, Pafo Alto School for Jewish Education; Past Treasurer Palo Alto Council for the Arts· Terman Working Group alternate community member; Board of Directors, Secretary and Treasurer, Cable Co-op of Palo Alto; Past Treasur~ Friends of the Palo Alto library (FOPAL). member Center for Public Environmental Oversight; member Working Group, Palo Alto emergency water supply; Helped to incorporate the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. Often attend and narticipate in City Councit, City Finance Committee, ARB and Planning & Transportation Committee meetings. 4. What is it about the Library Advisory Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Library Advisory Commission? I have been involVed with libraries in general and the Palo Arlo library in particular for decades. As a member of the FoPAL Board and treasurer I interacted frequentlY with library staff and members of the community. We worked to make the library a valued and effectiVe provider ofimportant and novel services, to upgrade faClTltfes and to provide books and library materials. As a cable Co-op Board member and treasurer I was able to obtain 8 grant of over $420,000 to the 9 libraries system,S of which ani in Palo Mo. The money was used for computers, printers, loaner laptops, wireless access, on-line services and subscriptions It was one of the largest grants made bv cable Co-op. I also worked on fiJndraising for the Children's' Library renovation and upgrading. r was an actfve supporter of the successful library bond election. As an altemate member of the Terman Working Group I heiped ereate the Terman branch library with a separate meeting room that operated successfully for years until PAUSe reclaimed the site. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 '1 ,/ \ j 5. How would you see your role as ~ssioner when recommending policy and working with the Council? Ubraries are weu regarded and used in Palo Alto. ranking just below fire and witll or above police in performance and importance to the community. We need to be responsive to changing needs and uses of libraries and library facilities and do an excellent job of meeting user needs and expectations. That involves working with our excellent staff. community. and councilmembers to identify opportunit~ needs. and ways to serve them and transmitting the information effectively and dearty to the council. Tile new expanded MitcheU park will offer facilities and services previously unavailable in Palo Alto. It will be a learning experience seeing how users react to and use the new facility and modifying our services and operations as needed. 6. What do you see as some of the key challenges in implementing the recommendations of the Commission's December 2006 report to COWlcil "Library Services Model Analysis and Recommendations: http://Www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendasllibrary.asp The new facilities wiD offer both major improvements in scope and quality of services plus challenges in tdentifying and provtdtng desired offerings tncludtng a range of materials and prioritizing uses of meeting and study areas. Operating expenses for the new, expanded facilities will increase so adequate funding may be an issue. There also is an tncreastng demand for materials tn non-English tanguages that further impacts funding needs. Different types of service delivery may need to be created, but the problem may witt be funding. It could be hard to take new approaches without tmpacting existing services and offerings that many library user's value. Types and ranges of library materials need regular review and readjustment of the mixtures. Thts can create uncertainty and add costs We must be abte to accurately evaluate vatue of services offered. For example, availability of E-books is uneven as some publishers refuse to offer them and other charge excessive prices and limit circulation. How can we offer the range and variety of E-books that patrons want at reasonable cost? 7. If appoint~ what specific goals would you like to see the Library Advisory Commission achieve? Make the transitions to the new facilttes ~t Mitchell Park and Main transparent, sucessful, and efficient. Assure adequate staffmg and support for aU library facilities and operations. Get residents Involved in responding to the LAC and staff outreach for feedback and support. Infonn the public about the new Hbrary facilities and offerings and team what patrons want, need, and would use in our libraries. Identify what resources are most desired for the expanded Mitchell Park and Main libraries. Do library users want more books, more E-books? If so what categories and areas of interest? Work with the staff, Council, Community, and non·profits tQ find needed support and funding for operations and coHections. Identify any new programs or materials needed by users and suggest how they can be funded if cun-act funding is inadequate. Seek grants, contributions, and other funding sources to supplement general fund support. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 6. What do you see as some of the key challenges in implementing the recommendations of the Commission's December 2006 report to Cmmcil "Library Services Model Analysis and Recommendations: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzoneJagendasllibrary.asp " t(y Cf.rr~'1rvJ-f'l ' a;~ .1Wf--/;r-rz<-I-{!A~' (Jt'ff~ r I I I' ~, .!) eiC;"-Vw--{--' ci-f'?j.~;O( h) rC:~ !c~VJ-r.h~ . . ~ / J ,~ . ,..' ---,/.;;... ~G t~ 'C-'L--7'-v ,:;:,..; .4-,,&- • • I \, ,I ) I model and then relay that information to the City Council. My experience on the Alcohol Task Force and my legal training has taught me how to do just that. 5. How would you see your role as commissioner when recommending policy and working with the Council? I view the library through the lens of a student and with the perspective of a young adult who grew up during the technology revolution. My role as Commissioner would be translating those views and experiences to the City Council and ensuring that the needs of Palo Alto's youth and student population are met. The library is one of the most valuable resources available to a student, and I would work diligently to ensure that our libraries are focused on that need. I would also focus on the need to update our libraries and ensure that they are meeting a technological standard that should be present in any library situated in Silicon Valley. Too many students fmd them antiquated and do not see the need for a library in an age of iPods and e-readers. However, the library should harness these new technologies and incorporate them whenever possible. As a commissioner I would help steer our libraries into the future and keep them relevant for a new generation. 6. What do you see as some of the key challenges in implementing the recommendations of the Commission's December 2006 report to Council "Library Services Model Analysis and Recommendations: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/library.asp Some of the main issues surrounding the Library Services Model Analysis and Recommendations is the dearth in details surrounding particular recommendations and the lack of specificity concerning budgetary issues. This includes many issues, such as how to pay for particular recommendations. The report discusses the need for cross-training library staff and expanding service hours by 266 hours a week. However, the report is silent about any specifics on how to pay for additional training and the additional service hours. Currently, 78% of the total library budget is used up in staffing. This large discrepancy takes away valuable resources to renovations, programs, and materials necessary for the continuing viability of the libraries. Suggesting such drastic increases in ~ ,j. l , } training and service hours without an accommodating budget is senseless. The report states that staffing is the most essential component of the public library, but also addresses the need to expand the libraries technology, programs for youths, and reading/media collections. However, with 78% of the budget going to staffing, a Catch 22 is created. There is not enough money left in the budget to implement these programs. The answer to accomplishing these goals is to reallocate funds to expanding the libraries technological infrastructure; this will increase the library's efficiency and reduce the need for large staffs that eat up the budget. Another challenge in implementing the report is a lack of details concerning the youth programs. The report generally discusses delivering , programs to the youth and summer reading programs, but lacks any details on funding or specific programs. The City Council is therefore faced with the dilemma of implementing these suggestions without any substantive , road map. In order for the Commission's findings and reports to be most beneficial to the Council and to the City, there must be specificity in the findings and recommendations. 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Library , Advisory Commission achieve? If appointed as a commissioner I would work diligently to achieve two primary goals that are essential to the continuing success of our libraries in a modern society. I would ensure the city allocates more resources to technology-based initiatives that will ensure the library stays relevant in the face of changing technologies. There are several changes that can be made to do this. We can utilize the talent we have in our own city to recruit people to build an application so that users can access the library database on their iPhones and iPads', as well as their computers. More effort should be focused on having eBooks that can be easily checked out online, as well as movies, audiobooks, and CDs. We should also focus on library services online, utilizing our librarians to help struggling students with their online research. As a commissioner I would help focus the library's needs to the students of Palo Alto. I believe that offering students a comfortable and accessible study zone in the libraries would encourage a new generation of students to study in the library instead of Starbucks. We can accomplish this by offering study zones for students of different age groups. Setting up CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 10, 2013 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointment for One Unexpired Position on Public Art Commission ending on April 30, 2015 (Walsh Resignation) Commissioner Walsh resigned from the Public Art Commission leaving one vacancy set to expire on April 30, 2015. The following candidates interviewed for this term on June 4, 2013: The Candidates are as follows: Jeanne Lavan Ben Miyaji Elaine Poplingher Robin Theil Staff is requesting Council vote to appoint one position on the Public Art Commission ending on April 30, 2016. Voting will be by paper ballot. Five votes are required to be appointed. The first two candidates that receive at least five votes will be appointed. ATTACHMENTS:  Lavan (PDF)  Miyaji (PDF)  Poplingher (PDF)  Theil (PDF) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 , . " , Please Return to: ) CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Jeanne Lavan Name: ) Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 ------------------------------------------ Date: March 28, 2013 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? • Public Art Commission Yes [2] via internet 3/2 ~/\." (Dme: --__________ ~t No D 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D The Daily Post: D website:DYes, Please Identify: ________ ---, _________ _ Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBOOkmark:D . Vikki Tobak Other, Please Specify: _________________________________________ _ 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Please see attached sheets. 4. What is it about the Public Art Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would y"ou bring to the Public Art Commission? Please see attached sheets. Bds/Co~issions -702-23 9/13/2011 , . 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? Ifit were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? Please see attached sheets. 6. What are the current issues facing the Public Art Commission? Please see attached sheets. 7. What are your feelings about Palo Alto's current inventory/collection of Art in Public Places? What suggestions would you have for increasing the availability of more Art in Public Places? Please see attached sheets. 8. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve? Please see attached sheets. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 .. . . ) ) Education New York Institute of Technology Bachelor of Architecture, with an emphasis on materiality and design. My thesis was a study in two parts; beginning with a study of the painting View of Toledo by EI Greco, and culminating in a study of spatial design influenced by this painting. List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: I am a registered Architect, California Architects License Number C271162 As an Architect, artist and designer I have worked closely with clients to understand their goals, to interpret them, visualize and give shape to their future. It is through this relationship that true art is achieved, as it is a reflection of the soul of the client. Continuing Education: California Architects Board: • Accessible Public Accommodations • Accessibility-Stepping Through Vertical Heights Stanford Continuing Studies: • Creativity and Leadership • Haussmann's Paris and Impressionism • What's the Real Deal with Oil, Gas, and Coal? Painting and Product Design: • California Academy of Painters, Palo Alto • TechShop member, Menlo Park As a collector of art, I enjoy living with and am inspired by pieces I have collected over the years by Kara Walker, Jane Tivol, David Hering, William Wareham, Don Fritz, Peter Wayne Lewis and Brigitte Curt. 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I seek out ways to be involved and engaged in my community. As technology increasingly lures us to stay behind screens, my family and I look for alternatives to reach out, learn from and appreciate our community. Palo Alto offers so much to us. To name a few: we attend Lab Crawls, take classes and attend art events at Stanford IStanford Hospital, we attend events at the Palo Alto Library and Art Center, and participate in local drives to support in-need communities. Currently I am volunteering at my children's schools(Castilleja and Phillips Brooks) in the classroom, the art program, outreach programs and annual benefits. I have also served on the board of the Cleo Eulau Center that is dedicated to helping youth rebound from adversity. · . \ I \ j 4. What is it about the Public Art Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Public Art Commission? PAC interests me because of the critical role it plays in supporting, engaging and adding to the culture of Palo Alto. The presence of public art allows all of us to live with art and benefit from the stimulation and richness it provides. It reaches out and brings us together through experience and spontaneous dialogue, it gives our community an opportunity to talk with one another, it makes our city pedestrian friendly, it stimulates our brains in ways that our every day activities can not, it fuels our imaginations and expresses our civic aspirations. I chose to make Palo Alto my home in 2011 because of its rich culture. The people of Palo Alto value education, technology, curiosity, imagination, diversity and creativity. As a new resident of Palo Alto, I was seeking a way to be involved in the city as well as new volunteer opportunities. When I learned of the opening on PAC I thought it a great fit. Art has always been an important part of my life. I am an Architect, and I create and collect art. Civic planning should be forward thinking and take into consideration all the opportunities we have to engage and support our community. As an Architect, artist and designer I will work with our team to create inventive and inspirational dialogue on the many considerations around public art: planning, procurement, commissioning, community engagement and funding. I also have experience in project management and construction. 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? Palo Alto has long recognized how art enhances and provides value to its community. This is apparent in the art that is currently a part of our city life. Any future recommendations should address the historical as well as the future direction of the city. Palo Alto will change considerably in the next decade(s) and public art should, in ways yet to be determined, be part of the growth plan of Palo Alto. Growth is complex; as it can be physical or cultural or both. I think new policies would be most successful if they address these complexities. I see my role as board member to consider this growth, think creatively, seek ideas from others and cohesively and concisely recommend policy to the Council. If change to current roles is necessary, I would work with fellow commissioners to identify the needs for change, brainstorm possibilities and collaborate in identifying the most desirable outcome. The path to problem solving should be inquisitive, respectful, creative and open-minded. These qualities can produce the best possible outcome because of the knowledge and insight gathered along the way. I • 6. What are the current issues facing the Public Art Commission? The PAC has had interesting and inspiring temporary art installations recently("water Lilies", "Community Advice"(PAAC), "Lawn Bowls"). These installations got my attention and made me aware of the PAC. I thought the temporary nature was perfect for what they were -visionary sculptures with timely and cultural references that challenged and engaged the public. Palo Alto is evolving and the commission plays an exciting role in how they communicate this growth. 7. What are your feelings about Palo Alto's current inventory/collection of Art in Public Places? What suggestions would you have for increasing the availability of more Art in Public Places? I have strong relationships with a lot of the art in Palo Alto. It is a wonderful collection that I enjoy frequently throughout my day. I am a regular biker along the baylands and enjoy the installations in Byxbee Park. The pieces are perfectly sited as the art reads like organized artifacts. In addition, I especially like the murals by Greg Brown as they are fun and beautiful and they enrich Palo Alto in a wonderfully subtle and humorous way. The collection has variety and I think it represents the community well. We are so fortunate to have quality art at our libraries, along our sidewalks and even along our roadways. Mitchell Park will soon reopen and the Beasely sculpture, architecture and environmental features are exciting additions to Palo Alto. We have a wonderfully vibrant downtown to enjoy: it is lush with trees, it has areas carved out at intersections for seating, and it has Lytton Plaza-but it does not have a significant art presence. I would like to see more public art in the University A venue area. As art makes for a good pedestrian environment and sense of place, I think the eastern area of University would benefit from an art installation(s) . 8. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve? If appointed, I would first gather knowledge about the specific growth plans of Palo Alto to help inform my vision of Palo Alto. But I do have some areas that I am curious about. I think the University Avenue/Highway 101 interchange is an important gateway into Palo Alto. This could be made a unique and notable experience with landscape design or a large sculpture. The commission could partner with Caltrans and East Palo Alto. Local corporations could be asked to assist with funding. Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Poplingher Elaine Date: 12.16.2012 ) Please· print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? • Public Art Commission Yes D (Date: _____ -1.) 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? No [l1 Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D The Daily Post: D website:[Z}fYeS, Please Identify: _c-,ity~o_f.:.--pa_l_oa_l_to_.o_r:..=.g ________ _ Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBookmark:D Other,Please Specify: ________________________ _ 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Mid Peninsula Educational Center, Stratford School -taught classes: Why buildings stand up and why buildings fall down, How to build the tallest structure 4th grade, Bridges and other structures build to span 6th grade Palo Alto Art Center.-special events, art exhibitions organization Palo Alto Historical Association -Main Library files organization 4. What is it about the Public Art Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would . you bring to the Public Art Commission? As a community partner, the Public Art Commission is an educational institution that actively support the mission of the City through its services, programs or its ongoing financial support, with end results in positive changes for the city and population. An undisputable love of art in all its forms that the City of Palo Alto has to offer and an extensive experience and knowledge in the field of art, architecture and interior design, urban planning and a great desire to be involved with and support the community that I am living in since 1989. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 " ) .' ) 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? Representing the Public Art Commission, as part of a team of knowledgeable and experienced people that care about the community they represent and the Palo Alto residents who know very well their town and its needs, etc. Based on comprehensive data and information, I will present a proposal regarding the change(s) to the board members and ask for their opinion in order to do what it is in the best interest of the community that the Commission represents. 6. What are the current issues facing the Public Art Commission? A more high~tech informative approach of each and every issue to the Palo Alto community members; also, more people and more resources need to be involved in a constructive way, in order to achieves all goals in a timely manner in the present economy. Art at the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, the largest public works projects to take place in the City of Palo Alto, that should reflect the function and scale of the designed buildings, has only one work of art for which the artist has been decided ~ the Bruce Beasley sculpture, etc. 7. What are your feelings about Palo Alto's current inventory/collection of Art in Public Places? What suggestions would you have for increasing the availability of more Art in Public Places? Situated near Stanford University, Palo Alto is a cultural city with lots of history and a charming mixture of tradition and innovation, that could benefit from more public art, outdoors and indoors. Private collections art donations, local artists time and energy donations and public found raising, etc. and most of all community involvement. 8. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve? Education in the arts, especially public arts that are available to the masses is an integral part of the development of each human being, this is why the Public Art Commission should increase the importance of fine arts education by enabling the community to have more access to art and all its disciplines on daily bases, from lines of poetry printed on sidewalks to vast historic murals, or any visual or auditive form of art, since the function of public art is to increase the visibility of public spaces by enriching the public's perception of those spaces. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3779) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/10/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Park Improvement Ordinance for Eleanor Pardee Park Title: Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Eleanor Pardee Park From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the Park Improvement Ordinance for landscape, irrigation, furnishings, tot-lot playground, and pathway improvements at Eleanor Pardee Park (Attachment A). Background Under the Charter, a park improvement ordinance is required to be adopted whenever any substantial building or construction project may affect the use, protection, or enjoyment of parks or open space lands. Capital improvement project funds in the amount of $674,000 (PE-12012) have been approved by the Council for the renovations of Eleanor Pardee Park. The renovations include infrastructure and maintenance repairs and modifications, which serve as sustainability and aesthetic enhancements to the park. Discussion The renovation scope for Eleanor Pardee Park includes (Attachment B):  Repaving the existing degraded asphalt walkways and installing new redwood header board (infrastructure maintenance). City of Palo Alto Page 2  Renovations to the existing irrigation system to correct coverage and ponding issues (Infrastructure maintenance and sustainability enhancement).  Upgrading the existing irrigation controller (infrastructure maintenance).  Replacing the aged tot-lot play equipment and swing, and adding rubberized play surfacing and perimeter fencing (infrastructure maintenance).  Adding native shrub/groundcover planting to mulched areas along Center Drive (sustainability/aesthetic enhancement).  Adding new trees: (17) Coast Live Oaks, and (10) Flowering Cherries (infrastructure maintenance).  Repairing the drainage at the existing concrete bowl (infrastructure maintenance).  Providing new site amenities (benches, picnic tables, BBQ’s, drinking fountains, trash/recycling receptacles) (infrastructure maintenance).  Removing existing turf in non-active areas and installing sustainable native planting to reduce water consumption (sustainability enhancement). Other landscape renovation items proposed as bid alternates include:  Installing decomposed granite (DG) pathways in the native area where a beaten path already exists.  Renovating the 9/11 Memorial Garden with better defined DG pathways and enhanced shrub planting along Center Drive (aesthetic enhancement).  Installing boulders along Center Drive to replace the existing telephone pole bollards. Public Outreach Staff held community meetings to review the scope of the project on February 7 and July 10, 2012. In addition, on August 12, 2012, staff also presented the project to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and received feedback on the concept plan and the PRC’s desire to have staff investigate the potential for City of Palo Alto Page 3 incorporating a dog park in the project scope. On February 27, 2013, staff held a third community meeting to review the modified plan from the 2012 community meetings and to review and discuss options for a potential dog park within the park. Community members raised concerns about the addition of picnic tables and barbeques in the open native area, as well as a proposed dog park, due to the lack of a restrooms and parking needed to support an increase in park amenities. Two additional recycling receptacles were requested to be added to the park, as well as more benches along the walking path. These community-requested modifications, removing additional tables, barbeques and removal of the dog park were incorporated into the project’s scope as well as adding the recycling receptacles and additional benches. The final renovation plan was presented to the PRC on March 26, 2013. The PRC recommended Council approval of a Park Improvement Ordinance to allow the project to proceed. Timeline Pending the ordinance’s adoption by the Council, staff will prepare bid documents with an anticipated construction bid opening in summer 2013. Following Council approval of the construction contract, a 90-day construction phase starting in the summer of 2013 is anticipated. Resource Impacts Funds for the renovation of the Eleanor Pardee Park are available in the Capital Improvement Program project PE-12012, Eleanor Pardee Park. Policy Implications The proposed CIP recommendations are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan which encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 City of Palo Alto Page 4 which encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. Environmental Review The proposed improvements are considered minor alterations and repairs to existing facilities and are categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15301 guidelines. Attachments:  A - 00710188A ORDN Pardee Park Plan of Improvements (PDF)  B - Park Improvement Plan (PDF) *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 130320 dm 00710188 Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Eleanor Pardee 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 therefor. (b) Eleanor Pardee Park is dedicated to park, playground and recreational space. (c) The City intends to authorize the construction of certain park improvements within Eleanor Pardee Park, as shown on the Eleanor Pardee Park Improvements schematic (the “Plan”), attached as Exhibit “A,” including: (1) Replacing the asphalt walkway with new asphalt materials; (2) Replacing the children’s tot playground structure, and adding a new fence around the playground area and picnic tables; (3) Renovation of the current irrigation system; (4) Planting of new plants and trees; (5) Replacing all on-site furniture, including, without limitation, benches, tables, trash receptacles and a drinking fountain; (6) Repair of the drainage facilities at the concrete bowl; (7) Installation of a decomposed granite pathway in the native oak woodland area; (8) Renovation of the 9/11 memorial as well as installation of a decomposed granite pathway and planting enhancements around the memorial; and *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 130320 dm 00710188 (9) Installation of natural boulder bollards in replacement of the short telephone pole bollards. (d) The improvements at Eleanor Pardee Park will include much of the area of the Park. (e) The project improvements will avoid protected trees and other sensitive resources, if any. In addition, existing park uses will be restored following the completion of project construction. (f) The project described above and as more specifically described in the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A,” is consistent with park and conservation purposes. (g) The Council desires to approve the project described above and as more specifically described in the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A.” SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for the construction of the improvements at Eleanor Pardee 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 Eleanor Pardee Park. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the project to construct the facilities at Eleanor Pardee Park is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. // // // // // // // // // // *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 130320 dm 00710188 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 *NOT YET APPROVED* 4 130320 dm 00710188 EXHIBIT “A” City of Palo Alto (ID # 3795) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/10/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Sedimentation Tanks Equipment Replacement Title: Approval of Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Contract with D. W. Nicholson Corporation in the Amount of $411,500 for the Sedimentation Tanks Equipment Replacement Project at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant - Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-80021 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 Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund contract with D.W. Nicholson Corporation (Attachment A) in the total amount of $411,500 for the Sedimentation Tanks Equipment Replacement Project at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, Capital Improvement Program Project WQ- 80021; and 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with D.W. Nicholson Corporation for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $41,150. Background The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (Plant) utilizes four enclosed primary sedimentation tanks that were installed in 1972. Each tank is 220-feet long, 41- feet wide, and 14-feet deep. The tank’s metal and plastic equipment remove (a) City of Palo Alto Page 2 settled solids (a.k.a., sludge) from the bottom of the tank and (b) floating scum/grease from the top of the tank. Sludge and scum removal equipment includes manufactured plastic chain, gears, strips, and scraper blades (a.k.a., flights). This equipment runs continuously on plastic wear components with part of the equipment travel completed on a metal flight support rail attached to the tank’s concrete walls. The metal flight support rail is original 1972 equipment and is now at the end of its life because the steel in the rail is heavily corroded. Failure of the rail would compromise wastewater treatment reliability and result in substantial equipment damage. The Facility Condition Assessment project was a comprehensive structural assessment of Plant facilities and the need for metal rail replacement was documented in that assessment. The Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) was approved by Council in July 2012. The LRFP identified a larger structural rehabilitation project for the primary sedimentation tanks, estimated at $7.3 million, to be initiated in the next five years. The larger rehabilitation project includes replacement of moving plastic parts and, most importantly and costly, adding a new protective coating to the tank concrete to extend its life. The existing metal flight rail needs to be replaced now and cannot wait to be part of the larger rehabilitation project. Because the new support rail is stainless steel, with a long material lifespan, the new support rail will continue to have a service life equal to or longer than the rehabilitated facilities of the larger rehabilitation project. The new metal flight rail installed in this project will not need to be replaced as part of the larger rehabilitation project identified in the LRFP. Discussion Project Description The work to be performed under this contract is to remove the existing carbon steel rail and replace with new stainless steel rail in all four tanks. Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number Sedimentation Tanks Equipment Replacement (IFB #149813) City of Palo Alto Page 3 Proposed Length of Project 18 months Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 12 Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 12 Total Days to Respond to Bid 30 Pre-Bid Meeting Yes Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting 8 Number of *Bids Received: 5 Base Bid Price Range – Low Profile Flare From a low of $411,500 to a high of $475,000. *Bid summary provided in Attachment B. Staff has reviewed all bids and recommends that the bid of $411,500 submitted by D. W. Nicholson Corporation be accepted and that D.W. Nicholson Corporation be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is 3% above engineer’s estimate of $400,000. The change order amount of $41,150 (which equals 10% of the total contract) is requested for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project. Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has an active license on file. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work performed and found no significant complaints. Timeline The construction work is planned to be completed by September 30, 2014. Rail replacement will be scheduled in order to maintain wastewater treatment plant operational during installation. Resource Impact City of Palo Alto Page 4 Funding for this contract is included in FY 2013 Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Capital Improvement Program, Plant Equipment Replacement (WQ-80021) project budget. Policy Implications Authorization of this project does not represent a change in existing City policies. Environmental Review The recommended action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (b), which includes maintenance of publicly-owned wastewater facilities involving negligible expansion. Attachments:  Attachment A (IFB 149813 Construction Contract) (PDF)  Attachment B: IFB149813 (PDF) Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C13149813 City of Palo Alto and D W Nicholson Corporation PROJECT Sedimentation Tanks Equipment Replacement Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS……………………………….. ....................5 1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................... 5 SECTION 2. THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………..............................5 SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS…………………………………………………………. .........................5 3.1 List of Documents …………………………………………………………………………………………......5 3.2 Order of Precedence ……………………………………………………………………………................6 SECTION 4. THE WORK …………………………………………………………………………………..............................7 SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM …………………………………………………………………………...............................7 SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION …………………………………………………………………............................7 6.1 Time Is of Essence........................................................................................……… 7 6.2 Commencement of Work..................................................................................... 7 6.3 Contract Time....................................................................................................... 7 6.4 Liquidated Damages............................................................................................. 7 6.4.1 Entitlement……………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 6.4.2 Daily Amount…………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 6.4.4 Other Remedies…………………………………………………………………………………... 8 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time........................................................................... … 8 SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR………………………………………………………………………... 8 7.1 Contract Sum ………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 7.2 Full Compensation …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work …………………………………………………………….9 7.3.1 Self Performed Work…………………………………………………………………………………9 7.3.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………….9 SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE...................................................................................................9 SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION......................................................................................................10 9.1 Hold Harmless ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..10 9.2 Survival ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 SECTION 10. NONDISCRIMINATION ..............................................................................................10 SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ..........................................................................................10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS..........................................................................11 SECTION 13. NOTICES....................................................................................................................11 13.1 Method of Notice ………………………………………………………………………………………………..11 13.2 Notice Recipients ................................................................................................. 11 13.3 Change of Address ............................................................................................... 12 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes........................................................................... 12 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes ............................................................................... 12 14.2.1 Non‐Contract Disputes …………………………………………………………………………………….12 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election …………………………………………………………...........................13 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute …………………………………………………………………………..13 14.3.1 By Contractor …………………………………………………………………………………………. 13 14.3.2 By City ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process...............................................................…… 13 14.4.1 Direct Negotiation…………………………………………………………………………………….13 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ………………………………………………………………… 14 14.4.3 Mediation …………………………………………………………………………..14 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ………………………………………………………………..15 14.5 Non‐Waiver …………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 SECTION 15. DEFAULT...................................................................................................................16 15.1 Notice of Default.................................................................................................. 16 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default ................................................................................ 16 SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES..................................................................................16 16.1 Remedies Upon Default ....................................................................................... 16 16.1.1 Delete Certain Services …………………………………………………………...........................16 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ……………………………………………………………………………. 16 16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract ………………………………………………………….16 16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default ……………………………………..17 16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond ………………………………………………………………….17 16.1.6 Additional Provisions ……………………………………………………………………………….17 16.2 Delays by Sureties................................................................................................ 17 16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................... 17 16.3.1 For Contractor's Default …………………………………………………………………………..17 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ………………………………………………………………………….17 16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience..................................................................... 18 16.6 Termination Without Cause ................................................................................. 18 16.6.1 Compensation ………………………………………………………………………………………….18 16.6.2 Subcontractors …………………………………………………………………………………………18 16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination................................................................. 19 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES...................................................................19 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies......................................................................................... 19 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage …………………………………………………………………………………..19 17.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment …………………………………………………………………………… 19 17.2 Damages to Contractor ........................................................................................ 19 SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS............................................................................................19 18.1 Financial Management and City Access..........................................................……. 19 18.2 Compliance with City Requests ........................................................................ …. 20 SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES.............................................................................................20 SECTION 20. NUISANCE.................................................................................................................20 SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES............................................................................................20 SECTION 22. WAIVER....................................................................................................................20 SECTION 23. GOVERNING LAW .....................................................................................................20 SECTION 24. COMPLETE AGREEMENT ...........................................................................................21 SECTION 25. SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT..........................................................................................21 SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES..................................................................................................21 SECTION 27. NON APPROPRIATION ..............................................................................................21 SECTION 28. GOVERNMENTAL POWERS........................................................................................21 SECTION 29. ATTORNEY FEES........................................................................................................21 SECTION 30. COUNTERPARTS........................................................................................................22 SECTION 31. SEVERABILITY ...........................................................................................................22 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on June 10, 2013 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and D W Nicholson Corporation ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 68847. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On April 1, 2013, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Sedimentation Tanks Equipment Replacement (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the construction of the Sedimentation Tanks Equipment Replacement ("Project"). SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Change Orders Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 3) Contract 4) Project Plans and Drawings 5) Technical Specifications 6) Special Provisions 7) Notice Inviting Bids 8) Instructions to Bidders 9) General Conditions 10) Bidding Addenda 11) Invitation for Bids 12) Contractor's Bid/Non‐Collusion Affidavit 13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents 14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and updated from time to time 15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005 and updated from time to time 16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 18) Notice Inviting Pre‐Qualification Statements, Pre‐Qualification Statement, and Pre‐ Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 19) Performance and Payment Bonds 20) Insurance Forms 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 4 THE WORK. The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable Code Requirements. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed not later than September 30, 2014. within calendar days ( ) after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. 6.4.1 Entitlement. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to: (i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants. (ii) Loss of public use of public facilities. (iii) Extended disruption to public. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 6.4.2 Daily Amount. City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of $500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.4.4 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Four Hundred Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($411,500). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternates .] / / / / Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work. The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be selected by City: 1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor, which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section. 2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance with this Section. 3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section. Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors and Sub‐subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be computed as follows: 7.3.1 Markup Self‐Performed Work. 10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by Contractor with its own forces. 7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors. 15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by a first Tier Subcontractor. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well‐supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to any of, the following: (i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐ subcontractors, of any tier; (ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐ subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents; (iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐subcontractors, of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties; (iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or Sub‐subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and (v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐ subcontractors of any tier, of the Work. However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co‐tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Padmakar M. Chaobal Or Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: 13.3 Change of Address. In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes. 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes. 14.2.1 Non‐Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following: (i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a governmental agency; (ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐subcontractors of any tier; (iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.; (iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to Contractor; (v) Stop notices; or (vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel performance of any provision of the Contract Documents. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election. Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work. 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute. 14.3.1 By Contractor. Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim becoming final and binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the following: (i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the Contract Time and (ii) A detailed, event‐by‐event description of the impact of each event on completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following: (a) A detailed cost breakdown and (b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for submission of Change Order Requests and Claims. 14.3.2 By City. City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events. 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the process. 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations. Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there, subject only to City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub‐subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass‐Through Claim”), then the Subcontractor or Sub‐Subcontractor shall also have a representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes. Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project, subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion. 14.4.3 Mediation. If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph 14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non‐binding mediation before a mutually acceptable third party mediator. .1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in mediation skills. .2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules. .3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration. If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following: .1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5. .2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein. .3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or continuance. .4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good cause shown. .5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award. .6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following: (i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per party. Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as evidence. .7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT .8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4. Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors who provide any portion of the Work. 14.5 Non‐Waiver. Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims. SECTION 15 DEFAULT. 15.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 16.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. 16.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 16.2 Delays by Sureties. Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following: (i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time; (ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work; (iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or unreasonably delaying the Work; (iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract; (v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or (vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the Contract Time. 16.3 Damages to City. 16.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default, then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor or Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 16.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. 16.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty‐five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close‐out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors and Sub‐subcontractors for: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close‐out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. 16.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 17.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 17.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 18.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take‐offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. 18.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 20 NUISANCE. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non‐City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 22 WAIVER. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto. Or The Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies of these rates may be obtained at cost at the Purchasing office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1810, and 1813 of the Labor Code. SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 28 AUTHORITY. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2, the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 22 Rev. May 1, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties. SECTION 30 COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 31 SEVERABILITY. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ Purchasing Manager City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: ___________________________ Director Public Works CONTRACTOR D W NICHOLSON CORPORATION By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ Description Engineer's Estimate D. W. Nicholson Pacific Infracture Aztec Consultants Spiess Constr. Co. GSE Constr. Co. Total Base Bid 400,000 411,500 417,000 448,000 488,700 475,000 Remarks Low bidder Attachment B City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department - RWQCP Bid Summary for Sedimentation Tanks Equipment Replacement (IFB 149813) CIP: WQ - 80021 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3858) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/10/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Radio Maintenance Contract - TEA Title: Approval of a Five-Year Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Telecommunications Engineering Associates (TEA) in an Amount of $168,972 Per Year For Annual Maintenance Services of Radio Infrastructure and Project Funding Not To Exceed $50,000 Per Year From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year contract with Telecommunications Engineering Associates (TEA) in the amount of $168,972 per year for five years. The contract will provide for annual maintenance services for the City’s radio infrastructure and related console radio equipment, as well as the City’s Fire Ring-down system. In addition, staff recommends a not-to-exceed contingency amount of $50,000 annually for consulting, equipment replacement and relocation by TEA as needed. Background The City’s radio system is an analog Very High Frequency (VHF) and Ultra High Frequency (UHF) system that supports Police, Fire, Animal Control, Public Works, Park Rangers and Utilities. The system has been well-maintained over the past decade. There is a countywide initiative to implement a 700 MHz system that would support Police and potentially Public Works and Utilities. However, the project is not fully funded and lacks a build out plan for the region. Given the uncertainty of that project, Palo Alto needs to maintain the existing radio infrastructure in good working order until a funding and implementation model for the countywide system is approved or another solution is reached. As part of the Fiscal Year 2003-05 budget process, the Police Department eliminated most of the City’s Radio Shop as part of cost-cutting efforts. In June 2003, the Police Department executed a five year contract with TEA and renewed that contract in 2008. TEA has provided quality engineering and maintenance services to the City of Palo Alto. TEA also provides City of Palo Alto Page 2 maintenance services under contract for the Cities of Los Altos and Mountain View. The three cities are engaged in a “virtual consolidation” effort that will ultimately include the Police and Fire radio consoles. The three Police Departments share a grant-funded UHF radio channel that was completed this year. There is an associated benefit of using the same vendor to maintain our systems as personnel from all three cities will ultimately utilize the equipment. Discussion Staff released an RFP for Radio Maintenance in April 2013. Three companies responded to the RFP. Using predetermined selection criteria, TEA was selected by the review panel to continue as the City’s radio maintenance provider. It is imperative that the City’s radio infrastructure and related equipment be maintained and equipment engineered and installed at the highest levels of service. Continuing to contract out these services provides a more efficient means of meeting the service level demands of the user departments and a more cost-effective approach for delivering these essential services. TEA will continue to provide professional telecommunications engineering services to maintain the City’s radio infrastructure and related equipment 24-hours a day, 365 days a year. All equipment covered under this agreement will be maintained by TEA and kept in premium working condition, utilizing contemporary industry standards and modern preventative maintenance techniques. There are also radio base stations and other ancillary equipment that should be replaced to maintain system integrity. Staff recommends relocating the equipment currently at the Eagan School in Los Altos to a better geographic location. In addition, if the City Council approves the proposed plan to build a new Public Safety Building the project will require extensive radio engineering design and consulting. TEA has agreed to a not-to-exceed rate for these services of $155 per hour. Staff requests up to $50,000 contingency per year for these projects as needed. Continuing to receive high-quality maintenance services through the TEA agreement will ensure that our first responders and other users of the City’s radio systems, including Utilities, will be able to operate on radio systems that are well-maintained and reliable. Resource Impact The annual cost of $168,972 is covered in the Police Department’s FY 2014 operating budget. By entering into a multi-year contract, the City receives a guarantee of cost stability over the length of the contract. The annual maintenance cost of $168,972 will remain constant for the duration of the five-year agreement. Other projects and consulting within this agreement that are within the scope of the Radio Infrastructure CIP can be funded through that project, if needed. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Policy Implications This agreement is consistent with existing City policy. Environmental Review This contract is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA guidelines. Attachments:  Attachment A - C14149755 Contract - TEA 060113 (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3876) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/10/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Bonde Weir Fish Passage Improvement Project Title: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for the San Francisquito Creek Bonde Weir Fish Passage Improvement and Channel Stabilization Project From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council approve a Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A) for the San Francisquito Creek Bonde Weir fish passage improvement and channel stabilization project. Discussion The Bonde Weir fish passage and channel stabilization project (or project) (Attachment B) is located in San Francisquito Creek, which separates the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The project site occupies a portion of the border between Menlo Park and Palo Alto about 1.7 miles southwest of U.S. Highway 101 near El Camino Real Bridge (Appendix A). The project proposes to remove a bank-to-bank concrete sill, known as the Bonde Weir, that acts as a barrier to fish passage under current conditions and replace it with a re-graded and "roughened" channel. This channel type uses engineered streambed materials to maintain and improve stability over a wide range of stream flows while providing vastly improved conditions for fish migration and movement. In particular, the project is intended to benefit steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), as the San Francisquito Creek watershed provides habitat for this species. The watershed is part of the Central California Coast Steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Unit in which steelhead are considered "threatened" under the federal Endangered Species Act. The project also will improve channel stability over existing conditions. The Bonde Weir was recognized by the San Francisquito Creek Watershed Council – Steelhead Task Force as a barrier to steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) passage. At times, in‐migrating adult as well as out‐migrating smolt steelhead trout may be delayed or prevented from passing City of Palo Alto Page 2 the weir. The San Mateo County RCD, the project sponsor, received a grant from the mitigation funds generated by the Bay Bridge Project and administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service to improve passage at the weir. The proposed project would remove the existing weir and reprofile the streambed using a roughened channel (Appendix E). Roughened channels are channels engineered to remain relatively stable using a framework of large boulders with a matrix of heterogeneous mix of cobbles, gravels, sands, and silts. Construction of the proposed roughened channel will involve mobilizing construction equipment to the work area, removing the existing Bonde Weir, delivering materials to the work area, constructing reprofiled channel, installing scour protection, demobilizing, and installing erosion control measures along the edges of the work area and access route. Temporary construction access to the site will be coordinated with Cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Access through El Palo Alto Park from Palo Alto Avenue would likely require fewer disturbances to the stream banks and be less costly than access from the green space at the southern end of Alma Street. The project will restore the access route to pre‐project conditions. The project will be constructed between June and mid‐October when San Francisquito Creek is not conveying water and the streambed is dry and groundwater levels are relatively deep below the streambed. Rainfall events are relatively rare during this time of year and generally do not produce significant flow. Based on the historic conditions, NHC believes construction will not include dewatering and fish rescue and relocation. Excavation within the streambed will be relatively shallow and is unlikely to intercept groundwater, which will limit the need to control water. Dam removal will involve demolishing the existing dam while protecting the existing concrete slope protection and removing and disposing of debris from the project site. Construction equipment will likely include a small excavator with a hydraulic breaker attachment to demolish the dam and excavator to load trucks. Debris will be disposed at a landfill or other approved site. Preliminary material estimates indicate that about 400 cubic yards of material will excavated from the site and about 180 cubic yards of the excavated sand and gravel will be stockpiled and mixed with imported engineered streambed material to construct the roughened channel. About 600 cubic yards of material will be imported. Construction will likely occur over a period of about 6 weeks and will be scheduled to end prior to October 15, 2013. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFJPA), and Acterra all support the project (Attachment C). On May 28, 2013, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the project and the park improvement ordinance and voted unanimously (5 - 0) to recommend that the Council approve the park improvement ordinance for this project. The Commission asked if the project would change the upstream or downstream flow in the creek. The project design engineer explained that the project will not affect water flow upstream or downstream. The Commission also asked if there would be long-term maintenance costs incurred by the City due to the project. The design engineer explained that the project is designed to be self-sustaining and there will not be any new maintenance costs caused by the project. The Commission also asked if the existing weir offered structural support to the Caltrans wall. The design engineer explained that the weir does not offer structural support. Timeline Construction is expected to continue for approximately eight weeks, beginning in June 2013 and be completed by October 15, 2013. Resource Impact The project is fully funded by San Mateo County Resource Conservation District via a grant from the State Coastal Conservancy. Policy Implications The proposed ordinance is consistent with Goal N-1 of the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages the management of Open Space in such a way as to protect our natural resources and provide a source of beauty and enjoyment for Palo Alto residents. The ordinance is also consistent with Goal N-4 of the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages water resources to be prudently managed as to sustain plant and animal life. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines; therefore, no environmental review is required. Attachments:  Attachment A- Park Improvement Ordinance forBonde Weir Project (PDF)  Attachment B- Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C- Letters of Support for Bonde Weir Project (PDF) *NOT YET APPROVED* 130516 dm 00710210A Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to El Palo Alto 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 therefor. (b) El Palo Alto Park is dedicated to park, playground and recreational space. (c) The City intends to authorize the construction of certain park improvements within El Palo Alto Park, as shown on the Bonde Fish Weir Passage Design Report (the “Design Report”), attached as Exhibit “A,” including: (1) Removal of a bank-to-bank concrete sill, known as the Bonde Weir, that acts as a barrier to fish passage under current conditions, and the replacement of the Bonde Weir with a re-graded and "roughened" channel; (2) Installation of scour protection and native plant erosion control measures along the edges of the work area and access route; and (3) Installation and construction of additional irrigation facilities to rapidly establish the new vegetation (the “Project”). (d) The improvements at El Palo Alto Park will include an area of the Park located in Palo Alto that spans the length of the San Francisquito Creek portion of the Park. (e) 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. (f) The Project is consistent with park and conservation purposes. (g) The Council desires to approve the Project, described above and as more specifically described in the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A.” SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Design Report for the construction of the improvements at El Palo Alto Park, and it hereby adopts the Design *NOT YET APPROVED* 130516 dm 00710210A Report, attached hereto as Exhibit "A,” as part of the official plan for the construction of the park improvements at El Palo Alto Park. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the San Mateo Resource Conservation District has determined the Project (to construct the facilities at El Palo Alto Park) is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. 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 Page 1 of 12 San Mateo County www.sanmateorcd.org 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 650.712.7765 650.726.0494 | PHONE | FAX Bonde Weir Fish Passage and Channel Stabilization Project Project Description San Francisquito Creek Palo Alto & Menlo Park, CA February 2013 Summary: The Bonde Weir Fish Passage and Channel Stabilization Project (or project) is located in San Francisquito Creek in the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The project site occupies a portion of the border between Menlo Park and Palo Alto about 1.7 miles southwest of U.S. Highway 101 near El Camino Real Bridge (Appendix A). The project proposes to remove a bank-to-bank concrete sill, known as the Bonde Weir, that acts as a barrier to fish passage under current conditions and replace it with a re-graded and "roughened" channel. This channel type uses engineered streambed materials to maintain and improve stability over a wide range of streamflows while providing vastly improved conditions for fish migration and movement. In particular, the project is intended to benefit steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), as the San Francisquito Creek watershed provides habitat for this species. The watershed is part of the Central California Coast steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Unit in which steelhead are considered "threatened" under the federal Endangered Species Act. The project also will improve channel stability over existing conditions. Page 2 of 12 San Mateo County www.sanmateorcd.org 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 650.712.7765 650.726.0494 | PHONE | FAX Need for the project: The Bonde Weir has been recognized by local biologists and state and federal resource agencies as an impediment to steelhead passage for at least ten years. The deteriorating condition of the weir may also pose a risk to channel stability. Under low flow conditions, stream flow pools upstream from the weir resulting in a lack of flow over the weir or in sheet flow unfavorable to migrating fish due to inadequate water depth. Under higher flow conditions, water velocity may further limit migration opportunities. The majority of the watershed's spawning and rearing habitat occurs in San Francisquito Creek and its tributaries upstream from the weir, suggesting that limits to in-migrating steelhead have substantial effects on the steelhead population. Further, under low flow conditions, fish may be prevented or delayed from moving downstream to favorable habitats or to out-migrate, possibly resulting in mortality. The project will greatly improve passage conditions and opportunities to successfully complete the steelhead life history. The remainder of this project description includes sections that characterize existing conditions at the project site, elements of the project, sequence and schedule of proposed activities, staging areas and access, related permits and measures to avoid impacts. The description has been prepared by the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District (RCD) on behalf of the several organizations partnering to implement the project to provide information to reviewing agencies and the interested public. Questions or comments on any aspect of the project are welcomed and may be addressed to the RCD staff listed at the end of this document. Existing site conditions: The Bonde Weir is located in San Francisquito Creek where the creek passes through El Palo Alto Park. The weir is about 15 feet downstream from the pedestrian bridge crossing and approximately 80 feet downstream from the bridge over which the Caltrain tracks cross the creek. It consists of an 11 foot long and 45 foot wide concrete sill. The weir is located near the midpoint of a right trending bend (looking downstream) in the creek. The creek upstream of the weir has trapezoidal shape with a bed width of about 20 feet, a right bank (looking downstream) side slope of about 0.6 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (0.6:1), and a left bank side slope of 0.8:1. The creek bed is about 20 to 25 feet below the adjacent top of banks. A concrete wall along the right bank (looking downstream) extends from 3 feet downstream of the weir to about 150 feet upstream. The left bank is composed of native material. Sheet C2 from the design plans (Appendix B) shows the site topography and planimetric features. A view of the creek looking upstream of the pedestrian bridge is shown in Figure [1]. Page 3 of 12 San Mateo County www.sanmateorcd.org 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 650.712.7765 650.726.0494 | PHONE | FAX Figure 1: Looking Upstream from Bonde Weir. The sill slopes downstream at 4.8 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (4.8:1, or about 20 percent). The low point along the weir crest is at elevation 46.6 feet (all elevations are relative to USC&GS BM H7) and the downstream end of the weir is at elevation 44.5 feet. Figures [2], [3], and [4] show frontal, side, and top views of the weir, respectively. Page 4 of 12 San Mateo County www.sanmateorcd.org 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 650.712.7765 650.726.0494 | PHONE | FAX Figure 2: Bonde Weir looking from downstream to upstream. Page 5 of 12 San Mateo County www.sanmateorcd.org 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 650.712.7765 650.726.0494 | PHONE | FAX Page 6 of 12 San Mateo County www.sanmateorcd.org 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 650.712.7765 650.726.0494 | PHONE | FAX Figure 3: Bonde Weir looking from the right bank above. Figure 4: Bonde Weir looking from upstream to downstream from the pedestrian bridge above. A pool forms upstream of the weir during low flows. The pool characteristics are influenced by several factors, including the hydraulic characteristics of stream bends, which typically induce scour along the outside toe of the bend. At the weir, local scour also occurs in the lee of a sackcrete storm drain outlet apron and at the backwater resulting from the weir. Using the weir crest to define the pool surface, the pool extends more than 160 feet upstream of the weir. The deepest part of the pool is along the downstream end of the drainage outlet, where the substrate is about 4 feet below the lowest point of the weir crest. Figure [5] shows the storm drain outlet. Page 7 of 12 San Mateo County www.sanmateorcd.org 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 650.712.7765 650.726.0494 | PHONE | FAX Figure 5: Storm drain outfall on the left bank just upstream from Bonde Weir. Downstream of the weir, the channel width increases to about 25 feet. The adjacent banks range in slope from 5:1 to 2:1. Toward the top of the adjacent banks, slope ranges from 2:1 to 1:1. Figure [6] shows a view of the creek downstream of the pedestrian bridge. Page 8 of 12 San Mateo County www.sanmateorcd.org 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 650.712.7765 650.726.0494 | PHONE | FAX Figure 6: San Fransquito Creek Channel looking downstream from Bonde Weir. Concrete rubble and large rock are found in the bed immediately downstream of the weir. The rubble does not appear to be a significant portion of the bed and will have to be removed from the site. The exact volume of rubble to be removed will likely be less than 50 tons. This rubble will be disposed of at an approved waste facility. The large rock will be evaluated by the field engineer to ensure it meets hardness criteria and will likely be included in the proposed channel design. Page 9 of 12 San Mateo County www.sanmateorcd.org 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 650.712.7765 650.726.0494 | PHONE | FAX Project elements and activities: The project will remove the existing weir, add scour protection to the retaining wall at the Caltrain bridge, re-profile the channel using engineered streambed materials, and stabilize and re-vegetate adjacent stream banks. The following describes each of these activities in greater detail. Sheets C2 and C3 in Appendix B provide plan and profile views of each of the project elements. Remove existing weir: In this part of the project, heavy equipment will be used to demolish the existing weir and remove the associated debris. As-built design drawings of the weir were unattainable and the exact dimensions of the weir are unknown. However, the weir is not believed to be attached to the concrete wall protecting the foot of the pedestrian and Caltrain bridges. Concrete rubble and limited amounts of poor quality rock will be removed from the site during this phase and disposed of at an approved waste facility. It is expected about 400 cubic yards of material will be removed from the site. Excavate project site: After the weir has been removed, the channel will be excavated down to 3 feet below the finished grade along the 100 lineal feet of channel where the roughened channel will be located. Excavation will occur between streambanks and will maintain a slope of 1.5H:1V or flatter between excavated surfaces and existing surfaces to be undisturbed. The excavated material will be sorted and stockpiled on-site. This material will be used in creating the engineered streambed material in later construction stages. Add Caltrain bridge scour protection: Approximately 65 lineal feet of rock riprap will be placed along the left bank of the channel. The rock will be placed along the toe of the concrete wall to protect the wall from erosion, and will extend downstream of the wall about 25 feet. The rock will be placed at a 3 foot thickness and result in about 0.5-1CY of rock per lineal foot of protection. Re-profile using engineered materials and rock buttresses: The creek channel will be re-profiled between a location about 20 feet upstream of the existing weir's upper extent and a location about 80 feet downstream of the existing weir's lower extent. The roughened channel will be about 100 feet long and will have a slope of about 1 percent. The roughened channel construction includes importing various sizes of quarried rock, cobble and gravel and mixing these Engineered Streambed Materials (ESM) with fines found on site. The heterogeneous mix of ESM forms a tight structure that minimizes loss of streamflow into the bed and potential for scour during high flow events. Hydraulic modeling completed by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (2012) indicates that water depths and velocities in the roughened channel will be comparable to those found in proximate riffle sections of the creek. The model results show that flow upstream from the project site will be unaffected by the channel reconfiguration. Page 10 of 12 San Mateo County www.sanmateorcd.org 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 650.712.7765 650.726.0494 | PHONE | FAX After placement of the ESM, the contractor will install buttress/framework material, boulder clusters, and engineered streambed materials per the design, and as directed by the engineer. The field engineer will be onsite to verify the grade of the rock buttress material and the gradation of the ESM to ensure it is placed properly. The contractor will likely set the rock buttresses at the proper grade and fill the ramp between buttresses with 1 foot compacted lifts of ESM. Boulder clusters will be placed as appropriate. Stabilize and re-vegetate banks: Disturbed areas will be replanted with native plants sourced as much as possible from the San Francisquito Creek watershed. An estimated 2,000 square foot area will be temporarily disturbed and will need to be revegetated. Plantings will be watered and maintained after the construction period to assure their survival. Temporary erosion control measures will be used to maintain soil stability until plantings are established. Please see the Basis of Design Report (Appendix C) by Northwest Hydraulics for additional detail into the engineers rational for proposed project designs. Sequence and schedule: Construction is expected to last approximately eight weeks, beginning as early as June 2013 and completed by October 15, 2013. Major tasks are listed below: Establish staging and access areas Mobilize equipment Survey layout Install temporary erosion control measures Install traffic control and signage Establish staging and equipment access areas Removal and offhaul weir Excavate channel, and salvage and stockpile bed material Imported ESM Construct roughened channel Restore and revegetate temporarily disturbed areas Staging areas and access: Equipment will access the site as shown in sheet G2 of Appendix B Equipment access will occur via a path between Palo Alto Avenue and the south side of the creek. The access route will follow the route of an existing 8 foot wide bike path and will terminate at the least steep portion of the stream bank. The access route will be no wider than 11 feet, with unlimited overhead clearance. Staging and materials access will be provided on the north side of the creek in an area east of the Caltrain right of way in El Palo Alto Park. The Park is managed by the City of Menlo Park. This Page 11 of 12 San Mateo County www.sanmateorcd.org 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 650.712.7765 650.726.0494 | PHONE | FAX staging area will encompass approximately 8,000 square feet. All ESM will be delivered via a route marked by the City of Menlo Park. Avoidance of impacts: The project has been designed to minimize impacts to the site and to fish and wildlife potentially utilizing the project area. The following specific actions will be incorporated into the project description to reduce construction-related effects on vegetation and landscape, water quality, and public access. Vegetation and landscape: The portion of the equipment access route outside of the existing bicycle path will be covered with 10 inches of mulch and overlaid with plywood or matting to protect tree roots. At locations where the access route requires excavation, an air spade or hydro excavation will be used to expose roots along the edge of the proposed route. The roots will be cleanly cut using a chainsaw or handsaw to prevent excavation of the access route from ripping roots out of the ground. The access route will be established with 10 feet of clearance from trees where possible. All trees within 6 feet of the access route will be protected (e.g., with snow fencing and plywood when deemed necessary). No trees will be removed on the Palo Alto side of the park; however, trees limbs will be removed by the urban forester for the City to allow for equipment access, as necessary. Several small shrubs that are in the access route will either be transplanted or replanted, and numerous small trees (i.e., less than 2-inches diameter at breast height [dBH]) on the Menlo Park side will be removed. Areas where vegetation will be removed to facilitate construction will be re-vegetated as part of the project in accordance with Palo Alto’s and Menlo Park’s park improvement ordinances. Construction will occur in the dry season, minimizing the potential for erosion. Additionally, erosion control measures, such as fiber rolls, jute mats and mulch will be installed to further reduce the risk of sedimentation resulting from project activities. The project site, including the equipment access road and staging area, will be re-vegetated and the plantings will be maintained to ensure their survival after the construction phase. Acterra, a local environmental non-profit in Silicon Valley, is currently active in native plant revegetation efforts and will be hired to provide their services in conjunction with this project’s need for revegetation and erosion control in disturbed areas. Their volunteer network will participate in implementing the project, and will assist in monitoring and maintaining the project area in the park after the construction activities are complete. Water Quality: During the proposed construction period, the creek is typically dry. Therefore, stream dewatering and fish relocation/exclusion is not expected to be necessary. If the creek Page 12 of 12 San Mateo County www.sanmateorcd.org 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 650.712.7765 650.726.0494 | PHONE | FAX experiences flow during the construction period, a qualified biologist will be retained to avoid impacts to aquatic species. Public Access: All equipment will access the site on designated access routes and will be staged in the designated staging area. Signage and traffic control will be accomplished in accordance with Palo Alto and Menlo Park standards along the bike path and surface streets. Construction will be limited to normal daylight hours. Permits: The project will require the following permits:  Clean Water Act, Section 404 Permit, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board  Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement, California Department of Fish and Wildlife  Biological Opinion, National Marine Fisheries Service  Letter of Concurrence, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (possible)  Park Improvement Ordinance, Tree Permit, and Encroachment Permit, City of Palo Alto  Encroachment Permit, City of Menlo Park Contact Information: Kellyx Nelson, Executive Director Resource Conservation District Kellyx@sanmateorcd.org 650.712.7765 x102 Joe Issel, Conservation Assistant Resource Conservation District Joe@sanmateorcd.org 650.712.7765 x106 Bonde Weir Fish Passage: Basis of Design Report San Mateo Resource Conservation District September 7, 2012 water resource specialists Bonde Weir Fish Passage: Basis of Design Report September 7, 2012 Prepared for: San Mateo Resource Conservation District 625 Miramontes St # 103 Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Phone: 650‐712‐7765 Contact: Kellyx Nelson Prepared by: northwest hydraulic consultants 3950 Industrial Blvd, Suite 100C West Sacramento, California 95691 Phone: 916.371.7400 Contact: Joey Howard, P.E. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Project Description ............................................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Project Objective ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.3 Project Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 7 3.0 Topographic Survey and Datums ...................................................................................................... 7 4.0 Hydrologic Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Flow Frequency Analysis ............................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Fish Passage Flows ........................................................................................................................ 8 5.0 Hydraulic Analyses ............................................................................................................................ 9 5.1 Existing Conditions Model ............................................................................................................ 9 5.2 Project Conditions Model ........................................................................................................... 10 5.3 Extreme Flows ............................................................................................................................. 10 5.4 Fish Migration Flows ................................................................................................................... 10 6.0 Engineered Streambed Material ..................................................................................................... 14 7.0 Implementation considerations ...................................................................................................... 14 8.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix A: Hydrology ............................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix B: HEC‐RAS Model Results .......................................................................................................... 18 Appendix C: Rock Sizing Calculations .......................................................................................................... 31 Appendix D: 30% Design Drawings ............................................................................................................. 33 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2‐1: Site Map ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2‐2: San Francisquito Creek Upstream of the Alma St Pedestrian Bridge ......................................... 4 Figure 2‐3: Bonde Weir viewed from downstream ...................................................................................... 4 Figure 2‐4: Bonde Weir Crest ........................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2‐5: Bonde Weir ................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2‐6: Bonde Weir and Storm Drain Outlet .......................................................................................... 6 Figure 2‐7: San Francisquito Creek downstream of the Alma St Pedestrian bridge ..................................... 6 Figure 5‐1: 100 Year Flood Profiles for Existing and Project Conditions..................................................... 10 Figure 5‐2: HEC‐RAS Computer Velocities .................................................................................................. 12 Figure 5‐3: HEC‐RAS Computer Depths....................................................................................................... 13 LIST OF TABLES Table 4‐1: USGS Gage Stations in the San Francisquito Creek Drainage Basin ............................................. 8 Table 4‐2: Flow Summary Table near the Bonde Weir ................................................................................. 8 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report ii Table 4‐3: Fish Passage Flow Criteria ............................................................................................................ 9 Table 5‐1: Minimum Required Flow Depth ................................................................................................. 11 Table 5‐2: Maximum Permissible Velocity (CDFG, 1998) ........................................................................... 11 Table 5‐3: Recommended Maximum Energy Dissipation Factors (CDFG, 2009) ........................................ 11 Table 5‐4: Design Comparison with Criteria ............................................................................................... 14 Table 6‐1: Engineered Streambed Material Design Gradation ................................................................... 14 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 1 BONDE WEIR FISH PASSAGE PROJECT: BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (nhc) is preparing the design for a fish passage improvement project at the Bonde Weir in San Francisquito Creek for the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District (RCD). This report briefly describes the physical setting, project considerations, and proposed design. The Bonde Weir was recognized by the San Francisquito Creek Watershed Council – Steelhead Task Force ‐ as a barrier to steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) passage. At times, in‐migrating adult as well as out‐migrating smolt steelhead trout may be delayed or prevented from passing the weir. The San Mateo County RCD, the project sponsor, received a grant from the mitigation funds generated by the Bay Bridge Project and administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service to improve passage at the weir. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Objective The broad goal for the project is to improve the hydraulic characteristics for fish passage at the existing Bonde Weir site while protecting existing infrastructure. 2.2 Existing Conditions The Bonde Weir crosses San Francisquito Creek about about 15 feet downstream of the Alma Street Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge and 80 feet downstream of a Caltrain Bridge near El Palo Alto Park. The weir is located near the midpoint of a right trending bend (looking downstream) in the creek. The creek upstream of the weir has a bed width of 20 feet, a right bank side slope of about 0.6 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical, and a left bank side slope of 0.8 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical. The creek bed is about 20 to 25 feet below the adjacent ground. A concrete wall along the right bank (looking downstream) extends from 3 feet downstream of the weir upstream about 150 feet. The left bank is composed of native material. Figure 2‐1 shows the site topography and planimetric features. A view of the creek looking upstream of the Alma Street Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge is shown in Figure 2‐2. The weir consists of an 11 foot long and 45 foot wide concrete sill. The sill slopes downstream at 4.8 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (20 percent). The low point along the weir crest is at elevation 46.6 feet (all elevations are relative to USC&GS BM H7‐ See Section 3.0) and the downstream end of the weir is at elevation 44.5 feet. Figure 2‐3, 2‐4, and 2‐5 show frontal, side, and top views of the weir, respectively. A pool forms upstream of the weir during low flows. The pool characteristics are influenced by several factors. These factors include the hydraulic characteristics of stream bends, which typically induce scour along the outside toe of the bend, local scour in the lee of a sackcrete storm drain outlet apron, and the backwater resulting from the weir. Using the weir crest to define the pool surface, the pool extends more than 160 feet upstream of the weir. The deepest part of the pool is along the downstream end of the sackcrete drainage outlet structure. The minimum pool elevation surveyed November of 2007 was Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 2 at 44.7 feet. This elevation is 4 feet below the low point on the weir crest. Figure 2‐6 shows the storm drain outlet and the outlet apron. Downstream of the weir, the creek is less confined than the upstream reach. The channel width increases from 20 feet to about 25 feet. The channel banks near the bed range in slope from 5 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical to 2 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical. The upper portion of the banks range in slope from 2 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical to 1 foot horizontal to 1 foot vertical. Figure 2‐7 shows a view of the creek downstream of the pedestrian bridge. Bonde Weir Fish Ladder Project Potential Construction Access Routes northwest hydraulic consultants project no. 500045 August 2012 Scale - LEGEND SF BAY REFERENCE MAP CA State Plane, Zone III horz. datum: NAD 83 horz. units: feet Redwood City Menlo Park Palo Alto Atherton San Carlos Woodside East Palo Alto Stanford North Fair Oaks Emerald Lake Hills Foster City West Menlo Park Belmont Fremont §¨¦280 tu101 UV84 UV84 Figure 1: Project Site Location Bonde Weir Fish Ladder Project nhc August 2012 [j El Camino Real Bridge CalTrain Bridge Fishway Construction Site @ Bonde Weir Alm a W illo w Alm a El C a m in o R e al High Alto Everett E m ers o n 15 H a wthorneAlm a Palo Alto Lytton 33 Harvard Poe Creek R a m o na B ry a nt W averley R uthvenLinfield Cornell Cambridge C o w per Sherwood Claremont S an d Hill C re e k Palo Alto 1:3,600 ©1 inch = 300 feet Data Sources: ESRI StreetMap USA Roads, 2005. USDA-FSA Color Aerial Photography, 8/13/2009. San Francisquito Creek Fishway Construction Site @ Bonde Weir El Palo Alto Historic Tree[j 0 300 600150Feet Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 4 Figure 2-2: San Francisquito Creek Upstream of the Alma St Pedestrian Bridge Figure 2-3: Bonde Weir viewed from downstream Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 5 Figure 2-4: Bonde Weir Crest Figure 2-5: Bonde Weir Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 6 Figure 2-6: Bonde Weir and Storm Drain Outlet Figure 2-7: San Francisquito Creek downstream of the Alma St Pedestrian bridge Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 7 2.3 Project Conditions The proposed project would remove the existing weir and reprofile the streambed using a roughened channel (Appendix E). Roughened channels are channels engineered to remain relatively stable using a framework of large boulders with a matrix of heterogeneous mix of cobbles, gravels, sands, and silts. The roughened channel would have a grade of about 1%. The upstream section of the roughened channel would originate about 15 feet upstream of the current location of the weir, and would extend downstream about 70 feet past the current location of the weir. The roughened channel would be composed of engineered streambed material (Section 6). Angular rock riprap would be placed along the toe of the existing wall to prevent toe scour. The roughened channel is designed to replace the existing weir by acting as a grade control structure preventing undermining of the concrete wall and preventing channel incision from migrating upstream. The reprofiling of the channel helps reduce the abrupt hydraulic disruption and potential local scour caused by this disruption. Appendix E provides 30% conceptual design drawings of the proposed project design. 3.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND DATUMS BGK Engineering under contract with NHC conducted a topographic survey of the site (including the creek, the adjacent area, and the weir) in November, 2007. The survey extended about 150 feet downstream of the weir and about 50 feet upstream of the weir from top of left bank to top of right bank. Survey elevations were tied into USC&GS benchmark H7 (BM H7). BM H7 is a brass disc in the Northwesterly concrete abutment for the Caltrain Railroad bridge over the San Francisquito Creek located just upstream of the site. The BM is stamped with an elevation of 72.123 feet. All elevations reported within this document are based on this elevation. 4.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS To develop design parameters for the fish passage improvement project, NHC estimated peak flood flows and flow durations. The results are described in the following. 4.1 Flow Frequency Analysis Flow frequency analyses and flow duration analyses were conducted using data collected at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage on San Francisquito Creek at Stanford University (Gage 1116400). This gage, located on the Stanford Golf Course upstream of Junipero Serra Boulevard, provides the best long‐ term record of flow in San Francisquito Creek with measurements from 1931 to 1941 and from 1951 to present. The gage has a tributary area of 37.5 square miles composed of areas within the Santa Cruz Mountains and Bay Foothills. . Stream gages that have been operated on San Francisquito Creek and its tributaries by the USGS are summarized in Table 4‐1. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 8 Table 4-1: USGS Gage Stations in the San Francisquito Creek Drainage Basin Gage Name Gage Number Period of Record Area (mi2) River Mile 1 At Searsville Dam (staff gage on spillway crest) None 1892‐1913 – 12.7 At Stanford University 11164500 1931‐41; 1950 to present 37.5 7.6 At Menlo Park 11165000 1931‐1941 38.3 5.4 At Palo Alto 11165500 1934‐36 38.4 4.6 Los Trancos Ck near Stanford University 11163000 1930‐41 – – Los Trancos Tributary near Stanford University 11163200 1958‐66 0.42 – Los Trancos Ck at Stanford University 11163500 1930‐41 7.46 – Peak flows were calculated from an analysis of annual maxima at the USGS Gage Number 1116400. Flood frequency statistics were calculated for the gage using the procedures recommended by the USGS and described in Bulletin 17B (IACWD, 1982). A flood frequency plot for this gage is included in Appendix A. Peak flows expected to occur at 2‐, 10‐, 25‐, 50‐, and 100‐year return periods were calculated at USGS Gage were used to estimate the flows at the Bonde Weir and are listed in Table 4‐2. The effective 100‐ year peak flood flow calculated in this analysis is essentially the same as the flow listed in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Menlo Park at San Francisquito Creek at El Camino Real (FEMA, 1999). The effective FIS cites a flow of 8,280 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a drainage area of 40.6 square miles at El Camino Real. Table 4-2: Flow Summary Table near the Bonde Weir Characteristic San Francisquito Crk at Stanford University (11164500) Drainage Basin Area 37.5 mi2 100‐year peak flow 8,272 cfs 25‐year peak flow 6,157 cfs 10‐year peak flow 4,595 cfs 2‐year peak flow 1,576 cfs 4.2 Fish Passage Flows The California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual (CDFG, 1998) identifies the 1% and 95% exceedance flows, based on a duration analysis of mean daily flows, as the upper and lower bounds for Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 9 fish passage analyses for the target fish species and life stages. The fish migration flows at the Bonde Weir were calculated from USGS gage Number 1116400. Exceedance flows are summarized in Table 4‐3. As noted in Table 4‐3, we suggest adopting an alternative minimum flow of 1 cfs and 3 cfs, respectively, for the juvenile and adult fish migration analysis. The data and program output for the fish migration flows are included in Appendix A. Table 4-3: Fish Passage Flow Criteria Description Flow rate (cfs) 1% exceedence flow High Flow Adult Salmonid 470 10% exceedence flow High Flow for Juvenile Salmonid 40 50% exceedence flow Low Flow Adult Salmonid (3 cfs alt min flow) 0.8 95% exceedence flow Low Flow Juvenile Salmonids (1 cfs alt min flow) <0.1 5.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSES NHC conducted hydraulic analyses using HEC‐RAS version 4.1.0 (USACE, 2010) to characterize existing and project hydraulic conditions. HEC‐RAS is a one‐dimensional model that is capable of computing average channel velocities and water surface profiles. HEC‐RAS is useful in estimating hydraulic characteristics and water surface profiles during moderate to high flows. It can also be used to estimate hydraulic characteristics during low flow, but is not capable of simulating microhydraulics in roughened channels. Sections 5.1 and 5.2 describe the existing and project conditions model development. Section 5.3 describes the model results for extreme flows, while Section 5.4 describes model results for fish passage flows. Results from HEC‐RAS analysis are included in Appendix B. 5.1 Existing Conditions Model The downstream boundary of the HEC‐RAS model is about 130 feet downstream of the weir the model extends about 50 feet upstream of the weir. The basic features of the model include:  Through this reach, the channel section and slope provide the downstream hydraulic control for stream flow. At low flows the riffle crest 50 feet downstream of the weir serves as a control that causes flow to backup to the base of the weir. Under the existing condition, the steep smooth weir surface efficiently conveys flows over the weir. These flows are characterized by high velocities and are supercritical.  The downstream boundary condition is computed as a normal depth with friction slope of 0.002.  The concrete weir was simulated in the model geometry within HEC‐RAS. Model cross section spacing ranges from 5 to 50 feet with a narrower spacing near the weir.  The roughness coefficient ("Manning’s n") across the existing concrete weir was estimated to be 0.025 under the existing conditions. Manning’s n in the channel for the existing was estimated to be 0.035. The overbank Manning’s n was estimated to be 0.05. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 10  Model runs were performed using a subcritical flow regime to identify peak water surface levels. Application of the subcritical flow regime to calculate water surface profiles is consistent with FEMA flood hazard modeling guidelines to determine flood profiles (FEMA, 2003).  Profiles and hydraulic calculations for flood flows were compiled for the 10‐, 25‐ and 100‐year flood events. 5.2 Project Conditions Model The project conditions HEC‐RAS model used the same model extents, cross‐section locations, and boundary conditions as the existing condition model. Modifications to the project conditions model included:  Adjustment of the cross‐section geometry to create a channel approximately 40 feet wide with invert elevations producing a 1% slope through the area of the proposed roughened channel.  Increasing the Manning’s n value of the cross‐sections within the roughened channel to 0.05. 5.3 Extreme Flows The project’s influence on peak water surface elevation (i.e., stage) during a 100‐year flood event was estimated using HEC‐RAS. Water surface profiles for existing conditions and with the project in place were calculated and compared. The 100‐year peak flow water surface profiles for the existing and proposed conditions are shown in Figure 5‐1. The project shows water surface elevations downstream and upstream of the project area are likely to be unaffected. Water surface elevations may vary between existing and project conditions within the project reach as a result of a hydraulic jump, which currently exists at the weir, moving downstream about 30 feet. Figure 5-1: 100 Year Flood Profiles for Existing and Project Conditions 5.4 Fish Migration Flows Adult steelhead typically migrate to spawn between late fall and early spring, with a peak between January and March. Downstream migration of juveniles usually occurs between about February and April. The roughened channel was designed to simulate adjacent stream and hydraulic conditions and 0 50 100 150 20042 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 Main Channel Distance (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS 100-Year - Exist-rev WS 100-Year - Project-rev Crit 100-Year - Exist-rev Crit 100-Year - Project-rev Ground Ground BONDE CENTERLINE BONDE CENTERLINE Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 11 reprofile the reach where the Bonde Weir currently occurs, without affecting the upstream or downstream bed profile. The following design parameters were used to determine if the project would provide fish passage: maximum average velocity, minimum flow depth, maximum hydraulic drop height, and maximum turbulence. These design parameters are further segregated by life stage and species. Minimum flow depth is primarily a function of body size, which is characterized by life stage and species. Table 5‐1 shows the minimum flow depths. Table 5-1: Minimum Required Flow Depth Species/Lifestage Minimum flow depth, ft Adult Anadromous Salmonid 1.0 Adult Non‐Anadromous Salmonid 0.67 Juvenile Salmonid 0.5 Design criteria for maximum average velocities are categorized first by life stage and by the distance that the average velocity occurs. The distances are intended to match the swimming characteristics of adult fishes where maximum swim speeds for adult salmonids and non‐salmonids are generally characterized into three groups: burst, prolonged, and sustained. Burst speeds generally occur for less than 20 seconds, prolonged speeds generally range from about 20 seconds to about 200 minutes, and sustained speeds may occur for an indefinite period that exceeds 200 minutes. The maximum average water velocity for juveniles is 1 feet per second (fps). Table 5‐2 shows design criteria for adults. Table 5-2: Maximum Permissible Velocity (CDFG, 1998) Passage Distance (Culvert Length) Ft Adult Non‐Anadromous Salmonids, fps Adult Anadromous Salmonids, fps < 60 4 6 60 – 100 4 5 100 – 200 3 4 200 – 300 2 3 > 300 2 2 Turbulence, defined herein as irregular and random fluctuations in local velocity and pressure, can impair fishes’ ability to move upstream. Turbulent flow may disorient fish or reduce leaping abilities by aerating the flow and reducing stream flow density. The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) use the energy dissipation factor (EDF) to characterize turbulence. Maximum permissible EDFs vary with the type of flow conditions. Table 5‐3: Recommended Maximum Energy Dissipation Factors (CDFG, 2009) lists EDF equations for sloping channels and the maximum permissible EDF for adult steelhead and resident trout. Table 5-3: Recommended Maximum Energy Dissipation Factors (CDFG, 2009) Flow Condition EDF Eqn. Max EDF Adult Steelhead Max EDF Adult Resident Trout Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 12 ft‐lbs/s/ft3 ft‐lbs/s/ft3 Sloping Channel VS 6.0 4.5 Hydraulic characteristics for fish passage were assessed for flows ranging from 1 cfs up to 470 cfs (Table 4‐3). Figure 5‐2 shows modeled in‐channel velocities. The reprofiled channel reach starts near distance 60 and ends near distance 140 in the figures below. Modeled cross section average velocities are less than 6 fps through the project the entire range of modeled flows. Since HEC‐RAS cannot account for the presence of in‐channel features such as boulder clusters or variation in velocity across a section over various depths, there are likely to be pockets and areas of slightly lesser and greater velocities as those shown in Figure 5‐2. Figure 5-2: HEC-RAS Computer Velocities Modeled flow depths were the lowest at the minimum modeled flow of 1 cfs. Flow depths were about 1 foot or greater at flows of 25 cfs and greater. It should be noted that channel geometry simulated in the model is simplified and represents the roughened channel as a level bed. Actual conditions on the roughened channel will be complex, allowing for smaller pockets of increased depth to exist. 0 50 100 150 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 Main Channel Distance (ft) Ve l C h n l ( f t / s ) Legend Vel Chnl Q=470cfs Vel Chnl Q=400cfs Vel Chnl Q=300cfs Vel Chnl Q=200cfs Vel Chnl Q=100cfs Vel Chnl Q=50cfs Vel Chnl Q=40cfs Vel Chnl Q=25cfs Vel Chnl Q=3cfs Vel Chnl Q=1cfs BONDE CENTERLINE BONDE CENTERLINE Project Extents Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 13 Figure 5-3: HEC-RAS Computer Depths Fish passage performance along the project reach was compared with DFG and NMFS stream simulation and hydraulic criteria. A summary of DFG and NMFS fish passage criteria are listed in Table 5‐4. This comparison shows that computed design velocities meet criteria to allow both juvenile and adult fish passage. Flow depth criterion is met for the adult fish when the flow exceeds 25 cfs, but do not meet criteria down to the 3 cfs minimum design flow. Similarly, the flow depth criterion is not met for juvenile for flow rates between 1‐3 cfs, but is met for flows above 3 cfs. The energy dissipation factor is met for both juvenile and adult passage. It is important to note that due to the lack of a defined low flow channel that depths in sections of downstream reaches are unlikely to meet fish passage criteria at flows less than about 25 cfs. 0 50 100 150 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 Main Channel Distance (ft) Ma x C h l D p t h ( f t ) Legend Max Chl Dpth Q=470cfs Max Chl Dpth Q=400cfs Max Chl Dpth Q=300cfs Max Chl Dpth Q=200cfs Max Chl Dpth Q=100cfs Max Chl Dpth Q=50cfs Max Chl Dpth Q=40cfs Max Chl Dpth Q=25cfs Max Chl Dpth Q=3cfs Max Chl Dpth Q=1cfs BONDE CENTERLINE BONDE CENTERLINE Project Extents Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 14 Table 5-4: Design Comparison with Criteria Design Condition Calculated Comparison with Criteria Velocity (Adult Anadromous Salmonid) <6fps Within Criteria Velocity (Juvenile Anadromous Salmonid) <3.5 fps Estimated to be within Criteria along channel margins and near boundary layer Flow Depth (Adult Anadromous Salmonid) 1ft‐4 ft (Q>25 cfs) <1ft (Q<25 cfs) Not Within Criteria Flow Depth (Juvenile Anadromous Salmonid) >0.5 ft when Q≥3cfs 0.3 ft @ 1cfs Not Within Criteria EDF <4lb/ft2/s Within Criteria 6.0 ENGINEERED STREAMBED MATERIAL The roughened channel will be constructed using engineered streambed materials (ESM). ESM will include a heterogeneous mix of material that is intended to form a tight structure that will minimize subsurface flow, prevent loss of smaller particles within the matrix, and remain relatively stable during extreme flood events. Inspection of native streambed material near the project site suggests that sediment supply into this reach ranges from fine wash load to small boulders (less than about 8 inches). Estimates for ESM were made using California Department of Fish and Game procedures. Calculations are provided in Appendix C. NHC proposes to use the ESM gradation shown in Table 6‐1 Table 6-1: Engineered Streambed Material Design Gradation PERCENT OF MIX ROCK SIZE, ft min max 16% 2.5 4.0 34% 1.0 2.5 34% 0.06 1.0 9% 0.01 0.06 7% SAND/SILT 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS The proposed fish passage structure is not anticipated to induce morphologic change that will negatively affect the stream banks, profile, adjacent properties, or infrastructure. The project is not expected to produce excessive degradation (i.e., downcutting by erosion) or aggradation upstream or downstream of the project area. Flow downstream of the project area is subcritical (downstream dependent) and should not be affected by the upstream changes. The results of the HEC‐RAS modeling show flow at Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 15 comparable depths and velocities under both existing and project conditions. The 0.01 ft/ft (1%) slope of the project is fairly representative of local bed slopes in riffle sections of the stream. The upstream edge of the project was found to be under critical flow conditions for both the existing and project conditions. This indicates that flow upstream of the project site will be unaffected by changing hydraulics through the project reach. 8.0 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Construction of the proposed roughened channel will involve mobilizing construction equipment to the work area, removing the existing Bonde Weir, delivering materials to the work area, constructing reprofiled channel, installing scour protection, demobilizing, and installing erosion control measures along the edges of the work area and access route. Temporary construction access to the site will be coordinated with Cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Access through El Palo Alto Park from Palo Alto Avenue would likely require fewer disturbances to the stream banks and be less costly than access from the green space at the southerly end of Alma Street. An access ramp from Creek Drive to the streambed exists about 0.25 miles upstream of the project site. Construction access from this point requires traversing about a quarter mile of the streambed upstream of the project site and disturbing existing vegetation within the streambed. During earlier design phases, the resource agencies considered the disturbance to the streambed and vegetation to be too great to consider access from Creek Drive as a viable option. As noted above, the project will restore the access route to pre‐project conditions. NHC anticipates that the project will be constructed between June and mid‐October when San Francisquito Creek is not conveying water and the streambed is dry and groundwater levels are relatively deep below the streambed. Rainfall events are relatively rare during this time of year and generally do not produce significant flow. Based on the historic conditions, NHC believes construction will not include dewatering and fish rescue and relocation. Excavation within the streambed will be relatively shallow and is unlikely to intercept groundwater, which will limit the need to control water. Dam removal will involve demolishing the existing dam while protecting the existing concrete slope protection and removing and disposing of debris from the project site. Construction equipment will likely include a small excavator with a hydraulic breaker attachment to demolish the dam and excavator to load trucks. Debris will be disposed at a landfill or other approved site. Preliminary material estimates indicate that about 400 cubic yards of material will excavated from the site and about 180 cubic yards of the excavated sand and gravel will be stockpiled and mixed with imported engineered streambed material to construct the roughened channel. About 600 cubic yards of material will be imported. Construction will likely occur over a period of about 6 weeks and will be scheduled to end prior to October 15th. 9.0 REFERENCES California Department of Fish and Game. 1998. California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/manual.html Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 16 CalTrans. Standard Specifications, State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Department of Transportation. May 2006. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/conststand.html. 543 pp. FEMA. 1999. Flood Insurance Study, City of Menlo Park, California, San Mateo County. Community Number 060321. Revised April 21, 1999. http://msc.fema.gov. FEMA. 2003. Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, Appendix C: Guidance for Riverine Flooding Analyses and Mapping. April 2003. www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_cgs.shtm. Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data. 1982. Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency: Bulletin 17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee, Office of Water Data Coordination, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Transport Association of Canada. 2004. Guide to Bridge Hydraulics, 2nd Edition. Thomas Telford. 70 pp. USACE 1991. Hydraulic Design of Flood Control channels. Engineering and Design Manual. Engineering and Design Manual EM‐1110‐2‐1601, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DC. USACE. 2010. HEC‐RAS River Analysis System. Version 3.1.3. January 2010. Developed by the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center. www.hec.usace.army.mil. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report APPENDIX A: HYDROLOGY APPENDIX A: HYDROLOGY Contents: • PeakFQ Flow Frequency Output • Flow Frequency Plot • Flow Duration Plot 1 Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.000.000 Ver. 5.0 Beta 8 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time 05/06/2005 following Bulletin 17-B Guidelines 07/02/2007 17:04 --- PROCESSING OPTIONS --- Plot option = Graphics & Printer Basin char output = None Print option = Yes Debug print = No Input peaks listing = Long Input peaks format = WATSTORE peak file Input files used: peaks (ascii) - P:\50454\HYDROLOGY\FLOWFREQ\PKS06WS.TXT specifications - PKFQWPSF.TMP Output file(s): main - P:\50454\HYDROLOGY\FLOWFREQ\PKS06WS.PRT 1 Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.001.001 Ver. 5.0 Beta 8 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time 05/06/2005 following Bulletin 17-B Guidelines 07/02/2007 17:04 Station - 11164500 SAN FRANCISQUITO C A STANFORD UNIVERSITY CA I N P U T D A T A S U M M A R Y Number of peaks in record = 67 Peaks not used in analysis = 0 Systematic peaks in analysis = 67 Historic peaks in analysis = 0 Years of historic record = 0 Generalized skew = -0.300 Standard error = 0.550 Mean Square error = 0.303 Skew option = WEIGHTED Gage base discharge = 0.0 User supplied high outlier threshold = -- User supplied low outlier criterion = -- Plotting position parameter = 0.00 ********* NOTICE -- Preliminary machine computations. ********* ********* User responsible for assessment and interpretation. ********* WCF133I-SYSTEMATIC PEAKS BELOW GAGE BASE WERE NOTED. 1 0.0 WCF198I-LOW OUTLIERS BELOW FLOOD BASE WERE DROPPED. 1 49.9 WCF163I-NO HIGH OUTLIERS OR HISTORIC PEAKS EXCEEDED HHBASE. 24700.8 1 Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.001.002 Ver. 5.0 Beta 8 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time 05/06/2005 following Bulletin 17-B Guidelines 07/02/2007 17:04 Station - 11164500 SAN FRANCISQUITO C A STANFORD UNIVERSITY CA ANNUAL FREQUENCY CURVE PARAMETERS -- LOG-PEARSON TYPE III FLOOD BASE LOGARITHMIC ---------------------- ------------------------------- EXCEEDANCE STANDARD DISCHARGE PROBABILITY MEAN DEVIATION SKEW ------------------------------------------------------- SYSTEMATIC RECORD 0.0 0.9851 3.1164 0.5084 -1.652 BULL.17B ESTIMATE 49.9 0.9701 3.1386 0.4490 -0.797 ANNUAL FREQUENCY CURVE -- DISCHARGES AT SELECTED EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITIES ANNUAL 'EXPECTED 95-PCT CONFIDENCE LIMITS EXCEEDANCE BULL.17B SYSTEMATIC PROBABILITY' FOR BULL. 17B ESTIMATES PROBABILITY ESTIMATE RECORD ESTIMATE LOWER UPPER 0.9500 205.6 130.6 194.8 139.5 279.9 0.9000 345.6 276.7 334.9 250.9 449.3 0.8000 614.1 598.7 605.3 474.6 768.3 0.6667 997.7 1082.0 992.5 799.2 1229.0 0.5000 1576.0 1776.0 1576.0 1280.0 1952.0 0.4292 1877.0 2106.0 1880.0 1524.0 2341.0 0.2000 3334.0 3386.0 3365.0 2654.0 4347.0 0.1000 4595.0 4125.0 4666.0 3582.0 6199.0 0.0400 6157.0 4708.0 6302.0 4691.0 8606.0 0.0200 7253.0 4965.0 7466.0 5447.0 10350.0 0.0100 8272.0 5125.0 8559.0 6138.0 12020.0 0.0050 9215.0 5226.0 9579.0 6768.0 13590.0 0.0020 10350.0 5304.0 10810.0 7515.0 15500.0 1 Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.001.003 Ver. 5.0 Beta 8 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time 05/06/2005 following Bulletin 17-B Guidelines 07/02/2007 17:04 Station - 11164500 SAN FRANCISQUITO C A STANFORD UNIVERSITY CA I N P U T D A T A L I S T I N G WATER YEAR DISCHARGE CODES WATER YEAR DISCHARGE CODES 1931 0.0 1974 3410.0 1932 1160.0 1975 2190.0 1933 730.0 1976 82.0 1934 670.0 1977 82.0 1935 1560.0 1978 2470.0 1936 1660.0 1979 1330.0 1937 2620.0 1980 3300.0 1938 1330.0 1981 626.0 1939 120.0 1982 5220.0 1940 3100.0 1983 3420.0 1941 2410.0 1984 1700.0 1951 3650.0 1985 2270.0 1952 2320.0 1986 3480.0 1953 1950.0 1987 1540.0 1954 332.0 1988 712.0 1955 797.0 1989 394.0 1956 5560.0 1990 460.0 1957 125.0 1991 626.0 1958 4460.0 1992 2580.0 1959 868.0 1993 3010.0 1960 1020.0 1994 824.0 1961 12.0 1995 3320.0 1962 996.0 1996 1520.0 1963 3270.0 1997 3250.0 1964 948.0 1998 7200.0 1965 1120.0 1999 2640.0 1966 880.0 2000 3930.0 1967 4000.0 2001 621.0 1968 1130.0 2002 1060.0 1969 2300.0 2003 3730.0 1970 3110.0 2004 1980.0 1971 1000.0 2005 940.0 1972 700.0 2006 4840.0 1973 3390.0 Explanation of peak discharge qualification codes PEAKFQ NWIS CODE CODE DEFINITION D 3 Dam failure, non-recurrent flow anomaly G 8 Discharge greater than stated value X 3+8 Both of the above L 4 Discharge less than stated value K 6 OR C Known effect of regulation or urbanization H 7 Historic peak - Minus-flagged discharge -- Not used in computation -8888.0 -- No discharge value given - Minus-flagged water year -- Historic peak used in computation 1 Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.001.004 Ver. 5.0 Beta 8 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time 05/06/2005 following Bulletin 17-B Guidelines 07/02/2007 17:04 Station - 11164500 SAN FRANCISQUITO C A STANFORD UNIVERSITY CA EMPIRICAL FREQUENCY CURVES -- WEIBULL PLOTTING POSITIONS WATER RANKED SYSTEMATIC BULL.17B YEAR DISCHARGE RECORD ESTIMATE 1998 7200.0 0.0147 0.0147 1956 5560.0 0.0294 0.0294 1982 5220.0 0.0441 0.0441 2006 4840.0 0.0588 0.0588 1958 4460.0 0.0735 0.0735 1967 4000.0 0.0882 0.0882 2000 3930.0 0.1029 0.1029 2003 3730.0 0.1176 0.1176 1951 3650.0 0.1324 0.1324 1986 3480.0 0.1471 0.1471 1983 3420.0 0.1618 0.1618 1974 3410.0 0.1765 0.1765 1973 3390.0 0.1912 0.1912 1995 3320.0 0.2059 0.2059 1980 3300.0 0.2206 0.2206 1963 3270.0 0.2353 0.2353 1997 3250.0 0.2500 0.2500 1970 3110.0 0.2647 0.2647 1940 3100.0 0.2794 0.2794 1993 3010.0 0.2941 0.2941 1999 2640.0 0.3088 0.3088 1937 2620.0 0.3235 0.3235 1992 2580.0 0.3382 0.3382 1978 2470.0 0.3529 0.3529 1941 2410.0 0.3676 0.3676 1952 2320.0 0.3824 0.3824 1969 2300.0 0.3971 0.3971 1985 2270.0 0.4118 0.4118 1975 2190.0 0.4265 0.4265 2004 1980.0 0.4412 0.4412 1953 1950.0 0.4559 0.4559 1984 1700.0 0.4706 0.4706 1936 1660.0 0.4853 0.4853 1935 1560.0 0.5000 0.5000 1987 1540.0 0.5147 0.5147 1996 1520.0 0.5294 0.5294 1938 1330.0 0.5441 0.5441 1979 1330.0 0.5588 0.5588 1932 1160.0 0.5735 0.5735 1968 1130.0 0.5882 0.5882 1965 1120.0 0.6029 0.6029 2002 1060.0 0.6176 0.6176 1960 1020.0 0.6324 0.6324 1971 1000.0 0.6471 0.6471 1962 996.0 0.6618 0.6618 1964 948.0 0.6765 0.6765 2005 940.0 0.6912 0.6912 1966 880.0 0.7059 0.7059 1959 868.0 0.7206 0.7206 1994 824.0 0.7353 0.7353 1955 797.0 0.7500 0.7500 1933 730.0 0.7647 0.7647 1988 712.0 0.7794 0.7794 1972 700.0 0.7941 0.7941 1934 670.0 0.8088 0.8088 1981 626.0 0.8235 0.8235 1991 626.0 0.8382 0.8382 2001 621.0 0.8529 0.8529 1990 460.0 0.8676 0.8676 1989 394.0 0.8824 0.8824 1954 332.0 0.8971 0.8971 1957 125.0 0.9118 0.9118 1939 120.0 0.9265 0.9265 1976 82.0 0.9412 0.9412 1977 82.0 0.9559 0.9559 1961 12.0 0.9706 0.9706 1931 0.0 -- -- 1 Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.001.005 Ver. 5.0 Beta 8 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time 05/06/2005 following Bulletin 17-B Guidelines 07/02/2007 17:04 End PEAKFQ analysis. Stations processed : 1 Number of errors : 0 Stations skipped : 0 Station years : 67 Data records may have been ignored for the stations listed below. (Card type must be Y, Z, N, H, I, 2, 3, 4, or *.) (2, 4, and * records are ignored.) For the station below, the following records were ignored: FINISHED PROCESSING STATION: 11164500 USGS SAN FRANCISQUITO C A STANFORD For the station below, the following records were ignored: FINISHED PROCESSING STATION: 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 Percent of Time Exceeded Fl o w ( c f s ) San Francisquito Creek at Stanford University Flow Duration Curve for the period between 10/1/1963 to 10/9/1998 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report APPENDIX B: HEC‐RAS MODEL RESULTS A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P 1 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 nh c S A N F R A N C I S Q U I T O C R E E K Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report APPENDIX B: HYDRAULIC MODEL RESULTS 0 50 100 150 20042 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 Main Channel Distance (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS 100-Year - Project-rev WS 100-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Project-rev WS 25-Year - Exist-rev WS 10-Year - Project-rev WS 10-Year - Exist-rev Crit 100-Year - Project-rev Crit 100-Year - Exist-rev Crit 25-Year - Project-rev Crit 25-Year - Exist-rev Crit 10-Year - Project-rev Crit 10-Year - Exist-rev Ground Ground 200 213 250 260 270 279 285 300 333 BONDE CENTERLINE BONDE CENTERLINE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8040 45 50 55 60 65 70 RS = 333 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS 100-Year - Exist-rev Crit 100-Year - Exist-rev WS 100-Year - Project-rev Crit 100-Year - Project-rev WS 25-Year - Exist-rev Crit 25-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Project-rev Crit 25-Year - Project-rev WS 10-Year - Project-rev Crit 10-Year - Project-rev WS 10-Year - Exist-rev Crit 10-Year - Exist-rev Ground - Exist-rev Bank Sta - Exist-rev Ground - Project-rev Bank Sta - Project-rev Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 0 50 100 150 20040 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 RS = 300 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend Crit 100-Year - Project-rev Crit 100-Year - Exist-rev Crit 25-Year - Project-rev WS 100-Year - Project-rev Crit 25-Year - Exist-rev Crit 10-Year - Project-rev WS 100-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Project-rev Crit 10-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Exist-rev WS 10-Year - Project-rev WS 10-Year - Exist-rev Ground - Exist-rev Ineff - Exist-rev Bank Sta - Exist-rev Ground - Project-rev Ineff - Project-rev Bank Sta - Project-rev 0 50 100 150 20045 50 55 60 65 70 75 RS = 285 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS 25-Year - Exist-rev Crit 100-Year - Project-rev Crit 100-Year - Exist-rev WS 10-Year - Exist-rev Crit 25-Year - Project-rev Crit 25-Year - Exist-rev WS 10-Year - Project-rev WS 100-Year - Project-rev WS 100-Year - Exist-rev Crit 10-Year - Project-rev Crit 10-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Project-rev Ground - Exist-rev Ineff - Exist-rev Bank Sta - Exist-rev Ground - Project-rev Ineff - Project-rev Bank Sta - Project-rev Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 0 20 40 60 80 10045 50 55 60 65 70 75 RS = 279 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend Crit 100-Year - Exist-rev Crit 100-Year - Project-rev WS 100-Year - Exist-rev Crit 25-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Exist-rev Crit 25-Year - Project-rev WS 10-Year - Project-rev WS 100-Year - Project-rev Crit 10-Year - Exist-rev WS 10-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Project-rev Ground - Exist-rev Bank Sta - Exist-rev Ground - Project-rev Bank Sta - Project-rev 0 50 100 150 20040 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 RS = 270 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS 100-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Exist-rev Crit 100-Year - Project-rev WS 10-Year - Exist-rev WS 10-Year - Project-rev Crit 25-Year - Project-rev Crit 100-Year - Exist-rev WS 100-Year - Project-rev Crit 10-Year - Project-rev WS 25-Year - Project-rev Crit 25-Year - Exist-rev Crit 10-Year - Exist-rev Ground - Exist-rev Ineff - Exist-rev Bank Sta - Exist-rev Ground - Project-rev Ineff - Project-rev Bank Sta - Project-rev Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 0 20 40 60 80 10040 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 RS = 260 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS 100-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Project-rev Crit 100-Year - Project-rev WS 10-Year - Exist-rev WS 10-Year - Project-rev Crit 25-Year - Project-rev WS 100-Year - Project-rev Ground - Exist-rev Bank Sta - Exist-rev Ground - Project-rev Bank Sta - Project-rev 0 50 100 150 20040 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 RS = 250 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS 100-Year - Exist-rev WS 100-Year - Project-rev WS 25-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Project-rev Crit 100-Year - Project-rev WS 10-Year - Exist-rev WS 10-Year - Project-rev Crit 100-Year - Exist-rev Crit 25-Year - Project-rev Crit 25-Year - Exist-rev Crit 10-Year - Project-rev Crit 10-Year - Exist-rev Ground - Exist-rev Ineff - Exist-rev Bank Sta - Exist-rev Ground - Project-rev Ineff - Project-rev Bank Sta - Project-rev Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 0 20 40 60 80 10040 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 RS = 213 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS 100-Year - Project-rev WS 100-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Project-rev WS 10-Year - Exist-rev WS 10-Year - Project-rev Ground - Exist-rev Bank Sta - Exist-rev Ground - Project-rev Bank Sta - Project-rev 0 50 100 150 20040 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 RS = 200 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS 100-Year - Exist-rev WS 100-Year - Project-rev WS 25-Year - Project-rev WS 25-Year - Exist-rev Crit 100-Year - Exist-rev Crit 100-Year - Project-rev WS 10-Year - Project-rev WS 10-Year - Exist-rev Crit 25-Year - Exist-rev Crit 25-Year - Project-rev Crit 10-Year - Exist-rev Crit 10-Year - Project-rev Ground - Exist-rev Ineff - Exist-rev Bank Sta - Exist-rev Ground - Project-rev Ineff - Project-rev Bank Sta - Project-rev Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report 0 50 100 150 20040 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 RS = 150 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS 100-Year - Exist-rev WS 100-Year - Project-rev WS 25-Year - Exist-rev WS 25-Year - Project-rev WS 10-Year - Exist-rev WS 10-Year - Project-rev Crit 100-Year - Exist-rev Crit 100-Year - Project-rev Crit 25-Year - Exist-rev Crit 25-Year - Project-rev Crit 10-Year - Exist-rev Crit 10-Year - Project-rev Ground - Exist-rev Ineff - Exist-rev Bank Sta - Exist-rev Ground - Project-rev Ineff - Project-rev Bank Sta - Project-rev Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report Reach River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BONDE CENTERLINE 333 100‐ Year Project‐ rev 8272.00 44.00 59.17 59.17 64.63 0.010354 18.92 458.01 44.35 0.97 BONDE CENTERLINE 333 100‐ Year Exist‐ rev 8272.00 44.00 59.23 59.23 65.09 0.008584 19.74 460.64 44.46 0.95 BONDE CENTERLINE 333 25‐Year Project‐ rev 6157.00 44.00 56.84 56.84 61.62 0.011018 17.63 359.44 40.21 0.98 BONDE CENTERLINE 333 25‐Year Exist‐ rev 6157.00 44.00 56.88 56.88 61.90 0.009391 18.14 361.07 40.28 0.97 BONDE CENTERLINE 333 10‐Year Project‐ rev 4595.00 44.00 54.96 54.96 59.04 0.011481 16.25 286.90 36.86 0.99 BONDE CENTERLINE 333 10‐Year Exist‐ rev 4595.00 44.00 54.94 54.94 59.20 0.010264 16.64 285.99 36.82 0.98 BONDE CENTERLINE 300 100‐ Year Project‐ rev 8272.00 43.61 55.04 57.54 63.79 0.025268 23.74 348.48 42.66 1.46 BONDE CENTERLINE 300 100‐ Year Exist‐ rev 8272.00 43.61 53.74 56.97 64.14 0.031182 25.88 319.63 40.78 1.63 BONDE CENTERLINE 300 25‐Year Project‐ rev 6157.00 43.61 53.44 55.57 60.83 0.025456 21.81 282.27 40.36 1.45 BONDE CENTERLINE 300 25‐Year Exist‐ rev 6157.00 43.61 52.21 54.92 61.00 0.031413 23.79 258.76 38.58 1.62 BONDE CENTERLINE 300 10‐Year Project‐ rev 4595.00 43.61 52.12 53.87 58.30 0.025433 19.95 230.37 38.46 1.44 BONDE CENTERLINE 300 10‐Year Exist‐ rev 4595.00 43.61 50.92 53.18 58.33 0.031648 21.85 210.33 36.67 1.61 BONDE CENTERLINE 285 100‐ Year Project‐ rev 8272.00 45.00 54.66 57.17 63.20 0.048942 23.51 356.68 52.39 1.53 BONDE CENTERLINE 285 100‐ Year Exist‐ rev 8272.00 45.42 54.31 56.96 63.29 0.026359 24.07 347.82 51.84 1.58 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report BONDE CENTERLINE 285 25‐Year Project‐ rev 6157.00 45.00 53.71 55.42 60.02 0.043432 20.17 307.41 50.86 1.41 BONDE CENTERLINE 285 25‐Year Exist‐ rev 6157.00 45.42 57.25 55.20 59.69 0.004565 12.59 506.96 56.47 0.70 BONDE CENTERLINE 285 10‐Year Project‐ rev 4595.00 45.00 54.96 53.97 57.39 0.013200 12.53 372.30 52.87 0.80 BONDE CENTERLINE 285 10‐Year Exist‐ rev 4595.00 45.42 55.67 53.77 57.61 0.004528 11.20 419.73 53.98 0.68 BONDE CENTERLINE 279 100‐ Year Project‐ rev 8272.00 45.00 54.45 56.89 62.87 0.047661 23.41 362.16 55.01 1.52 BONDE CENTERLINE 279 100‐ Year Exist‐ rev 8272.00 46.08 55.70 57.38 62.58 0.008536 21.18 409.94 57.33 1.31 BONDE CENTERLINE 279 25‐Year Project‐ rev 6157.00 45.00 53.53 55.24 59.72 0.041794 20.04 312.27 53.02 1.39 BONDE CENTERLINE 279 25‐Year Exist‐ rev 6157.00 46.08 55.63 55.63 59.51 0.004862 15.90 406.16 57.25 0.99 BONDE CENTERLINE 279 10‐Year Project‐ rev 4595.00 45.00 55.05 57.24 0.011233 11.97 395.45 56.33 0.75 BONDE CENTERLINE 279 10‐Year Exist‐ rev 4595.00 46.08 54.23 54.23 57.45 0.005184 14.45 327.59 54.56 0.99 BONDE CENTERLINE 270 100‐ Year Project‐ rev 8272.00 45.00 53.69 56.31 62.38 0.058426 23.73 354.06 60.55 1.68 BONDE CENTERLINE 270 100‐ Year Exist‐ rev 8272.00 42.73 58.87 54.39 60.72 0.001230 10.96 794.01 66.93 0.53 BONDE CENTERLINE 270 25‐Year Project‐ rev 6157.00 45.00 52.89 54.74 59.29 0.051643 20.34 306.02 59.77 1.55 BONDE CENTERLINE 270 25‐Year Exist‐ rev 6157.00 42.73 57.12 52.80 58.49 0.001099 9.43 678.27 65.24 0.49 BONDE CENTERLINE 270 10‐Year Project‐ rev 4595.00 45.00 55.35 53.46 56.99 0.008030 10.32 457.40 63.38 0.65 BONDE 270 10‐Year Exist‐4595.00 42.73 55.60 51.52 56.62 0.000984 8.12 580.67 63.68 0.45 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report CENTERLINE rev BONDE CENTERLINE 260 100‐ Year Project‐ rev 8272.00 45.00 53.58 55.98 61.63 0.053290 22.82 367.13 62.05 1.60 BONDE CENTERLINE 260 100‐ Year Exist‐ rev 8272.00 42.48 58.96 60.65 0.002095 10.53 831.17 72.48 0.51 BONDE CENTERLINE 260 25‐Year Project‐ rev 6157.00 45.00 56.88 54.42 58.71 0.007032 10.97 582.47 68.44 0.62 BONDE CENTERLINE 260 25‐Year Exist‐ rev 6157.00 42.48 57.17 58.44 0.001893 9.10 704.50 69.07 0.47 BONDE CENTERLINE 260 10‐Year Project‐ rev 4595.00 45.00 55.40 56.86 0.006945 9.75 483.48 65.58 0.60 BONDE CENTERLINE 260 10‐Year Exist‐ rev 4595.00 42.48 55.64 56.59 0.001702 7.86 600.86 66.04 0.43 BONDE CENTERLINE 250 100‐ Year Project‐ rev 8272.00 45.00 58.62 55.81 60.79 0.007231 11.87 711.17 71.79 0.63 BONDE CENTERLINE 250 100‐ Year Exist‐ rev 8272.00 43.14 58.87 54.75 60.62 0.002500 10.67 793.59 72.21 0.54 BONDE CENTERLINE 250 25‐Year Project‐ rev 6157.00 45.00 56.88 54.32 58.61 0.007195 10.56 589.24 68.43 0.61 BONDE CENTERLINE 250 25‐Year Exist‐ rev 6157.00 43.14 57.06 53.17 58.41 0.002374 9.34 666.32 68.89 0.51 BONDE CENTERLINE 250 10‐Year Project‐ rev 4595.00 45.00 55.39 53.02 56.77 0.007263 9.43 488.91 65.69 0.60 BONDE CENTERLINE 250 10‐Year Exist‐ rev 4595.00 43.14 55.52 51.80 56.56 0.002260 8.20 562.44 65.93 0.48 BONDE CENTERLINE 213 100‐ Year Project‐ rev 8272.00 44.00 57.90 60.46 0.008720 12.96 663.08 72.28 0.70 BONDE CENTERLINE 213 100‐ Year Exist‐ rev 8272.00 43.76 57.90 60.43 0.004132 12.85 672.42 72.27 0.69 BONDE 213 25‐Year Project‐6157.00 44.00 56.22 58.28 0.008750 11.57 544.92 68.34 0.68 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report CENTERLINE rev BONDE CENTERLINE 213 25‐Year Exist‐ rev 6157.00 43.76 56.24 58.24 0.004048 11.38 555.77 68.38 0.66 BONDE CENTERLINE 213 10‐Year Project‐ rev 4595.00 44.00 54.78 56.44 0.008872 10.37 448.85 64.84 0.67 BONDE CENTERLINE 213 10‐Year Exist‐ rev 4595.00 43.76 54.81 56.40 0.004004 10.11 460.77 64.93 0.64 BONDE CENTERLINE 200 100‐ Year Project‐ rev 8272.00 43.61 57.89 55.69 60.36 0.003685 13.27 739.41 81.30 0.67 BONDE CENTERLINE 200 100‐ Year Exist‐ rev 8272.00 43.61 57.89 55.69 60.36 0.003685 13.27 739.41 81.30 0.67 BONDE CENTERLINE 200 25‐Year Project‐ rev 6157.00 43.61 56.21 54.08 58.19 0.003532 11.76 606.02 77.06 0.64 BONDE CENTERLINE 200 25‐Year Exist‐ rev 6157.00 43.61 56.20 54.08 58.19 0.003535 11.76 605.84 77.05 0.64 BONDE CENTERLINE 200 10‐Year Project‐ rev 4595.00 43.61 54.76 52.59 56.35 0.003383 10.42 497.40 73.30 0.61 BONDE CENTERLINE 200 10‐Year Exist‐ rev 4595.00 43.61 54.76 52.59 56.35 0.003385 10.43 497.30 73.30 0.61 BONDE CENTERLINE 150 100‐ Year Project‐ rev 8272.00 43.66 58.49 54.36 59.91 0.002001 9.77 931.83 97.49 0.50 BONDE CENTERLINE 150 100‐ Year Exist‐ rev 8272.00 43.66 58.49 54.36 59.91 0.002001 9.77 931.83 97.49 0.50 BONDE CENTERLINE 150 25‐Year Project‐ rev 6157.00 43.66 56.65 52.88 57.81 0.002000 8.74 757.46 92.39 0.48 BONDE CENTERLINE 150 25‐Year Exist‐ rev 6157.00 43.66 56.65 52.88 57.81 0.002000 8.74 757.46 92.39 0.48 BONDE CENTERLINE 150 10‐Year Project‐ rev 4595.00 43.66 55.09 51.73 56.03 0.002003 7.83 615.99 87.03 0.47 BONDE CENTERLINE 150 10‐Year Exist‐ rev 4595.00 43.66 55.09 51.73 56.03 0.002003 7.83 615.99 87.03 0.47 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report Reach River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BONDE CENTERLINE 333 100‐ Year Project‐ rev 8272.00 44.00 59.17 59.17 64.63 0.010354 18.92 458.01 44.35 0.97 BONDE CENTERLINE 333 100‐ Year Exist‐ rev 8272.00 44.00 59.23 59.23 65.09 0.008584 19.74 460.64 44.46 0.95 BONDE CENTERLINE 333 25‐Year Project‐ rev 6157.00 44.00 56.84 56.84 61.62 0.011018 17.63 359.44 40.21 0.98 BONDE CENTERLINE 333 25‐Year Exist‐ rev 6157.00 44.00 56.88 56.88 61.90 0.009391 18.14 361.07 40.28 0.97 BONDE CENTERLINE 333 10‐Year Project‐ rev 4595.00 44.00 54.96 54.96 59.04 0.011481 16.25 286.90 36.86 0.99 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report APPENDIX C: ROCK SIZING CALCULATIONS Bonde Weir Fish Passage Project Rock Scour Protection Analysis Date: 7/5/2012 By: jh, bw PERCENT OF MIX ROCK SIZE, ft min max 16% 2.5 4.0 34% 1.0 2.5 34% 0.06 1.0 9% 0.01 0.06 7% SAND/SILT Hydraulic Characteristics qf = 165.4 ft3/s/ft Unit discharge in Main Channel Q100 = 8270 ft3/s 1pct AEP (100‐year peak flow) W = 50 ft Main channel width So = 0.01 ft/ft Channel slope = 0.01 ft/ft, USACE (1991) Channel Bed Rock Sizing So = 0.01 ft/ft Channel slope q*1 = 165.4 ft3/s/ft Unit discharge g = 32.2 ft/s2 gravitational acceleration sf = 1 factor of safety D30 = 1.66 ft Abt and Johnson (1990) So = 0.01 ft/ft channel slope q = 165.4 ft2/s design unit discharge fq sizing factor 1.35 ‐ sizing factor qsizing = 223 ft2/s unit discharge for sizing φe = 1.2 ‐ coefficient for the empirical envelope on the regression φc = 1.2 ‐ coefficient for flow concentration assuming sheet flow a = 1 - Shape factor D30 = 1.43 ft D50 = 1.79 ft Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report USACE (1991) Channel Bed Rock Sizing So = 0.01 ft/ft q = 165.4 ft2/s g = 32.2 lbm*ft/s2 nsed= 0.40 - D30-CORPS = 1.66 ft DFG Engineered Bed Material Size D8-ESM = 0.010 ft D16-ESM = 0.06 ft D50-ESM = 1.0 ft D84-ESM = 2.5 ft D100-ESM (calc) = 6.24 ft Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report APPENDIX D: 30% DESIGN DRAWINGS Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Bonde Weir Fish Passage Basis of Design Report APPENDIX D: 30% DESIGN DRAWINGS May 10, 2013 State Coastal Conservancy Doug Bosco, Chair Attn: Amy Hutzel 1330 Broadway, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612-‐2530 Dear Mr. Bosco, I am writing to offer my support for the application of the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District to the California State Coastal Conservancy to complete the Bonde Weir Passage Project on San Francisquito Creek. This project will improve passage for threatened steelhead trout and contribute to the overall restoration of San Francisquito Creek. Acterra works with local agencies and other partners to steward several creekside habitat areas on San Francisquito Creek. We bring hundreds of volunteers each year to remove invasive non-‐native plants and install locally native plants grown at our native plant nursery. Volunteers learn about local ecology and actions they can take to improve watershed health. One of our longstanding restoration sites is El Palo Alto Park, which is adjacent to the Bonde Weir project. This year alone we have held 5 volunteer days at this site and hosted a Coastal Cleanup Day event on this reach of creek. We are pleased to work with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District to see this project accomplished with funding from the California State Coastal Conservancy. During construction, Acterra will recruit and organize volunteers to assist in revegetation and maintenance efforts, using plants supplied by our nursery, which has growing plants local to the San Francisquito Watershed for over 15 years. Since the project is in a residential area and equipment must be staged inside a popular park, we expect this will be a great opportunity to increase the community’s understanding about San Francisquito Creek and efforts to support the steelhead who depend on the creek for their survival. Additionally, we plan to continue our ongoing stewardship work at El Palo Alto Park in future years, and can therefore serve as “eyes on the creek” for this project site as it evolves. Please contact me if I can provide any other information about my organization and our support for the Bonde Weir fish passage project. I can be reached at junkob@acterra.org or 650-‐962-‐9876 x347. Sincerely, Junko Bryant Watershed Program Coordinator Acterra Action for a Healthy Planet 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto ca 94303-4303 tel 650.962.9876 fax 650.962.8234 www.Acterra.org info@Acterra.org 650-324-1972 * jpa@sfcjpa.org * 615 B Menlo Avenue * Menlo Park, CA 94025 sfcjpa.org East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, San Mateo County Flood Control District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District May 7, 2013 California State Coastal Conservancy Doug Bosco, Chair 1330 Broadway, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612-2530 SUBJECT: San Mateo County Resource Conservation District application for grant funding to construct the Bonde Weir Fish Passage Improvement Project Dear Mr. Bosco, I am writing to express support of the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District’s application to the State Coastal Conservancy for construction funding for the Bonde Weir Fish Passage Improvement Project. The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) is a regional government agency established to plan and implement projects that enhance flood protection, ecosystem restoration, and recreation within the San Francisquito Creek watershed and floodplain. Member Agencies of the SFCJPA include the cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Palo Alto, the San Mateo County Flood Control District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Bonde Weir represents the largest and most significant barrier to steelhead migration on main- stem San Francisquito Creek. The SFCJPA is pleased to have begun working with a new partner, the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District, which has taken the lead on implementation of this important project. The project, when completed, will provide for improved passage for both in-migrating adult and out-migrating smolt steelhead in a watershed identified as key to the regional restoration efforts for the Central California Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit of the species. The project is complimentary to the efforts of the SFCJPA, its member agencies, and the comprehensive restoration vision of the communities it serves. Please contact me directly at kmurray@sfcjpa.org or 650.324.1972 if you would like more information on the SFCJPA’s activities or our support of the proposed project. Sincerely, Kevin Murray Project Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 3731) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/10/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Utilities Compliance Services Contract Title: Approval of Utilities Compliance Services Contract with Eric Scott, in an Amount Not to Exceed $100,000 for Managing Compliance Activities Covering Electric, Natural Gas, Water, and Wastewater Collection Utility Services From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Eric Scott, Energy Consultant, in a not-to-exceed amount of $100,000 for managing all City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) compliance activities covering electric, natural gas, water, and wastewater collection utility services. While this is a not-to- exceed contract, all efforts will be made to hire a permanent Utilities Compliance Manager as soon as possible in order to minimize the total costs under this contract. Executive Summary The City is actively recruiting for the Utilities Compliance Manager position now with an anticipated start date for the successful candidate by September, 2013. Meanwhile, the recommended contract will allow the City to meet essential ongoing regulatory compliance obligations for the City’s gas, electric, water and wastewater utility services for a transitional period from June 10, 2013, until a full-time replacement Utilities Compliance Manager (Compliance Manager) is hired and trained. The contract will end no later than December 31, 2013. The consultant will also provide mentoring and support to the newly hired Compliance Manager to ensure a smooth transition. The not-to-exceed amount of this contract includes expenses related to meetings and events at which attendance by or representation of the City is significant or necessary for the City’s compliance obligations (and is approved by the Utilities Director), and assumes up to 500 hours of consultation at a rate of $165/hour ($82,500). Background The City’s utilities deliver services that are highly regulated by regional, state and federal City of Palo Alto Page 2 agencies. Failure to comply with regulations results in findings of violations accompanied by increased reporting requirements and monetary penalties of from $25/day (and/or imprisonment in a county jail) to $1,000,000/day depending on the regulating agency and where the agencies determine such to be appropriate. As a result of the increasing regulatory requirements, the City established a Compliance Manager position to manage the many compliance programs. The most qualified candidate would bring industry and regulatory experience in gas, electric, water and wastewater collection utilities. In 2011, the City hired a Compliance Manager, Eric Scott. During his tenure, Scott established and systematized the maze of external reporting requirements for the four regulated utilities through development of an internal system for tracking all of the Utilities regulatory reporting requirements; developed and coordinated the City’s responses to notifications of deficiencies from regulatory agencies including the Department of Transportation for the Gas Distribution Integrity Management Plan, the Public Awareness of Gas Safety, and the Gas Operator Qualification programs; the state’s Water Quality Control Board for sanitary sewer overflows; the state’s Department of Public Health Services for a reportable water quality (coliform) event; and discovered, reported and fixed certain electric reliability documentation and reporting deficiencies with the Western Electricity Coordinating Council. As a result of Scott’s efforts, during his tenure there have been no fines or penalties. Prior to establishing the Compliance Manager position and hiring Scott, there was no departmental focal point for managing all of the Utilities compliance obligations. Scott provided that focal point and was recognized as the point person both within Utilities and by regulatory agencies. After 19 months of full-time City service, Eric Scott elected to voluntarily leave the City, and pursue consulting. Since Scott’s departure, the City has hired him on a short-term ( 4 month, $50,000 contract to complete time-sensitive obligations until such time as a longer-term contract (6 month, 500 hours, $100,000), can be approved by the Council. The 4 month contract began on March 1, will be extinguished once this longer term contract is approved, and required a significant number of hours of consultation to meet immediate regulatory filing deadlines. The longer-term contract is the mechanism that bridges the department to the time a full-time regular Compliance Manager is hired and trained. Discussion In fiscal year 2010-11, CPAU added a Compliance Manager position to better manage the increasing regulatory compliance requirements in our utility services including electric, natural gas, water, and wastewater collection. Each individual utility service has its own compliance programs, reporting requirements, penalties for non-compliance, and safety and reliability goals. Penalties range from $25/day/violation (California Department of Public Health Services which regulates the water utility; Health and Safety code Section 116650) to $15,000/day (State Water Quality Control Board which regulates the wastewater collection utility; Water Code City of Palo Alto Page 3 Section 13350), to up to $1,000,000/day for violations deemed to be both high risk and severe by the North American Reliability Corporation which regulates the electric utility (NERC rules of Procedure, Appendix 4B). In addition to managing the regulatory compliance of our four utility operations, the Compliance Manager is responsible for addressing new developments and changes in legislation and requirements of various regulatory agencies governing our utilities. The Compliance Manager acts as the principal representative to regulatory agencies, partner cities, and State/Federal organizations including, Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Department of Public Health Services (CDPH), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), State Water Quality Control Board, Federal Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Energy Commission (CEC), Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) for the City of Palo Alto. CPAU is actively recruiting the new Utilities Compliance Manager with the assistance of a professional recruiter to ensure a robust pool of candidates. The ideal replacement candidate will have (1) the technical knowledge of all of the utility services, (2) an ability to research/investigate, understand, and develop responses to regulations at all levels, (3) high initiative to identify and join various industry coalition efforts, and (4) a demonstrated ability to work internally with staff. To ensure the transition period for the new Compliance Manager occurs smoothly, CPAU anticipates that the new Compliance Manager may benefit from mentoring in one or more of the competencies. While the search for a replacement Compliance Manager is conducted, this not-to-exceed $100,000 contract, obtained through the competitive solicitation process, is recommended to backfill the compliance responsibilities and to train the new hire. The contractor will provide utilities compliance services during this transitional period and will also be responsible for further developing and implementing internal compliance programs to systematize our ability to respond to existing and new requirements. Scope of Services Description The consultant will manage ongoing compliance obligations for the following utility services: Electric: • Compliance with the Electric Reliability Standards as administered by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) including participation in new standard development/evaluation, self- certifications, violation self-reporting, violation resolution, mitigation plan development/implementation, internal compliance plan development /implementation City of Palo Alto Page 4 and participation in industry activities (WECC Compliance User’s Group and Western Interconnection Compliance Forum [WICF]). Identification of impacts of new regulations adopted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (Note: As a result of an audit conducted in 2008, the City was fined for violations relating to documentation required by the WECC which were not the result of actual safety incidents. More recently, under the initiative of the Compliance Manager, the City identified and self-reported documentation omissions to WECC and was able to avoid any fines.) • California Public Utilities Commission General Orders 95, 128, 165 and 174 dealing with rules for construction of overhead and underground electric facilities and inspection of electric distribution and substation facilities. Gas: • Compliance with federally mandated standards in regards to training and qualifications for inspectors (i.e. 49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192 and 199). This includes oversight of preparation, revision and implementation of required compliance documents – Gas Operations & Maintenance Plan, Public Awareness Plan, Operator Qualification Plan and Distribution Integrity Management Plan as well as interaction with the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) regarding inspections and resolution of any probable violations. From 2009 to 2013, the City went through in-depth investigation and review of the City’s Gas Operator Qualification (OQ) program. While there have been no findings, the City expended significant staff and consultant time to bring its OQ program into compliance. The program requires not only regular maintenance including timely qualification and re-qualification of employees working on the City’s gas system, but also regular reporting and updated program submissions to the DOT which are overseen by the Compliance Manager. Water: • Compliance with drinking water regulations established by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) under Titles 17 & 22 of the California Code of Regulations. CPAU must have plans addressing Water Quality Monitoring, Water System Operation and Disaster/Emergency Response and CDPH performs an annual inspection of the water system. Water quality is tested weekly. Any test results that exceed standards must be reported and mitigated according to California Code requirements Wastewater Collection: • Compliance with wastewater collection as regulated by the State Water Resources City of Palo Alto Page 5 Control Board and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board under Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ (Sanitary Sewer Order) and Order No. 2008-0002-EXEC (Amended MRP). CPAU must maintain and implement a Sewer System Management Plan to be in compliance with these Orders. Sewer System Overflows must be properly documented, mitigated and reported and inspections of the sewer system and management plans are conducted by the agencies. Evaluation of Proposals CPAU issued a request for proposals (RFP) seeking a consultant to provide regulatory compliance services for our four heavily-regulated utilities. The RFP was posted on the City’s website and sent to four consulting firms. Two bids were submitted. The criteria used to evaluate the proposals included: technical expertise in each of the utility services – electric, natural gas, water, and wastewater collection; regulatory management experience; quality, performance, and effectiveness of the work plan; and cost. Eric Scott submitted one of the bids and staff recommends the contract be awarded to him because of his expertise in all four utilities, understanding of regulatory requirements, and commitment to mentor the new Compliance Manager. Summary of Solicitation Process Proposal Description Contract Utilities Compliance Manager Proposed Length of Contract: 1 Year Total Days to Respond to RFP: 3 weeks Pre-proposal Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 via Teleconference Number of Proposals Received: 2 Proposals Received from: Location (City, State) Selected for oral interview? Eric Scott, Energy Consultant Oakland, CA No Bureau Veritas of North America Sacramento, CA No Resource Impact Funding of $50,000 is available in the FY 2013 Utilities Administration Fund. The remaining $50,000 has been identified in the FY 2014 Utilities Administration Fund. The hourly rate for the services is $165 and includes expenses related to meetings and events at which attendance City of Palo Alto Page 6 by or representation of the City is significant or necessary for the City’s compliance obligations. Thus, all travel and expenses are included in the not-to-exceed contract of $100,000. The contract will accommodate up to 500 hours of consulting services and estimated $15,000 of travel and meeting expenses. Consulting services will be required in accordance with the City’s compliance obligations for its electric, natural gas, water, and wastewater collection utilities and to resolve any notices of violations received from any of the City’s regulators. Additional activities and tasks include devising and implementing a strategy leading to deregistration of the City from the NERC Reliability Standards; representing the City in negotiations with regulators as well as working within industry groups to influence the development of regulations; and assisting with the recruitment and development of the permanent replacement of the Utilities Compliance Manager. Policy Implications This contract does not represent any change to existing City policies. Attachments:  Attachment A: Contract (PDF) Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C13148908 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND ERIC R. SCOTT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 10th day of June, 2013, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and ERIC R. SCOTT, a sole proprietor, located at 5900 Bagshotte Drive, Oakland, CA 94611 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to manage all CPAU compliance activities and obligations (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide these services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31, 2013 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical expertis necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement. CONSULTANT represents that it, has and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. N/A. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. N/A. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Eric Scott as the Project Supervisor to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City’s project manager is Dave Yuan, Utilities Department, Administration Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Telephone: (650)329-2522. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. Subject to Section 18.4, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys’ fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification, CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4: Limitation on Damages: Damages shall be limited in the aggregate to the full amount of insurance set forth herein plus one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) during any twelve (12) month period, for any alleged breach or loss. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will discontinue its performance of the Services as of the date the notice becomes effective. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event that: (a) CITY substantially fails to perform; or (b) CITY agrees, based on CONSULTANT’s request and submission of appropriate documentation, to early termination due to changed circumstances that substantially interfere with CONSULTANT’s ability to perform. CITY shall not unreasonably withhold agreement under condition 19.2(b). 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 30 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements:  All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.  Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.  Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed 1.0 be a part of this Agreoment 25.8 If, plJl'Suant to this contract with CONSULT At'lT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal infolll1<.tion as defined in California Civil Code sectioll 1798.81.5(d) about II California resident ("Personal Tnformatioo"), CONSULTANT shall maintainreasanable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and sh!i11 inform City immedimely l1Pon learning that there has been a breach in the securiJy of the system or in the security ofthePersonal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal hrfarm!ltion far diroot marketing purposes without City's express written consent. 25.9 All ul1checlced boxes do not apply to this agrooment. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. IN WlTNESS WHBREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representarivas e>;ecuted tflis Agreement on the date fi rBl above written. CITY OF PALO AL 1'0 Contracts Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Ass!. City Attorney Attachments: EXHIBIT ~ A"; EXHIBIT "B"; EXHIBIT "Cn : EXI-llBIT "C-l "; EXt-nEtT "D": SCOPE OF WORK SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION SCfIEDULE OF RATES INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS f>t'ttJ'¢!lIionnl SurvicC1l HIW.4Ulll.i2,2fiUl Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES Description The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (CPAU) requires CONSULTANT to manage all CPAU compliance activities for electric, natural gas, water, and wastewater collection utility services and obligations for a transitional period while CPAU management identifies, hires and prepares a replacement Utilities Compliance Manager to fill a recently created vacancy. Activities and Tasks 1. Manage ongoing compliance obligations for each utility service – electricity, natural gas, water, and wastewater collection. Electric:  Compliance with the Electric Reliability Standards as administered by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) including participation in new standard development/evaluation, self-certifications, violation self-reporting, violation resolution, mitigation plan development/implementation, internal compliance plan development/implementation and participation in industry activities (WECC Compliance User’s Group and Western Interconnection Compliance Forum [WICF]).  California Public Utilities Commission General Orders 95, 128, 165 and 174 dealing with rules for construction of overhead and underground facilities and inspection of distribution and substation facilities. Gas:  Compliance with federally mandated standards in 49 CFR Sections 40, 190, 191, 192 and 199. This includes oversight of preparation, revision and implementation of required compliance documents – Gas Operations & Maintenance Plan, Public Awareness Plan, Operator Qualification Plan and Distribution Integrity Management Plan and interaction with the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration regarding inspections and resolution of any probable violations. Water:  Drinking water is regulated by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) under Titles 17 & 22 of the California Code of Regulations. CPAU must have plans addressing Water Quality Monitoring, Water System Operation and Disaster/Emergency Response and CDPH performs an annual inspection of the water Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 system. Water quality is tested weekly. Any test results that exceed standards must be reported and mitigated according to California Code requirements. Wastewater Collection:  Wastewater collection is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board under Order No. 2006- 0003-DWQ (Sanitary Sewer Order) and Order No. 2008-0002-EXEC (Amended MRP) for Palo Alto Regional Collection System. CPAU must maintain and implement a Sewer System Management Plan to be in compliance with these Orders. Sewer System Overflows must be properly documented, mitigated and reported. 2. Manage all actions necessary to analyze, mitigate and resolve notices of violations received by CPAU for any utility service. 3. Develop and implement specific policy initiatives with respect to regulatory and compliance matters. For example, in conjunction with the City Attorney’s Office, devise and implement a strategy leading to deregistration of the City from the NERC Reliability Standards. 4. Identify and track all internal and external reporting obligations. 5. Provide advice and counsel to the Utilities Director as well as Engineering, Operations, Resource Management and Utility Customer Support Services personnel regarding specific compliance questions. 6. Represent CPAU at regulatory entity and industry events such as the WECC Compliance User Group Meetings, WICF Meetings and Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Meetings. 7. Assist the Utilities Director with putting in place a permanent replacement Utilities Compliance Manager. Provide mentoring and coaching to the replacement Utilities Compliance Manager. Deliverables 1. All required compliance management services, as described above, for the transitional period. 2. Mentoring and coaching services such that the replacement Utilities Compliance Manager is prepared to assume all responsibilities of the position by the end of the transitional period. Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Days/Weeks From NTP 1. Electric December 31, 2013 2. Gas December 31, 2013 3. Water December 31, 2013 4. Wastewater December 31, 2013 5. Other December 31, 2013 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $100,000. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Task 1 – All required compliance management services, $82,500 includes mentoring services Task 2 – Travel and Reimbursable Expenses $17,500 Includes: a.) Three WECC/WICF CUG Joint Meetings $ 5,000 b.) Two trips to WECC’s offices $ 3,000 c.) One trip to Washington, D.C. $ 3,000 d.) Unforeseen Travel $ 6,500 $ 17,500 Not to Exceed Amount $100,000 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. Professional Services EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Consultant Services $165 per Hour Professional Services EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS Professional Services ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 10, 2013 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointment of Michael Alcheck and Eduardo Martinez to the Planning & Transportation Commission for Four Year Terms Ending July 31, 2017 and James Cook and Garth Hall to the Utilities Advisory Commission for Three Year Terms Ending July 31, 2016 On Monday, June 3, 2013 the City Council unanimously voted to direct the City Clerk to place on the June 10, 2013 consent calendar the: 1. Appointment to the Planning and Transportation Commission the two incumbent candidates Michael Alcheck and Eduardo Martinez for four year terms ending July 31, 2017. 2. Appointment to the Utilities Advisory Commission the two incumbent candidates James Cook and Garth Hall for three year terms ending on July 31, 2016. Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3768) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/10/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract Approvals and other Actions Related to the Capping of the Palo Alto Landfill. Title: Approval of: 1) the Palo Alto Landfill Closure Stipulated Notice and Order No. LEA-2013-01-1; 2) Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C12143502 in the Amount of $247,889 for a Total Amount of $461,002 with Golder Associates for Closure Design Service; and 3) Contract C13150284 in the Amount of $250,000 with Toubar Equipment Company for Landfill Closure and Maintenance Services From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1) Approve Palo Alto Landfill Closure Stipulated Notice and Order No. LEA- 2013-01-1; 2) Approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C12143502 in the amount of $247,889 for a total amount not to exceed amount of $461,002 with Golder Associates for landfill closure design services; and 3) Approve Contract No. C13150284 in the amount of $250,000 with Toubar Equipment Company for Landfill Closure Maintenance Services. Executive Summary Staff has obtained agency approvals to change the landfill’s cap design so that the City will save a forecasted $3 to $5 million in one time construction costs. This new type of cap, known as an evapo-transpirative (ET) cap would consist of a 4 to City of Palo Alto Page 2 5 feet thick layer of soil that would be environmentally superior and would not involve the purchase or installment of expensive geosynthetic cap materials. Finalizing the design and beginning construction of this ET cap will require a contract amendment for the landfill designer (Golder) and a contract for a closure maintenance contractor (Toubar). The landfill’s regulatory agencies have denied the City’s request to postpone all closure work until 2014. However, the County Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) would like the City to enter into a revised stipulated order that would commit the City to begin capping work in 2013 and complete the work within 18 months (i.e. before an energy/compost facility could be developed). While this timeframe is not what the City had requested, the change to an ET cap would reduce the potential costs which triggered the City’s request. Completing the landfill’s cap before a potential energy/compost facility could cost the City an additional $1 million for an ET cap as compared to the $3 million estimated with geosynthetic cap. Background Landfill Closure, Cap Preparation and Settlement Repair The Palo Alto Landfill is 126 acres in size and has been in operation for over 60 years. The landfill has been filled to capacity and capped in a phasing plan that has resulted in 75 acres filled and properly capped as of 2001. The final phase of the landfill, a 51 acre section designated as “Phase IIC” was filled to capacity on July 28, 2011. The landfill’s final closure plan scheduled the Phase IIC cap construction during calendar year 2012. The Phase IIC cap design specified a geosynthetic cap that was estimated to cost approximately $6 million. Following the landfill’s closure, staff has developed and implemented a soil importation and closure preparation plan for the purpose of preparing Phase IIC for capping and repairing subsidence in the previously closed sections of the landfill. Through an informal Request for Proposals process discussed in Staff Report ID# 2073, staff procured a soil broker/contractor (Toubar Equipment Company) to provide and import the clean soils to the landfill as well as to screen, mix, stockpile or place the soils as directed by staff. Some of this imported soil has been used both to construct the foundation layer that will underlie the cap and has been mixed with compost to be used to construct a vegetative soil layer suitable for parkland. This City of Palo Alto Page 3 work has been substantially completed. For settlement repair in the closed sections, approximately 2/3 of the previously closed sections have been raised to their original design grades through soil importation. Re-graded areas are hydro- seeded to establish native grasses and maintenance pathways/trails are built for public access. These soils are hauled into the landfill by commercial trucking firms and originate from grading projects typically within a radius of 25 miles from the landfill. The City receives a fee for soils deposited at the landfill. In addition, the soils broker/contractor has been performing additional tasks to prepare for landfill closure which have been outside the scope of the original RFP. These tasks are funded through offsets in the soils revenue (i.e. through discounts in soil fees to the soil broker/contractor). The new contract will allow the current soils broker to continue performing these services (offsetting costs against received revenues) while a formal RFP is conducted for comprehensive capping services. Staff believes this two step procurement process will allow the City to meet the closure deadline in the stipulation while ensuring that the services are competitively priced. Energy/Compost Project On April 5, 2010, Council directed staff to initiate a feasiblity study for an Energy/Compost Facility in Palo Alto. In September 2011, a Final Feasibility Report was completed that recommended that if the site at Byxbee Park becomes available through the passage of Ballot Measure E, then the City should take further actions to consider anaerobic digestion and other technologies for managing the City’s food scraps, yard trimmings, and biosolids at the site. In November 2011, Palo Alto voters passed Measure E, which removes a 10-acre parcel of land adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant from dedication as parkland for a 10-year term, only for the limited use as an Energy/Compost Facility. Approximately 8-acres of this 10-acre parcel are on the uncapped portion of the Palo Alto Landfill. On February 6, 2012, Council directed staff, to develop an Action Plan and Timeline for consideration of an Energy/Compost Facility on the Measure E parcel (Staff Report ID# 2361). The Action Plan and Timeline were approved by Council on July 2, 2012 (Staff Report ID# 2557). Council also approved the development of an RFP that will allow the City to obtain firm pricing from vendors interested in providing technologies to manage the City’s food scraps, yard trimmings, and biosolids. The Energy/Compost Facility RFP was developed, approved by Council (Staff Report ID# 3269) and was issued in City of Palo Alto Page 4 February 2013. Proposals are due in July 2013. The RFP also includes soliciting pricing for export options to allow comparison with the City’s current export pricing for food scraps and yard trimmings. Landfill Cap Construction Postponement As discussed above, Measure E could allow a proposed Energy/Compost Facility to be located on a portion of the uncapped landfill. Also, since the landfill is already filled to capacity, then it is likely that a large energy/compost facility could involve the excavation and re-grading of buried refuse in order to form a flat pad. Therefore, in order to prevent the expenditure of public funds to cap the landfill and then subsequently remove the cap if an energy/compost facility is approved, on February 6, 2012, Council directed staff to work with regulatory agencies to obtain approval for postponing the final capping of the landfill for one construction season from 2012 to 2013. On August 6, 2012, staff entered into a Stipulated Notice and Order No. LEA–2012-01 with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (Local Enforcement Agency “LEA”), which allowed the postponment of the landfill capping until the 2013 construction season. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) also approved this postponement. On January 14, 2013, along with the decision to issue an RFP for an energy/compost facility, Council also directed staff to seek regulatory approvals for postponing the cap construction for an additional period of up to 16 months when there would be a final decision on the Energy/Compost Facility. Staff was also directed to research possibilities for an appeal and/or a legislative solution if the request for an extension of capping the landfill is denied by the regulatory agencies. Discussion New Type of Cap Approved On January 30, 2013 while meeting with senior regulatory staff to discuss the postponement of the landfill capping for another construction season, the regulatory staff suggested that the City consider changing its currently approved geosynthetic cap to a lower cost cap known as an evapo-transpirative (ET) cap (also known as a water balance cap). This ET cap would consist of a 4 to 5 feet thick layer of soil that would prevent rainwater infiltration into the buried refuse City of Palo Alto Page 5 by naturally storing the rainwater in the soil during the wet season and losing the water to evaporation and transpiration during the dry season. These types of ET caps are appropriate for sites such as Palo Alto where the annual rainfall is less than 20 inches per year (Palo Alto’s annual average is approximately 15 inches). City staff directed the City’s consultant (Golder) to prepare a conceptual study on the applicability of an ET cover for the Palo Alto Landfill. The study showed that the ET cap could be applicable for the Palo Alto Landfill and that the majority of the typical imported soils would meet the specifications for an ET cap. In April 2013, staff received agency approvals to change the landfill’s cap design to an ET cap. Advantages of the ET cap are: 1) The City will save $4 to $5 million in construction costs. If these costs are realized then the Refuse Rate Stabilization Reserve would be positive after the CIP is closed; 2) An ET cap is environmentally superior alternative that does not physically or chemically degrade over time like geosynthetic materials; 3) Since the ET cap is a monolithic 4 to 5 feet thick layer of soil it would maintain its function when subsidence (i.e. sinking) occurs. A prescriptive clay layer would be subject to cracking after subsidence that can lead to a pathway for water and gas. A geosynthetic cap can pond after subsidence and can create large and expensive repairs; and 4) More plants and shrubs could be planted on the landfill as long as the roots are less than 4 feet in depth. This could give the City more options with regard to shrubs and improve the park landscaping/planting plan. More plants would improve the ET cap’s performance because transpiration is a necessary part of the function. Postponement Requests Since the Council date of January 14th, staff has met with senior regualtory staff, the director of CalRecycle (Caroll Mortensen), Assemblyman Rich Gordon, County Supervisor Joseph Simitian - who sent a letter to Caroll Mortensen supporting the postponement. Staff also proposed a legislative solution that would give a postponement to the cap schedule. CalRecycle and the LEA have denied the City of Palo Alto Page 6 City’s request to postpone all cap installation work until 2014. The LEA and CalRecycle maintain that under applicable State standards, the City’s election to delay closure from the scheduled Summer/Fall 2013 season until the Summer/Fall 2014 season constitutes a violation of State Permitting and Closure Standards and remains in violation until final closure of the entire landfill is completed. In contrast, the City disagrees with this conclusion and maintains that the delay in final closure is justified and does not constitute a violation. However, all parties agree that through compliance with the schedule listed in the attached Stipulated Order, the City can achieve its goal of delaying final closure for a short period without any adverse repercussions resulting from the alleged violation. If the City does not enter into a new stipulated order with the LEA, then the LEA could attempt to impose civil penalties of not to exceed $10,000 per day for each violation or for each day the landfill fails to achive compliance with the timeframes listed in the previous stipulated order dated August 2012. The LEA is proposing to enter into another stipulated notice and order with the City that would require the City to partially cap Phase IIC in 2013 and fully cap the entire area before an Energy Compost facility could be constructed (Attachment C). Although the LEA has approved attachment C, they have indicated that CalRecycle must also formally approve the order before it can be implemented. Staff is recommending that Council approve the attached stipulated order in concept, only if no significant changes are made to a final stipulated order by CalRecycle. Staff Recommended Course of action Staff are proposing the following actions: 1) Approve the contract amendment for $247,889 with the landfill closure consultant (Golder) to complete the engineering work necessary for the implementation of the ET cap (Attachment A); 2) Approve the agreement with Toubar Equipment Company (Toubar) to provide City of Palo Alto Page 7 and implement the new cap work under the direction of City Staff (Attachment B). Once the ET cap’s plans and specifications are completed then staff will develop a competetive RFP for further capping services; and 3) Approve the stipulated order (Attachment C) in concept, and direct staff to sign the order if no significant changes are made to a final order by CalRecycle. Also direct staff to begin capping sections of the landfill with the ET cap as time allows in 2013, continuing through 2014. Timeline The City has proposed the following schedule to the LEA see attached Stipulated Agreement. Milestone Estimated Completion Dates Milestone Description Approval No. 1 - Receive Final ET Cover Approval April 24, 2013 Written conditional approval from the LEA and State that the ET Cover is acceptable for the Palo Alto Landfill. Council Approvals for the Stipulated Order and closure contracts June 10, 2013 Council approval for: 1) Stipulated order; 2) Design contract amendment for additional modeling, testing and closure report revision; and 3) Closure construction agreement approval for construction of the ET Cover. CEQA August 1, 2013 Complete Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluating Construction Impacts during ET construction. Additional Laboratory Testing and Modeling August 31, 2013 Complete additional work to refine the ET Cover thickness and specifications Existing Phase IIC soil delineation August 31, 2013 Complete field work to identify where existing soils may meet the ET specifications Revised Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan September 15, 2013 Submit final drawings, specifications, and a revised CPCMP. City of Palo Alto Page 8 (CPCMP) Revision Approval No. 2 Estimated Dates Final Approval of the Revised CPCMP from the 3 agencies Begin ET Cap construction 14 days after approvals Begin importing soils and construction ET cover. Submit interim progress report on cap construction December 31, 2013 Delineate acreages where cap has been installed/confirmed by Quality Control Program Testing. Construct ET Cap over entire Phase IIC December 31, 2014* Note – 18 month interval assumes 2 (dry) construction seasons. ET cover can’t be constructed during the rainy season. Submit interim progress report on cap construction July 1, 2014 Delineate acreages where cap has been installed/confirmed by Quality Control Program Testing. Final Construction Quality Assurance Report December 31, 2014* Prepare and submit quality assurance documentation Note – 19 months assumes 2 (dry) construction seasons. * The date above is based on conclusions to determine the percentage of existing ET cap soils that are already in place in the existing Phase IIC landfill. The study described above as “Existing Phase IIC soil delineation” will provide an estimate of the quantity of soil that is already available on-site and can be used for the final landfill cap. If the study concludes that a large quantity of existing soils are not suitable for the final cap, the City will be required to obtain the appropriate soils from off-site. The current calculated estimate of soil acceptance is 200,000 cubic years per year. The City will make good faith efforts to complete the cap by December 31, 2014. However, unforeseen delays may extend completion beyond that date. Additional time may be requested beyond that date as described in Section B.3 of the attached stipulated order. Resource Impact If the City were to cap the entire landfill before an energy/compost facility could be developed,under any type of cap design, there would be a cost to remove the cap, re-grade the refuse and re-cap the area. The table below shows the cost forecasts for removal of the cap for waste regrading with the 10 acre energy/compost option. Table 2 Cost Comparison (worst case 10 acre energy/compost facility) City of Palo Alto Page 9 Type of Cap Assumptions Forecast Geosynthetic cap Impact 34 acres – remove and replace vegetative soils, destroy and repurchase geosynthetic cap materials $3,000,000 ET Cap Impact 34 acres -250,000 cubic yards x $2 x 2 events (remove and replace) $1,000,000 It should be noted that the City will know whether an energy/compost facility will be developed and/or the size and configuration of the facility before the cap is installed over most of the Phase IIC area. Both of the attached contract documents being approved are budgeted through the landfill closure CIP RF 11001. The Toubar closure maintenance contract expense limit is recommended at a maximum $250,000 of budgeted funds. However, another $600,000 of construction work (total of $850,000) could be accomplished as directed by the City and funded through revenue offsets as discussed above. Policy Implications There are no new policy implications with the recommended actions in the report. Environmental Review The activities proposed in this report are exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. An initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will be completed by Golder for the construction impacts associated with this cap construction. Attachments:  Attachment A - CONTRACT AMENDMENT Golder Associates C12143502 (PDF)  Attachment B - Toubar Equipment Company Contract C13150284 (PDF)  Attachment C - Palo Alto Stipulated Agreement - June 2013 (DOCX) 1 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO.1 TO CONTRACT NO. C12143502 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND GOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C12143502 (“Contract”) is entered into TBD, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and GOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC., a U.S. corporation in the State of Georgia with offices located at 1000 Enterprise Way, Suite 190, Roseville, CA 95678 (“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of installation of a closure cap upon Phase IIC of the Palo Alto Landfill (“Project”) and to provide for design, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, permitting, and Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) in connection with the Project (“Services”); and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 1 of the Contract is herby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of City.” SECTION 2. Section 2. of the Contract is herby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through completion of the services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as Exhibit “B” unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 3. Section 3 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 3. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services with the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B” attached to and made a part of the original Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner base upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’S agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall no preclude recovery of damages for delay in the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.” Attachment A 3 Revision July 25, 2012 EXHIBIT “A” BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto requires Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder) to provide an alternative cap design for the Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC area. The reason for the request is to allow for a more cost effective way of removing a portion of the cap if an Energy-Compost Facility were to be built there and to allow the City to cap Phase IIC in a timely manner to stay in compliance with the landfill closure rules and regulations. Golder shall provide engineering services to support the proposed Phase IIC evapotranspirative (ET) cover for the City of Palo Alto Landfill (PALF). Golder has evaluated the feasibility of implementing an evapotranspirative (ET) cover at the PALF (Golder report dated April 2013). Based on the work completed by Golder, the regulatory agencies have provided conditional approval for completing the final design and construction of an ET cover. In addition, to reducing conflicts with the potential AD facility, an ET cover will provide the City with significant cost savings. SCOPE OF SERVICES WORK PLAN SUMMARY The major components of the project include:  Provide additional soil sampling to evaluate key physical saturated and unsaturated properties.  Provide additional soil delineation to assess soil types and soil density throughout the existing cover which includes providing recommendations for remediation of unsuitable areas and a technical memorandum.  Prepare final construction documents and update Final Closure Postclosure Maintenance Plan.  Prepare an initial study and negative declaration for the Phase IIC ET cover design.  Provide construction quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) during construction of the Phase IIC ET cover.  Prepare final certification report for submittal to the regulatory agencies.  Provide surveying services to the Phase IIC closure work.  Evaluate and develop drainage design plans for Phase IIC and other closed areas of the landfill.  Provide landfill related engineering support which may include technical advice, compilation of as-built drawings of the landfill environmental control systems, and other engineering tasks as needed. 4 Revision July 25, 2012 TASK DETAILS TASK 1 – ADDITIONAL SOIL SAMPLING, TESTING AND MONITORING Golder’s April 2013 ET cover feasibility study identified the need for additional soil sampling, testing, and unsaturated flow modeling in order to finalize the soil material specification requirements for the project. Accordingly, Golder shall collect up to five soil samples that are representative of the range of existing soil types taking into account the previous characterization completed by Golder (April 2013). For each soil type, Golder shall evaluate key physical saturated and unsaturated properties for soil remolded to a relative compaction of 85 percent, 87 percent, and 90 percent of the modified Proctor density. The soil samples shall be collected using a backhoe and operator provided by the City. Representative soil samples shall be collected by a Golder engineer and transported to a geotechnical laboratory for further testing. During the soil sampling effort, Golder shall physically observe and document the presence of rocks, including size and frequency, which was a concern raised by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB). For each representative soil sample the following tests shall be completed:  Five grain-size distribution tests (sieve and hydrometer)  Five Atterberg limit tests  Five specific gravity tests  Five modified Proctor compaction tests  15 saturated hydraulic conductivity tests  15 tests to estimate the soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC) parameters At the completion of the testing, Golder shall use the computer program UNSAT-H to update the water balance modeling that was previously completed (Golder, April 2013). Based on the results of the laboratory testing and modeling, Golder shall prepare an addendum to the April 2003 ET cover feasibility study that:  Summarizes the field sampling program  Presents the laboratory test results  Summarizes the results of the unsaturated flow modeling  Provides final recommendations for the ET cover materials including allowable gradation range and required minimum and maximum compaction effort. Golder shall prepare and submit a draft report in electronic format for the City’s review. Following receipt of the City’s comments, Golder shall prepare a final report which shall be submitted in electronic format. TASK 2 – ADDITIONAL PHASE IIC SOILS DELINEATION 5 Revision July 25, 2012 Golder’s April 2013 ET cover feasibility study identified at least one unacceptable soil sample for use in the ET cover. Two additional samples were identified as marginal and may or may not be acceptable pending the final material specification requirements of Phase IIC. Accordingly, Golder shall complete additional soil delineation tests assessing which portions of the existing cover soils are unsuitable for use in the ET cover. Specifically, this work shall consist of the following:  Completion of up to 30 hand auger holes to assess the soil types and in-place density of the soils throughout the existing cover. Particular emphasis shall be directed to the west slope where the City desires to limit the amount of additional soil placed on this slope due to the presence of the sewer line at the toe of the slope.  For each soil sampling location, Golder shall obtain in-situ density measurements using a nuclear density gauge to measure in-place moisture and density in the upper 1 foot. A drive cylinder shall be used for depths greater than one foot.  Soil samples shall be collected and tested for Atterberg limits and grain-size distribution from each of the 30 locations. Modified Proctor tests shall be completed for representative soil types (up to 10). Based on the results of Task 1 and the above field investigation and laboratory testing, along with the results in the April 2013 report, Golder shall delineate the areas of existing suitable and unsuitable soils and provide recommendations for remediation of unsuitable areas. Remediation may require ripping and recompaction, over-excavation and replacement, and/or construction of the full ET cover section over the unsuitable soils. The results of our soil delineation program shall be summarized in a technical memorandum. Golder shall provide the City an electronic draft copy and an electronic final copy of the technical memorandum. TASK 3 – PREPARE FINAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Based on the work completed for Tasks 1 and 2, Golder shall prepare final construction documents and update the Final Closure Postclosure Maintenance Plan (FCPMP) for the Phase IIC ET cover. This work will include the following:  Construction drawings  Technical specifications  Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan  Revision to the FCPMP Draft submittals of the above deliverable documents shall be submitted electronically to the City. Golder shall incorporate the City’s comments and provide one electronic copy and four hard copies of each deliverable. TASK 4 – CEQA INITIAL STUDY AND PREPARE NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6 Revision July 25, 2012 An initial study and negative declaration shall be prepared for the project and will reflect the Phase IIC ET cover design. The scope-of-work and deliverables for this task are nearly identical to that included in our current contract except the project descriptions and individual evaluations shall be based on the proposed Phase IIC ET cover instead of the previous geomembrane cover system. TASK 5 – CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANGE/QUANLITY CONTROL Golder shall provide construction quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) during construction of the Phase IIC ET cover. The QA/QC program shall be completed in accordance with the regulatory-approved QA/QC Plan prepared under Task 3. For the purposes of establishing a budget for this task, we have assumed the following level of effort:  The City will require screening of proposed ET cover soil to show that the imported soils meet the project specifications and those test results will be provided to Golder for review.  Golder shall independently sample the imported soils at a frequency of one test per 5,000 cubic yards for grain-size analysis and Atterberg limits tests. A 20% contingency to the laboratory testing costs to account for rejection of unsuitable soils has been added to allow Golder to get through the City’s screening process.  During the drier construction season (assumed to be 8 months), a CQA technician shall be on-site for 3 days per week/4 hours per day to complete in-situ density tests and obtain samples for CQA testing. This frequency shall be reduced to 1 day per week/4hrs per day during the wetter winter months (assumed to be 4 months). The work shall be assumed to begin in September and continue for 18 months.  Monthly meetings shall be held between Golder’s CQA Engineer-of-Record and the City to review test results and progress to date. TASK 6 – FINAL CERTIFICATION REPORT At the completion of the Phase IIC ET cover construction, Golder shall prepare a final certification report for submittal to the regulatory agencies. The report shall comply with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 27 and address the following:  Summarize the QA/QC field and laboratory testing completed for the project  Include field reports summarizing field observations and testing  Identify any non-conforming materials encountered for the project and discuss how the non-conformance was addressed  Provide as-built drawings for the Phase IIC ET cover grades, drainage controls, and landfill gas and leachate control infrastructure The certification report shall be stamped by a registered civil engineer or engineering geologist per CCR Title 27. TASK 7 – PROJECT SURVEYING 7 Revision July 25, 2012 Golder shall retain a licensed surveyor to provide surveying services related to the Phase IIC closure. Surveying services shall consist of the following:  Providing grade control throughout the project. Grades stakes shall be set in active grading areas on a periodic basis.  Survey the location of final drainage controls (invert elevations along alignment)  Survey any remaining locations of the landfill gas and leachate infrastructure yet to be surveyed.  Preparation of an as-built drawing showing final surface elevations on 50-foot centers with as-built drainage, landfill gas, and leachate controls and tie-in locations to previously closed sections.  Additional out-of-scope surveying as requested by the City. The level of effort for this task will be dependent on the length of construction and the number of site visits required. The following level of effort for the subcontracted surveyor shall be as follows:  $5,000 to establish a 3-dimensional final grade model for Phase IIC.  Grade setting at once per month for 18 months. Each monthly visit is assumed to take 8 hours a field time ($165/hr) and require 2 hours of office staff support ($110/hr). This results in a budgeted cost of approximately $28,000.  Eight full field days of as-built surveying ($165/hr) with 64 hours of office staff support ($110/hr). This results in a budgeted cost of approximately $19,300.  $5,000 in out-of-scope surveying services if requested by the City. TASK 8 – DRAINAGE DESIGN FOR PHASE IIC AND PREVIOUSLY CLOSED PHASES The landfill areas closed to date have limited drainage controls to divert sheet flow from the top deck to the side slopes, which has resulted in erosion. To improve drainage and reduce long-term erosion, Golder shall evaluate and develop the following drainage concepts:  Diversion berms near the transition between the top deck and side slopes  Riprap-lined swales  Buried down-drain pipes Golder shall review these concepts with the City before incorporating these into design plans. Drainage details shall be incorporated into the Phase IIC documents under Task 3. Golder shall prepare additional drainage plans (two drawings maximum) showing the location and details recommended to be installed in the previously closed areas of the PALF. TASK 9 – MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SUPPORT 8 Revision July 25, 2012 At the request of the City, Golder shall provide additional landfill-related engineering support. Before any work is completed under this task, Golder shall submit for City approval a specific level of effort, define deliverables and establish a not-to-exceed maximum budget. Anticipated additional effort may include:  Providing technical advice on how to incorporate shrubs, and possibly trees, on the landfill cover  Assisting the City in compiling as-built drawings of leachate and landfill gas controls in a more user-friendly CAD format  Other engineering tasks as requested by the City 9 Revision July 25, 2012 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consisten with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion (No. of Days From NTP) 1. TASK 1 – Additional Soil Sampling, Testing and Modeling. 77 2. TASK 2 – Additional Phase IIC Soils Delineation 77 3. TASK 3 – Prepare Final Construction Documents 91 4. TASK 4 – CEQA Initial Study and Prepare Negative Declaration 91 5. TASK 5 – Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control 570 6. TASK 6 – Final Certification Report 570 7. TASK 7 – Project Surveying 570 8. TASK 8 – Drainage Design for Phase IIC and Previously Closed Phases 91 9. TASK 9 – Miscellaneous Engineering Support 570 10 Revision July 25, 2012 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION BUDGET SCHEDULE Total Original Contract C12143502 Dated February 2, 2012 Tasks 1 – 6 Design, CEQA, Construction and Quality Assurance. $193,713 Additional Services: $19,400 TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED FEE–ORIGINAL CONTRACT $213,113 Total Spent to date (close out Tasks 1-6) $72,540 Balance Remaining to fund Amendment No. 1 $140,573 BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT REIMBURSABLES Amendment No. 1 To Contract C12143502 1. Task 1 – Additional Soil Sampling, Testing and Modeling. $52,406 $150 2. Task 2 – Additional Phase IIC Soils Delineation $27,148 $750 3. Task 3 – Prepare Final Construction Documents $39,030 $0 4. Task 4 – CEQA Initial Study and Prepare Negative Declaration $23,134 $0 5. Task 5 – Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control $139,698 $9,440 6. Task 6 – Final Certification Report $21,994 $0 7. Task 7 – Project Surveying $62,304 $0 8. Task 8 – Drainage Design for Phase IIC and Previously Closed Phases $12,596 $0 9. Task 9 – Miscellaneous Engineering Support $10,000 $0 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable Expenses: $368,872 $9,590 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable Expenses: $388,462 Less Balance Remaining From Original Contract: $140,573 Total Amendment No. 1 Amount $247,889 Total Compensation (Original Contract Plus Amendment No.1) Not To Exceed: $461,002 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 1 Attachment B CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C13150284 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND TOUBAR EQUIPMENT COMPANY FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this TBD day of TBD, 2013, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and TOUBAR EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a U.S. Corporation, located at 2535 Pulgas Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to perform closure maintenance work on Phase I and Phase IIC of the Palo Alto Landfill (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide closure maintenance services include managing the importaiton of large amounts of soil, grading and placing the soil, as well as other landfill related maintenace in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements.) Services will be authorized by the City, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by the City’s Project Manager. Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1. Each Task Order shall designate a City Project Manager and shall contain a specific scope of work, a specific schedule of performance and a specific compensation amount. The total price of all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Compensation set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for work performed under an authorized Task Order and the City may elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 2 SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31, 2013 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two-Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250,000). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Two-Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250,000). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 3 professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. XOption B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: GreenScape Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 4 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Charlie Touchatt as the Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Charlie Touchatt as the project Manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City’s project manager is Chuck Muir, Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division, PO Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:650-496-6980. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. [Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 5 any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 6 be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 7 All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 8 SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements:  All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.  Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.  Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 9 parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 11 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES Closure Maintenance Assistance at the Palo Alto landfill Scope of Work Background The Palo Alto Landfill began formal refuse filling in the 1950s. The City of Palo Alto (City) has been closing and capping this landfill in phases since 1991. In 2010, the City began performing large scale settlement repair due to subsidence within closed sections of the landfill. In July 2011, the landfill reached final capacity and closed to the public. Since then, the City has been importing a large amount of soil into the landfill in order to prepare the last phase (Phase IIC) for final capping. The last area of settlement repair is an area designated as Phase I (aka Byxbee Park). It is estimated that approximately 50,000 cubic yards of clean soils will be required to bring this area to its original design grades. Another large amount of soil is needed in the Phase IIC capping project where a monolithic 4 to 5 feet thick layer of specified soils will be placed over the 51 acres. It is estimated that up to 400,000 cubic yards of soils may be needed for this cap construction based on the conceptual cap design, although some of the cap soils are already onsite. This agreement is meant to procure closure maintenance services with “Toubar Equipment Company” (Toubar) in order to assist the City in the importation and management of the large amount of required soils through the end of Calendar year 2013. This agreement will also fund other tasks related to landfill maintenance as described below. These tasks will be performed on a time and materials (not to exceed) and unit costs basis and will be directed by the City. Hydroseeding of bare slopes before the onset of the rainy season will also be performed by Toubar as part of this agreement. Toubar will provide this work as performed on a unit price per acre fee as specified below. This agreement involves both fees paid by Toubar for the disposal of clean soils at the landfill and costs paid to Toubar by the City as described below. Scope of Work Toubar shall provide clean soils from area-wide grading projects and manage the soils at the landfill for the purpose of settlement repair and capping. Toubar shall also provide equipment and staff necessary for other maintenance related tasks at the landfill as described below. Task 1 Provide, Import and Manage Clean Soils Toubar shall provide, import and properly manage approximately 200,000 cubic yards of suitable soils for placement at the landfill as directed by the City. The City at its sole discretion will approve all soil borrow sources prior to acceptance based on the following criteria: Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 12 a) The soils shall not contain any chemical contaminants. Sampling and analytical testing shall be provided by Toubar and official lab results and chain of custody documentation must be submitted to the City and approved before soil can be delivered to the landfill.  Minimum Sampling Frequency – A minimum of one sample for each (original) location of soil larger than 500 cubic yards. And a minimum of one additional sample per 5,000 cubic yards of soil originating at any one location. For soil stockpiles of 500 CY or greater four (4) discrete samples shall be taken and submitted as one composite sample.  Minimum Testing Required – CAM 17 Metals TTLC, TPH (Oil, diesel and gasoline) by EPA 8015. Additional analyses could be required by the City depending on the risk level of the borrow source. For example, the City may require pesticide analyses if the borrow source has been farmland for a long period of time. Approval criteria will be the Shallow Soil Screening Levels for Residential Land Use Table A-1 of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board Interim Final Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). Exceptions will be made for metals where background levels are higher than the ESLs in the Bay Area. b) The soils shall not be approved if a contamination source is suspected; c) The soils shall originate from residential or low risk commercial properties such as schools or previously undeveloped properties where no contamination source(s) are suspected; d) The soils shall be suitable for vegetative cover. Non-compatible vegetative soils such as sand, gravel, soils containing other materials (e.g., asphalt mix/chunks, concrete chunks/ready mix, mulch, or wood chips) or overly saturated soils will also not be accepted; And e) A certification form (attached) shall be signed by the generator (or generator’s agent) of each borrow source larger than 1,000 cubic yards certifying that the soil meets the City’s requirements. f) For Phase IIC cap soils, the following draft grain size distribution criteria will be used by Toubar to identify soils that would be acceptable for this purpose. The sampling and testing criteria is expected to be a minimum of 1 representative sample per borrow source, and 1 additional sample for every 5,000 cubic yards or as directed by the City. Sampling frequencies, laboratory testing methods and types of tests will be further defined by the City as soon as the final cap design has been completed. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 13 Material Screening and Processing: If Toubar would like to process or otherwise screen the borrow source soils to meet the City’s criteria, and if the City allows this option, then Toubar shall provide a suitable shaker deck or other suitable screener and screen the soil to the required particle sizes. Toubar shall dispose of spoils onsite as directed by the City. Incoming soil stockpiles and the mixing and screening area may be limited to a minimum area of one acre due to above ground gas and leachate wells throughout the site. Toubar shall move the soils to construct the cap directed by the City. Toubar shall be required to control dust through the processing City will supply water source near the site for the Toubar’s usage. Toubar shall provide a water truck and staff for dust suppression. Placement and compaction: Toubar shall provide equipment and staff to place and compact this soil as directed by City. At a minimum, Toubar must provide an 815 Compactor (or equivalent compactor as approved by City), a D-6 or larger bulldozer and Motor Grader. The soils in the Phase IIC cap shall be placed with only the bulldozer to minimize the compaction of the soil. City will provide grade control and Toubar shall fine grade the soil to its intended surface elevations as directed by the City. Toubar shall at no additional fee accept and properly manage all City generated soils hauled by City staffs. City takes all responsibility for the soils meeting the above specifications. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 14 Other Onsite Soils Management: Toubar shall provide a full time staff near the entrance to the Landfill to control and verify trucks. Toubar shall ensure that all trucks originate from City approved soil borrow sources. Toubar shall record and provide soils documentation to the City each week submitted by the following Wednesday. This documentation shall include at a minimum:  The job address of where the soil originated;  The Company that hauled the soil into the Landfill;  The number of trucks and the size of each truckload in cubic yards;  The total number of cubic yards per borrow source;  The total fee calculation to be paid to the City per borrow source; and  The grand totals of each category. Toubar shall also provide a full time water truck and shall suppress dust caused by the soil management operation. City will provide a nearby location for the water truck to fill with reclaimed water. Toubar shall provide all traffic control flagmen as needed to control their traffic and to show the truck drivers where to dump their soil loads. Toubar shall use this staff or others to review each load for unacceptable large rocks or other debris and extract the debris before spreading the load. Task 2 – Additional Onsite Maintenance Work a) Street Sweeping Services – Toubar shall provide adequate street sweeper to sweep and remove soil from the paved Harbor and Embarcadero roadways on a daily basis. Toubar to sweep a minimum of two hours per day or as directed by the City. b) Labor – Toubar to provide laborers to perform the following tasks as directed by the City:  Raise wellheads, vaults or other piping components;  Cut and remove piping, replace and weld HDPE piping once filling has occurred;  Clean soil out of drainage ditches;  Install stormwater controls – silt fencing, waddles, rip rap etc. and  Other tasks as directed by the City. c) Path Construction – Toubar shall construct pathways as directed by the City. Toubar shall provide and use all equipment needed such as 613 scraper to dig out the path and haul baserock, motor grader, skip loader, water truck and vibratory smooth drum roller. e) Drainage Projects – Toubar shall provide labor and equipment to install onsite drainage features as directed by the City. Tasks may include providing an excavator or backhoe, along with laborers to install piping or rip rap drainage features. f) Removal of soils – This task may involve the removal and hauling of unspecified soils to locations on the landfill as directed by the City. Equipment may include an excavator and 10 wheel truck(s) to haul the soils. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 15 Task 3 – Hydroseeding Toubar shall hydroseed bare slopes and decks with the mixes of native grasses and fertilizer as specified below and as directed by the City. Toubar shall perform this work within 3 days after the first rain event after October 15, 2013 or when directed by the City. Fertilizer - NatureTech 5-2-3 OrganiPlex – install at 500 lbs/acre. Total Nitrogen (N) . . . . . . . . . . 5.0000% 0.0030% Ammoniacal Nitrogen 0.0310% Nitrate Nitrogen 0.8650% Other Water Soluble Nitrogen 4.1010% Water Insoluble Nitrogen* Available Phosphate (P2O5) . . . 2.0000% Soluble Potash (K2O) . . . . . . . . 3.0000% Calcium (Ca) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0000% a) Iron (Fe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2000% Seed percentages for the Palo Alto Landfill: Festuca (Vupia) Microstachys: 12.8% Stipa (Nassella) Pulchra: 17% Danthonia Calf. (Calf. Oatgrass): 17% Bromus Carinatus (Calf. Brome): 32% Elymus Glaucus (Blue wildrye): 21.2% Other Terms and Conditions Guarantee of Work and Termination The City’s goal is to have Toubar provide all of this scope as described in Tasks 1-3 above. However, the City does not guarantee that the amount of work listed in this Agreement will be completed by Toubar. The City still needs regulatory approval for the Phase IIC capping project. This agreement may be terminated if the following occurs:  If Toubar gets behind schedule with the importation or processing of the soil (as determined by the City);  If Toubar falsifies any sampling or analytical data;  If Toubar truck drivers report transporting soil from one address and the City confirms another address;  If Toubar violates any compliance issues such as dust generation, stormwater contamination, hazardous materials or other related issues; or  City Management or City Council decides to cancel this agreement. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 16 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Days/Weeks From NTP 1. Import and place soils to design grades established by City: 180 days 2. Additional work as required by City 180 days Regardless of the start date of this agreement, the end date of this contract is expected to be December 31, 2013 unless renewed by the City in writing. Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 18 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $250,000. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $250,000. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: (Included in the basic services) A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than N/A shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advance, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 19 [OPTIONAL] Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be considered as Additional Services: Budget Schedule Not To Exceed Amount Task 1 (Fees paid to the City) - Supply and manage 200,000 cubic yards of suitable soils. Includes all associated work described in Task 1 above. -$500,000 (estimated) Task 2 (Fees paid to Contractor) – Maintenance work described in Task 2 to be completed as directed by City on a Time and Materials basis +$600,000 (estimated as required by City) Task 3 (Fees paid to Contractor) – Hydroseeding as specified in Task 3 above. +$150,000 Subtotal +$250,000 Estimated Net Total $0.00 Maximum Agreement Authorization +$250,000 The fees paid to the City shall be based on the following unit prices: Category Rate Import soils in accordance with Task 1- Full Load (cost per load) $40.00 Import soils in accordance with Task 1 - 10 Wheeler (cost per load) $20.00 Import and screen soils (if approved by City) – Full Load (cost per load) $25.00 Import and screen soils (if approved by City) – 10 Wheeler (cost per load) $15.00 Note – Discounted rates may be implemented at the City’s discretion in order to import more soils for compliance or scheduling purposes. City will issue written approval before discounts can be implemented. Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 20 EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Hydroseed 46 acres (estimated)……….. $3,260 per acre. 5/1/2013 Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 21 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 22 B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Palo Alto/Santa Clara County Stipulated Notice & Order Page 1 of 10 Attachment C In the Matter of: CITY OF PALO ALTO LANDFILL AND COMPOSTING FACILITY- SWIS NO. 43-AM-0001 STIPULATED NOTICE AND ORDER - NO. LEA-2013-01-1 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE (§§45000, 45011, 44106, and/or 45023) and CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 14, (§§18304, 18304.1) TO: Phil Bobel, City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department, PO Box 10250, Palo Alto, California 94303: DATE: June 1, 2013 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT: 1. This Order supersedes and replaces Stipulated Notice and Order No. LEA 2012-01-1 2. WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Agriculture and Environmental Management Agency, Department of Environmental Health is the Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (“LEA”) and is authorized by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (“CalRecycle”) to act in the capacity of the LEA for this Facility pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 43200 et seq.; 3. WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Site is a solid waste facility located at 2830 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, California 94303 (the “Facility”); 4. WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is the owner and operator of the Facility, with the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department carrying out operations (collectively, the “City”); 5. WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, (“Regional Board”) issued Waste Discharge Requirements in 1999 (Board Order No. R2-1999-026 “WDRs”) which specifies discharge specification and monitoring provisions for the Facility; 6. WHEREAS, following CalRecycle concurrence on February 14, 2006, the LEA issued the Facility a Solid Waste Facility Permit No. 43-AM-0001 (the “SWFP”) on March 3, 2006, which the Facility is currently operating under; 7. WHEREAS, the permitted Facility boundary of approximately 137 acres is within a larger 1,800-acre, City-owned Byxbee Park and Baylands parcel. 8. WHEREAS, the landfill disposal area (footprint) occupies approximately 126 acres of the 137-acre permitted Facility boundary. The landfill is divided into four phases (see Exhibit A map): Phase I comprising approximately 29 acres, Phase IIA (23 acres), Phase IIB (23 acres), and Phase IIC (51 acres); Palo Alto/Santa Clara County Stipulated Notice & Order Page 2 of 10 9. WHEREAS, approximately 75 acres of the landfill (Phases I, IIA and IIB) have received final cover in accordance with State regulations. Phase I was capped and developed into parkland in 1991. Phase IIA was capped in 1992. Phase IIB (23 acres) was capped in 2000. Seventy-two of the 75 acres of these areas were opened to parkland in 2011 with three acres being held for stockpiling of vegetative soils for the Phase IIC closure. 10. WHEREAS, State regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Section 21110) require the timely submittal and implementation of closure and postclosure maintenance plans; 11. WHEREAS, the City submitted Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans (Plans) in 2009 for closure of Phase IIC which were approved by Regional Board, CalRecycle, and LEA in 2010. Phase IIC was scheduled to undergo closure via construction of a synthetic material in Summer/Fall 2012 in accordance with State requirements; 12. WHEREAS, the final Phase IIC ceased accepting waste on July 28, 2011; 13. WHEREAS, in November 2011, City residents approved Measure E, an initiative to un- dedicate from parkland a ten-acre section of land (eight acres of Phase IIC and two acres of land adjacent to the landfill footprint) for a minimum period of ten years to study the feasibility of a potential organics energy/composting facility. Measure E is meant to identify a parcel of land that could be studied for the purpose of building an energy/conversion facility to handle yard trimmings, food waste, and/or sewage sludge. 14. WHEREAS, the Stipulated Notice & Order (Order) dated August 1, 2012 is the governing enforcement document for the LEA and was signed by the LEA on August 7, 2012, and by the City of Palo Alto on August 16, 2012; 15. WHEREAS, Section B2 of the Order allows the City to request an extension with appropriate justification; 16. WHEREAS, the City submitted a letter to the LEA, CalRecycle, and the Regional Board dated January 18, 2013, requesting further postponement of work for Phase IIC for one additional year to December 31, 2014; 17. WHEREAS, the LEA, CalRecycle, the Regional Board and other stakeholders met with the City at the Facility on January 30, 2013, to discuss the request, make observations, and request additional information; 18. WHEREAS, several City residents notified the LEA in writing of their concerns related to any future delay of landfill closure and urged the LEA to enforce the existing Order and to not grant any further delays to final capping requirements; 19. WHEREAS, the LEA issued an inspection report dated January 30, 2013, issuing a violation notice for failure to close the landfill by December 31, 2012; Palo Alto/Santa Clara County Stipulated Notice & Order Page 3 of 10 20. WHEREAS, the LEA and CalRecycle maintain that under applicable State standards, including but not limited to 27 CCR 21110 (a) & (e), the City’s election to delay closure from the scheduled Summer/Fall 2013 season until the Summer/Fall 2014 season constitutes a violation of State Permitting and Closure Standards and remains in violation until final closure of the entire landfill is completed. In contrast, the City disagrees with this conclusion and maintains that the delay in final closure is justified and does not constitute a violation. However, through compliance with the below schedule, the City can achieve its goal of delaying final closure for a short period without any adverse repercussions resulting from the violation; 21. WHEREAS, the Order No. LEA 2012-01-1 did not impose penalties as long as time frames in the Order are adhered to; 22. WHEREAS, the City submitted the requested additional information to the LEA, CalRecycle, and Regional Board on February 12, 2013, which included a project timeline and study of a more cost effective and environmentally superior engineered alternative water balance (WB) cover; 23. WHEREAS, the LEA, CalRecycle, and Regional Board have reviewed the timeline the City provided on the proposed Energy/Compost facility and determined that the future construction of such a project is likely to cause significant delays of final landfill closure; 24. WHEREAS, This Order allows for the City to make decisions that will provide some flexibility on any future Energy/Compost facility in order to limit costs associated with such a proposed project; 25. WHEREAS, the City submitted the final report for the WB cover to the LEA, CalRecycle and the Regional Board on March 12, 2013 that concluded the WB cover was a feasible option for final cover; 26. WHEREAS, the City has determined the WB cover would be technically feasible and would be more cost effective as well as provide maximum flexibility over the current final cover proposal. In addition the City concludes that the final WB cover proposal provides adequate protection to human health and the environment; 27. WHEREAS, the LEA concurs with the WB cover recommendation based on information provided by the City. CCR Title 27 Section 20080 (b-c) [Regional Board authority] and Section 21090(a) [LEA authority] allows agencies to approve engineered alternatives to the prescriptive standard for final cover systems provided the selected alternative cover design performs at least as well as the prescriptive cover design in terms of its ability to isolate landfill wastes from precipitation and irrigation waters. The discharger must demonstrate that the prescriptive standard is unreasonably and unnecessarily economically burdensome and will cost substantially more than an alternative design. Palo Alto/Santa Clara County Stipulated Notice & Order Page 4 of 10 28. WHEREAS, the City would need to submit a revised final closure plan and postclosure maintenance plan and obtain approvals from the LEA, CalRecycle and Regional Board for the additional delay and alternative WB cover; 29. WHEREAS, the proposed WB cover would allow for a progressive closure of the landfill at a lesser cost than the current proposal. The City estimates the costs for the current Prescriptive Standard Cover to be approximately $5.725 million and the proposed WB cover to cost approximately $993,000 which constitutes a significant savings to the City of over $4.7 million. The cost savings for installation of the proposed WB cover greatly exceeds the original costs estimates of $3 million to uncap the landfill for a proposed Energy/Compost facility; 30. WHEREAS, the City Council voted to direct City staff to request landfill closure postponement of the entire 51 acres; 31. WHEREAS, the City formally requested in a letter dated February 10, 2012, to postpone the Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC cap construction work for one construction season (from Summer/Fall 2012 to Summer/Fall 2013) in order to study the feasibility of an organics Energy/Compost facility on the City landfill property; 32. WHEREAS, the City requested additional time to evaluate facility designs based on a recent Request For Proposals for the proposed Energy/Compost facility; 33. WHEREAS, Since July 2011 the City has been preparing for closure by working on the required closure tasks to date and has delayed the next task of preparing contract documents; 34. WHEREAS, the LEA and the City recognize that going out to bid in March 2013 was premature considering the pending final cap design changes; 35. WHEREAS, the City has stated its commitment to protect the environment and the community by complying with the required monitoring and maintenance tasks for landfills; 36. WHEREAS, through implementing closure of a portion of the Phase IIC area and compliance with the revised schedule below, the City can achieve its goal of delaying final closure for an additional period with limited adverse repercussions resulting from the violation issued by the LEA; 37. WHEREAS, the City has successfully completed most milestones from the previously signed Order No. LEA 2012-01-1 as well as the March 29, 2013 letter from the LEA modifying the compliance schedule for 30 days; 38. WHEREAS, the LEA and CalRecycle deny the City’s January 18, 2013, request for further postponement of all of the capping work for Phase IIC for one additional year to December 31, 2014. The agencies are allowing postponement of the completion of the Palo Alto/Santa Clara County Stipulated Notice & Order Page 5 of 10 Phase IIC cap construction in conformance with the conditions and schedule contained within this order. \ \ \ THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 45000, 45011, AND 44106, THE CITY IS ORDERED TO: 1. Proceed with the following schedule concerning landfill closure of a portion of Phase IIC: Milestone Estimated Completion Dates Milestone Description Approval No. 1 - Receive Final WB Cover Approval April 24, 2013 Written conditional approval from the LEA and State that the WB Cover is acceptable for the Palo Alto Landfill. Council Approvals for the Stipulated Order and closure contracts June 10, 2013 Council approval for: 1) Stipulated order; 2) Design contract amendment for additional modeling, testing and closure report revision; and 3) Closure construction agreement approval for construction of the WB Cover. CEQA August 1, 2013 Complete Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluating Construction Impacts during WB construction. Additional Laboratory Testing and Modeling August 31, 2013 Complete additional work to refine the WB Cover thickness and specifications Existing Phase IIC soil delineation August 31, 2013 Complete field work to identify where existing soils may meet the WB specifications Revised Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan (CPCMP) Revision September 15, 2013 Submit final drawings, specifications, and a revised CPCMP. Approval No. 2 Estimated Dates Final Approval of the Revised CPCMP from the 3 agencies Begin WB Cap construction 14 days after approvals Begin importing soils and construction WB cover. Submit interim progress report on cap construction December 31, 2013 Delineate acreages where cap has been installed/confirmed by Quality Control Program Testing. Construct WB Cap over entire Phase IIC December 31, 2014* Note – 18 month interval assumes 2 (dry) construction seasons. WB cover can’t be constructed during the rainy season. Submit interim July 1, 2014 Delineate acreages where cap has been Palo Alto/Santa Clara County Stipulated Notice & Order Page 6 of 10 progress report on cap construction installed/confirmed by Quality Control Program Testing. Final Construction Quality Assurance Report December 31, 2014* Prepare and submit quality assurance documentation Note – 19 months assumes 2 (dry) construction seasons. * The date above is based on conclusions to determine the percentage of existing WB cap soils that are already in place in the existing Phase IIC landfill. The study described above as “Existing Phase IIC soil delineation” will provide an estimate of the quantity of soil that is already available on-site and can be used for the final landfill cap. If the study concludes that a large quantity of existing soils are not suitable for the final cap, the City will be required to obtain the appropriate soils from off-site. The current calculated estimate of soil acceptance is 200,000 cubic years per year. The City will make good faith efforts to complete the cap by December 31, 2014. However, unforeseen delays may extend completion beyond that date. Additional time may be requested beyond that date as described in Section B.3 below. 2. Monthly notices documenting the progress made pursuant to the above schedule shall be considered public. Notices shall be provided to the following: a. LEA: Michael Balliet, Santa Clara County LEA, Department of Environmental Health, 1555 Berger Dr., Ste. 300, San Jose, CA 95112. Michael.balliet@deh.sccgov.org b. CalRecycle: Eric Kiruja, California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 1001 I Street, PO Box 4025, MS 10A-15, Sacramento, CA 95812. Eric.Kiruja@calrecycle.ca.gov c. Regional Board: Devender Narala, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, CA 94612 Devender.Narala@waterboards.ca.gov 3. During the closure period, the City will implement all of the provisions stated below to minimize environmental impacts: a) Complete the foundation layer grading. Except in limited areas where some capacity is needed for clearing and grubbing spoils. b) Continue operating the gas and leachate systems at high efficiency c) Protect storm water by adding and maintaining stormwater protection Best Management Practices (BMPs). City staff will commit to maintaining these BMPs through the 2013/2104 wet season. d) The City will seed bare areas within the closed sections of the landfill. e) The City will also continue monitoring in accordance with the following table: \ \ \ \ \ \ Palo Alto/Santa Clara County Stipulated Notice & Order Page 7 of 10 \ \ \ \ \ Monitoring Schedule Item Tasks Minimum Frequency Landfill Gas Surface Monitoring Extraction components Wellheads Soil gas offsite migration Quarterly Quarterly Monthly Quarterly Leachate Wells and conveyance system Weekly Stormwater Runoff Sampling Other observations Monthly during wet season Minimum twice per year Quarterly Perimeter Monitoring Erosion, seeps, other problems Monthly Other Monitoring (Top Deck) Erosion, seeps, other problems Monthly A. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 45011, 45014, 45023, 45024, 44305 AND 44306 if the above actions are not completed or complied with by the specified date, and no extension of time has been granted consistent with the terms of this Stipulated Notice and Order, the LEA and/or CalRecycle may: 1. Petition the superior court for injunctive relief to enforce this Stipulated Notice and Order. (Public Resources Code Section 45014); 2. Petition the superior court for civil penalties in an amount not to exceed $10,000 per day for each violation (Public Resources Code Section 45023 and 45024); 3. Impose administrative civil penalties in an amount not to exceed $5,000 per day for each day the Facility fails to achieve compliance with the time frames specified above (Public Resources Code Section 45011); and/or 4. Suspend or revoke the SWFP (Public Resources Code Sections 44305 and 44306). B. ADDITIONAL STIPULATED NOTICE AND ORDER PROVISIONS 1. The City agrees to evaluate design options for the proposed Energy/Compost facility and will encourage proposals that will limit disturbance of the final landfill cap in order to address the City’s cost concerns of possible cap removal. The City further agrees to make a good faith effort to identify and resolve engineering challenges for the new cap and Palo Alto/Santa Clara County Stipulated Notice & Order Page 8 of 10 proposed Energy/Compost facility so that both can be completed in a timely and cost effective manner. 2. The City shall not transfer legal ownership to another party or operator until after the facility is completely certified and closed. 3. In the event the time frames for completion of the above specified activities cannot be adhered to despite City’s good faith efforts, then the LEA, after consultation with CalRecycle, may extend the time frames consistent with applicable state regulations. The LEA, after consultation with CalRecycle, shall review and in its reasonable discretion may approve the extension request upon the City’s showing of its good faith efforts to otherwise meet the above deadlines or upon other reasonable grounds. Any requests for extension must be submitted in writing with appropriate justification at least two weeks prior to the due date. Any such extension to the time frames or other amendment to this Stipulated Notice and Order shall be in the form of an Addendum or Amended Stipulated Notice and Order. The LEA, after consultation with CalRecycle, shall determine if an Addendum or Amended Stipulated Notice and Order are appropriate. 4. Failure to comply with the schedule outlined in this Stipulated Notice and Order may result in the LEA and/or CalRecycle expending available funds under the circumstances set forth in Public Resources Code Sections 45000 and/or 48020, et seq., which, in the judgment of the LEA and/or CalRecycle, is required by the magnitude of endeavor or the need for prompt action to protect public health and safety or the environment. If the LEA and/or CalRecycle expend funds to perform work authorized by Sections 45000 and/or 48020, et seq., the LEA and/or CalRecycle may seek cost reimbursement from the City pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 45000(d) and 48023. Moreover, funds so expended by CalRecycle constitute a lien upon the real property owned by any responsible party that is subject to the remedial action, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 48023.5 5. This Stipulated Notice and Order has been negotiated in good faith and the actions undertaken by the City in accordance with this Stipulated Notice and Order do not constitute an admission of any fault. The City does not admit, and retains the right to controvert in any subsequent proceedings, other than proceedings to implement and enforce this Stipulated Notice and Order, any terms of this Stipulated Notice and Order. 6. All parties to this Stipulated Notice and Order agree to comply with and be bound by the terms of this Stipulated Notice and Order. 7. Neither the LEA nor CalRecycle shall be liable for injuries or damages to persons or property resulting from acts or omissions by the City or related parties in carrying out activities pursuant to this Stipulated Notice and Order, nor shall the LEA or CalRecycle be held as a party to any contract entered into by the City or its agent(s) in carrying out activities pursuant to this Stipulated Notice and Order. Palo Alto/Santa Clara County Stipulated Notice & Order Page 9 of 10 8. This Stipulated Notice and Order does not relieve the City from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal requirements, nor does it preclude the LEA or CalRecycle from taking any and all other enforcement actions allowed by law. 9. Any notice or correspondence to the City pertaining to this Stipulated Notice and Order shall reference the Stipulated Notice and Order and be directed as follows: Phil Bobel, Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Public Works Department PO Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 10. This Stipulated Notice and Order may only be amended in writing by an appropriate representative of the LEA and the City. Any such addendum or amendment to this Stipulated Notice and Order shall be signed by a representative of the LEA and the City and shall become a part of this Stipulated Notice and Order. This Stipulated Notice and Order is agreed upon and issued as of the last date set forth below. County of Santa Clara: _________________________________________ _____________ Michael Balliet Date Hazardous Materials Program Manager Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Local Enforcement Agency APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: ________________________________________ _____________ Mark Bernal, Deputy County Counsel Date City of Palo Alto: _________________________________________ ____________ Phil Bobel, Assistant Director – Environmental Services Date City of Palo Alto, Department of Public Works APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Palo Alto/Santa Clara County Stipulated Notice & Order Page 10 of 10 ____________________________________________ _____________ Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Date City of Palo Alto (ID # 3810) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/10/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Lot P Parking Garage Title: Consideration of Public-Private Parking Garage on High Street (Lot P) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends a Council MOTION to direct staff to develop a memorandum of understanding with 135 Hamilton LLC, consistent with the terms outlined in Attachment A, and direct the owner to develop plans and submit an application for review of the Lot P Parking Garage project. Executive Summary Chop Keenan, the owner of 135 Hamilton (135 Hamilton LLC) has proposed to the City a joint public-private parking garage on surface parking Lot P on High Street. The proposal would include payment of almost $7 million of the construction costs by 135 Hamilton LLC and about $1.5 million by the City of Palo Alto. The garage would result in a total of 145 parking spaces, a net increase of 94 spaces over those existing in the surface lot today. The fourth and fifth floors (63 spaces) of the garage would be dedicated during the day to parking for the 135 Hamilton project, and the owner is to provide another 30 “attendant” parking spaces. All spaces would be available to the public at night and on the weekends. Staff believes there are multiple reasons to support such a proposal, and has developed a list of parameters (Attachment A) to assure benefits of the project are realized, with a financial advantage to the City. In particular, the proposal would allow for new parking spaces to support both existing and proposed development, at a reduced per-space cost, and in a timeframe considerably shorter than if the City financed the project completely. The next steps would include development of a memorandum of understanding between the City and 135 Hamilton LLC and review of the specifics of the proposal through review by the Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission, and City Council, as well as required environmental review. A final contract with 135 Hamilton LLC would be developed City of Palo Alto Page 2 prior to construction, if and when it is approved. Background Downtown Palo Alto is a vital and successful commercial area, with a combination of retail, office, housing, civic, and entertainment uses. In recent years, however, the success of downtown has resulted in deficiencies in downtown parking and consequent intrusion of on- street parking into adjacent residential neighborhoods, both to the north and south of the commercial district. On March 18, 2013, staff reported to Council about ongoing and short-term (3-6 months) measures to alleviate parking impacts in downtown and the neighborhoods. Among the actions outlined were a) an ongoing Parking Garage Study of the potential for construction of new parking structures on one or more of five existing parking lots in downtown, and b) evaluation of a potential public-private development for a new parking structure on Lot P on High Street between University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue. Other measures included the initiation of a Downtown Development Cap study, exploring “attendant parking” to create more spaces in the garages, and evaluation of parking restrictions and/or a residential permit parking program to limit intrusion into Downtown North and Downtown South neighborhoods. The study of potential new parking garage sites is addressed as a separate item on this Council agenda. On March 5, 2013, Keenan Land Company presented (after prior discussions with staff) a specific proposal for a public-private garage on the existing Lot P parking lot. The private portion of the garage would serve as parking for the approved 135 Hamilton Avenue project, comprised of about 20,000 square feet of office use and two residential units above, and 24 below-grade parking spaces, and a requirement to provide in-lieu fees or other compensation for 40 additional spaces. Transfer of development rights (TDRs) for 5,000 square feet of the total are proposed, exempting the applicant from providing 20 parking spaces. The proposed garage is intended to “park” all spaces for the project, except that four spaces would still be provided onsite for the residential units. The Council, at its March 18 meeting, directed that staff should evaluate the garage proposal in greater detail and return to Council with recommendations as to its feasibility, advantages and disadvantages. The Keenan Land Company’s letter and plans are included as Attachments D and E to the staff report. Discussion Staff has reviewed the proposed Lot P plans and terms suggested by the owner of the 135 Hamilton site (referred to as 135 Hamilton LLC). The City’s Parking Garage Study has identified a garage, similar to that proposed, as feasible on Lot P and estimated to cost about $9 million, very much consistent with the 135 Hamilton LLC proposal. The primary constraints to the site are the need to preserve access around the site to serve adjacent businesses on Emerson Street City of Palo Alto Page 3 and Hamilton Avenue, and the relatively small size of the site, which limits access points to the garage and the potential for subterranean parking. Potential Terms of Agreement The Keenan Land Company has outlined a set of terms (Attachment D) for development of the site, premised on the developer’s paying almost $7 million of the $8 million cost. The proposed parking structure would include 145 total spaces, as compared to the 51 spaces currently provided in the parking lot. The developer has also committed to “attendant” parking for another 30 spaces for the use of 135 Hamilton. The breakdown of spaces by floor is shown on the first page of the plans (Attachment E), as follows: Floor Proposed Spaces Attendant Spaces* Total Spaces Fifth 32 19 51 Fourth 31 11 42 Third 31 11 42 Second 27 8 36 Ground 24 0 24 Total 145 49 194 *Fourth and fifth floor attendant parking committed by developer; other floors optional by City Attachment A outlines staff’s suggested terms for an agreement to pursue construction of this project for Lot P. The outline includes most of the points proposed by Keenan Land Company, with a few differences and additions. The key elements of the outline for an agreement include the following: 1. The City will contribute $1.0 million from the City’s In-Lieu Parking Fund towards the construction of the garage, plus the cost of all permits for the project, estimated at $500,000 (also paid from the In-Lieu Parking Fund); 2. The owner/applicant of the 135 Hamilton Avenue Project (135 Hamilton LLC) will pay for the remainder (estimated at $6.989 million) of the project cost; 3. 135 Hamilton LLC will purchase 5,000 square feet of transferable development rights (TDRs) from the City at $90 per square foot ($450,000) to be used at 135 Hamilton; 4. 135 Hamilton LLC shall contract with the general contractor and oversee construction through completion; City of Palo Alto Page 4 5. The garage spaces will be dedicated for use as follows: a. The top two floors (63 spaces, up to 93 with attendant parking) will be dedicated with an appropriate easement for the applicant’s use to support the development of the project at 135 Hamilton Avenue during weekday work hours (6:00 AM– 6:00 PM). b. The bottom two floors will be dedicated to public parking to retain at least as many visitor spaces as the existing Lot P (51 spaces). c. The City may dedicate the third floor (31 spaces) as either visitor or permit parking for weekday daytime parking. d. All spaces will be available to the public in the evening and on weekends. 6. If the City determines that additional spaces could be attained by constructing subterranean parking, the increment of that cost will be assumed by the City. Any public spaces beyond those committed to be retained by the Parking Assessment District parking (51 surface spaces existing) may be made available in any manner and cost, at the discretion of the City. The City may also provide attendant parking for any or all of the first three floors at its cost; 7. 135 Hamilton LLC shall provide a legal commitment to provide for “attendant” parking on the top two floors to increase the parking capacity on those floors to a minimum of 84 spaces. Access to and use of the parking area shall be an easement appurtenant to the 135 Hamilton project and available to the building's non- residential tenants. Use of the easement area shall be included in the project's base rent and not be an additional charge to its tenants. 135 Hamilton LLC shall also be required to include in its leases a provision that calls for tenant employees to park in the easement area and not park on City streets or in other City lots. The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for the 135 Hamilton project shall provide on an annual basis the number of tenant employees working in the building. 8. If requested by the City, 135 Hamilton LLC will coordinate with third-party lessee entities the installation of a photovoltaic (PV) system where the City would receive the net revenues generated by the system. It is assumed the height of the system is excluded from the City's 50' height limitation and terms and conditions are acceptable to the City. 9. Parking structure plans shall substantially conform to the concept plans submitted by 135 Hamilton LLC, dated May 7, 2013. The structure will be made of natural concrete and wall sections in context with the surrounding area. The structure will be inviting and brightly illuminated with all interior walls and ceilings painted white. The first floor level will feature floor-to-floor dimensions ranging from a minimum of 11’ to a maximum of 16’ to allow garbage/refuse trucks to service adjacent buildings behind the structure. City of Palo Alto Page 5 10. The parking garage will require design review by the City’s Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission, and City Council, pursuant to site and design review requirements of the Zoning Code; 11. The City shall be responsible for the general operation of the parking structure, including all maintenance, repairs and replacements. 135 Hamilton LLC shall pay its pro-rata share of such operating expenses including water, electricity, sweeping, elevator maintenance, general maintenance, repair, and insurance (earthquake insurance is not included, but the applicant may provide such insurance at their cost or alternatively, reimburse the City the cost of this insurance if it needs to be procured the City). 135 Hamilton LLC’s share of operating expenses shall also include trash pick-up and police patrol; 12. All permit and other City fees associated with the construction of the garage (planning; building; public works; utilities connection, capacity & metering fees; impact fees, and cost of environmental review) shall be waived or paid by the City. 13. All impact and permit fees for the 135 Hamilton Avenue project shall apply. The traffic impact fees, however, shall be directed to funding parking technology projects in the downtown area; 14. 135 Hamilton LLC shall be responsible for providing presentation materials for outreach to the surrounding business community, as well as to the various board and commission reviews; 15. Upon approval and construction of the parking structure, 135 Hamilton LLC shall not be required to build the 23 on-site parking spaces shown for the 135 Hamilton Project, but must still provide 4 spaces on-site for the 2 residential units; 16. If future assessments are approved for Palo Alto's Downtown Parking District, they shall apply only to the 135 Hamilton project site and not to Lot P; and 17. The City Attorney shall prepare a memorandum of understanding to incorporate the above parameters and other measures necessary to proceed with the project. Following final project approval by the City Council, a contract agreement will be finalized prior to construction. If directed by the Council, staff would work with the developer to draft a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for implementation of the project. Value and Costs to the City Staff has estimated values of benefits and potential costs to the City under the proposal (Attachment B), including:  Full valuation of the net new (31 parking spaces) full-time public spaces provided at the current rate of $60,750 per space (in-lieu parking fee) City of Palo Alto Page 6  Partial (50%) valuation of the net new spaces (63) shared by the developer during the day and the public in the evening and weekend  The value of the sale of the transferable development rights, with no associated reductions in parking requirements (5,000 sf at $90/sf)  A cost of $1 million from the City’s in-lieu fund for construction  A cost of $500,000 from the City’s in-lieu fund for estimated fees, charges and environmental review paid or waived by the City Based on this simplified analysis, Attachment B shows a net value to the City of about $2.74 million for the project. Values that were not quantified but could also be argued in the City’s benefit include the potential for attendant parking for the City and the developer spaces, the shortened timeframe (approximately 2 years rather than 5 or more years if the City fully funded the structure) for construction, and the reduced neighborhood impact of parking 60 additional cars in the garage rather than in the surrounding area, as is likely to be case if the developer proceeds alone (though about $2.5 million would be provided in in-lieu fees). On the cost side, the primary drawback for the City is the “opportunity” costs of building a fully public-funded garage on the site, or some combination of garage and other uses, including potential leasing of either garage spaces at market rates or leasing of office/retail or other “air rights” for the fourth and fifth floor. Value and Costs to 135 Hamilton LLC The owner, 135 Hamilton LLC, stands benefit from potentially higher lease rates at 135 Hamilton, given an assured source of parking for tenants. Staff has estimated that increase ($1.25-$1.50 per square foot on a net 18,000 leasable sf) in rents over a 50-year timeframe with a 5% discount rate at approximately $6.0 million (@$1.25) to $7.2 million (@$1.50) present value benefit to the owner (Attachment C). Staff further estimates that the owner would save the cost of building or paying in-lieu fees for 60 spaces, a benefit of approximately $3,645,000. The primary costs to the developer would be the $6.9 million for design and construction of the garage, and about $2.3 million present value for the cost of attendant parking for the fourth and fifth floor, estimated at approximately $100,000 per year over the next 50 years. The owner has also argued that a cost of $200,000 should be assigned for his purchase or reimbursement for earthquake insurance, but staff has not included this figure since that is a choice of his, not a requirement by the City. The net value to 135 Hamilton, LLC is therefore estimated at approximately $390,000 (@ $1.25/sf) to $1,628,000 (@$1.50/sf), as outlined in Attachment C. Options for City and for 135 Hamilton LLC The City and the applicant both have options other than building a joint garage together, and each of those options has implications financially and for parking in the downtown. City of Palo Alto Page 7 A. City Options The City could proceed to pursue a parking garage (or multiple garages) elsewhere in the downtown, with the following implications:  The City could use its current $2.5 million of In-Lieu Parking fees, plus the required $2.5 million from the 135 Hamilton project, to fund about half of a parking garage and explore how to fund the remainder, either through bonds or by studying the potential for financing with future parking revenues. This is likely to take a longer time to develop revenues and implement, likely from 5-10 years.  The City could look at options for the site that incorporate other uses, such as ground floor retail or office or residential above. Staff believes that, given the relatively small and confined space on Lot P, to do either of those cost-effectively would require allowing increased height above 50 feet. Subterranean parking is also a possibility, but is likely to significantly increase the cost and time and would create further constraints on access around the garage. Those options might be more effective on some of the larger sites identified in the City’s current downtown parking garage study.  Any of the above options are likely to take longer to have an impact on reducing neighborhood parking intrusion, and will not compensate (financially or otherwise) for the 20 spaces exempted from the 135 Hamilton project with the use of TDRs. The development of a Residential Permit Parking program would become even more critical to protecting the neighborhoods. B. 135 Hamilton LLC Options The applicant could construct the required 19 spaces (plus four for the two residential units) on the site, pay $2.5 million in in-lieu parking fees (assuming no 1:1 FAR exemption is granted), and proceed with the project as approved. It is likely that 60 vehicles would be parked on the streets or elsewhere upon construction of the building, until such time as the $2.5 million financed an additional 40 spaces. The 20 spaces exempt due to TDRs would only be provided at City cost for a future structure. Staff believes that, given the options available, the proposed joint public-private garage makes financial and land use sense at this time. The spaces gained will relieve downtown parking regardless of whether they are committed to a private development, and the impact on the City’s parking funds is minimal. The alternatives appear to result in a longer period of time until any new parking supply can be generated and more immediate impact on both neighborhood areas and businesses that need parking. Resource Impact The proposed project would commit approximately $1.5 million of the City’s in-lieu Parking City of Palo Alto Page 8 District fees for construction and permitting. The joint venture is estimated to provide a value to the City of about $2.7 million, which would otherwise be required as City contributions. Alternatives to financing with this applicant would require either finding another private party for a joint venture, delaying a garage until adequate funding is available (likely 5-10 years), or developing a mechanism for funding a garage sooner and pledging future market-rate parking revenues against up-front bonds or other financing mechanisms. Policy Implications The proposed public-private garage would preserve and enhance downtown parking by providing additional parking for businesses and visitors. The additional parking resource would also help to protect residential neighborhoods by reducing the need to park outside downtown. These are both key goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Review Environmental review is not required at this point but will be required prior to project approval by the City’s boards and commissions and Council. Review would also be necessary prior to entering into a contract agreement with the 135 Hamilton LLC. Attachments:  Attachment A: Proposed Terms of Agreement for Lot P Garage (DOCX)  Attachment B: Value and Cost to City of Palo Alto (DOC)  Attachment C: Value and Cost to 135 Hamilton LLC (DOC)  Attachment D: March 6, 2013 Letter Proposal from Keenan Land Company (PDF)  Attachment E: Lot P Concept Plans March 5, 2013 (PDF) 1 Attachment A Lot P Public-Private Garage Staff Proposal June 4, 2013 1. The City will contribute $1.0 million from the City’s In-Lieu Parking Fund towards the construction of the garage, plus the cost of all permits for the project, estimated at $500,000 (also paid from the In-Lieu Parking Fund); 2. The owner/applicant of the 135 Hamilton Avenue Project (135 Hamilton) will pay for the remainder (estimated at $6.989 million) of the project cost; 3. 135 Hamilton will purchase 5,000 square feet of transferable development rights (TDRs) from the City at $90 per square foot ($450,000); 4. 135 Hamilton shall contract with the general contractor and oversee construction through completion; 5. The garage spaces will be dedicated for use as follows: a. The top two floors (63 spaces, up to 93 with attendant parking) will be dedicated with an appropriate easement for the applicant’s use to support the development of the project at 135 Hamilton Avenue during weekday work hours (6:00 AM – 6:00 PM). b. The bottom two floors will be dedicated to public parking to retain at least as many visitor spaces as the existing Lot P (51 spaces). c. The City may dedicate the third floor (31 spaces) as either visitor or permit parking for weekday daytime parking. d. All spaces will be available to the public in the evening and on weekends. 6. If the City determines that additional spaces could be attained by constructing subterranean parking, the increment of cost will be assumed by the City. Any public spaces beyond those committed to be retained by the Parking Assessment District parking (51 surface spaces existing) may be made available in any manner and cost, at the discretion of the City. The City may also provide attendant parking for any or all of the first three floors at its cost; 7. 135 Hamilton shall provide a legal commitment to provide for “attendant” parking on the top two floors to increase the parking capacity on those floors to a minimum of 84 spaces. Access to and use of the parking area shall be an easement appurtenant to the 135 Hamilton Project and available to the building's non- residential tenants. Use of the easement area shall be included in the project's base rent and not be an additional charge to its tenants. 135 Hamilton shall also be required to include in its leases a provision that calls for tenant employees to park in the easement area and not park on City streets or in other City lots. The 2 Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for the 135 Hamilton project shall provide on an annual basis the number of tenant employees working in the building. 8. If requested by the City, 135 Hamilton will coordinate with third-party lessee entities the installation of a photovoltaic (PV) system where the City would receive the net revenues generated by the system. Assumes the height of the system is excluded from the City's 50' height limitation and terms and conditions are acceptable to the City. 9. Parking structure plans shall substantially conform to the concept plans submitted by 135 Hamilton dated May 7, 2013. The structure will be made of natural concrete and wall sections in context with the surrounding area. The structure will be inviting and brightly illuminated with all interior walls and ceilings painted white. The first floor level will feature floor-to-floor dimensions ranging from a minimum of 11’ to a maximum of 16’ to allow garbage/refuse trucks to service adjacent buildings behind the structure. 10. The parking garage will require design review by the City’s Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission, and City Council, pursuant to site and design review requirements of the Zoning Code; 11. The City shall be responsible for the general operation of the parking structure, including all maintenance, repairs and replacements. 135 Hamilton shall pay its pro- rata share of such operating expenses, including water, electricity, sweeping, elevator maintenance, general maintenance, repair and insurance (earthquake insurance is not included, but the applicant may provide such insurance at their cost or alternatively, reimburse the City the cost of this insurance if it needs to be procured the City). 135 Hamilton’s share of operating expenses shall also include trash pick-up and police patrol; 12. All permit and other City fees associated with the construction of the garage (planning; building; public works; utilities connection, capacity & metering fees; impact fees, and cost of environmental review) shall be waived or paid by the City; 13. All impact and permit fees for the 135 Hamilton Avenue project shall apply. The traffic impact fees, however, shall be directed to funding parking technology projects in the downtown area; 14. 135 Hamilton shall be responsible for providing presentation materials for outreach to the surrounding business community, as well as to the various board and commission reviews; 15. Upon approval and construction of the parking structure, 135 Hamilton shall not be required to build the 23 on-site parking spaces shown for the 135 Hamilton Project, but must still provide 4 spaces on-site for the 2 residential units; 3 16. If future assessments are approved for Palo Alto's Downtown Parking District, they shall apply only to the 135 Hamilton project site and not to Lot P; and 17. The City Attorney shall prepare a memorandum of understanding to incorporate the above parameters and other measures necessary to proceed with the project. Following final project approval by the City Council, a contract agreement will be finalized prior to construction. 1 Lot P Public-Private Garage City of Palo Alto Benefits and Costs June 4, 2013 BENEFITS Total 1. Net 31 Daytime Public Spaces Added Above Existing (w/o Parking Attendant) - 31 Spaces x $ 60,750 $1,883,250 2. Additional 63 Evening and Weekend Public Spaces (In Addition to 31 Spaces Above) - 63 Spaces x $ 30,375 (50% of full availability) 1,913,625 3. Value of City TDR's Purchased - 5,000 SF x $ 90/SF* 450,000 4. Impact of Additional 60 Cars Parking in the Neighborhood Avoided Not Quantified 5. Potential to Add Photovoltaic System with Net Revenues Benefitting the City Not Quantified 6. Potential to Create a Parking Structure within the Next Two Years as Compared to a Probable 5 Year Timeframe Otherwise Not Quantified Total Benefits $4,240,000 COSTS 1. Contribution from In-Lieu Parking Fund $1,000,000 2. Approximate Cost of Exempting Planning and Other Departmental Permit and Environmental Review for New Garage (also from In-Lieu Fund) 500,000 Total Costs $1,500,000 Benefits in Excess of Costs to City: $2,740,000 +PV System +2 Yr. Install + 60 Cars Off Street *note: also could value the cost of constructing 20 spaces to compensate for exemption from parking requirements if TDRs used by others = 20 x $60,750 = $1,215,000 Attachment B 1 Lot P Public-Private Garage Benefits and Costs to 135 Hamilton June 4, 2013 BENEFITS Total 1. Construction/In Lieu Fee Saved: 60 Spaces x $ 60,750 $3,645,000 2. Present Value Increase in Rent: 18,000 SF Rentable (20,000 SF Gross) x $ 1.25/SF/Mo. x 12 Mo./Yr. = $ 270,000/Yr.@ 5% discount, 50 years, 2% annual increase 6,017,000 3. Present Value Increase in Rent: 18,000 SF Rentable (20,000 SF Gross) x $ 1.50/SF/Mo. x 12 Mo./Yr. = $ 270,000/Yr.@ 5% discount, 50 years, 2% annual increase 7,255,000 Total Benefits @ $1.25/sf $9,662,000 Total Benefits @ $1.50/sf $10,900,000 COSTS* 1. Contribution to Lot P (Net of City's $ 1M contribution) $6,979,000 2. Reduction in Value Attributable to Parking Attendant - $ 100,000/Yr.@ 5% discount, 50 years 2,293,000 3. Coordination of Solar System Installation - Cost Neutral -0- Total Costs $9,272,000 Benefits in Excess of Costs to 135 Hamilton @ $1.25/sf $390,000 Benefits in Excess of Costs to 135 Hamilton @ $1.50/sf $1,628,000 *Reduction in value attributable to providing earthquake insurance for full parking structure: $10,000/year @ 5% discount for 50 years = $229,000; not included by staff as the City is not requiring this. Attachment C March 06, 2013 Mr. Curtis Williams Director Planning of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Community Environment Re: Proposed lot P Public/Private Parking Structure Dear Curtis: I would like to propose a public/private partnership for the development of a parking structure on Lot P. This development would provide an on-site capacity of 145 self-park or 194 stacked/tandem spaces; increasing the e)(fsting day-time capacity of S1 stalls by 60% (31 stalls) and night-time capacity by 184 % (94 development is based on the following terms conditions: 1. City contributes $ 1M toward the construction costs. 2. 135 Hamilton (Hamilton & llC or other Keenan shall contribute balance of all costs (hard soft) to be $ 7.989M. 3. City to sell 135 Hamilton up to 7,500 square feet its TOR's at $ 90 per square foot. 4. 135 Hamilton shaJl contract with general contractor and oversee construction completion. 5. 135 Hamilton and 5 (63 easement in for Floors 4 of 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Floors 4 and 5 easement is to provide a stack/tandem operation the commercial at 13S Hamilton Avenue. A stack/tandem parking operation allows users to self-park until the zone is full. Subsequent users park in the drive aisles and leave their keys with an attendant. 6. parking structure will made of natural concrete with screened open areas and wall in context with surrounding neighborhood. The structure will inviting and brightly illuminated with all interior walls and ceilings painted white. The floor level will feature floor-to-floor dimensions ranging from a minimum 11' to a maximum of 16' to allow to service adjacent buildings behind the structure. 7. for the operation the parking including maintenance) repairs 135 Hamilton shall pay pro-rata share of operating expenses including water, maintenance, and insurance (including estimated to be $ 10,OOO/yr.) for Floors 4 and S. 135 Hamilton's share of operating expenses shall not include pick-up, administration or police patrol. 700 E:MERSON STREET· PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94~OI • TELE:PHONE (650) 614·6<:46 ' TE:LECOPY (650) 3aS-2920 8. In the event this parking structure proposal is approved by the City Council, then the subterranean parking at 13S Hamilton shall not be constructed other than four on-grade parking spaces to serve the residential units where the subterranean ramp was to be built. 9. Regarding lot P, the city shall waive all city fees, surcharges, costs, taxes, levies and assessments. Very truly yoursu tte. "e~~ Chop Ke~an City of Palo Alto (ID # 3785) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/10/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Assessment for California Avenue Area Parking Bonds Title: Public Hearing – Assessment for California Avenue Area Parking Bonds – Plan G: FY 2013-2014; Adoption of a Resolution Confirming Engineer’s Report and Assessment Roll, California Avenue Parking Project No. 92-13 (For Fiscal Year 2013-2014) From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) confirming the Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll for California Avenue District, Project No. 92-13. Background By virtue of the prior establishment of the assessment district and issuance of debt, Council action is required to levy assessments for the active parking project in the California Avenue area. These assessments will be utilized for the payment of principal and interest on bonds for capital improvements pursuant to the attached resolution. These funds are separate and distinct from permit fees that are used to pay for operation and maintenance of parking facilities. The active project is listed and described as follows: 1. California Avenue District, Ted Thompson Parking Structure, Project 92-13: Construction of a two-level parking structure on Cambridge Avenue between Birch Street and Nogal Lane. Parking bonds issued under Bond Plan G (Section 13.16.150, Palo Alto Municipal Code) require that a public hearing be held annually (the second Monday in June) on the assessments, which must be levied to pay principal and interest on the bonds. The purpose of the public hearing is City of Palo Alto Page 2 to allow each property owner the opportunity to question the computation of his/her assessment and the elements which comprise it, that is, the square footage of each occupied building, the off-street parking requirements for the usage, and the off-street parking provided. Assessments are levied on the basis of building square footage, with a credit given for the off- street parking provided by the property owner. Additional details about the Parking Assessment District-Plan G bond capital improvement program projects can be found in Attachment B. Discussion The assessment rates for FY 2013-14 (Attachment C) per square foot of adjusted building area and the amount levied for the project is: PROJECT ASSESSMENT RATE PER ADJUSTED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE DOLLARS LEVIED 1. California Avenue District, Ted Thompson Parking Structure, Project 92-13 $9.15* $0.060** Total: $123,626.20 $ 41,208.74 $164,834.94 *Rate per weighted assessment factor. **Rate per land square footage. Approximately $341,000 in excess construction funds in the California Avenue District bond fund for the Ted Thompson parking garage, Project 92-13, was used to reduce the tax roll required to pay off the bonds sold to finance the project. To equalize assessments, the funds were spread uniformly over the duration of the bonds (20 years) beginning with the 1996 assessments. Attachment D lists any changes made to the assessment rolls in response to new information. The estimated assessments were sent to property owners within the California Avenue district on May 14, 2013. A map of the District is contained in Attachment E. Estimated assessments may be modified due to recent changes in business site conditions (square footage, vacancy, etc.), which are brought to staff's attention by property owners after the estimated assessments are prepared. As of the date of publication of this staff report, Attachment D does not list any assessment roll changes. Because the hearing itself is the legally prescribed process by which questions about the basis of assessment and the property owners' individual City of Palo Alto Page 3 circumstances may be heard, it may be necessary to have an updated Attachment D available “at places” at the Council meeting that reflects changes brought to staff's attention since the Council packet was delivered. The public hearing for the assessment district may need to be continued if last minute information brought forward by property owners cannot be verified and included in the amended rolls prior to the hearing. Resource Impact The project is funded by the assessment district and no City General Fund monies are involved. Although assessments are generally subject to Proposition 218, this particular assessment is exempt from Proposition 218 since all of the assessment proceeds are pledged to repay bond indebtedness issued prior to enactment of Proposition 218. Parking district maintenance costs, including sweeping, landscaping, signing and lighting are paid for by parking permit fees, which were last increased in 2005 in the California Avenue Parking District. These are separate from the funds used to pay for construction of the parking garage. Policy Implications Approval of this action does not represent any change to existing City policies. Timeline The assessments will be sent to the Santa Clara County Tax Collector in July and will appear on the October property tax bills. Environmental Review Approval of assessments is exempt by from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments:  A - Resolution - Cal Ave Park Bonds Plan G 2 (PDF)  B - Parking Assessment District-Plan (DOC)  C - Assessment Rates FY 2011-2012 (PDF)  D - Amendments (DOC)  E - California Avenue Parking Assessment District Map (PDF) RESOLUTION NO. __ _ RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-13 (For Fiscal Year 2013-14) THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DOES RESOLVE as follows: Section 1: After proceedings conducted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a public hearing has been duly held on the Engineer's Report and assessment roll prepared for the above fiscal year to pay the principal and interest on bonds issued pursuant to Resolution of Intention No. 7930, adopted by the Council of the City of Palo Alto on August 9, 1993; Section 2: This Council has heard all persons having an interest in any real property within the parking assessment district; has heard all objections, protests, or other written communications from any persons interested in the real property within the district; has taken and received oral and documentary evidence pertaining to the matters contained in the report; and has remedied and corrected any errors or informalities in the report and revised and corrected any of the acts or determinations of the various City officials as contained therein; Section 3: The Engineer's Report and assessment roll, and each of the assessments therein as fully revised and corrected, is hereby approved and confirmed and adoption of this Resolution constitutes the levy of the assessments for fiscal year 2013-14. 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ -1- Attachment B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FINANCED BY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES USING G-BONDS CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA BOND ISSUE AMOUNT OF BOND ISSUE PURPOSE OF ISSUE DATE ISSUED DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST RATE California Avenue Project 92-13 (Ted Thompson Garage) $2,055,000 Construction of a future two level parking structure on lot C-3 and the two parcels acquired by project 86-01. 11/93 09/02/2015 3.4% - 5.4% Attachment D CALIFORNIA AVENUE DISTRICT AMENDMENTS PRELIMINARY ROLL Address, Parcel Number Use Square Feet Parking Reqd. Parking Prov Assessment 92-13 No amendments AMENDED ROLL Address, Parcel Number Use Square Feet Parking Reqd. Parking Prov Assessment 92-13 No amendments City of Palo Alto (ID # 3855) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/10/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 567 Maybell Council PC Rezone Title: Public Hearing: Consideration of 567-595 Maybell Avenue Planned Community(PC), including: (1) Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) Adoption of a Planned Community Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designations from R-2 and RM-15 to Allow a 15 Unit Single Family and 60 Unit Affordable Rental Development for Seniors, including Two Concessions under State Density Bonus Law (Building Height and Daylight Plane); and (3) Approval of a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Designation for a Portion of the Site to Single Family Residential (from Multifamily Residential), for the Project Located at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. *Quasi-Judicial. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend a Council MOTION to: (1) Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B); amended June 4, 2013 , (2) Adopt a Planned Community Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designations from R-2 and RM-15 to Allow a 15 Unit Single Family and 60 Unit Affordable Rental Development for Seniors (Attachment A), including Two Concessions under State Density Bonus Law (Building Height and Daylight Plane), and (3) Approve a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Designation for a Portion of the Site to Single Family Residential (from Multifamily Residential), for the Project Located at 567-595 Maybell Avenue (Attachment C). Executive Summary The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), a not for profit affordable housing developer, has submitted a Planned Community rezone request to allow for the proposed project. To help reduce the amount of public funding necessary for the multifamily affordable senior development, the market rate single family homes would be sold and the proceeds used City of Palo Alto Page 2 towards the financing of the senior development. Palo Alto’s senior population accounts for 18% of its total population, and many of those seniors are on fixed incomes. This project will provide an additional 60 housing units for this growing segment of the population. There has been a high level of interest in this application. Neighborhood residents have expressed concerns about the increased residential density in a single family neighborhood, the automobile traffic impacts on bicycle and pedestrian safety on Maybell Avenue and that the site is inappropriate for senior housing due to its lack of services within walking distance. However, traffic data demonstrates that the amount of traffic generated from this development will be negligible and will not impact Maybell Avenue. In addition, the proposed multifamily senior development abuts to the multifamily, 100-foot tall Tan Plaza Continental building and the Arastradero Park Apartments (also owned by PAHC). The Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board have recommended approval of the request. Background The applicant, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), has requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning of the 2.46 acre site to Planned Community (PC) to allow increased density and smaller lot sizes than the underlying zone districts. PAHC plans to demolish the existing four homes and develop 15 market rate single-family homes and 60 affordable senior (62+ years old) rental multifamily units. The affordable senior units would be rented to seniors earning between 30%-60% of Area Median Income (AMI). The project’s inclusion of affordable rental housing units allows for the granting of “concessions” under State Density Bonus Law per Government Section 65915. Requested concessions are described later in this report. The project would be designed to meet or exceed the City’s green point rating system. PAHC plans to subdivide the project site to create a subdivision of the single family homes and a parcel for the senior affordable rental project. The single family subdivision (Market Rate Parcel) would then be sold to a developer and the proceeds would be used to help finance the affordable senior development (Senior Parcel). PAHC has submitted a tentative map application for the subdivision. There are two legal parcels on the site. A smaller 0.32 acre legal parcel is adjacent to Maybell Avenue and is surrounded on three sides by the larger 2.14 acre parcel. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the smaller legal parcel is Single Family with a zoning designation of R-2. The larger parcel has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of both Single Family and Multi-family and both R-2 and (primarily) RM-15 zoning. The Comprehensive Plan amendment is necessary because the applicant proposes to site single-family homes along Clemo Avenue, which currently has a Multi-family Residential Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The amendment would change the multifamily land use to single-family land use City of Palo Alto Page 3 to be consistent with the proposed project. The proposed new development would rezone the two residentially zoned parcels to form a single residential PC zoned site. The applicant’s comprehensive project description and supplementary statements in support of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and proposed PC district zone change are provided as Attachment D. The project plans represent the applicant’s Development Plan for the proposed PC zone district. Residential Units for Senior Citizens PAHC proposes to build a four-story multi-family structure of approximately 56,192 square feet with an overall height of 50 feet above grade. The roof height of the structure is generally 45 feet with a 5 foot high stairwell for roof access for a total overall building height of 50 feet. The senior rental building would be located on a 1.03 acre parcel on the northeast corner of the site and would include 59 one-bedroom apartments and one two-bedroom apartment for an on- site manager, common areas such as a community room with computer lab, laundry rooms on each floor, a resident services office, as well as outdoor common area space. The fourth floor will also have a roof terrace and an exercise room available for all the residents. All the apartments would be affordable to senior households earning 30-60% of the Area Median Income (AMI), with an average size of 600 square feet. The affordability of the project will be secured for 55 years through an executed Regulatory Agreement. In addition, the affordability would be tied to the PC ordinance. If the affordability levels were to change or go to market rate, the PC zone would need to be reviewed and amended by the City Council. A total of 47 parking spaces, 42 allocated with 5 spaces in reserve, will be provided with the development. The .78 ratio (47 spaces/60 units) is higher than other affordable senior housing development in Palo Alto and the region. As a comparison, Stevenson House on Charleston Avenue has a ratio of .33. Rooftop photovoltaic energy systems are proposed to pre-heat water prior to entering a central boiler. Photovoltaic electric solar panels are proposed to power the community room. Water conservation will be achieved with drought-tolerant landscaping of all vegetated areas. Energy Star appliances will be used in the residences. Additional sustainability measures will be met throughout the construction and materials selection process which may include recycled aggregate, engineered lumber, no added formaldehyde insulation and modular cabinets, low- VOC paints, wood coatings and adhesives, and low-emitting flooring. Single Family Housing Units City of Palo Alto Page 4 The market-rate units would be located on a 1.11 acre portion of the site, running adjacent to the perimeter of the property, bordering Maybell and Clemo Avenues. The remaining 0.32 of the site will be a common space lot covering the proposed alley ways in the development. The 15-unit subdivision would comprise fee simple lots of approximately 2,300 to 3,400 square feet with residence sizes between 1,800-2,400 square feet. There would be eight single-family houses located on Maybell Avenue, one on a corner lot, and six along Clemo Avenue. The houses on Maybell Avenue would be two and three stories with an average height of approximately 25 feet for the two story houses and 35 feet for the three story units. The corner unit would be two stories with an overall height of 25 feet. The houses will be setback approximately 12 feet from Maybell Avenue. Houses on Clemo Avenue would have three stories and a height of 35 feet. The Clemo Avenue homes would be setback 20 feet to accommodate the mature oak trees that are along Clemo Avenue. In order to avoid parking impacts on Maybell and Clemo Avenues, two car garage parking would be provided at the rear of each unit, accessed by an alley in the interior of the site. Garage parking at the rear of the homes would allow an uninterrupted sidewalk along Maybell Avenue which will connect existing sidewalks east and west of the property. The eight homes along Maybell Avenue will also have two car driveways to accommodate additional parking if necessary. Previous Hearings A study session was held by the City Council on this project in September 2012 to receive comments on the proposed development. Palo Alto Housing Corporation presented a draft site plan with the proposed development. The single family homes would front both Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue. As part of the proposed site plan, the eight single family homes along Maybell Avenue each were shown with individual driveways onto Maybell Avenue. The Council provided a number of comments but a primary concern expressed by the Council were the eight individual driveways on Maybell Avenue and the impact on the street. Based on Council comments, PAHC revised their site plan so that all the residences would be accessed by a single entryway located on Clemo Avenue to Arastradero Road. All parking would be provided in the interior of the project with no access onto Maybell Avenue. On February 13, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the PC rezone application for appropriateness in initiating the rezone process. The Commission was divided about the adequacy of the number of parking spaces provided for the senior development and the single family homes. Some commissioners felt there was too much parking for the senior development and not enough parking for the single family homes. Other commissioners thought that the senior project was underparked. There was also a discussion about the adequacy of the public benefits. The Planning and Transportation Commission voted 4-2 (Commissioners Panelli and Tanaka dissenting) that the project was appropriate for the Planned Community rezone and to initiate the rezone process. City of Palo Alto Page 5 The Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the project design on April 4, 2013. There were additional design conditions that the ARB had required of the project but overall, the Board felt that the project design was appropriate for the site and compatible with the surrounding uses. The minutes of the ARB meeting are included as Attachment E. On May 22, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval to the City Council of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Community Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Resolution for this project. As part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed Clemo via Arastradero access was identified as a potentially significant impact. Therefore, as a mitigation measure, a secondary access to Maybell Avenue was required through the adjacent PAHC owned Arastradero Park Apartments. Staff added conditions of approval to designate the southern side of Maybell Avenue as a “No Parking” area between hours of 7 AM to 7 PM and the installation of “sharrows” on Maybell Avenue in both directions (Attachment F). The PT&C added an additional condition of approval for the applicant to work with City staff to identify appropriate areas of the non-paved segments of Maybell Avenue to install sidewalks to increase pedestrian safety between El Camino Real and Juana Briones Park and School. The P&TC minutes from this meeting are included as Attachment G. Discussion Key Planning and Transportation Issues Impacts Identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration Traffic A traffic study was prepared by Hexagon Traffic Consultants for this project. The study determined that the project would generate 16 net new AM peak hour trips and 21 net new PM peak hour trips. In determining net new trips, the trips generated by the existing four single family homes were subtracted from the calculation. The proposed ingress/egress for the development would be from Clemo Avenue to Arastradero Road. However, the Initial Study, based on the findings of the traffic study, identified that if all trips were directed towards the Clemo/Arastradero intersection for ingress/ egress, a potential significant impact would occur at the intersection. As a mitigation measure, in addition to the proposed Clemo Avenue entryway, the applicant is required to secure an easement to the adjacent Arastradero Park Apartments (APAC), also owned by PAHC, to utilize APAC’s Maybell Avenue access, thus creating dual access points to the project site. By allowing the Maybell Avenue access, it will decrease the directed traffic and alleviate the impact on the Clemo/Arastradero intersection while creating minimal impact to Maybell Ave. It is anticipated that approximately two AM City of Palo Alto Page 6 peak hour trips generated from the project will be turning westbound on Maybell Ave. Most project peak AM trips will be going towards El Camino Real. Clemo Avenue Oak Trees There are 12 oak trees along Clemo Avenue. The applicant proposes to remove two of the smaller oak trees. The remaining 10 oaks have been integrated into the design of the homes along Clemo Avenue. An arborist report has been prepared that has reviewed each of the oaks. All recommendations in the arborist report have been included as mitigation measures in the MND. Height and Daylight Plane The proposed project does not meet the Planned Community zone requirements of daylight plane and height. The PC zone ordinance mandates that any development within 150 feet of residential developments must adhere to daylight plane requirements and cannot exceed a maximum height of 35 feet. The senior building would protrude into the daylight plane for those sides adjacent to the respective APAC and Tan Plaza buildings. Also, the proposed height for the senior building is 45 feet, plus 5 feet for the building stairwell for a small area. To rectify the code inconsistencies with height and daylight plane, the applicant is requesting housing density bonus concessions through Government Code Section 65915. With the provision of affordable housing, developers are eligible for additional density and concessions, which are allowed “by right.” Concessions provide regulatory relief to zoning requirements in order to produce the affordable housing. PAHC is eligible for up to three concessions but is only requesting two concessions to address the daylight plane and height requirements. Community Concerns Prior to the May 22, 2013 P&TC meeting, staff and the Commission received extensive correspondence from concerned neighborhood residents. All correspondence received by the City is included as Attachment L. There were many different opinions voiced, however a majority of the comments dwelt on one or more of the following concerns: Inappropriate Site for Senior Housing Staff notes that obtaining and financing a low income senior housing project is arduous and extremely challenging project in Palo Alto and similar areas in the Bay Area, and sites are not readily available for PAHC or other housing developers to choose from. Some residents have commented that the site, however, is inappropriate for senior housing since there are no services within walking distance other than Walgreens, which is 0.2 miles from the project site. The commenters maintain that seniors will need to drive to grocery stores and other services, City of Palo Alto Page 7 also therefore increasing the traffic on Maybell Avenue. However, there are a number of services within 0.5 miles on El Camino Real. PAHC also provides a multitude of transportation and other services to its residents at Arastradero Park which could also serve the residents of this development. Inappropriate Site for Increased Density The Barron Park and Green Acres neighborhoods are primarily single family residentially zoned. Many members of those neighborhoods maintain that increased density would be inconsistent with the surrounding density and would deteriorate the quality of life in the area. Staff notes, however, that immediately adjacent is the Tan Plaza, which by comparison is a 61 unit development on 2 acres, with a height of approximately 100 feet. Also immediately adjacent on the east side is the Arastradero Park project, a multi-family affordable housing development also owned by the PAHC. Only one side of the project (across Maybell) is characterized by single-family development. The “high density” portion of the site is set well back (more than 100 feet) from homes along Maybell, abutting the Tan Apartments site. So the result is a logical step-down and transition from Arastradero Road and the Tan Apartments, to the new senior project and the adjacent Arastradero Park Apartments to the new 2-3 story single-family homes, then across Maybell to the existing 1-2 story homes in the neighborhoods. Traffic/Safety on Maybell Avenue Maybell Avenue is an existing Bicycle Boulevard as identified in the City Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. It is also a suggested route to Henry M. Gunn High School and Juana Briones Elementary School as part of the City’s Safe Routes to School program. Many bicyclists using Maybell Avenue are students attending Juana Briones Elementary School, Terman Middle School and Henry M. Gunn High School. There is concern that the proposed project would add additional traffic onto Maybell Avenue and create additional hazards to an already impacted street. As mentioned, the project would generate 16 net new AM peak hour trips and 21 net new PM peak hour trips. In calculating the net new the trips generated by the existing four single family homes were subtracted from the calculation. The table below compares traffic generation from the proposed project to traffic generation estimated if the site builds out to existing zoning but as market-rate single family homes. The table compares peak hour trip traffic generation assuming maximum buildout of the project site using the existing zoning (R-2 and RM-15), existing zoning with the maximum 35% State density bonus and the proposed development. As previously mentioned, the project site using existing zoning is permitted 34 units. Based on data used by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the average AM trip generation rate per single family detached dwelling unit is .75 with a PM peak trip ratio of 1.02. Therefore, a 34 unit subdivision, as allowed by the existing zoning would generate 22 net new trips occurring in the AM peak hour and 32 net new PM peak hours trips. In comparison, the City of Palo Alto Page 8 proposed project would have 16 AM peak hour trips and 21 PM peak hour trips, as senior units produce significantly less peak hour (and total) trips. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Maximum Number of Dwelling Units AM Peak hour trips PM Peak hour trips Existing Zoning 34 22 32 Existing Zoning with 35% Density Bonus 46 32 43 Proposed Maybell Development 75 16 21 The City has acknowledged the need for pedestrian and bicycle enhancements for safety along Maybell Avenue and other local streets, and is undertaking study of a number of potential improvements as part of implementation for the Bicycle Boulevard and the Safe Routes to Schools programs. Those efforts are outlined later in this report. It is important to note that the traffic issues on Maybell currently exist, even without the project. Build Under the Existing Zoning Some residents have commented that the site should not be rezoned and that a project should be designed consistent with the existing zoning. Staff notes that (as indicated above), such a development would have greater traffic impacts on Maybell Avenue. A complying RM-15 and R- 2 market rate project would also generate more school children than the proposed project. Some neighbors have urged that the site be built as senior affordable housing at the existing allowable density, but that is simply not feasible for the PAHC (or likely any other developer). The price of the land would dictate that a lower density development would most likely comprise 35-40 market rate single family homes, similar to those proposed for the Maybell frontage, and again with increased traffic and school impacts. Annex the Orchard to Expand Juana Briones Park There have been suggestions to use the orchard to expand Juana Briones Park or to develop playing fields on the project site. There are no play fields in the area since the fields at Gunn High School and other schools in the area are not accessible to the public. Staff notes that such a proposal has not been fully considered but an initial review indicates that there are a number of concerns about locating athletic fields at the site. The site is too small to accommodate a playing field and required parking, there are no funds available for the purchase (approximately $16 million) of the site, and the expected traffic and parking impacts of playing fields are also quite significant, as are potential noise impacts. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Other Issues During the P&TC hearing, some other discussion points arose during the meeting that staff felt warranted additional review and response. City Loans for Site Acquisition There were some public comments made about a potential City “conflict of interest” in approving loans to acquire the site prior to approving the proposed land use. The applicant acquired the site on November 30, 2012. The City provided financial assistance in the form of two loans in the total amount of $5.8 million towards the acquisition of the site. In November 2012, the Council approved a $3.2 million long term loan and in February 2013, approved an additional $2.6 million in the form of a two year short term loan using fees from Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) public benefit payments. The intent was that as future in-lieu housing and commercial housing fees were paid into the City’s affordable housing funds, those funds would be used to “backfill” the short term loan and reimburse the SUMC fund. Since the approval of the short term loan, sufficient affordable housing fees have been collected to be able to reimburse the SUMC fund. Staff notes that these funds do not come from the General Fund. These funds are collected from housing developers and from businesses that are expanding square footage. These collected funds are specifically dedicated for affordable housing. As a condition of loan approval, the City expressly represented in the loan agreement that it reserved its land use authority over the project, including its ability to exercise its discretion to perform environmental review, approve land use entitlements and issue other City permits. The City made no representations that it would in fact approve the project and retained the right to terminate the loan agreement in the event the City elected not to approve the land use entitlements for the project. In addition to retaining land use discretion over the project, the loan documentation provided financial safeguards in the event the City elected not to approve the project. The loan documentation contained detailed contingency provisions allowing the City to terminate the loan agreement if the Council denied the entitlements. Upon termination the loan permitted the City to request immediate repayment of the loan, foreclose on the property or exercise its right to purchase the property from PAHC. These types of financial safeguards commonly found in housing fund loans allow the City to act both in its capacity as lender and regulator while ensuring housing loan funds are recouped in the event the project is ultimately denied. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Private Street Requirements A resident brought up the issue that the proposed traffic circulation on the site plan is required to meet the City code for private streets. Section 21.20.241 of the City Code requires a 32 foot width for private streets, with lesser (26 feet) widths allowed for projects having parking aprons. The purpose of this code provision is to ensure that adjacent street parking is provided. The proposed widths in the site plan are 24-26 ft. wide, and the lots with Maybell frontage have parking aprons. However, in reviewing the definition of Private street in Section 21.04.030(30), the code states that a private street means any right of way, including vehicular access easements, not dedicated as a public street which is used for vehicular traffic to or from two or more units which do not have frontage on a public street, or to or from one parcel which does not have frontage on public street if the right of way or easement used for ingress or egress is more than two hundred feet in length. This project does not meet the definition of a “private street” since all the lots have frontage on Maybell Avenue or Clemo Avenue, which are public streets. Therefore, the private streets requirement does not apply. City Traffic Safety Efforts for Maybell Avenue Aside from the Maybell Avenue improvements required by the developer as conditions of approval, the City has acknowledged, well in advance of this project, issues of traffic and school safety in the immediate area, and is initiating its own improvements on Maybell Avenue and nearby. The Transportation Division has hired a consultant to work with the community in reviewing and providing comment on a number of proposed improvements for Maybell Avenue as part of the Bicycle Boulevard and Safe Routes to School implementation. Some possible treatments that will be evaluated and discussed with the community, as well as the City-School Traffic Safety Committee and the City Bicycle Advisory Committee may include:  Pavement markings and bike boulevard signage o Bicycle Boulevard “Super Sharrows” o Green pavement transitions from bike lane to shared bike way o Additional bike boulevard and bicycle way-finding signage  Possible parking restrictions (i.e. No parking on one side 7AM to 7PM) – if desirable to the community  Evaluation of possible alternatives for intersections at Maybell/Amaranta, Maybell/Coulombe, Maybell/Donald, and Donald/Georgia intersections. o Enhanced striped crosswalks o Bulb outs or curb radii reduction o Potential traffic control alternatives (traffic circles, etc.) City of Palo Alto Page 11  Potential improvements at approaches to El Camino Real (including on El Camino Way) to improve the crossing at ECR.  As part of the City’s Safe Routes to School program, maps of suggested routes to Juana Briones, Terman Middle and Gunn High school are being finalized for distribution to students and parents prior to the beginning of the next school year. Planned Community Zone Findings The Council, prior to approving an ordinance designating and regulating any Planned Community (PC) district, must make the following findings: (a) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. The proposed Planned Community zone district at 567 Maybell is necessary to insure the feasibility and long term preservation of the affordable housing land use. The PC ordinance provides the ability to develop specific land uses for the property, but does not assure availability to seniors and/or at affordable rates. In this instance, the PC requirements can be written to specify the affordability of the land use and the occupants. If at a subsequent date, the multifamily land use is proposed to be changed from affordable to market rate, the proposed change would need to be considered by the Council. In general or combining districts, the Council would not have the ability to consider the affordability level of the multifamily land use. The higher density allowed under the PC also makes the project financially feasible. Also, the PC designation is necessary based on the applicant’s site plan. To be competitive for affordable housing tax credit purposes, PAHC proposes to site the 60 units of affordable senior housing on a 1.03 acre parcel. Using the RM-40 zoning designation, even with the maximum allowed 35% density bonus provision, the 1.03 acre site could yield a maximum density of 56 units. (b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. The proposed main public benefit is 60 units of much needed affordable housing for seniors. It has been documented that a large percentage of seniors live at or below the poverty line. During the recent economic decline, a number of seniors have lost their retirement savings, creating even a greater number of seniors on a limited income. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Based on the proposed project of 15 single family homes and 60 multifamily affordable senior units, the applicant is proposing a number of additional public benefits to enhance the safety of Maybell and Clemo Avenues. The applicant, in an amount not to exceed $200,000, proposes to perform all of the following improvements: 1. Install sidewalks on all no-paved segments of the southern side of Maybell Avenue to improve pedestrian safety and walkability of the street. 2. Provide Maybell Avenue safety design enhancements from recommendations developed through the Bicycle Boulevard and Safe Routes to School implementation process. 3. Reconfigure the western side of Clemo Avenue to accommodate perpendicular parking to account for the reduced parking on Maybell Avenue from 7 AM to 7 PM. (c) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The proposed single and multifamily use is compatible with the surrounding uses. The multifamily affordable senior development is adjacent to the Arastradero Park Apartments and Tan Plaza multifamily buildings. The proposed single family units are adjacent to the existing single family dwellings across Maybell Avenue. A number of Comprehensive Plan Policies have been compiled to demonstrate that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The list of policies is included as Attachment H to the staff report. The proposal allows the City to provide for needed housing, consistent with Housing Element goals, to meet demographic trends, while minimizing traffic and school impacts. Policy Implications The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation, with a minor modification to a small portion of the site (actually to a lower intensity designation) and with Comprehensive Plan policies and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. Resource Impact The City has extended a $5.8 million loan for the acquisition of the site. These funds were provided from the City’s affordable housing funds and were not part of the General Fund. The funds are collected from in-lieu housing fees paid by housing developers or from commercial real estate developers who are required to pay a commercial affordable housing fee for adding City of Palo Alto Page 13 net new non-residential square footage in their development. The affordable housing funds were specifically established for the development and preservation of the affordable housing in the City. The project would provide additional housing in the form of 15 single family homes and 60 affordable senior rental units. The senior residential units would not have a substantial impact, if any, on school enrollment and other public facilities. Environmental Review This project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has completed an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Mitigated Negative Declaration identified the traffic circulation as proposed from Clemo Avenue to Arastradero Road less than significant if mitigated. The mitigation measure will require the applicant to either obtain an easement on the adjacent Arastradero Park Apartments property or relocate the traffic barrier east of the proposed entry way to direct the project traffic from Clemo Avenue to Maybell Avenue. The close of the comment period was May 30, 2013. Since the close of the comment period, staff has prepared a Master Response to Comments (Attachment J) and has made minor amendments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration to reflect comments received. (A summary of the amendments is contained in Attachment I.) Specific topics of clarification include traffic (pedestrian and bicycle safety), air quality (thresholds for greenhouse gases), and land use compatibility. No additional impacts are identified and no additional mitigation measures are required, so that recirculation of the MND is not necessary. Attachments:  Attachment A: Draft Planned Community Ordinance (DOC)  Attachment B: Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF)  Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan Resolution (PDF)  Attachment D: Applicant Project Description (DOCX)  Attachment E: April 4, 2013 Architectural Review Board Minutes (DOC)  Attachment F: Project Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment G: Planning and Transportation Commission Draft Minutes of May 22, 2013 (DOC)  Attachment H: Comprehensive Plan Policy Table (DOC)  Attachment I: Summary of Amendments to the May 9 Maybell MND (PDF)  Attachment J: Master Responses to Comments Received on 567 Maybell MND (PDF)  Attachment K: Correspondence from City Fire Department dated June 5, 2013 (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 14  Attachment L: Neighborhood/Public Correspondence (PDF)  Attachment M: Project Plans, June 4, 2013, prepared by Applicant (hardcopies to City Council and Libraries only) (PDF) ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED *****DRAFT***** 1 Ordinance No. xxxx Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 567-595 Maybell Avenue from R-2 Low Density Residential and RM-15 Multiple Family Residential to PC Planned Community Zone No. xxxx for a 15 single family and a 60 unit multifamily affordable rental development for seniors. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. (a) Palo Alto Housing Corporation, (“the Applicant”) applied on November 6, 2012 to the City for approval of a rezoning application (the “Project”) for a new Planned Community (PC) district for a property located at 567-595 Maybell Avenue (the “Subject Property”) to accommodate the uses set forth below. (b) The Planning and Transportation Commission, at its meeting of February 13, 2013, advanced the Project with an initiation to consider a Planned Community Zone process for the establishment of Planned Community Zone District No. xxxx. (c) The Architectural Review Board, at its meeting of April 4, 2013, reviewed the Project design and recommended the City Council approve the project with associated draft conditions of approval ‘Exhibit B.’ (d) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held May 1, 2013, reviewed, considered, and recommended approval of the draft Negative Declaration and this ordinance, and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property to a new Planned Community zone to permit construction of the proposed project depicted on ‘Exhibit A,’ (the “Project”), consistent with conditions included in the Planned Community zone related to allowable land uses and required development standards, and subject to provision of the public benefits outlined in this ordinance. (e) The Palo Alto City Council, after due consideration of the proposed Project, the analysis of the City Staff, and the conditions recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission, adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the recommendations from the PTC and the ARB, and finds that the proposed Ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. (f) The Council finds that (1) the Subject Property is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the Project; (2) development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned Community ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED *****DRAFT***** 2 District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, as set forth in Section (4)(c) hereof; and (3) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the proposed district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Goals, Policies, and proposed designation of residential use for the Subject Property) and are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from R-2 and RM-15 to “PC Planned Community ”. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Subject Property that the project (the “Project”) comprises the following uses included in this ordinance and a residential development, depicted on the Development Plans dated June 4, 2013, incorporated by reference, including the following components: (a) 15 units of detached single family homes with lots ranging from approximately 2,273 to 3,817 square feet with homes ranging from 2,293 to 2,770 square feet. (b) A four story multifamily affordable rental development for seniors (Senior Building) earning 30-60% area median income (AMI). The development will contain 59 one bedroom units of approximately 600 square feet and 1 two bedroom property manager’s unit of approximately 726 square feet. The total square footage of the building is 56,320 square feet. The height to the top of the fourth floor will be 50’. (c) Multiple Common Open Space areas for the Senior Building including: 1) a residential roof terrace of approximately 1,152 square feet located on the fourth floor, and 2) a 468 square foot covered terrace as part of an approximately .35 acre courtyard, and 3) a second floor deck of 125 square feet. (d) Surface level parking with a minimum of 42 parking stalls with a reserve of 5 spaces, with an entrance from the surface parking area of the Subject Property. SECTION 4. The Development Plan for the Subject Property dated April 15, 2013, and any approved supplemental materials for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section (PAMC) 18.38.090, shall be subject to the following permitted and conditional land uses and special limitations on land uses, development standards, parking and loading requirements, modifications to the development plans and provisions of public benefits outlined below, and conditions of project approval , attached and incorporated as “Exhibit B”. (a) Permitted, Conditionally Permitted land uses shall be allowed and limited as follows: Permitted Uses (subject to the limitations below under Section 4(b)): (1) Single Family Residential ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED *****DRAFT***** 3 (2) Multifamily Residential Conditionally Permitted Uses: (1) Personal or Retail Services (consistent with RM-40) (2) Commercial Recreation (3) Convalescent Facilities (4) Private Clubs, Lodges, and Fraternal Organizations (b) Special limitations on land uses include the following: (1) The Residential Building for Seniors shall only be for affordable rental housing to seniors earning 30-60% of AMI; (c) Development Standards: Development Standards for the site shall comply with the standards prescribed for the Planned Community (PC) zone district (PAMC Chapter 18.38) and as described in Section Three and Section Four herein and in the Approved Development Plans. The Approved Development Plan shall supersede inconsistent provisions in Chapters 18 and 21. (d) Parking and Loading Requirements: Parking and Loading requirements for the site shall comply with PAMC 18.52 and 18.54 and as described in Section Three and Section Four herein and in the Approved Development Plans. (e) Modifications to the Development Plan and Site Development Regulations: Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in Section 4 (a) – (c) above shall require an amendment to this Planned Community zone, unless the modification is a minor change as described in PAMC 18.76.050 (b) (3) (e), in which case the modification may be approved through the Minor Architectural Review process. Any use not specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment to the PC ordinance. (f) Public Benefits: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The Project includes the ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED *****DRAFT***** 4 following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and in excess of those required by City zoning districts. (1) Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing. The project shall provide 60 units of rental housing for seniors at below market (low and very low income) rates; (2) Based on the proposed project of 15 single family homes and 60 multifamily affordable senior units, the applicant is proposing a number of additional public benefits to enhance the safety of Maybell and Clemo Avenues. The applicant, in an amount not to exceed $200,000, proposes to perform all of the following improvements: 1. Install sidewalks on all no-paved segments of the southern side of Maybell Avenue to improve pedestrian safety and walkability of the street. 2. Provide Maybell Avenue safety design enhancements from recommendations developed through the Bicycle Boulevard and Safe Routes to School implementation process. 3. Reconfigure the western side of Clemo Avenue to accommodate perpendicular parking to account for the reduced parking on Maybell Avenue from 7 AM to 7 PM. (g) Development Schedule: The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to PAMC 18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth below: Construction of the Project shall commence on or before October 2013, unless a change in the development schedule is approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, not to exceed a one year extension in time and only one such extension without a hearing, pursuant to PAMC 18.38.130. The total time for the project construction and occupancy of tenant spaces is expected to be 12 months, or by October 2014, unless extended by the Director for up to one additional year. (h) Fees The Senior Building will be exempt from Development Impact Fees as provided under the City Municipal code as an affordable housing development. The 15 unit single family subdivision (Market Rate parcel) will be subject to the following requirements as provided under the City Municipal Code: 1. All applicable Development Impact Fees; 2. Quimby Act; ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED *****DRAFT***** 5 3. In-Lieu Below Market Rate housing fee in the amount of $1.5 million. The City will commit the fee towards the development of the senior affordable housing component of the development through an affordable housing loan. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. (i) Vehicular Access Vehicular ingress and egress will be from the proposed main entryway on Clemo Avenue and the applicant shall obtain an access easement through the adjacent Arastradero Park Apartment Complex to connect the site access aisle to the existing driveway for APAC on Maybell Avenue. If an access easement cannot be obtained and access is from a single driveway on Clemo Avenue, the access barriers on Clemo Avenue shall be relocated from the intersection of Maybell Avenue to east of the project driveway on Clemo Avenue. SECTION 5. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice SECTION 6. Monitoring of Conditions and Public Benefits. Not later than three (3) years following the approval of building occupancy by the City and every three (3) years thereafter, the applicant shall request that the City review the project to assure that conditions of approval and public benefits remain in effect as provided in the original approval. The applicant shall provide adequate funding to reimburse the City for these costs. If conditions or benefits are found deficient by staff, the applicant shall correct such conditions in not more than 90 days from notice by the City. If correction is not made within the prescribed timeframe, ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED *****DRAFT***** 6 the Director of Planning and Community Environment will schedule review of the project before the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council to determine appropriate remedies, fines or other actions. SECTION 7. A mitigated negative declaration (MND) for this project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and circulated for public review for a 20-day period that was extended to May 30, 2013. The City Council approved the MND and Mitigation Monitoring Program at its meeting of June 10, 2013. The Mitigation Measures contained in the MND shall apply to the project and are incorporated. SECTION 8. Conditions of Approval. The Project Conditions of Approval attached to the June 10, 2013 Staff Report shall apply to the project and are incorporated. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney _________________________ Mayor _________________________ City Manager __________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 567 Maybell Avenue Page 1 Initial Study 567 Maybell Avenue Proposed Planned Community Zone District and Comprehensive Land Use Amendment For Development Of 15 Single Family Residences And A 60-Unit Multifamily Affordable Rental Project For Seniors Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration May 9, 2013 Amended June 4, 2013 567 Maybell Avenue Page 2 Initial Study 567 Maybell Avenue Page 3 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 43 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ................. 109 A. AESTHETICS ................................................................................................... 1110 B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES .......................................... 1312 C. AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 1413 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 1817 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 2019 F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY .......................................................... 2120 G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................. 2322 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............... Error! Bookmark not defined.24 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................... 2928 J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ........................................................................ 3130 K. MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 3432 L. NOISE ................................................................................................................ 3433 M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ..................................................................... 3635 N. PUBLIC SERVICES ......................................................................................... 3735 O. RECREATION .................................................................................................. 3837 P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ............................................................ 3938 Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 46 R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................... 4748 III. SOURCE REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 5150 IV. DETERMINATION ................................................................................................... 5251 567 Maybell Avenue Page 4 Initial Study 567 Maybell Avenue Page 5 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PROJECT TITLE 567 Maybell Avenue (APN 137-25-108/109) – Pr oposed Planned Community Zone District and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Development of 15 Single Family Residences And a 60-Unit Multifamily Affordable Rental Project For Seniors 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Tim Wong, Housing Coordinator City of Palo Alto 650-329-2561 4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS Palo Alto Housing Corporation 725 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301-2403 650-321-9709 5. APPLICATION NUMBER 12PLN-00453 6. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located north of Arastradero Road, in the southe rn part of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Sant a Clara County, west of State Route 82 (El Cam ino Real) and east of Foothill Expressway, as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The project site is located on the southeasterly corner of Maybell and Clemo Avenues, as shown on Figure 2, Location Map. 567 Maybell Avenue Page 6 Initial Study Figure 1: Regional Map 567 Maybell Avenue Page 7 Initial Study Figure 2: Location Map 567 Maybell Avenue Page 8 Initial Study 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The project site is co mprised of two parcels, which are de signated as Single Fam ily and Multiple Family Residential in the Palo A lto 1998 – 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The proposal to develop 15 single family residences and a 60-unit multifamily affordable rental development for seniors is compatible with the single family and multiple family land use designations. The request is to amend a portion of the multi-family land use designation to single family. 8. ZONING The project site is zoned R-2, Two Fam ily Residential District and RM-15, Low Density Multiple-Family Residential District. The existing R-2 two-family residence district is intended to allow a second dwelling unit under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit on appropriate sites in areas designated for si ngle-family use by the Palo Alto Com prehensive Plan, under regulations that preser ve the essential character of single-family use. The RM-15 low-density multiple-family residence district is intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for a mixture of single-family and multiple-family housing which is com patible with lower density and residential districts nearby, including single-family residence districts. The RM-15 residence district also serves as a transition to moderate density multiple-family districts or districts with nonresidential uses. Permitted densities in the RM-15 residence dis trict range from eight to fifteen dwelling units per acre. As a part of this proposal, the a pplicant is requesting that the site be rezoned to a new Planned Community (PC) zon e district. The PC pl anned community district is intended to accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attain able under other dist ricts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public benefit, and wh ich conform with and en hance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. As established by the process for rezoning to the PC district, a Planned Comm unity (PC) Ordinance will be drafted, which will in clude identification of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses and site improvements which would apply to this site, as well as a schedule for completion of the project. In order to grant the zone change, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and City Council m ust consider findings regarding the need for flexibility that is not available through the ge neral districts, that the project will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the general districts, and that the uses and regulations shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The terms of the PC Ordinance will ensure compliance with the standards of the zone district and the Comprehensive Plan. 567 Maybell Avenue Page 9 Initial Study 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background Site Information The project site is comprised of two parcels (APN # 137-25-109 and 108) located at the corner of Maybell and Clemo Avenues. The combined lot size is approxim ately 107,392 square feet (2.46 acres). The larger parcel (93,639 square feet) and the smaller parcel (13,753 square feet) are zoned RM-15 and R-2, respectively. The Co mprehensive Plan land use designation is Single Family and Multiple Family Residential. The sites currently contain a non-functioning orchard and four existing single fam ily homes fronting on Maybell A venue. The four homes were built in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Curren tly, vehicular access to the site is from both Maybell and Clem o Avenues with an autom obile barrier at the end of Clemo Avenue to prevent vehicular traffic movements from Clemo Avenue on to Maybell Avenue. Project Description The Project consists of the demolition of the four existing single-family houses and removal of the orchard for the construction of 15 single-fa mily homes and a 60-unit affordable rental development for seniors. The existing homes each have approximately 900 to 1500 square feet (sq. ft.) of floor area, and are single-story structures, built in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The demolition is necess ary for the co nstruction of the 15 s ingle-family homes. The proposed single family homes would range between 1,900 to 2,400 square feet. The hom es would be constructed on fee simple lots of approximately 2,300 to 3,400 square feet. The single-fam ily homes would be sited adjacen t to Maybell Avenue and Clem o Avenue, the wes tern and southern boundaries of the property . Eight of the homes would face Maybell Avenue, one home would be located on a corner lot, an d six hom es would face Clem o Avenue. All automobile ingress and egress to the single family homes will be from a main entry driveway on Clemo Avenue, except for the corner unit, wh ich will have its ow n driveway onto Clemo Avenue. In order to avoid parking impacts on Maybell and Clemo Avenues, garage parking would be provided at the rear of each unit. The Maybell Avenue residences would be two and three story homes. The maximum height of the proposed three story homes is 35 feet and the two story homes would be approximately 24 feet tall. The corner home and six homes facing Clemo Avenue would be three story units with a maximum height of 35 feet. The intent is to sell the homes to a market rate developer to help defray development costs for the affordable seni or rental development. The affordable senior development portion of the Project consists of fifty-nine (59) one-bedroom units and one (1) two-bedroom manager’s unit in a single building cons isting of four stor ies with an overall height of 50 feet. The one bedroom units would be approximately 600 square feet. The senior project will have common open space including a rooftop terra ce, a community room, and a n exercise room. The total floor area of the senior development is as follows: First floor 16,116 sq. ft. Second floor 14,115 sq. ft. Third Floor 14,085 sq. ft. Fourth Floor 12,237 sq. ft. Total Floor Area 56,553 sq. ft. 567 Maybell Avenue Page 10 Initial Study Rents will target sen iors with low, very low and extremely low incomes. Rents for the units will range from $590 to $1,181 per month. Rents will be adjusted annually. Review Process Rezoning to a PC district follows a set of pro cedures and standards, which are prescribed in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The PC process begins with PTC review of the concept plans, developm ent program statement and draft development schedule. If the PTC recommends initiating the PC request, the development plan, site plan, landscape plan and design plans are submitted to the ARB for design review in the same manner as any commercial or m ixed-use project. The environ mental document is prepared and circu lated prior to ARB consideration. The developm ent plan recommended for approval by the ARB is then returned to the PTC, together with a draft PC ordinance and environmental document, for review and recomm endation to the City C ouncil. The PC ordinance would identify the permitted and conditionally permitted uses and site improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of the project. The PTC may recommend a PC zone change only if it finds that: 1. The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the applic ation of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. 2. Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise atta inable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In make the findings required by this section, the Planning and Transportation C ommission and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the p ublic benefits expected to resu lt from use of the plann ed community district. 3. The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with th e Palo Alto Com prehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The project shall also obtain appropriate encroachments permits from the Public W orks department for construction activities in the city right-of-way, as well as the standard required building permits. The project is required to co mply with the Palo Alto Munic ipal Code (PAMC). 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING To the west of the project, across Maybell Avenue , are 1-2 story single family residences. The adjacent parcel to the n orth is th e Arastradero Park Apartm ents, owned by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC). The multifamily residences are 2-3 stories. East of the parcel is the Tan Plaza Continental, an 8-story, 61-unit multi-family residential building with an overall height of approximately 90 feet. South of the site is Briones Park. On the southern corner of Clemo Street and Arastradero Road is Palo Alto Fire Station No. 5. 567 Maybell Avenue Page 11 Initial Study 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED None required. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).] 2) All answers must take account of the whole ac tion involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lea d agency ha s determined that a partic ular physical impact may occur, the n the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if ther e is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or m ore “Potentially Significant Im pact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level ( mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier docum ent pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encour aged to incorporate in to the checklist referenc es to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 567 Maybell Avenue Page 12 Initial Study 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or indi viduals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environm ental impacts, which could occur i f the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,2,3,5 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor? 1, 2-Map L4, 5 X c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1, 2-Map L4, 5 X d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources? 1,2,5 X e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,5 X f) Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? 1,5 X DISCUSSION: The project proposes construction of 15 single family homes with heights ranging from two to three stories located along the Maybell an d Clemo Avenue street frontages . The maximum height of the three story homes would be 35 feet, and the two story homes would be approximately 24 feet tall. The proposed affordable senior housing portion of the project would be in a four story building with an overall height of 46 feet. The f our story building would be located away from the street frontages, adjacent to an 8-story, 90 foot tall multiple fa mily residential building to the east, and a two to three story apartment complex to the north. 567 Maybell Avenue Page 13 Initial Study The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains the following land use policies which relate to aesthetics and visual resources: POLICY L-3: Guide developm ent to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills f rom public streets in the developed portions of the City. POLICY L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied resi dential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. POLICY L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelm ing and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The project area is in a relatively flat area of the City, and does not offer views of the foothills or East Bay hills from the public streets. T herefore, the project will not have an adverse impact on a public view or view corridor. The portion of the site to be developed with single family residences is adjacent to existing single family residences along Maybell Avenue. Briones Pa rk is across the street on Clemo Avenue. Al though the existing hom es along Maybell Avenue are prim arily single story, these properties are zoned R-1, whic h allows building heights of 30 to 33 feet, depending on the roof pitch. The proposed project is generally compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. The project is subject to design review and approval by the City th rough the Archit ectural Review process. The purpose of architectural review is to: (1) Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; (2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; (3) Encourag e the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; (4) Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and (5) Promote visual environm ents which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. The project is not adjacent to a St ate Scenic Highway, so there woul d be no impact to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Any exterior lighting proposed for the project will be required to comply with City ordinances relating to light and glare, and will no t create a new source of substantial light or glare. The proposed four story building is located more than 200 feet from Briones Park and, therefore, will not create a shadow on public open space. Mitigation Measures: None Required Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in signifi cant, adverse visual or aesthetic impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 567 Maybell Avenue Page 14 Initial Study B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (199 7) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prote ction regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the fo rest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 2-MapL9 X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)1) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 45262)? 1 X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1,8 X 1 PRC 12220(g): "Forest land" is land t hat can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. 2 PRC 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than la nd owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other fo rest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a distric t basis after consultation with the district committees and others. 567 Maybell Avenue Page 15 Initial Study DISCUSSION: The project area is not located in a “Prime Farmland”, “Unique Farmland”, or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not z oned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. A portion of the site contains a nonfunctioning peach orchard. This site was part of a larger orchard which was active between 1909 and 1990, and which incl uded the adjacent site which is now Briones Park. The remaining orchard is on an approximately two acre portion of the site, is surrounded by urban uses and is no longer suitable for agricultural use. The project area is within a fully developed urban area and has no impacts on forest or timberland. Mitigation Measures: None Required Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in impacts to agricultural resources. (No Impact) C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? 1,5 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10); 1,5,9 X ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? 1,5,6 X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an 1,5,6 X 567 Maybell Avenue Page 16 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? 1,5 X i. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million 1 X ii. Ground-level concentrations of non- carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEI 1 X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1 X f) Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? 1,9 X DISCUSSION: A project would have a significant effect on air quality if air pollutant em issions would cause the exceedance of am bient air qu ality standards, cont ribute to ex isting or pro jected air quality exceedances, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, which is part of the Sa n Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Ma nagement District (BAAQMD) has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the Santa Clara Valley Air Basin attains and maintains compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards. Th is regional agency regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its pla nning and review process. Ambient air quality standards are set to protect public health. There are cu rrently both F ederal and State ambient air quality standards by USEPA and stat e air q uality agencies, CALEPA for California. California air quality standards are generally more stringent that federal standards. Continuous air monitoring by these ag encies and BAAQMD ensure that air quality standards are being met and improved. Both the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency and th e California Air Resou rces Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. Th ese ambient air quality standards are levels o f contaminants which represen t safe levels that avoid spe cific adverse health effects associated with each p ollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria docu ments. The major criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter. The Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattai nment area for state and national ozone standards and as a nonattainm ent area for the state partic ulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards. The Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy has been prepared to a ddress ozone nonattainment issues. No PM 10 or 567 Maybell Avenue Page 17 Initial Study PM2.5 plan has been prepared or is required u nder state air quality pl anning law. The 2005 Ozone Strategy was developed in order to bring the a rea into attainment of federal and State am bient air quality standards for ozone and particulate m atter violations. As noted belo w, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in emissions of particulate matter or ozone precursors during operation. Construction emissions, with implementation of the mitigation measures below, would also not result in significant emissions of particulate matter or ozone precursors. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of th e BAAQMD’s air quality plans to bring the Air Basin into attainment for particulate matter and ozone, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. The proposed project includes demolition of the four existing single family residences on the sites, and construction of 15 new single family residences and a 60-unit multifamily affordable rental project for seniors, as well as parking, circ ulation and landscaping of the site . The project would affec t local pollutant concentrations in two wa ys. First, during project construction, the project would affect local particulate concentrations by generating dust. Over the long term, the project would result in emissions due to motor vehicle trips associated with the re sidential use proposed by the project, and the motor vehicle trips would affect carbon monoxide concentrations along the local road network. Short Term Air Quality Impacts: Construction activities at the project site would involve use of equipment and materials that would emit ozone precursor emissions. With respect to the construction phase of the project, applicable B AAQMD regulations would relate to portable equipm ent (e.g., Portland concrete batch plants, and gasoline- or diesel-powered engines used for power generation, pumps, compressors, pile drivers, and cranes), architectural coatings, and pa ving materials. Project construction would be subject to the requirements of BAAQMD Rules and Regulations. During construction, the project woul d generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and inhalable particulate m atter and equipment exhaust em issions. Project-related construction activities would include dem olition, site preparation, ear thmoving, and general construction activities. Construction-related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. In the absence of mitigation, construction activities may result in signi ficant quantities of dust, and as a result, local visibility and PM10 and PM2.5 c oncentrations may be adversel y affected on a tem porary and intermittent basis during the c onstruction period. In ad dition, the fugitive du st generated by construction would include not only PM10, but also larger particles, whic h would fall out of the atmosphere within several hundred f eet of the site and could result in nuisance-type impacts. The BAAQMD considers any project’s construction related impacts to b e less th an significant if the required dust-control measures ar e implemented. Without these measures, the impact is generally considered to be significant, particularly if sensitive land uses are located in the project vicinity. Long Term Air Quality Impacts: With respect to the operational-phase of the project, emissions would be generated primarily from motor vehicle trips to the project site. The Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Residential Development at Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue in Palo Alto, California, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consulta nts, Inc., February 26, 2013, indicates that the proposed project would generate 238 net new daily vehicle trips, with 16 net new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 21 net new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. The minor increase in vehicle trips generated by the project would only m arginally increase daily emissions of ozone 567 Maybell Avenue Page 18 Initial Study precursors and PM10 and would be well below BAAQMD established thresholds for consideration of a significant impact. Consequently, the pro ject would not affect air quality in the region or conflict with or obs truct implementation of the applic able Air Q uality Attainment Plans. Any stationary sources on site would be subject to the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations. Co mpliance with BAAQMD Rules and Regulations woul d ensure that the p roject would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans. Sensitive Receptors: BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include resi dences, school playgrounds, childcar e centers, retirem ent homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. In the case of this project, other residential uses are located adjacent to and across the street from the project site. The proposed project would be subject to the measures recommended by the BAAQMD (listed below in M itigation Measure 3a), which would reduce construction-related PM10 and PM2.5 emissions to a less than significant level. Objectionable Odors: As a general m atter, the types of land use developm ent that pose potential odor problems include wastewater treatment plants, refineries, landf ills, composting facilities, and transfer stations. No such uses would occupy the pr oject site. Therefore, the project would not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Also, there are no existing odor sources in the vicinity of the project site that would impact future occupants of the project site. Project odor impacts are therefore considered to be less-than-significant. Mitigation Measures: During construction, the project spon sor shall require the constructi on contractor to im plement the following measures required as part of BAAQMD’s basic and enhanced dust control procedures required for all construction sites. These include:  Water all active construction areas daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.  Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the m inimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).  Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.  Sweep daily (with water sweepers u sing reclaimed water if possible) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.  Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.  Pave all roadways, driv eways, sidewalks, etc. as soon as feasib le. In addition, bu ilding pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Conclusion: Based on the size of the project and the m inor increase in vehicle trips generated, the project would not result in significa nt long-term or local air quality impacts. Implementation of the mitigation measures during cons truction will reduce potentia l short-term impacts to a les s than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation) 567 Maybell Avenue Page 19 Initial Study D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 2-MapN1, 5 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1,2-MapN1, 5 X c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1,8-MapN1, 5 X d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? 1,2,3,4,5,7 X e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1,5 X DISCUSSION: The project site is in a fully developed urban area, and does not contain any habitat suitable for special status species of plant or animal life. There are no wetlands or riparian habitat on or near the site. In urban areas, the lack of natural ne sting habitat results in r esident and m igratory birds nesting in ornamental and/or street trees. The existing oa k trees on the site m ay provide nesting sites for migratory birds. However, thes e trees a re to remain and will be protec ted during construction. Therefore, the impact on migratory birds would be less than significant. There is no habitat or natural community conservation plan which applies to the project site. Tree Preservation: According to the Arborist Report, 567-595 Maybell Avenue, prepared by John H. McClenahan, McClenahan Consulting, LLC, the project site now contains f our older single fam ily homes and a large orchard. There are approximately 90 fruit trees located in the orchard that will be removed with the p roject. Mos t of the f ruit trees are ap ricot, with a pi stachio, some citrus and chestnut. There are ten larger oaks on the Clemo Avenue frontage which will be preserved as a part of 567 Maybell Avenue Page 20 Initial Study the project. In addition , some of the trees in better cond ition along the east pro perty line will be preserved to provide screening. The Arborist’s Report provides an analysis of the condition of 39 non-fruit trees on the site. The Oaks to be preserved along the Clemo frontage are in fair to good conditi on. There are two oak trees along this frontage which are in poor to fair condition and are proposed fo r removal. The Coast L ive Oak trees along the proposed site access are generally in fair to good condition and are to be preserved. The Arborist’s Report also includes a tree preservation and protection plan which outlines the necessary protection measures to be implemented during construction to prevent injuries to the trees to remain. These recommendations include installation of protective fencing around the trees during construction, that any grading or excavation within Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) must be accomplished through hand digging, and that a qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater that one inch diameter. In addition, the single family residences along Clemo Avenue would be set back an average of 40 feet from the property line to accommodate the oak trees. Mitigation Measure: In order to make sure the proper tree protection measures are followed during construction, the project sponsor shall comply with the Tree Preservation and Protection Plan outlined in the Arborist’s Report , 567-595 Maybell Avenue, prepared by John H. McClenahan, McClenahan Consulting, LLC, November 26, 2012. Conclusion: Implementation of the mitigation measures requiring tree protection during construction and tree preservation will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation) 567 Maybell Avenue Page 21 Initial Study E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1,10 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 1,2-MapL8 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1,2-MapL8 X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1,2-MapL8 X e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? 1,2-MapL7, 10 X f) Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X DISCUSSION: The proposed project involves demolition of four existing single fam ily homes on the s ite and construction of 15 single fa mily residences and 60 multifamily affordable housing units for seniors. The four homes to be dem olished were built in the 1950’s and 1960’s and ar e typical single story ranch style homes from that era. None of the buildings on the site is listed on the National or California Register of historic resources, nor are they listed on the City’s Historic Inventory. Buried Prehistoric and Historic Resources: Based on relevan t archaeological reports for the immediate area, there are no known cultural resources associated with the site, and the proposed project will not create any cultural impacts to the affected area. For all projects, if during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Sa nta Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recomm endations and be involved in mitigation planning. Mitigation Measures: None Required Conclusion: Since the site has already been disturbed by the previous residential and orchard use, it is not expected that the project would have an impact on prehistoric or historic archaeological resources, and the site is not listed on any register of historic resources. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources (Less Than SignificantNo Impact) 567 Maybell Avenue Page 22 Initial Study F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 11,17 X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-MapN10, 17 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 2-MapN5, 17 X iv) Landslides? 2-MapN5, 17 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1 X c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,17 X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 2-MapN5, 8, 17 X e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 2-MapN5, 8, 17 X f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 1,8 X g) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 1,5 X DISCUSSION: According to the Phas e 1 Enviro nmental Assessment, Maybell Property, Palo Alto, California, prepared by Rosewood Environmental Engineering, July 2, 2012, the proj ect site is located in Santa 567 Maybell Avenue Page 23 Initial Study Clara Plain of the San Francisco Bay Area. The Santa Clara Plain forms the floor of the Santa Clara Valley. The plain is broad, flat to undulating gently sloping alluvial fan that extends northeast fro m the base of the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mount ains to the salt evaporators that now occupy the marshes that formerly bordered San Francisco Bay. The foothills rise sharply to about 400 feet above mean sea level (+400 feet MSL) west of Junipero Serra Boulevard (about 150 feet MSL). The plain drops gently across 3.5 miles to about +5 feet MSL at the Bay margin and is incised by streams such as San Francisquito and Barron Creeks near the site . Based on geotechnical borings at the site, first groundwater is encountered in a sand lens below a layer of gray-blue tight clay. The groundwater was somewhat confined and rose approximately six inches in the open borehole over an hour. Seismicity: The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. Generally, the City of Palo Alto would experience a range from weak to very violent shaking in the event of a m ajor earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward fault. Although hazards exist, development would not expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be addressed through the use of standard engineer ing design and seismic safety techniques, as required by building codes. With proper engineering new development is not expected to result in any significant adverse short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity. The major cause of damage during an earthquake is ground shaking, with frequency and amplitude of motion dependent on local geologic conditions. Site s on bedrock tend to have sharp, high frequency jolts with little am plitude, while sites on deep alluvium receive lower frequency shocks but suffer movement with high amplitude. Regional studies have suggested that the response of certain soils such as baymuds to earthquakes will also vary according to the depth of soil and the magnitude of the quake. Thus, ground accelerations of smaller quakes are m agnified as much as three times over the underlying be drock, whereas ground accelerations of a large quake (7.5 or m ore on the Ri chter scale) would be reduced to a value below that of the underlying bedrock. Landslides: The natural factors that prom ote landsliding are steep slopes, poorly consolidated bedrock, and occasional heavy rainfall are generally found in hilly areas. The project site is in an area that is relatively flat. Liquefaction: Soil liquefaction is a c ondition where saturated granular soils near the ground surface undergo a substantial loss of stre ngth during seism ic events. Loos e, water-saturated soils are transformed from a solid to a li quid state during ground shaking. Li quefaction can result in serious deformations. Soils m ost susceptible to lique faction are loose, uniform ly graded, saturated fine- grained sands that lie close to th e ground surface. Th e project site is not id entified on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Official Map, Palo Alto Quadrangl e, as b eing susceptible to liquefaction, and is not in an area where soils have a moderate potential for expansion. Construction of the proposed project will be required to meet current building code standards and may be required to subm it geologic reports to address potential geologic impacts associated with the development. With proper engineering, new developm ent is not expected to result in any significant adverse short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity. 567 Maybell Avenue Page 24 Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None Required Conclusion: Since the proposed developm ent will be requ ired to comply with the current bu ilding code requirements and meet any geological and ear thquake standards of the current code, no adverse impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity are expected. (Less Than Significant Impact) G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1,5,9 X b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1,5,9 X DISCUSSION: The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basi n (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and nationa l ozone standards and natio nal particulate matter ambient air quality s tandards. SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is at tributed to the region’s devel opment history. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the r egion’s adverse air quality impacts on a cum ulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonatt ainment of am bient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the e missions level for wh ich a project would not be expect ed to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the th reshold level, it would be considered to c ontribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant. The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are: • For land use developm ent projects, the thres hold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction Strategy; or annual em issions less than 1,100 m etric tons per year (MT/y r) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities. • For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 m etric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e. Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an A ir District permit to operate. If annual em issions of operational-related GHGs exceed thes e levels, the proposed project w ould result in a cum ulatively 567 Maybell Avenue Page 25 Initial Study considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. The BAAQMD has established project level screening crit eria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a project meets the screening crit eria and is consistent with th e methodology used to develop the screening criteria, then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. Below are some screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes). Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size ** Single-family 56 du Apartment, low-rise 78 du Apartment, mid-rise 87 du Condo/townhouse, general 78 du City park 600 acres Day-care center 11,000 sf General office building 53,000 sf Medical office building 22,000 sf Office park 50,000 sf Quality restaurant 9,000 sf **If project size is => screening size, then it is considered significant. On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQM D had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD’ s 2010 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD Ho mepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Lead agencies m ay rely on the BAAQ MD’s CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential m itigation measures. However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project’s significant air quality impact. Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air District’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the significance of an individual project’s air quality im pacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that project. For this IS, the City of Palo Alto has determined that the BAAQMD’s signif icance thresholds in the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operati ons within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are the m ost appropriate thre sholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Project. First, Palo Alto has used the May 2011 BAAQMD thresholds in previous environm ental analyses under CEQA and found them to be reasonable thresholds for assessing air quality impacts. In addition, these thresholds are lower than the 1999 BAAQMD thres holds, and thus use of the thresholds in the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines is m ore conservative. Therefore, the City concludes these thresholds are considered reasonable for use in this IS. The proposed project consists of construction of 15 sing le family residence and 60 m ultifamily affordable apartments for seniors, and is replacing four single family homes. The combined total of 75 567 Maybell Avenue Page 26 Initial Study units would fall within the thresholds established by the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines . It is not anticipa ted that the project will cr eate significant operational GHG emissions. The Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Residential Development at Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue in Palo Alto, California, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., December 14, 2012, indicates that a senior housing de velopment has a much lower vehicle trip generation rate than other residential uses (2.20 daily trips per unit), which would result in co mparatively lower emissions. The traffic impact analysis indicates that the project would generate a to tal of 238 new daily trips, with 16 net new trips during the AM peak hour and 21 net ne w trips during the PM peak hour, which does not represent a significant increase in vehicle trips. During the construction phase of the p roject there would be a temporary increase in emissions; this discussion is provided in the Air Quality section of this report. Mitigation Measures: None Required Conclusion: The project will not result in a si gnificant impact on greenhouse gas em issions (Less Than Significant) H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,5 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 1,5 X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1,5 X d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? 1,5 X e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 1,2- MapN9, 8 X f) For a project located within an airport land use 1 X 567 Maybell Avenue Page 27 Initial Study plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? 1 X h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1,2-MapN7 X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1,2-MapN7, 16 X j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? 1,5,8 X DISCUSSION: Background Information: Hazardous m aterials encompass a wide range of substances, so me of which are naturally occurring and som e of which are man-made. Examples of hazardous m aterials include pesticides, herbicides, petroleum products, metals (e.g., lead, mercury, arsenic), asbestos and chemical compounds used in m anufacturing. Determining if such substances are present on or near project sites is important because exposure to hazardous materials above certain thresholds can result in adverse health effects on humans, as well as harm to plants and wildlife. Due to the fact that these substances have properties that, above certain thresholds, are toxic to humans and/or the ecosystem, there are multiple regulatory programs in place that are designed to minimize the chance for unintended releases and/or exposures to occur. Ot her programs establish remediation requirements for sites where contamination has occurred. The proposed residential project does not involve the use, creation or transportation of hazardous materials. Maybell and Clem o Avenues are not designated as evacuation routes. The pr oject site is within and urban area and is not located within or near the wildland fire danger area. A Phase I Environmental Assessment was prepared by Rosewood Environmental Engineering on July 2, 2012 to determine if there any recognized environmental conditions associated with the project site. The property was evaluated for the presence of potentially adverse environmental conditions and the adjacent properties were evalu ated for secondary pot ential contaminated sites with a rev iew of potential contamination sources within a one-mile radius of the site. As a part of the assessm ent, site observations were made to determine the presence of any hazardous materials. Disturbed soil and a cl eared area were observ ed in the so utheast corner of the site in a 567 Maybell Avenue Page 28 Initial Study copse of trees. A 1940s era tractor was observed in the southern quadrant of the orchard. Num erous spigots on standpipes of the irriga tion system were noted throughout the orchard. The ground around the tree in the orchard was cleared of weed for fire c ontrol. The irrigation for the orchard remained in place and operational drawing from City water suppl y. A well in the back yard of the house at 595 Maybell once served the orchard and houses, but is no longer operational. No evidence of staining or subsid ence was present that would indica te a removed tank or spill in the orchard area. Representative so il sampling indicated that uniform application of pesticides had occurred in the orchard. The four houses on the site were ex amined, and it was determined that based on the age of the houses, it is likely that asbestos containing materials may be present. Site History: The site was a part o f the Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito, which encom passed a total of 8,400 acres and covered m uch of the South Palo Alto and Barron Park Areas. The Maybelle (original spelling) tract was laid out in 1905, which s ubdivided this area into orchard tracts from three to five acres in size. This site was a part of a larger apricot orchard, which was active from 1909 to 1990. The larger orchard included the adjacent site, which is now occupied by Briones Park. The Phase I Environmental Assessment identified five potential recognized environmental concerns as follows: 1. Elevated Arsenic concentrations in a localized area near th e former raised shed approximately eight feet by eight feet in area and two feet deep. 2. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon as oil and grease concentrations in an area approximately twenty by twenty feet in area and three feet deep in the area of the former tractor garage. 3. Agricultural Organo-chloride pesticide application in the apricot orchard. 4. A former underground storage tank (UST) that ha d been removed without permits. Based on the results of a previous Phase II investigation of the tank grave, it does not appear that the tank or associated piping leaked. 5. Potential Asbestos and Lead-based building materials and coatings in the houses on the site. Based on these factors, a new Phase II environm ental assessment was conducted (Phase II Environmental Assessment, Maybell Property, Palo Alto, California, prepared by Rosewood Environmental Engineering, July 20, 2012). The Ph ase II Environmental Assessment addressed the agricultural pesticides, Arsenic, and TPH in soil, but did not address the potential asbestos and lead- based paint; it was determ ined that these potentia l hazards could be rem ediated at the tim e of demolition of the structures. The results of the Phase II Environmental Assessment indicate the following: 1. Residual organo-chloride pesticide concentrations at the s ite are compatible with residential use. 2. Elevated concentrations of Arsenic above naturally occurring background levels were found at the Site affecting approximately 5 cubic yards of soil in th e area of the former raised shed. These soils will need to be remediated for the area to be compatible with residential use. 3. Elevated concentrations of Non-RCRA waste, non-carcinogenic Total Petroleu m Hydrocarbons (TPH) as oil and grease were det ected in the area of the form er tractor garage. 567 Maybell Avenue Page 29 Initial Study No BETX constituents were detected. The TPH is likely highly degraded tractor lubricant and perhaps spilled diesel from more than 20 years a go, when the tractor was last uses. This area should be remediated to set aside any potential concerns future reside nts may have about the environmental condition of the property or the suitability of the site for residential land use. 4. The first groundwater beneath the site is in a silty sand lens approxim ately 40 feet deep beneath a thick layer of tight, blue -gray clay. It is unlikely that there is a beneficial use for the water or that there is an exposure pathway fo r groundwater to affect beneficial use waters, sensitive receptors, or create a concern to futu re residents due to soil gas. The groundwater likely would not be encountered during excavation for subterranean garages at the Site. 5. The groundwater well at the Site is not properly shut off from the municipal water supply and so cannot be sam pled or destroyed without je opardizing the continued water supply to the houses on the Site. Based on a previous Phase II Environm ental Assessment, a former underground storage tank grave was discovered and investigated resulting in the opinion that the tank had not leaked. Recommendations: Based on the findings of the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessments, the following recommendations for site-specific issues were m ade by Rosewood Environm ental Engineering. The specific actions that will be necessary at the site include: 1. No further action with regard to residual organo-chloride pesticide concentrations at the Site. 2. Remediation of Arsenic affected soil under the ov ersight of the Santa Clara Water District in a Voluntary Clean-up Program. In general, the remediation will require over-excavation of the affected soil, packing the soil in boxes, hauling the soil to an appropriate class landfill for the concentrations in soil, and conf irmatory soil sam pling to ensure the Arsenic is below background concentrations. 3. The TPH-affected soil from the tractor ga rage area should also be over-excavated and remediated similar to the Arsenic, but will likely not require the same class of landfill as there is no RCRA waste involved. 4. No further action is recommended with regard to the groundwater at the site. 5. The groundwater well at the site must be properly shut off from the municipal water supply by a plumber before well destruction. Well destru ction need not occur until after the d emolition of the houses, but before grading commences. The well should be properly permitted as closed under the oversight of the Santa Clara Water District. 6. A “no further action” letter should be requested from the Santa Clara W ater District with regard to the former tank to document tank closure. 7. If the houses are to be demolished, they should have demolition-level asbestos and lead-based paint sampling conducted beforehand to determine proper remediation procedures and disposal of materials. 8. Should any pipe that might lead to an undergrou nd fuel or septic tank be located during m ass grading operations, it should be reported to the Environmental Engineer and carefully evaluated. If any PVC, concrete or m etal pipes not associated with the irrigation sy stem are exposed during grading or ex cavation operations the Envir onmental Engineer should be notified and they should be removed from the grading site under supervision. 9. During any grading or excavation activities on the property, soil technicians and operators must be made aware to look for unusual conditions suggesting buried debris or other potential 567 Maybell Avenue Page 30 Initial Study adverse environmental conditions that m ay be discovered on the property. It is likely that septic tanks are present from the old residence an d the current residence at the south east part of the site. If any of these conditions is encountered, then the Environmental Engineer must be notified and the specific condition appropriately remedied in accordance with the local, county, and state and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 10. According to site observations , the EDR report, county record s, the property owner, and persons familiar with the site, no additional water wells than the one noted exis ts on the site. However, if any is encountered during the Site development activities it should be destroyed according to local, county and state regulations. Mitigation Measure: In order to mitigate any potential impacts related to existing environmental conditions on the site, the project sponsor shall com ply with the reco mmendations made in the Phase II Environmental Assessment, Maybell Property, Palo Alto, California, prepared by Rosewood Environm ental Engineering, July 20, 2012. Conclusion: With implementation of the mitig ation measure requiring remediation of existing environmental conditions on the s ite, there will be no adverse impacts with regard to public safety, hazards and hazardous materials. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation) I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,2,5 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 2-MapN2 X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1,5 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 1,5 X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide 1,5 X 567 Maybell Avenue Page 31 Initial Study substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 2-MapN6 X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 2-MapN6 13 X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100-year flood hazard area? 2- MapN8,1 3, 13 X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2-MapN6 13 X k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,5 X DISCUSSION: The project site is located equidistance between Barron Creek to the northwest and Adobe Creek to the southeast. Both creeks flow to the east and lie approximately 1,000 feet from the site. Barron Creek appears to be prim arily flowing through underground structures, whil e Adobe Creek appears to be following its natural course. Hydrology and Flooding: The project site is shown on the Federal Em ergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (F IRM) Community Panel No. 06085C 0017 H. The site is mapped into Flood zone X, which is not a Special Flood Hazard Area. Zone X is described as an area of moderate risk to fl ooding (outside of the 100-year fl ood but inside the 500-year flood limits). The special floodplain construction rules are not applicable to structures in an “X” zone. The site is not subject to inundation from a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Water Quality: The federal Clean Water Act and Californi a’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water qua lity. Regulations set forth by the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legis lation. EPA’s regulations include the National Pollutant Dis charge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that di scharge pollutants into waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by water quality cont rol boards, which for the Palo Alto area is the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Proposed projects are required to com ply with Pr ovision C.3 of the City’s NPDES perm it and the City’s local policies and ordinances regarding urban runoff and water qu ality. In practical terms, the C.3 requirements seek to reduce water pollution by both reducing the volume of stormwater runoff and the amount of pollutants that are contained within the runoff. The methods used to achieve these objectives vary from site to site, but can include m easures such as a reduction in impervious surfaces, onsite detention facilities, biofiltration swales, settlement/debris basins, etc. While the Prop osed projects will increase im pervious surfaces on the site ; the project’s compliance with the City’s existing C3 requirements, will result in a less than significant impact. 567 Maybell Avenue Page 32 Initial Study Drainage and Flooding: The project site is not locate d within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in people or structures being exposed to any significant flood risk. Water Quality: Construction activities the project site could tem porarily generate dust, sedim ent, litter, oil, paint and other pollutants that could contaminate runoff from the site. All development is required to c omply with building c odes that a ddress flood safety issues. Development projects are required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction activities as specified by the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (CASQA, 2003) and/or the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). The BMPs include m easures guiding the m anagement and operation of construction sites to control and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to storm runoff from these areas. These measures address procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation and m anaging all aspects of the construction process to ensure c ontrol of potential water pollution s ources. All development projects must comply with all City, State and Federal sta ndards pertaining to storm water run-off and water quality. Mitigation Measures: None Required Conclusion: The propose project would not result in substantial adverse flooding or drainage impacts. With implementation of Best Management Practices during construction, water quality impacts would be less than significant (Less Than Significant Impact) J. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? 1,5 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,2,3,5 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1,2 X d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? 1,5 X e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? 1,5 X f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific 1,5 X 567 Maybell Avenue Page 33 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact uses of an area? g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? 1,2,3 X DISCUSSION: Setting: The proposed project in cludes the initiation of a new Pla nned Community (PC) zone district to allow the development of 15 single family residences and a 60 unit m ultifamily affordable rental project for seniors on parcels having a com bined area of 107,392 square feet (2.46 acres) and zoned R–2 and RM-15. Surrounding lan d uses include multiple family residential uses adjacent to the site along both Maybell and Cle mo Avenues, single-fam ily residences across Maybell Avenue from the site, and Briones Park across Clemo Avenue from the site. General Plan Land Use Designation: The project site is designated as Single Family and Multiple Family Residential in the Palo Alto 1998 – 2010 Com prehensive Plan. The proposal to develop 15 single-family residences and a 60 -unit multifamily affordable rental development for seniors is compatible with the single family and multiple family land use designations. Zoning Designation: The project site is zoned R-2, Two Family Residential District and RM-15, Low Density Multiple-Family Residential Distric t. The existing R-2 two- family residence dis trict is intended to allow a second dwelli ng unit under the sam e ownership as the initial dwelling unit on appropriate sites in areas designated for single-family use by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, under regulations that pre serve the essen tial character of single-fa mily use. The RM- 15 low-density multiple-family residence district is intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for a mixture of single-family and multiple-family housing which is compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby, including single-fam ily residence districts. The RM-15 residential district also serves as a tran sition to m oderate density multiple-family districts or districts with nonresidential uses. Permitted densities in the RM-15 residence district range from eight to fifteen dwelling units per acre. As a part of this proposal, the applicant is requ esting that the site be rezoned to a new Planned Community (PC) zone district. T he PC distr ict is in tended to ac commodate developments for residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flex ibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public bene fit, and which confor m with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. PC Zone District Process: The first of the three required findings to be m ade by the P TC to recommend a PC is that: “The project site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not pro vide sufficient enough flexibility to allow the proposed de velopment.” As noted ear lier, the project site consists of two zoning designations: Residential Multifamily-15 (RM-15) and Residential-2 (R-2). The RM-15 zoned portion of the site is 93,692 sq. ft. (87%) of the 107,392 sq. ft. project site. The R-2 567 Maybell Avenue Page 34 Initial Study parcel is surrounded by the RM-15 z one and extends through approximately half the Maybell Avenue frontage. The proposed development appears to be consistent with many of the requirem ents of the Planned Community zone dis trict as ou tlined in Sec tion 18.38.060 of the Municipal Code. The pro posed density of the development is most similar to RM-40 zoning. However, the Project exceeds the RM-40 requirements for height, daylight plane and Village Residential setback requirements. The proposed senior building exceeds the maximum allowable height and projects into the daylight plane. The single family residences on Maybell Avenue would not m eet the setback requirements for the RM-40 zone. In order to m eet the goals of the Project, the applican t has re quested PC zoning in that the development plan would not specifically conf orm to any of the m ulti-family residence d istricts. Furthermore, the PC district, if granted, would be applicable only to the approved Development Plan, thereby ensuring that only the proposed Project could be developed. Any future redevelopment of the site to a different use would re quire additional rezoning that co uld only be approved by the City Council. Land Use Compatibility: Land use conflicts can arise from two basic causes: 1) a new development or land use may cause impacts to persons or the physical environment in the vicinity of the project site or elsewhere; or 2) conditions on or near the project site m ay have im pacts on the persons or development introduced onto the site by the new project . Both of these circum stances are aspects of land use compatibility. Potential incompatibility may arise from placing a particular development or land use at an inappropriate location, or from some aspect of the project’s design or scope. Depending on the nature of the impact and its severity, land use compatibility conflict can range from minor irritation and nuisance to potentially signif icant effects on human health and safety. The discussion below distinguishes between potential impacts from the proposed project upon people and the physical environment, and potential im pacts from the project’s su rroundings upon the project itself. Impacts From the Project: Any proposed housing project could change the character of a project site. The proposed project, however, is located in an area where there are currently similar residential uses. There are exis ting single-family residences adjacent to the prop osed single-family residences along the Maybell frontage, and there are existing multifamily residential project adjoining the portion of the site to be developed with the four-story se nior apartment building. The PC zoning district will provide development standards that will ensure that new development will have similar characteristics (such as mass, bulk, height and density) as the surr ounding areas. Therefore, it is not anticipated that there will be land use compatibility impacts from the proposed project. Impacts to the Project: The surrounding uses are sim ilar in nature to the proposed use, and will be compatible with the proposed uses on the p roject site. No on-going land use conflicts with adjacent uses are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: None Required Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in significant, adverse land use im pacts. (Less Than SignificantNo Impact) 567 Maybell Avenue Page 35 Initial Study K. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1,2 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1,2 X DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto h as been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indi cation in the 2010 Com prehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Conclusion: The proposed project woul d not result in impacts to known mineral resources. (No Impact) L. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1,2,12 X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? 1,2,12 X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,2,12 X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,2,12 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to 1 X 567 Maybell Avenue Page 36 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact excessive noise levels? g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? 1 X h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? 1 X i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? 1 X j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1 X k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 1 X l) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? 1,12 X DISCUSSION: The project site is not located on a major arterial street, nor is it near a freeway or railroad. Therefore, there should be no adverse roadway noise impacts to future residents of the project site. The project is not located within an airport land use plan, and is not in an area impacted by airport noise. Noise is defined as unwanted sound . Noise ca n be disturbing or annoying because of its pitch or loudness. Pitch refers to relative frequency of vibrations, higher pitch signals sound louder to people. A decibel (dB) is measured based on the relative amplitude of a sound. Ten on the decibel scale marks the lowest sound level that a healthy, unim paired human ear can detect. Sound le vels in decibels are calculated on a logarithm ic basis such that each 10 decibel increase is perceived as a doubling of loudness. The California A-weighted sound level, or dBA, gives greater weight to sounds to which the human ear is most sensitive. Sensitivity to noise increases du ring the evening and at night because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep. T wenty-four hour descriptor s have been developed that emphasize quiet-time noise events. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, L dn, is a m easure of the cum ulative noise exposure in a community. It includes a 10 dB add ition to noise levels from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM t o account for human sensitivity to night noise. Noise Impacts From Construction: Construction of the project would generate noise, and would temporarily increase noise levels at adjacent land uses. The significance of noise impacts during construction depends on the noise generated by vari ous pieces of construction equipm ent, the timing and duration of noise generating ac tivities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. 567 Maybell Avenue Page 37 Initial Study Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, esp ecially during the construction of project infrastructure when hea vy equipment is used. Typical hour ly average construction generated noise levels are about 75 dBA to 80 dBA measured at a distance of 100 feet from the source during busy construction periods (e.g., earth m oving equipment, impact tools, etc.). Construction generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about six dB A per doubling of distance between the source and receptor. Construction noise impacts are more significant when construction occurs during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours near residential uses), the co nstruction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts extended periods of time. Construction activities could result in annoyances to existing uses adjacent to the project site. All development, including construction activities, must comply with the City’s Noise Ord inance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term temporary construction noise that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required Conclusion: Because the project would be required to com ply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, potential noise impacts would be reduced to a less than sig nificant level. (Less Than Significant Impact) M. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 5 X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 5 X d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1 X e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? 1 X DISCUSSION: The proposed project will in crease the City’s housing stock by 71 housing units, by rep lacing 4 existing single family residences with 15 sing le family residences and 60 m ultifamily affordable 567 Maybell Avenue Page 38 Initial Study apartment units for Seniors. This s ite is one of the Housing Inventory Sites identified in the Draf t 2009-2014 Housing Element currently being reviewed for compliance with State Housing Elem ent Law by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Palo Alto currently has an imbalance between employed residents and jobs; there are 80,000 jobs and 30,404 employed residents, which translates into 2.63 jobs per employed resident. The addition of 75 housing units will increase the supply of housing in Palo Alto and slightly alter the City’s jobs/housing ratio, which would lessen the imbalance between employed residents and jobs. The proposed project will not displace housing or residents since 75 dwelling units will replace the four existing single- family residences on the site. Mitigation Measures: None Required Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in a significant population or housing impact. The potential impact on the jobs/housing balance is a positive one. (No Impact) N. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1 X b) Police protection? 1 X c) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? 1 X e) Other public facilities? 1 X DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto is a built out community, and this project is on an infill parcel that is adequately served by public services and facilities such as parks and schools. The site is adjacent to Briones Park, a neighborhood park that serves th e surrounding area. T he minor increase in population from this housing development would not adversely impact Police and Fire response times since this site is in an existing developed area. The single-family residential portion of the project would generate new students resulting in an increase in school population. Palo Alto Unified Sc hool District (PAUSD) collects school impact fees 567 Maybell Avenue Page 39 Initial Study on new residential and commercial construction within District bounda ries. Fees are used only for construction and reconstruction of school facilities. The City of Palo Alto does not issue building permits for a project until PAUSD has certified that school impact fees have been paid. Therefore, the proposed development would contribute through paym ent of fees toward future construction of facilities to address the needs of increased school population from the project. Mitigation Measures: None Required Conclusion: The proposed residential project would not result in s ignificant impacts to public facilities. (Less Than SignificantNo Impact) O. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1 X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1 X DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto is served by a variety of parks and recreation facil ities located throughout the community. The City’s recreational system is augmented by local school facilities, which are available to the general public. The proposed residential development could increase usage of nearby parks and recreation facilities. However, it is expected that the increase in population from the project can be accommodated by the existing parks and recreation facilities in Palo Alto. Single Family dwellings are required to pay the City Park fee. The Senior Housing Development is not expected to utilize parks to significant degree and has their own community garden geared towards senior outdoor recreational use. The fourth floor of the senior complex will also have a roof terrace and an exercise room available for all the residents. As noted, the site is adjacent to Briones Park, a neighborhood park that serves the surrounding area. There are no existing recreational us es on the project site, so the project would not displace any recreation facilities. Mitigation Measures: None Required Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed housing proj ect would not result in significant im pacts to park and recreational facilities. (Less Than SignificantNo Impact) 567 Maybell Avenue Page 40 Initial Study P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 1,5,6 X b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1,5,6 X c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1,5 X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1,5 X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,5 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity that impacts traffic circulation and air quality? 1,5,6 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? 1,2,5,6 X h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1,5,6 X i) Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? 1,5,6 X j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the 1,5,6 X 567 Maybell Avenue Page 41 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more? k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1,5,6 X l) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1,5,6 X m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. 1,5,6 X n) Impede the development or fu nction of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1,5,6 X o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? 1,5,6 X p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,5 X DISCUSSION: Existing Roadway Network: The projec t site is located at the intersection of Maybell and Clemo Avenues. Maybell Avenue is a tw o-lane north-south residential roadway that begins at Donald Drive in the south and continues north to El Camino Real. Clemo Avenue is a two-lane east-west roadway that runs between May bell Avenue and Arastrad ero Road. Just east of Maybell Avenue, Clem o Avenue has concrete bulb-outs preventing vehi cle access to and from Maybell Avenue. Cle mo Avenue forms the southern border of the project site and provides direct access to the site. Regional access to the projec t is provided via El Ca mino Real, a six-lane roadway that serves as a north-south route of trav el, although it is aligne d in a predom inately easet-west orientation in the vicinity of the project site. Arastradero Road connects to El Camino Real, and is primarily a two-lane road in the vicinity of the project site. Aras tradero Road provides access to th e site via Clemo Avenue. Existing Transit Service: Transit service in the area includes local bus service provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and tr ain service from the Caltrain commuter line, which provides service along the Peninsula from San Fr ancisco in the north to Gilroy in the south. Local bus service to the project site includes VTA routes 22 and 522, which run along El Camino Real and connect to the Palo Alto Transit Center to the north an d the San Antonio Tran sit Center to the south. Both of these transit cen ters are adjacent to Caltrain Sta tions (University Avenue and San 567 Maybell Avenue Page 42 Initial Study Antonia stations). VTA route 86 runs along Arastradero Road an d provides access to Palo Alto Veterans Hospital. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, crosswalks and pedestrian signals. Bicycle facilities comprise paths (Class I), lanes (Class II), and routes (Class III). Bicycle paths are paved trails that are separate from roadways. Bicycle lanes are lan es on roadways designated for bicycle use by striping, pavem ent legends, and signs. Bicycl e routes are roadways designated for bicycle use by signs only. There are sidewalks adjacent to the project site along Clemo Avenue, but there are no sidewalks along the Maybell frontage. As a part of the project, sidewalks will be provided adjacent to the single-family residences along Maybell Avenue. Maybell Avenue is an existing bicycle boulevard, which serves as part of the School Commute Corridor Network throughout Palo A lto. Arastradero Road contains Class II bicycle lanes and connects to various north south routes throughout the community. Traffic Impacts: Traffic operations at intersections are typi cally described in te rms of “Level of Service” (LOS). LOS is a qualita tive measure of the effect of several factors on traffic operating conditions, including speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort, and convenience. It is generally m easured quantitatively in term s of vehicular delay and described using a scale that ranges from LOS A to F, with LOS A representing ess entially free-flow conditions and LOS F indicating over-capacity conditions with substantial congestion and delay. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Residential Development at Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue in Palo Alto California, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, the proposed project is anticipated to generate 238 net new daily trip s, with 16 net new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 21 net new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Daily traffic counts were collected in May 2012 on Maybe ll Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. The results showed there are a pproximately 3,320 daily trips (both directions) on Maybell Avenue, between Thain Way and Pena Court, during a typical weekday. The traffic analy sis also looked at operating conditions at three signalized and three uns ignalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site. It was de termined that all of the signalized intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service, m easured against City of P alo Alto and the VTA’s Congestion Managem ent Program’s (CMP) standards. The unsignalized inte rsections all currently operated with reasonable delays. The traffic study noted that there is co ngestion on Arastradero Road between 7:50 a.m. and 8:25 a.m., and congestion on Maybell Avenue between 7:45 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., from traffic accessing nearby schools. There is also more pedestrian and bicycle traffic on Maybell Avenue during this time period. Project Impact on Traffic – Project Access Alternative Scenarios: The project proposes the Clemo barrier at the intersection of Clemo and Maybell Avenues would remain in its current location so that all trips to and from the project site would access Clemo Avenue via Arastradero Road. Under this alternative, there would be an incr ease in trips on Arastradero Road, as all project sites would access the project site via Arastradero Road. This alternative would result in a slight decrease in traffic on 567 Maybell Avenue Page 43 Initial Study Maybell Avenue, as the project wo uld replace existing homes that currently have access via Maybell Avenue. Clemo via Arastradero and Maybell Access: The first alternative assumes two access points for traffic entering and exiting the site. Access to the site would be provided by one driveway on Clemo Avenue and an access easement through the Arastradero Park Apartment Complex (APAC) to the north that would connect to an existing driveway on Maybell Avenue. In the event the access easem ent through the adjacent APAC property canno t be obtain ed, the project would be accessed through a single driveway on Clemo Avenue. Clemo via Maybell Access: The second alternative assumes that the Clemo barrier would be moved to the other side of the project driveway allowing access from Clemo Avenue to Maybell Avenue, but preventing through traffic to Arastradero Road. The project site would not be accessible via Arastradero Road because of the barrier. Under this alternative, all project traffic will be added to the Clemo/Maybell intersection and no traffic will be added to the Clemo/Arastradero intersection. Level of Service Analysis Proposed Project: The traffic study looked at existing tra ffic volumes plus the added trips generated by the project as proposed with the Clemo access to Arastradero Rd. The intersection of Arastradero Road and Clemo Avenue would incur a substantial increase in delay and deterioration in the level of service during the AM peak hour if the project were lim ited to a single driveway on Clemo Avenue with the current barrier location. As previously noted, this intersection is currently subject to frequent blockages as queues extend along A rastradero Road from the downstream intersection at Coulombe Drive past Clemo Avenue. Thus, the “Clemo via Arastradero” access alternative, which would funnel all of the project traffic through the Clemo/Arastradero intersection, would exacerbate the existing congestion at this intersection. Alternatives: The traffic study also looke d at intersection levels of se rvice under existing plus project and cumulative plus project conditions for the two alternative access scenarios. Under the two access scenario (Access onto Maybell Avenue through APAC and Clemo Avenue), the results show ed that measured against City of Palo Alto and Congesti on Management Plan (CMP) standards, all of the signalized intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of se rvice during the AM and PM peak hours, and all of the unsignalized intersect ions would continue to operate with reasonable delays. In contrast, moving the Clemo barrier to the east of the project driveway so that all project trips would access Clemo Avenue via Maybell Avenue w ould result in less delay. An analysis of the projected traffic volumes at the n ewly created Maybell/Clemo intersection shows that the stop- controlled Clemo Avenue approach would operate at L OS A in the AM and PM peak hours. Furthermore, compared to the Clemo/Arastrader o intersection, queue blockages were observed to occur less frequently at the Clemo/Maybell intersection. With either access alternative, the peak-hour levels of service would be unchanged at all but one of the study intersections. Emergency Access: The project is served by Station 5 which is loca ted less than one m ile away. Station 5 has existing capacity to serve th e project. The Fire Departm ent has reviewed the 567 Maybell Avenue Page 44 Initial Study project site plans to ensure there is adequate emergency access. Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety: The Project will enhance bike a nd pedestrian safety on Maybell by eliminating four existing driveway curb cuts on Maybell, by restricting parking on Maybell and by providing a sidewalk on Maybell. The small increase in AM peak trips on Maybell is not expected to interfere with th e bicycle/pedestrian safety on Maybell in the AM peak. It is expected that the majority of outbound trips generated by the Project would exit onto C lemo towards Arastradero (6 vehicles in the AM peak hour) or turn right from the APAC easem ent on Maybell and tr avel east on Maybell in the opposite direction of bicyclists commuting to school (3 vehicles in the AM peak hour), while the project would add only two vehicle trips to the peak westbound direction on Maybell during the AM peak hour Traffic Signal Warrants: The traffic study provided traffic signal warrant analysis for the project as proposed and for both site access alternatives. The analysis shows that the peak-hour volume warrants would not be satisfied at the unsignalized study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours under existing or cumulative conditions with the project as proposed or under either access alternative. Cumulative Conditions: The traffic study also looked at forecasted far-term future (year 2 020) traffic conditions. The cumulative conditions were estimated by applying an annual growth factor of 1.1 per cent over a period between when the existing traffic counts were taken and the year 2020. The project traffic volumes were also included. The resu lts show that all signali zed intersections would continue to operate at acceptab le levels of service durin g the AM and PM peak hours, and the unsignalized intersections would continue to operate with reasonable delays. However, the side street delay on Clemo Avenue would operate at a poor Le vel of Service (LOS) during the PM peak hour. The poor LOS is primarily a result of the future traffic growth projected to occur between existing and cumulative conditions. During field observations, it was noted that th is intersection has a significant number of pedestrian crossings and it is sometimes blocked by th rough queues on Arastradero Road. The project would add 13 and 9 project trips to the westbound approach on Clemo Avenue during the AM and PM peak hours respectively. This would resu lt in a cumulative project impact in the AM and PM peak hours. Neighborhood Traffic Volume: Residential areas are especially sensitive to traffic b ecause otherwise relatively small increases in traffic can impact the livability of the neighborhood. A concern common to many residents is the po ssibility that a new development will cause an increase in traffic volume on their streets. A tool fo r measuring the effects of incr eases in traffic on neighborhood “livability” was developed by D.K. Goodrich. The tool is named the TIRE index, or Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments. The TIRE index uses average daily traffic (ADT) volume to determine the amount of daily traffic that could be added to a roadway before residents w ould perceive the increase in traffic. The am ount of daily traffic that can be added be fore residents would notice directly correlates to the amount of daily traffic already presen t on the street. Accordin g to this methodology, a noticeab le traffic increase occurs when the difference in index between no pr oject and project conditi ons is 0.10 or m ore. An increase in index of 0.10 corresponds to an increase in ADT of between 20 and 30 percent. 567 Maybell Avenue Page 45 Initial Study To quantify the perceptions of its residents, the TIRE index was applied to Maybell Avenue. Daily traffic counts were conducted on May 29th, 30t h, and 31st of 2012 (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, respectively) to determine the existing traffic on this street. According to the TIRE index, 825 daily trips could be added to Maybell Avenue be fore residents would pe rceive a change. Under this scenario, the project would not add any trip s to Maybell Avenue between Thain W ay and Pena Court. On the contrary, the project would result in a decrease in volu mes on this segm ent as the project would replace existing homes that currently have direct access to Maybell Avenue. Clemo and Maybell Aveneue (through APAC) Access: Under this alternative, project would add 80 daily trips to Maybell Avenue. It is unlikely that residents al ong Maybell Avenue would notice an increase in traffic as a result of the proposed development. Clemo via Maybell Access Alternative: Und er this alternative, according to the TIRE index, the proposed project would add approximately 120 daily trips to Maybell Avenue. According to the TIRE index, it is unlikely that residents along Maybell Avenue would notice this projected increase in traffic as a result of the proposed development. On Site Circulation and Parking: The on-site circulation was re viewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Generally, th e proposed plan would provide adequate circulation throughout the site. The s ite would include 42 uncovered surface parking spaces with 5 reserve spaces for the senior ho using units including three accessible parking spaces. Parking stalls are oriented at 90 degr ees to the drive aisles. Aisle widths are appropriate for 90-degree parking, and there are no dead end aisles. A passenger loading zone is shown in front of the community room at the proposed senior housing component. Parking for the single-family residential units would occur in attached two-car garages. In addition, all but one of the single-family units adjacent to Maybell Avenue has driveway aprons that are 18 feet deep, which would allow for two additional parking spaces per unit. With the exception of one unit at the corner of Maybe ll Avenue and Clemo Avenue that would have direct access to Clemo Avenue, all single-family units would be accessed by internal drive aisles. As described previously, access to the public street system from the nor thern driveway requires traveling through the adjacent property. Traffic Study Conclusions: The traffic study indicates the following conclusions regarding the proposed project and the two site access alternatives: As currently proposed, the project would be accessed via a single driveway on Clemo Avenue. With the current Clemo barrier, all p roject trips would access Clem o Avenue via Arastradero Road. The stop-controlled Clemo Avenue approach at Arastrad ero Road would incur a substantial increase in delay and deterioration in the level of service during the AM peak hour if the project were lim ited to a single driveway on Clemo Avenue with the current barrier location. As an alternative, the project would be served by two driveways—one driveway on Clem o Avenue and an access easement through the Arastradero Park Apartment Complex (APAC) to the north that would connect to an existing dr iveway on Maybell Avenue. The an alysis of the proposed project shows that it is unlikely that residents along Maybell Avenue would notice an increase in traffic as a 567 Maybell Avenue Page 46 Initial Study result of the proposed development. In addition, all of the signalized study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under existing, ex isting plus project, and cumulative conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. The analysis also showed that none of the unsignalized intersections would meet the peak hour signal warrants and the unsignalized study in tersections would operate with reasonable overall average delays. However, the side-street delay on Clemo Av enue would operate at a poor LOS during the PM peak ho ur under cumulative conditions with or without the p roject. The poor LOS is prim arily a result of future traffic growth projected to occur between existing and cumulative conditions. Furthermore, the level of servic e analysis at this inte rsection does not reflect the significant num ber of pedestrian crossi ngs and frequent bloc kages by through queues on Arastradero Road that were obs erved during the AM peak hour. The project would add 6 and 4 project trips to the westbound approach on Clem o Avenue during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Alternatively, the Clemo barrier could be relocated east of the project driveway so that all project trips would access Clemo Avenue via Maybell Avenue. An analysis of both site access alternatives shows that all of the signalize d study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under existing plus project and cumulative plus project conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. The analysis also showed that none of the unsignalized intersections would meet the peak hour signal warrants and the unsignalized stud y intersections would operate wi th reasonable overall average delays. Moving the Clemo ba rrier to the east o f the project driveway so that all p roject trips would access Clemo Avenue via Maybell Avenue would resu lt in reasonable delays and acceptable levels of service at the stop-controlled Clemo Avenue approach at Maybell Avenue. Furthermore, residents along Maybell Avenue would not notice a change in traffic as a result of the proposed developm ent. As stated earlier, given the severity of queuin g, bike and pedestrian trips on Arastradero Road, it would be beneficial to relocate the barrier on Clemo Avenue to east of the project driveway, so that the project trips cannot access Arastradero Road via Clemo Avenue. Generally, the proposed plan would provide adequate circulation throughout the site. The existing live oak trees located along the project frontage on Clemo Avenue are not expected to interfere with the visibility of drivers exiting the proposed Clemo Avenue driveway. In order to ensure that on-street parking does not obscure the view for outbound traffic, it is recommended that the curb be painted red for a distance of 65 feet eas t of the driveway . Adequate sight distance is pr ovided at the ex isting Maybell Avenue driveway at the APAC. Potential Impacts: If the Clem o Avenue driveway is the only access to the site and the acces s barriers on Clemo are not relocated, the stop-controlled Clemo Avenue approach at Arastradero Road would incur a substantial increase in delay and deterioration in the level of service during the AM peak hour. This would result in a potential significant effect on traffic operations at this intersection. If the access easement is obtained and there is s ite access from both Clem o and Maybell Avenues, there would be no significant adverse traffic i mpacts expected from the project. Or alternatively, if the Clemo barrier could be relocated ea st of the p roject driveway so that all project trips would access Clemo Avenue via Maybell Avenue, there would be no significant adverse tra ffic impacts expected from the project. Mitigation Measures: 567 Maybell Avenue Page 47 Initial Study 1. In order to ensure that there are no adverse im pacts to traffic circulation, one of the following mitigation measures shall be required. a. The project sponsor shall obtain on access easement through the adjacent Arastrad ero Park Apartment Complex to connect the site access aisle to the existing driveway for APAC on Maybell Avenue. b. If an access easem ent cannot be ob tained and access is from a single driveway on Clemo Avenue, the access barriers on Cle mo Avenue shall be relocated from the intersection of Maybell Avenue to east of the project driveway on Clemo Avenue. 2. In order to ensure that on-street parking does not obscure the view fo r outbound traffic from the Clemo Avenue driveway, the curb shall be pa inted red for a distance of 65 feet east of the driveway. Conclusion: Based on the traffic analysis and th e mitigation measures proposed, it has been determined that with m itigation, there would be no significant adv erse impacts to traffic and circulation from the proposed project. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation) Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1,5 X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1,5 X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1,5 X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1,5 X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1,5 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1,5 X 567 Maybell Avenue Page 48 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1,5 X h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1,5 X DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto Utilitie s Department provides water and sewer services as well as ga s and electric service. Palo Alto also provides refuse and storm drain service, operated through the Public Works Department. There are existing utilities in plac e in the area to serve the proposed development. There are existing water and gas lines within both the Clem o and Ma ybell Avenue rights-of-way, and the proposed single-family residences and apartment building will connect to these existing lines. There is an existing sanitary sewer main within the Mayb ell Avenue right-of-way. A new 8-inch d iameter sanitary sewer main will be in stalled in the Clem o Avenue right-of-way to connect to the existing main in Maybell Avenue and serve the proposed re sidences. A new storm drain system will be installed on site, and a new storm drain line will be ins talled in the Maybell Avenue right-of-way to connect to an existing storm drain located at the intersection of Maybell and Baker Avenues. Mitigation Measures: None Required Conclusion: There is adequate capacity in th e existing Palo Alto utilities and se rvice systems to accommodate the proposed project (Less Than SignificantNo Impact) R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1,2,3,4,5,10 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” 1 X 567 Maybell Avenue Page 49 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1,5 X 567 Maybell Avenue Page 50 Initial Study DISCUSSION: With the implementation of policies in place and avoidance measures required by the City of Palo Alto and other agencies as described in the specific sections of this report, as well as implementation of the mitigation measures proposed (refer to Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts), on pages 7 through 464 of the Initial Study, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts. Under cumulative considerations, on ly potentially significant traffic impacts were identified. With mitigation measures, the traffic impacts are less than significant. No other thresholds of significance were exceeded under cumulative considerations. Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The proposed project is not expected to have impacts that are cumulatively considerable. (Less Than Significant Impact) 567 Maybell Avenue Page 51 Initial Study SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. During construction, the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement the following m easures required as part of BAAQMD’s basic and e nhanced dust control procedures required for all construction sites. These include: a. Water all active construction areas daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose m aterials or req uire all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). c. Pave, apply water three tim es daily, or appl y (non-toxic) soil stab ilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using recl aimed water if possible) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e. Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. f. Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. as soon as feasible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 2. In order to make sure the proper tree protection measures are followed during construction, the project sponsor shall co mply with the Tree Preservation an d Protection Plan outlined in the Arborist’s Report, 567-595 Maybell Avenue, prepared by John H. McClenahan, McClenahan Consulting, LLC, November 26, 2012. 3. In order to mitigate any potential impacts related to existin g environmental conditions on the site, the project sponsor shall comply with the recommendations m ade in the Phase II Environmental Assessment, Maybell Property, Palo Alto, California, prepared by Rosewood Environmental Engineering, July 20, 2012. 4. In order to ensure that there are no adverse im pacts to traffic circulation, one of the following mitigation measures shall be required. a. The project sponsor shall obtain on access easement through the adjacent Arastrad ero Park Apartment Complex to connect the site access aisle to the existing driveway for APAC on Maybell Avenue. b. If an access easem ent cannot be ob tained and access is from a single driveway on Clemo Avenue, the access barriers on Cle mo Avenue shall be relocated from the intersection of Maybell Avenue to east of the project driveway on Clemo Avenue. 5. In order to ensure that on-st reet parking does not obscure the view fo r outbound traffic from the Clemo Avenue driveway, the curb shall be pa inted red for a distance of 65 feet east of the driveway. 567 Maybell Avenue Page 52 Initial Study SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project 2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 – Zoning Ordinance 4. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001 5. Project Plans 6. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Residential Development at Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue in Palo Alto, California, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., February 26, 2013 7. Arborist Report, 567-595 Maybell Avenue, prepared by John H. McClenahan, McClenahan Consulting, LLC, November 26, 2012 8. Phase I and Phase II Environm ental Assessments, Maybell Property, Palo Alto, California, prepared by Rosewood Environmental Engineering, July 2, 2012 and July 20, 2012 9. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012 10. Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory 11. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 12. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10-Noise Ordinance 13. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06085C 0017H, May 18, 2009 14. CEQA Guidelines – E nvironmental Thresholds (Professional judgm ent and expertise and review of document). 15. Association of Bay Area Governments, Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Palo Alto/Stanford, 1995. http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl 16. Association of Bay Area Governm ents (ABAG), Wildfire Hazard Maps and Infor mation, November 2004 17. State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones Palo Alto Quadrangle Official Map, October 18, 2006 567 Maybell Avenue Page 53 Initial Study DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ___________________________________ _________________________ Project Planner Date 4151 41474143 4139 4133 4146 628 622 612 4150 4154 4158 619 4169 590 41344136 4138 41444140 4150 638 571 545 4133 4171 4173 4175 4 2 0 5 578 5 7 4 5 7 0 581 579 4 2 0 1 575 5 7 9 5 8 7 4 2 1 5 4 2 2 1 4 2 5 7 7 4 2 0 6 4 2 0 8 4 2 1 2 4 2 1 6 607 4 2 0 2 609 580 600 595 4155 578 576 570 4137 4143 4151 4155 4163 4148 4152 4158 566 564 574 587 575 550 556 562 559 557 564 568 567 566 572 557 560 554 4170 4174 54 538 9 4175 4185 565 567 610 609 AMARANTA AVENUE NUE MAYBELL AVENUE GEO R G ABEL AVENUE MAYBELL AVENUE MAYBELL AVENUE CLEMO AVENUE ARASTRADERO ROAD IRVEN C ALTA MESA AVENU STRADERO ROAD S U Z A N N K E L L Y W A Y ARANTA COURT This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Major Institution/Special Facility Multi-Family Res Public Park Single Family Res Proposed Single Family Residential Designation Project Site - Lot Lines 0'150' 56 7 - 5 9 5 M a y b e l l A v e n u e Pr o j e c t S i t e Ar e a M a p Pr o p o s e d Si n g l e F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l Co m p P l a n D e s i g n a t i o n A m e n d m e n t CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2013 City of Palo Alto twong, 2013-05-15 13:57:50 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\twong.mdb) ATTACHMENT D MAYBELL ORCHARD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION Planned Community (PC) Zone Change Originally Filed November 6, 2012 REVISED March 15, 2013 INTRODUCTION On June 22, 2012, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Sambuceto Partners and Maybell Sambuceto Properties to acquire the properties located at 567-595 Maybell and 575-587 Maybell, in the City of Palo Alto, California. The APN numbers for the property are: 137-25-108 & 137-25-109. The main purpose of this acquisition is for PAHC to develop a much-needed affordable housing development in Palo Alto. Escrow for the transaction was successfully closed on November 30, 2012 and PAHC now owns the property. PAHC is applying for a Planned Community (PC) Zone Change, a Comprehensive Plan amendment, Architectural Review Board (ARB), environmental review, and tree removal for the property. PAHC has had preliminary meetings with City staff and neighbors, as well as a City Council study session in September of 2012 and an ARB preliminary review session in February of 2013. Relying on input from the surrounding community, City staff and policy makers, PAHC is applying for: PROPOSED APPLICATIONS 1. PC Zone change from R-2 and RM-15; a. Architectural Review Board (ARB) b. Comprehensive Plan amendment c. Environmental Review & Approval per CEQA; and d. Tree Removal DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT The two parcels presently carry R-2 and RM-15 zoning designations. Approval of the Planned Community (PC) Zone Change Application to rezone the 2.46-acre underutilized property would allow for the redevelopment of the site into a mixture of fifteen single-family, market rate homes and sixty affordable, rental housing units. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Multifamily Residential to Single-Family Residential for a portion of the property proposed for single-family homes will make the Comp Plan consistent with the proposed rezone. The apartments will serve extremely-low to low income seniors with incomes in the range of 30-60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Santa Clara County. City codes for high-density residential development do not provide sufficient flexibility to develop the proposed community under standard regulations. The proposed development will not be attainable without a PC Zone change. The application allows for greater City oversight to ensure a unified, comprehensively planned development that will guarantee the development of affordable housing, thereby providing substantial public benefit to the City of Palo Alto. A PC Zone Change would enable PAHC to build sixty affordable, rental housing units for seniors on approximately 1 acre of the site, and to set aside approximately 1.46 acres for market rate housing development to be either developed by PAHC or a private developer. The sale of the market rate portion will significantly reduce the costs associated with the land acquisition and development for the sixty unit senior housing project. The project will increase the affordable housing stock available to the City’s aging population. According to Census Data, the senior population has been the fastest growing age group in Santa Clara County, and second fastest growing in Palo Alto, over the last ten years. The Housing Element, part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, reports that Palo Alto seniors are deciding to age in place and many will begin to shift from larger single-family homes to smaller units. According to the Silicon Valley Council on Aging, twenty percent of seniors in Palo Alto are living at or near the federal poverty level. The project will provide long-term affordability restrictions and will leverage the monetary contributions of the City and the County for the public benefit. Furthermore, the project will help the City meet its regional housing needs per the Association of Bay Area Government’s housing allotment. The property is a designated a Housing Inventory site under the City’s Housing Element. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property is the configuration of two contiguous parcels of land with a net site area of approximately 2.465 acres (107,392 square feet). The larger parcel, currently zoned RM-15, contains a former apricot orchard and two single-family houses. The smaller parcel, currently zoned R-2, contains two additional single-family homes. These four one-story houses were built in the 1950s and 1960s and range in size from approximately 900 square feet to 1,500 square feet. All four homes face Maybell Avenue and have two-car garages. 567 Maybell Avenue has an additional attached one-car garage so there are presently a total of five garages fronting Maybell. Unlike typical single-family dwellings, none of the houses have their own individual lot. All homes are in need of maintenance, repair and upgrades. The former orchard, which comprises the majority of the larger parcel behind the four houses, was family-run by the property owner, producing fruit until roughly 1990. Since the early 1990s, the orchard has not been maintained. The south frontage of the orchard along Clemo Avenue is lined with large mature live oak trees. The entire property is level and at grade with surrounding properties and is served by all major utilities. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will provide sixty affordable rental apartments, including fifty-nine (59) one- bedroom units and one (1) two-bedroom unit for the onsite manager. The project will also include common areas such as a community room, computer room, laundry rooms on each floor, manager’s office, resident services office, visiting nurse's office, exercise room, as well as outdoor common spaces including a large courtyard and patio, community garden, and rooftop terrace. The units will have an average size of approximately 600 square feet and rents will range from $532-1,065 per month for one person and will be adjusted annually based on Santa Clara County AMI. The fifteen single-family homes will range between 1,840 and 2,330 square feet. The homes will have three and four bedrooms and will vary in height between two and three stories. The following provides a brief description of the application: Architecture. Elevations vary in height. The two-story homes will not exceed 25 feet and the three-story homes will not exceed 35 feet. All of the single-family homes will feature architectural elements that will enhance the diversity of the streetscape, including step-backs on each floor. The senior apartment building will be four stories. Fenestration of the building will be achieved through large windows, alcoves, textures, and stepping floors back on the southern side of the building. In doing so, the elevations will be broken into several plains, reducing the mass of the building. The single-family homes and the apartment building will compliment the natural features of the site and will take into consideration adjacent properties in order to blend into the overall neighborhood fabric. Height. The single-family homes along Maybell and Clemo Avenues will have maximum heights of approximately 32 feet, and the senior apartment building will have a maximum height of approximately 45 feet. Massing and orientation of the buildings will respect and mirror the massing of the neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories. The development will gradually step up in height from the two and three-story homes along Maybell and Clemo Avenues, to the four-story senior apartment building. This gradual step up in height will provide continuity between the one and two story homes present to the west of the development, the three story APAC apartment complex to the north, and the eight-story TAN apartment building to the east. Setbacks. The eight homes along Maybell Avenue will have approximately 12 foot front-yard setbacks, 7 foot side-yard setbacks and 18-foot rear yard/driveway apron setbacks. The corner house will have (approximately) a five foot setback from Clemo Avenue, a 20 foot setback from Maybell Avenue, and a 5 foot side- and rear-yard setback. The six remaining homes along Clemo Avenue will have between 10 and 20 foot front yard setbacks in order to preserve and feature the mature live oaks lining the street, 12 foot side yards, and between 2 and 10 foot rear setbacks. Fourteen (14) of the 15 homes will have alley-loaded garages, allowing space for the addition of an uninterrupted sidewalk along Maybell Avenue which will connect existing sidewalks to the north and south of the property. These improvements will make Maybell Avenue a safer bicycle and pedestrian route. Development. The senior apartments will have a standard size of approximately 600 square feet and the manager’s 2-bedroom unit will be approximately 726 square feet. The development will, at a minimum, meet ADA requirements for accessibility in bathrooms and kitchens. Gas and water will be provided to the building via a single meter and are included in the rent. Internet and cable service will be available throughout the building and each resident will have the option of contracting with an independent contractor for this service. Each unit and the common areas will be provided electricity via individual meters. Roof top photovoltaic energy systems are proposed to pre-heat water prior to entering a central boiler. Heating and cooling will be supplied to each unit via individual meters. Photovoltaic electric solar panels are proposed to power the community room. Water conservation will be achieved with drought- tolerant landscaping of all vegetated areas and the use of Energy Star appliances. Additional sustainable measures will be met throughout the construction and materials selection process which may include recycled aggregate, engineered lumber, no added formaldehyde insulation and modular cabinets, low-VOC paints, wood coatings and adhesives, and low-emitting flooring. Other green features will be explored as funding permits. The single-family homes will range in size between 1,840 and 2,330 square feet. The protected/heritage oak trees along Clemo Avenue will be preserved. PAHC plans to have edible landscaping and/or a memorial plaque in the courtyard of the senior apartment building as a tribute to the agricultural history of the neighborhood. The project is designed to meet or exceed the City’s green point rating system and will be environmentally sustainable. Table 1 and Table 2 illustrate the proposed housing mix and livable square footage. Table 1 – Senior Apartments Housing Mix Apartment Square Apartments Housing Mix Unit Total Composition Feet Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 4 Square Feet Unit 1 – 1 Bedroom 600 14 16 16 13 35,400 Unit 2 – 2 Bedroom 796 0 0 0 1 796 Apartment TOTAL - 14 19 14 13 36,196 Table 2 – Single Family Housing Mix Single-Family Home Design Square Feet Single Family Housing Mix Quantity Height Bed Bath Plan 1A 2,330 2 3 story 4 3.5 Plan 1B 2,330 3 3 story 4 3.5 Plan 1C 1,901 3 2 story 3 2.5 Plan 2 2,304 1 2 story 4 3.5 Plan 3A 1,832 2 3 story 4 4 Plan 3B 1,840 3 3 story 4 4 Plan 3C 1,840 1 3 story 4 4 The senior apartments will provide high-quality rental housing to seniors with annual incomes ranging from 30% - 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Table 3 illustrates the Santa Clara County income limits per home size as a percent of AMI, which are adjusted annually. Table 3 – Santa Clara County Area Median Income (AMI) Area Median Income Number In Household Santa Clara County 1 2 3 4 100% Income Level $71,000 $81,100 $91,200 $101,300 60% Income Level $42,600 $48,660 $54,720 $60,780 30% Income Level $21,300 $24,330 $27,360 $30,390 Source: TCAC 2013 Maximum Income Levels Open Space. The apartment building will surround a large courtyard, complete with interesting landscape elements, walking and seating areas and a community garden. The community room will open up to an outdoor patio, making the courtyard easily accessible to residents. The current plans include a roof terrace. The landscaping plan includes a walking path through the courtyard and a connecting path from the senior apartment building to Briones Park. The garages for the single-family homes are alley-loaded, providing front yard open space for each house. Tree Removal. S.P. Mclenahan Co. has drafted a tree survey and tree protection plan. A site visit with David Dockter was conducted and S.P. McClenahan Co. Inc. is following through on the recommendations of the City. The mature Oak trees along Clemo Avenue will remain and have been incorporated into the project design. The tree protection plan is included as Attachment A. Parking for Senior Apartments. The senior apartments will have a total of 47 parking spaces, inclusive of three handicap spaces. Five of these spaces will be placed in a landscaped parking reserve which can be converted to parking if necessary. The typical parking ratio for a senior development in Palo Alto has been approximately .5. The Maybell Orchard Apartment project will have a parking ratio of .78, accommodating residents as well as visitor parking needs. For comparison, the Stevenson House, a 120-unit low-income senior housing development in Palo Alto, presently has a parking ratio of .45 spaces per unit and is well-parked. PAHC’s Sheridan senior apartments has a parking ratio of .35. Table 4 provides an overview of parking at nearby senior properties. Table 4 – Senior Development Automobile Parking PROPERTY California City Total Homes Spaces Provided Parking Ratio Sheridan Sr. Apt Palo Alto 57 20 .35 Stevenson House Palo Alto 120 54 .45 Fair Oaks Plaza Sunnyvale 124 84 .67 DeVries Place Milpitas 103 70 .68 Eden Issei Hayward 100 52 .52 Maybell Orchard Palo Alto 60 47 .78 PAHC will monitor parking demand at the senior apartments. Parking will be metered by assigning spaces to residents as needed, with proof of registration and insurance. Due to the typically lower car ratios for seniors and affordable housing properties in general, we expect to be more than sufficiently parked to allow extra spaces for visitors and PAHC staff. Five spaces will be landscaped as a parking reserve. Should further parking prove to be necessary for the senior housing, the parking reserve can be converted into parking. Furthermore, PAHC is exploring the option of providing a shared van for resident use. Also, PAHC plans to provide an Electric Vehicle charging station on-site. Parking for Single-Family Homes. Fourteen of the single-family homes will have alley loaded two-car garages. The corner home (corner of Maybell and Clemo) will have a garage loading onto Clemo Avenue. In addition to the two-car garage, seven of the homes along Maybell and the corner home on Clemo will have guest parking for two additional cars in the driveway apron. Covered Parking. The zoning code requires residential parking to be concealed from the street for projects with six units or more. Although uncovered, all of the proposed parking spaces will be concealed from Clemo and Maybell Avenues through a combination of landscaping and building locations on the site. The single-family homes and existing live Oak trees will shield the parking area from view from Maybell and Clemo Avenues. Bicycle Parking for Seniors. Palo Alto Municipal Code does not address bicycle parking requirements for senior housing. The City of Santa Rosa requires 1 bicycle parking space per 8 units of senior affordable housing if a private garage or bicycle storage space is not provided. The City of Mountain View does not have a requirement for bicycle parking related specifically to senior affordable housing. However, Mountain View requires a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces equal to 5% of required vehicle parking spaces, which equates to roughly one bicycle parking space per ten units. The current plans for the senior apartment building include indoor bicycle parking for 20 bikes (1 space per 3 units) on the western end of the building, adjacent to the stairwell, and a rack for an additional 7 guest bicycles (just over 1 space per 10 units) located just to the east of the main entrance. Table 5 provides comparable bicycle parking for local affordable senior apartments. Table 5 – Palo Alto Affordable Senior Bicycle Parking PROPERTY California City Total Homes Spaces Provided Parking Ratio Sheridan Sr. Apt Palo Alto 57 24 .42 Stevenson House Palo Alto 120 40 .33 Maybell Orchard Palo Alto 60 27 .45 Public Transit - Bus. The project is within 500 feet of the north-south peninsula artery, El Camino Real. El Camino Real is served by Santa Clara Valley Transit Agency (VTA) Bus Routes "22", "Rapid 522" and "88." The bus stop for each of these routes is less than a five- minute walk from the property. Additionally, the Palo Alto shuttle route extension will bring the free shuttle within a few blocks of the development. The Palo Alto “Crosstown Shuttle” operates a circular route through Palo Alto, providing service to Mitchell Park, Main Library, midtown shopping, downtown Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Caltrain Station, among other destinations. It runs Monday-Friday from roughly 9:00am- 5:00pm. The “22” operates along El Camino Real, running northwest to the Palo Alto train station and southeast to San Jose. It runs 24 hours a day, with buses every 12 minutes from 6:00am-7:00pm and every 30 minutes after 7:00pm, seven days a week. It runs every 15 minutes on Saturday and Sunday. The “Rapid 522” also operates along El Camino Real, running northwest to the Palo Alto train station and south to the Eastridge Transit Center. It runs during workweek daytime hours with service approximately every 15 minutes from 5:30am to 8:30pm. It runs every 15 minutes on Saturday and Sunday between 6:00am and 8:00pm. The “88” runs between the Palo Alto V.A. and Middlefield/Colorado streets, serving south Palo Alto neighborhoods with easy access to grocery stores and satellite colleges at the Cubberley Center; it runs during workweek daytime hours with service approximately every hour from 6:30am to 6:30pm. There is no service on Saturday and Sunday. Public Transit - Caltrain. Railway access is readily available at the Palo Alto, San Antonio, and California Avenue Caltrain stations. The California Avenue train station is located approximately 2.0 miles north of the property. Access to the station involves a short 9 minute bus ride and a 6 minute walk. Alternatively, the station is a 39 minute walk or a 10 minute bike ride from the property. The Palo Alto train station is a major transit station for Caltrain operations. The station is located approximately 3.5 miles north of the property. Access to the station involves a short 20 minute bus ride that drops off right at the train platform. The San Antonio train station is located approximately 1.9 miles east of the property. Access to the station involves a 15 minute bus ride and a15 minute walk. Alternatively, the station is a 33 minute walk or a 10 minute bike ride from the property via sidewalks and a Class I pedestrian trail. Development Schedule. The anticipated development schedule is as follows: November 2012 Secure City/County and Additional Funding November 30, 2012 March 2013 Close of Escrow Architectural Review Board Approval June 2013 Council Development Permit & Design Review Approval June 2013 Market Rate Portion Land Sale July 2013 Deadline to apply for tax credit financing for 2012 year September/October 2013 Obtain Grading/Building Permit October 2013 Commence Construction October 2014 Complete Construction* October/November 2014 Obtain Occupancy Permit December 2014 Full Occupancy and Operational * Site constraints & difficulties associated with winter construction may cause delays. CONCESSIONS Government Code section 65915 provides zoning concessions for the development of affordable housing. The following provides a brief description of the concessions that are being sought for the development. Height. The maximum allowable height for any PC district is fifty feet. However, Section 18.38.150(b) requires that the maximum height within 150 feet of any residentially zoned or applicable PC district shall be 35 feet. The single-family homes are in compliance; however, the senior building exceeds this restriction by approximately 10 feet. The senior building’s strategic placement on the property nearest the APAC apartment community and the TAN Plaza Apartments allows the building to blend in with the context of the 3-story and 8-story adjacent developments. As discussed in the project description, the entire development smoothly transitions up in height from the two and three story single family homes, to the four-story senior building, linking the existing one and two story homes along Maybell with the three-story APAC apartments to the north of the property and the eight story TAN apartment building to the east. Daylight Plane. The PC code requires that setbacks be scaled to the height of each building— the taller the building, the greater the setback— ensuring minimal shading of neighboring properties. Given the four story height of the senior building, the structure would need to be set back 72 feet from the property line in order to comply with the daylight plane zoning ordinance. Due to the limited size of the property, setbacks meeting the daylight plane requirement are not possible. At the request of the Architectural Review Board, a shadow study was conducted, included on Plan Sheet A2.1. The study shows that the structures on the neighboring properties are subject to minimal shading due to their setbacks from the property line and their height. The three-story APAC apartment community to the north of the senior building is setback 57 feet from the property line with a parking area and a driveway in between, thereby limiting the possibility that residents will be shaded by the senior building. The eight- story TAN apartment building is similarly setback from the property line behind carports and a drive aisle. Due to the height and location of the TAN building, it is not shaded by the senior building. The single-family homes do not present any daylight plane issues. City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 =================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26====================== 2 3 Thursday April 4, 2013 4 REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM 5 City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 6 250 Hamilton Avenue 7 Palo Alto, CA 94301 8 ROLL CALL: 9 Board members: Staff Liaison: 10 Clare Malone Prichard (Chair Russ Reich, Senior Planner 11 Lee Lippert (Vice Chair) 12 Alexander Lew Staff: 13 Randy Popp Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate 14 Naseem Alizadeh Tim Wong, Senior Planner 15 Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager 16 17 18 PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 19 Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: 20  Announce agenda item 21  Open public hearing 22  Staff recommendation 23  Applicant presentation – Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board. 24  Public comment – Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) 25 minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. 26  Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments 27  Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes 28  Close public hearing 29  Motions/recommendations by the Board 30  Final vote 31 32 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the 33 agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must 34 complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural 35 Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. 36 37 APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 38 March 21, 2013 39 40 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES ATTACHMENT E City of Palo Alto Page 2 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional 1 items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. 2 3 CONTINUED BUSINESS: 4 5 Major Review: 6 7 50 El Camino Real [11PLN-00388]: Request by Huiwen Hsiao on behalf of The Board of Trustees of 8 the Leland Stanford Junior University for Site and Design Review of the construction of a 70-room, 9 three story, 51,948 square foot building on a 1.57-acre site, to house an expanded Ronald McDonald 10 House program. The project includes a rezoning to Public Facility with a Site and Design Combining 11 District (PF(D)) zone, and Comprehensive Plan re-designation (from Streamside Open Space to Major 12 Institution/Special Facilities), and a Conditional Use Permit amendment. Zone District: Community 13 Commercial with a Landscape Combining District (CC(L)). Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated 14 Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA. 15 16 NEW BUSINESS: 17 18 Major Review: 19 20 567-595 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453]: Request by Candice Gonzalez on behalf of Palo Alto 21 Housing Corporation, for Architectural Review of a housing project that includes 15 single-family 22 detached homes and a 60-unit multiple-family residential building providing affordable rental units for 23 seniors. The project includes off-street parking, landscaping and other site improvements. A zone 24 district change from Low-Density Residential (R-2) and Multiple-Family Residential (RM-15) to a 25 Planned Community (PC) has also been requested. Environmental Assessment: a Mitigated Negative 26 Declaration has been prepared for public review. 27 28 Chair Malone Prichard: And our second and final item is 567 to 595 Maybell Avenue. A request by 29 Candice Gonzalez on behalf of Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), for Architectural Review of a 30 housing project that includes 15 single-family units, detached homes, and a 60-unit multiple-family 31 residential building providing affordable rental units for seniors. The project includes off-street 32 parking, landscaping and other site improvements. A zone district change from Low-Density 33 Residential (R-2) and Multi-Family Residential (RM-15) to a Planned Community (PC) has also been 34 requested. Have the staff presentation. 35 36 Tim Wong, Senior Planner: Good morning. My name is Tim Wong. I’m a Senior Planner with the 37 City. Before I begin just a couple quick corrections to the staff report; on Page 7 in the discussion page 38 City of Palo Alto Page 3 it says that typically in a project like this 91 spaces are required. That should be 97 spaces. So that’s 1 on Page 7, and also on Page 5 in with the daylight plane discussion (interrupted) 2 3 Board Member Popp: I’m sorry Tim. Where on Page 7 is that? In the parking section? 4 5 Mr. Wong: Parking, yeah. 6 7 Board Member Popp: And what is the correction please? 8 9 Mr. Wong: It should say 97 parking spaces. So in the sentence at mid-paragraph, the first paragraph it 10 should say, “Therefore the development would typically require…” 11 12 Board Member Popp: Thank you. 13 14 Mr. Wong: Ok. And then secondly on Page 5 under Zoning Compliance there’s that paragraph 15 discussing daylight plane and how the senior center does not comply with the daylight plane 16 requirement. Lot 1 of the sub, single-family subdivision would also fall under that category that the 17 house proposed for Lot 1 would not comply with the daylight plane requirement. So a couple quick 18 corrections and so I’ll go ahead and get started. Thank you. 19 20 This item is before you today as part of the Planned Community rezone process. The Architectural 21 Review Board (ARB) reviews development plan, site plan, and design plans as part of the Planned 22 Community process. After the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommends the 23 City of Palo Alto Page 4 application move forward for the initiation of the rezone and on February 13, 2013, the PTC 1 recommended that this application move forward. Therefore, this application is before you today. 2 3 As stated, Palo Alto Housing Corp. has submitted an application to do a 60 unit affordable senior multi-4 family development and a 15 unit single-family dwelling subdivision for a total of 75 units under the 5 PC rezone. Currently the parcel is zoned R-2 with a majority zoned RM-15 for a max density of 34 6 units. Some quick information about the proposed development; the senior center is proposed to be in 7 the southeast corner of the project site. It’ll have 60 units. The bedrooms, there’ll be 59 one bedroom 8 units of approximately 600 square feet and there will be one manager’s unit. There’ll be community 9 amenities provided including a computer lab, resident services office, manager’s office, and there will 10 be outdoor common open space on ground level and also there will be a rooftop terrace. 11 12 The overall height of the project of the senior development it will be about 40, approximately 45 feet. 13 And they are proposing 42 parking spaces for the 60 units with 5 in reserve for a total of 47 spaces for 14 the senior center. The stalls to unit ratio of .78 is higher than other affordable senior developments 15 throughout the City. And I believe you have some information in your staff report compared to others 16 and also some information about the single-family homes. They are proposing 15 homes, 8 along 17 Maybell, and 6 on Clemo with a corner lot. All the homes are approximately 1,800 to 2,400 square 18 feet. All have two car garages and the applicant is also proposing some additional parking, 7 two car 19 aprons for 7 of the units. So therefore there will be 14 additional spaces than what is required. And 20 also all access for the development currently proposed is coming off of Clemo Avenue and going onto 21 Arastradero. 22 23 City of Palo Alto Page 5 As mentioned in the staff report there are height and daylight plane issues. PC zone requires that any 1 development within 150 feet of residential has a maximum height of 35 feet. As stated the senior 2 center is 45 feet, exceeding that 35 foot and also daylight plane also within 150 square, excuse me, 150 3 feet of residential requires daylight plane requirements. And as currently proposed the senior center 4 and again Lot 1 do not comply with that. To address those daylight plane issues the applicant is 5 requesting for density bonus concessions. Density bonus is a State law that provides regulatory relief 6 for developers when they provide a certain amount of affordable housing. So that is what the applicant 7 has requested, a relief from the height maximum and also from the daylight plane requirement for the 8 senior center and now Lot 1. 9 10 The Negative Declaration is open for public comment at this point. One of the issues identified is 11 circulation and ingress/egress with the current proposal. And again the comment period is open until I 12 believe next week. So the public still has time to comment on the initial study. There was a 13 preliminary review done on this project by the ARB January 17th. Some comments included, from the 14 ARB included: the verticality of the single-family homes on Maybell; the materials used for the single-15 family homes, that there were too many materials; and also there were concerns about the shadowing of 16 the senior center; and finally integration of the senior center with the remainder of the site. As a result 17 the applicant has submitted revised plans addressing ARB’s suggestions and the applicant is here to 18 further address those revisions. And so therefore that concludes staff’s presentation. Staff recommends 19 approval based upon the draft findings and subject to the conditions of approval. And that concludes 20 staff’s presentation. 21 22 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? You will have a 23 total of 10 minutes. 24 City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 Jessica DeWitt, Project Manager: Good morning Board Members. I have with me today our Executive 2 Director, Candice Gonzalez, and I also have our Architect John Thatch from the Dahlin Group. So 3 Dahlin Group will be speaking shortly. I’m just going to make a quick, quick few statements here. So, 4 got it. 5 6 So this is just to give you a point of reference. I know we were here back on January 17th, but I just 7 want to give you that point of reference again. We’ve got this site there at the corner of Maybell and 8 Clemo and that’s approximately 2.46 acre site. The site is currently zoned with a small portion of R-2 9 and a majority is RM-15. The surrounding zonings are to the west we have single-family homes with 10 R-1 B-1. To the north and the east, which is the top part of your screen there and the right part of your 11 screen we’ve got two PC zonings. One of them is a three story multi-family apartment building which 12 we actually own and currently manage and then to the right, which is to the east is an eight story also 13 multi-family building, which is zoned PC again. And to the south we have Juana Briones Park, which 14 is a great site amenity for our project. 15 16 So these are just to give you a few of our development goals here. I know that staff has already stated 17 that we’re planning to provide, our proposal is for 60 affordable rental apartments for seniors and 15 18 single-family homes around the perimeter of the site. You know PAHC prides itself on developing 19 award winning buildings. Our most recent development, which was the Treehouse, it won the 20 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Growing Smarter Together Award. We also have the 21 highest multi-family GreenPoint rating in Palo Alto. You know that’s something we really pride 22 ourselves on and we’re planning to do that, have those same similar green design features here at 23 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Maybell. We’re going to be preserving the oak trees that are along the Clemo frontage, which John 1 will get into that a little further soon. 2 3 And then we also, our mission is to provide a sustainable pool of affordable housing. So our goal is to 4 actually own and manage these rentals indefinitely. So for us that means we want to be as good of a 5 neighbor as we can possibly be because we’re here for the long term. So with that I’m going to pass 6 you over to our architect to talk more about the site plan. Thanks. 7 8 John Thatch, Senior Designer/Partner, Dahlin Group: Good morning. My name’s John Thatch. I’m a 9 Senior Designer/Partner at Dahlin Group Architecture Planning. We’ve gone through I think we had a 10 really good meeting with yourselves and also with PTC about different issues. Some of the first things 11 [unintelligible] cover about [as far] on the site plan. On the site plan that we’ve done here a couple 12 items was talk about circulation and concern about circulation and also the circulation out to Maybell if 13 this went through. We have reached agreement with the Fire Department. They are very acceptable 14 about just having the one entrance here that they can take care of the project, which I think will again 15 lessen the traffic on Maybell as far as one of the issues I think that was brought up. 16 17 The other item that we have also done over in this area here that was brought up by PTC which I 18 thought was again looking at the parking numbers. There’s been a lot of discussions, do we have 19 enough parking? Do we have too much parking? You know our sense is we have too much parking 20 and one of the things we looked at was actually extending our green over in this area in this corner here. 21 There’s five parking spaces that we have taken out to create a green, maybe more of seating area more 22 for that park area for the seniors. But we’ve also again, have the ability to put those five parking spaces 23 back if it’s deemed it is a problem. We do not perceive that as a problem. 24 City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 The other item that was brought up was having the pathway; we have a path out to the parkway, this 2 walkway that continues through the project and now continues over to here. So it gives us the ability to 3 have the possibility of a connection through their adjacent project up here on over to Maybell so we 4 have a pedestrian connection. So we are working on that as far as with United States Department of 5 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and so forth on that issue. But we have again developed that 6 pathway system that can work. 7 8 Other site plan issues that were talked about were this corner unit. Talked about is there any way that 9 we could get its garage access to the parking area. We tried and we couldn’t find a way to do that, but 10 one of the things I’ll show you a little bit more in the plan we have pushed the garage back, so I think 11 our elevation is better along Clemo. We, also gives us two more parking spaces, more on that area as 12 far as guest parking. So there’s an 18, 20 foot apron over on that side off Clemo for our corner house. 13 14 Let’s see here, and then on the seniors building some of the comments that were brought up about the 15 building that again was generally liked, but the idea was maybe putting more detail into it. So some of 16 the things we looked at I think you can probably see a little closer probably in your packet is that we 17 looked at these bay windows as far as doing some horizontal siding, some more detailing, some roof 18 overhangs that I think accent sort of the contemporary character of the building, but give it a little bit 19 more detail, a little bit more texture. The element we also did, I think we’re trying to highlight here is 20 that we’ve also I guess we looked at the community center, pushing it up, giving it a little higher 21 ceiling, giving it a little more pop. And also I think in general we had overhang on that building before, 22 but again if we’re going to give it more glass increase the overhang on the building and give it more 23 shading. But I think also give it more strength in the architecture. And here you can see over on the 24 City of Palo Alto Page 9 other elevation again what we’re highlighting is where we’ve put a little more detail as far as looking at 1 the bay is a little more accented. The roof overhang also looking out, you know, again the horizontal 2 siding in places or slats as far as the detail end of the architecture. 3 4 In this one we wanted to basically talk about again how we think the park and everything works out 5 really well. Again in looking at the trees we talked about all the trees that we’re saving. We have eight 6 oak trees that we’re saving. We pushed these homes back, which we’ve talked about. We have not 7 really adjusted that area. This over here, which is hard to see on this one, but I think you can probably 8 see in your exhibit we looked at the worst case shading with our adjacent neighbor and you can see it 9 does touch the bottom edge of their buildings in the worst situation, again, in the winter solstice here. 10 So we think we’ve, again the shading is not a problem, how it works with adjacent building with this 11 exhibit that we’re showing here. This also shows the shading here. You can see how it’s shaded. 12 Basically it does come across the driveway and it just touches the building in the winter solstice. 13 14 Other items we did, which I think were brought up here which I really, I’m glad that we did. These are 15 our original elevations. We had stone going up here; the stone was more of a random pattern, more of a 16 traditional look to it. We also had a nine foot [plate] here. We also sort of looked at again how this 17 third story worked. We pushed that back. The stone material we have we’ve lessened it; we’ve 18 brought it down to this area much lower. Again reducing some of the massing and if you look on 19 you’re here and also on your exhibits you can see the dash line. We brought down the massing of the 20 elevations and I think simplified things. The other thing we did also is we deleted the glass railing. We 21 wanted just all the units to be more simplified going to a slat design which we’ve tied in with sort of the 22 guard and the fences around the house so that it has more continuous feel to it as far as look to it. 23 24 City of Palo Alto Page 10 We’ve also some of the houses we’ve, the garden walls that we have had around the houses those are 1 plaster now. So again, a little bit of simplification. I think they’re more contemporary, they’re cleaner. 2 And thank you because I like them a lot better also. Or hopefully you like them better. And then some 3 more of it; again, this is what we originally had on the homes on Clemo. Again the stone, the massing 4 it went up higher. We’ve lessened those and we’ve softened it. The elevations we brought again the 5 [plate] height down and you can see again on your exhibits where the dash lines represent where we 6 were, how we brought things down. And the same thing about the glass railing is now horizontal slats 7 again tying in with the fencing that we’ve [certainly] showing here. So I think everything to me really 8 goes well together. 9 10 And the big item we did on the housing was, I think there was a lot of discussion by residents, by 11 yourselves, by PTC, the corner elevation. We’ve reduced that house you can see the three stories 12 we’ve come down and said it should be two stories. So we talked about before pushing the garage 13 back. So the garage is back 10 feet or 8 feet back from this house. I believe it’s 18 feet back from 14 behind the sidewalk. So we have an apron parking spot and you can see the dash line up above. You 15 can see how much we’ve reduced the massing of this house. I think it wraps around the corner much 16 more, much better than it did before. 17 18 And again, simplification of the materials. We also have samples of the stone. We’re looking at using 19 a [culture] stone, but it’s very horizontal in nature. It has different smaller, lighter pieces, but it’s very 20 horizontal. I think much more of a contemporary feel to the stone. 21 22 And this is I think also a very good exhibit. We went back along with the modeling, you know looked 23 at, wanted to show how again especially the homes on Maybell [unintelligible] where the third floor is. 24 City of Palo Alto Page 11 We were able to say push those elements back. We lowered them a little bit, but I think that’s a pretty 1 good exhibit to show what happens along Maybell along with our Plan 2 and how it wraps around the 2 corner. I think it works much, much better. Showing also where the garage is set back here. 3 4 And the one item I wanted to point out that we talked about the heights of the building, the senior 5 building. The senior building is 45 feet, but there is one exception. We have a stair tower that’s shown 6 in this area right here that does go up to 50 feet for access to the roof for the mechanical and things that 7 we would have on the roof. The basic building is 45 feet with this one exception that you see right 8 here. This section also I think maybe shows a little bit better about the articulation of going from, I 9 want to point out I think we talked about for on Maybell to try and go from one story elements to two 10 story to three story, sort of a staggering of the building along Maybell. How the courtyard works for 11 the seniors and then working it to the building. So I think, again also I want to point out that we talked 12 about the way this land plan worked out is really working with the sun, really trying to get facing 13 southwest that courtyard facing west and south and bringing a lot of sun in there for the seniors. And 14 that ends my presentation. I guess we’re available for any questions. 15 16 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. We also have two members of the public who would like to speak 17 about this project. We’ll start with Bob Moss followed by Jane Sidiris. And you’ll each have three 18 minutes. 19 20 Bob Moss: Thank you Chair Prichard and Commissioners [Note-believe he means Board Members]. 21 First some comments about the overall project. I think 15 single-family housing units is too much. It 22 should be reduced to no more than 10 to 12. Take a couple of them off of Maybell and one off of 23 Clemo. And the three story buildings are completely incompatible with the other single-family homes 24 City of Palo Alto Page 12 in the neighborhood and across the street. So we should be reducing those to two stories and 1 eliminating as many three story buildings along Maybell as possible. That would allow widening the 2 lots and putting in driveways, which would allow access from the single-family homes onto Maybell. 3 Second, it would allow a reasonable setback. The 14 foot setback which is currently proposed is 4 completely inadequate. It’s incompatible with every other single-family home in Barron Park. Nobody 5 has 14 foot setbacks for single-family homes in Barron Park or in the other neighborhoods nearby and 6 we shouldn’t start it here. So set the buildings back. If that means reducing the size or the Floor Area 7 Ratio (FAR), reduce the Floor Area Ratio. 8 9 The other comment is about the proposal to consider moving traffic access from Clemo to Maybell by 10 moving the barrier back. That is a really awful idea. Since Arastradero was narrowed traffic counts on 11 Maybell during the rush hour have gone up by almost 40 percent. That’s almost 500 cars per day. 12 There is a school just a few feet across the street and down from where this project is. The school 13 traffic in the morning is very significant and so making everybody from this project use Maybell is 14 going to significantly adversely impact traffic on Maybell and the safety of the children going to and 15 from the school. So that’s a bad idea. 16 17 Finally, if you’re going to retain any three story single-family homes at all I’d like to see all of them 18 along Clemo and none of them along Maybell. Because as I say there are single-family homes along 19 Maybell which are a much lower scale and much shorter and we want to have this development 20 compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. 21 22 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments, and now Jane Sidiris. 23 24 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Jane Sidiris: Thank you for letting me speak. I live on Georgia Avenue and I agree with Bob on almost 1 everything that he says. I’m very concerned about our neighborhood and the traffic. We already are 2 impacted with traffic on Georgia because we can only get out on the Arastradero or Maybell to the El 3 Camino Real. And it is also Maybell is a “bicycle boulevard” with no bicycle trails. I mean they ride 4 in the middle of the street and the traffic is horrendous. I am very concerned about the safety of our 5 neighborhood and our people living in our neighborhood and about the seniors that are going to be 6 walled in by these three story houses. I think it’s a very bad and unsafe plan. 7 8 Also I’m worried about the impact on our little park. We have a little park there. We have been fenced 9 out of all the playing fields at Gunn and all the playing fields at Terman because they are used so much 10 at Terman now. But we’ve actually been fenced out of the playing fields. There’s no place for the kids 11 to play ball anymore at Gunn like they used to, all of our families used to play ball there in the evening. 12 You can’t now. 13 14 Also I’m concerned about the parking. They are going to park on Maybell. They’re not stupid. They 15 are going to say to themselves the people living in those tall story houses, “We’re going to park our 16 cars on Maybell” so we can get out quickly in the morning. And that’s going to impact the traffic on 17 Maybell some more. It’s very unsafe. If you’ve ever gone down there in the morning and in the 18 afternoon and even during the daytime now because of the narrowing of the Arastradero more and more 19 traffic is on my street, Georgia Avenue, and they make a lot of U-turns as they deliver their children to 20 turn around and come all the way down Maybell. So that they don’t have to get out on the Arastradero 21 because of the traffic, it’s been narrowed. 22 23 City of Palo Alto Page 14 So I have many concerns. I’m concerned about the safety. I’m concerned about the fact that our little 1 park isn’t going to be adequate. I’m concerned about the seniors being surrounded by wall. It’s like 2 the Alma Plaza. It’s a disaster. 3 4 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. Alright, let’s start with ARB comments and 5 questions. Alex. 6 7 Board Member Lew: So thank you to staff. I just wanted to point out a couple typos and also in the 8 staff report you mentioned a couple before. And then I think also Page 5 at the very bottom there’s a, 9 near the very bottom there’s a reference to the State density bonus code. And I think that’s 65915 and 10 it’s mentioned correctly elsewhere in the report. And then also I did want to check with you on Page 7 11 under “Trees.” The staff report says that the residences along Clemo Avenue would be setback an 12 average of 40 feet from the property line to accommodate the oak trees. And I believe that’s 20 feet. 13 Yes. 14 15 So let’s see, where should I start? I think I did have some comments on I think to Mr. Moss and Ms. 16 Sidiris. Let’s see, I think just to Mr. Moss, I think that if you’re doing a new project it doesn’t have to 17 be, I mean it has to be compatible, but it doesn’t mean it’s only compatible with the single-family. So 18 the applicant has apartments on two adjacent property lines and one of them is the Tan Building is 19 actually fairly substantial. And I think the way I’ve been reading the site is that it’s stepping up to the 20 taller buildings, stepping down towards the houses and also I think we’re generally trying to do more 21 with less. We’re not making any more land here in the area and we’re trying to do more. And I think it 22 is possible if the design is done well to have small setbacks if there are nice porches and the design as 23 well. Now I would agree with you that it hasn’t been working so well on all of the projects in Palo 24 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Alto, but I do believe that there is a way of doing it. I’ve seen them in other projects in the country and 1 I see parts of this project working really well. I don’t see all of it working very well. I do have 2 concerns, but I don’t want to say that, I don’t subscribe to the view that because there’s single-family in 3 Barron Park that this new project can only be large lot single-family houses with large setbacks. 4 5 The, there is issues about traffic. I know around Arastradero I do follow all the online forums about all 6 of that. I do have a question for staff about the traffic barrier. And I was wondering, I was just kind of 7 curious on the history of that and why is it located in that particular location? That predates all of the 8 Arastradero lane, the line diet or the road diet as I recall. 9 10 Mr. Wong: It certainly does. I don’t know the history, but Rafael from the Transportation Division he 11 may know the history of the barrier. 12 13 Board Member Lew: Great. Welcome. 14 15 Rafael Ruis, Traffic Engineer: Hi, I’m Rafael Ruis a Traffic Engineer with City staff. I’m not totally 16 familiar with the history, but it is, was installed intended to prevent cut through traffic and mainly, not 17 just Maybell, but Arastradero traffic from going even further north into the Barron Park neighborhood 18 through Amaranta and such. It definitely predates any of the activity or reductions on Arastradero, 19 which started in the mid-1990’s. It’s definitely before that, so. 20 21 Board Member Lew: And then does, the staff report mentioned some of the traffic backups potentially 22 on Clemo turning onto Arastradero. And I was wondering if that, if there were any other way, if there 23 were any other ways of handling that. It mentioned that a light is not feasible or not warranted. 24 City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 Mr. Ruis: Yes. As I’m sure most are aware there are significant queuing that goes on along Arastradero 2 in the morning and so the traffic analysis that was completed we are in agreement with it and confident 3 with it, but it was analyzed assuming two access points. One through Clemo onto Arastradero and also 4 one through an easement to the property to the north and the primary analysis looked at so the two 5 access points and it made mention if only one access point were available through Clemo and 6 Arastradero there would potentially be significant delays for cars at that one access Arastradero if that 7 was the lone option. 8 9 Board Member Lew: Great. And so I was a little confused in look at the staff report in that it looked 10 like in our conditions in the City’s conditions of approval it was saying that access across another 11 private property, right the Arastradero Park is not considered a good idea. I forgot the exact wording of 12 it; it’s in the conditions of approval. And so I was wondering if the, what is the City’s position? To not 13 have, it’s better not to have access then to deal with the traffic barrier. Is that, it was not clear to me. 14 It’s a little ambiguous. Yeah. 15 16 Mr. Wong: Yes, from the City’s perspective as part of the environmental review it said that the sole 17 entryway would have some impacts and mitigation for that impacts would be to have two access. So 18 the City does prefer that whether it be an easement from the adjacent Arastradero Park or relocation of 19 the barrier as a mitigation measure. 20 21 Board Member Lew: Ok, and can I just ask a follow up just to clarify? I’m going to pull out the section 22 of the conditions of approval that I was curious about. Let’s see. Oh actually I’ll take that back. I 23 think it was just on, it was just on pedestrian circulation, but Number 13 mentions like an easement 24 City of Palo Alto Page 17 across private property. And it says, “Such encroachment through a private property is not 1 recommended by the City.” So I took that back, I thought that it was for both cars and pedestrians, but 2 it is actually just pedestrians. So I think that helps. I think that clarifies in my mind. So, and then if 3 the traffic barrier is moved where would it, like exactly where would it go? 4 5 Mr. Ruis: With the traffic study and also Transportation staff are recommending is that at least one 6 access to Maybell be provided. The barrier doesn’t have to move if the access to the north or adjacent 7 property site is provided. If only one driveway at Clemo and essentially dead end or within the site and 8 that was the only driveway then we would recommend moving the barrier to the other, to the south side 9 of the driveway so that when car, all the cars coming out of the driveways or the internal parking lot 10 would have to turn right onto Clemo and then or onto Maybell instead. 11 12 Board Member Lew: You’re saying in between two buildings. There’s the Tan building which has a 13 driveway really (interrupted) 14 15 Mr. Ruis: Yes. 16 17 Board Member Lew: nearby so you’re saying between those two driveways? 18 19 Mr. Ruis: Yes so in between those two driveways so the existing buildings would have the same access 20 as currently [unintelligible]. 21 22 Board Member Lew: Ok. Thank you. Ok and then let me go back to some of the other comments, 23 which was on the playing fields. I think the City recognizes there’s an issue with that and I know that 24 City of Palo Alto Page 18 we’ve seen some plans for more playing fields. I mean they’re not neighborhood fields. I mean these 1 are, but like in the reconfiguration of the golf course they’re going to, the plan is to add fields. But it’s 2 a regional, it’s a regional issue and there’s not, there’s not like empty land sitting around anywhere, 3 everywhere around town. You don’t really have a lot of, there aren’t a lot of choices, but they were 4 trying to, they’re definitely carving out space and it’s in the master plans that we’ve seen and we also 5 with regarding like school stuff, we don’t have any control over that. That’s all like State. There’s no 6 local control over what the School District land does. We don’t, we can’t really, we can’t do anything 7 about that. So I think that’s a tough one. 8 9 I’m sympathetic to the comments about the bike boulevard. I’ve biked through there a lot and I know 10 there’s a lot of traffic and I’ve seen some crazy things in the morning when people go dropping to 11 school. And I’ve nearly been run over by crazy kids on bikes and stuff and I think that that’s things 12 that the School District are working on and then the Parent Teacher Association (PTA). I know I’m 13 actually involved with the bike club and I know that they have been doing school programs to get kids 14 to ride to school and to ride responsibly and so I think that that’s just training. 15 16 So on the site plan of the building I think that the, my main objection is the driveway, the driveway 17 width on that. I think you’re showing like a 20 foot driveway and I know that that’s our minimum 18 standard for that. But I actually went through and looked at a lot of our recently built multi-family 19 buildings in South Palo Alto and they’re really mostly at minimum 22 and sometimes up to 23 and then 20 even up to like 26. And I think that if it is only one access and I think that this one would be the main 21 access it’s really just much too small and really not adequate. And I think really you want something 22 like fairly spacious and welcoming to get to the senior center and I think really just having the absolute 23 minimum is just not enough. I think we learned the lesson from some of the other multi-family projects 24 City of Palo Alto Page 19 that have been built is that when you make the entrance too narrow it just makes the whole project feel 1 really claustrophobic and it’s a mistake that we made on I think too many projects in town. And I think 2 this one really does warrant to be something nicer. 3 4 The, I think on the buildings I think I do like many of the changes that you’ve made on the houses, 5 especially the corner one. I think that the corner one is like dramatically better because of the garage 6 and also the arrangement of the living space and also the reduced mass of the massing on the corner. I 7 think the simplification of the materials on the houses is good. I think it’s definitely at the right 8 direction. I think my main problem on the houses is the back elevation. We didn’t really see it last 9 time at the preliminary, but I don’t think that the back elevations of many of the units is really working 10 very well just in terms of massing and also you’re showing a lot of different types of windows like 11 casements and sliders and I think that that could like with one more round of revisions I think that 12 could be cleaned up. I don’t have any one thing in particular, but I think that just in general they’re not 13 that, they’re not very harmonious. 14 15 I was also curious about some of the roof, on some of the roofs on some of the third floor roofs looks 16 like you’re doing some different pitches. Like on one side of the roof has a shallower pitch and one has 17 a steeper pitch and I think I’m more inclined to do it symmetrically if possible. And also if there’s a 18 way to keep the roofs as simple, simpler shapes as possible where [photovoltage] could be located. I 19 think it would help. You have the really small hip roofs it’s hard to put in PV’s in any coherent pattern. 20 21 I think you’re also showing two different types of roofs like standing seam and I forget if it was asphalt 22 or tile. It’s asphalt. I was kind of curious as to so why? And I’m not necessarily opposed to two, but I 23 City of Palo Alto Page 20 was wondering if it made sense to do different roofs on different buildings and not necessarily two on 1 each, on each house? I’m open to the discussion on that. 2 3 On the senior building I think I do like many of the changes you’ve made. I think the detail is really 4 good. I think my main concern on that building is the, there are some places where you have siding just 5 on the third and fourth floors, but it’s not down on the first or second floor. And if I’m reading the 6 drawings correctly I think it’s all coplanar. Right? Everything like the stucco and the siding are all in 7 the same plane. And I think generally the Board is generally preferred to make material changes where 8 there’s a change in wall plane. And so I think that that could help a little bit and like I think a little bit 9 of simplification on the wall materials there could help. 10 11 I wasn’t crazy about the colors that you’re showing in our drawing packet, but I think what we’re 12 seeing on the monitor looks better and richer and more compatible with the Arastradero Park project. 13 And I did have a question for you on the senior building. I think you’re calling out vinyl windows and 14 I was wondering what color you were thinking about for those. Typically I’m not crazy about like 15 white vinyl when the rest of the palette is all earth tones. Normally if everything else is earth tones I 16 kind of prefer more like the almond color, but if you’re doing white then I generally like to see a little 17 bit cleaner colors than what you’re showing. 18 19 And I think that that is all, oh and then I do have a couple more comments. The, I think that the 20 transformer for the houses, which is currently on the corner I think that that needs to be screened. Like 21 ideally you would, like you have some low walls on that corner house and I would I think like one 22 [unintelligible] could be to wrap the walls, the low walls around the corner to help screen the 23 transformer, but I think that’s really an eyesore. That’s highly visible. 24 City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 On the, on landscaping so we don’t have like a full, we don’t have full planting plans here. I think 2 normally we even see like a little bit more like sometimes we do have applicants provide just 3 conceptual landscaping and usually there’s like a little bit more shown even on the conceptual 4 landscaping plan. I think my main concern would be that all of the trees in the parking lot are I think 5 they’re all deciduous. I think you have 100 percent deciduous trees in there and I think that that’s ok if 6 there’s enough evergreen shrubs that provide like a basic structure around the landscape that’s all, 7 that’s green even in the wintertime. But normally I would like to see some evergreens in there too, 8 trees. But I don’t object to any of the species there. Like the sycamore, pistache, and the jacarandas 9 are all beautiful trees and they all do well so I don’t necessarily have any issues with those in particular. 10 Also on landscape I think we normally see like fence details and colors. And I think in this case I’d be 11 curious to see what’s, how the fence works with the carports on the adjacent properties. 12 13 I think also we normally see some like contextual street elevations, just at a very small scale just to 14 ensure that the project is in scale with the context and we don’t have that here. Sometimes applicants 15 put in photos, which is a fairly like easy way of sort of documenting it and so I would like that to be 16 added into the packet. And then also I did have a question on mailboxes. And so I know that on a lot 17 of new subdivisions the Post Office is requiring mailbox clusters and they won’t do individual service 18 to houses. And if that is the case in here I think we would want to see the design of the mailbox 19 clusters. I don’t know if that’s come up yet, but it’s come up on other projects. So it’s really the 20 location and design of those, of the mailbox clusters. I think that’s all that I have at the moment. 21 Thank you. 22 23 Chair Malone Prichard: Naseem. 24 City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 Board Member Alizadeth: Thank you for your presentation. It does seem to be an improvement from 2 the last one, especially on the materials. I’ll touch on that a bit in a second. I had a question if you 3 could just, I think I may have asked the same on at your preliminary review. Discuss a bit of your 4 green building techniques, specifically in terms of sustainable building materials or any type of green 5 building techniques. 6 7 Mr. Thatch: Right now as far as what we will be doing we’re designed to build at green 130 points at 8 least, which is going to be 20 percent over Title 24, which the City standards is 15 percent above. So 9 we’re going to be designing to that. We have talked about PV panels for the community building. It is 10 [undecided] upon how, we’re looking for funding for that, which would take us further than what I’m 11 talking about. Also we’re looking into solar/water, but those are things that we’re not ready to commit 12 to at this point, but we are looking into that possibilities and also funding sources for that that make 13 those possible. But the minimum is we are going over City standards, we are going over Title 24, and 14 again 130 points in build it green is significant. So we are looking at windows and different things that 15 we’re going to be able to do, materials and insulation, things like that to bring it up to that. I can’t tell 16 you exactly all the details as far as what we’re doing at this point, but we, those are what we are going 17 to be making sure (interrupted) 18 19 Board Member Alizadeth: That’s your goal. 20 21 Mr. Thatch: live to. 22 23 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Alizadeth: Ok, great. So in terms still about that on the engineering drawings your 1 buyer retention I just had a question. So I’m assuming that that’s the dotted areas in the, there’s a plan 2 that shows some dotted areas. 3 4 Mr. Thatch: Yes. 5 6 Board Member Alizadeth: I’m assuming that’s where the buyer retention is [unintelligible]? 7 8 Mr. Thatch: And I apologize I can’t answer all the details. 9 10 Board Member Alizadeth: I understand. No problem. So, in terms of materials, I’ll start there. It still 11 seems, sorry, it still seems like there’s an abundance of materials. And it just seems like the façades 12 obviously which are in between are very sparse and that makes sense, but then the other ones to me are 13 still so busy, there’s still so much stuff happening on one façade. So two different roofing materials on 14 again, I’m not so keen on that for one house. Some of the garages have like panels, which don’t seem 15 to architecturally fit into the other, the kind of architectural family. So those kind of subdivided panels 16 I think are for me a bit of an overkill. So I’m really glad that you’ve moved, when I saw the other plans 17 I realized what a big change it’s become. So I would just encourage a bit more of that kind of taking 18 this down a notch in terms of the business of the materials. 19 20 What else? I have my little markings here so let me see that. That was definitely one of my big ones. 21 In terms of the senior housing, so the stairwell that’s 50 feet is the one that’s in the kind of southeast 22 corner? 23 24 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Mr. Thatch: It’s tucked in and as my partner Glen Simmons has pointed out to me it’s also a 1 requirement by the Fire Department to get up to the roof (interrupted) 2 3 Board Member Alizadeth: Sure, no problem. But that’s not the one that’s, it’s not going to cast a 4 shadow (interrupted) 5 6 Mr. Thatch: No, it’s going to cast a shadow on the roof. 7 8 Board Member Alizadeth: On itself. 9 10 Mr. Thatch: On itself. Right, exactly. Ok. And what are my other questions… so then in terms of the 11 kind of housing the site plan, the master plan of the housing did you consider maybe for that kind of 12 corner situation in terms of getting I know you said you went through a lot of iterations in terms of how 13 to get the garage back there [like a at all of] one car garages for those houses or maybe smaller floor 14 plans? 15 16 Mr. Thatch: I think again what we looked at as far as designing those homes is where the market is. 17 What there’s a market for, what the possibilities are for designing [that] homes, what’s going to also 18 work well for them to help them finance the seniors building. So I think we looked at I think as far as 19 one car garages and things like that, that’s again, that’s to be honest a negative on the marketability of 20 the homes and you would take a big hit for doing that. As far as making the homes smaller, we could 21 make them smaller, but again that’s less revenue that’s possible for those homes. And I think what 22 they’re trying to generate as far as making this project work, making the seniors work, you know, 23 whole, again the senior’s project I think we’ve discussed all the elaborate things that need to happen to 24 City of Palo Alto Page 25 make a seniors project an affordable project happen especially with redevelopment agencies and 1 everything that’s happened over the last few years. 2 3 Board Member Alizadeth: Ok, I mean yeah, I understand that there’s a kind of balance which has to be 4 achieved. 5 6 Mr. Thatch: Right, and I think that’s what we’ve tried to do the balance we really tried to really 7 articulate the houses in front. We talked it is a setback like this, but put in front porches, front 8 courtyards and things like that. Some of the things we’ve done with materials [that have been 9 comments] here though I think we looked at as trying to make the houses maybe a little more 10 interesting with some of the scales. I think they possibly still could be simpler. Why we did some of 11 the things about the roofs to answer some of those questions we are looking at basically doing the metal 12 roofs down lower, creating again sort of a level as far as some details, as far as low to high as far as 13 what you’d see. So different things like that and I’ll answer one other question that you have the 14 windows, the windows are going to be more of a taupe color, they won’t be white. But again, I think, 15 you know, there are [very] things that we’re trying to create this layered architecture along with the 16 layered architecture I think that the materials also in the same light as opposed to going to just one 17 material, which it could be. I guess we like it the way, like it like that to have that variation and have 18 that sort the lower roofs being the metal. 19 20 We also again looking at the stone to be honest I think that could also be something that’s, I could see 21 the stone could be there or not be there as far as the detail. I like the stone because it’s simple and gives 22 the texture and also again speaking about marketability of the homes, people like stone. They like that 23 City of Palo Alto Page 26 quality of having that stone to the house, gives more of a sense of permanence I think in their sense of 1 their home. So part of the reason I think we looked at incorporating a stone type material. 2 3 Board Member Alizadeth: Ok. Without being too controversial I guess the marketability I realize that 4 HGTV type things are kind of driving what people want in their homes and I think that we also have a 5 responsibility to suggest that there are other ways. We can build within our means. So I just, I would 6 just suggest that maybe not everything has to be market driven. 7 8 Mr. Thatch: No, and I agree. And I think these homes are that way. I think these homes are not what a 9 typical say builder would do. I think these homes are unique in a lot of different ways already as far as 10 things that we’re doing that is not sort of common practice, which I’m very excited about. I think we 11 could do some of the things you talked about. I like that, but I’m just pointing out some of the issues 12 and why we did things. 13 14 Board Member Alizadeth: Ok. My last question was just, did you want to chime in? Go ahead. 15 16 Candice Gonzalez, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation: Can I just add one thing to 17 John’s comment about the parking? We’ve actually had several community meetings and a lot of the 18 feedback we got was make sure that there’s parking within the units. So for the single-family homes 19 we were encouraged to do two car garages plus aprons when possible to try to get the parking away 20 from the street. 21 22 Board Member Alizadeth: Street, right. 23 24 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Ms. Gonzalez: So that was really the driving force. We’ve mentioned the one car garage and tandem 1 parking outside and it was really negative feedback so again we tried to do the aprons when possible. 2 3 Board Member Alizadeth: Sure. 4 5 Ms. Gonzalez: We started out with a design without aprons and the feedback was definitely negative 6 and everyone said do two car garages plus aprons when possible. 7 8 Board Member Alizadeth: Ok. 9 10 Ms. Gonzalez: So really that was the main reason. 11 12 Board Member Alizadeth: And so my last question is in terms of the parking facility will you have 13 speed bumps or will you have changes of the paving to suggest kind of a slow down area let’s say 14 where the crosswalks or how would you negotiate when people let’s say from the senior center want to 15 cross through, not just walk on the sidewalks, but is there any type of (interrupted) 16 17 Mr. Thatch: [spoke off microphone—unintelligible] 18 19 Board Member Alizadeth: Right. You need to use a microphone. 20 21 Mr. Thatch: Right now the way we have a path is we basically have a path through here. As far as how 22 this evolves, I think yes we would use like probably a change in material or some type of bumps and 23 City of Palo Alto Page 28 things like that that does cross the road. We have not got to that point as far as how all this is going to 1 work in their negotiations with HUD. 2 3 Board Member Alizadeth: Ok, thank you. 4 5 Chair Malone Prichard: Randy. 6 7 Board Member Popp: Alright, thank you very much. I’ll just start by saying I’m in agreement with 8 comments made by the Board Members who already spoke and Alex’s comments and Naseem’s. I 9 think that I do like a lot of the changes that I’m seeing here and I appreciate that you’ve listened to our 10 comments, but I think one of the threads that I’ve heard repeated a number of times in a number of the 11 comments already is simplify. And really to put a really fine point on what Naseem said, I really think 12 taking it down a notch is something that needs to be done here. It’s just still too chaotic for me in terms 13 of how it’s organized and there’s this sort of rigid repetitive plan. This sort of very consistent plan 14 that’s occurring and then the elevations are sort of going crazy. And I still feel like there’s really one 15 more very tough look you need to take at trying to just calm it down. I think that the way you started 16 the presentation today was talking about the fact that this is an organization that does build award 17 winning buildings. And I think that the buildings that I’ve seen produced that have won those awards 18 really have a simple elegance to them. And they exhibit that simplicity in a very elegant way. And I’m 19 looking for a level of control here that I don’t quite see yet and I’m hopeful that you can get there. I 20 think the site plan is very nice. I don’t have any real issues with the site plan. 21 22 I am, I’m going to go back to the staff report just for a moment and maybe Rafael or whoever wants to 23 respond here, but I’m challenged a little bit still to understand what the actual recommendation here is 24 City of Palo Alto Page 29 relative to where the vehicle barriers are and the site access and what staff really is recommending. It’s 1 not clear to me whether you’re intending that they should move the barrier or if its ok the way it is or 2 should they move the driveway or should they have a second driveway. It’s still a little too wishy-3 washy for (interrupted) 4 5 Mr. Ruis: Just to back up, the traffic analysis analyzes a two access site one through an easement to the 6 north and one to Clemo and Arastradero and says that will work and we agree with that. And then it 7 does, I mean that was the main analysis. And what it says is if that access to the north is not available 8 and only one access point via Clemo is the only option that there could, there would be significant 9 delays in the morning due to the queuing on Arastradero and suggests moving the barrier south or east, 10 south of the driveway on Clemo so that the cars coming from this site on the site would have to exit via 11 Maybell instead of Arastradero. 12 13 Board Member Popp: Ok. So what I’m hearing you say is that either provide two accesses onto the site 14 or move the traffic barrier. 15 16 Mr. Ruis: Yes, that’s what we, Transportation and the traffic study are recommending. Yes. 17 18 Board Member Popp: Recommending or requiring? Please. 19 20 Mr. Wong: It is a requirement. The mitigation measure in the initial study states that easement first or 21 relocation of barrier as a mitigation measure to this impact. 22 23 City of Palo Alto Page 30 Board Member Popp: Ok. Alright. I guess I’m a little challenged about this. I think that we’re either 1 looking at a redesign of the site potentially losing one of the units here in order to achieve that second 2 exit onto Maybell or moving this barrier and Candice do you want to talk to us about this or? 3 4 Chair Malone Prichard: Actually [it can wait] I think Tim has something too. 5 6 Board Member Popp: What’s that? 7 8 Chair Malone Prichard: Tim has something to add. 9 10 Board Member Popp: Oh, I’m sorry. Excuse me. 11 12 Mr. Wong: Excuse me. Yes, just to clarify second access onto Maybell the applicant is working they 13 own the adjacent property Arastradero Park and they’re working with their lenders to try to obtain an 14 easement through that property to provide access to Maybell. So a redesign of the site isn’t necessarily 15 required if they obtain that easement. Or if not then the movement of the traffic barrier (interrupted) 16 17 Board Member Popp: So what do we think the likely timeframe is before you can be clear about what’s 18 possible? 19 20 Ms. Gonzalez: We’re talking to legal of HUD right now and it could be a couple of months. So we’ve 21 applied for both as an easement and second as just and EVA access, whichever they approve, but our 22 first request was an easement. Again, the government, HUD, works at its own timeline. 23 24 City of Palo Alto Page 31 Board Member Popp: Yeah. Right. 1 2 Ms. Gonzalez: So [unintelligible-talking over each other] 3 4 Board Member Popp: It doesn’t sound like the EVA requirement is there. It sounds like the Fire 5 Department has approved access already. 6 7 Ms. Gonzalez: Yes. 8 9 Board Member Popp: And so that’s sort of solved. It really, this is more of a traffic issue. 10 11 Ms. Gonzalez: Yes. 12 13 Board Member Popp: Ok. 14 15 Ms. Gonzalez: So we’re not sure of the timeline, but hopefully sooner rather than later. 16 17 Board Member Popp: Alright so stay tuned, right? 18 19 Ms. Gonzalez: Yes. 20 21 Board Member Popp: Ok, alright well that’s something that’s going to be important to understand I 22 think in terms of how this project works and the impact to the neighborhood and etcetera. We’re 23 hearing that there are people that are concerned about this and so I’d like to make sure that we’re clear 24 City of Palo Alto Page 32 about what is required and what’s being proposed as it goes forward. Could you also just talk to me 1 briefly about what’s required in terms of guest parking for the resident units and where that’s provided 2 onsite? 3 4 Mr. Wong: For the multi-family it requires that 10 percent of the unit, one unit plus 10 percent of the 5 total number of units. So guest parking for the senior would be one space plus 10 percent, or six 6 additional spots. The guest parking has not been officially designated. It’s just the applicant has 7 provided the 47 spaces to accommodate both guest and resident parking. 8 9 Board Member Popp: So in particular I guess I’m concerned about lots 10 through 15 where those 10 guests park. It’s clear that there’s some apron parking for Lots 1 through 8 easily and I’m, what I’m 11 addressing here is the concern about parking on Maybell or how people access the site. And I think 12 that in particular the guest parking doesn’t appear to me to be really resolved in a clear way unless I’m 13 misreading the drawings. But what I was understanding is there’s this demand for 97 spaces. We’ve 14 reduced that and I understand why, the senior housing doesn’t have the same requirement or intensity, 15 but the balance and making sure that there is enough parking in there and that it’s being used properly 16 so that it’s controlled in the right way. I don’t know if we can. 17 18 What I’m looking back to is the Hyatt Rickey’s project. Right? Which is internally sort of a disaster. 19 People are not using their garages, they’re full of boxes. They’re parking out in the development all 20 over the place. There’s hardly any parking anywhere. It’s actually really a failure and I’m wondering 21 if there’s some way for us to control that as we go forward and I’m happy for any of the other Board 22 Members to address that too if they’d like to. But I’m just concerned a little bit about where the guest 23 parking is, if there’s enough of it, if it’s identified in the right way. And I think this may actually relate 24 City of Palo Alto Page 33 in a nice way to Alex’s comment about the width of the driveway entrance and making sure that that is 1 wide enough to really be inviting and make sure that people come into the site rather than staying 2 outside of the site. And that 22 to 26 foot width seems like a necessity to me and particularly in light of 3 the comments we’ve heard from the neighbors, but just in terms of how the site gets used. 4 5 I’ll jump forward a little bit to the sun study. You know I realize that we have ownership of both of 6 these properties adjacent, but the winter solstice view that we’re seeing at noon is not really reflective 7 of what I was hoping would be provided. I think the issue is 3:00 p.m. and when you see how far the 8 sun, at noon the sun’s basically as overhead as it’s going to get. If you look at 3:00 p.m. my sense is 9 that those units will lose all of their winter sun because of the height of this building. And I just want 10 to, again I’m not adverse to the density here. I’m not challenging the height. I just want to make sure 11 that everybody’s fully aware of what the impact of this is going to be. And my belief if you just turn 12 this up three hours is that those buildings will be in complete shade and they will lose all of their winter 13 sun. And so the people that are occupants of those units will have a very, very different experience for 14 much of the year as a result of this building being there. So I’d like to see the 3:00 p.m. view. Please. 15 16 Looking at the overall massing and reflecting back to Mr. Moss’ comments and his notes about 17 compatibility and integration I’ll go a step further than even Alex did where he was talking about the 18 stepping down of the massing. And I think that the way you’ve moved the third story back on the 19 buildings and really tried to tier down to Maybell is the right thing to do there and I appreciate that. I 20 think that there’s this issue about how much is going on with the roofs and how much is going on with 21 the elevations and all these other things that need to be dealt with, but I think that the overall massing 22 that you’re achieving there is the right thing to do. 23 24 City of Palo Alto Page 34 There was a brief mention I think Board Member Alizadeth said that the doors on the garages didn’t 1 seem compatible. I’ll actually extend that across more of the project. When I look at, I’m looking at 2 Plan 2, the corner building and you’ve got one particular style shown for a front door and sort of this 3 pale garage door. I see the same thing going on in I think I noted it on, yeah, Plan 1, elevation A or 4 Elevation B. You’ve got one style of front door and a different style of French door right next to it. I 5 think that again this sort of, it enhances sort of the chaotic feeling that I am trying to get my arms 6 around on the project. And if you can find a way to really just sort of pick a design and simplify it and 7 have it be more consistent I think it’ll really help bring it down a notch and help at the same time to knit 8 together the architecture in a way that makes it feel more consistent. 9 10 I’m not overly concerned with having two different types of roofs on the same building. I don’t mind 11 that especially because they’re away from each other, but the colors and the sort of integration… do we 12 have color boards today for those materials? I know that there’s a rendering, but do we have actual 13 materials to look at? 14 15 Mr. Thatch: There are colors in the book here. 16 17 Board Member Popp: Ok. That’ll be great for us to review. While you’re pulling that out I’m going to 18 just touch on the corner building a little bit and while I’m really appreciative, thanks. While I’m really 19 appreciative of taking that from a three story down to a two story I think that there are still some 20 elements of that that need some finessing. In particular on the Maybell Avenue elevation you’ve got 21 this major stone element that’s launching from the ground all the way up to the roof. It feels like it 22 should be holding up a five story building with the scale of it. This is on the sort of the left hand side of 23 the entry door. On the right hand side this stone element stops short of touching the roof and somehow 24 City of Palo Alto Page 35 that feels more comfortable to me. It’s a decorative element in that way, but the piece that runs up and 1 touches the roof just seems out of balance and it’s sort of throwing that elevation off and so I’d ask you 2 to study that a little bit as you’re doing it. I’m still not a big fan of the tapered stone. It just seems out 3 of place to me, but it’s, that’s a subjective comment and I’m not overly concerned with it. 4 5 Let me jump to the [unintelligible] quickly and say that I really am happy with the changes that have 6 been made there. I think that the architecture really is improved and I’ll reinforce comments made by 7 others that changes in material should also reflect a change in plane. I think that that’s important to do. 8 That said, it feels a little bit like you ran out of steam on the north and the east elevations and those are 9 most directly facing the neighbors rather than the inside of the site. And I think that the same level of 10 care and character needs to appear on the north and east elevations and right now they’re just I’m 11 contrasting the things I’m saying about the housing, but they’re too simple and sort of overly plain. 12 And I think that we need to get a little more interest and variation in those because although they do 13 face the Tan building, which is quite tall and can tolerate that height I think that the east elevation is 14 sort of overly plain and the north elevation, which again will be right directly facing a number of units 15 really needs to have a bit more effort. 16 17 And I think I’ve got one more comment here. And as the package comes back to us I really would like 18 to see some more details, some larger blown up details of things where materials come together. The 19 window details are something that we often see and are not part of this package, the way flashings work 20 and etcetera, what the infill is inside the trellises or the canopies, but even things like the integration of 21 the wood posts and how those come into columns, the wood columns at the trellis, roof elements and 22 how those integrate with the stucco pieces that are below it and what those details and connections are 23 City of Palo Alto Page 36 going to look like go a long way toward the character and the quality of a project. That’s it. Thank you 1 very much. 2 3 Chair Malone Prichard: And I’m also going to be in agreement with most of the comments of my 4 colleagues. Want to thank you for making the improvements that you have made so far, especially the 5 Lot 9, which is the corner lot. That’s a huge improvement in layout and massing. And I appreciate the 6 verticality of the elevations that we had commented on before. You’ve really sort of toned that down. 7 8 But a few detailed comments and I think this one actually matches Randy. There was on A 4.1 there’s 9 Elevation Plan 2, it has that two story stone wall and I have the same observation as Randy that the 10 lower wall on the right works well and the tall one on the left doesn’t work well. And then just 11 generally speaking if you look at a typical unit there are still too many materials going on. On a single 12 unit you may have stucco, faux stone, lap siding, which is cement siding, metal siding, and then you’ve 13 got a fence design, which is introducing yet another texture. And then you’ve got a shingle roof and a 14 metal roof all on one unit. It’s just too much. It’s not that any one of those materials is wrong; it’s just 15 that there are too many of them in a small area. And then so tagging onto that sheet A 6.0 I was 16 looking for example at the top row of elevations the second house from the right on the second floor 17 there’s an element there we have a pair of windows and you’ve got stucco to the right of the windows 18 and below the windows and then you’ve got some kind of a siding to the left. That’s a small enough 19 elevation it could all be one material and should all be one material I think. Just as an example. 20 21 And then for the senior building I like what you’ve done with the community room making it a taller 22 mass. I think that’s a really good move, but I would echo some of the same comments regarding 23 simplification. If you’re going to make material changes do it where you’ve got a change in plane so 24 City of Palo Alto Page 37 there’s a reason for it. Because I think there’s a little bit too much going on in that building still as 1 well. So I think to summarize it needs to be simplified. Again, you’ve done the first cut and that was 2 good and I’m glad to see what you have done. You need to do one more cut. Any follow ups? 3 4 Board Member Lew: So on the comments regarding the simplification of the materials I’ve worked on 5 this kind, like HUD HOPE VI projects and I think it’s important to have variation like by building, but 6 just be careful of not putting all of the variation in like every unit. So like I think that like you have I 7 was looking through your palette. It’s very rich and I think the colors and the stone choices that you’re 8 selecting [unintelligible] very, all very nice. But just I’d like fewer on each building. Keep variation 9 within the project. I think a lot of architects have a problem of making everything too uniform and 10 when you see it in the whole project it just sort of deadens the project. It just makes it too sterile. So I 11 do want to encourage you to keep variation, but just be judicious about where you do it and don’t do it 12 everywhere on every building on every façade. And do keep the porches on the houses. I think those 13 are really beautiful. I think that’s like the nicest, I think that’s the nicest porches that I’ve seen on any 14 project in Palo Alto in recent years. I think that it’s really the size and the depth and stuff that goes a 15 long way to, for me for making a nice neighborhood. And so yeah, don’t change those please. 16 17 And I just have one last follow up, which was in the conditions of approval there’s the mention of our, 18 the carwash that we require on multi-family projects. And that’s come up, it came up on the, what was 19 it? The Mayfield Mall site is the last time that I remember seeing it, but that project was never built. 20 But it is something required for water quality and so I think it’s in the standard, it’s in the approval 21 thing and it’s usually, well the last time we saw it somebody built like a carport at the San Antonio 22 project for the carwash, which was a little over, it seemed like a bit overkill, but I think that you have to 23 find a place for it. You need a place for it somewhere. 24 City of Palo Alto Page 38 1 Ms. Gonzalez: For some reason I think with our last project the Treehouse we were exempt from it and 2 it was as simple as putting up a sign that there’s no car washing on site. So we’re looking into that 3 again. 4 5 Board Member Lew: Ok. Well if you’re going to handle that with the conditions, great. Thank you. 6 7 Chair Malone Prichard: Another one? Any other follow up? Randy, did you have something? Ok. 8 Would anybody care to craft a Motion on this? 9 10 Board Member Popp: Let’s see, I’m going to need some help with this because I wasn’t taking great 11 notes. Oh, go ahead. 12 13 Board Member Lew: I took notes, but can we have a… well, is there any discussion about how this 14 should come back to the Board? And is the applicant in a hurry? 15 16 Ms. Gonzalez: Yes, we are in a hurry. We’re trying to apply for tax credits July 1st. So we’re sort of 17 trying to do the fast track schedule of meeting with PTC again and City Council by early June. The tax 18 credit funding is crucial for us to start our project otherwise we get rolled into March of 2014 for the 19 next round. And that would definitely affect our project start and financing. Thank you. 20 21 Board Member Lew: I have a question for the applicant. Of the changes that we’ve or the things that 22 we’ve been talking about is there anything in there that you think is really a, like insurmountable 23 obstacle? 24 City of Palo Alto Page 39 1 Ms. Gonzalez: No I think all of your feedback was pretty positive and I think we could work around it, 2 definitely simplify and look at the materials. I don’t think they’re insurmountable. We’re hoping for 3 maybe an internal review as we apply, as we go towards the next step. 4 5 Board Member Lew: [Unintelligible] just curious as to what the rest of the Board thinks. It seems like I 6 have like 18 things on the list, which is fairly long. I think we’ve done it before on some PC projects. 7 There’s like the College Terrace Center where we had a list about similarly long. It was a one block, a 8 whole city block project and yeah, they were in a hurry to go for other approvals and we’ve done it. I 9 get a little squeamish about doing it, but (interrupted) 10 11 Chair Malone Prichard: I’m less squeamish about doing that given that the Board seems to all be in 12 agreement. So I don’t feel it’s too much of a burden on the subcommittee members. 13 14 Board Member Popp: I was going to say the exact same thing. I think that in the comments that I’ve 15 heard this morning there’s such consistency in terms of what we’re all looking for that if others are 16 comfortable with that I would be certainly comfortable with managing this at subcommittee and 17 moving the project forward. 18 19 MOTION 20 21 Board Member Lew: Ok. I’ll try to craft a Motion. To approve the project as conditioned in the staff 22 report and I think we usually, I think we’re supposed to mention the findings. That the project meets 23 the findings and that the following items come back to the Board for subcommittee review: so 1) is 24 City of Palo Alto Page 40 consider widening the main entrance driveway; 2) is to reconsider the dual roofing choices on the 1 houses, the metal and the shingle, asphalt shingle; to reconsider the, some of the roof shapes on the 2 third floors; 4) is to screen the residential or the transformer for the houses that’s located on the corner 3 of Clemo and Maybell; 5) is to reconsider the wall, all of the wall materials on the houses, to simplify 4 them; and then I think 6) would be the same thing for the senior building, in particular I think the north 5 and east elevations; 7) is to sort of address the carwash or to provide an exemption or signage; let’s see, 6 9) is to provide… eight? Yes, eight is, sorry I had eight as a stairwell that I think that was Naseem’s 7 comment. So 8) would be provide the fence details and colors; 9) is to provide contextual street 8 elevations and site photos. Let’s see, I’m trying to [unintelligible] one. Provide mailbox cluster design 9 if that’s required by the Post Office; to demarcate the visitor parking for the senior housing; update the 10 sun study for 3:00 p.m. winter solstice; and then reconsider the garage door designs for the houses; and 11 then reconsider the two story stone at the corner lot which is Lot 9, House 9; and then also provide 12 details, particularly where there are material changes. Ok so what is that? That’s 16? 15. Ok, I think 13 that’s fine. I crossed a couple off of my list as we went down that. Is there any amendments? 14 15 Board Member Popp: I’d like to just discuss one of those with you. I think that on Number 13 where 16 you mentioned the garage door design, I’d like to extend that to the door designs. 17 18 Board Member Lew: All door designs. 19 20 Board Member Popp: Not just the garage doors (interrupted) 21 22 Board Member Lew: That’s fine. 23 24 City of Palo Alto Page 41 Board Member Popp: But entry door, French door, all of the visible doorframes. 1 2 Board Member Lew: I think that’s a good comment. Ok that is a Motion we’re to come back to 3 subcommittee (interrupted) 4 5 Board Member Popp: Excuse me, one more item. You had mentioned on Number 5 the raw materials 6 on the housing and simplifying and then I think what I heard you say was that you would reflect the 7 same comment on the senior in particular at the north and east elevations. I think my intent actually 8 was on the north and east elevations that we would improve the detailing and encourage a little bit more 9 variation on those elevations. 10 11 Board Member Lew: I’m sorry about that. I do agree with that. Do we have consensus just on 12 simplifying all of the, well ok. So I agree with that and then I think Board Member Prichard [Note—13 Chair] was looking for simplification on other parts of the senior building walls. Is that correct? 14 15 Chair Malone Prichard: It was just generally looking at any time you have a material change so that it 16 happens for a reason not just for a decoration. 17 18 Board Member Lew: Ok. 19 20 Chair Malone Prichard: Do I have a second? 21 22 SECOND 23 24 City of Palo Alto Page 42 Board Member Alizadeth: I will second that. I will second. 1 2 Chair Malone Prichard: Alright. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. Thank you. 3 4 MOTION PASSED (4-0, Vice-Chair Lippert [absent or recused?]) 5 6 Ms. Gonzalez: Thank you so much. 7 8 BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 9 10 REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. 11 12 Subcommittee Members: Naseem Alizadeth and Randy Popp 13 SUBCOMMITTEE: None. 14 15 STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 16 17 Project Description: Removal of two Palm trees 18 Applicant: Kathleen Beckman 19 Address: 237 Homer Avenue [13PLN-00107] 20 Approval Date: 3/13/13 21 Request for hearing deadline: 3/25/13 22 23 Project Description: Second floor addition of a 370sq. ft. and façade improvements 24 Applicant: Dan Rhoads 25 Address: 210-216 Bryant Street [12PLN-00493] 26 Approval Date: 3/13/13 27 Request for hearing deadline: 3/25/13 28 29 30 Project Description: One new internally illuminated wall sign and one new internally illuminated free 31 standing sign 32 Applicant: Steve Peterson 33 Address: 3944 El Camino Real [13PLN-00053] 34 Approval Date: 3/19/13 35 Request for hearing deadline: 4/1/13 36 37 Project Description: Single story & two story additions to the existing three unit apartment building 38 Applicant: Cornelia Harber 39 Address: 400 Ventura Street [12PLN-00512] 40 City of Palo Alto Page 43 Approval Date: 3/20/13 1 Request for hearing deadline: 4/2/13 2 3 Project Description: Installation of (3) new steel garage doors, new paint and new trim to an exsiting 4 six-unit multi-family building 5 Applicant: Naville Batliwalla 6 Address: 260 College Avenue [13PLN-0047] 7 Approval Date: 3/20/13 8 Request for hearing deadline: 4/2/13 9 10 Project Description: Modification to an existing wireless communication facility 11 Applicant: Modus Inc., for Sprint 12 Address: 2701 Middlefield Road [13PLN-00031] 13 Approval Date: 3/21/13 14 Request for hearing deadline: 4/3/13 15 16 Project Description: Review for one new internally illuminated wall sign & one new internally 17 illuminated awning sign 18 Applicant: Tommy Yoon 19 Address: 3990 El Camino Real [13PLN-00195] 20 Approval Date: 3/25/13 21 Request for hearing deadline: 4/8/13 22 23 Project Description: Relocation of existing cellular antenna equipment and addition of 12 foot tall 24 screen wall to the an existing three story building 25 Applicant: Paul Ferro 26 Address: 900 Arastradero Road [13PLN-113] 27 Approval Date: 3/27/13 28 Request for hearing deadline: 4/10/13 29 30 31 ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to 32 access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s compliance 33 with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) 34 or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. 35 36 Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 37 54956.Recordings. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 38 329-2571. 39 40 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after 41 distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community 42 Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during normal 43 business hours. 44 45 46 ATTACHMENT F DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 567 -595 Maybell Avenue 12PLN-00453 Planning Division 1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial compliance with plans dated April 15, 2013 except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permits. 3. The existing city street trees shall be maintained and protected during construction per City of Palo Alto requirements. 4. Upon submittal of the application for a building permit, the project is required to comply with the City’s Green Building Program (PAMC 16.14). The project required to complete a green building application, and implement the programs requirements in building plans and throughout construction. More information and the application can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/sustainablity_green_building_building/application/d efault.asp. 5. All Mitigation Measures as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated May 9, 2013 shall incorporated into these conditions of approval. 6. Vehicular ingress and egress will be from the main entryway on Clemo Avenue and the applicant shall obtain on access easement through the adjacent Arastradero Park Apartment Complex to connect the site access aisle to the existing driveway for APAC on Maybell Avenue. a. If an access easement cannot be obtained and access is from a single driveway on Clemo Avenue, the access barriers on Clemo Avenue shall be relocated from the intersection of Maybell Avenue to east of the project driveway on Clemo Avenue. 7. A “No Parking” sign shall be installed on the Maybell Avenue frontage of the project site. The no parking hours will be between 7AM and 7 PM. 8. Shared Roadways Markings (“Sharrows”) will be installed in both directions on Maybell Avenue. 9. The Senior Building will be exempt from Development Impact Fees as provided under the City Municipal code as an affordable housing development. The 15 unit single family subdivision (Market Rate parcel) will be subject to the following requirements as provided under the City Municipal Code: 1. All applicable Development Impact Fees; 2. Quimby Act; 3. Below Market Rate In-Lieu housing fee in the amount of $1.5 million. The City will commit the fee towards the development of the senior affordable housing development through an affordable housing loan. Public Works 10. SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: The applicant needs to file for a Major Subdivision Application with the Planning Department for creating five (5) or more parcels. A Major Subdivision typically requires the approval of tentative and final maps. A building permit cannot be issued until the final map is recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. 11. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: As part of this project, the applicant, at minimum, will be required to repave (2-inch grind and pave) the full width of Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue and install all new sidewalk, curb, gutter, and driveway approach in the public right- of-way along the property frontage per Public Works’ latest standards and/or as instructed by the Public Works Inspector. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Permit for Construction in the Public Right-of-Way (“Street Work Permit”) from Public Works at the Development Center. 12. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage. Call City Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work will be required for this project. The site or tree plan must show street tree work that the arborist has determined including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by the Public Works’ arborist. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way (“Street Tree Permit”) from Public Works’ Urban Forestry. 13. STORM WATER RUNOFF SYNOPSIS: Provide a synopsis of pre and post-development storm water runoff flows and drainage systems. Summarize existing storm water drainage patterns such as where the existing site runoff drains to. Explain the increase in the site storm water runoff flow for post-development. Show justification that the existing City storm water drainage system has the capacity to handle the increase in the flow. 14. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project must meet the latest State Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (SRWQCB) C.3 provisions. The applicant is required to satisfy all current storm water discharge regulations and shall provide calculations and documents to verify compliance. All projects that are required to treat storm water will need to treat the permit-specified amount of storm water runoff with the following low impact development (LID) methods: rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. However, biotreatment (filtering storm water through vegetation and soils before discharging to the storm drain system) will be allowed only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration and evapotranspiration are infeasible at the project site. Complete the Infiltration/Harvesting and Use Feasibility Screening Worksheet (Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Handbook - Appendix I). Vault-based treatment will not be allowed as a stand-alone treatment measure. Where storm water harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapotranspiration are infeasible, vault-based treatment measures may be used in series with biotreatment, for example, to remove trash or other large solids. Reference: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.11.030(c) http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_I- Feasibility_2012.pdf In order to qualify the project as a Special Project for LID treatment reduction credit, complete and submit the Special Projects Worksheet (Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Handbook - Appendix J: Special Projects). Any Regulated Project that meets all the criteria for more than one Special Project Category may only use the LID treatment reduction credit allowed under one of the categories. http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_J- Special_Projects_2012.pdf). The applicant must incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures that treat storm water runoff prior to discharge. The prevention measures shall be reviewed by a qualified third-party reviewer who needs to certify that it complies with the Palo Alto Municipal Code requirements. This is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The third-party reviewer shall be acquired by the applicant and needs to be on the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s (Program) list of qualified consultants. Any consultant or contractor hired to design/and/or construct a storm water treatment system for the project cannot certify the project as a third-party reviewer. http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/consultants2012.htm?zoom_highlight=consultants Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. The project must also enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. 15. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction- stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 16. LOADING DOCK: If there is a loading dock, storm runoff from loading docks where chemicals or hazardous materials may be handled shall not drain to a street, gutter, or storm drain. See 16.09.032(b)(4)(D). It is recommended that the loading dock(s) be covered to preclude the need for a drain. 17. GREASE/OIL REMOVAL DEVICE: If there will be a kitchen and food serving area in the new Senior Building, any drains in the food service facilities shall be connected to a grease removal device. 18. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: The pedestrian circulation shown for Senior Building on Sheet C2 indicates pedestrian route through neighboring property to access the public sidewalk at the north end of the property. Such encroachment through a private property is not recommended by the City. 19. The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at the building permit phase. You can obtain various plan set details, forms and guidelines from Public Works at the City's Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on Public Works’ website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms_permits.asp Include in plans submitted for a building permit: 20. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: For disturbing greater than 10,000 SF of land area, a Grading and Excavation Permit needs to be obtained from PWE at the Development Center before the building permit can be issued. Refer to the Public Works’ website for “Excavation and Grading Permit Instructions.” For the Grading and Excavation Permit application, various documents are required including a grading and drainage plan, soils report, Interim and Final erosion and sediment control, and storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Refer to our website for “Grading and Excavation Permit Application” and guidelines. Indicate the amount of soil to be cut and filled for the project. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/11695 21. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and showing drainage flows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Other site utilities may be shown on the grading plan for reference only, and should be so noted. No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprint. Installation of these other utilities will be approved as part of a subsequent Building Permit application. Site grading, excavation, and other site improvements that disturb large soil areas may only be performed during the regular construction season (from April 16 through October 15th) of each year the permit is active. The site must be stabilized to prevent soil erosion during the wet season. The wet season is defined as the period from October 15 to April 15. Methods of stabilization are to be identified within the Civil sheets of the improvement plans for approval. 22. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP’s): In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan shall identify BMP’s to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. (Resources and handouts are available from PWE. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto’s companion document to “Start at the Source”, entitled “Planning Your Land Development Project”). The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate BMP's for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the SWPPP prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09). The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Barron Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. 23. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Development Center or on our website. Also, the applicant must provide a site-specific storm water pollution control plan sheet in the plan set. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 24. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: Since the project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas. The calculations need to be filled out in the Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form which is available at the Development Center or on our website, then submitted with the building permit application. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2718 25. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY - If any work is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, curb inlet, storm water connections or utility laterals, the following note shall be included on the Site Plan next to the proposed work: “Any construction within the city right-of-way must have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 26. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to PWE prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be part of the building permit submittal. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2719 27. FINALIZATION OF BUILDING PERMIT: The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post- developments BMP’s shall be completed prior to sign-off. Public Works Water Quality 28. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater: The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering: Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment. 29. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(11) Carwash Required New Multi-family residential units and residential development projects with 25 or more units shall provide a covered area for occupants to wash their vehicles. A drain shall be installed to capture all vehicle wash waters and shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every six months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the Superintendent. Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The area shall be graded or bermed in such a manner as to prevent the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer system; (Note: the Senior Housing component of this development may apply for an exemption to this requirements, in which case any hose bibs must be fitted with lock-outs or other connections controls and signage indicating that car washing is not allowed.) 30. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single- family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. 31. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 32. PAMC 16.09.175(k)(2) Loading Docks (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail- safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 33. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 34. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 35. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 36. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. Fire Department 37. Fire sprinkler, standpipe, fire alarm and underground fire supply installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 38. Roof access shall be provided from both stairways. A hatch with ladder access is acceptable where access via stair is not otherwise required. Hatch must be a minimum 36 x 48 inches in size. Where alternating tread access is approvable under the code, a ship's ladder shall be provided instead. Utilities GENERAL 33. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 34. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 35. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE 36. A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 37. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 38. If this project requires padmount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. 39. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 40. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 41. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 42. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 43. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 44. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 45. The customer is responsible for sizing equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements. The service conductors shall be sized per City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 46. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 47. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. DURING CONSTRUCTION 48. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 49. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 50. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 51. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 52. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 53. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. 54. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 55. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 56. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT 57. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 58. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 59. All fees must be paid. 60. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. SUBDIVISION PROJECTS 61. There may be other conditions applicable to your project that can be found in previous sections of this document. 62. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. 63. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed within the subdivision as required by the City. 64. The civil drawings must show all existing and proposed electric facilities (i.e. conduits, boxes, pads, services, and streetlights) as well as other utilities. The developer/owner is responsible for all substructure installations (conduits, boxes, pads, streetlights system, etc.) on the subdivision parcel map. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and all work must be inspected and approved by the Electrical Underground Inspector. 65. The developer/owner is responsible for all underground services (conduits and conductors) to single-family homes within the subdivision. All work requires inspection and approval from both the Building Department and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 66. The tentative parcel map shall show all required easements as requested by the City. Utilities Water, Gas Wastewater PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 67. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 68. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 69. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each residential or commercial unit. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 70. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 71. There is no sewer main in Clemo Ave and the sewer main in Maybell Ave is constricted to 6” in the last block approaching El Camino Real. As part of this project the applicant is required to pipe burst the 6” section of main sewer main to 8”. 72. Water and gas services for each single family home will be served directly off Maybell Ave or Clemo Ave. 73. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 74. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 75. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 76. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures. For contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals. 77. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Residential single family homes with no special cross connection hazards will be allowed to use double check assemblies. 78. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system (non single family home buildings only) to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 79. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 80. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be abandoned per the WGW Utilities Standards. 81. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 82. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 83. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. New gas service installations are required. Show the new gas meter locations on the plans. The gas meter locations must conform with utilities standard details. 84. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 85. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW Utilities procedures. 86. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 87. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 88. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 89. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 90. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REVIEW-CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, the plans submitted for building permit shall be reviewed by the project site arborist to verify that all the arborist’s recommendations have been incorporated into the final plan set. The submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s certification letter that the plans have incorporated the following information: a. Final Tree Protection Report (TPR) design changes and preservation measures. b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. c. Outstanding items. Itemized list and which plan sheet the measures are to be located. d. Landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130. 91. PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS(Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.05). Provide an evaluation and summary for any Protected Tree proposed to be removed with findings recognized by the tree ordinance; include replacement tree Mitigation Measures using the Replacement Standards (Tree Canopy/Value Method) in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00. If the total Mitigation canopy cannot be entirely planted on site, the remainder shall be paid to the City of Palo Alto Forestry Fund (Acct#60662). A Protected Tree removal permit shall be issued by the Urban Forestry section. 92. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on the relevant plan sheets: a. Sheet T-1_Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urbancanopy.asp ), Applicant shall complete the Tree Disclosure Statement. Inspections and monthly reporting by the project arborist are mandatory. (All projects: check #1; with tree preservation report: check #2-6; with landscape plan: check #7.) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the TPR approved by the City, Arborist Report for 567-595 Maybell Avenue, dated November 26, 2012, prepared by McClenahan Consulting, LLC shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc.) and added to the sheet index. c. Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans, Type II fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing around Protected/Designated trees as a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (per the approved Tree Preservation Report) per instructions on Detail #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans. d. Site Plan Notes. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-1 and the approved plans”. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall include a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at (650) 326-8781 Note #3. “Basement foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires City Arborist approval, please call (650) 496-5953.” Note #4. Utility plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” 93. LANDSCAPE PLANS. a. Make the following changes in plant material for the following species, and planting specifications (if any) b. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Lighting plan with photometric data. vi. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii. Reduce heat islands--Parking lot shade tree plan. Provide a landscape sheet showing tree planting designed to achieve 50% shading of paving surfaces pursuant to PAMC 18.40. 130(e) (Parking Lot Shading Guidelines, Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 9). viii. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way (public land) shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. ix. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. x. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, PW Detail #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. xi. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). d. Planting notes to include the following mandatory criteria: i. Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1” or larger shall be removed from the site. ii. Note a turf-free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) for best tree performance. e. Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspection Verification to the City. The LA of record shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a separate letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for each of the following: i. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and is acceptable. ii. Fine grading inspection of all plantable areas has been personally inspected for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots. iii. Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. 94. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 95. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans. 96. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the project site arborist, John H. McClenahan, WE-1476B, (650) 326-8781, with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the city for review. 97. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 98. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and Contractor and Arborist Inspection Schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. A mandatory Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 99. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 100. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 101. LANDSCAPE INSPECTION. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 102. TREE INSPECTION. The contractor shall call for an inspection by the Project Arborist. A final inspection and report by the project arborist shall evaluate all trees to be retained and protected, as indicated in the approved plans, the activity, health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injury, if any, and for the long term care of the trees for the new owner. The report shall provide written verification to the Planning Department that all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. The final arborist report shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy. The final report may be used to navigate the security guarantee return process, when applicable. 103. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 104. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current version). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 May 22, 2013 3 4 DRAFT 5 EXCERPT 6 7 8 567-595 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453]: Request by Candice Gonzalez on behalf of Palo 9 Alto Housing Corporation, for Planning and Transportation Commission review and 10 recommendation to Council regarding a new Planned Community (PC) zone district and 11 Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendment to allow a 15 single family home and a 60 12 unit affordable rental project for seniors on parcels having a combined area of 107,392 square 13 feet and zoned R-2 and RM-15. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study and Mitigated 14 Negative Declaration have been prepared. *Quasi Judicial 15 16 Chair Martinez: This is a quasi-judicial item for the Planning Commission, which means that any 17 contact outside of the hearing by members of the Commission we need to report upon. Excuse 18 me. I’ll begin. 19 20 Last Friday I had lunch with Jean McCown on another matter. I wanted to see about working 21 with Stanford. Not me personally, but for a nonprofit that I’m working with. But she did bring 22 up the fact that she was on the Board of Directors of Palo Alto Housing Communications 23 [Note—does he mean Corporation?]. And as a good Commissioner our procedures are to listen 24 politely and not offer our opinions or how we choose to see these issues. Her comments were 25 that if she had to do it over again that she would do a different kind of outreach and I appreciated 26 that. And I think that there’s going to be a discussion from the applicant tonight about parking 27 for senior housing. And that was it and we went on to talk about other items. Any other 28 members of the Commission care to speak? Ok. So that’s it. 29 30 I announced earlier that our procedure for the public hearing is going to be that since there are so 31 many that want to speak we’re going to dedicate an hour for public comments and each member 32 of the public will be given two minutes to speak. However some of you have indicated that you 33 have, your part of a group for which one member will speak for you. And if you’re a group of 34 five I mentioned that the person speaking in your behalf will be given 10 minutes to speak for 35 you, but you need to fill out a speaker card as well that indicates you’re part of that group being 36 represented tonight. That just helps us with the public record of who was here and whose views 37 were represented. And this also helps the Council when this goes further to them. 38 39 So again if you’re here for the first time our procedure is to hear the staff report followed by the 40 applicant who will be given 15 minutes to present the project. And at the end of the presentation 41 and the comments from the, questions from the Commission, the applicant will be given an 42 additional three minutes to summarize. So following that we, before actually we go to 43 deliberations from the Commissioners we’re going to invite members of the public to speak. So 44 we’ll talk more about that. 45 46 So tonight’s public hearing is an application by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) for a 47 recommendation from the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to the City Council 48 on their application for a Planned Community (PC) Zoning District for 567 through 595 Maybell 49 2 Avenue to construct 60 senior housing units and 15 single family units. In addition to that, we’re 1 being asked to make a recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan designation for this project 2 for that site change and to comment on the environmental review that’s been prepared for 3 tonight. So with that we are going to go to Planning staff for the staff report. 4 5 Curtis Williams, Director – Planning: Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. I’m Curtis 6 Williams the Director of Planning and Community Environment. And tonight Tim Wong our 7 Senior Planner, Housing Planner is going to make this presentation to you followed by some 8 brief remarks from Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney and then I have some concluding 9 remarks before you move on to the hearing. Thank you. Tim. 10 11 Tim Wong, Senior Planner – Housing: Thank you Curtis. Good evening. As Curtis stated my 12 name is Tim Wong and I’m a Senior Planner for the City. And tonight as Chair Martinez stated 13 that you have a request from Palo Alto Housing Corporation for a Planned Community rezone, 14 Comp Plan amendment to do a, to allow for a development of 60 multi-family affordable senior 15 rental units and a development of 15 single family units on [fee simple] lots. And with the intent 16 that sale of the market rate units, the 15 single family units would help provide financial 17 assistance for the development of the 60 unit multi-family affordable development. 18 19 The applicant is Palo Alto Housing Corporation. They have been a partner with the City since 20 1971 in managing and developing affordable housing throughout the City of Palo Alto. And just 21 quick the site was acquired by Palo Alto Housing Corporation in November 30th of last year with 22 some financial assistance from the City. 23 24 That’s just a quick architectural rendering of the proposed development. The senior 25 development is tucked in the corner of the parcel with the single family homes lining Maybell 26 and Clemo Avenue. Just a quick overview about the existing site conditions; there are two 27 legal… closer to the [unintelligible], oh, excuse me. Alright. Ok. There are two legal lots on 28 the property .32 and 2.14 acres respectively and right now the site is divided between R2 and 29 RM15 zoning. There are four existing homes along Maybell Avenue with each accessing 30 Maybell Avenue. The rest of the site is a nonfunctioning orchard; hasn’t been in operation since 31 probably early Nineties. And currently there is no sidewalk on Maybell Avenue. The site is 32 surrounded by single family and multi-family units. Across the street on Maybell Avenue is 33 single family and the site is adjacent to the Arastradero Park Apartments and the Tan Plaza 34 multi-family unit. And across the street on Clemo is Juana Briones Park. There is an existing 35 barrier on Clemo Avenue at the intersection of Maybell and Clemo that prevents vehicular access 36 onto Clemo from Maybell Avenue. 37 38 Some information about the proposed senior housing; it is a four story building of approximately 39 50 feet in height. It will be 59 one bedroom units of approximately 600 square feet with a two 40 bedroom property manager’s unit. They’ll be providing services. There will be laundry facilities 41 on each floor. There will be a service coordinator, a computer room, a community room, 42 exercise room along with a community courtyard, and 4th floor rooftop terrace for open space. 43 And as part of the development they are proposing to provide 42 parking spaces for the senior 44 development with 5 spaces in reserve. The 47 total spaces is a ratio of about .78, which is higher 45 than other affordable senior developments throughout the City. Stevenson House, the senior 46 development on Charleston has a ratio of about .48 and the Sheraton Senior Apartments has a 47 ratio of about .35 and there, and so other, just as a comparison to other affordable senior 48 developments. 49 3 1 Quick note about the single family homes; the four existing homes will be demolished for the 2 proposed 15 units. The 15 units as stated would be lining Maybell and Clemo with 8 on Maybell 3 Avenue corner lot and 6 units along Clemo Avenue. Maybell, the Maybell homes are proposed 4 to be two and three stories high. Two stories are about 25 feet in height, approximately 2,300 5 square feet. And the three story units are 35 feet high with about 2,700 square feet proposed. 6 And the units on Clemo are all three story, 35 feet high with approximately 2,300 square feet. 7 All parking will be provided on site on the interior of the lot with two car garages. In addition 8 the units on Maybell will have two car aprons for the units on Maybell. 9 10 The proposed senior house is generally compliant with the Planned Community zone. However 11 it exceeds the PC zone requirement for daylight plane and it also exceeds the height requirement. 12 The PC zone requires that any development within 150 feet of residential development must 13 have a maximum height of 35 feet and also a daylight plane requirements are in effect when 14 again a project site is within 150 feet of residential. So as part of it the applicant has requested 15 two concessions for the daylight plane and height issue per Government Code 65915. If a 16 development provides a certain percentage of affordable housing they are eligible for 17 concessions and these concessions are granted by right. And these I would like to point out that 18 the concessions are not required because of the proximity to the single family homes, it is 19 because the senior building is adjacent to the Tan and Arastradero, the Tan complex and the 20 Arastradero Park Apartments. 21 22 A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for this project as part of the initial 23 study a traffic study was prepared identifying that this project would generate 16 net new a.m. 24 peak hour trips and 21 new p.m. [loud outburst from public] Oh, ok. 25 26 Chair Martinez: Hold on please. I know some of you are new here, but we don’t comment, we 27 don’t laugh, we don’t boo the Chair. We remain respectful and everybody will have a chance to 28 be heard. Thank you. 29 30 Mr. Wong: Um, continuing, yes as the traffic study had determined that 16 net new a.m. peak 31 hour trips and 21 net new p.m. hour, peak hour trips would be created. And based on those 32 findings from a cumulative standpoint based on the propose, what the projects have proposed 33 was all ingress and egress go from Clemo onto Arastradero with no access to Maybell, but the 34 initial study found based on the traffic study’s findings that a potentially significant impact 35 would be created if all traffic was directed from Clemo via Arastradero. Therefore a mitigation 36 measure has been inserted into the Negative Declaration requiring that they obtain an easement 37 in the adjacent property, the Arastradero Park Apartments, which is also owned by Palo Alto 38 Housing Corporation thus giving this development two points of access: Maybell Avenue 39 through Palo Alto Housing Corp.’s Arastradero Park and with the proposed Clemo to 40 Arastradero. 41 42 And would like to point out these are conditions of approval and not mitigation measures, but 43 staff has also included a no parking sign along the southern portion of Maybell Avenue and the 44 installation of sharrows, which are shared, share the road arrows. And those will also be 45 installed in both directions on Maybell Avenue. And would also like to point out that the traffic 46 barrier would not be relocated; it will stay in its current place. 47 48 4 Also there are 12 oak trees along Clemo Avenue. The applicant proposed to remove two of 1 them. Therefore… and in review all recommendations, an arborist report had been prepared for 2 the oak trees and all recommendations of the arborist’s report have been integrated into the 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment period is currently open and the end of the 4 comment period is May 30th of this month, end of this month. 5 6 Just as a quick comparison of what is being proposed versus what could be allowed in the 7 existing zoning. Currently as mentioned the, it’s a 2.46 acre parcel that is R2 and RM15 zoned. 8 And with those two zoning districts 34 units could be developed there. And using a .7 on in 9 general a single family residential unit will generate about .75 a.m. peak hour trip and 1.0 p.m. 10 peak hour trip. And using those two ratios a proposed 34 unit subdivision or development would 11 generate 22 a.m. peak hour trips and 32 p.m. peak hour trips. And if they were to invoke the 35 12 percent density bonus they could get up to 46 units, which would then generate approximately 32 13 a.m. peak hour trips and 43 p.m. peak hour trips. And as you can see the proposed Maybell 14 development is determined to generate 16 a.m. peak hour trips and 21 peak hour trips in the p.m. 15 So this proposed development would be lower than any proposed existing zoning. 16 17 And just as part of a PC you must show the public benefits and for this project clearly it’s the 60 18 units of affordable housing for seniors. In the City Housing Element and we also have additional 19 data that approximately 20 percent of the seniors are living around the poverty level or slightly 20 above and so this would be a significant contribution towards that population. And in addition it 21 would be the installation of the sidewalk for that segment of Maybell. Currently there is not an 22 existing sidewalk therefore this would connect the sidewalk system for the southern side of 23 Maybell for that area. And so that concludes my presentation. Cara Silver, I’ll turn it to Cara. 24 25 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you Tim. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City 26 Attorney. I wanted to note that we received a letter from Attorney Kent Mitchell just today and 27 he raised a couple of issues. He raised an issue with respect to conflict of interest because he 28 claims that because the City was a lender on this project the loan documents place the City in a 29 conflict of interest position. He is going to further articulate that argument to Council. We have 30 reviewed his arguments, will research them further and will report to Council. At this point we 31 think the Political Reform Act that governs conflicts of interest applies to personal financial 32 interests of the decision makers and so the fact that the City Council has adopted the loan 33 agreement would not trigger a conflict of interest for purposes of the Political Reform Act, but 34 we will certainly look at that issue. We have also looked at the loan documentation and the 35 [loans permit] do not require the City Council or the Planning Commission upon 36 recommendation to the City Council to approve the projects. So the full discretion is with the 37 Planning Commission and the City Council to approve or deny the project regardless of the fact 38 that the City has loaned money on the project for the acquisition of the site. With that I will turn 39 it over to Curtis Williams for the final conclusion. 40 41 Mr. Williams: Thank you Cara. So I know the Commission and the staff and Council have 42 received a number of communications from neighbors in the area and we certainly acknowledge 43 that there have been legitimate concerns raised in those comments, particularly about traffic on 44 Maybell and some of the other issues. And I also want to say we clearly understand that those 45 comments are not opposition to affordable housing per se, they’re concerns about the impacts of 46 the potential for development on the site so. However, we do feel like in many respects those 47 comments are misplaced in terms of being directed at this project and in particular in five areas 48 that I’d like to briefly cover. 49 5 1 First is that the site isn’t appropriate for affordable senior housing. And finding an affordable 2 housing site in Palo Alto clearly is precious, so it’s hard to find any sites for affordable housing. 3 The work that the Housing Corporation and other nonprofits do in trying to first identify sites, 4 negotiate with owners, and then cobble together from many varied financing sources a package 5 that makes a project work is pretty amazing, and the Housing Corporation has done it in this 6 case. We strongly believe that regardless of our regional housing requirements or anything else, 7 put all that aside, the City does need to provide opportunities for affordable housing and 8 especially for low income seniors as our population in Palo Alto and in Silicon Valley ages and 9 is expected to age rapidly over the next few decades. 10 11 This site is not directly on El Camino Real. That’d be nice if it were; it’s not, but it is close 12 enough for many in this complex to be able to walk there. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation 13 has a great track record for not just providing affordable units, but also for providing 14 transportation and social and recreational services for its residents. So it’s not a case where 15 they’re in an island and they need to get off themselves to be able to find, to recreate or shop or 16 whatever. 17 18 This is also a very unique opportunity to share services at the existing adjacent Palo Alto 19 Housing Corporation site. So they’re, they’ve got a project next door and they can share some of 20 the services that are available there and also create more of an intergenerational living 21 environment between the two complexes. So we do feel like this is a good fit for affordable 22 senior housing. Sites are hard to come by and it’s a great opportunity. 23 24 The second and probably the area of most concern that we’ve heard is traffic on Maybell and 25 conflicts with the school commute congestion and safety issues. So, and certainly there is a 26 period of time a couple of times a day when this road is very congested and it is filled with 27 cyclists and kids cycling and walking to and from school and that’s something that we have a 28 number of programs here in the City to promote and to hopefully protect the safety of those 29 children in particular. However, in this case we and the traffic consultant do strongly believe 30 that the impacts of this project on Maybell and school traffic will be negligible particularly with 31 respect to the following: the four existing driveways and homes, the home access to Maybell will 32 be eliminated; the barrier on Clemo will not be relocated; the access easement will be provided 33 through the adjacent Palo Alto Housing Corporation site, which will accommodate some trips to 34 Maybell, but almost all of that we believe again would head away from the school area and 35 towards El Camino Real certainly during the peak morning commutes. We’ve proposed parking 36 be prohibited on Maybell adjacent to the project to further limit trips there and provide more 37 room for cyclists and walkers along the road. And all of this is in anticipation of a larger scale 38 project of Maybell as a bicycle boulevard and additional improvements to be made there to 39 enhance safety. 40 41 There have been questions raised about the number of trips generated by senior affordable 42 housing, but the traffic estimates that we’ve been using are based on we believe very sound data 43 from existing projects in our area and region as well as from general engineering analysis. We 44 hear this concern about trip generation and parking frequently on affordable housing project. 45 Probably all four or five that have happened during my tenure here. This is a comment that is 46 frequently made and I would say that once they’re built the concerns have simply not 47 materialized. They do end up [unintelligible] as a result on the low side and so we’ve not 48 experienced that as being an issue later. So in this case the estimates are for a handful of 49 6 morning peak hour trips using Maybell, probably mostly turning right towards El Camino Real 1 and even looking if that number is half and it’s twice that much that’s one car per five minutes 2 every five minutes in that location at the most. 3 4 So the third issue is density and comments that the density is out of character with the area. We 5 assume that out of character primarily means in terms of traffic impacts which I’ve just 6 discussed, but also bulk and height of the structures. In this case the senior housing project as 7 Tim showed was, is up to four stories in height, it’s pushed back as close to the eight story Tan 8 Apartments as possible. Some distance, quite some distance away from any of the single family 9 homes along Maybell. It steps down then to a parking lot and a drive aisle and then to the single 10 family homes along Maybell as transition to the neighborhood. Certainly if the Commission 11 feels like the three story portion of homes along the Maybell frontage is excessive then that’s 12 certainly a point for discussion and design, but overall that transition in height and mass we 13 believe is appropriate. 14 15 The fourth comment is basically don’t rezone, leave the property and the zoning that it is right 16 now the R2 and RM15. As Tim mentioned and showed in the presentation and in the staff report 17 we believe that a market rate project at the allowed density would generate considerably more 18 vehicle trips and would generate more school students than what’s proposed as this combination 19 of affordable housing and market rate housing. Also would note that the market rate project 20 would not require Planning and Transportation Commission review or City Council review; it 21 would just be an architectural review of the design if it complied with that zoning. 22 23 And finally the issue of preserving the area as playing fields or as a park; we’d all like to have 24 more parks in our community certainly. We also need more affordable housing. In this 25 particular case to make this a playing fields or park would require paying at least the $16 million 26 that the Palo Alto Housing Corporation has paid for the site, money which we don’t believe the 27 City has available. We don’t believe the site is large enough for a playing field and the parking 28 that would go along with it. And there’s a park next door and a school nearby with additional 29 recreational facilities. And also we’d have to consider the impacts: parking, traffic, noise 30 impacts of that kind of facility on the neighbors, but that hasn’t been looked at specifically. 31 32 So staff in conclusion does urge the Commission to take advantage of this very limited 33 opportunity and to provide for the affordable senior housing in the community. We recognize 34 there may be adjustments that are needed to finalize an acceptable design, but recommend that 35 you move the project forward to the City Council. We’ll be glad to answer the questions. 36 37 Chair Martinez: Is the applicant here to present… (interrupted) 38 39 Mr. Williams: Yes they are. 40 41 Chair Martinez: …the project. We’re going to hold off questions for a while. 42 43 Candice Gonzalez, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation: Good evening Planning 44 Commissioners, I’m Candice Gonzalez the Executive Director of the Palo Alto Housing 45 Corporation. With me tonight to help present and answer questions are Jessica DeWit our 46 Project Manager, Michelle Hunt with Hexagon our Traffic Consultant, Dahlin Group Architects, 47 Kate Young our Director of Resident Services. We also have property management staff. But 48 very quickly I would like to take our, thank our supporters that showed up tonight. A bunch of 49 7 them will probably refrain from speaking because of the limited time, but I would like to ask 1 them to stand up to show their support and to say thank you. Thank you again. 2 3 This was the quick memo we put together this afternoon just to help you follow our presentation. 4 As you consider our project this evening please remember the significant need for affordable 5 senior housing in Palo Alto where 20 percent of our seniors are living near or below the federal 6 poverty limit. That’s around $19,800 a year. It’s actually, the seniors are actually the second 7 fastest growing population in Palo Alto and the fastest growing population in Santa Clara 8 County. With this in mind we do urge you to deliberate on our project this evening and move it 9 forward. We also have a tax credit application due in July, July 3rd. if we don’t meet that 10 deadline we get pushed to March of 2014, which means about another $500,000 in carrying costs 11 for us and other financing risks. Furthermore in the last probably six to eight months we have 12 made significant changes to our design and site plan in response to community feedback, in 13 response to our initial meeting with PTC and the City Council preliminary study session and lots 14 of neighbors. 15 16 We’ve done the following, we’ve made the following changes: we’re proposing affordable 17 senior housing rather than affordable family housing to minimize impacts on schools, traffic, and 18 the surrounding neighborhood. Again we are not moving the street barrier at the intersection of 19 Clemo and Maybell. We’ve located the higher density components of the site plan away from 20 the single family homes to allow for a transition. We’re providing driveways for 14 of the 15 21 single family homes located on private alleys rather than on the streets of Maybell or Clemo to 22 add safety during traffic hours. Driveway aprons were created for nine of the proposed single 23 family homes so that we’re providing an additional 18 on site off street parking. We facilitated a 24 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approved easement 25 through our adjacent property for a secondary project access and traffic abatement. We’re 26 adding a sidewalk on the Maybell Avenue frontage for the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. 27 We widened the Clemo driveway entry point to about 22 feet for, 22 feet instead of 20 feet for 28 greater visibility. We’re going to continue working with City transportation officials to enforce 29 no parking on the Maybell Avenue frontage during, probably from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. We’re 30 providing our residents with a shared drive, shared van to further minimize the need for car 31 ownership. And we also plan on installing a commemorative plaque paying respect to the 32 history of the previous orchard. With this in mind Jessica’s going to go speak on some of the 33 main concerns that Curtis spoke about. 34 35 Jessica DeWit, Project Manager, Palo Alto Housing Corporation: So we know one concern has 36 been bicycle and pedestrian safety. 37 38 Chair Martinez: Sorry, can you identify yourself? 39 40 Ms. DeWit: I’m sorry. I’m Jessica DeWit with Palo Alto Housing Corporation. So we know 41 one concern has been bicycle and pedestrian safety. So we checked with the City Records 42 Department and there have been no reported auto accidents involving a pedestrian or a bike in 43 the Maybell corridor during peak traffic hours from January 2005 through December 2012. 44 There has been one collision report of one person jaywalking and one bike hitting a parked car at 45 9:00 p.m. at night, but both of those were during off peak hours. 46 47 Another concern has been traffic. Affordable senior projects generate minimal peak hour traffic. 48 Studies show that low income seniors have even lower impacts on traffic because they drive less 49 8 and have lower car ownership rates. Affordable seniors drive during off peak hours because 1 most no longer work. Current demographic data from local Palo Alto senior projects include 2 Arastradero Park Apartments, which is next door to the current proposed property, 89 percent of 3 the seniors there do not work. 55 percent of those seniors do not drive. The remaining have a 4 combination of part time jobs and some full time jobs. At Sheraton Senior Apartments, which is 5 100 percent seniors, 98 percent of the tenants there do not work. So there’s only one senior that 6 is a part time worker. 7 8 I know the neighborhood has also asked us to do more traffic analysis of existing senior 9 properties in the area to cross check the forecasted counts that were done for the traffic study. 10 We’ve done that. Hexagon Traffic Consultants actually studied three existing senior rental 11 apartments in the area. The Stevenson House, Sheraton Apartments, and Monte Vista Terrace 12 together had an average observed trip rate of .11 trips per unit during the a.m. peak hour, which 13 is lower than the published national rate of .13 trips per unit during the a.m. peak hour. So this 14 additional analysis further supports the traffic study that has been done, and Michelle Hunt is 15 here to answer more questions and to provide a little bit more detail next. Another concern has 16 been that the existing zoning would have a better traffic impact than our proposal. Existing 17 zoning would permit 34 single family homes that would produce 38 percent to 52 percent more 18 peak hour traffic than the proposed project. 19 20 There’s also been concern over school impact. This proposed project has minimal impact on 21 schools. With the 15 single family homes this would yield approximately eight new students for 22 the local schools. For the 60 senior affordable units, PAHC expects zero impact to the schools 23 from the senior site. None of our senior units currently have children occupying them. PAHC 24 requires proof of legal custody for a resident to have a minor move into any of our apartments. 25 26 Lastly there’s been a concern that the emergency response time will be hindered by our project. 27 We talked to the Fire Department, we’ve had them review our plans and the Fire Department 28 does not anticipate any significant traffic issues specifically related to the Maybell Orchard 29 Development. Next we’re going to have Michelle talk a little bit more about details on the traffic 30 analysis. 31 32 Michelle Hunt, Vice President, Hexagon Transportation Consultants: My name is Michelle Hunt, 33 I’m a Vice President and Principle Associate with Hexagon Transportation Consultants. We did 34 the traffic study for this project. We looked at a number of scenarios with regard to access, but 35 just to clarify because our report did look at multiple scenarios what is being proposed is two 36 access points. One on Clemo, which would lead to Arastradero and then a secondary access to 37 Maybell through the adjacent property. 38 39 As Jessica mentioned the trip generation for the project is extremely low because primarily the 40 senior affordable housing component is expected to generate much lower trips than a market rate 41 development would be. I know that residents or neighbors have expressed doubts about the 42 forecast for the trip generation so we did go out and do actual counts that were done last week at 43 the three sites that Jessica mentioned. And the results basically confirmed the previous trip rates 44 that we used. The trip rates that were used in our study were from the Institute of Transportation 45 Engineers (ITE) publication called Trip Generation. It’s based on surveys of sites throughout the 46 country. The three sites that we found locally the trip rates are shown on this table and the 47 published trip rate that we used in our study is within the range of trip rates that we saw a the 48 three locations that we surveyed. And if we had used the average trip rate from the local surveys 49 9 instead of the published ITE rate the difference in trips would have been only one fewer trip in 1 the a.m. peak hour and two additional trips in the p.m. peak hour. One trip per hour or two trips 2 per hour would not have changed our conclusions. 3 4 I would like to point out that because the project is generating less than 100 peak hour trips a full 5 traffic impact analysis is not required according to the City and Santa Clara Valley 6 Transportation Authority (VTA) guidelines, but the City did request a focused analysis. We 7 looked at six intersections. We used the methodology that has been adopted by the City and the 8 VTA. The only intersection that showed an issue with regard to level of service was Arastradero 9 and Clemo and this is as a result of the projected delay at the stop controlled approach on Clemo 10 only under the cumulative conditions. Under the existing [plus] project the level of service is 11 expected to remain acceptable, but under cumulative when we consider the anticipated growth 12 due to other background projects out to the year 2020 and then add the project additional 13 increment on it even though it is small, the level of service on Clemo was shown to be at level of 14 service E. And as a result the City has put a condition of approval on this project to include the 15 second access on Maybell. With that second access the, there would be fewer trips on Clemo 16 and the level of service even under cumulative would remain at level of service D or better. 17 18 And then lastly I just wanted to point out as was mentioned there was special attention to bikes 19 and pedestrians in our traffic analysis. The City provided counts that show, if you go forward, 20 that show the pedestrian and bike volumes in the vicinity. We do recognize that it’s a significant 21 corridor for bike use and therefore there have been a number of measures that have been 22 mentioned before to ensure that the safety of pedestrians and bikes. I think with all these 23 measures combined that basically the bikes and pedestrians will have an environment that’s at 24 least as safe as today. Those measures being: no additional driveways on Maybell, in fact a 25 reduction in the number of curb cuts on Maybell; the restriction for no parking along Maybell; 26 the addition of a sidewalk along Maybell; and then the project also adding bike boulevard 27 treatments along Maybell between Clemo and El Camino Real. 28 29 And if we just back up I just want to give you a good feel for the number of trips. Yes, that one. 30 It’s maybe a little hard to read on this figure. I’ll read off some of the key numbers for you from 31 my report in case it’s difficult to read from this slide. So on Maybell we are expecting during the 32 a.m. peak hour four trips, four net new trips on Maybell generated by this project on Maybell 33 between El Camino Real and the project driveway. That’s four trips per hour, so one every 15 34 minutes is the average there. This low volume really creates a very negligible effect as far as the 35 delays on the corridors. And the, splitting the project traffic between two driveways basically 36 shares the load and minimizes the impact to residents within every street in the area. So I’m 37 happy to answer questions later. 38 39 Chair Martinez: Thank you. 40 41 Ms. Gonzalez: Thank you Michelle. We have a lot of good data, but one question we’re always 42 asked is who will our residents be and where do they come from? Kate Young our Director of 43 Resident Services will speak on this for about a minute. 44 45 Kate Young, Director of Resident Services, Palo Alto Housing Corporation: Hello, Kate Young, 46 Director of Resident Services. My staff and I interact with PAHC residents on a daily basis and 47 our residents come from a variety of backgrounds, possess a diverse array of skill sets, and make 48 positive contributions to this community in many different ways each day. PAHC family 49 10 housing is primarily workforce housing and PAHC senior housing is primarily housing for the 1 retired workforce. Residents who live in our properties are providing or have provided services 2 that help keep this community running strong. They work at Whole Foods, Walgreens and CVS, 3 Palo Alto Community Childcare, Ace Hardware, Lytton Gardens, Channing House, the School 4 District, and as nannies, housekeepers, in home support caregivers, hair dressers, dental 5 assistants, pharmacy technicians, landscapers, teaching assistants, and in numerous support 6 positions at the University, Stanford Hospital, and Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). They 7 are working hard every day in local restaurants and as retail clerks serving us and making our 8 lives easier. 9 10 As these low wage earners such as these age and move into retirement they too live in our 11 housing. Affordable housing that allows them to make ends meet between their Social Security 12 benefits and modest or nonexistent pension income. I’d like to give the example of Lavell, 13 Lavell is here tonight. She’s 88 years old. Lavell grew up in Barron Park, moved away for a 14 time but then returned to Palo Alto and worked for 30 years for Palo Alto Unified School District 15 (PAUSD) in several support positions. During this time she was renting a conventional market 16 rate apartment and rent kept going up. As she moved to retirement she could not continue to 17 afford the rising rent. A friend told her about a new PAHC development at the time called Alma 18 Place. She moved into Alma Place as one of the first tenants in 1998 and has lived there ever 19 since. She remains close to family and friends and lives in the community where she was raised 20 and worked most of her life. 21 22 Mary and George are another example of our senior residents. They’re here tonight. They are a 23 couple who moved to Palo Alto in the 1960’s, relocated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. George 24 worked at Ford Aerospace as a maintenance technician for 27 years and then at HP for 5, excuse 25 me, 5 years. Mary worked as a housekeeper, nanny, and senior companion for various families 26 in the area for about 35 years. Their first few years in Palo Alto they rented a house in 27 downtown, but the rent started to rise and over time became unaffordable for them. Luckily they 28 found and moved into Arastradero Park Apartments where they raised their four children. They 29 are extremely proud of their children who attended college. One served in the army. One works 30 as a supervisor at a hospital. Over the years Mary and George downsized to a smaller unit, but 31 they are happy that they still live here, living in the same community where they raised their 32 children. Mary tells me that without this housing they would not have been able to stay in Palo 33 Alto. They love Palo Alto, love how everything is so close to them, and feel they are very 34 fortunate to live in a nice, safe community where they can enjoy their lives as independent 35 seniors for as long as possible. Thank you. 36 37 Ms. Gonzalez: That’s the end of our presentation, but we’re happy to answer any questions. 38 Thank you. 39 40 Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. We’re going to open our public hearing. There is still the 41 opportunity if you have speaker cards, wish to speak, you can bring them forward. As I stated 42 each speaker will be given two minutes. If you’re speaking for a group of five or more you’ll be 43 allowed 10 minutes to speak. We’ve got more cards than I’ve ever seen before so bear with us 44 on this. And I just again want to welcome you; it’s impressive that our community cares this 45 much. And I want to remind everyone that we are one community and we’re trying to come up 46 with the best decision that we can and that we should all offer due respect to everyone who 47 speaks. Thank you. Vice-Chair Michael. 48 49 11 Vice-Chair Michael: We have over 60 cards. 1 2 Chair Martinez: 60, what about the breakdown? 3 4 Vice-Chair Michael: [Unintelligible] that doesn’t help in terms of time. [Unintelligible] two 5 hours for this? 6 7 Chair Martinez: Ok, we have 60 cards at two minutes each. That’s I think two hours. Let’s 8 begin and if you feel that another speaker has represented your point of view we appreciate you 9 just acknowledging that and we’ll try to give everybody the opportunity that wants to speak. 10 11 Vice-Chair Michael: So the first speaker this evening is Thomas Pamilla to be followed by Ree 12 DuFresne for two minutes each. 13 14 Thomas Pamilla: Good evening Commissioners. Thank you very much for the opportunity to 15 address you this evening. I am Thomas Pamilla. I am the Executive Director of Stevenson 16 House, which is on Charleston Road, East Charleston near Middlefield. I’m very sensitive to the 17 issues that have been raised by the neighbors, by the folks who have presented so far this evening 18 about this important project. And I recognize also the very importance of dialogue and 19 communication between both sides because I think that both sides have very important issues 20 and something to learn from each other. I think it’s important that that dialogue continues. 21 22 Palo Alto is a beautiful community, but the truth is that housing is extremely expensive and 23 unaffordable to many seniors, especially those who are trying to survive on Social Security. At 24 Stevenson House I see the seniors who come who have, looking at many long waiting lists and 25 these are seniors who provide a great deal to our community including intergenerational contact 26 which our youth needs. They also provide child care and provide a great deal to the economy of 27 our community. So basically I encourage you to approve this project and move it along. 28 29 Stevenson House is between Hoover School a very busy school, elementary school. It’s right 30 next to the Unitarian Church. It’s right down the block from Abilities United and also from 31 Challenger School. And Charleston and Middlefield are very busy streets. There have been no 32 issues that I can point to because of our senior population. So thank you for the opportunity to 33 speak to you and [unintelligible]. 34 35 Vice-Chair Michael: So the next speaker is Ree DuFresne followed by Tom Wasow. And I 36 apologize in advance to anybody whose name I don’t pronounce. Thank you very much. 37 38 Ree DuFresne: My name is Ree DuFresne and I live on Thain Way in Palo Alto. Thank you for 39 listening to us this evening. First of all I want to say that the Palo Alto Housing Corporation I’m 40 sure does a wonderful job. Two of my grandchildren are actually on the list. But this project is 41 endangering the safety of our children. 42 43 The impacts on our community because of Maybell’s substandard width are huge. If you drive 44 down Maybell at times that are not on this traffic study’s notes or anything, Volvo has two huge 45 transport trucks that park on Maybell to get the cars off. So it requires that everyone stop and it’s 46 blind to go around them. You have children on bicycles, not just at peak traffic time, but you 47 have kids on bicycles all the time. Kids that aren’t in school. Kids that have nannies and moms 48 going to the park with strollers. We’re all walking on the street because you don’t have a 49 12 sidewalk on the other side of the street. They talk about a four foot wide sidewalk that they’re 1 adding, but they don’t tell you how short that sidewalk is and that the other side of the street 2 doesn’t have a sidewalk. So we’re all walking in the middle of the street or biking in the middle 3 of the street. If you’re driving a car and it’s school time you may be following four children that 4 are across the whole width of the street. And so you’re just waiting for them to have an accident, 5 God forbid that’s what we do next. 6 7 But my husband and I are both approaching 80. We’re retired and have been for a number of 8 years. We both go to the gym and we’re in and out all the time. Just because we’re retired 9 doesn’t mean we don’t make trips. We can’t get out of our street because it is one of the streets 10 that’s between this project and El Camino Real. So we can’t get out of the street because all of 11 your exits are going to be going right on El Camino Real. And so those people who live from 12 the project to El Camino Real are not going to be able to move. Mothers with strollers, kids on 13 bikes, people walking, we’re all at risk here. This is a substandard street. This is not the place 14 for this particular project. (Interrupted) 15 16 Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. We’re going to be a little [public applauded]. We don’t 17 do that at Planning Commission folks. We’re going to be a little bit harsh on the time 18 commitment because we have a lot of people who want to speak. So thank you. 19 20 Vice-Chair Michael: So the next speaker is Tom Wasow to be followed by Don Anderson. 21 22 Tom Wasow: Hi, I’m a member of the Board of the Community Working Group and I’m here as 23 a representative of the Community Working Group to read a resolution that we passed at last 24 month’s meeting. So it says, “Whereas individuals 65 and older are the fastest growing 25 population group in Santa Clara County; and whereas nearly 20 percent of seniors in Palo Alto 26 are living at or below the federal poverty line; and whereas the Palo Alto Housing Corporation 27 has proposed developing 60 apartments for low and very low income seniors as part of its 28 Maybell Orchard Project; therefore, the Community Working Group Incorporated fully supports 29 the proposed Maybell Orchard Senior Apartment Project and the Community Working Group 30 urges the City of Palo Alto, the City Council, and the Planning and Transportation Commission 31 to offer its full and enthusiastic approval of the proposed Maybell Orchard Senior Apartment 32 Project.” I’ll just, that’s the end of the resolution. I’ll just add I have lived in Barron Park for 33 over 37 years and I am an enthusiastic supporter of this project. Thank you. 34 35 Vice-Chair Michael: Next speaker is Don Anderson to be followed by Susan Pines. 36 37 Don Anderson: I’m Don Anderson, I live on Arastradero in Barron Park. I’ve lived there for 27 38 years. I live on the same block as the proposed project will be situated. I want to lend my voice 39 in strong support of the project, of approving the project. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t 40 noticed that we have traffic problems in the neighborhood and some safety problems that flow 41 from them. When I look within about a half a mile of where I live I can see that over the last few 42 years we have had large developments on the Rickey’s Hyatt property, on the Elks Club 43 property, there are two more enormous developments that seem to be digging in just south of us 44 on El Camino Real. There’s also a hotel around the corner that’s coming in. Something needs to 45 be done to address this, but it seems to me that it’s a little bit like trying to kill a fly with a 46 cannon to look at this tiny development that is doing a lot of social good and say that that should 47 be a focal point. I think it will generate less traffic than the alternative and I urge you to support 48 it. Thank you. 49 13 1 Vice-Chair Michael: Next speaker is Susan Pines to be followed by Kevin Hauck who is the 2 representative of a group. 3 4 Susan Pines: Hi, I’m Susan Pines. I live on Donald Drive, been there for 32 years and my 5 husband and I are both bike riders. He rides to work every day, I ride to work most of the days. 6 So we’re very familiar with the bicycle problems and issues in Barron Park, Maybell, Donald, 7 and that’s my major concern is I know you’ve done the traffic studies, but I don’t feel they 8 adequately address the bicycle issue, the bicycle/pedestrian issue. They are enormous… I’m 9 very pleased that in the period when my kids have gone to school we have a much larger 10 community of school bikers. That’s been a focus of people’s work to get more kids riding their 11 bike. They are successful, but it comes at a cost. When I leave for work I see bicyclists going in 12 about four different directions, mostly in the middle of the road. And Maybell is a real problem 13 with the cars and the bicyclists and I don’t think the traffic studies adequately address that 14 complexity. So I’m pleased that they’ve taken a lot of time thinking about it, but I think that’s 15 still a major safety issue. 16 17 And while that’s my major focus the other thing is the density and the ugliness of the density and 18 the ugliness of I thought we were going to avoid having alleyways for driveways because of the 19 Rickey’s Hyatt with the problems of too many cars and emergency access in those narrow streets 20 that are not streets. So to sum up, if we’re going to have a planned benefit or a public benefit the 21 public benefit should be to have real bike lanes on Maybell, not just sharrows. Thank you. 22 23 Kevin Hauck: Hi, I’m Kevin Hauck I’m speaking for a group of four of my neighbors. 24 25 Vice-Chair Michael: Excuse me Kevin, I’m just going to, as a representative you have up to 10 26 minutes, but don’t feel you have to use the whole time. 27 28 Mr. Hauck: Sure. Alright, I’ll try to talk fast. So there’s going to be a lot said about traffic. I 29 live in the neighborhood. All of it’s going to be true; I’m not going to repeat what’s said. You 30 know it’s a too narrow street with too many bikes, too many pedestrians, too many cars jammed 31 into one narrow lane. Stop signs getting mowed down about once a month. They’re trying this 32 fancy reflective tape now to see if they can keep those things alive for more than about 30 days. 33 We’ll see if that works. So as a parent whose kid uses that street I’m understandably nervous. 34 That said on the other hand we have this traffic report commissioned by the developer which 35 comes along and says, “Well, everything’s ok.” So I’d like to look a little bit more about, look a 36 little more into this and some of the assumptions. 37 38 So first of all as been mentioned it ignores the impact of this project and the rezoning on bicycles 39 and pedestrians. [Unintelligible] a neighborhood where there aren’t four schools nearby or the 40 street where the principle traffic increase is a safe, is a transit corridor for four schools that might 41 be ok. In this case it’s not. It completely undermines the credibility of any document, you know, 42 that represents itself as an accurate impact of the traffic impacts of this project or an accurate 43 assessment of the traffic impacts of this project. That’s, in the industry we call that a fatal flaw. 44 It’s completely flawed and anything that this thing touches has a fatal flaw. The main concern of 45 everybody here who’s opposed to the project is principally the effect on the bicycles and 46 pedestrians. The study chose to ignore it. The street does not merit that being ignored. This is a 47 street with piles of kids coming in bursts around the opening and closing bells of the school. 48 49 14 So let’s for the sake of argument, let’s spot them one fatal flaw. Let’s assume that we’re going 1 to ignore that. It’s ok to ignore bikes; it’s ok to ignore kids. If one gets hit it’s just a kid. Ok? 2 Let’s spot them that. Let’s look at the data then that they used to paint a picture of this 3 neighborhood and the traffic situation. Counter to what everybody here is going to tell you 4 tonight, people who have lived in this neighborhood, who drive it everyday, Hexagon Traffic 5 Consultants came out and took 12 data points. It’s in their Table 3 in their traffic study. 12 data 6 points. Three of them, well two of them are more than two years old so I guess it was April 5, 7 2011, two of the data points are taken, which is before this project even came into existence so I 8 guess they had some data lying around that they could recycle. Third, April 5, 2012, is the third 9 data point was taken during spring break. Palo Alto Unified School District was on spring break 10 April 5, 2012. That to me is a garbage data point. It is absolutely not reflective of the situation, 11 the typical situation or the worst situation is when school’s in session obviously. So what we 12 have here is a quarter of the data is corrupt and it’s a quite small data set to begin with. So this to 13 me is fatal flaw number two. 14 15 They smoothed the data over one hour when really the bikes come in bursts around the closing 16 bell and the opening bell of school. They gather up on El Camino Real and they cross with the 17 green light and they come in bursts and surges concentrated around 15 minute, 20 minute 18 periods. So [unintelligible] that, that’s probably a little more acceptable, but not necessarily 19 accurate. The other thing is it chooses to focus on this hypothesis known as the [Tire] Index, 20 which focuses on will it be noticeable by residents? So a street that’s already overcrowded by 21 definition is more, is easier to cram more traffic on it and claim that it won’t be noticeable 22 because there’s already too much traffic there. That’s the case with Maybell. So they’re saying 23 essentially “It’s already so crowded we’re going to put a few more cars on there, what’s the big 24 deal?” 25 26 Now the man who came up with the [Tire] Index, and I should point out it’s not discredited, but 27 he himself admits the [Tire] Index stops short of defining the threshold at which a volume 28 change should be considered unacceptable or a significant impact. The index itself does not 29 claim to be able to make that determination. Fortunately, you guys get to make that 30 determination based on the facts that you hear. So that’s essentially where we are now. 31 32 This street is too crowded, it’s too narrow, there’s too many kids, there’s too many pedestrians, 33 too many bikes. There’s stop signs getting run over about once a month. It’s a dangerous street. 34 I would say that adding any additional volume change should be considered unacceptable and a 35 significant impact. So that’s essentially the index itself doesn’t claim to make that. This report 36 bases its conclusions on this index. So we have a, we have a report that’s fundamentally riddled 37 with fatal flaws and more troubling is that staff has gone along with this. Staff has made a 38 recommendation based largely on the conclusions delivered to them by this report. So instead of 39 having a quantitative analysis that factors in our concerns about bikes and about pedestrians and 40 any of that, we get reassurances that we’ve looked at other projects in the past and there haven’t 41 been impacts. But have those other projects been on streets where the stop signs are getting 42 mowed down every month? There really isn’t any beast like Maybell until you go there and see 43 it, until you’ve been there, you live on it. It’s a dangerous place and we’re at the threshold where 44 adding any traffic is going to be bad. 45 46 So the other thing; the reason this is, you know, and why staff made this conclusion doesn’t 47 matter. What matters is the conclusion itself is based on tainted data and faulty conclusions. 48 And the staff recommendation needs to be disregarded. This Council [Note—means 49 15 Commission] needs to make up its own mind based on what it hears. Now I know these are 1 complicated issues with a lot of moving parts and it’s easy to just go with the recommendation in 2 this case, but I’m here to say it’s not, it’s not a valid recommendation in this case because it is 3 based on flawed data. To hear now that “Oh, we did look at pedestrians,” if you looked at 4 pedestrians, put it in the traffic report. Don’t give us a traffic report that ignores it and then say 5 in the open forum “We looked at this, we took this into consideration.” So, with regard to that 6 and with regard to the credibility of the staff report I guess I’d also like to point out that you 7 don’t get far in any organization by taking your bosses’ favorite project and telling them that it’s 8 full of warts and it shouldn’t be done. And why would they be under this pressure? Because the 9 City Council has already lent its weight to this project in the form of an 8 – 0 vote to put $5 plus 10 million of taxpayer dollars behind it. So they have removed any ability for the staff to make an 11 unbiased neutral evaluation of the data. 12 13 So the fact that the traffic study itself is fatally flawed in more than one way and the fact that the 14 staff recommendation relies on that traffic study as a basis for its recommendation to approve the 15 rezoning coupled with the fact that staff really isn’t in a position to make a clear neutral 16 judgment on this matter because it’s already been approved by their boss. So for these reasons I 17 ask you guys to, you know you guys can play the role of the impartial arbitrator in this case and 18 judge it for the merits that are before you. The thing that has been most maddening for me 19 personally is that I felt like we’re forced to play defense about concerns that our kids are going to 20 be in a very dangerous situation every morning and every afternoon. You know this project was 21 approved before any of these concerns were even aired. And not approved, I know that’s 22 terminology, but this project was de facto approved by an 8 – 0 vote backed by $5 million of 23 taxpayer money. So we’re forced to play defense about our children’s safety. That to me is the 24 most maddening thing. So the City has put itself essentially by aligning itself so closely with the 25 developer they’ve put themself in the role of a developer that gets to write its own permits. Now 26 how do you fight that? There’s no, how do you get a fair shake? 27 28 If you send this to the City Council, you’re sending us up against a developer that gets to write 29 its own permits. So I’m asking you guys to be the neutral body, the impartial body to rule on this 30 and I strongly urge you to vote against rezoning this project and put the burden of proof back 31 where it belongs. To put it back on, if you want to come get preferential zoning treatment come 32 forth with an honest traffic study, with an honest impact study, have an honest dialogue with the 33 involved parties, the people whose kids use that street, understand the problem, go look at the 34 street and understand that you can’t have a traffic study on Maybell without factoring in 35 pedestrians and bikes. That’s the core of the problem and it’s been ignored. So thank you for 36 your time and I thank you for your consideration. [Public applauded] 37 38 Vice-Chair Michael: So the next speaker is Dr. Maurice Green to be followed by Craig Bright. 39 Now Dr. Green represents less than five people so we’ll give you some extra time, but keep it to 40 five minutes. Well this says plus three. Do… well it says plus three. Ok, I see four hands. 41 Yeah, if we have it. I don’t know. Alright. No, 10. He’s got his whole group. 10 minutes, 42 timers and judges ready. 43 44 Chair Martinez: [Long pause] You should know your clock is ticking so… 45 46 Vice-Chair Michael: So let’s change the order, recognize Craig Bright first and then Dr. Green 47 will be second so you can get your audio/visual ready. 48 49 16 Craig Bright: Hello honorable Council [Note—means Commission]. Now my name is Craig 1 Bright and I’ve lived at Alma Place for a year. I’m 60 years old. Took me a year and a half to 2 be on that waiting list to get into that place and I just want to say it’s a great opportunity for Palo 3 Alto to extend more senior housing. 4 5 I do want to say that the public consideration that the Palo Alto Housing Corp. is providing with 6 this project I think with mitigate the pedestrian issues. I grew up on East Meadow and Alma 7 Street with the school traffic going from Terman on up to the other schools that they’re speaking 8 about and people do adjust just like we’re adjusting to the sequestering issues. I think that the 9 parents have great concerns, myself being a parent I had similar concerns, but I believe that the 10 program will work itself out and it will be a safe project. And I definitely think that Palo Alto is 11 doing the right thing by having a project like this and going forward with it. Thank you. 12 13 Vice-Chair Michael: So Dr. Green are you ready or we could move to the next speaker? So the 14 next speaker is Annamae Taubeneck. 15 16 Chair Martinez: Yeah, we really request that you do not clap, applaud or boo, hiss. Just respect 17 the speakers. Thank them when you leave. 18 19 Annamae Taubeneck: Hi, my name is Reverend Annamae Taubeneck and I am a Chaplain at 20 Stanford Hospital and I’m also a resident of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation on the Ramona 21 Street property, Oak Court property. I am a former resident of Barron Park where I lived in a 22 one bedroom apartment with my two children and was able to acquire affordable housing 23 through the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, which helped me to remain here and provide the 24 service that I do at the hospital. I’m a Chaplain at the hospital. I work there five days a week 25 and my children attend Addison and Jordan. We are consumers in the community and not only 26 consumers of regular everyday goods, but also services of other folks who live here who provide 27 services to my children. 28 29 And I am an older parent and my children won’t be with me that much longer. And I will be 30 needing to move into senior housing and I’m hoping that having been a contributor to the 31 community, having been able to live here and participate in the life here that I would be able to 32 retire here. One of the key things that is of interest to me in this property is that I’m also a 33 veteran of the United States Army, a combat veteran, and I receive all of my medical services at 34 the Veteran’s Affairs Hospital just around the corner from this proposed property. And so I 35 would be able to actually walk to the hospital and on the days that I wouldn’t be able to walk as I 36 get older they have vans that could come and bring me to my appointments. So, thank you for 37 your time. 38 39 Vice-Chair Michael: Dr. Green for 10 minutes. 40 41 Dr. Maurice Green: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I think that, I’m 42 Maurice Green. I live in Barron Square. I’m president of the Homeowner’s Association, but I’m 43 here tonight speaking for myself and my wife. We’ve lived in Barron Park now for 22 years. I 44 don’t claim to be as good, as much a veteran as many. I don’t believe that any of the 45 Commission here live in the Barron Park area, correct me if I’m wrong. So I’d like to give you a 46 more direct view of what’s going on on Maybell and in Barron Park. 47 48 17 For the past several years we have seen the results of the Charleston/Arastradero calming project, 1 which predictably drove traffic from Arastradero over onto Maybell. This is the data presented 2 originally by Jaime Rodriguez of the City Planning Department showing that the traffic on 3 Maybell, and this is combined traffic in both directions, went from 408 cars in the a.m. peak hour 4 in the spring of 2008 [unintelligible] before the project all the way up to 690 cars in the spring of 5 last year. That’s a 69, excuse me, yeah. That’s a 69 percent increase. In the p.m. hours the 6 increase was 87 percent. And most of this as far as we’re concerned was due to the calming on 7 Arastradero. Now we’re faced with yet another project which proposes that it won’t be a 8 problem, it won’t impact us, and yet there are some questions to be asked. 9 10 First of all as a senior myself I’m the last one who’s going to say that we shouldn’t have 11 affordable housing for seniors. And I think most of us in Barron Park agree on that. That point. 12 The question we’re raising is, is this the right project and is this the right place considering what 13 impact it may have. Seniors may not drive very much even in the morning hours. But what 14 about their caretakers? What about the staff that’s coming to the senior housing project to take 15 care of them? How do they get there? When do they get there and what’s as somebody has 16 already pointed out, what’s the availability of local services for these people who may wish to 17 stay active? Not close to restaurants, not close by any means especially with the closing of 18 Miki’s in another wonderful project not close to shopping. So how are they going to get around? 19 20 It was also pointed out in the staff report that the private residences which would be built will 21 have a two car garage and will have a driveway apron which will support two more cars. In 22 private residences we no longer think of only one car that is moving and multiple family 23 members drive. So we have again an increased impact which I don’t think is being considered. 24 25 If we can go and if we are going to just simply trust statistics and reports, well then I have to go 26 back to something that happened about 10 years ago when the City of Palo Alto passed the Auto 27 Dealership Overlay Zone and we supported it. We thought it was a wonderful idea because we 28 wanted to keep that money in Palo Alto, but we had to give them a little bit of concession to 29 make them happy as well. Well part of that overlay dealership agreement said that the dealers 30 shall provide for private, for space for unloading and loading cars on their own property. That’s 31 a City ordinance. That City ordinance has never been enforced on Maybell. So as Ree DuFresne 32 pointed out to you, we get things like this. As a retired reserve police officer I can tell you I see 33 about three citations there and when I call the City Community Service Officer over to see it she 34 offered to direct traffic around the vehicle. That’s just one instance. Then there was on the other 35 side of the street on another day. 36 37 And finally there was this one [public laughed]. And I wouldn’t want to be the lady on the 38 bicycle trying to go through that narrow zone. This is at the intersection of Maybell and Thain. 39 We move down the road a little further we’re going to come to Maybell and Clemo and to the 40 schools. So I’d like to give you, if I can find the right file… I think it’s this one right there. I’d 41 like to give you a little visual presentation. A picture is worth a thousand words and a video is 42 30 pictures per second. So how many thousand words am I going to be able to speak? [Showed 43 video]. 44 45 See my pointer on the screen. The stop sign at the far end that you see is the intersection with 46 Coulombe and I would also point out that when the initial traffic study was done no counts were 47 made on Coulombe even though El Camino Real to Maybell to Coulombe would be the primary 48 cut through route. This video was all done in the peak morning hour between 7:45 and 8:45 and 49 18 as Kevin pointed out and you will see, the traffic goes in bursts, not smoothed out over the whole 1 hour. You’re now looking in the reverse direction and where the gentleman is standing on the 2 far right is the intersection of Clemo and Maybell. Those are the four single family residences 3 that you see on the right. You’ve been immortalized Tim. 4 5 Chair Martinez: I don’t think I’m going to be able to stop you from applauding, so go ahead. 6 [Public applauded] 7 8 Dr. Green: If any of you would care to see it again, it’s on YouTube. 9 10 Vice-Chair Michael: The next speaker for two minutes is Lydia Kou to be followed by Richard 11 Valenzuela. 12 13 Lydia Kou: Good evening. My name is Lydia Kou and I’m speaking on behalf of the Barron 14 Park Association Board of Directors. The Board of the Barron Park Association understands the 15 need and supports the effort by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to build affordable housing 16 for seniors. However, we feel the location identified in the Planning and Transportation 17 Commission staff report at 567 Maybell Avenue is not a suitable location for such a high density 18 project and rezoning should not be approved. 19 20 The proposed development would create a significant negative impact in our neighborhood and 21 our neighboring neighborhoods. It would further increase the traffic congestion, the traffic 22 congestion experienced and endanger pedestrian and bicycle safety on Maybell Avenue and on 23 the surrounding local streets and create a density and size of housing along Maybell Avenue that 24 is out of scale with the surrounding community. Additionally it would significantly impact and 25 reduce emergency response time to any emergencies within two neighborhoods, especially those 26 emergencies which would happen during the hours of stand still traffic congestion. 27 28 I’m not going to go through the rest of how it impacts on Maybell in terms of traffic because I 29 think the audience has already said it. However, I do want to say that the Barron Park 30 Association categorically rejects statements in the traffic study commissioned by the Palo Alto 31 Housing Corporation and in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that the additional amount of 32 traffic on Maybell Avenue would not be significant. Barron Park Association specific 33 recommendation to the Planning and Transportation Commission to recommend to City Council 34 is to keep the current zoning and do not approve the proposed PC rezone. Thank you. 35 36 Vice-Chair Michael: Next speaker is Richard Valenzuela to be followed by Robin Angstadt. Is 37 either Richard Valenzuela or Robin Angstadt present? If not, Scott Souter for Tasha Souter. Are 38 Scott or Tasha Souter? Ok. To be followed by Allan Marson. So two minutes. 39 40 Scott Souter: Good evening. Actually I’ll be speaking both for myself and Tasha. 41 42 Vice-Chair Michael: Two minutes. 43 44 Mr. Souter: Ok. We want to help you make an informed decision. The stakes in the near and in 45 the long term are very high because rezoning this part of Barron Park changes what Barron Park 46 is and we love Barron Park. When I hear Barron Park I think of Niner and Perry, garden 47 railroads, and rural Palo Alto. There are people walking in the street interacting with neighbors 48 and I want to repeat walking in the street, because after all this is Barron Park. From the cities in 49 19 which I’ve lived I’ve found as population density increases anonymity also increases. My wife 1 grew up blocks from University Avenue here in Palo Alto, attended Ohlone and Castilleja and I 2 served as the Juana Briones Parent Teacher Association (PTA) President. We’re very invested in 3 community and considered many parts of Palo Alto before we ultimately settled on Barron Park 4 for its identity in which to settle and raise our children. And it’s that identity which we now feel 5 is threatened. 6 7 We know that something is going to be built, but please, please let it be Barron Park. We fear 8 oversized generic structures to merely store more people. We want whatever project goes there 9 to be the sort of project that makes architects become architects in the first place. In addition to 10 that fear of losing the social, emotional aspects of what makes the neighborhood desirable we 11 fear for our walking and bicycling safety. The traffic generated either will be significant or it 12 won’t be. If it’s not significant then there’s no reason for any egress to Maybell. If it is 13 significant then why would we put that extra traffic onto a bike route or a school route? The 14 message that sends to our kids is that their safety is not paramount and shows an unwillingness to 15 do everything we can to value them and their safety even if it is just putting one less car on a 16 school route. And even worse than passing an opportunity to not put one more car on a school 17 route is to actually adds traffic to a school route. 18 19 [And if you’re the community is at] a disadvantage because so much of what we’re responding to 20 is not quantifiable in the short term as a mandate or money so please let’s have the foresight and 21 respect to really make this Barron Park, keep it Barron Park because we’re in your hands and we 22 need your help. I hope you have a better understanding of what we fear and what we love and 23 how much we need your help in keeping Barron Park Barron Park. Thank you. [Public 24 applauded] 25 26 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. Next speaker is Allan Marson to be followed (interrupted) 27 28 Chair Martinez: We only applaud for the movies, please. Thank you. 29 30 Vice-Chair Michael: Allan Marson to be followed by Eugene Zukowsky. 31 32 Allan Marson: Well I’d like to thank the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak 33 tonight. Oh, sorry about that. Is that better? I was going to speak to several points, but I think 34 others will cover them better than I can so let me just talk about my personal experience. So my 35 wife and I moved into the area in 2001. We raised two sons. We used the Barron Park School 36 but we live in Barron Square, which means we’re right across from the Walgreens. We have the 37 spurts of traffic passing right in front of our driveway. I won’t talk about what it’s like around 38 Juana Briones, but on my way to work I typically avoid even leaving Barron Park, sorry, Barron 39 Square during the time those spurts are coming because it’s just dangerous. It’s nervous, nerve-40 wracking to drive through that area when all those bicycles and pedestrians are passing. 41 42 The other point I’d like to make or one other point is that I am a cancer survivor and also a 43 transplant survivor, bone marrow transplant. I have used the, I’m a patient at Stanford so I have 44 used the emergency services. I have had those large vehicles come in to pick me up and it’s very 45 difficult to imagine what would happen if one of the seniors experienced an emergency during 46 the school rush hours. How would you get those vehicles in there? The risk looks quite 47 daunting. 48 49 20 Also one final point I’d like to mention is that I work for, I lived for many years in a city that has 1 endless rows of three and four story apartment buildings that’s [Tibe? Tyebay? Tibee?] given 2 the changes that are taking place in Barron Park, very nice housing, certainly support 3 development, but endless rows of those three and four story apartment buildings create an 4 environment that really is not very livable. Now this isn’t at that stage yet, but if you approve 5 continued projects that violate or not violate but that are contrary that require exceptions to the 6 zoning regulations we’re headed toward that result. Thank you. 7 8 Vice-Chair Michael: Thank you and the next speaker is Eugene Zukowsky to be followed by 9 Carol Kibler. 10 11 Eugene Zukowsky: [Speaks off microphone] I’ve been ably represented elsewhere 12 [unintelligible]. 13 14 Vice-Chair Michael: Thank you Mr. Zukowsky, so moving to Carol Kibler to be followed by 15 Janet Negley. 16 17 Carol Kibler: So I’m Carol Kibler and I live on Coulombe, one of the streets that is now been 18 majorly impacted. I’ve been a Palo Alto resident since the 1960’s. I’ve lived on Coulombe for 19 the last 19 years. The traffic is horrible. It’s gotten worse since the Arastradero project. I can’t 20 imagine what yet one more project is going to do to the street. The kids already come down. I 21 feel like it’s hard for me to even get out of my driveway in the morning let alone sometimes in 22 the afternoons just on my little street let alone I absolutely hate to go down Maybell. Maybell is 23 horrible for the mere things that these kids are on bikes and you feel like you’re going to hit one. 24 You feel like you’re not quite sure that they’re not going to zig when you zag. It’s a place that 25 needs a lot of help and does not need one more bit of traffic. 26 27 If the people think that everyone’s going to go out on Clemo they’re wrong because going out 28 onto Arastradero from Clemo is just as scary as Coulombe and worse because there’s not a light 29 there. I’ve had elderly parents that lived in the Tan Plaza and have gotten in accidents. They are 30 just trying to get out of their own street there, let alone adding more traffic. So these families 31 and seniors and whoever is caretaking are going to go out through the apartments and go onto 32 Maybell because that’s an easier exit with all of the traffic then that you’ve added let alone the 33 stop signs that keep getting mowed down at the corner of Coulombe and Maybell. I don’t know 34 how there hasn’t been a fatality let alone many accidents. I don’t see how it hasn’t happened. 35 It’s been a miracle, but it is going to happen and I’d appreciate not having it happen. 36 37 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you very much. Next speaker is Janet Negley to be followed by 38 Ruth Kaufman. 39 40 Janet Negley: Hi, I’m Janet Negley and I live on Willmar. I’ve lived there for 18 years. And I 41 won’t be one more person to tell you how bad the traffic is, but I would like to suggest that the 42 community is not trusting of some of the solutions that are being put forward by PAHC because 43 we were told on the Arastradero project that this would help our safety issues in the community 44 and they’ve actually slowed traffic on Arastradero but made our safety issues on the surrounding 45 streets much worse. 46 47 Part of the four feeder schools include one grade school, a middle school, and a private grade 48 school, but also a high school, Gunn High School. And the students there do not follow the 49 21 safety rules. They barrel through stop signs when they are on their bikes and they use our 1 particular little cut through in order to avoid about 100 feet of Arastradero, which can take you 2 five minutes during peak hours. They will barrel through our neighborhood going 30, 40 miles 3 an hour and we have a very small, short, rounded street. Now on Maybell some of the proposed 4 suggestions are to put in a bike lane. I don’t believe there’s the width to do that if you wanted to 5 be able to have two cars pass each other unless you knock some of the existing houses down, not 6 the four that are being, not the four that are part of your property parcel. So my sum up, I see my 7 sum up light here is yes for senior housing, not for high density in this particular site and let’s 8 make safety be first. 9 10 Vice-Chair Michael: Thank you. Next is Ruth Kaufman to be followed by Craig Bright. 11 12 Ruth Kaufman: Hello. I live on the other side of Arastradero in Green Acres One. Quite frankly 13 most of us were unaware of any of this. I’m speaking as a senior myself. It’s very costly and 14 expensive. My children moved here from Colorado. They couldn’t find a house so they are 15 renting it at an exorbitant rate, but my mother as a senior moved here 20 years ago from New 16 York. She said, “Fine, I’m coming. Two questions: I need an affordable place and I need to be 17 able to walk to a grocery store or a pharmacy or see people in the neighborhood.” We have 18 nothing like that off of Arastradero. Absolutely nothing. They will be dependent if they cannot 19 drive themselves on the vans that come in and pick up seniors to take them places. This adds 20 traffic. 21 22 We were told that when Rickey’s was demolished and rebuilt we were told on Alma Expressway 23 that we’re going to have public benefit. There has been none. Poor Miki’s went bankrupt, but 24 18 houses were built. Starbucks is there. What’s the public benefit? When you look for a place 25 to put senior housing it should be near a supermarket, near a pharmacy, near someplace where a 26 senior can walk to without even thinking about getting in a car. Thank you. [Public applauded] 27 28 Vice-Chair Michael: Our next speaker is Craig Bright to be followed by Lydia Klussman. Oh, 29 Lydia Klussman is next then followed by Jane Sideris. 30 31 Lydia Klussman: Hi and good evening. I’m Lydia Klussman and I live in the neighborhood. I 32 live on Los Robles. I also am a parent. Closer? I can’t, is that better? 33 34 Vice-Chair Michael: Yeah, just talk into it real loud. 35 36 Ms. Klussman: Ok. So I live in the neighborhood and I’m also a parent so I have children that 37 also attend the schools. I have a son who goes to Terman. So as to traffic there is a lot of traffic 38 on Maybell, but that is for short times and I do not believe that the seniors would add to that. 39 The seniors I think would actually really enrich the neighborhood. I look forward to having 40 them at the park and interacting with the children and sharing stories, etcetera. And so I don’t 41 really think that the traffic would be what should stop this project. I just think they would be 42 very enriching. 43 44 And there’s a Walgreens on Maybell, so there is definitely a pharmacy as well as groceries 45 available to the seniors. It’s minimal at Walgreens, but the pharmacy is right there. El Camino 46 Real is very close. They can take the buses to the grocery store or doctor’s appointments so they 47 really would not need to be driving all the time. And that’s it. Thanks. 48 49 22 Vice-Chair Michael: Ok. So the next speaker Jane Sideris is the representative of a group and 1 we’ll give you more time. No? Ok, so Jane Sideris, just me. Ok. 2 3 Jane Sideris: But I do have something to say. I’m Jane Sideris. I live on Georgia Avenue. 4 5 Vice-Chair Michael: Two minutes. 6 7 Ms. Sideris: Georgia Avenue is also impacted by a lot of traffic and we’re getting a lot more 8 traffic because they come up Maybell and drop their kids off at the back of Gunn High School 9 and then make U-turns and turn around and go back down Georgia Avenue and Donald and 10 Maybell. So we have been impacted as well with this so called calming. It even started before 11 that. 12 13 Also I don’t approve of the process. One person has mentioned that they didn’t even know about 14 this. When I went to pass out leaflets many people said, “I’m not even aware of this.” 15 Especially over in Palo Alto Orchard, which is very, very close to Arastradero and to Clemo. So 16 they didn’t know anything about it. I think that your process for notifying the neighborhood was 17 very poor and I went to a lot of meetings starting last fall and went to the Architectural Review 18 Board (ARB) and realized they were already deciding on the color of the windows. And I didn’t 19 even know that it had been approved by you. Then I found out that you already loaned them the 20 money. Why did they buy a piece of property before they even knew if they could afford the 21 building? If they can’t afford the building and have to shove in three, 15 three story houses or 22 how many ever is three stories, then I don’t think they should build this until they can afford it. 23 And you can have the neighborhood decide with them what it’s about. 24 25 And if I were a senior I wouldn’t want to be inside that compound with all these three story 26 houses and the Tan Apartments and the other place on the other side with all this, these 27 driveways and cars. What a terrible place to live! If you’re going to build a senior center put 28 some grass and some trees around them and forget about the houses. If you’re going to build the 29 houses, do it like you did on Homer. Build the houses and have a lovely park in front of them 30 like you did with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. I think it was poor planning and you didn’t 31 let the neighborhood know in time. [Public applauded] 32 33 Chair Martinez: Ok you all, I feel like I’m losing control here. So let’s try to hold the applause 34 down. 35 36 Vice-Chair Michael: So next speaker John Elman to be followed by Robert Hessen who is a 37 representative of a group. So Mr. Elman for two minutes. 38 39 John Elman: And by the way Jane meant to end her presentation with the word “Damn it.” And 40 she brought up this notion of a land locked project. These people are going to have to take a 41 helicopter to get out of there. If they can’t go out on Clemo and they’ll never get onto 42 Arastradero, I don’t understand it. I’ll tell you one thing as kind of a punch line to this. If you 43 could return Arastradero to the way it was five years ago you would lose half the objectors to this 44 project because we could come and go. I’ve lived in my house it’ll be 50 years on Green Acres 45 One, a hundred yards off Arastradero it’ll be 50 years in August and I until 5 years ago I didn’t 46 even know how many stop signs there were on Maybell. I’d never been on Maybell or go 47 through Georgia or Amaranta now to get someplace. A lot of us have to; when we leave our 48 neighborhood can’t go through Arastradero. 49 23 1 The seniors need a place to go. El Camino Real has a Jiffy Lube, 9 Minute Lube, Quick Lube, 2 well over a dozen hot sheet motel operations. The only new place that we have that the City has 3 given us in all these many decades is the Walgreens, but that can’t be everything. The reason 4 that Clemo has that block is that when those of us who worked on that park many years ago and 5 the City wasn’t going to give it, we had to fight hard to get that park, is that the kids had chased 6 their ball out into the street and the parents had to have those who came to meet their friends in 7 the area had to park on Clemo and [unintelligible]. You can’t open up Clemo to traffic, that’s a 8 park. That’s part of the park really if you go look at it. 9 10 By the way I suggest to you that you come over to our southwest quadrant of the City and see 11 what we need and what we have. The man from Stevenson House he failed to mention you cross 12 the street from Stevenson House there’s a supermarket, a barber shop, a cleaner, an ice cream 13 store. They got all those things. We have none of that over here. [Public applauded] 14 15 Vice-Chair Michael: So Mr. Robert Hessen. You’re representative of a group. We’ll give you 16 10 minutes if you need that much. 17 18 Robert Hessen: It shouldn’t take 10 minutes to if I avoid repeating points that have already been 19 well made. My name is Robert Hessen. I live for 40 years on Georgia Avenue in Palo Alto. I’m 20 retired from Stanford, but my wife God help her is still working and has to go out in the morning 21 on Maybell to get to El Camino Real to go south to Mountain View Library. And it is hellish to 22 drive into the sun and into an armada coming this way of bicycles and cars. It scares the wits out 23 of her. I’ve occasionally gone with her just to reassure her and it doesn’t work. There’s too 24 much traffic there. 25 26 Well this proposed project we’ve been told contradictory things, which annoyed the hell out of 27 me because we were told first that all the traffic in the new project would come out on 28 Arastradero. Now Arastradero’s already a parking lot in the morning from El Camino Real to 29 Foothill Expressway it inches along because of this damn corridor which was made to slow 30 traffic down. Well it succeeded beautifully in that objective. Now we were also told that no, 31 there won’t be any traffic onto Arastradero, which of course has no light there and it’ll be 32 impossible to make a left turn to go to El Camino Real. You take your life in your hands. Now 33 we’re told the barrier at, currently at Clemo and Maybell will be moved; moved to the 34 Arastradero so people will have to go out on Maybell and Clemo. And then were told tonight, 35 no, no. The barrier’s remaining at Clemo. Well if any of you has ever driven an SUV you know 36 that an SUV just goes over that barrier without even scraping. You don’t, you’re going to have 37 to put a moat in there with piranha to keep people from going over that barrier or widen it. 38 39 But I also care deeply because my children spent a lot of time playing there for Juana Briones 40 Park. Right now there are nine parking spots on the street in front of Juana Briones. We’re told 41 tonight for the first time they’ll be no parking permitted on Maybell. Where the hell will people 42 park if they are coming to Juana Briones to take their children to play or their dogs to run in the 43 field? 44 45 Where did this notion come from that 59 units could be built and people would not have to go 46 out to shop or they wouldn’t go to the library, they wouldn’t go for a blood test, medical exams, 47 to visit friends and neighbors? Or are we going to have a quarantine that the elderly can’t come 48 24 out of the house until say the rush hour is over in the morning? Like a curfew, they can only 1 come out after 10:00 a.m. and they must be back in their shells by 2:00. It’s really quite hideous. 2 3 And no one has mentioned Terman. When those kids come pouring out, I came home from 4 marketing yesterday and faced a flotilla of kids on bicycles. They are quite indifferent by virtue 5 of being teenagers. They are immortal they know and cannot be hurt and their bones are made of 6 rubber and therefore they can do whatever the hell they please and they do! They are indifferent 7 to safety and unless that area is carefully policed there’s going to be a fatality and we’re going to 8 have hundreds and hundreds of people wearing black arm bands and saying “Oh, what a pity this 9 should’ve been foreseen,” but it hasn’t been. 10 11 A final point and then I give up my time. We’re told the largest growing segment of the 12 population of Palo Alto is the elderly and the poor elderly. We’re building 59 units. Assume 13 that each of the units is occupied by a couple rather than by a single widow or widower or a 14 single person. How big is the ocean of which this is going to be a drop in the bucket? How 15 many more hundreds of people if as the population ages, how many more people are going to 16 need to be put into affordable housing built by the City or underwritten by the City in advance of 17 any study of future impact? What the hell does 59 or 59 times 2 even do if we don’t know the 18 total pool or the eligible pool of people of people who will be coming along wanting to be 19 housed in subsidized affordable housing? Tell us is this the elephant putting its toe in the tent? 20 What other areas will be impacted? Is Atherton having to give up land for affordable housing? 21 Is Menlo Park? Is Los Altos Hills? Is Los Altos? We’d like to know why we seem to be down 22 in our quadrant of Palo Alto we seem to be treated with disrespect, given contradictory 23 information, and generally treated like stepchildren. Thank you. [Public applauded] 24 25 Vice-Chair Michael: So the next speaker is to be Dana Souter to be followed by Jean McCown. 26 27 Dana Souter: Dear Planning Commission, my name is Dana and I am nine years old. And I think 28 it is nice that you are giving seniors affordable housing, but I don’t like where you are putting it 29 because it on school bike routes. I want to bike safely to school, but it is not safe. Please think 30 of kids like me. Thank you. [Public applauded] 31 32 Vice-Chair Michael: And thank you very much. Jean McCown is the next speaker. 33 34 Jean McCown: So you never want to follow a child. That’s in the theatre anyway. I’m Jean 35 McCown. I am a Board Member of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. I want to speak to two 36 questions, the density issue and the trip issue. 37 38 Over the past decades the City has approved many affordable housing projects and it is been 39 evident that higher densities are simply necessary to achieve the affordability. Hundreds of units 40 have been provided all over Palo Alto demonstrating how these higher densities can be achieved 41 in attractive facilities that are compatible with their neighborhoods. Some examples of other 42 senior complexes and their densities: Palo Alto Commons is 65 units to the acre; the Sheraton 43 Apartments near California Avenue is 66 units to the acre. The Maybell project as proposed is 44 54.5 units to the acre if you only consider the senior parcel itself. If you look at the whole zone 45 in total with the single family then the unit count the per acre count would be 30.5 units to the 46 acre. 47 48 25 Now there are clearly are very low net new trip numbers projected here for the peak periods. 1 And because there have been a lot of questions understandably about that I did try to look for 2 other studies of senior projects to see how other projects are being evaluated here and around the 3 country. And some of the reports that I found are also referenced by the city in the staff report. 4 The ITE paper which looked at particular projects and data found that the peak hour volumes of 5 a facility occurred at lunchtime and midafternoon. Caltrans data indicated the peak hour 6 occurred between 11:00 and 4:00 depending on the facility. These peak hour times do not 7 coincide with the peak hour of adjacent street traffic because the residents do not want to or have 8 to travel during the rush hour. 9 10 Here we have one bedroom attached apartments with a manager living on site with an age 11 qualification of 62 years and income levels at the lowest range. It is not surprising that these 12 tenants would be expected to generate a low level of trips in general and very few in the morning 13 and evening peak periods. Thank you. 14 15 Vice-Chair Michael: And thank you. Next speaker is Barb Luis to be followed by Elaine Heal. 16 17 Barb Luis: Ok, so good evening. My name is Barb Luis and I live on Donald Drive. I’m 18 actually a native Palo Altoan and a 10 year resident of Green Acres Two. Now the fact that I’m 19 a high school history teacher means that in about 30 or 40 years I’m probably going to need 20 affordable senior housing. So I understand the concern. I understand the City finding this lot 21 and thinking let’s put those two things together. But when my parents were my age they were 22 here imploring the City to stop selling land, the school land for development. The conventional 23 wisdom was that well there’s declining enrollment and we need to get money for the City. The 24 problem with that was that it was based on bad data. And the concern of the neighborhood as I 25 see it is our same shared concern of bad data today. 26 27 We implore you to stop this plan and reconsider and take a more clear look at reliable data. 28 Developing the parcel is appropriate. It’s expected. Developing senior housing would be 29 fantastic, but the plan as it is is untenable. So with history as our guide let’s just remember that 30 sometimes conventional wisdom is not always wise. [Public applauded] 31 32 Vice-Chair Michael: The next speaker is Elaine Heal to be followed by Margaret Bard. 33 34 Elaine Heal: Hi, my name’s Elaine Heal. I live on Arastradero Road in that 100 feet of 35 Arastradero Road that takes five minutes to travel in the morning as previously described. And I 36 have four kids who I walk across Arastradero on the crosswalk that’s at Arastradero and Clemo 37 every morning taking my kids to Juana Briones. And then I cross the intersection that was 38 shown in that video earlier that has no crossing guard and where we get nearly pummeled by cars 39 and bikes every morning. 40 41 And like others I’m not going to reiterate the issues with bike and pedestrian traffic with the 42 traffic study. However I did want to point out that this area is somewhat unique especially 43 Arastradero as opposed to Maybell because it also contains many kids biking to school, walking 44 to school, and driving not only to school at Terman and Gunn and other schools, but also driving 45 up to the business parks that are at the other end of Arastradero in the morning. So there really is 46 sort of a sub peak hour that I don’t think was really identified in the traffic study. Sort of, maybe 47 it’s even a half hour; the 7:45 to 8:15 time where I will not leave my driveway because I can’t. 48 49 26 And one other concern I have is that this facility now is geared toward seniors and the parking 1 spaces and traffic impact was studied as such. But if at some point this unit, the facility is 2 opened up to non-seniors that could have a devastating effect on both parking and traffic and I’m 3 not sure that we have assurances that the facility will sort of forever be used for what’s described 4 here. I just have no way of knowing one way or the other how that, the future use of the facility 5 will be. And with that I’ll implore you to consider rejecting the rezoning. Thank you. 6 7 Vice-Chair Michael: Next speaker is Margaret Bard to be followed by Bonnie Packer. Is 8 Margaret Bard here? Is Bonnie Packer here? 9 10 Bonnie Packer: Good evening Chairman Martinez and Commissioners. My name’s Bonnie 11 Packer. I live on Stone Lane in South Palo Alto. My kids both biked to Gunn on Maybell and 12 my son when to Hoover when it was in Barron Park so I feel very much a part of Barron Park. 13 And I understand the traffic problems on Maybell. But as a former Planning Commissioner I 14 know what it’s like to sit up there and listen to so many different viewpoints on an issue and also 15 to listen to all the emotion that comes and how it’s easy to be swayed by that. But I urge you to 16 overcome that and to concentrate on the very good data in the staff report. 17 18 One of the things though I noticed by all the comments of the opposition and their concerns 19 about traffic is one that these problems exist today and the new project, the proposed project is 20 going to have a very minimal impact. What they don’t seem to realize is this project doesn’t 21 happen and a private developer comes in and builds the 34 housing, let’s even forget the density 22 bonus. Let’s say up to 34 single family houses that can have up to two, four cars whatever. 23 Family houses that will have more traffic impacts on Maybell as shown in the staff report. It 24 would just exacerbate the problems that have already been talked about today. So it’s really 25 better for Barron Park to go with this PC, which has an obvious less impact on Maybell than to 26 let it stay its existing RM15 zoning, which could result in a worse impact. 27 28 So you know this is a well-planned, appropriately located, very much needed project and it’s a 29 great buffer. Ok, so I urge you to support this PC application. Thank you. 30 31 Vice-Chair Michael: Thank you. Next speaker is Mila Zelkha to be followed by Nisar Shaikh. 32 33 Mila Zelka: Hello, Mila Zelka. I’m a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, a neighborhood 34 with its own share of traffic issues being surrounded by Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School 35 (JLS), Fairmeadow, Hoover, and several other schools. I also happen to be a Board Member of 36 the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, but tonight I’m here speaking as a parent of two young 37 children who are in school. They will be driving on their bicycles in four years to Gunn High 38 School. And I support this project because I believe that my children would be safe and it offers 39 much needed affordable housing in this community for residents who have been working and 40 renting long term. So I urge you to support the approval of this project. 41 42 Vice-Chair Michael: Next speaker is Nisar Shaikh to be followed by Salit Gazit. Is, are either of 43 those two people present? Next speaker is Richard Valenzuela. Ok, Bill Reller. Patricia Saffir? 44 Excuse me. Followed by Rosa Dell Oca. 45 46 Patricia Saffir: Patricia Saffir. I’m speaking tonight for the League of Women Voters of Palo 47 Alto. Chairman Martinez and Commissioners, the Palo Alto League of Women Voters has a 48 long standing position in support of providing diverse economic housing opportunities in Palo 49 27 Alto. We urge you to approve the Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s request for a zoning change 1 to Planned Community for Maybell Orchards Project, which will provide 59 units of affordable 2 senior housing and 15 single family homes at 5, well, at Maybell Avenue. There are a large 3 number of senior citizens in Palo Alto whose income would qualify them for affordable housing 4 and who are currently on long waiting lists. Retaining these residents and providing them with 5 high quality, low cost housing is in the best interest of Palo Alto community. Land suitable for 6 such projects is hard to come by in Palo Alto. This is a rare opportunity for affordable senior 7 housing, which should not be missed. 8 9 The Palo Alto Housing Corporation as we all know has been building and managing affordable 10 housing for 40 years and has an excellent reputation. Time is of the essence for the Palo Alto 11 Housing Corporation to qualify for tax credits for the project, which are necessary for the project 12 to move forward. So we urge you to approve the zoning change. Thank you. 13 14 Vice-Chair Michael: And thank you. Next speaker is Rosa Dell Oca to be followed by Bob 15 Moss. 16 17 Rosa Dell Oca: Good evening. The City of Palo Alto has a unique opportunity at this defining 18 point to mitigate the traffic conditions posed on Maybell and Arastradero. We heard tonight that 19 the bollard on Clemo would not be changed; however, the easement to the Arastradero 20 Apartments as well as the new egress from the apartments onto Clemo, onto Arastradero both 21 impact as you’ve heard the safe routes to four schools as well as to the park. It was pointed out 22 the fact that Clemo is basically part of the park. I’ve taken my six year old there when she was 23 two years old and we didn’t worry so much when she approached that street because basically 24 nobody is really there. 25 26 I think it is a great opportunity for the City to provide affordable housing, but without impacting 27 the aesthetics and the safety of our neighborhood. This neighborhood has a historic 28 characteristic. My parents moved here in 1970. Of all the communities in Palo Alto, they chose 29 Barron Park because for the both primary education and secondary education one is able to walk 30 or bicycle. Barron Park has always been environmentally friendly. As you’ve heard we bicycle, 31 walk, scooter everywhere. But we are in the streets. And if the cars are not able to park on 32 Maybell they will park on the adjoining streets. They will park on Thain, on Pena, on Georgia, 33 on Baker, on Amaranta, and on Able and therefore you will just push the issue onto these streets 34 where the children originate, having to dart in and out of parked cars and as you’ve heard it’s 35 difficult to see these children. 36 37 I’d like to also mention, that hasn’t also been mentioned is that at various times Juana Briones 38 has groups of disabled children that are taught at the school and also they use the park. And they 39 come over on their caregivers arms, in wheelchairs, and in walkers. And I would just urge you 40 to reassess the safety of this project. Thank you. [Public applauded] 41 42 Vice-Chair Michael: And thank you. Next speaker is Bob Moss to be followed by Jennifer 43 Fryhling. 44 45 Bob Moss: Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. First thing I want to point out is that 46 the private streets in this project are illegal. If you look at the drawing it shows that there’s a 47 driveway 22 feet wide and an alley 26 feet wide. However, since there are 16 separate 48 properties, 15 single family homes plus the senior development this must have a 32 foot wide 49 28 minimum private street. That’s the law. I wrote it. That means that the size or the number of 1 units is going to have to be reduced. No argument, do it. 2 3 Second, the project as proposed violates two established Council principles. The first one was, 4 which was established several years ago is that single family zones will not be increased in 5 density. R2 is a single family zone. This project increases the density from approximately 4 6 units to approximately 12 to 15 units, tripling the density. Violation of a supposed policy. 7 8 Second, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has said they want to have properties 9 within a quarter mile of El Camino Real upzoned. The City Council took a strong position that 10 they were not going to increase the density and the zoning within a quarter mile of El Camino 11 Real, especially in single family zones. This property is more than a third of a mile from El 12 Camino Real. So upgrading the density is a really lousy priority or principle because it’s going 13 to make it very hard to fight ABAG and prevent them from forcing increases in density in the 14 single family homes and neighborhoods adjacent to El Camino Real. 15 16 Finally, I want to talk about senior housing and the need for that. We have two projects under 17 construction right now. Palo Alto Commons is approximately doubling its size and that’s on El 18 Camino Way and then we have that ghastly project at Alma and Homer, which is about 50 19 Below Market Rate (BMR) units for seniors. And the Moldaw project has almost two dozen 20 senior units for BMR’s which have been vacant for years. If there’s such a need for low income 21 senior housing why don’t we need more in this location? 22 23 And the last point I want to make is I’ve been following developments in all sorts of projects in 24 Palo Alto for almost 40 years. I have never seen a project that has had more community 25 opposition than this one. Learn from that. [Public applauded] 26 27 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. The next speaker is Jennifer Fryhling to be followed by 28 Trina Lovercheck. 29 30 Jennifer Fryhling: Good evening Commissioners. I’m representing a group, so I think it’s 10 31 minutes. So I agree with everything that’s been said about traffic and safety so I’m not going to 32 go into that, but I am going to focus on some things that haven’t been as emphasized. And the 33 four things are: the incompatibility of the neighborhood this project projects; the street parking; 34 the lack of public benefit for PC zoning; and the inadequacy of the notice. 35 36 So incompatibility with the neighborhood; so right now there are four single family homes and 37 an orchard. So in the place of the four single family homes that are one story the project will 38 replace it with 9 single family homes. They’ll squeeze it in where there’s four. And of those 9, 39 7 of them are going to have three stories high and the ones on Maybell will only be, will only 40 have 12 feet setbacks. And in between each house is only eight feet between them. So we, 41 under current R2 zoning they would be required to have a 20 foot setbacks, two stories, and they 42 would have to have more distance between them and of course 6,000 square foot lots at least. 43 But what’s being proposed is 2,500 to 3,500 lots. So what we have instead of 4 single family 44 one story homes we’re going to replace it with a wall of 9 tall, skinny homes right up against the 45 street. And on the other side is going to be another 6 of the three story homes. So there’s 46 nowhere else in Barron Park that there are three story single family homes. This is very unusual 47 and this is what is being asked. 48 49 29 I also want to address the 60 units. It is so dense in scale and size. Right now the law is RM15, 1 so that’s 15 units per acre. The developer wants to build 60 units on one acre. That’s on one 2 acre. So that’s four times the density currently available under RM15. The developer compares 3 itself to Tan Plaza and that is 61 units, but that’s over two acres. And APAC [Note—not sure??], 4 the Arastradero Park, their sister complex, that’s 65 units and that’s over three acres. So what’s 5 being proposed here on one acre is 60 units, four stories high, four times the density that’s 6 currently allowed with RM15. So that is a new precedent that is being set for housing 7 allowances for RM15 to be increased fourfold to 60 units on one acre. 8 9 The complex will be 50 feet high with the stairwell. Current zoning on RM15 is 30 feet high. 10 So that’s two-thirds higher than what it should be currently. The abutting APAC property is only 11 two three stories and has deep setbacks. It is across three acres and it’s surrounded by trees. 12 This one is going to be surrounded and closed in by 15 tall, skinny houses. If APAC is a model 13 than the new complex should be cut in half. It is totally out of scale, too immense, too dense, 14 and too high on one acre. So I ask the Commissioners and the City staff if they would like to 15 volunteer the lot in front of their house for this property? They can look at the nine tall, skinny 16 houses, 12 feet setbacks, and the fifty foot 60 unit complex and that could be their view every 17 day. Because the view I see when I walk up Maybell is the foothills and now that is being 18 endangered because of this big, high, tall project. 19 20 I’d also like to talk about street parking. The staff report recommends a no parking sign in front 21 of what is now the four single family homes and that that’s going to reduce the conflict with 22 bicycles and pedestrians. I think the mitigation is insufficient. First of all I want to look at 23 APAC. So the APAC property I walk by and see every day; 24/7 street parking. The cars and 24 commercial vehicles are always there because I see it every day I’ve taken photographs at 25 different times. They are always there. I speak with residents there and I say why is there so 26 much street parking? They are allotted one lot, one spot for each unit and many of them they say 27 have two or three cars, so that is why they park in the street. The rest of the community has to 28 bear the burden of PAHC not originally providing enough onsite parking at APAC. Street 29 parking leads to narrowing Maybell so bicyclists get pushed out into the middle of the road and 30 have to maneuver around all the parked cars. PAHC should address the problems at APAC if 31 they genuinely want to mitigate parking impact with their new proposed project. 32 33 Second, the PAHC seem to be recreating the same scenario at this proposed 60 unit development 34 by providing only 42 spots for their tenants. They assume that seniors are not going to drive and 35 that transport services are going to come in. But PAHC hasn’t addressed how it will 36 accommodate any increase in demand for parking. Rather again the public has to 37 disproportionately bear the burden of all additional cars that don’t get spots on the property to be 38 parked on the street, just like APAC. It is very plausible that there could be up to 120 more cars 39 in the senior unit if a couple lives there and they both want cars and they’re active and live active 40 lifestyles and drive. Forty-two spots is providing for about one-third of the possible parking 41 needs that could be reasonably needed by tenants at a 60 unit complex. APAC [Note—she says 42 APAC twice in this sentence does she mean PAHC] should provide more parking onsite 43 especially given the lessons learned from the misassumptions made at APAC and where there’s 44 clearly inadequate onsite parking and is providing a tremendous burden on the neighborhood and 45 the increased safety risks with so many bicyclists and pedestrians that use Maybell. The public 46 should not have to disproportionally bear the burden of APAC’s inadequate onsite parking 47 allotments for its seniors there. 48 49 30 The staff report also proposes red painting 65 feet on Clemo. Now the problem there is they’re 1 taking away a public benefit. And that is that people use Clemo to park and visit Briones Park. 2 All of Palo Alto benefits from this because there are sporting events and practices held there 3 practically every night, AYSO, Little League. So they’re eliminating parking on Clemo and 4 taking that public benefit away from the people that want to visit the park. So it is, I believe it is 5 unfair that a disproportionate burden of the proposed high density project is being passed onto 6 the neighborhood and residents of Palo Alto. PAHC should accommodate for the inevitable 7 parking problems when its tenants don’t have a place to park onsite and will take away parking 8 that is available for visitors to the park and the rest of the neighborhood. The lesson should be 9 learned from their sister property APAC, where they have big parking problems. 10 11 I also want to talk about the lack of public benefit for PC zoning. So PC zoning says that 12 [unintelligible] is allowed where the development of the site under the provisions of the PC 13 Planned Community will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by applicable by the 14 application of regulations of the general district. And the cited benefits are 60 affordable 15 housing and a small sidewalk segment that connect Briones Park and the APAC property. So 16 first, so one acre is zoned for RM15 and that could be provided for affordable housing. So that 17 we can still provide the public benefit of affordable housing. The neighborhood supports 18 affordable housing, but that is not the issue. In fact we have several low income housing in our 19 neighborhood. We have Arastradero Park Apartments, Terman Apartments, Treehouse, Oak 20 Manor, and Buena Vista. The problem is the size and scale of 75 housing units and the severe 21 environmental impact that do not outweigh the public benefits of affordable housing when the 22 same can be achieved under current zoning with just a reduced number of affordable housing 23 units on one acre. 24 25 The second is the small sidewalk segment that is being proposed on Maybell where the four 26 single families are. The problem is that that only connects the sidewalk from the park and the 27 adjoining APAC property, but after the APAC property there is no sidewalk. And after the park 28 there is no sidewalk. So there’s really little public benefit by offering just filling in one segment 29 of Maybell with a sidewalk when there’s no continuous sidewalk from up and down Maybell. 30 31 Finally on the inadequacy of notice I agree with Jane Sideris here that the notice is inadequate. I 32 know that the City claims that they gave 60 feet within the project notice, but if you look at the 33 topography there, right next to the project is Briones Park, which is very large. And then you’ve 34 got Tan Plaza, then you got the school, the playground, and then you’ve got the APAC property. 35 So there’s a very small area that is giving notice to the rest of the single family homes. So I 36 implore you please vote no for the rezone. [Public applauded] 37 38 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. Thank you very much. Trina Lovercheck to be followed by 39 John Fredrich. 40 41 Trina Lovercheck: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Trina Lovercheck. I’m a resident 42 of Barron Park and I have lived there for 35 years and in Palo Alto for 45 years. I support the 43 Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s plan to provide 60 units of affordable housing plus the single 44 family homes. There are very few spaces where such a project could go in Palo Alto. I value 45 having the diversity in our community both by having a range of people economically and by 46 age. I think that’s really important that we keep that in Palo Alto. Many senior citizens are on 47 long waiting lists while they wait for low income affordable housing. We’re heard tonight 48 numbers about how many people that entails. I don’t want to see Palo Alto become a place just 49 31 for well to do people. So I urge you to approve this project and not let this opportunity slip 1 away. Thank you. 2 3 Vice-Chair Michael: So John Fredrich followed by Robert Neff. 4 5 John Fredrich: Good evening Commissioners and friends, members of the community. My name 6 is John Fredrich. I live on La Para Street [Note—Avenue?] in Barron Park. I’ve lived in Barron 7 Park almost 10 years now and in the City for almost 50 years now. I’ve been a candidate four 8 times for City Council, so I’m informed somewhat on the zoning issues and in fact I first ran 9 before Barron Park was part of the City. It was County land back at that time in the Seventies. I 10 taught in the community for 30 years, the last 20 of which at Gunn. And I don’t envy your 11 position this evening. It’s one of these issues where I think the good is being held hostage to the 12 perfect and I acknowledge the traffic problems, particularly those on Arastradero, but I do think 13 the reasons for this project and the granting of the PC zoning is well within your authority and it 14 provides a substantial and perhaps immeasurable contribution to the public good over the 15 lifetime of the project. 16 17 My mother lived in subsidized housing, Menorah Park in San Francisco for nearly 30 years. She 18 lived to be 99. During that time she could not only serve as president of the association there, 19 she did volunteer work at the VA Hospital and her earlier work as a teacher and a librarian that 20 meant that she had a limited income allowed her to live in a place like that. And it allows more 21 than just one group of people because the 60 units rotate over and over again. 22 23 So I think there’s no question about the public good here, which it seems like we keep backing 24 up into the traffic problem. And I consider the traffic scheme on Arastradero poorly conceived, 25 poorly executed, and poorly evaluated. And those 10,000 vehicles per day that were predicted to 26 go elsewhere have gone into the neighborhood. And because that study did not meter the traffic 27 on La Donna and on Laguna and the streets in that area there’s a difficulty in assessing it now. 28 But as the bike paths are developed, and that’s another issue pending there is adequate areas to 29 solve the traffic problem, but I don’t think it can be solved with a one lane each way Arastradero 30 scheme (interrupted) 31 32 Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. 33 34 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. The next speaker is Robert Neff to be followed by Art 35 Liberman. 36 37 Robert Neff: Hello Commissioners, my name is Robert Neff and I’m a resident of South Palo 38 Alto. I frequently bicycle on Maybell and Clemo on my way to work and of course my kids 39 went to Gunn High School and they would bicycle along Maybell also. I’m speaking in support 40 of this project. I think the affordable senior housing will be a valuable addition to this City. 41 Also if you consider the traffic and school impacts that would happen by doing nothing, by 42 allowing the current zoning and the amount of housing that could be built with just the current 43 zoning and no, without doing this project I think this will have less impact than doing nothing. 44 And in general I think the new proposed parking restrictions and the sidewalks for Maybell will 45 be a small improvement for pedestrian and bicycle safety at least in this short section of the street 46 where the development will affect it. Thank you. 47 48 32 Vice-Chair Michael: Thank you. Next speaker is Art Liberman to be followed by Richard 1 Evans. 2 3 Art Liberman: Good evening, my name is Art Liberman. I’m a Barron Park resident. I’m the 4 President of the Barron Park Association, but I’m speaking just as an individual. The position of 5 the Board of our Association was presented very eloquently recently just a few minutes ago by 6 Lydia Kou. 7 8 I personally want to express the opinion that I reject the current plan from the Palo Alto Housing 9 Corporation, but I heard Mr. Williams say that there can be some adjustments and I want to 10 suggest one. I sent in a comment to you that called for a reduction by a factor of two the single 11 family homes on Maybell and Clemo. Scaling that down to no more than two stories with 12 standard 20 foot setbacks. This would make the single family homes compatible with the 13 surrounding neighborhood and I think it probably would get enough money for the Palo Alto 14 Housing Corporation to subsidize this plan. Single family homes in Barron Park are going for $2 15 million plus. There was one that just went on the market for $5 million. So I don’t know how 16 much money they need to have to subsidize this project. I think it would be helpful if they were 17 a little bit more transparent in their needs for this market rate housing because of the fact that the 18 City Council, we are fronting some of the money for the proposal. 19 20 I’m not going to talk anymore about the traffic and safety issues, because that’s been expressed 21 already, but I do believe that a smaller single family cluster five along Maybell, three along 22 Clemo along with an affordable senior facility would actually result in less traffic than if a 23 project of market rate homes were to be built to currently allowed zoning on that site. 24 25 I just want to make a few final comments about the character of the residential neighborhood. 26 And I attended the Council meeting on Monday where you presented your outlines to the 27 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. For the Housing Element your first goal, “Ensure the 28 preservation of the unique character of the City’s residential neighborhoods.” Your third goal, 29 “Meet underserved housing needs and provide community resources to support our 30 neighborhoods.” For the Transportation Element, “Protect neighborhood streets that support 31 residential character and the range of local transportation options.” Your fifth goal, “Provide,” 32 Transportation Element, “Provide high level of safety for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists 33 on Palo Alto streets.” 34 35 The Transportation and Housing Elements do not exist in isolation one from the other. Honor 36 your own goals. Think really hard before you approve a rezoning. This project does not satisfy 37 all of these goals. Thank you very much. [Public applauded] 38 39 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. Richard Evans to be followed by Jim Jurkovich. 40 41 Richard Evans: I’m Richard Evans. I also live in the Maybell corridor on Thain Way. I wanted 42 to make a remark on the public benefit and the disproportionate burdens that the project has on 43 the residents on Maybell. Public benefits are citywide. The City should bear the cost of creating 44 those benefits by reducing the density of the market rate units to be compatible and I agree with 45 the set off requirement it is not compatible with the neighborhood. 46 47 The other thing you’ve heard is an indictment of past City activities and neglect of this important 48 school corridor. The traffic issues are significant. I also bicycle sometimes with Robert because 49 33 we work at the same place and it’s bad, it’s going to get worse. It’s unacceptably bad now and it 1 has to be addressed and I think that you’re going to find opposition to any development in that 2 area unless the City steps up and addresses the Safe Routes to School issues, which it hasn’t. 3 4 On the north side of the street there is a sidewalk that goes all the ways to Barron, to Briones 5 Elementary School. However, kids don’t use it because the City decided to save a Redwood tree 6 and put it in the middle of the sidewalk and then have this narrow little path around it. So the 7 kids say, “I’m not going to bother with that, I’m just going to go down the street.” And on the 8 other side as you’ve heard from several people for your senior citizens who want to walk to 9 Walgreens they are going to be in the middle of the street as soon as they get past the housing 10 authority property because there are no sidewalks until you get to the Walgreens property. If 11 you’re going the other way from the housing authority now, the children there now are risking 12 contact with automobiles because as soon as they pass Briones Park, which they have to do, they 13 have to be in the middle of the road to get to the crosswalk to go to school. These issues [they 14 sure have been] neglected by the traffic portion of the City have to be addressed if you want to 15 restore the trust of this neighborhood. Thank you. [Public applauded] 16 17 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. Next speaker is Jim Jurkovich to be followed by Josh 18 Walker. 19 20 Jim Jurkovich: Good evening. My name is Jim Jurkovich. My wife and I live on Willmar Drive 21 in the Green Acres neighborhood and we’d like to also say that we feel that this project is 22 inappropriate for that area. We recognize the traffic problems. We commute daily on Maybell 23 Avenue and we feel that a project adding more traffic to Maybell is not worth the effort. 24 25 Something that hasn’t been discussed in the traffic reports is ingress and egress. It seems like all 26 the traffic report discusses is just the number of cars added to the flow, but as you add more in 27 cars ingressing and egressing out of the project you’re really going to add to congestion and 28 slowness of traffic in that neighborhood. 29 30 But the real question I’d like to ask the Commission here is why this property was chosen for a 31 project of this size. It seems like in the last few meetings no one has answered why this project 32 has to exist at this location. There are I think other alternatives. It seems like this project is 33 being proposed for this site just for the purpose of satisfying a potential ABAG requirement that 34 says you need to provide certain number of low income housing units in Palo Alto. We’re not 35 against having low income housing. I think we’re just against having a project that’s this dense 36 in a neighborhood that’s primarily an R1 zoned neighborhood. So I think the question to you as 37 members of the Commission would be are there other alternatives that provide low income 38 housing to the City that can be fitting in a neighborhood that supports the density that’s desired. 39 40 Another alternative is don’t require the density that you’re requesting in this proposal but instead 41 scale it down. Still have the low income housing for seniors so you won’t have traffic problems 42 and you can have something that fits the neighborhood and will fit policies that are set up by the 43 City housing plan, which is to have projects that fit the size and scale of the neighborhood. 44 Thank you. 45 46 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. Next speaker is Josh Walker followed by Phyllis Cassel. 47 Mr. Walker? Phyllis Cassel followed by Marlene Prendergast. 48 49 34 Phyllis Cassel: Phyllis Cassel and I’m speaking for myself this evening. I think a point of order 1 to begin. The reason we don’t clap is not to scare people who might want to speak. So it’s 2 urgent that people respect other people so that they feel comfortable when they speak. 3 4 My point is the first three are the Housing Element that’s just been passed by the Planning and 5 Transportation Commission emphasizes the need for small size units to reduce the number of 6 children. I’m not sure that part of it is legal, but that was the goal. Senior units to meet the 7 increased number of seniors in the community and affordable housing. This is affordable senior 8 units. 9 10 We have to be careful about what we want. It is really important to consider what the alternative 11 will be. This piece of property was for sale, it was purchased, if nothing happens on it it will be 12 sold again and other projects will be built. So people must consider what the alternative is. 13 Remember the project where Miki’s is now. It was proposed at least twice to be a large family 14 food store and it got turned down by the City in one way or another and in place of that is what 15 you have now. The property was for sale and it will be again and it will not be a situation of 16 having no traffic on Maybell as a result. 17 18 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. Marlene Prendergast to be followed by Edie Keating. 19 20 Marlene Prendergast: Good evening. I’m Marlene Prendergast. I live on Chaucer Street in Palo 21 Alto and I’m the former Executive Director of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. And before 22 that I was an Assistant City Attorney in Palo Alto doing mostly land use planning, development, 23 subdivisions, and environmental law, and also in the City of San Mateo. So I have been 24 participating one way or another since about 1981 in the question of affordable housing in 25 various communities and it’s always the same. It’s always like this. There’s a big crowd and it 26 is not the right site for this particular project. 27 28 But seniors do not create traffic. Single family homes do not create as much traffic as big 29 developments of condominiums. So the Palo Alto Housing Corporation has I think about 13 30 projects in Palo Alto and they are all over town and they are scattered in every section of town 31 and each time we went through this and each time we made it through and now there are no 32 problems. The projects exist. For the most part people don’t know where they are. They are 33 good looking, the people are nice who live in them, and things are fine. So that’s my perspective 34 and I hope you’ll keep it in mind. 35 36 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. Next speaker is Edie Keating to be followed by AJ 37 Lumsdaine who is representing a group. 38 39 Edie Keating: Hi, Edie Keating. I hope as you consider this that you will keep in mind and 40 separate what are the existing problems and what are the incremental addition to those problems 41 that will come from this development. Existing problems, if there needs to be more bicycle 42 police enforcement of the students commuting that should be pursued. If traffic calming is 43 needed to address cut through traffic, that should be pursued, but to say that because all of that is 44 there that this project should not go forward, I don’t think that’s correct. And as many prior 45 speakers have pointed out, compared to a project within the current zoning this project will have 46 far fewer impacts. 47 48 35 Some asked who will want to live there. The Stevenson House site is larger and it’s really 1 beautiful. It’s like living in a garden. And this site will also have a garden. This site will allow 2 you to walk to the Walgreens. If you’ve made it to Walgreens you’ve made it to the 22 bus and 3 that takes you to all kinds of medical centers and also to all kinds of shopping centers. So that 4 adds a lot of mobility. 5 6 It’s been interesting to hear Palo Alto Housing Corporation referred to as the developer, because 7 that’s not how I think of them. For profit developers set rates as high as they can and raise rents 8 whenever they can. Palo Alto Housing Corporation will offer starting rents as low as they can 9 and will only raise rents when they must. We need more affordable community serving housing 10 in our community and we just can’t get enough of it owned by Palo Alto Housing Corporation. 11 These 60 units of senior affordable housing are a benefit to the whole community that you should 12 not pass up and the project that’s being proposed as so many speakers have said is safer and less 13 impactful than any feasible alternative. So I hope you will be very rational and approve this 14 project. Thank you. 15 16 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. Next speaker is AJ Lumsdaine. I’ll give you 10 minutes for 17 your representing a group followed by Elaine Dai. 18 19 AJ Lumsdaine: Ok, good evening. Sorry, I’m not used to this so I’ll be reading. Sorry about 20 that. First of all I want to say that the neighbors really support Palo Alto Housing Corporation. 21 We do have several projects in our neighborhood that are integrated. We have friends in those 22 places and there’s not an opposition to Palo Alto Housing Corporation or Below Market Rate or 23 affordable units. I wanted to make that point because someone on the Palo Alto Housing 24 Corporation sent out a newsletter to all the different sites asking people to come to this meeting 25 because a vocal group of neighbors had come out to oppose affordable housing. And it said 26 nothing about that this was a rezoning meeting and the specific concerns of the neighbors and the 27 rezoning. 28 29 I also want to say that the neighborhoods biggest problems are actually with the market rate units 30 more so than the senior complex. In fact if Palo Alto Housing Corporation were to build 40 units 31 instead of 60 and then maybe get their other 20 units by renegotiating the empty units at Moldaw 32 that have been empty for three years, that would give 60 units and it would make the neighbors 33 happy and it would be a way, and looking at the market rate units and making them more 34 compatible with the neighborhood, that would be a good compromise. 35 36 I do want to make one correction though. Everybody keeps saying that you could build 15 37 market rate units per acre under RM15, which is true. But the Comprehensive Plan actually lists 38 under multi-family residential, which is what that is that the density should be on the lower end 39 of the scale. So RM15 is actually 8 to 15 units per acre and since that little patch there with the 40 Tan, Arastradero, and the Orchard are surrounded by R1 and in an R1 region according to the 41 Comprehensive plan it would really be 8 units per acre. So that whole project would really, 42 should really be under the Comprehensive Plan 20 to 24 units, but I think people would accept 43 that if it was a senior complex that that would actually be preferable at 40 than otherwise. 44 45 But my real reason for speaking tonight is for the sake of safety. People forget about safety until 46 the worst happens. I mean saying that nobody has been killed yet is not a reason not to take 47 safety seriously especially since there are numerous tales of children who have actually been hit 48 or who have themselves run into cars. But my big concern actually has to do with emergency 49 36 safety because I have lost my home in a natural disaster. The, I called the Chief of Operations 1 this week, the Fire Marshal. And he said that he had not been apprised of any of the concerns 2 that I expressed. 3 4 As you all know the big concern is that the proposed development would sit right at the juncture 5 between the only two routes in and out of our neighborhood: Maybell, which is substandard 6 width and Arastradero between El Camino Real and Foothill. That same stretch of Arastradero 7 also happens to be the only route of egress and ingress for all of the neighborhoods east of 8 Arastradero between Arastradero and the creek. Both routes are designated Safe Routes to 9 School and often heavily congested with car, pedestrian, and bike traffic as you’ve heard. Do 10 you even know how many people are affected by this? Putting more traffic on Clemo increases 11 the very real possibility that both driveways for the Fire Department on Arastradero could be 12 blocked and delay emergency response to the area. That Fire Station serves not only the 13 immediate area but also the hills. It could also delay emergency response to the schools and the 14 neighborhood. 15 16 When neighbors inquired about the safety concern at the April meeting Palo Alto Housing 17 Corporation representatives said that they had checked into this and that the Fire Department said 18 there was no problem and that it met code. But when I called the Fire Marshal, the other Fire 19 Marshal, Rich Dean, this week he told me that he had been called by some group representing 20 the developer some time ago and they asked if there would be a delay in getting to the 21 development and he said no, it’s across the street from the Fire Station and that’s it. No one 22 involved with the development had studied or followed up on the concerns about delays of 23 emergency services to the neighborhood and schools because of traffic gridlock or additional 24 traffic from the project. 25 26 There are other safety concerns because of this site’s particular circumstances than just traffic. 27 They include: increasing congestion at a bottleneck of egress and ingress to our neighborhood 28 and all the neighborhoods to the east of Arastradero including several schools and how that will 29 impact evacuation and emergency response since all of these neighborhoods have limited access 30 routes; and increasing congestion in the neighborhood including the very real possibility of 31 blocking both entrances of the Fire Station on a daily basis leading to emergency response delays 32 or even failures. Given such limited routes of egress from the neighborhood, meaning basically 33 Maybell, which is I’ve already said that. 34 35 And given that we live in earthquake country and fire is a huge threat following earthquake and 36 that we have had such a spate of high density building in the area in the last few years already at 37 a minimum we are overdue for a risk assessment to map out an egress network in case of 38 emergency. This should be done before any high density building is done in the neighborhood at 39 all. Has the City considered how the neighborhoods and schools would evacuate if there were a 40 disaster along the Arastradero pipeline, which runs up our, we have a major one like broke in 41 San Bruno up along, up under Arastradero. The only outlet for the neighborhood then is 42 Maybell. The only inlet for emergency responders too. In the San Bruno disaster as bad as it 43 was only eight people died because they were relatively, there was relatively good egress and 44 ingress for responders, even amateur responders. In the Oakland firestorm a few dozen people 45 died almost all because of preventable egress and ingress issues, things that neighbors had been 46 complaining about already before the fire similar to what we have here in this neighborhood 47 actually. 48 49 37 Egress is already so compromised in this area it’s unsafe to put a large development right at that 1 bottleneck. The issue should be studied before anything at all is built there. It may very well be 2 that given the site’s location at a traffic bottleneck infrastructure constraints, traffic congestion, 3 and existing and planned project impacts building on that property at all at this time could pose a 4 safety threat, a public safety threat to residents in the area. I personally feel and many in the 5 neighborhood prefer for the site to become a much lower traffic use with significant public 6 benefit, such as a community orchard or a playing field. Give us a chance to raise the money. 7 We will do it. 8 9 I called the Palo Alto Fire Department’s Chief… oh yeah, I already said that. Sorry, it’s hard 10 when I’m reading. We live in earthquake country and as I said already the biggest risk of loss of 11 life and property after an earthquake is fire. Green Acres One and Two and all the 12 neighborhoods to the east of Arastradero Road have limited routes of ingress and egress both to 13 evacuate residents and for emergency responder access. Nobody talks about this. In Oakland 14 frankly the reason that they lost 3,000 homes instead of a few dozen that they lost in Berkley was 15 because they had three inch hose couplings to the hydrants and it was predictable that there 16 would be delays if there was a big fire, but they decided that they could hand out adaptors 17 somehow and mutual aid was parked on the freeways and unable to water down houses because 18 they didn’t have what was predictable and predictably needed in a disaster. 19 20 One other thing I also think hasn’t been said is that one thing people keep saying that a regular 21 project, a regular market rate project would pose more risks, but seniors actually statically 22 unfortunately do pose a higher risk of collision with bicyclists and pedestrians. They are also 23 more likely themselves to be killed as pedestrians. And nobody has actually looked at the risk 24 per trip. Even while we’re questioning the actual trips nobody’s looked at the risk per trip. So I 25 would ask you to consider delaying looking at the approval of this until things have been studied 26 much more carefully. I think the City could leave itself open to significant liability if it doesn’t. 27 Thank you. [Public applauded] 28 29 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. The next speaker is Elaine Dai to be followed by Lisa 30 LaForge. 31 32 Elaine Dai: My name is Elaine Dai and I live on Able Avenue. I sit on the Juana Briones 33 Elementary School Site Council although I’m not representing them speaking, I’m speaking as 34 an individual, but I’m aware of information as to what happens at that school and how people get 35 into and out of that school on a daily basis. I know you’ve heard a lot today about traffic and 36 safety, particularly bike and pedestrian safety. I think when we as a community constantly sort 37 of encourage parents and families walk to school, reduce carbon footprint, save the environment, 38 all those are really good things and we want to support those kinds of causes, but when you see 39 the things that you do, that that video so finely showed, every single day it’s horrific. You know, 40 it’s unimaginable what could possibly happen. 41 42 I personally witness all the time due to lack of contiguous sidewalks, it’s a sidewalk on this side 43 of the road and then in order to get to the sidewalk on the other side of the road you’ve got to 44 cross it again and on the other side… all along down Maybell it just makes not really a whole lot 45 of sense. And so kids are forced to like be on Maybell and also because of what’s happening in 46 the surrounding streets we see a lot of really terrible things on Georgia. For much of last year 47 there was a policeman parked at Georgia and Amaranta just sort of stopping cars from going 48 there. There is a lot of dangerous U-turning at that intersection and they’re all being pushed 49 38 there because of what’s happening on Maybell. And so I guess where I’m very concerned is I 1 feel like there are a lot of contradictory pieces. So we hear from the City walk to school. And 2 yeah, it’s a Safe to School Route and yeah, they want to put up a project that hasn’t really, I 3 believe or not logically looked at the concerns. 4 5 Just to end, we’re not against low income housing. We’re not against senior housing, but we 6 want to be reasonable and we want to be responsible. There are some options that I’ve heard 7 today in terms of reducing the scale and the size. It’s not to say don’t do it because you’re going 8 to lose it and it’s going to be fair market housing; it’s to reduce the scale and the size and also to 9 let the people know in the neighborhoods what are the alternatives. I don’t have access to that 10 data. I’m an individual, but why don’t you open up some of the possibilities? Why don’t you 11 tell us what has been looked at? I think that would help a lot towards restoring the neighborhood 12 and the greater community’s trust in what’s happening here. 13 14 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. Next speaker is Lisa LaForge to be followed by Joe Hirsch. 15 Is Lisa LaForge still here? Joe Hirsch to be followed by Dean Park. 16 17 Joe Hirsch: As the previous speaker said, this should not be characterized as neighborhood 18 versus affordable housing. We have plenty of high density housing in this area, some of which 19 Marlene Prendergast and I worked on as far back as the early Eighties like the Terman 20 Apartments and we’re getting more. What I object to and many people object to is the scale and 21 intensity of the project and from the appearance that it’s already a politically done deal 22 notwithstanding what the neighborhood feels. The proposed project is simply too intense. The 23 site is zoned RM2 and RM15 and in my opinion is properly zoned for what it is and where it is. 24 And I sat in your position for eight years as I was on the Council, on the Commission and a 25 Chairman for one year, but I sat there for eight years. 26 27 I go back and look at the definitions of the zoning, excuse me. RM15 low density multi-family 28 resident district is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas for a mixture of single family 29 and multi-family housing which is compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby. 30 RM30 medium density multi-family residential district is intended to create, preserve, and 31 enhance neighborhoods for multi-family housing, not single family, with site development 32 standards and visual characteristics intended to mitigate impacts on nearby lower density 33 residential districts. Projects at this density are intended for larger parcels, should provide their 34 own parking spaces, and meet their own open space needs in garden apartments or cluster 35 developments. Marlene and I worked together collaboratively to have the Terman Apartments 36 near the Terman Middle School be those garden type apartments. 37 38 This does not meet the parking requirements that will be needed. Seniors drive. I’m 74. Bob 39 Hessen, John Elman, who’s the third one I’ve got here? Bob Moss and I are all in that cohort. 40 We all drive. We have two cars in our family. We spend a lot of time on the road including time 41 at 7:00, 7:30 in the morning and it’s a major difficulty to get through to where I have to go and 42 get back on Maybell. And I don’t use Arastradero Road as much as I used to before. This 43 property is properly zoned and should be developed along that zoning in the future, not the 44 RM30, which is in essence being proposed as the spot zoning through a PC application. Thank 45 you. 46 47 Vice-Chair Michael: So the next speaker is Dean Park to be followed by Debi Snipp. Is Dean 48 Park here? Debi Snipp to be followed by Steven Rosenberg, which is our last card. 49 39 1 Debi Snipp: Oh, second to last. My name’s Debi Snipp. I moved to Barron Park 14 years ago to 2 Los Robles. We passed on living at Stanford and the tranquility so that we could be part of a 3 neighborhood and walk to school. I have a fifth grader and a second grader and I drive them 4 school to Juana Briones. I don’t have factoids, I don’t have numbers, I have anecdotal… people 5 are passionate because this safety issue is real and I live five blocks from my school. Ok? I 6 drive my child to school because he has severe Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 7 (ADHD) and I cannot, it makes me obviously very upset. 8 9 I don’t know how many of you have walked through our neighborhood in the morning and 10 afternoon. I don’t know how many times we can repeat there are no sidewalks in Barron Park. 11 People walk through the street. And what has been failed, what I did not hear about in your 12 traffic study are all the side streets. Does anyone know about the accident that happened on 13 Encina Grande and Campana last week? That flipped a car, mom and two children in the back 14 because the increased traffic that’s coming through the side streets. Verdosa, Campana, Florales. 15 People are bypassing and that’s not being talked about in these studies and it’s pissing me off. A 16 car was flipped! Two kids with… and Stacey Ashland and I helped get them out and get them 17 [unintelligible]. They were a block away from their house. They got hit by a car coming up, 18 zooming off El Camino Real to bypass all these streets. 19 20 I live on Los Robles. The last year the traffic increase is obscene. And I don’t, I want low 21 income housing. I live across from the Buena Vista Trailer Park. I don’t have a problem with 22 low income housing, but this is the wrong spot for it and I’m not going to have to repeat 23 everything I said. Pay attention to the bypassing traffic that is coming through our neighborhood 24 that has no sidewalks. Thank you. 25 26 Vice-Chair Michael: So the next speaker is Steven Rosenberg and then we have a card from 27 Laszlo Tokes who will be the last speaker. 28 29 Steven Rosenberg: Hello, my name is Steven Rosenberg. I’ve lived in Palo Alto for about 31 30 years. I live on Amaranta Avenue at the Los Robles end. I’ve put one child through Juana 31 Briones, Terman, and Gunn and I have two more in the system. 32 33 You’ve heard a lot about the community benefits from Palo Alto Housing Corp. and no one is 34 disputing the need for low cost housing and affordable housing as many of the Barron Park 35 residents have said. But what we’ve also said is the project is too dense and the traffic issues are 36 too great. That there’s a very real negative benefit to our community in going ahead with this 37 and that is real. And we’ve pointed out the flaws in the traffic study. 38 39 The responses have generally been to either wave their hands and point to studies that are not 40 appropriate and done in our neighborhood to address the situation or to look at the situations of 41 the bikers, the walkers, and so on or to be frank about it, to engage in emotional manipulation by 42 waving the flag of how important it is to create this particular housing unit to meet the goal of 43 low cost senior housing regardless of the impact. So I would urge you to put aside the emotional 44 manipulation and focus on the very real impact on the neighborhood, the flaws in the original 45 traffic study, the size of the building, and so on and make an informed decision. 46 47 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you and Laszlo Tokes for two minutes. 48 49 40 Laszlo Tokes: I’m Laszlo Tokes and I live on Thain Way. Proper city planning for present and 1 future needs of the City is not limited to providing more housing, but has to ensure also adequate 2 infrastructure for the projected growth in population. The proposed Maybell development 3 reflects a tunnel vision which focuses entirely on compliance with regional ABAG requirements 4 at the expense of the infrastructure needs of the City for, and which includes safe transit to 5 schools. 6 7 With four schools on this short stretch Arastradero and Maybell this is the highest density of 8 schools anywhere in the City. The City can plan for senior housing at various locations, but the 9 students will have no alternatives but to use Arastradero and Maybell for their transit to these 10 schools from South Palo Alto, which constitutes the majority of the students. If they have to 11 cross the railroad tracks at Charleston and East Meadow choking the traffic by the massive 12 senior housing development in this critical section of Maybell is an irresponsible planning. 13 Mixing adult senior traffic in an irreversible way to the already overcrowded Maybell is bound to 14 cause accidents and when these accidents, these predictable accidents will occur will you be 15 ready to live with the knowing that you personally have been involved and contributed to the 16 cause of these tragedies by putting higher priority on ABAG perks and developers profitability 17 than on the security of our children? Please consider this when you cast your vote. Thank you. 18 19 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Yes, thank all of you for coming and let’s give everybody a round 20 of applause. [Public applauded] The applicant is afforded in our process three minutes to give a 21 summary statement or one of your representatives. 22 23 Ms. DeWit: I just wanted to clarify some of the questions that were coming up while people were 24 speaking. So one of them was parking, the parking ratios and again the average for senior 25 housing is around .5 and our project is actually at a .7 parking ratio. So we feel we are definitely 26 parked for our properties. Again, people were talking about proximity to transit as well as 27 proximity to amenities. I just want to point out that the bus 22, 88, Rapid 522 are all within a 28 two to seven minute walk from the property. El Camino Real is within a quarter mile. Someone 29 mentioned a third mile. It’s a quarter mile, so we actually are in that corridor for where there 30 should be higher density housing. 31 32 In addition the services that are nearby, yes, the Walgreens is there that a few people have 33 mentioned just down there on El Camino Real. There’s also the Barron Park Market, there’s the 34 Euro Mart all within a mile. In a little bit over a mile there’s Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, 35 Safeway, all within again close proximity. Briones Park is right across the street, which is 36 perfect for our residents. Do we want to mention some traffic? 37 38 Ms. Hunt: One of the commenters mentioned that one of the traffic counts was taken during 39 spring break. And I’ve heard that before and I can understand why because we always go out 40 and check and make sure we aren’t counting because it would be an obvious flaw. And I finally 41 realized why the date in the table that was referred to was incorrect. It was not April 5, 2012; it 42 was April 5, 2011, and in 2011 that was not during spring break week. And one of the other 43 intersections was also counted in 2011. The same date 2011 that date is correct in the table. The 44 actual count sheet from that count is in the Appendix of the report. You’ll see the 2011 date 45 there. 46 47 Also there’s a lot of comments about existing traffic problems there. We did observe very heavy 48 usage among bikes and pedestrians. The traffic analysis is done according to the City’s 49 41 methodology and the City sets standards in terms of what is a significant impact both on 1 intersections, which is related to the level of service and the delay and on the increase in traffic 2 on a residential street segment, which is evaluated according to the [Tire] index. The City sets 3 forth criteria, not the developer of the [Tire] index as far as what’s significant. The City has used 4 criteria when evaluating past projects that says a .1 increase in the [Tire] index, which is the limit 5 that is genuinely thought to be perceptible by residents as what is considered significant. And 6 the increase in project traffic is well below that level. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Thank you. I think the Commissioners may have questions for you and give you 9 a chance to respond. I’m going to close the public hearing at this point and bring it back to the 10 Commission. Do you want to take a five minute break or should we just keep going? With your 11 indulgence, please give us five minutes. No more than that. We’ll be back. 12 13 The Commission took a break. 14 15 Chair Martinez: Anybody that wants to stay, take your seats. I think the Commissioners have a 16 number of questions for staff and for the applicant. I’m going to begin with mine to Steven 17 Turner. We don’t really say in the Housing Element that we want to build housing without 18 children, do we? 19 20 Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: No. 21 22 Chair Martinez: Good. Thank you. Commissioners, questions? Commissioner Panelli do you 23 want to give it a start or do you want a minute? Just questions, clarifications. We want to make 24 sure that we start with a clear understanding of what it is that’s being proposed, what are the 25 comments made both in the staff report and by the public that really need some clarification. 26 Commissioner Panelli. As much as you want, it’s only 9:15. 27 28 Commissioner Panelli: I probably only have 45 minutes worth of questions. No, I’m kidding. 29 I’m kidding. I’d like Senior Planner Wong to just walk us through the scenarios because there 30 are certain possibilities for this site that are by right that would never even come in front of this 31 Commission. And so something’s going to be built and you have a section in the staff report that 32 talks about if it were done as R2, if it were done as RM15, and if it were done as Village 33 Residential. Can you just walk us through those scenarios a little bit deeper? I really want to get 34 into understanding exactly what would go here if this doesn’t go here. By right. 35 36 Mr. Wong: Absolutely. Yes, as mentioned the existing zoning is R2 and RM15 would allow up 37 to a maximum of 34 units and since if somebody decided to come in and develop those at that 38 density it is allowed by right. The Planning and Transportation Commission is hearing this 39 because it is a rezone, but if somebody comes in with a 34 unit subdivision they could get it by 40 right and it would just go to the ARB. It would not need to come to the Planning and 41 Transportation Commission. 42 43 Commissioner Panelli: Ok. 44 45 Chair Martinez: Can I do a follow up to that? And what about the section in the Comprehensive 46 Plan that recommends 18 to 15 that 8 would be more on the side that would be approved by the 47 City? Is that also discretionary or is it by right that the developer could do up to 15. 48 49 42 Mr. Wong: I believe that is more of a guideline versus any type of (interrupted) 1 2 Mr. Williams: Yeah, I think the discretion for the Commission and ultimately for the Council is 3 once you get into an application before you force some change in zoning or site and design or 4 something like that if it’s not then staff has no discretion to say 8 versus 15 on it as long as it’s 5 meeting the code requirements for height, setbacks, and all those kind of things. There’s no 6 discretion other than what the design of the homes looks like and that’s the Architectural Review 7 Board that looks at that. 8 9 Commissioner Panelli: And then let me just so that everybody has the same understanding here, 10 let me make sure I understand this. If PAHC said instead of using this site for senior affordable 11 housing let’s use this site for working families affordable housing they would be entitled to the 12 35 percent density bonus. Is that correct? 13 14 Mr. Wong: That is correct. 15 16 Commissioner Panelli: And those could be conceivably three unit buildings, three bedroom 17 buildings? 18 19 Mr. Wong: Yes they could be. Yes. 20 21 Commissioner Panelli: And then I’d like to ask the applicant a question. I want to understand in 22 your senior affordable housing facilities versus your working families affordable housing 23 facilities what is the average tenancy for each one? 24 25 Ms. Gonzalez: The average tenancy (interrupted) 26 27 Commissioner Panelli: The average number of residents in each unit. 28 29 Ms. Gonzalez: So it depends on a multi-family property, a family property like next door we can 30 have two per bedroom plus one. So a three bedroom could have up to seven residents. 31 32 Commissioner Panelli: So let me understand this. Under what would be allowed by right with 33 the 35 percent bonus you could conceivably have 47 units with seven people in each unit? 34 35 Ms. Gonzalez: Yes. 36 37 Commissioner Panelli: Ok versus… and that’s by right. We would not… Senior Planner Wong 38 am I correct we would not have any discretion over that? 39 40 Mr. Wong: That is correct. 41 42 Commissioner Panelli: Ok. And then in your senior affordable units what is the average number 43 of residents per unit? Is it like 1.1 or something like that or what is it? 44 45 Ms. Gonzalez: For most of our senior properties we have for example 57 unit Sheraton property 46 and we have 66 residents total. So (interrupted) 47 48 43 Commissioner Panelli: So like 1.3, 1.2, yeah. Great. Thank you. The reason I’m asking these 1 questions and I am absolutely sensitive to the traffic issue. Some of the speakers mentioned 2 something that I’ve mentioned before in the past, which is the whether it’s perception or reality 3 that there’s a North Palo Alto bias. Believe what you like. I actually live in South Palo Alto. I 4 probably live further south than anybody else in Palo Alto. I can see the Mountain View boarder 5 outside my balcony. So I know how bad Arastradero can be especially when I’m trying to get to 6 280 going north. It’s, or anywhere on Foothill or in the business park up there. 7 8 The issue and I think we’re conflating two things, the issue I see here is your comparing what 9 the, many in the public who are opposed are comparing the current, what the current traffic is 10 with nothing developed on that site to what this project is. And I think what we need to do is to 11 say there is nothing that we can do to stop development on this site. There are certain densities 12 by right. We have to compare it to what the traffic impact is going to be for this project versus 13 what the traffic will be by right for a project by right on that property. And that’s what I’m 14 trying to get down to is sort of understanding that a little bit better. 15 16 Just to remind everybody I actually when this came up to us, was it in March? I think when it 17 was in March to initiate PC I voted against it. I voted against it primarily for two reasons. One, I 18 felt rushed on it. These PC’s I take them very seriously and I like a little bit of more time to 19 think about it after I’ve gathered facts from the meeting that night. But secondly, and I think 20 most importantly is I think these kinds of facilities if they’re going to be transit oriented to me 21 transit oriented doesn’t meant just a third of a mile proximity, and I know there’s this debate a 22 quarter or a third. It’s a quarter of a mile as the crow flies. It’s a third of a mile going down 23 Maybell. Should be close to in my opinion both bus, transit, and train, but also there should be a 24 significant number of amenities that are very close by. And so my preference was to see 25 something like this somewhere between El Camino Real and the Caltrain corridor and preferably 26 closer to one of the train stations, but that’s not the project in front of us. And what we’re being 27 asked to vote on tonight is this project. We need to make a decision based on what would go 28 there if this project doesn’t go there and that’s what in my opinion is in front of us. 29 30 The, you know what? For now I’m going to let my colleagues talk and we can come back 31 around to me for my, a second round. Thanks. 32 33 Chair Martinez: That was a good start. Thank you Commissioner. Any, I really want to sort of 34 do a round of questions to sort of clear the air of… yes, Commissioner Alcheck. 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck: I think it would be helpful if we can get the slide up that is of the table 37 on Page 11 of the staff report. If that’s not possible that’s fine, but I’m referring to the table on 38 Page 11 of the staff report. The question is for staff. We heard a lot of people speak tonight 39 about the traffic study and about traffic in general. I think I would benefit from knowing if 40 anything you heard tonight caused you to have less confidence in the numbers on this slide. 41 42 Mr. Williams: No. I don’t think we heard anything that was different than we’ve accounted for 43 in the analysis. 44 45 Commissioner Alcheck: And a follow up. Is there anything that you feel is fatally flawed with 46 this traffic study? Is there something that should have been considered that wasn’t? 47 48 44 Mr. Williams: No, we don’t think there are other considerations. I do wish we had earlier on 1 incorporated some of the information on the bike and ped. counts that we showed tonight, but I 2 think the study was valid and still is valid. 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, that’s my question. 5 6 Chair Martinez: I have a follow up really to the Consultant from Hexagon if you could step 7 forward and also identify yourself so the recorder will know who is speaking. 8 9 Ms. Hunt: Michelle Hunt. 10 11 Chair Martinez: I know you stated a couple of times that you followed the City standards in the 12 way you conducted the report, but that doesn’t address what we heard for almost two hours 13 tonight about what really exists out there. Is there a way in which you could’ve or sometimes 14 you do take what’s, what this adds to as part of the conditions of not what this project needs to 15 mitigate, but you know it contributes to. Is that a reasonable request from a neighborhood that 16 really is up in arms about this? 17 18 Ms. Hunt: I think that the majority of the comments were related to the existing problems and the 19 purpose of the traffic analysis is to look at the increment or the change that would result from the 20 addition of the project trips. And so I think I wanted to emphasize that we’re following the 21 City’s methodology, not only in terms of the analysis method but also the criteria that led us to 22 the conclusion that the project would have an insignificant impact by itself and only under 23 cumulative conditions would cause an issue at Arastradero and Clemo and that there was a 24 mitigation for that being to have another access point. So does that answer? 25 26 Chair Martinez: Well it does, I mean it answers looking at me. If you turned around and 27 answered that way you’d see people saying no it doesn’t answer our question because there is a 28 huge problem out there that’s both perceived and real and we’re asked to support something that 29 is in the thick of all that. And I think there’s a level of not being very comfortable with saying 30 yeah that this is a great project just move ahead when there’s a significant traffic issue that the 31 project becomes a part of. And maybe some of those things about emergency services and like 32 that are dramatically stated tonight, but much of that is just there. So I would have appreciated 33 from the applicant and the City to really just take some responsibility for this and I just wanted to 34 know if this is something that could have been done for us. 35 36 Ms. Hunt: I would just add that the, we did want to get not obscure the fact that this is a heavily 37 used bicycle and pedestrian corridor. And the analysis regarding the impacts and the 38 significance criteria that’s quantified in nature doesn’t meet the significant criteria, but even 39 aside from that our traffic reports look at more qualitative measures regarding the safety of the 40 environment for bicycles and pedestrians and the mitigation measures like the restriction in 41 parking along Maybell or even just the design of the project not having any driveways out onto 42 Maybell. And all these features are features that if they were different then we may have had 43 comments in our traffic report that said this project would’ve had, could have a potential impact 44 on safety of pedestrians and bicyclists because of these reasons. But those have been mitigated 45 and so the analysis of peds and bikes in this case because of the increase in traffic from this 46 project is so small is not affected per se by the handful of odd trips that are added by the vehicles 47 it would potentially be affected by any design features that would cause a safety issue, but there 48 aren’t any that we found. And I believe that that’s why staff has made the conditions of approval 49 45 that they have to address and make sure there aren’t any impacts or increases to the hazards that 1 are already out there. And I understand there are. Any school that you go to whether it’s in Palo 2 Alto or San Jose, I mean there are inattentive drivers as well as schoolchildren. So… 3 4 Chair Martinez: Ok. I apologize for putting you on the spot. 5 6 Ms. Hunt: Sure. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner King. 9 10 Commissioner King: Excuse me. Let’s see. First I have a question on process. So which is 11 about the applicant brought us memos at the beginning of the meeting. And in general I’m 12 personally uncomfortable with us getting something that the public doesn’t have at the time of 13 the meeting. Same with developer, sometimes there have been in the recent past developer 14 proposals that come at the very last minute of the meeting. Where are we on, I’m addressing this 15 to the attorney please. Where are we on that? Is that ok or? 16 17 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Yes, Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. 18 Because this is a quasi-judicial process the purpose of the public hearing is to receive evidence 19 that may not be available in connection with the staff report. So it is appropriate for you to 20 receive not only oral testimony from residents, but also documentation, the videos, the 21 photographs, all of that extra information is appropriate and does become part of the record and 22 you can rely on that in your determination. 23 24 Mr. Williams: And if I could just add I think where the line has been crossed in previous 25 instances where there’s actually a revised proposal that comes in. that is something we would 26 certainly not want to entertain without it going back through more public review and staff review 27 to advise you on what that that proposed (interrupted) 28 29 Commissioner King: Ok, thank you. And then my other point, it seems a common refrain here 30 amongst with proposals is that well we didn’t hear about it and no one told us. And so I would, I 31 don’t know maybe I missed it in here, but it would seem appropriate to incorporate in the staff 32 report to us what was the actual process. Who was notified, when, what were the public 33 meetings as a part of the report. And that way if there are concerns on the part of the public we 34 can point to it and say well here is how the notice has occurred to date. 35 36 Ok, now questions. So I heard there has been reference to a no parking zone in front of the 37 proposed project on Maybell from 7:00 to 7:00 and I heard the word “probably” used by the 38 applicant. Can you address and while I’m on it the other one was I also heard somebody 39 comment on their being a no parking on Clemo, which I believe has free parking or available 40 parking on all of Clemo now. There’s discussion of painting a red curb no parking zone there. 41 Could you please address those? 42 43 Mr. Wong: Commissioner King the condition of approval is that there will be no parking on the 44 southern side of Maybell from 7:00 to 7:00. So that is a condition of approval. It will be a 45 requirement and there is no proposal to paint the curb red on Clemo. I am not sure where that 46 reference came from. 47 48 46 Commissioner King: Ok, thank you. Yeah, I think one of the residents mentioned that. And 1 then let’s see my question for Ms. Hunt is regarding the parking studies, I’m sorry, I’m not sure 2 if this was yours or staff or to whomever might address this. So there was a comparison then 3 with Stevenson House, Sheraton Place, Monte Vista regarding how much parking would be 4 appropriate. How do those developments tie in or compare to the demographics as far as I don’t 5 know if those are, have any additional care requirements such that people would be less mobile. 6 Is that apples to apples comparison? 7 8 Mr. Williams: I think the applicant probably could best respond to that. 9 10 Ms. Gonzalez: We looked at parking at Sheraton Apartments, which we own and we have about 11 a 35 percent parking ratio, but it’s independent living. We looked at the Stevenson House and 12 they have 45 percent parking ratio and it’s also low income housing with I believe a little bit 13 more assisted living component to it. Our parking ratio is at 78 percent and we’re independent 14 living. We were comparing it to other senior properties. 15 16 Commissioner King: Ok. So you have confidence that given the level of care and the type of 17 demographic to whom or whom would be attracted to this development that’s, those numbers are 18 appropriate? 19 20 Ms. Gonzalez: Yes, and we looked at numbers statewide too. I just wanted to give some of the 21 more local numbers. 22 23 Commissioner King: Ok, great. And then for staff regarding the daylight plane exceptions for 24 the proposed development; is there a shade study done? Will there be any impacts to the single 25 family residences on the other side of Maybell from the project? 26 27 Mr. Wong: A solar or a shade study was done as part of the application and the single family 28 homes or the Tan Plaza would not be affected. The only structures affected were would be some 29 buildings in the Arastradero Park development. 30 31 Commissioner King: Ok. Thank you. 32 33 Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair, questions? 34 35 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. I have questions in two areas. I think the first question 36 [unintelligible] safety and relationship of trust between the City government and the community. 37 On the trust issue, which I think many people spoke eloquently to there’s two issues. One relates 38 to the fact that in the draft Housing Element there is language about a program that references 39 this development and the potential number of housing units that would be provided if this 40 development were approved. And this would be counted towards the goal that the City has in its 41 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and at the Regional Housing Mandate Committee 42 this issue came up. There was public testimony from a number of people who are here this 43 evening and others and the committee was very concerned about this and there was a question 44 asked if it was necessary for the Housing Element to be certified that we have these units from 45 this development or if there’s an alternative. Is the Council committed to approve this project 46 because that’s in our ABAG allocation? 47 48 47 Mr. Williams: Thank you Vice-Chair Michael and I apologize that we didn’t touch on that before 1 because that is an important point. So the committee, Regional Housing Committee did make 2 those comments and actually did direct us to be looking and seeing if there were alternative sites. 3 And we went to the Council on Monday night and requested that the Housing Element be 4 deferred from approval and that we would remove this site as its proposed and just leave it in at 5 the existing zoning level for the purposes of the Housing Element and that we believed that we 6 can find the incremental 40 units or whatever it is on some other sites that are already zoned that 7 wouldn’t require rezoning and come back to the Council on the 10th of June. But we have to 8 work with the State Housing Department to be sure those sites are acceptable before we do that, 9 but largely at the direction of the Regional Housing Committee we were able to do that more 10 quickly than we thought. And so this, it’s unfortunate these things kind of came together at that 11 time and created that concern and so we did back that out, that policy out of, or program for 12 rezoning this out of the Housing Element for now. Now if at some point this does get approved 13 then we can go back in there and modify it, but at this point we don’t think we’d need to do that. 14 15 Vice-Chair Michael: Ok. So thank you for that. And then my next question is and this 16 somewhat goes to the letter that we received from the attorney, Kent Mitchell, on behalf of the 17 Coalition for Safe and Sensible Zoning who had concerns related to the financing arrangements 18 between the City and Palo Alto Housing Corporation. And I don’t know if this was, this 19 information was available to the Commission in other forms. This is new to me in some respects 20 and I have a concern about ethics generally. I was involved in the private sector in drafting a 21 corporate code of conduct and in all aspects of compliance with the code of conduct and there’s 22 an issue of an actual conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest. 23 24 And I was very surprised that particularly given the level of interest in the community that a 25 decision of this importance be made on the merits in the best interest of the community with 26 sensitivity to any public detriment, any public benefit, and all the different equities that the City 27 at a time when there would not have been a full opportunity for the community to be engaged in 28 thinking about or speaking about this issue extended a substantial loan. So this was new 29 information to me and it, I think it give the appearance of a conflict of interest if not an actual 30 conflict of interest. And I wonder if someone, maybe Director Williams or Attorney Silver could 31 clarify for us the significance of this. As with the Housing Element the Council when they make 32 their decision if it gets to the Council is perfectly free to turn this down or to approve it based on 33 the merits of the project and that this financing arrangement was in place previously does not 34 force their hand. 35 36 Mr. Silver: Yes, thank you Vice-Chair Michael. That is a very important point. Lots of times in 37 local government the City wears different hats and sometimes the City acts in its proprietary 38 capacity as a lender and will lend money to a worthy project that is in the community’s interest. 39 And sometimes the City acts in its regulatory process where it issues permits. And so it’s very 40 common for the City to take different actions in different roles with respect to a project. This 41 does come up often in local government and in this case there was a request by Palo Alto 42 Housing Corporation for City funds to assist in the acquisition of this site that came on the 43 market. That is done very frequently. City of Palo Alto has issued lots of loans to Palo Alto 44 Housing Corporation and other affordable housing providers and in fact has a separate housing 45 fund that is used to assist in the creation and development of affordable housing projects. 46 47 So that the Palo Alto Housing Corporation requested that loan there was a public hearing on the 48 issuance of that loan. The loan documentation was public record and as with other types of loans 49 48 like this the documentation provided that there was absolutely no requirement that the City issue 1 the permits that the developer had to go through the entitlement process just like any developer. 2 Of course we also follow that process when the City itself proposes projects. We do not as a 3 local policy here exempt ourselves from zoning requirements. So we do not believe that this is a 4 conflict of interest. 5 6 Vice-Chair Michael: Ok. So thank you for that. Let me just follow up and this isn’t really a 7 question, but it’s really a comment. I think it would have been from my perspective helpful if 8 the information that you just provided, which was a very good answer had been in the staff report 9 and had been part of what was before the public. Because this is a matter of laying out the facts, 10 which if they’re well understood is open and transparent and accountable and those are the facts. 11 But I think it comes to us, at least comes to me tonight almost as if there’s a whistleblower 12 saying there’s something wrong and so that don’t feel right. But thank you for the answer. 13 14 And then my other question and this maybe goes to either Director Williams or Chief Traffic 15 Engineer Rodriguez and that is that I guess the most poignant concern that I heard from the 16 community related to safety and I totally buy into that. And there was another major project in 17 the City that had to do with the Arastradero/Charleston corridor and the restriping. And we had, 18 and that was sort of a five year project and discussion and extensive traffic analysis and at the 19 end of that project which we approved and I believe the consensus was that was a good decision 20 although it was not without its controversy was that this issue of the cut through traffic as a result 21 of the constraints on Arastradero was something that maybe hadn’t been fully analyzed. So I see 22 that pouring into this issue tonight as sort of a preexisting problem. It’s not a problem related so 23 much to the incremental impact of the proposed senior housing so much as it’s a preexisting 24 problem. And I personally was left feeling that there needed to be more follow up work from the 25 Arastradero restriping and from hearing from however many people spoke at us tonight I am still 26 persuaded that the City should do additional work. And maybe you could explain to us what 27 data you have and what are the conditions of the existing situation that we confront here? 28 29 Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official: Thank you Vice-Chair Michael. My name is 30 Jaime Rodriguez. I’m the Chief Transportation Official for the City of Palo Alto and I can 31 provide you with a response in a couple of different ways. You know first with one of the things 32 that we’re actually doing today as it relates to the concerns of the community regarding traffic 33 and safety around specifically the Maybell and on the Charleston road corridor, 34 Charleston/Arastradero Road corridor, we are in the process of being to initiate a bicycle 35 boulevard design project for Maybell. It’s a project that we created in our work plan for the 36 current fiscal year and it’s a project that we bid out for consultant selection this past spring and 37 we’ve brought on Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants to help us deign that facility. And so 38 we are aware of concerns of the way that bicycles and pedestrians and vehicles interact along 39 Maybell. We agree that there can be conditions onto the roadway that would better facilitate 40 those movements or at least encourage better integration of those uses. We don’t know what 41 those solutions are yet. We haven’t started that community outreach process. Our consultant 42 just came on board a little over a month ago and we will be actually implementing that as a 43 response of the implementation or I should say the adoption and retention of the Arastradero 44 Road project. That was one of the things that we recommended as part of that project is that we 45 advance the design of the Maybell bicycle boulevard and that’s something that we immediately 46 did. 47 48 49 You know there was a lot of really good community feedback tonight regarding the concerns 1 about traffic on Maybell, about the bicycle interaction on Maybell with those vehicles as well as 2 the lack of the pedestrian facilities. Really that’s an issue of the Barron Park community. 3 Barron Park has that condition because Barron Park has design guidelines that do not allow for 4 the installation of sidewalks. That is not a condition that the City has created, that’s a condition 5 that the community has instituted amongst themselves and the condition [that are set forth on] 6 the City and as far as the increases in traffic is that coming from Arastradero or is that coming 7 from somewhere else? I mean unless we interview every motorist we really won’t, we don’t 8 know, but there are things that we do know that we do believe help increase that amount of 9 traffic that is happening. 10 11 Specifically Palo Alto Unified School District has increased the amounts of students that travel 12 to Barron Park School and the amount of students that travel to Juana Briones that are outside of 13 the neighborhood. So specifically with Barron Park for example, from 2009 to 2011 during that 14 period in which we were implementing the Arastradero Road project they brought in an 15 additional 200 students that were outside of the Barron Park community. That means that those 16 are students that are now being driven to that school by their families. Juana Briones between 17 2009 and 2011 has had an additional 150 students that are from outside of that specific 18 community in the areas that are east of El Camino Real. So that’s ages of students that are not 19 likely riding bicycles or walking. Those are students that are being driven. That’s a change in 20 patterns that aren’t necessarily responsible for the Arastradero Road trial project that we did or 21 other projects that happen in the City. That’s a direct change in the enrollment practices that are 22 being instituted by the District. Those are things that are outside of the control of the City of 23 Palo Alto. 24 25 And when we look at that amount of traffic that together are about a little over 350 trips, well 26 that coincides very closely to the increases in traffic that we were seeing along Maybell and other 27 parts of Arastradero Road, of Maybell and Barron Park. And we made those notes during the 28 presentation of the Arastradero Road project and we still feel that those are very valid reasons as 29 to why the neighborhood is experiencing those increases in traffic. 30 31 Chair Martinez: Ok, Commissioner King has a follow up to you Jaime before you go. 32 33 Commissioner King: He may have just answered it, but I was noting that when the graph was put 34 up of the trips that there had been no net change before and after the Arastradero calming project 35 on Arastradero, but there was I think one of the public noted a 60 percent increase on Maybell. 36 So that you’re thinking that that is attributable to the increased elementary school enrollment or 37 are there other factors also? 38 39 Mr. Rodriguez: That’s a primary factor as to why there’s an increase in traffic on Maybell. And 40 actually the video that we saw, the great video that was put together by the community I mean 41 that’s traffic that was going to Juana Briones. That’s traffic that’s going to that school. That’s 42 traffic [outburst from public]. That’s a combination of different things, but that’s the area where 43 we know that there is a specific increase in traffic for students that are outside of the community, 44 again to the areas that are east of El Camino Real. 45 46 Commissioner King: Thank you. 47 48 50 Chair Martinez: Ok, I have a follow up for you so not so fast. I’m going to let Commissioner 1 Alcheck go first. Oh, ok. So you commented on the video. How would that video possibly 2 change with this project that you have planned for the bicycle boulevard? 3 4 Mr. Rodriguez: We haven’t started (interrupted) 5 6 Chair Martinez: I know that, but sort of what’s the image that you have for that interrelationship 7 between cars and kids that we saw. 8 9 Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Chair. There were some very specific sections of that video where 10 when the video was being aimed at the existing four residential homes that are on the site of the 11 proposed project where there were parked vehicles. Well one, those vehicles will not be there 12 anymore as part of the proposed project. And as we begin to design the Maybell bicycle 13 boulevard as we do with all of the bicycle boulevard projects we have and we have another one 14 on Matadero Avenue we will actually look at not just the bicycle issues, we’re going to be 15 looking at the bicycle, I mean the pedestrian interaction on that roadway with bicycles and 16 vehicles as well as the parking facilities and parking considerations or restrictions that we can 17 implement to make sure that roadway is opened up to its maximum capacity to allow for those 18 interactions to occur. There is a balance though. The simple solution here is well then restrict 19 the parking, but then where is that parking going to go? That’s the flip side of that and that’s 20 part of the design process that we’ll be going over this summer and this fall with the community 21 for the Maybell bicycle boulevard project. 22 23 Chair Martinez: Ok. Thank you. I have a, I guess it’s my turn. [I think so anyway]. I have a 24 couple of questions for the applicant. There was a comment or a concern from one of the 25 residents that this project could flip and become single family. What are your assurances and 26 safeguards that this is really a project that’s going to continue for seniors? 27 28 Ms. Gonzalez: All of our funding sources and the affordable housing financing scheme is so 29 complicated again for the purchase of this we have five or six funding sources. Most of them are 30 contingent on it being a senior property for at least 55 years. So we received funds for example 31 from the County relying on the project being senior. And we would lose our funding. 32 33 Chair Martinez: And then we heard several suggestions to lower the density. I think the last one 34 40 units in the seniors and 6 units of single family. Could you do the project like that or 35 somewhere in between? 36 37 Ms. Gonzalez: Right now the way we’ve proposed the project is what makes it financially 38 feasible. Again the affordable housing finance is so complicated we had to pool so many 39 different financing sources. We had to come up with a creative solution, which was the mix of 40 single family homes and senior homes. A second complication is that or a second consideration 41 is that we don’t see a significant impact with the property. So for example, if we reduce senior 42 housing from 60 units to 50 units it might reduce one a.m. peak trip. So it’s very minimal 43 compared to losing 10 important apartments. 44 45 Chair Martinez: I understand. And from what I understand from the kinds of senior housing that 46 you’re proposing to build these are pretty active seniors. Fairly healthy, independent living as 47 you described. Potentially a lot of them still working or part time or (interrupted) 48 49 51 Ms. Gonzalez: You know there’s, sorry. There’s a difference between seniors that are low 1 income seniors and in our senior properties they tend not to work. Again we have one senior site 2 called the Sheraton which has 66 residents and only one works part time. At the site next door 3 we have 47 seniors and only 42 work, I mean 42 do not work and only 5 work a combination of 4 part time, full time, and self-employed from the home. So our seniors typically do not work. 5 6 Chair Martinez: And this is a question but I’m saying it like I know what I’m talking about. 7 You’re not, you can’t restrict this housing just to Palo Alto residents, can you? 8 9 Ms. Gonzalez: We’re applying for tax credits so it allows us to restrict, to give a preference for 10 live/work preference. So if you already live or work in Palo Alto you can get a preference. 11 12 Chair Martinez: Thank you for that. 13 14 Ms. Gonzalez: Thank you. 15 16 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck, you had something else? 17 18 Commissioner Alcheck: Yes. This is a, I just wanted to make sure I cross this one off my list. 19 We had a speaker tonight talk about the driveway on Clemo and how 22 feet is somehow against 20 the law that he participated in writing. Is that accurate? 21 22 Mr. Williams: No these lots all have frontage on public streets. It’s not a private street. It’s an 23 alley behind the properties. It’s providing this access, but it’s not a private street access because 24 they all have frontage on a public street either Clemo or Maybell. 25 26 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 27 28 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m ready to comment. 29 30 Chair Martinez: Yeah. Vice-Chair Michael. 31 32 Vice-Chair Michael: So this is a question probably for you Curtis and that is that in the work that 33 you and your staff have done on the Housing Element for the period of 2007 to 2014 there was a 34 pretty extensive and intensive search for available sites in the City. And we heard a lot of the 35 people who were here with significant concerns about safety and other impacts to the character 36 of the neighborhood but who also supported the importance of senior housing and affordable 37 housing and they had, they expressed the hope that perhaps that there was a different location 38 that would be appropriate. And so could you maybe clarify whether or not that hope is based on 39 any available data. 40 41 Mr. Williams: Yes the, so the sites that we’ve identified as potential housing sites in the City are 42 mostly sites that would have to be redeveloped to be used as housing as mixed use particularly. 43 So this is really unique in that there are not very many nearly [pause in audio] nearly vacant 44 parcels out there particularly with residential zoning on it. There are many underdeveloped 45 commercial properties, but we can’t develop a senior housing project on those. They don’t allow 46 fully residential uses on them. 47 48 52 So the inventory of potential sites for something like this is very slim number one, and then 1 secondly it has to be available and a deal made with an affordable housing developer to make it 2 happen. And so those things converged in this instance. The likelihood of that happening in 3 another case where the property owner may just want to sell it for as much as they can possibly 4 get and not deal with an affordable housing developer we wouldn’t have control over. They 5 wouldn’t have control over that. But it’s just yeah, very limited sites identified in the Housing 6 Element and certainly I don’t know that there are more than two or three sites in town that are 7 vacant or close to vacant and have a residential zoning on. 8 9 Chair Martinez: You know I really was impressed with that video. Probably for not the reasons 10 you’d think. I was impressed by how well behaved the kids on the bikes were and how 11 respectful and cautious the drivers were. If there were Miami Beach, forget it. All hell would 12 break loose on that corner. 13 14 So I mean it’s a serious issue of kids doing what we want them to do and too many cars. It 15 seems to me that both sides, it was almost a tale of two cities that each side saw mostly the 16 problem from their point of view or the potential from the City’s point of view. That here’s a 17 great site; we can meet this great challenge of senior housing that we have and it doesn’t have a 18 big impact. And the residents saying you know here’s this huge dense thing and there is a big 19 impact that’s already there. There’s an impact. And it becomes the hardest thing for us to weigh 20 [kind of the] going forth what’s the recommendation. 21 22 And for, if there were no project, if it stayed like it is or if there were a smaller project that 23 problem of traffic and the safety of the kids would still loom large. So it seems to me that there 24 needs to be a recommendation that the City has to do more about the Safe Routes to School. 25 That it’s more than the bicycle boulevard. We better brainstorm this and really come up with 26 some good solutions to reduce the traffic and make it safer and there’s only going to be more 27 kids. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that this is a community that needs housing like this. 28 29 So it’s very tough, you know it’s a… those of you there’s two vacancies on the Commission 30 coming up, mine and Alcheck’s. I welcome you to volunteer to do what we try to do. It’s not 31 an easy thing to do. Commissioner Panelli it’s your turn. 32 33 Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions for the applicant. 34 There were some comments by the public specifically referring to not only the impact of the 35 seniors who live or propose to live at this project, but also the service workers that are associated 36 with the project. Can you describe more in detail what that looks like on a 24 hour clock? 37 38 Ms. DeWit: Yeah so this is an independent living property so we, essentially there’s an onsite 39 manager who is usually living at the property already. And then there is a service coordinator 40 that does come in that manages our Resident Services can explain this a little further if you want 41 more information, but they coordinate services that are going on, but usually services are going 42 on onsite. For instance like a chair yoga class or possibly a nutritional cooking demonstration 43 class, but most of the seniors at least at our Sheraton property are usually not up and out of the 44 house as far as I hear until like around 11:00 a.m. so the peak hour traffic of, that a lot of people 45 are having a concern with in the morning I don’t feel like will be a conflict with our workers 46 onsite and the residents. 47 48 53 Commissioner Panelli: Let me ask you a follow up question to that. If that’s true would you be 1 opposed to as part of the conditions of use that you could not have shifts start or end within those 2 peak hours. Say for example 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. or 2:30 to 6:30 p.m.? 3 4 Ms. DeWit: We’re going to have our Property Manager come up here and answer that. 5 [Unintelligible] 6 7 Unidentified woman at 3:56:47: Can you ask, repeat that question? 8 9 Commissioner Panelli: So my question because there are a number of concerns about the 10 contributions to the traffic, potential traffic issues of not only the residents or proposed residents, 11 but also the incremental increase because of service workers associated with the site. My 12 question is would you be opposed to an additional condition that says that the starting and 13 stopping times of any of their shifts could not be during peak hours. 14 15 Woman: We could, we would certainly have control over services that we are providing. For 16 example, a yoga class or a cooking class or even our service coordinator for her to report later 17 rather than earlier. I think the only time, the only thing that we may not have control over is if a 18 specific resident has a caregiver. So for example if somebody has to give them medication and 19 the medication has to be given at 9:00 a.m. or whatever. However based again on the Sheraton, 20 which is our only senior property that we have almost all seniors we have very few residents who 21 need ongoing service where a caregiver comes in to give them medication. In most cases they 22 are independent and they don’t need that service. 23 24 Commissioner Panelli: Ok. That sounds like there’s a follow up here. 25 26 Ms. Hunt: I just wanted to clarify that the trip estimates that you’ve seen in our report and that 27 are in the table in front of you include all trips whether it’s by residents or service workers who 28 come to give medication or teach a yoga class, even including the United Parcel Service (UPS) 29 delivery. Any trip that’s going to and from that development is counted when we do our trip 30 generation surveys and it’s reflected in the trip rates so just to clarify. 31 32 Commissioner Panelli: Yeah I understand that. Thank you. I’m just trying to think of ways to 33 additionally mitigate. Thank you Mr. Chair. 34 35 Chair Martinez: Let me ask one thing that I forgot to ask of the applicant. I understand that the 36 idea is to sell the 15 units to a developer to complete, yes? Is the intention that they’ll be 37 designed and ready to go or is it just the concept and it’s the responsibility of whoever buys that 38 part of the project. 39 40 Ms. Gonzalez: It’s already been designed and approved by ARB. So we’ve designed it. 41 42 Chair Martinez: So there was some objection to three stories from community members. So is it 43 possible to revisit that and make that sort of something that could be worked with the 44 neighborhood organization or some other vehicle to make it sort of more appealing and more like 45 Barron Park? 46 47 Ms. Gonzalez: The three stories were only on the Clemo side. On Maybell there are two and two 48 and a half story so we have worked to set back the upper floors. 49 54 1 Chair Martinez: So is that a no? That it’s a done deal and (interrupted) 2 3 Ms. Gonzalez: Well when the developer or the builder comes in he can obviously make some 4 more changes to it. At this point it’s been approved by ARB. 5 6 Mr. Williams: If I could clarify. It’s been recommended by ARB. The Planning Commission 7 and Council are reviewing this now so if there were changes you wanted to make or Council 8 wanted to make to that, the design you could do that. I would be, I would have concern about 9 something about going back and going through some other process because I think they need to 10 sort of conclude this process and know where they are in terms of making any final arrangements 11 with a private developer. 12 13 Chair Martinez: Yeah, I understand that. I was actually reflecting upon one of your opening 14 comments about if you thought three stories was inappropriate and two should be, would be a 15 better choice. We don’t normally get involved in designing that so I was trying to tread kind of 16 lightly on that aspect. So, ok. It’s more a suggestion at this point that if it would help the, your 17 relationship with the neighborhood and there’s objections to the character issues that it might be 18 something worth doing to get the project moving forward. Yes, Commissioner King? 19 20 Commissioner King: Question for the applicant as well. There was some comment from the 21 public that there are senior units vacant in the area, low income senior housing units vacant. And 22 I think they were addressing what might be for sale units at the Moldaw Residences. Could you 23 address that? 24 25 Ms. Gonzalez: There are some units available at the Moldaw, but there is an entry fee associated 26 with it of about $250,000 or more. So they’re not necessarily for the lowest income residents 27 that we’re targeting. So it’s more in the 80 to 100 percent AMI that I think that’s targeting. 28 29 Commissioner King: Thank you for clarifying and then another question. You mentioned the 55 30 year restriction to senior low income housing. What happens after the 55 years? 31 32 Ms. Gonzalez: Well with most of our, actually we don’t have any properties that are 55 years yet. 33 But after the 55 years we can continue it as affordable. So (interrupted) 34 35 Commissioner King: When you say “can” it sounds discretionary. My concern is that the way 36 that the State laws are written in my mind unfortunately is that many of the low income housing 37 that has been developed around here and some of it in fact I think the Sheraton, it may have 38 been, I don’t know if it’s your facility, but one of the facilities came off after 30 years and then 39 it’s free to be sold and make it market rate housing. 40 41 Ms. Gonzalez: That was Arastradero Park Apartments adjacent to this and we ended up buying it 42 to continue it as affordable. With some of our funding sources the limit is 55 years, but for 43 example there’s an option to forgive the loan if we continue it as affordable. 44 45 Commissioner King: So if I wanted to be convinced that this will in perpetuity stay as affordable 46 housing could you convince me of that? 47 48 55 Ms. Gonzalez: Well its Palo Alto Housing’s mission to build and develop and maintain 1 affordable housing in the City. And as long as we’re around our goal is to keep it affordable. 2 3 Commissioner King: But there’s no legal restriction that it must stay as, maybe staff? I don’t 4 know. 5 6 Ms. Silver: Commissioner King, it is subject to the affordability requirement in the PC ordinance 7 itself. So in order to convert to market rate it would essentially have to apply for a zone change. 8 9 Commissioner King: Thank you. So the City would have control over any transfer to a different 10 use? Ok. That’s great. Thank you. 11 12 Chair Martinez: Ok Commissioners it’s time to get down to business. I want to hear where you 13 want to go with this. Commissioner Alcheck. 14 15 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. I want to start by saying that the comments tonight have been 16 really informative. It may surprise you to learn that this far exceeds the attendance that we’ve 17 had in the year that I’ve been a member of this Commission. In fact I think every meeting we’ve 18 had you add up all the people who’ve come, this is more. All of them. And I think it’s 19 important, I think it’s important because this is meant to be a deliberative process and the more 20 the public engages with us I believe the better the outcome is. 21 22 It’s clear that traffic is a major concern here. I don’t think parking is the major concern. I think 23 that there will always be sort of differences of opinions about the style of the suggested project 24 and I don’t think that’s something that we’re reviewing here, but I visited the site twice. I came 25 once on a Tuesday morning and I came on a Thursday afternoon. I was astonished by just how 26 busy it was. And I wasn’t surprised by that video at all although I think it was very helpful. And 27 I’m very sympathetic to the concerns that were raised here tonight. I myself have two young 28 children and their safety is paramount. 29 30 You know there’s, it’s difficult when you’re a new Commissioner. You’ve been here a year. In 31 October I think of 2012 we reviewed, I think we reviewed and suggested adoption of the calming 32 program be adopted forever or whatever. You know we made a suggestion to City Council that 33 it was great. I’m saddened tonight by the fact that you were not present at that meeting. There 34 may be an issue here about notification. Palo Alto Weekly agendas are maybe may not be 35 sufficient. But I just want to reiterate here that had I think a tenth of you come to suggest that the 36 Arastradero project was, calming project was such a devastating program in October, in the 37 October meeting I don’t think I would have been comfortable suggesting that we adopt it forever. 38 And that’s very difficult because now I feel like we have this problem that needs to be addressed 39 and I don’t think it’s outside the realm, I think we can revisit it and I think we should. 40 41 I think that the concerns of those who are opposed to this project, I don’t think that those 42 concerns will be alleviated by the decision you’re encouraging us to make. In fact, I think if this 43 property is not rezoned for this development that the current zoning will result in a bigger 44 project. I think that it may not be the answer you want to hear, but I think to some extent this is a 45 downzoning because of the nature of this project. And I visited the site, I looked at the eight 46 story building next door, I looked at the two and three story apartment building next door, and I 47 thought to myself this parcel does not justify low density. Nobody’s going to build a single 48 family home next to an eight story tall building. It doesn’t work. There needs to be some sort of 49 56 scale that makes these other parcels that are the neighbors kind of flow into the R1 residential 1 that exists across the street. So I think to some extent the result is going to be a greater density 2 than what we have across the street. 3 4 And I want to mention that the City is, tonight we had someone say the City’s not required to 5 provide this low income housing. I think being a lender and being an equity holder are two 6 different things. I don’t think for one minute that if we deny this project the City will suffer 7 some financial hardship. I’m sure that they’re perfectly capable of paying the loan because 8 lenders don’t participate in the fruit of your labor. And it’s sufficient I think also to add that 9 while we are required to zone for these sort of low income opportunities no one’s forcing low 10 income on this property owner. It’s contrary, it’s quite the contrary in fact. The property owner 11 is a nonprofit attempting to accomplish that goal of expanding affordable housing and that’s no 12 small matter. 13 14 I don’t want to suggest for one minute that any child’s safety is worth a senior low income 15 housing unit. It’s not. That’s not how I feel. Not one, I don’t believe that the safety of our 16 children is worth any low income housing. So that’s not the tradeoff. I think the question is: is 17 this really the problem? Is this project really going to pose the problem? Is this rezoning 18 opportunity going to make it less, more likely that a bigger project won’t come? 19 20 I want to add too that we live in a region where we’re pricing out our friends and our family. 21 And I think we need to be really concerned about that. Some people tonight said that the project 22 is situated in an area where seniors don’t have sufficient access to services. I don’t think, I mean 23 there’s an irony in that that some of the proponents of those arguments were self-proclaimed 24 seniors trying to preserve their neighborhood. It must be a wonderful neighborhood for seniors 25 and non-seniors alike and I don’t think there’s a corner in this City that isn’t a wonderful place 26 for a senior to live. 27 28 I think that we have to come up with a creative solution for Maybell. I’ll be honest the 29 installation of a commemorative plaque I think means absolutely nothing to anybody in this 30 room. I appreciate the sentiment. It’s important to sort of identify our history, but maybe the 31 money you have, I know this is a non for profit. I know that your goals are very honorable. I 32 think any money that you have that you can contribute to maybe increasing the sidewalks on 33 those streets would be better used. I can’t imagine anyone standing in the way, any Barron Park 34 resident standing in the way of the adjustment of the guidelines for Barron Park. Jaime 35 Rodriguez you referred to this, but I don’t think anybody would stand in the way of saying 36 maybe we need sidewalks on Maybell all the way down and maybe parking is only on one side 37 of the street like it is on Newell and on Channing, I think. And we have a bike lane and we make 38 some serious changes to Maybell so that it’s not awful. 39 40 This project is not the reason why Maybell is awful. This project is not the reason the woman 41 who drives her kids to school four houses away does that. It’s not. And another project with 30 42 units, even 30 units that are three bedroom could be so much worse. And it doesn’t accomplish 43 this, and we would have no oversight and it doesn’t accomplish this very substantial benefit 44 which is low, affordable senior housing. So I hope that everybody here tonight that finds that 45 this process feels somewhat inequitable appreciates that there’s so many complexities to this 46 issue and the goal is to provide the best result. The best land use recommendation. 47 48 57 I think I’m persuaded that the applicant has presented a project that fits that bill. It’s a project 1 that is the best land use for that parcel. And I say that with tremendous respect for everybody 2 that came out tonight and I can commit to you all that I will not stand in the way of any effort to 3 create a more appropriate traffic situation on Maybell. I don’t think anybody here will. And I 4 think that to some extent we should be reconsidering anything that created that situation for you. 5 (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Martinez: Do you have a Motion (interrupted) 8 9 Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t want to make a Motion before the rest of the Commission has 10 had a chance to speak. 11 12 Chair Martinez: Well we can speak to the Motion. 13 14 Commissioner Alcheck: Alright. I will make a Motion to support this, the staff’s 15 recommendation. I don’t want to read it out. 16 17 Chair Martinez: I think for the record you should read the (trailed off) 18 19 MOTION 20 21 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, hold on. I’m not rushing this process though. I do think all of you 22 need an opportunity to speak. And I’m making a Motion that we recommend to the City Council 23 that they approve this initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, that they approve a 24 resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan designation for a portion of the site for [Note—25 mean from?] multiple family to single family and I’m recommending that, I’m making a Motion 26 that a Planned Community ordinance rezoning with conditions of approval of the subject 27 property from RM15 and R2 for a 15 unit single family and a 60 unit multi-family affordable 28 rental project for seniors including two concessions for providing affordable rental units under 29 California Code 65915 be made tonight. 30 31 SECOND 32 33 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Alcheck. Is there a second? Ok, Motion 34 by Commissioner Alcheck and second by Commissioner King. I think you’ve spoken eloquently 35 to your Motion. I’m going to ask Commissioner King. 36 37 Commissioner King: Let’s see. Yeah, I would just like to reiterate that it is great, the City’s goal 38 of civic engagement it’s great to see people come out on both sides of the issue generally 39 respectful of the other side. That’s a good thing. And traffic is an emotional subject. I think 40 traffic sucks in Palo Alto and I’m not a big believer that building dense office, density in office is 41 a great thing for the City and I’m sometimes perplexed by when we up zone for office. On the 42 other hand we’ve got a lot of catch up to do whether you support ABAG’s goals or whether you 43 just believe as Commissioner Alcheck mentioned that we want to be as inclusive as possible that 44 people can live here. I think housing is an admirable goal and particularly low income housing. 45 So on that grounds I think it’s a great project. 46 47 And the alternatives I think I also agree that the traffic impacts would be much more significant 48 as would impacts to schools if the project were we said no and the project went to either an 49 58 alternative project by PAHC or went [or then was] sold in the private market I think the 1 alternatives would be much more impactful. 2 3 Regarding traffic safety I think that the net is actually a benefit regardless of what happens with 4 the bike boulevard study that you’re going to go from no parking on one side of Maybell at the 5 site of the project to no parking at two sides of Maybell, which can only help. Regarding the 6 parking there were comments by the public about the neighboring project, also PAHC’s project 7 and that does appear to be under parked. I looked and there’s generally parking along the street 8 overflow and unfortunately that, I would hope that something could be done there to mitigate. If 9 the goal is to have seniors have a safe walking route to El Camino Real I would hope that 10 something could be done, but that project is a done deal. 11 12 This one seems to be much more thoughtfully planned from the parking standpoint. The changes 13 made including adding parking aprons for 18 more spaces since the initial proposal, the fact that 14 there is significant parking on Clemo in the event of overflow the reserve parking for the senior 15 units. All this to me makes it seem a significant improvement over its neighbor and some of the 16 multi-family condominium complexes that have been built that there are a lot of complaints of 17 under parking. 18 19 Regarding the density that was one of the concerns. As has been mentioned there are just so few 20 sites in Palo Alto where a project of this scope could be put and it would be great if it were near a 21 market and near more amenities, but it’s just unlikely that that would be found. And from my 22 standpoint, in my opinion it’s being sited next to a very dense apartment building that’s several 23 stories taller than is the proposed project. On the other side is a park which will have minimal 24 impacts from the development. The other side is multi-family already that will have minimal 25 impact. It’s near the main arterials and again we’re keeping student growth low where any other 26 project would likely add a significant impact to the student population. So on those grounds I 27 support it. 28 29 My one concern, ideally I would prefer a project to stand, in this case the project is requiring the 30 single family residences be denser than would normally be required in that neighborhood or 31 allowed for zoning. And so I think that’s the, in my mind the big imperfection is that they’re 32 having to, we’re having to basically sell some zoning variance to allow them to raise the money 33 to make the project work. I think it’s positive that since the initial proposal they’ve come back 34 and on Maybell the neighbor there and the pedestrians and traffic there would have the most 35 visual impact of three stories and so they’ve changed that. It’s a little hard to visualize exactly 36 what will be but they’re now apparently two, two and a half stories. The visual impacts on 37 Clemo seem to be very minimal. You’re facing the park. So I’m overall to get what I believe is 38 a valuable public benefit project done I’m comfortable recommending approval even with that 39 one weakness I think in the project. Thank you. 40 41 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Panelli. 42 43 FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS 44 45 Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Mr. Chair. I’m still going back to the fundamental concept of 46 this project and I’m still not convinced that it is truly part of a transit oriented community. Or I 47 don’t think it can really be classified as a transit oriented community. It’s, it is indeed a third of 48 a mile on Maybell to El Camino Real. The amenities there at Maybell and El Camino Real 49 59 aren’t what I would consider significant enough to be really available to satisfy all the needs of 1 most seniors. And I would prefer to see such developments either along the El Camino Real 2 corridor if it’s going to be on the west side of El Camino Real or if it’s on the east side of El 3 Camino Real in between El Camino Real and the Caltrain right of way. 4 5 The sense I get from my fellow Commissioners is my opposition to this project as it stands is, 6 well I’m probably in the minority. In fact my guess this will pass no matter how I vote. I’m 7 going to offer a Friendly Amendment to Commissioner Alcheck in exchange for my yes vote if 8 you care about optics and want this to be a unanimous or near unanimous vote. So I’m going to 9 make three specific Friendly Amendments and you can take some or all of them. 10 11 The first one is I’d like to see the number of market rate units reduced from 15 to 12. I believe 12 that since this property was acquired by PAHC they may be dramatically undervaluing those 13 market rate units. And from what I understand in your project you need a specific amount of 14 money. It would be interesting to see if you can still get that same amount of money from a 15 developer even if it were only approved for 12 units. I think you might be surprised. I’m not 16 sure, but if I look at my dad every week who lives in the Rose Garden in San Jose mails me the 17 San Jose Mercury News and 94306 always shows the biggest year over year spike in property 18 values. So something tells me that there’s perhaps an opportunity there. 19 20 Secondly, I would like to put a two story maximum for the units on Maybell. I’m kind of 21 thinking this is a hybrid sort of R2/RM15 from that “L” shape where the market rate units are 22 going to be, but I think for those units it’s important to preserve sort of the characteristic of the 23 Maybell properties. The Clemo properties maybe less so and I think the impact there is less. But 24 I think you can accomplish what you want to with two stories. If there are fewer total units 25 you’ll have more square footage per unit. And then the last thing I would suggest in this 26 amendment is, or propose in this amendment is that any employees or contractors of the senior 27 facility neither start nor stop their shifts during the peak hours of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 to 28 6:30 p.m. 29 30 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck? 31 32 Commissioner Alcheck: I think that I’d like to hear what some of you think about that. I’ll start 33 out by saying, I’ll start out by making a few comments and then I’d like to hear what everybody 34 says before I tell you what I think. Before I answer whether or not I would agree with that. 35 36 I want to start out by saying that I don’t think the objective here is to create as many market rate 37 units as they can. So from their perspective it’s a nonprofit. Their objective is not to create 38 market rate housing. They’re just, I believe the number of units they’ve put in this application is 39 probably the result of some financial analysis. I’d feel more comfortable not restrict, not 40 creating that limitation only because the notion… I wouldn’t want to be responsible for 41 jeopardizing the project because it wasn’t financially feasible anymore if they lost three units, 42 which could amount to I don’t know, $2 million. I don’t know. 43 44 I’ll be honest with you the third amendment I’m not thrilled about because I don’t think it’s 45 enforceable. I don’t think it’s enforceable to dictate when their employees come to work. I also 46 don’t think judging from what they said, I don’t think that concern is so big because these trips 47 include everything from UPS drivers to yoga instructors, so (interrupted) 48 49 60 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck? 1 2 Commissioner Alcheck: Mostly it’s the enforceability of the third one that (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Martinez: Why don’t you just say no so we can move on? Ok? It sounds like you’re not 5 leaning toward supporting the Friendly Amendment so. 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m not persuaded to adopt those. I’m not persuaded to accept the 8 Friendly Amendment. 9 10 Chair Martinez: Do you have other things Commissioner Panelli? Vice-Chair Michael. 11 12 Vice-Chair Michael: So on numerous occasions I’m told that it’s very important to the City 13 Council that the Planning Commission meeting creates a record for the Council and that the 14 verbatim minutes of our meetings are read very carefully. So I think that the public participation 15 in this evening’s meeting is as far as I’m concerned is echoing Commissioner Alcheck’s remark 16 is of historic magnitude. I’ve been wondering where the people are and what they think and here 17 you are. And thank you for being so thoughtful. We were thinking, earlier today we just go over 18 the logistics and the agenda for the meeting in something called the pre-Commission meeting 19 and Chair Martinez meeting said that the people are going to come tonight and they are going to 20 be smarter and more articulate and more wise and more passionate than any of us on the 21 Commission and I think that was largely true. So I really appreciate your conviction for the 22 safety of your families and commuting, getting to work on time, and the character of the 23 community and everything else. It’s just, it’s humbling being up here. So I think you did your 24 job. 25 26 I think this is going to go to the Council one way or another. You know how we vote it’ll still 27 get to the Council. So they will hear everything that you said. They will read it, they will pay 28 attention to it, and you’ll probably attend their meeting as well. So this was good practice. Great 29 dress rehearsal. So great job. 30 31 I want you to know that we listen very, very carefully to what you said. I struggle with the 32 pronunciation of all your names so I’m sorry about anything that I mangled. And we really try to 33 understand all the points that were made both in opposition or in favor to the project and all the 34 nuances. There was one question as to whether any of us actually know what you live through. I 35 have lived in Barron Park. I really enjoyed living in Barron Park. I had a daughter who attended 36 Juana Briones and Gunn and we have a family that walks and cycles everywhere all around 37 town. And when I was a kid I was struck by a car on a bicycle and I can show you the scar. It’s 38 pretty impressive. I’m not Linden Johnson, so I’m not going to do it here in the… and I hope 39 that never happens to any of your kids. 40 41 So awhile back the Commission dedicated an entire meeting to try to deepen our understanding 42 of how to analyze what constitutes a public benefit in relationship to a PC zoning request. And it 43 turned out that that was considerably more complex than I might have imagined. You know 44 there are questions of whether public benefit might be found as something that’s intrinsic to the 45 nature of the project. What would be an appropriate nature of benefit if it wasn’t intrinsic to the 46 project and is the benefit adequate? So the nature and adequacy of public benefit is an issue that 47 I think the public has the right to be very skeptical that this is being addressed rigorously and 48 analytically and systematically. And if it’s not then is there something going on that shouldn’t 49 61 be? And here I’m convinced that the need for housing, the need for affordable housing, the need 1 for senior housing is a significant public benefit. So it is complex, but I think that is to me very 2 important finding that we have to make if we approve this. 3 4 We also had a meeting earlier today about the Governance Element of the Comprehensive Plan, 5 which is coming close to its final draft. And we decided to propose that there be a section on the 6 Palo Alto process in the Governance Element, which would be new. And what we decided to 7 kind of express in the section was that it’s intended that the Palo Alto process be one which is 8 characterized by accountability, transparency, and engaging with the community and that this 9 goes to the issue of public trust. And I hope that your experience this evening was that we 10 listened, that you’re clearly engaged, that we and the staff and the Council are accountable for 11 whatever decisions that get made and notwithstanding some issues that I think we addressed 12 earlier, that this is a process which is fully transparent. 13 14 On the issue of housing need and safety I was thinking earlier about this that if there’s a process 15 that has an objective that everyone sort of agrees with then you just want us to be efficient and 16 get the job done. But here we have the appearance at least of two competing objectives and you 17 have to sort of weigh to some extent one against the other or maybe you do or maybe you don’t. 18 And we’re also involved here kind of as the experience that we have in many of our private lives 19 is there’s the sandwich generation. We’re trying to take care of the elderly members of our 20 family and also our children. And that really is the essence of the issues that were raised in the 21 long discussion tonight. So the elderly need a place to live and our children need to get to school 22 safely, need to grow up healthy and be part of this community. 23 24 So with all that I think that change to some extent is inevitable. I think it’s how we deal with 25 change and how we manage that change which defines the outcome and preserves or allows the 26 character of the community to evolve. And I don’t think that there’s any feasible alternative. I 27 think this is important and I don’t think that there’s additional mitigation that would be sort of 28 the magic solution to the issues. I think that there’s many, many additional tasks that the staff 29 and the community need to do particularly with respect to safety that were addressed, but I’m 30 inclined to support the application for the reasons and factors that I’ve just gone over. 31 32 Chair Martinez: Wow. Well, our community won tonight. You won our attention. You will win 33 the attention of the City Council when it goes before them. We fully understand that this is a 34 big, big issue for this neighborhood and I don’t want to add any amendments, but I would add 35 the recommendation that the City, City Council make this a high priority to address the safety of 36 children going to these schools, the impact of cars in the morning and the evenings, and just how 37 it affects the quality of life for all of you. 38 39 We didn’t talk much about public benefits, which is supposed to be one of our findings and one 40 of the things you did convince me of is that a proposed public benefit, what the Vice-Chair called 41 the intrinsic benefit in the midst of an impacted neighborhood is not a benefit unless we also 42 address the larger issue. And so we are appears that as a body going to recommend that this 43 project be approved by the Council, but I would also like to see some of the public benefits that a 44 project of this scope would normally also include be added. So I’m not exactly sure the location, 45 but I think I would add a friendly or ask that we add a Friendly Amendment that the applicant be 46 required to extend those sidewalks along the edge to make that connection to the park that would 47 add that another level of safety to the community. So I’m asking Commissioner Alcheck to 48 accept that as a Friendly Amendment. 49 62 1 Commissioner Alcheck: Do, is there any concern that the Planning Department has with that? Is 2 there anything that we should be considering? 3 4 Mr. Williams: Trying to determine what the extent of that, is that mean the stretch in front of the 5 park? Extend it through the park basically, the frontage on Maybell? Because it’s kind of 6 broken up in that. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Yes, to provide that continuity that is missing in front of the park. 9 10 Mr. Williams: Well maybe Jaime should address it. Talking all the way to Coulombe? 11 12 Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Chair Martinez. That’s something that we actually have talked about 13 internally and [something that] we talked about with the developer that there’s a nice connection 14 that would be provided along the frontage but then that connection kind of terminates. And 15 that’s to the point that some of the speakers I think tonight demonstrated very eloquently that 16 they have to walk on one side of the street where there’s some type of a facility and then kind of 17 cross the street to get to the other and then kind of go back around the other way and there’s a lot 18 of value from the perspective of connectivity, a huge benefit from the perspective of the 19 implementation of a bicycle boulevard that that is a longer continuous connection. I think to 20 where at a minimum would probably be a really good point to get to Coulombe because that’s 21 the point to where people that are students that are traveling to Juana Briones that’s where 22 they’re going to be crossing the street from if they’re all on the south side of the roadway. That 23 actually does in fact happen to be a long term recommendation of the Safe Routes to School 24 program for that community, for Juana Briones, for Terman, for Gunn that as part of that bicycle 25 boulevard implementation design that there be consideration given toward the pedestrian 26 facilities along the roadway whether that be a sidewalk or that be wider [unintelligible] for that 27 purpose like they [unintelligible] that’s something that we could work out with the developer as 28 part of a recommended facility. 29 30 Mr. Williams: So if we could word that to be to essentially extend pedestrian improvements 31 down to Coulombe then we can work out whether that’s, with the community, whether that’s a 32 sidewalk or some other kind of improvement there. 33 34 Chair Martinez: Yes as one of their required public benefits. I’m good with that. 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck: I accept that. 37 38 Chair Martinez: Commissioner King? 39 40 Commissioner King: So just for clarity could you describe, so my understanding is that there is 41 no sidewalk in front of the current multi-family housing on the project side of Maybell. There’s 42 no sidewalk in front of the project now, but the plan is with the project there will be sidewalk? 43 In front of the project. Is that correct? Is there a graphic? It would be great if we had a graphic. 44 45 Ms. Gonzalez: Yes, we’re adding a five foot sidewalk. 46 47 Commissioner King: Ok. And that would extend to the corner of Clemo and Maybell? 48 49 63 Ms. Gonzalez: Yes. 1 2 Mr. Williams: Right. 3 4 Commissioner King: And then now we’re talking about going through the park? 5 6 Mr. Williams: Down to Coulombe. 7 8 Commissioner King: Ok. I can’t remember, is Coulombe at the other side of the park or it’s the 9 next? Yeah, ok. And so then would that sidewalk take up part of the park or would it be out 10 what is now in the street? [Outburst from the public] 11 12 Mr. Rodriguez: Commissioner King we don’t have a graphic here tonight that kind of shows 13 where the gaps are, where they exist. That’s the point that I was trying to make earlier is that 14 there are just gaps in general and that connectivity at least to Coulombe does provide I think the 15 goal of the spirit of the benefit which you’re trying to provide [off on] the project. I think I said 16 we just need to work out with the developer. We never tried to do that on paper. 17 18 Commissioner King: Well so, ok so my understanding is if we go, so currently we’ve discussed 19 the multi-family PAHC development between the proposed project and El Camino Real is under 20 parked and so that’s used for parking now. And there I believe is no sidewalk. So there would 21 be additional consequences if we now put a sidewalk in there and then did not have parking, 22 extended no parking through to El Camino. Correct? 23 24 Mr. Rodriguez: So the, there’s portions of the frontage of Maybell that parking exists and doesn’t 25 exist. I think with the project as its proposed today they’re going to provide a sidewalk and there 26 is room for parking in front of that sidewalk. The conditions of approval that we’ve developed 27 with the developer to make sure that that is not parked during the day or at least between 7:00 28 and 7:00 so that it’s made available for bicycle and pedestrian use, but that does provide for 29 parking for evening use for visitors for the residents of those single family homes or for the 30 visitors at the low income housing. 31 32 Commissioner King: Ok. I mean it would be hard for me to vote on this because I’m a little bit 33 confused about without seeing it visually and whether your Friendly Amendment was all the way 34 to El Camino Real or just from the project to Coulombe so I’ll let you finish. 35 36 Chair Martinez: The way we left it Jaime was going to work with the applicant to [work out the 37 deals exactly] what that was. 38 39 Mr. Williams: I think that’s helpful to let us work on that and then if the direction is to include 40 that benefit in the presentation to the Council. 41 42 Chair Martinez: Perfect. 43 44 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ACCEPTED 45 46 Commissioner Alcheck: I think that’s acceptable. 47 48 64 Chair Martinez: Anyone else? I’m sorry he was shaking his head. [Unintelligible] blocking your 1 view. 2 3 Commissioner King: Yeah, I agree because Council could always reverse it out if they want 4 upon being further fleshed out. 5 6 VOTE 7 8 Chair Martinez: Or make it even better. Ok. I’m going to call for the vote. Those in favor of the 9 Motion raise their hand and say aye (Aye). Ok and those opposed? Ok. The Motion passes one, 10 two, three, four to one with Commissioner Panelli opposed. I want to thank you all; those of you 11 who have managed to stay very much. It’s been great. 12 13 MOTION PASSED (4-1-0, Commissioner Panelli nay, Commissioners Keller and Tanaka 14 absent) 15 16 Commission Action: Commission recommendation to Council regarding new Planned 17 Community (PC) zone district and Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendment 18 approved. Motion by Commissioner Alcheck, second by Commissioner King, Ayes – 19 Commissioners Alcheck, King, Chair Martinez, and Vice-chair Michael; Nay – Commissioner 20 Panelli; Commissioners Keller and Tanaka absent. (4-1-0) 21 Attachment H COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE 567-595 Maybell Ave. – Single Family and Multifamily Residential Development The proposed project is consistent with the listed Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning districts boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Program L-4: Review and change zoning regulations to promote gradual transitions in the scale of development were residential districts abut more intense uses. Policy L-13: Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more diverse housing opportunities. Policy L-14: Design and arrange new multifamily buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street. Policy L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians. Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible. Policy L-76: Require tress and other landscaping within parking lots. Program L-76: Evaluate parking requirements and actual parking needs for specific uses. Develop design criteria based on a standard somewhere between average and peak conditions. Transportation Element Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Transit stations and bus routes present opportunities for higher density development. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on- street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art and interesting architectural details. Program T-36: Make new and replacement curbs vertical were desired by neighborhood residents. Natural Environment Program N-16: Continue to require replacement trees, including street trees lost to new development, and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is impractical to locate them offsite. City of Palo Alto Policy N-28: Encourage developers of new projects in Palo Alto, including City projects, to provide improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alone. Housing Element Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable housing. Program H-2: Encourage development densities at the higher end of allowed density ranges in multiple family zones by using methods such as preferential or priority processing and application fee reductions for projects that propose development at the higher end of a site’s allowed density range and that provide affordable housing in excess of mandatory BMR program requirements. Consider increasing minimum density requirement in multiple family zones in all Comprehensive Plan land use designations that permit housing. Program H-21: Where appropriate and feasible, allow waivers of development fees as a means of promoting the development of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households. Waivers should be considered for projects that proposed affordable housing units in excess of the minimum City BMR Program standards either in terms of the number of the affordable units or the household income levels that the project is targeted to serve. Program H-3: Continue to support the re-designation of suitable vacant or underutilized lands for housing or mixed uses containing housing. Program H-23: Require all City departments to expedite all processes, including applications, related to the construction of affordable housing above minimum BMR requirements. Policy H-12: Encourage, foster and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low, low and moderate income households. Note: This list is not exhaustive. Additional policies/programs may be added to this table for subsequent review and comment by the P&TC or the public. 1 Summary of Amendments to the May 9, 2013 Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents Page No. Section Revision Purpose E. Cultural Resources 19 Conclusion Less than significant changed to No Impact Administrative Error G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 23 Discussion Added following language: On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD Homepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Lead agencies may rely on the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures. However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air District’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the significance of an individual project’s air quality impacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that project. Clarification 2 For this IS, the City of Palo Alto has determined that the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are the most appropriate thresholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Project. First, Palo Alto has used the May 2011 BAAQMD thresholds in previous environmental analyses under CEQA and found them to be reasonable thresholds for assessing air quality impacts. In addition, these thresholds are lower than the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds, and thus use of the thresholds in the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines is more conservative. Therefore, the city concludes these thresholds are considered reasonable for use in this IS. I. Hydrology 28 Table No impact changed to Less than Significant Impact More accurate assessment I. Hydrology 29 Water Quality Added language acknowledging the increase in impervious surfaces on the site however with the project meeting the C3 requirements, it is a less than significant impact. Address level of impact change J. Land Use and Planning 32 Conclusion Less than significant changed to No Impact Administrative Error N. Public Services 36 Conclusion Less than Significant changed to No Impact Administrative Error O. Recreation 37 Discussion Added language that the Single Family dwellings are required to pay the City Park fee and the Sr. Development not expected to utilize park to significant degree and has their own community garden geared towards senior outdoor Supporting Analysis 3 recreational use and therefore no impact to Recreation O. Recreation 37 Conclusion Less than Significant Impact changed to No Impact Administrative Error P. Transportation 42 Discussion Added discussion of emergency access: The project is served by Station 5 which is located less than one mile away. Station 5 has existing capacity to serve the project. The Fire Department has reviewed the project site plans to ensure there is adequate emergency access. Clarifying language P. Transportation 43 Discussion Added discussion of bike/pedestrian safety: The Project will enhance bike and pedestrian safety on Maybell by eliminating four existing driveway curb cuts on Maybell, by restricting parking on Maybell and by providing a sidewalk on Maybell. The small increase in AM peak trips on Maybell is not expected to interfere with the bicycle/pedestrian safety on Maybell in the AM peak. It is expected that the majority of outbound trips generated by the Project would exit onto Clemo towards Arastradero (6 vehicles in the AM peak hour) or turn right from the APAC easement on Maybell and travel east on Maybell in the opposite direction of bicyclists commuting to school (3 vehicles in the AM peak hour), while the project would add only two vehicle trips to the peak westbound direction on Maybell during the AM peak hour Q. Utilities and Service Systems 47 Conclusion Less than Significant Impact changed to No Impact Administrative Error 4 R. Mandatory Findings of Significance 48 Discussion Under cumulative considerations, only potentially significant traffic impacts were identified. With mitigation measures, the traffic impacts are less than significant. No other thresholds of significance were exceeded under cumulative considerations. Clarifying language ATTACHMENT L Neighbor/Public Correspondence (Available on-line, at the Council Chambers Public Table and the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Ave., 5th Floor) 1 Ellner, Robin From:Sophie Yost <sfgertner@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:52 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim Subject:Against rezoning of 567-595 Maybell To the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Palo Alto, I am a Barron Park resident, and I am writing to you to convey my reasons for opposing the development project at 567-595 Maybell Avenue currently being considered by the City of Palo Alto. For one, traffic on Maybell will undoubtedly and obviously increase drastically, leading to unpleasant congestion in what is now a quiet neighborhood. Furthermore, the project is nearby Juana Briones park, a pleasant, quiet, safe park; with this project, the park will be surrounded by heavier than current traffic during the day, traffic congestion during rush hour, all contributing to the park no longer being quiet or feeling safe to the many children who frequent it. Besides, the location of the project is one of the very last open spaces in Palo Alto and in Barron Park. It is an orchard! Building on it would irreversibly destroy a piece of history. Not that long ago, the area was rich with orchards, yet your project would turn this piece of land into yet another high-profit development. I hardly think the City of Palo Alto, let alone Barron Park, needs that. Instead, I suggest the orchard be left as is and if it is modified, I suggest it be turned into an open space, maybe one where children and adults can learn about the history of Barron Park, Palo Alto, orchards, agriculture in this valley etc. Therefore, I strongly advocate to keep the current R-1 and RM-15 designations. Thank you for your consideration. Sophie Yost 4121 Verdosa Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 493-2233 1 Ellner, Robin From:Wong, Tim Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:43 AM To:Ellner, Robin Subject:FW: 567-595 Maybell Avenue From: Scott & Tasha Souter [mailto:souter98@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 3:49 PM To: Wong, Tim Subject: 567-595 Maybell Avenue 4189 Baker Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 April 8, 2013 Tim Wong Senior Planner, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Wong: I attended the April 4, 2013 special public hearing of the Architectural Review Board regarding the 567-595 Maybell Avenue planned community. 2 I want to express our strong support for maintaining the Circulation as described in the staff report: “All ingress and egress for the single-family homes and senior apartments would be from a single entry way on Clemo with the exception of the corner lot...All automobile traffic would be directed to Arastradero road,” Please do not direct any more automobile traffic onto Maybell Avenue. Maybell is a major bicycle and pedestrian thoroughfare for elementary, middle, and high school students, as well as those using Juana Briones Park. Regarding the future planned community, the traffic study analyzing the impacts of the proposed Clemo Avenue driveway concluded that there would be only “potentially” significant impact. The presentation by the traffic engineer at the April 4th hearing was commensurately ambiguous as to whether or not their department had a recommendation regarding the Maybell access when directly asked by the board. Our family is very invested in Palo Alto and our Barron Park neighborhood. My wife grew up in Palo Alto, and I was president of the Juana Briones PTA. We chose Barron Park for its identity, community, and safety. While this planned community is a challenge to the identity of Barron Park, the more important issue is the safety along Maybell Avenue. We recognize that the city is growing and that nothing stays the same. However, we ask for you to respect this neighborhood and the families already living here: please proceed with the single entry with the later option of a second access after 3 quantitative evidence exists that there is an adverse impact for our future neighbors. Thank you for your attention, Scott and Tasha Souter Baker Avenue 1 Ellner, Robin From:Steven Kung <stevenkung@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 22, 2013 10:46 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Opposition to high density re-zoning on Maybell/Clemo Dear members of Planning Commission, I live in Green Arcres neighborhood and drive to work throught this neighborhood everyday. I have seen traffic cogestion everyday and am opposed to the high density re-zoning on Maybell/Clemo. Thank you for the consideration. Sincerely, Steven Kung 4162 King Arthur Ct. Palo Alto, CA 94306 Green Arcres and Barron Park neighborhoods are mobilizing to oppose the proposed the high density re-zoning. Here are some points we are discussing: 1) Safety. Putting high density right where there are already such traffic problems, at the only inlets/outlets to the neighborhood (which has no inlets/outlets to the south or west) hurts emergency vehicle access to Juana Briones School, Terman School, the residents of the neighborhood, and even Gunn, should an emergency happen during the wrong hours!! 1) Traffic!! Maybell is already too narrow, Arastradero on the other side is crammed with cars at certain times of the day, and kids weave in and out of traffic on Maybell already because it's so narrow. Link to the traffic study: http://www.bpapaloalto.org/2013/04/10/traffic-study-for-maybell-homes-senior-housing-project/ 2) Traffic!!!! The Palo Alto Housing Corp is claiming the high-rise will just be seniors who won't make traffic, but there are NO WALKABLE SERVICES there. Residents will have to drive out or have helpers drive in. Seniors have visitors, too! The "senior" designation is a pretense to get the area rezoned for high density!!** The PAHC is developing other larger projects RIGHT NOW near to Stanford which would be better for seniors (walkable to medical, grocery, Avenidas, free entertainment, restaurants, etc). They should build in this neighborhood only WITHIN EXISTING LOW DENSITY ZONING. 3) Negative impact on neighborhood quality of life. Zoning exists for a purpose, so families who invest huge amounts of money buying into the area know what will be there in the future. This is a small, cohesive neighborhood and rezoning to high density carves away a big part of the neighborhood and hurts the residential character. Maybell at Juana Briones is NOT part of the high density El Camino corridor as developers are trying to portray it, it is part of the Greenacres residential neighborhood and should stay low density! 4) "Attractive nuisance" Surveys show neighborhood seniors stay in their homes and don't move (they wouldn't quality for the development if they sold a home anyway). Residents will come from elsewhere, and it's just a fact that in this immediate neighborhood, some will move there to sneak grandchildren in at Gunn or Terman. Rules are not enough, people find ways to break those rules and do, and others are often loathe to report them. This encourages seniors to break up their families to move there so grandchildren can attend 2 Terman or Gunn. Anyone who doesn't take that inevitability seriously does not have a realistic handle on this neighborhood. 5) Fairness. **There are some good legal arguments that the rezoning may be illegal spot zoning - since (despite the island of apartments which were built when that area was still county) that whole patch is surrounded by R-1 single-family residential zoning. The community can only dispute the rezoning legally if they show opposition and make the arguments beforehand! Take a look at the zoning map http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6422 6) The rezoning violates many policies of the city's general plan (please list one in your letter!) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8170 7) That location is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to expand the existing park and make a much needed playing field on this side of town! Such a field could be reached by kids by bikes from Los Altos and all the neighborhoods along the bike path. Instead of having to be driven all the way out to the Baylands, kids could have more opportunities to be independent and active. The benefits to the community are legion and real, not just cover for more density and developers. Consider adding support of turning the it into a PLAYING FIELD in your letter, and ask others to send their support for it as well! 8) The city's loan to the PAHC may constitute contract zoning, which would also be illegal. At the least, it is a conflict of interest. The city loaned PAHC millions to purchase the property, on the proviso that they pay the money back when high-density homes - completely out of character with the residential neighborhood, on Maybell and Clemo are built and sold, which could not be built to that density under the existing zoning. They are welcome to build senior housing there, WITHIN existing low-density zoning. But that location is better for a desperately needed playing field on this side of town! 1 Ellner, Robin From:stacey ashlund <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 6:12 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Our neighborhood has narrow Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Our neighborhood has narrow sidewalks (if any), few street lights, and crowded streets (cars & bikes during travel times to & from school) - it would not be safe or pleasant to rezone this to high density housing. Please do not do it! - Barron Park resident & mom of 2 in nearby schools Sincerely, stacey ashlund palo alto, California There are now 7 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Stacey Ashlund <stacey@zachary.com> Sent:Monday, April 22, 2013 11:39 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:please do not rezone property at Maybell & Clemo Dear Planning Commissioners, I have been a Barron Park resident & homeowner since 1996. Please do not support rezoning the property at Maybell & Clemo as high density! While I'm in support of affordable housing for seniors in our community, and in this neighborhood, the community cannot afford for this housing to be high density. The neighborhood has few sidewalks & streetlights and it would not be safe or pleasant to increase the population in this area. Affordable senior housing is a public benefit, but rezoning as high‐density is a public detriment. The only reason why this commission hasn't heard public opposition to this project is that most didn't know about it yet. Given the proposed height of the development & proximity to single‐family homes, the building would be out of scale for the community & will look & feel like the opposite of planning. It will harm this neighborhood & community to support such a tall high‐ density building. Please keep the scale in mind and do NOT re‐zone this property. Thanks, Stacey Ashlund Campana Drive 1 Ellner, Robin From:rdmto <rdmto@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:17 AM To:rdmto@aol.com Subject:No CHANGE to spot zoning, Oppose 567 Maybell Ave project Dear Honorable city officials, I urge you to STOP the proposed development on 567 Maybell Ave. No CHANGE to spot ZONING Please. Thank you RD 2 Sincerely, Adam Boxer Nicky Klein 1 Ellner, Robin From:Adam Boxer <adamlboxer@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 22, 2013 9:26 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; BPA- Board@googlegroups.com Subject:Strong opposition to zoning exception plans on Maybell Ave. parcel to allow high density development and senior housing To whom it may concern: This letter is in strong opposition to the City of Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council's plans to rezone Maybell Avenue and/or grant zoning exceptions for high-density development and senior housing. My wife and I are residents of Abel Ave and are opposed to this rezoning and/or exemption on the following grounds: 1) Safety. Putting high density right where there are already such traffic problems, at the only inlets/outlets to the neighborhood (which has no inlets/outlets to the south or west) hurts emergency vehicle access to Juana Briones School, Terman School, the residents of the neighborhood. 2) Traffic: Maybell is already too narrow, Arastradero on the other side is crammed with cars at certain times of the day, and kids weave in and out of traffic on Maybell already because it's so narrow. 3) Traffic: The Palo Alto Housing Corp is claiming the high-rise will just be seniors who won't make traffic, but there are NO WALKABLE SERVICES there. Residents will have to drive out or have helpers drive in. 4) Negative impact on neighborhood quality of life. This is a small, cohesive neighborhood and rezoning to high density destroys the character of this neighborhood. 5) The rezoning violates policies of the city's general plan: “POLICY L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Scale is the relationship of various parts of the environment to each other.” The scale of the proposed project is out of proportion to the current neighborhood and would destroy the character of the neighborhood. “POLICY L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density ….. between residential areas of different densities. ..” The proposed development would dwarf the remaining houses in the area and transform this suburban residential neighborhood into an urban eyesore. In short, we are strongly opposed to rezoning the Maybell parcel to permit construction of a monstrously large housing development. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Albert Chin <albertchin@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 19, 2013 12:15 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim Subject:Re: Maybell/Clemo high-density project I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed re-zoning and subsequent construction of high-density housing at the Maybell / Clemo location. Contrary to reports suggesting little to no opposition from the area communities, there are a lot of residents of the Green Acres community who firmly believe that this project should not move forward. Just a few points (I'm sure you have received substantial input from other community members detailing the full set of issues) I would like to point out: 1) This location makes no sense as independent senior housing, where there are virtually no walkable services in the area (save for a Walgreens, provided that these seniors are able to safely walk along roads largely w/o sidewalks) 2) With the increase in the school-age population and hence enrollment at Terman and Gunn, traffic along the Maybell / Arastradero corridor is already untenable and the safety of our children is of major concern. To say that there would be just an "incremental" increase would be distorting the facts to ignore that one would be making an already unsafe situation worse. 3) This area is part of our residential neighborhood and should remain low density. This is NOT part of the El Camino corridor, and the fact that there are some high density apartments built more than half a lifetime ago (when a good part of the green acres neighborhood were fruit orchards) cannot be made to be an excuse to allow an adjoining property to be rezoned. Please do not consider the fact that only some of the community members are able to independently respond with our opposition (vs. the well-heeled corporations behind the project) as a vote of support from those who are quiet. Regards, Albert Chin Georgia Avenue 1 Ellner, Robin From:Alexandra Gotsch <am.gotsch@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 19, 2013 11:09 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell street Please do not rezone this area. The traffic on Arastradero in the morning is already terrible. Thank you. Alexandra Gotsch 4172 Wallis Court 1 Ellner, Robin From:Allegra Riley <allegra.riley@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:57 PM To:Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; Planning Commission Subject:Please do not rezone Green Acres 2 (Maybell Senior Housing Project) Dear Palo Alto City Council and Planning Commission Members, I have been a member of the Green Acres 2 community since 1976. Many of my first childhood memories are of riding my bike up and down Willmar Drive to see my best friend and spending hours playing in the "vacant lot" on the corner of Donald Drive and Maybell Avenue. While the vacant lot we played in is now long gone and covered with homes, Green Acres 2 continues to be a highly desirable neighborhood with a booming multicultural community filled with children and families. Ten years ago, my husband and I chose to move back to this community for two reasons - the quiet neighborhood and the open space nestled throughout the community. Unfortunately, the two traits that drew us back to this neighborhood are at risk of being destroyed by Palo Alto Housing Corporation pushing through an unwanted high density housing complex in the middle of our community across from Juana Briones park along Maybell Ave and Clemo Ave. Peak commute/school drop-off times already result in significant traffic backups on Maybell and Arastradero. We regularly see people making dangerous maneuvers on El Camino and Arastradero to gain a one car advantage in the packed lineup on their way to work. New housing developments currently being built nearby along El Camino in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos will likely only increase this traffic. Adding one more high density housing complex with vehicular access via Maybell Ave, an already busy neighborhood street near several schools, seems like a recipe for disaster. We are asking loudly that elected officials and Palo Alto city employees refuse the rezoning of Green Acres 2 for high density housing. It will only reduce the quality of life in a quiet Palo Alto neighborhood, increase car traffic on already congested neighborhood streets, and create a potentially dangerous situation for children walking and biking to school. Local email lists from this neighborhood and others indicate that a significant number of people feel the same way. Please prevent the rezoning for this development and help preserve our community. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Allegra, Dylan, and Tyler Riley Donald Drive Palo Alto, CA 650-814-6342 1 Ellner, Robin From:baruch boxer <brchboxer594@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:53 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:spot zoning 567 Maybell The proposed high density development at Clemo and Maybell will be an insult and travesty to a tranquil neighborhood and lovely park. You must prohibit spot zoning. It is unfair and destructive to the well-being of neighbors and homeowners. Traffic will endanger bicycling children returning from neighboring schools. Thanks, Baruch and Elaine Boxer 4162 Thain Way -- Baruch Boxer Professor Emeritus, Rutgers University Geography, Human Ecology, Environmental Science Visiting Scholar, Stanford University Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering (H)650-424-8072; (C)650-646-3186 1 Ellner, Robin From:betty cho <betty_cho@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, April 19, 2013 10:55 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Please, NO "High-density high-rise across from Briones" Dear Planning commissioner, It is totally against the people in this neighborhood to build a high density high rise on Maybell ave. Go and check on the traffic in the morning and see how bad it is now. If this gets built, can you image if we can get out of our house or going anywhere? What if we have an emergency and need medical attention, can we get it on time? How many more accidents do you want to see? NO and NO, we don't want to build this in our neighborhood!!!! In the morning, it is so hard and take long time for us to drive to work now. It is already very stressful. PLEASE DONT MAKE OUR LIFE MORE STRESSFUL and MISERABLE. We all know the big earthquake is coming and we should all prepare for that. Can you imaging with such density, how can we get help? When we walk our dog in the morning, we can feel the air just so bad because all the cars. This will make the air even worse. DON"T KILL US AND OUR DOG SLOWLY, PLEASE!!!! We like our neighborhood and we want to live here and have a good life. PLEASE DON"T DRIVE US AWAY. We are here first!! If this high density high rise is added here, our home price will drop. Do you want to see that happens to your house? PLEASE NO!!! You want to put a senior development there. But there are no walkable services at that location, not even a grocery store nearby. Residents will have to drive out or have helpers drive in. A senior development is better placed near walkable medical services and grocery. NO HIGH-DENSITY HIGH-RISE on Maybell Ave. I am totally against this project. A resident on Maybell Ave 1 Ellner, Robin From:Betty Cho <talltree.pa@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:56 PM To:Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Planning Commission Subject:We are loudly against the HIGH DENSITY HOUSE project on Maybell Ave Dear Palo Alto City Council and Planning Commission Members, we have been living on Maybell for more than 20 years. My children grew up here. we like our neighborhood. We see young families moving this area and reminded me when we were young. We have very nice memory of living on this street and have planned to live here forever. If the city allow to build high density housing on this street, it will ruin our life here. What kind of traffic nightmare we will see. What nightmare we will have if we need medical assistance. Traffic will pollute in this area. Even now, the traffic gets so bad in the morning. If this high density housing is built here, we can't even getting onto the street. The current projects on El Camino already make things 100 times worse. If the high density housing is build, that will make things 1000 time worse. We don't want to see the young children die or hurt in the accidents. We elected you as our representatives,It is time to speak up for the people in Green Acres to refuse the rezoning. Local email lists from this neighborhood and others indicate that a significant number of people feel the same way. Please prevent the rezoning for this development and help preserve our community. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Chou family on Maybell Way 1 Ellner, Robin From:Benjamin Dai <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:30 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- City should be reasonable Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: City should be reasonable and responsible before allowing new rezoning in a small neighborhood with huge impact on traffic and safety, particularly for students of three neighborhood schools. Sincerely, Benjamin Dai Palo Alto, California There are now 2 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:jbhvkn@aol.com Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:34 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Stop proposed development on 567 Maybell Ave Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen, 1. Please stop the proposed development on 567 Maybell Ave. 2. Please do not change the zoning established for our city. No change to spot zoning. Bev J. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Brian McCormick <bmccormick@stewartaudio.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 6:02 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:bpmoms@yahoogroups.com Subject:Proposed Project at 567 Maybell Ave. High density, low income 60-unit senior housing and 15-home development has been proposed at 567 Maybell Avenue across from Briones Park on the corner of Maybell and Clemo I would like to register my opposition to the above proposed project. Having lived in Barron Park for over 15 years, I've seen a slow erosion of the character which drew me to this neighborhood and to this community. It's one thing to tear down a small ranch style home and replace it with a two story home that seems ill suited for the neighborhood but this project seems to me like moving the El Camino Real further into Barron Park. The character of neighborhood is deeply rooted in a rural feel, purposely forgoing sidewalks for what feels like country lanes to encourage walking and biking. This proposed development replaces 4 single homes with 15 single family homes and 60 senior units, more traffic, less street parking around the park, additional noise and to what benefit to the neighborhood? If someone could explain to me how this project benefits Barron Park and the existing residents I would love to hear it, so far I've only seen the studies which talk about the "minimal" detrimental impact it will have as if stops there. Does it encourage more biking, walking throughout the neighborhood? Improved quality of life for the residents of Barron Park is not better served with this project as your traffic study shows, beyond the underestimated organic growth associated with trends within the neighborhood. By this I mean your traffic study does not account for the number of homes being torn down and changing demographics of the families replacing the existing residents.For instance an elderly resident who doesn't typically drive being replaced with a family of 4-5 and the increased volume of activity. You only have to look out 3-5 years and ask yourself does this project make this neighborhood better? Will it get to the point were I'll have to drive my kids to the park and school instead of walking because the traffic increase makes it too dangerous? Part of this is unique to Barron Park, I encourage the key decision makers to take a walk down Amaranta Ave. at 8:00 A.M. with their dog or a school age child. The studies the committee is using to make it's decision aren't meant to convey the impact on the character of a neighborhood or how safe a parent thinks it is to let their children walk or bike to school. So I would encourage the committee to talk with parents at Briones Park and residents walking on the affected streets, show them the Project Drawings and ask them if this improves their neighborhood and makes their streets safer for children to walk and ride to parks and schools. Sincerely, Brian McCormick Cereza Dr. Palo Alto 2 Brian McCormick Chief Marketing Officer Stewart Audio (650) 968-4400 www.stewartaudio.com 1 Ellner, Robin From:Bin's Hotmail <binhewan@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:36 PM To:zeller@writeme.com; Planning Commission; Council, City; greenacres2 @yahoogroups.com Subject:Re: [GA2] Protest of Plans to Rezone on Maybell To: Planning Commission We totally agree with Mr. Matthias Zeller. Sorry we didn’t have time and talent like Matthias Zeller to write you a long letter. Please count us as one of the residents who oppose the rezoning! Bin and Huashan King Arthur Court From: Matthias Zeller Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:01 PM To: Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org ; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org ; greenacres2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [GA2] Protest of Plans to Rezone on Maybell This letter is in stark protest of the City of Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council's intent to rezone Maybell Avenue and/or otherwise grant zoning exceptions for high‐density development and senior housing. My wife and I are residents of Donald Drive and are opposed to this rezoning and/or exemptionf on the following grounds: ‐ Maybell is supposedly a "safe route" for kids to walk and commute to local schools. This is already utterly laughable during school days and particularly during raining days. Cars already race down Maybell, particularly high school students on the way to Gunn as well as cars coming from the existing Title 8 housing which has driveways onto Maybell. ‐ Quality of Living. Green Acres has become an attractive neighborhood for all those working at Google, LinkedIn, and a variety of other startup and successful software companies based in Mountain View. People have invested hundreds of thousands in their homes if not millions to buy a single family homes that conform to the need for privacy, exclusivity, and existing city services. We don't want to be crowded by high‐density housing, and we are concerned about the degradation of our intimate community by the introduction of high‐ density housing. It is incredibly disappointing that the City consider diminishing the quality of life we have created here in the neighborhood. ‐Privacy, Eye‐blight. We understand the City plans to approve exceptions to setbacks as well as maximum number of stories allowed in single family units. This disturbs privacy for homes across from the units and we are also concerned that the architectural integrity of a 1950's rancher community be disrupted. In short, I am completely opposed to granting exceptions for Maybell Avenue, and am also in complete disagreement that the City Counsel characteizer my neighborhood as being in agreement with these potential changes in zoning. This is a complete misrepresentation and I will not stand for it. 2 Respectfully, Matthias Zeller __._,_.___ Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) RECENT ACTIVITY: Visit Your Group Post message: greenacres2@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: greenacres2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: greenacres2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com List owner: greenacres2-owner@yahoogroups.com MARKETPLACE Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Yahoo! Groups Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . __,_._,___ 1 Ellner, Robin From:Cecile <cecilek@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:24 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim Subject:Petition to oppose high-density rezoning of Maybell/Clemo area Hello, As a Green Acres neighborhood resident, I'm opposing the rezoning of the Maybell/Clemo area into a high-density zone for a new development for the following reasons: 1. Traffic and safety - there's already a traffic issue in the morning and after-school hours which present safety issues on the road and to passengers. Rezoning this area into a high-density area would only aggravate the situation for current residents, comprised of many families with school-age kids, middle school and high school kids. 2. Residential community - Families who have decided to live in this residential community for its family- centric character. The proposed development is detrimental to this neighborhood character. While it may be a few blocks of El Camino Real, it is actually a part of the Greenacres residential community. 3. That location is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to expand the existing park and make a much needed playing field on this side of town! Such a field could be reached by kids by bikes from Los Altos and all the neighborhoods along the bike path. Instead of having to be driven all the way out to the Baylands, kids could have more opportunities to be independent and active. The benefits to the community are legion and real, not just cover for more density and developers. Consider adding support of turning the it into a PLAYING FIELD in your letter, and ask others to send their support for it as well! Senior housing WITHIN existing low-density zoning is welcome but the location will serve a larger community need as a playing field on this side of town. I'm sure there are more considerations that I'm not outlining here. I believe this area should be kept as low-density zone for the greater good of this community today and well into the future. Sincerely, Cecile 2 4120 Donald Drive Palo Alto, CA 1 Ellner, Robin From:Chanan <chanan@digi-labs.net> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:11 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Support for the 567 Maybell Ave - Maybell and Clemo Plan To: Planning commission City of Palo Alto Re: Support for the 567 Maybell Ave – Maybell and Clemo Plan As a resident of Barron Park (in past 16 years) I was called by my neighbors to raise my voice against the above plan with two main reasons pointed out: “Traffic flow from this development… onto Maybell” “The unavoidable monstrosity that you will see walking on Maybell and from Briones Park...” As I am sure all the drivers and walkers on Maybell will make their objection heard, let me voice my voice in support of this plan for those who are not here yet, and cannot be heard, all the potential future residents of this and similar projects: 1. It is immoral to push the elderly (for the most which lived in Palo Alto for many years) or the less fortunate or the young out to Florida (or San Jose) – I know a few people, some actually lived on Maybell for many years in a rented property, which once retired had to leave and move to Florida due to cost of housing, leaving behind a life time of social fabric and familiar environment. Is this more important and fair than a walk on Maybell Ave.? 2. As population grows we ALL have an obligation to accommodate this growth, we cannot say “yes, we are for immigration” , “yes, we are supporting families with kids”, “yes, we are for a more just and fair society” BUT “no, not in our back yard” and “no, not when it comes to us” and “no, we have already a hold on these resources and we will not let anybody else enjoy them”. 3. The current residence of a specific road in Palo Alto DO NOT have a God given right to any type of zoning rules, these are a type of natural resource that belongs to the general public, furthermore if the same attitude would have prevailed 100 years ago, they would be no Palo Alto as we know it today. So this attitude is like a person getting on the crowded Subway and now claiming there is no space for anybody else. Dear Planning commission your responsibility lays beyond the selfish interests of the neighbors, many living hundreds of feet away from this project. Please act accordingly. Disclaimer: I do not even know who the developer is, nor do I have any type of relationship or connection with him or any other party with any involvement or interests in this project. Best Chanan Steinhart 1 Ellner, Robin From:Carol Kibler <cjkib@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Saturday, April 20, 2013 8:47 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell housing project I am writing you to express my concerns about the development of the housing on Maybell. That area is for single family housing and should stay that way. Our neighborhood is very congested as it is. Maybell is already an accident waiting to happen. There are too many kids and bicyclist and cars on that street. I would ask you as a group to go stand out on Maybell from 7:45 to 8:15. On school days. It is crazy busy, and you want to add more dense housing! This is crazy. I have no problem with them adding more houses, but they need to single family just like the rest of the neighborhood. So that we do not have a bigger problem. Carol kibler 4183 coulombe dr Sent from my iPad 1 Ellner, Robin From:Caroline Rose <crose@differnet.com> Sent:Monday, April 22, 2013 9:41 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim Cc:BPA-Board@googlegroups.com Subject:No rezoning for higher denisty While I fear that what individuals in Palo Alto neighborhoods want will count much less than what those holding the city's pusre strings want, I'd like to speak out against rezoning the orchard and houses on Maybell, across from Juana Briones school and park, to high density. The way I feel about is summed up in my letter printed in the Palo Alto Weekly on April 19: There is no doubt that big buildings are being OK'd at the public's expense. I've lived here since the 1970s, and the change has been enormous, with an obvious direct correlation between the number and size of buildings erected and the amount of traffic and other congestion. The city wants more money and they figure that's the way to get it; I'd prefer that they instead figure out ways to cut wasteful spending. And how about focusing on the hundreds of people who get away with dangerous driving practices every day in this city? I avoid being on the road during rush hours, yet I can't go even a few blocks without seeing extreme speeding and lane-weaving, red-light violators, drivers using mobile devices, and more. Like so much around here, the traffic and driving weren't nearly as bad back when this was a much less crowded city. Palo Alto has steadily been becoming less peaceful and safe, with no signs of reversing this trend. Shame on our leaders and their "growth at any cost" attitude! The rezoning being considered for Maybell will make it much harder to get out of Barron Park onto Arastradero and make traffic there even worse than it already is. Sincerely, Caroline Rose 970 Paradaise Way Palo Alto 650-424-9100 1 Ellner, Robin From:David Erlich <davidricka2@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 22, 2013 6:04 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:High density project proposed for Maybell Ave. To anyone involved in the decision as to whether to rezone our neighborhood our not: We, residents of the Maybell Ave. neighborhood strongly oppose the rezoning of our neighborhood to allow for a high-density project to be approved for the corner of Maybell and Clemo in Barron Park. We moved into this area partly because of the existing zoning regulations that limit height and density regulations, and think it grossly unfair and disturbing that this area could be simply spot- rezoned to allow for this kind of development simply because one developer wants to do it. We expect the city to enforce existing zoning laws, not change them just because a developer wants it. Thank you, David Erlich and Ricka Berns 1 Ellner, Robin From:Ellen Cohen <ellenco@pacbell.net> Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:23 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:ellenco@pacbell.net Subject:Please register my objection to high density building on Maybell Ave Dear Planning Commission, I am a resident of Green Acres 2. I live on Maybell Way. I find it hard to get to work by 9 a.m. due to the traffic just leaving my neighborhood, starting around 8:45. Between the many schools on Arastradero, kids riding bikes creating a constant barrier to pulling out into Maybell Ave. and the parents dropping kids off at Juana Briones, it makes traffic a NIGHTMARE. In the afternoon, frequently I see kids riding bikes in pairs, with no helmets, earphones in their ears and no hands on their handlebars. They are often closer to the middle of the street than to the side. As you know , there are no sidewalks. Adding more cars will increase the risk to walkers and cyclists on Maybell Ave. I was stunned to read that there is a plan to put high density housing into this street. It's absolute craziness. There is no room to accommodate the added traffic. And for seniors? There is nowhere for them to walk to buy groceries. No doctors nearby. This is a big mistake. I'm not a lawyer, but to the best of my understanding, this is in violation of the zoning code. Please don't do it. Sincerely, Ellen Cohen ****************** Ellen Cohen 650-255-6511 1 Ellner, Robin From:E D <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:57 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Save our neighborhood from Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed E D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Save our neighborhood from unreasonable and irresponsible development! Sincerely, E D , There are now 1 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to E D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Elaine Dai <edai@inspiralaw.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:55 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:Benjamin Dai; elainedai@gmail.com Subject:567-595 Maybell Rezoning Opposition Dear City Council and Planning Commission, We are residents in the Barron Park/Green Acres neighborhood of Palo Alto; our home is located on Abel between Maybell and Georgia. We strongly oppose the rezoning at 567 and 595 Maybell to a “Planned Community” zone for the purposes of building a high‐density 60‐unit, 4‐story housing and 15‐home development. We do not oppose development in this area in general, but we believe the best solution is to build under existing zoning laws that include setbacks, height restrictions, and lower‐density housing. This neighborhood is already impacted greatly with traffic due to our proximity to Gunn High School, Terman Middle School, and Juana Briones Elementary. It already feels unsafe to walk and bike with our young children to and from school every day, given that there are no sidewalks but many drivers. Adding such high‐density housing in this small neighborhood would make traffic in this area even more unsafe. The proximity of this proposed development to Juana Briones Park where ball games are played, and students and children frequently walking to and from in the community – not just on weekdays during school – but this is a popular community gathering place on the weekends – would also be jeopardized with high‐density housing located adjacent. Respectfully, Elaine & Benjamin Dai Elaine H. Dai, Esq. 650.561.4270 dir 215.565.4777 fax edai@inspiralaw.com www.inspiralaw.com ************************************************** The contents of this message, together with any attachments, are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. It is from a law firm and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message, or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify InspiraLaw at 650.561.4270 or return email immediately, and delete this message, along with any attachments, from your computer. Thank you. * To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice provided in this communication, including attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax‐related matter addressed herein. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Emily Huynh <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 3:55 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Emily Huynh Palo Alto, California There are now 6 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Elaine D <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:38 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:New petition to you: City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Elaine D started a petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" targeting you on Change.org that's starting to pick up steam. Change.org is the world's largest petition platform that gives anyone, anywhere the tools they need to start, join and win campaigns for change. Change.org never starts petitions on our own -- petitions on the website, like "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park", are started by users. While "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" is active, you'll receive an email each time a signer leaves a comment explaining why he or she is signing. You'll also receive periodic updates about the petition's status. Here's what you can do right now to resolve the petition:  Review the petition. Here's a link: o <="" a="">http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in-barron-park  See the 5 signers and their reasons for signing on the petition page.  Respond to the petition creator by sending a message here: o http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop- rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Sincerely, Change.org There are now 5 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:eugene zukowsky <eandzz@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, April 22, 2013 11:01 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:project at Clemo and Maybell We are senior citizens who have lived on Maybell Way (cul de sac off Maybell Ave.) since 1969. We raised two children in this neighborhood. They grew up in the wonderful period when we still had apricot orchards for kids to play in and safe UNCROWDED streets for kids to bike in. We've seen our neighborhood become more and more crowded. The most recent negative change was the revamping of the Charleston/Arastradero corridor. It's truly laughable that Palo Alto tries so hard to be a "green" city when the biggest polluters are cars idling in backed up traffic and that change certainly has worsened the problem. We STRONGLY oppose rezoning of the parcel adjacent to Juana Briones park to high density. That plan will certainly add immensely to the already horrible traffic on Maybell Ave. During commute times it's actually difficult to drive out of Maybell Way. Maybell Avenue is such a narrow street. Children biking to schools and cars driving on Maybell Ave. to avoid crowded Arastradero creates an accident waiting to happen. Many of the residents of this neighborhood have requested that zoning not be changed from R1 to high density and we VERY STRONGLY urge you to listen to us and comply with our request! Gene and Zita Zukowsky 4153 Maybell Way 1 Ellner, Robin From:Felix Zajac <zajac@stanford.edu> Sent:Saturday, April 20, 2013 8:51 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim Subject:Deny rezoning of Green Acres 2 (Maybell Senior Housing Project) Dear Palo Alto City Council and Planning Commission Members, We have been residents of Green Acres 2 neighborhood since 1979. Our two children rode bikes or walked to attend schools in Palo Alto. Our neighborhood and the surrounding area (e.g., Stanford Research Park) has developed much since 1979. We have witnessed the changes. We strongly oppose the rezoning of the parcel across from Juana Briones park to high density, even for senior housing, such as for ourselves aged >70 years old. The reasons are that rezoning will: 1) Negatively impact the quality of life of surrounding Palo Alto neighborhoods, which currently are cohesive, highly desirable, multicultural ones. The parcel is not adjacent to the high density El Camino corridor, as the Palo Alto Housing Corp (PAHC) claims, but rather is part of our Greenacres and Barron Park communities and is adjacent to the Juana Briones Park. 2) Not be ideally suited to seniors because no walkable services exist nearby, except for a Walgreens. Other suitable projects are under construction near Stanford that are much better suited for seniors because of the nearby services offered (e.g., medical, grocery, entertainment, restaurants). 3) Worsen already intolerable traffic. Maybell is a residential, narrow street, heavily used by student bikers and parents driving their kids to school. Arastradero is also bottlenecked at these and other times. High density housing for anyone will exacerbate these notorious difficult-to-solve traffic problems in our neighborhoods. 4) Entice seniors from elsewhere to move to Palo Alto since most Palo Alto seniors already own their home. And can we be certain that their grandchildren wont attend Palo Alto schools? 5) May be considered illegal spot zoning since the nearby apartments were built when the area resided within County zoning and the other nearby zoning is R-1 single-family residential. 6) Violate Palo Alto's General Plan, such as Policy L-7, which is: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhood. 7) May constitue illegal contract zoning or, minimally, a perceived conflict in interest since Palo Alto has loaned the PAHC money with the constraint that the money be used to construct high density housing at this parcel location, an unachievable constraint unless, of course, Palo Alto rezones that parcel. 7) Prevent a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to expand Juana Briones park. We residents in southwest Palo Alto really need more park space, such as a ballpark. 2 To conclude, no rezoning should be approved but instead the PAMC should abide by the current zoning and construct housing, e.g., senior housing, accordingly. Respectfully, Felix & Elizabeth (Joyce) Zajac 4138 Willmar Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-804-2860 1 Ellner, Robin From:Gregory Kovacs <kovacs@cis.stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:19 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; lisama@gmail.com Subject:Rezoning on Maybell - Strong Objection Dear Planning Commission, I live near, and use Briones Park. I am very strongly opposed to re-zoning the parcel in question to high-density housing for reasons of traffic and, of course, safety. Maybell is a major corridor for children going to Briones Elementary and Gunn High School. More cars will increase the already considerable risk of traffic mishaps. If you do not believe it is already very bad, please take a few minutes one morning to visit and see for yourselves. I have seen a few mishaps and they are truly frightening. Also, this is a one-time opportunity to expand Briones park by purchasing the parcel and annexing it to the park. I am convinced that if it were put to a vote, the neighborhood would be hugely in favor of expanding the park rather than building high-density apartments. Please stop this rezoning and consider expanding Juana Briones Park!!! Thanks, Gregory Kovacs 4174 King Arthur Court Palo Alto, CA 94306 Gregory T. A. Kovacs, M.D., Ph.D. Professor of Electrical Engineering and (by courtesy) of Medicine Stanford University 330 Serra Mall, Room CISX-202 Stanford, CA 94305-4075 Phone: (650) 725-3637 Fax: (650) 725-5244 Email: kovacs@cis.stanford.edu Web: http://transducers.stanford.edu/ 1 Ellner, Robin From:Heidi Perry <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:08 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Heidi Perry Palo Alto, California There are now 3 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Hanwant Singh <hanwant.b.singh@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 22, 2013 12:01 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim Subject:Green Acres rezoning & high density housing Dear Planning Commission & City Council members, This letter is to express our extreme opposition to the high density rezoning being considered for the Green Acres area. We are residents of Green Acres and live in a single-family single story home on Arastradero Road. We are already chocking in traffic congestion that is both inefficient and unsafe. Arastradero between El Camino and Foothill Express already contains 3 schools and some dense tall rental buildings (e. g. Tan Apartments) that were grandfathered in by the city in this residential neighborhood. The massive (and ugly) dense condo construction at the El Camino and Charleston intersection has made the situation worse and is an example of some poor decisions in the past. Green Acres is a family oriented neighborhood and building more dense housing will further deteriorate the quality of life for residents. What this community really needs is an expanded Juana Briones park not more congestion. We urge the Planning Commission and City Council to reject this rezoning idea and consider options that would add to the quality of life for its south Palo Alto residents. Sincerely, Hanwant and Raman Singh 681 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA 943 1 Ellner, Robin From:Irina Iourovitski <irina_iourov@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 22, 2013 9:33 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:NO to spot zoning: Maybell ave To the City Council and Planning Commission, As a Barron Park residents we oppose the building of the high density housing on Maybell avenue. This will ruin the quietness and the feel of the neighborhood. The traffic is already bad enough, especially during schools start/finish. The new housing will put unbearable constrain on the traffic. This will bring the safety of the pedestrians down. Taking in consideration the close proximity of the 3 public schools and large amount of children walking/biking the decision to build high density housing is not acceptable. also this will disrupt the view and feel of the family friendly neighborhood. Iourovitski's family 4110 Thain Way, 94306 650-424-8053 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jimmy Chen <jimmichen@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 21, 2013 2:48 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell Homes Senior Housing Project Dear Planning Commission, I would like to voice my STRONG opposition to the Maybell Homes Senior Housing Project. There are no walkable facilities near that area. -Jim Chen Barron Park 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jim Colton <james.colton@sri.com> Sent:Friday, April 19, 2013 10:36 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:High-Density Housing on Maybell Dear Commissioners, I am distressed that you are considering, and seem to have already decided, putting high‐density housing on Maybell Avenue. Our neighborhood is zoned R‐1 and has that feel about it. Adding high density housing at this location would change the character of the neighborhood for the worse. I expect if you lived in our neighborhood you would feel the same. Jim Colton 670 Georgia Ave 1 Ellner, Robin From:Wong, Tim Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:44 AM To:Ellner, Robin Subject:FW: Proposed Development of Maybell From: Jen Hess [mailto:jen.hess@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:38 AM To: Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim Subject: Proposed Development of Maybell I am deeply concerned about the direction the council is taking with regard to changing an area near Juana Briones park on Maybell. This area currently is adjacent to Juana Briones park and currently has 3 to 4 homes. It seems like the council is considering changing this area to hold about 30 units. While I do understand that we need more housing in Palo Alto, I do not believe this is the place to do it. I am not objecting because it is in my backyard, which it is, but because I don't feel that either Maybell or Arastadero can manage the additional traffic this change is likely to cause. If you feel that it is necessary to do this, I feel that you must widen Arastadero road to be four lane with a bike lane on both sides. The current traffic in addition to proposed new traffic needs wider road areas. My guess is that widening this road is totally out off the table. In which case, I would recommend this developer work in concert with Buena Vista Mobile Home Park owners to develop that area. El Camino is large enough to accomodate more traffic easily. I also believe that making exceptions to existing zoning is a bad idea. Zoning laws exist to keep neighborhoods cohesive and maintain the character of areas of the Palo Alto community. I would be more than willing to welcome potential tenants to such a place as I feel that areas like this would provide a larger diversity to my neighborhood, I just don't agree that this is the right place for such a development. I sincerely believe that the existing Mobile Home park, which is slated to be removed should be replaced with units for low income and larger density housing. Jennifer Hess 4016 Orme St Palo Alto, ca -- Jen Hess 1 Ellner, Robin From:Joanna Hubenthal <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:17 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Traffic is already at Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Traffic is already at an unsafe level in this neighborhood. There is almost always gridlock on Arastradero and El Camino before school in the mornings and the back up on Maybell can make it take 15 minutes to go two blocks before school starts. I already do not let my kids bike to school because of the unsafe traffic conditions, this kind of addition would make it even more difficult for residents closer by Juana Briones feel safe enough to let their kids walk or bike in the congested traffic conditions. (particularly since there are no side walks for the children on the adjacent streets.) Sincerely, Joanna Hubenthal Palo Alto, California There are now 4 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jeffrey Lipkin <repjal@att.net> Sent:Saturday, April 20, 2013 9:01 PM To:Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; Planning Commission Cc:Ruth Satterthwaite Subject:rezoning for high density in Green Acres Dear Sirs and Madams: I strongly opposed the proposed rezoning for the high density development planned for the site next to Maybell and on Aratradero. Maybell already has enough traffic problems and threats to our children. Arastradero is a mess created by your two‐lane traffic plan ‐ try driving it in the morning or evening rush hours. And the mess on Arastradero diverts traffic (including high speed reckless student drivers) onto Georgia and Maybell, which you have not corrected. Also, Aratradero has Gunn High School which creates its own problems ‐ this rezoning is another example of asking South Palo Alto to do more than its share, and dumping the North's problems on the South. Try placing this high density housing in Crescent Park instead ‐ it is similar but just higher rent. Or, correct your own misguided zoning of El Camino and place the development there and rezone the whole length ‐ right now it has too few people to sustain the stores and commercial development you want. Lastly, it appears this is an illegal spot zoning. There are sufficient concerned residents and attorney‐residents to sue you on this basis and win. Back off and don't pick a fight you cannot win and which makes you look misguided, stupid and venal as well. Jeff Lipkin 1 Ellner, Robin From:Owen and Janet Wolkowitz <janow@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, April 22, 2013 9:09 PM To:Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; Planning Commission Subject:re: rezoning of Maybell land tract for Senior housing To Whom It May Concern, Numerous Green Acres citizens have voiced their opinion over the use of the land between Maybell and Arastradero next to Juana Briones park and I would like to add my personal view. Today at 9:15 am, I went to work late and sat through two lights at the corner of Arastradero waiting to turn left onto Foothill Expressway. The time was long after all three schools which feed into this route have started and much longer than any comparable wait just three years ago. I cannot leave my neighborhood during the start of school without adding ten minutes to my commute--just to get out of the neighborhood. At 4:20, outside my house on Willmar, a car careened towards the bend in the road, barely making the turn while a family of three rode their bikes the opposite direction. It seems like a quiet little safe street for a bike ride but has become a short cut speed zone since Arastradero has become so impacted. Last Friday, I left to pick my middle school daughter up at a neighbors five blocks away, and was stuck in traffic on Arastradero that did not move. The thought occurred to me that Terman students are at great risk should rescue vehicles need to get there quickly at the beginning or end of the school day. We are a small, organized, quiet neighborhood, greatly impacted by poor city planning that has not taken us into consideration. We cannot absorb more high density housing. Our little streets do not have adequate egress as it is. Please don't add to our safety issues. Janet Negley 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jen Smith <jeesm5@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:21 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Urgent: Oppose rezoning. Oppose proposed project on 567 maybell Ave. Please STOP the proposed development on 567 Maybell Ave. No CHANGE to spot ZONING Thank you Jen Smith 1 Ellner, Robin From:Joe Sullivan <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:38 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- My children walk to Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: My children walk to school and already have to deal with too much traffic. There are a number of other development projects already taking place in the neighborhood, and one more is too many. We need to prioritize the existing community over development right now. Sincerely, Joe Sullivan Palo Alto, California There are now 5 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. From: Jeffrey Yost <jtyostweb@mac.com> Date: April 23, 2013, 10:50:32 AM PDT To: <curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Oppose rezoning of 567-595 Maybell Dear Mr. Williams, As a resident of Barron Park, I would like to voice my strong opposition to the development project at 567-595 Maybell Avenue as currently proposed. My concerns: --An exacerbation of an already horrendous traffic situation on Maybell/Coulomb, especially in the morning during school drop-off. --Dimensions and size of building are out of character with the neighborhood. My preference would be, in order: --Development of a park, open space, or much needed playing fields. Gunn fields are not open to the public. --Keep the current R-1 and RM-15 designations and build housing appropriate to the site and in accordance with the current zoning designation. Haven't we had enough development messes lately.... Miki's for example? Thank You, Jeffrey T Yost 4121 Verdosa Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Kin Cho <send.kin.mail@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:41 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim Subject:Stop High-density High-rise across from Briones Dear Palo Alto city leaders and city planners, I'm a Palo Alto resident and my home is on Maybell Ave. Maybell Ave. and Arastradero are both narrow streets, please do not make the rush hour traffic jams even worse and ruin our neighborhood!!! Please, NO "High-density high-rise across from Briones". Sincerely, Kin Cho 1 Ellner, Robin From:Kevin Hauck <kevhauck@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:40 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell re-zoning. Dear Planning Commission: I am writing to register my firm opposition to the proposed rezoning of the Maybell Clemo project site to allow for a high density townhome and senior center complex. The project will impose significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods, including viewshed, lightshed, traffic, noise, and other unacceptable "significant impacts," per CEQA. Spot zoning defeats the principles of zoning entirely, and should be refused by the commission. The property is zoned for low density residential and the developer should have to abide by the constraints of that zoning. We purchased a property in the neighborhood with the expectation that the city government would enforce the law of the land and not trample the rights of existing residents in favor of deep pocketed development interests. I urge the commission to subject the developers of this site to the same laws everyone else in the neighborhood abides by. Best Regards, Kevin Hauck Georgia Avenue Homeowner 1 Ellner, Robin From:Kenneth Luis <kluis@fedex.com> Sent:Friday, April 19, 2013 3:15 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; 'BPA- Board@googlegroups.com' Cc:barbluis@yahoo.com; Kenneth Luis Subject:OPPOSED to high-density zoning near Juana Briones Park Hello, My name is Ken Luis and I’m a GreenAcres II resident at 4192 Donald Dr. I am writing to oppose the high‐density zoning proposal near Juana Briones Park. Our children attend Juana Briones Elementary and play in Juana Briones Park often. We are opposed to more housing and more traffic in the area. Thank You, Ken 1 Ellner, Robin From:Kay Luo <kayluo@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:31 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Re: [GA2] Protest of Plans to Rezone on Maybell Dear City of Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council, I am unable to attend the meeting tonight but wanted to voice my concern regarding the plans to rezone Maybell Avenue. Due to the level of high-speed traffic on our residential streets in Green Acres already, I am against this plan. Unless we can come up with comprehensive traffic calming measures including Willmar Drive (which many drivers use to bypass Arastradero and connect with Maybell), I am firmly against the rezoning. Thank you for your consideration and for serving our city. Best regards, Kay Luo Willmar Drive Palo Alto 1 Ellner, Robin From:Kathy Riley <ksr94306@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:54 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Rezoning of property at Maybell/Clemo Attention members of the Planning Commission and City Council: I strongly oppose the rezoning of the property at Maybell and Clemo to "Planned Community". The density of the proposed development project would seriously impact the neighborhood. The area has already been impacted by the dense building along the El Camino corridor that pushes traffic onto Maybell as cars try to avoid the Arastradero congestion. Maybell is also heavily traveled by children of all ages that feed into Terman, Gunn, and Juana Briones elementary. I am going to be out of town for the hearing but hope that this email will be included in the record of citizens that oppose the project. Thank you and regards, Kathryn Riley 4122 Thain Way 1 Ellner, Robin From:Kenneth Scholz <kenscholz@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:12 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Carol Scholz Subject:Opposed to Maybell-Clemo development proposal Greetings: We are strongly opposed to the proposal to install tall, high density housing units and senior housing on our neighborhood. Maybell already is a dangerous street, possibly one of the more dangerous in Palo Alto - it is severely congested on school days and there always is a problem with children suddenly running into the street from between cars, especially around the apartments. We're already on constant alert when we drive through there and have observed a number of close calls. It would be irresponsible to add more traffic to this area, both from the housing units and the senior housing. As for senior housing, we are seniors and drive everywhere, traversing Maybell several times per day. Many of neighbors are seniors, and we have a number of friends and family who live in senior housing units. Believe me, these people have cars and use them, frequently. Adding concentrated senior housing will put many more cars onto an already congested and confusing street. There are few services within walking range in this neighborhood, active seniors will be forced to use our cars for nearly everything. This is a very poor place for it. This development with tall buildings and compromised set backs is not permitted by existing zoning and will impact the residential character of the neighborhood. It's unfortunate that the existing apartments went in before controls, but they shouldn't be used to justify the creation of further blight. If anything we should be looking for a way to reduce congestion in this area. This is a low to moderate density residential neighborhood already impacted by a number of excessively dense projects. We urge you not to change zoning or do anything to bring higher population and traffic density to this neighborhood. There are much better, though possibly less lucrative, uses for this land. There is no urgency to developing it now, but should there be a desire to do so it should be done as part of a well considered plan that considers the concerns and needs of the immediate community first. Regards, Kenneth D. and Carol A. Scholz 4150 Willmar Dr. Palo Alto, CA 1 Ellner, Robin From:Ellner, Robin Sent:Monday, April 22, 2013 7:20 AM Cc:Aknin, Aaron; Silver, Cara Subject:In Opposition to Planned Development on Maybell Good morning, Please see the email below from Ms. Zeller. Thank you, Robin Robin Ellner | Administrative Associate III 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2603 | E: robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Karen Zeller [mailto:karenzeller8@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:35 PM To: Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; BPA-Board@googlegroups.com Subject: In Opposition to Planned Development on Maybell I am absolutely, and with no reservations opposed to the rezoning of Maybell Avenue for high-density housing. My understanding is that this include low-income housing for senior residents as well as accommodation for a developer to build 3-story town-homes on the street. I am concerned about the impact on the already problematic traffic on Maybell, particularly during school hours as this is a safe-route for bicyclists. The city council and planning commission have a horrible track record of appeasing developers to the detriment of neighborhoods by allowing 1) exceptions to setbacks which push housing and businesses close up to streets with little accommodation for pedestrians and cyclists, 2) allowing developers exceptions on the maximum allowable stories for single-residencies which violates existing neighbors' privacy, 3) allowing developers exceptions on the maximum square footage that can be built out which increases the burden on city traffic, transportation services, as well as the school system. So in short I for one want to be put on the record for being opposed to the rezoning as well as ANY exceptions city planning and the city counsel suggest granting on Maybell. Respectfully, Karen Zeller 2 4137 Donald Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 karenzeller8@gmail.com 1 Ellner, Robin From:Lisa LaForge <lisa_laforge@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:39 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Dave Darling Subject:Opposition to rezoning of 567 & 595 Maybell My husband and I own a home on Thain Way, the only way to get out of our cul de sac is via Maybell. We strongly oppose rezoning 567 and 595 Maybell to a “Planned Community” zone for purposes of building a high density 60-unit, 4-story, low income senior housing and 15-home development. Maybell cannot accommodate traffic it has now especially during morning rush hours, nor will Maybell be able to handle the additional traffic that 75 additional residential units would bring. The traffic-calming exercise on Arastradero has had the effect of adding alot of traffic to Maybell. On weekday mornings, Maybell is literally completely stopped in the direction of the Briones School and there are times when it is almost impossible to exit Thain safely and get on to Maybell heading toward El Camino, especially with the increased student bike traffic and car dealerships unloading cars on Maybell. To avoid the Arastradero stop-and-go traffic, I have seen regularly seen people cutting through the Walgreens drive thru and cutting through the Arastradero Park Apts at unsafe speeds. I am not opposed to development or progress, but this project is not right for Maybell nor those who live nearby. I, and I am inviting my neighbors to join me at the May 1 City Council meeting to oppose this redevelopment of 567 and 595 Maybell. BR-- Lisa LaForge 2 mornings, Maybell is literally completely stopped in the direction of the Briones School and there are times when it is almost impossible to exit Thain safely and get on to Maybell heading toward El Camino, especially with the increased student bike traffic and car dealerships unloading cars on Maybell. To avoid the Arastradero stop-and-go traffic, I have seen regularly seen people cutting through the Walgreens drive thru and cutting through the Arastradero Park Apts at unsafe speeds. I am not opposed to development or progress, but this project is not right for Maybell nor those who live nearby. I, and I am inviting my neighbors to join me at the May 1 City Council meeting to oppose this redevelopment of 567 and 595 Maybell. BR-- Lisa LaForge 1 Ellner, Robin From:Lisa LaForge <lisa_laforge@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:03 AM To:Shepherd, Nancy (internal); Planning Commission Subject:Opposition to rezoning of 567 and 595 Maybell Avenue Attachments:Maybell_04242013_10.jpg Nancy, Thank you for getting back to me and so quickly. I really appreciate it. Here is a picture my husband took today at 8:15 AM of the intersection of El Camino Real and Maybell Avenue. While the problem this morning was exacerbated by trucks parked along the El Camino in the southbound direction, it is not uncommon to wait to make a right turn from Maybell to head southbound on El Camino Real for several cycles of the light at this time of the morning, particularly when parents are dropping kids off at school on rainy days. The traffic heading in this direction of the photograph sometimes backs up past Thain Way and makes it impossible to make a left turn out of Thain Way on to Maybell. Maybell Avenue has one lane in each direction. If this is what Maybell looks like during morning rush hour now, imagine what it will look like with the traffic from additional cars if redevelopment of 567 and 595 Maybell Avenue proceeds as the developer has requested. I will send additional pictures in the coming days. Thanks again. BR-- Lisa Thank you for copying me on our message to planning commission as this project seeks approval. Take care, Nancy Shepherd Vice Mayor Palo Alto City Council ________________________________________ From: Lisa LaForge [lisa_laforge@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:39 AM To: Planning Commission; Council, City; Dave Darling Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 567 & 595 Maybell My husband and I own a home on Thain Way, the only way to get out of our cul de sac is via Maybell. We strongly oppose rezoning 567 and 595 Maybell to a “Planned Community” zone for purposes of building a high density 60-unit, 4-story, low income senior housing and 15-home development. Maybell cannot accommodate traffic it has now especially during morning rush hours, nor will Maybell be able to handle the additional traffic that 75 additional residential units would bring. The traffic-calming exercise on Arastradero has had the effect of adding alot of traffic to Maybell. On weekday 1 Ellner, Robin From:Lois Lin <mloislin@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:15 AM To:Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; Planning Commission Subject:Maybell projects Dear members of the Planning Commission, My husband and I would like to respectfully add our opposition to the possible rezoning of the parcel of land on Clemo and Maybell streets in Barron Park. We have been living on Orme Street since 1975 and have seen the evolution of the neighborhood over the years. The following problems have become very apparent. 1. The traffic on Arastradero and Maybell has become very heavy, especially between the hours of 7:30 and 9:00 in the morning, and 2:30 to 6:00 in the afternoons. The only semi‐safe route for the children to and from four different schools is on Maybell, connecting to other streets within the neighborhood to avoid Arastradero. I personally leave the area before 7:30 or after 9:00 to avoid the morning commutes, but most people are not able to do this. I fear for the children. Traffic on Maybell was heavy before and after school hours when my children attended Briones, JLS, and Gunn twenty years ago. Things have only gotten worse. 2. There are no facilities for seniors nearby. My husband and I are beginning to look at senior housing, and, if we qualified, I would definitely NOT look at a project on Maybell because there is nothing available to make senior living easier. There are few stores, gas stations, restaurants, shops. My quality of life would be curtailed by living in such an environment. 3. Crowded together homes on tiny lots is inappropriate in the context of the neighborhood, as well as adding more to the traffic in the area. Looking at the housing proposed in this project, except for the Tan Apartments (erected before zoning laws went into effect) there is nothing nearby that would blend in with such a project. There are reasons why the zoning is as it is!!!!! Please leave it alone. The previous planning commissions zoned it appropriately and there is no reason to change that zoning. To emphasize my point, just look at the fiasco at Alma Square. We don't want another project like that, so badly designed, in our area. Don't give us another disaster. 4. There is little availability of bus or train service in this area. The nearest train station is on California Avenue, too far to walk to comfortably. Since the State of California has mandated more housing near transportation, lets put the housing where it will work to the advantage of everyone. The Maybell project is not that location. It is too isolated from transportation and shopping, causing more traffic because of the need to use a car to access facilities. 5. We very much need more playing fields for our children. Use the property for soccer and/or baseball fields. A dog park would be welcome, too. Facilities such as these are lacking in our neighborhood. With our growing population of children they would be constantly used. In conclusion, I respectfully ask that ALL members of the planning and other commissions that will make this very important decision about our neighborhood to PLEASE take the time, every one of you, to spend a morning between 7:30 and 9:00 at the corner of Maybell and Clemo. Observe the problems we already have with traffic and children's safety, the look of the community as it now exists, the lack of local stores. Then you will be able make an informed decision on how to proceed with the property in question. Looking at statistics isn't the same as observing the site and seeing the dynamics in action. Sincerely, 2 Lois Lin 4049 Orme Street 1 Ellner, Robin From:Lauren Maeda <lmaeda@stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:44 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell development Planning Commission: I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding the potential issuance of an exception to the current zoning laws to the developers of the property on Maybell Avenue accross from Briones Park. The increase in traffic in a neighborhood with a park and school will be unacceptable. Furthermore, the existing zoning laws, with their setback and density requirements, exist precisely to protect homeowners from having a three story high wall of townhomes built right up to the curb. Please enforce the law equally, and do not trample the rights of residents in favor of development interests. Lauren Maeda Green Acres Homeowner 1 Ellner, Robin From:Lisa T <tian.lishan@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:31 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; BPA- Board@googlegroups.com Subject:STRONG OPPOSITION TO ZONING EXCEPTION PLANS ON MAYBELL AVE. PARCEL TO ALLOW HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPEMENT To City Planning Dept. This letter is in strong opposition to the City of Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council's plans to rezone Maybell Avenue and/or grant zoning exceptions for high-density development and senior housing. SAFETY/TRAFFIC: There has been enough traffic congestion during the peak time, every morning without 3-5 minutes' waiting, we cannot get out of our court to make a right turn on Maybell. We need to watch the kids biking and walking cross the street, there are cars taking the shortcut by going through Maybell Ave. to Juana Briones, Terman and Gunn. Keep in mind there are THREE SCHOOLS near by!!! The last thing we need is HIGH DENSITY HOUSING. Enough is enough! Why was the speed bump installed on Maybell? Because of speeding cars, why there are speeding cars? Because there are too many cars going through Maybell to reach to JB, Terman and Gunn. So what are you thinking to add HIGH DENSITY HOUSING? Definitely not helping ease the situation other than making it worse! The Stop sign at the junction of Maybell and Coulombe has been knocked down many times. It is not a safe street for more HD housing! The proposal is not keeping the residents near by in mind. There are already two large apartments nearby. That doesn't mean it is justifiable for adding another large apartment. It violates city general plan. We are not approving this plan! Maybell Residents 1 Ellner, Robin From:Lisa Ma Wu <lisama@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 20, 2013 10:01 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim Subject:Please do not rezone Green Acres 2 (Maybell Senior Housing Project) Dear Planning Commission and City Council, We are residents of GreenAcres and oppose the Maybell/Clemo building project. Here are reasons: 1) Safety. Putting high density right where there are already such traffic problems, at the only inlets/outlets to the neighborhood (which has no inlets/outlets to the south or west) hurts emergency vehicle access to Juana Briones School, Terman School, the residents of the neighborhood, and even Gunn, should an emergency happen during the wrong hours!! 2) Traffic!! Maybell is already too narrow, Arastradero on the other side is crammed with cars at certain times of the day, and kids weave in and out of traffic on Maybell already because it's so narrow. Link to the traffic study: http://www.bpapaloalto.org/2013/04/10/traffic-study-for-maybell-homes-senior-housing-project/ 3) Traffic!!!! The Palo Alto Housing Corp is claiming the high-rise will just be seniors who won't make traffic, but there are NO WALKABLE SERVICES there. Residents will have to drive out or have helpers drive in. Seniors have visitors, too! The "senior" designation is a pretense to get the area rezoned for high density!!** The PAHC is developing other larger projects RIGHT NOW near to Stanford which would be better for seniors (walkable to medical, grocery, Avenidas, free entertainment, restaurants, etc). They should build in this neighborhood only WITHIN EXISTING LOW DENSITY ZONING. 4) Negative impact on neighborhood quality of life. Zoning exists for a purpose, so families who invest huge amounts of money buying into the area know what will be there in the future. This is a small, cohesive neighborhood and rezoning to high density carves away a big part of the neighborhood and hurts the residential character. Maybell at Juana Briones is NOT part of the high density El Camino corridor as developers are trying to portray it, it is part of the Greenacres residential neighborhood and should stay low density! 5) "Attractive nuisance" Surveys show neighborhood seniors stay in their homes and don't move (they wouldn't quality for the development if they sold a home anyway). Residents will come from elsewhere, and it's just a fact that in this immediate neighborhood, some will move there to sneak grandchildren in at Gunn or Terman. Rules are not enough, people find ways to break those rules and do, and others are often loathe to report them. This encourages seniors to break up their families to move there so grandchildren can attend Terman or Gunn. Anyone who doesn't take that inevitability seriously does not have a realistic handle on this neighborhood. 6) The rezoning violates many policies of the city's general plan http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8170 7) That location is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to expand the existing park and make a much needed playing field on this side of town! Such a field could be reached by kids by bikes from Los Altos and all the neighborhoods along the bike path. Instead of having to be driven all the way out to the Baylands, kids could have more opportunities to be independent and active. The benefits to the community are legion and real, not just cover for more density and developers. 8) There already is the Tan/Arastradero Apartments and low income complex next to each other. One more high density building on the same block?! We have ENOUGH traffic from those two buildings. 9) MORE traffic on Arastradero Road?!! Since the lanes have been turned into a one lane road, traffic is bumper to bumper during peak times when school starts and when school ends. Seniors do drive and this will increase traffic in the neighborhood! Please do not rezone Green Acres 2. 2 Sincerely, Lisa and Eric Wu King Arthur Court 1 Ellner, Robin From:Wong, Tim Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:44 AM To:Ellner, Robin Subject:FW: Development of 567 Maybell Ave Palo Alto From: Margo Davis [mailto:margoadavis@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:57 PM To: Wong, Tim Subject: Development of 567 Maybell Ave Palo Alto Dear Mr. Wong, Thank you for receiving our comments about the planned community at Palo Alto Orchards. We attended the City Council’s design review meeting on April 4th. We are dismayed that the design of this development has moved so far along before we, and other neighbors, have been able to raise our objections to the project. We have lived in the Tan Plaza at 580 Arastradero Road for twenty-one years overlooking the beautiful and historic apricot orchard below. It is quite possibly the last such parcel in an area once covered with fruit trees and orchards. With so few, if any other, acres of rural-like orchard left anywhere in Palo Alto, the City should consider preserving these trees. Sites like this are now of historic significance and should not be removed for dense housing development before their aesthetic and historic value is fully studied and considered. Has the City undertaken such an analysis? If so, can you please forward any relevant documentation? Moreover, this kind of dense housing development on a 2.4 acre site will have a seriously detrimental impact on our quiet residential neighborhood, with a school situated on Maybell a mere block away. With already congested traffic patterns, we feel that the effects of this project on the surrounding community have not been adequately considered. We strongly oppose this development and believe that a four- story residence of 60 units in addition to the 15 single-family homes of two and three stories is much too dense for this space. If this development must proceed, we feel the design should be altered to lessen the impacts on the surrounding community. Please inform us of what we can do to delay, halt, or alter this development. Sincerely, Margo Davis Anthony Browne 580Arastradero Rd. #507 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Margo Davis margoadavis@gmail.com 650 714 2146 www.margodavisphoto.com 1 Ellner, Robin From:Mark Lin <linshing@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:53 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Rezoning Dear Sirs, I am against the rezoning of the area near Maybell & El Camino Real. The reason is the traffic flow & safety of the area. It is already bad enough now & I foresee many problems if the area is rezoned to a high density residential building. Shing Lin Christine Lin 4/21/2013 1 Ellner, Robin From:Wong, Tim Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:44 AM To:Ellner, Robin Subject:FW: Proposed Project at 567 Maybell From: Miriam Schulman [mailto:mschulman@scu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:59 AM To: Wong, Tim Subject: Proposed Project at 567 Maybell Dear Mr. Wong, I'm very concerned about the traffic implications of adding 75 new residences at 567 Maybell. As I'm sure you know, traffic is badly congested on Arastradero and Maybell in the morning hours to the point that traffic cannot turn onto Arastradero from El Camino. The wait turning from my street, Pena Ct., onto Maybell in the morning is also long. Where is the egress from this new development? What measures is the city taking so that these new residences do not adversely impact what is already a bad situation? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Miriam Schulman 560 Pena Ct. Palo Alto 1 Ellner, Robin From:Miriam Schulman <mschulman@scu.edu> Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:53 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Proposed Development at 567 Maybell I wish to express my strong objection to the proposed high density, low income 60-unit senior housing and 15 home development at 567 Maybell. Let me stress that I am not a no-growth advocate, but I was actually stunned to learn what was being proposed for an area that has seen such enormous growth in the past decade that some streets, such as the intersection of Arastradero and El Camino are practically impassible at certain hours, like the morning commute. The idea that bringing traffic out onto Maybell will solve the problem seems outright silly. First, it will make an already hair-raising morning melee of cars and children on bicycles even more dangerous. Also, if the residents at this development need to get onto the freeway at either 101 or 280, they will end up on Arastradero/Charleston anyway. And they will be joining residents from units already being built at El Camino and Los Robles. This is on top of developments at the former Hyatt and along El Camino, which have already increased the neighborhood density beyond what the infrastructure can support. The city's recent attempts to solve this problem with traffic calming measures have been expensive, irritating, and ineffective. I was especially chagrined that the extent of the Maybell development was not made clear in the postcard sent to residents within 600 feet of the property, nor did the information indicate clearly that the property is currently zoned for only 34 units with height requirements and setbacks that are more consonant with the neighborhood. At minimum, the city should enforce the existing zoning of this property. Thank you for your consideration. Miriam Schulman 560 Pena Ct. Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Matthias Zeller <zeller@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:01 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; greenacres2@yahoogroups.com Subject:Protest of Plans to Rezone on Maybell This letter is in stark protest of the City of Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council's intent to rezone Maybell Avenue and/or otherwise grant zoning exceptions for high-density development and senior housing. My wife and I are residents of Donald Drive and are opposed to this rezoning and/or exemptionf on the following grounds: - Maybell is supposedly a "safe route" for kids to walk and commute to local schools. This is already utterly laughable during school days and particularly during raining days. Cars already race down Maybell, particularly high school students on the way to Gunn as well as cars coming from the existing Title 8 housing which has driveways onto Maybell. - Quality of Living. Green Acres has become an attractive neighborhood for all those working at Google, LinkedIn, and a variety of other startup and successful software companies based in Mountain View. People have invested hundreds of thousands in their homes if not millions to buy a single family homes that conform to the need for privacy, exclusivity, and existing city services. We don't want to be crowded by high-density housing, and we are concerned about the degradation of our intimate community by the introduction of high-density housing. It is incredibly disappointing that the City consider diminishing the quality of life we have created here in the neighborhood. -Privacy, Eye-blight. We understand the City plans to approve exceptions to setbacks as well as maximum number of stories allowed in single family units. This disturbs privacy for homes across from the units and we are also concerned that the architectural integrity of a 1950's rancher community be disrupted. In short, I am completely opposed to granting exceptions for Maybell Avenue, and am also in complete disagreement that the City Counsel characteizer my neighborhood as being in agreement with these potential changes in zoning. This is a complete misrepresentation and I will not stand for it. Respectfully, Matthias Zeller 1 Ellner, Robin From:mt.oyama@comcast.net Sent:Monday, April 08, 2013 7:30 AM To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:High Density Housing on Maybell Ave. Architectural Review Board & City Planning & Transportation Commission arb@cityofpaloalto.org Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org To whom it may concern: RE: High Density Housing on Maybell Ave. We are homeowners off Maybell Ave, and we strongly oppose to having additional high density housing on the on Maybell Ave and rezoning of the property on 567 and 595 Maybell Ave to high density. We only recently learned about this plan to rezone the property and to build high density housing, including a four‐story apartment complex for seniors. We are very disappointed to learn about the plan, but also that the Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission would proceed with plans without soliciting input from the residents in the vicinity of the property and along Maybell Ave. The meetings for these decisions have not been widely publicized. We also did not receive any notification in the mail of changes to our neighborhood. These are the reasons that we oppose this rezoning and the addition of high density housing. 1. My home is on Frandon Court, which intersects with Maybell Ave. The traffic in the morning is very congested during school commute hours; we can’t even drive out of our cul‐de‐sac on to Maybell because of the line of cars that travel up Maybell Ave to the schools. We need to make a left‐turn from Frandon court to go to El Camino or Arastradero & Coulombe to commute to work. Unless we take the risk of an accident, we are stuck, since turning right only brings us to another major congested traffic intersection on Arastradero & Donald. Maybell Avenue is also a narrow street, which only has a sidewalk on one side of the road. Pedestrians are walking on the side of the road and children are riding their bikes almost in the middle of the streets; therefore, 2 cars cannot pass each other with margin in some locations. The addition of more high density housing will only make the traffic worse with more commuters and unsafe for the residence and bikers. 2. Even if the entrance to the new complex is made on Arastradero, the traffic would still be awful because the Arastradero traffic would spill over to Maybell, as it has since Arastradero was made only a single lane. 3. We bought our home for the quiet neighborhood to raise our children. We need to preserve this neighborhood for future residents. Adding high density housing will threaten to change the character of the neighborhood. We already have many apartments in the neighborhood. We don't need another one. 4. The argument to have a senior housing without any services or facilities is not convincing. My senior neighbors have stayed in their home as long as possible, until they need a nursing home or an assisted care facility. It seems unlikely any senior would want to move to Palo Alto with the high cost of living 2 unless it’s one of the assisted care. If it is assisted care, that further supports the fact that traffic will increase due to caregivers commuting to the facility. Although additional housing options may be needed for seniors, this location is not an idea place for services. Please do not rezone the property for high density housing or add another high density housing complex that only will increase traffic, make our streets less safe, and threaten the character of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Arlene & Toshi Oyama 4138 Frandon Court, Palo Alto 1 Ellner, Robin From:pafamily@sonic.net Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:55 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; bjohnson@paweekly.com; BPA- Board@googlegroups.com Subject:Please do not rezone Maybell/Clemo To Whom It May Concern, We sent the forwarded note below to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation regarding the rezoning of Maybell/Clemo. Please include this email in the public record for the property. For privacy, we have removed our personal information. We live in Greenacres and have sent one letter previously on this issue, from this email address. We would note that PAHC seems to be taking the position that building under the existing zoning would create more traffic than building a high-density complex plus putting a wall of 15 high-density tall townhomes with little setback on Maybell and Clemo where currently there are 4 homes. This is absolutely ludicrous and the same kind of pro-density-tunnel-vision insular reasoning that brought us that debacle at Miki's Market. The RM-15 zone and the grandfathered-in PC zone of the Tan/Arastradero apartments is an island in an ocean of R-1 residential. The Land Use section of the City's own general plan states under the zoning section that: "Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted by zoning may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be compatible with the overall Comprehensive Plan." This area is a single-family residential area. The RM-15 zoning of the orchard allows 8-15 units per acre. At about 2 acres, and following the city's general plan that density should be on the lower end of the scale, that's going to be closer to 16 dwellings, not 30, assuming they would even fit in geometrically with all the setbacks required by the zoning rule. Sixteen dwellings in the orchard plus 4 on Maybell makes 20 tops. You can't honestly say that would have more of an impact than 15 tall skinny townhomes and 60 high-density apartments? There are no services and facilities available there for seniors AT ALL, of course they will have cars, or people who visit or assist them will have cars. That's potentially 100-150 cars at that location, versus cars from 20 units. I don't think PAHC would be able to put a higher density there because they are themselves arguing that 30 dwellings would have a significant negative impact. If that is the case, then the city should be aware that PAHC is on record as saying the existing zoning is more hazardous than what they wish to put there - and many of us in the neighborhood believe putting any high density development there poses a significant safety risk to the local schools and neighborhood in the event of an emergency because of limited ingress/egress to the neighborhood, the heavy traffic at certain times of the day, and how narrow Maybell is. We think the City should consider investigating this considerable safety issue further before even considering such rezoning, or because of PAHC's statements about the existing zoning, allowing anyone to build there at 2 all. We believe, given the potential risks of delays of emergency vehicles into and out of the neighborhood and delays in egress from the neighborhood, especially in a disaster situation, the City should do a much more detailed environmental impact report and may be incurring liability if it rezones to allow high-density at that location. If you believe PAHC that the regular zoning is even worse, then the city shouldn't allow building there at all and should consider reverting that orchard to park space. If so, I think you will find this neighborhood more than willing to work to find ways to make it work. Greenacres/Barron Park are quiet, residential neighborhoods; the existing Maybell/Clemo "low-density" zoning (as the general plan deems it) is clearly a transition zone (described in the general plan) to the R-1 area from the GRANDFATHERED-IN Tan/Arastradero Apartments that were built before this area was part of Palo Alto. Spot zoning the orchard to high density now violates many provisions of the general plan and would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. The apartments and transition zone of the property to be rezoned are a small island in an ocean R-1. Our R-1 neighborhood would be harmed by the city's using that as an excuse to spot zone for density. We appreciate what PAHC does (until now) and in principle, support low income and senior housing. We even think smart high density is a good thing. But that location is not a safe or appropriate place for it. It's not NIMBYism to want planners to respect basic safety and zoning principles. We're taking high density projects in this area left and right, including IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY at the trailer park, so it's not even about density in the area per se, so long as it is in an appropriate location. Maybell/Clemo is not. Jessica de Wit seems an earnest advocate for her project, which I respect, but she is not hearing the other side. She said that it was the City that directed PAHC to focus on our neighborhood as a location for putting high-density housing in the future, and that's why they are trying to rezone it for high density. Can you please give us specifics? She said that she herself had been involved in rezoning a single-family residential area to high-density in another county and had no problem with that. As people who live in this residential neighborhood in Palo Alto, we do. Zoning has a purpose, and the city should not in its eagerness to put high density anywhere possible, be destroying the character and quality of life of whole cohesive neighborhoods and creating safety hazards for the residents. The Planning Commission has itself recently questioned the way PC zoning has been improperly used of late, with such terrible (but predictable if planners listened to the neighbors) results, such as at Miki's Market. Instead of doling out a few small grants to improve community, how about just not rezoning/harming our existing cohesive neighborhood? Dear Jessica, Thank you for your email. I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment, which is overly rosy about the traffic and cars a high density community would bring to that critical juncture in our neighborhood. I did notice traffic strips across the road for a study during one of the school vacations - can you please provide the dates of the actual traffic data being taken and where? They aren't mentioned anywhere on the traffic report that I could see. I hope you will consider that this is exactly why we got the Miki's Market debacle, high density advocates were simply able to make whatever nice-sounding arguments they wished and ignore the legitimate concerns of and information from those who lived in the neighborhood. Not to mention that a high density, high-rise project and the high-density tall homes with such small setback that you want to build on Maybell are out of character with the neighborhood and would themselves negatively impact Maybell. 3 Zoning needs to be applied within context -- the city's general plan states that when a particular transition zone is surrounded by low density, such as in this case where the entire surrounding area is R-1 residential -- the number of units allowed is supposed to be on the lower end of the range. You cannot just assume you can put the maximum number of units under the existing zoning, especially if it has such a significant impact as you say. There are significant safety concerns to adding any kind of density to that location. It's ridiculous and defies credibility to say that 60 units of senior housing, without any services that seniors need within walking distance, and 15 tall-skinny houses with little setback where there currently are 4 single-family one-story residences, won't impact traffic or egress negatively. Proposing high-density for this neighborhood is inappropriate and will negatively affect quality of life. I heard from a few neighbors just today who went to the early meetings, very much opposed, but they said the way the meetings presented the proposal, it sounded like it was already a done deal. In other words, you apparently weren't listening as well as you thought, you were telling people what was going to happen to them and they couldn't do anything about it. Lastly, it's just downright patronizing of you to say the community benefit is in integrating seniors in our neighborhood. You don't even know our neighborhood, we are close-knit and have a wide mix of ages and many seniors. Seniors in this neighborhood tend to want to stay until they die, they don't move out even when they are frail. If you want to improve community in this neighborhood, don't put a high-density housing development where it will so negatively affect our ingress/egress and the time we spend parked in our vehicles on the way to work or the grocery store. I appreciate what PAHC does (until now) and in principle, I support low income and senior housing. I even think smart high density is a good thing. But that location is not a safe or appropriate place for it. It's not NIMBYism to want planners to respect basic safety principles. We're taking high density projects in this area left and right, including in this neighborhood at the trailer park, so it's not even about density in the area per se, so long as it is in an appropriate location. Maybell is not. You said the city is who directed PAHC to focus on our neighborhood for high density housing. Could you please give me some specifics? The neighborhood should really know about this. Thank you very much for speaking with me today. See you tomorrow. Anne Hi Anne - Sorry, I have been in meetings this morning and I am just getting your email now. This meeting is a voluntary community outreach meeting sponsored by PAHC. The 4 meeting is not primarily for PAHC residents. At the other neighborhood meetings we've held for this rezoning request, the majority of the meeting attendees have been neighbors from Barron Park and Green Acres I and II and they attend the meetings to express any concerns, provide feedback on the design and receive a status update on the rezoning request. As you probably already know, the current zoning allows for at least 34 single family homes, which would have a far greater impact on schools and traffic in the neighborhood compared to PAHC's request for 15 single family homes with apartments for seniors, which would have much less impact on schools and traffic. I hope that you will be attending the meeting tomorrow so that we can talk with you more about the proposed development and address concerns you have. Thanks, Jessica _______________________ Jessica de Wit PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION 725 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301-2403 650.321.9709 Phone 650.321.4341 Fax jdewit@paloaltohousingcorp.org From: recycler100@sonic.net [mailto:recycler100@sonic.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:03 AM To: Jessica de Wit Cc: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org; city.council@CityofPaloAlto.org; tim.wong@CityofPaloAlto.org; curtis.williams@CityofPaloAlto.org; BPA-Board@googlegroups.com; bjohnson@paweekly.com Subject: Re: Please come to Neighbor Mtg next week? HI Jessica, There has been some confusion in the neighborhood about this meeting -- who is sponsoring it, what is the purpose? Hardly anyone seems to have any official notice. I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that it's being held on Palo Alto Housing Corporation property -- is it a PAHC meeting? Is it officially related to the rezoning request, i.e., a mandated meeting? Is it a meeting primarily for PAHC residents? The last city meeting related to the Arastradero restriping, for example, was held at the local middle school. Can you please clarify this morning, so that I can try to at least reach some of the neighbors online? 5 Thanks very much! Best, Anne Hi Anne - Per the message I just left with your husband by phone, I hope you'll attend our Maybell Orchard neighbor meeting this Wednesday. It is the same location and time as all of the other neighbor meetings that we have held. I'm also happy to talk before the meeting as well. Date: April 24 Time: 6:30pm Location: Arastradero Park Apartments Community Room, 574 Arastradero Thanks, Jessica _______________________ Jessica de Wit PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION 725 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301-2403 650.321.9709 Phone 650.321.4341 Fax jdewit@paloaltohousingcorp.org 1 Ellner, Robin From:pafamily@sonic.net Sent:Friday, April 19, 2013 2:48 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; bjohnson@paweekly.com; BPA- Board@googlegroups.com Subject:High Density Rezoning - Pls forward to concerned neighbors To Whom it May Concern: We would like to express our strong opposition to rezoning ANY PART of Greenacres from existing low density to high density, in particular, rezoning Maybell/Clemo to high density. This is a cohesive, R-1 residential neighborhood, and NOT part of the El Camino corridor as planners are trying to portray it in order to justify putting more high density anywhere they can. The existing high-rise Tan Apartment/Arastradero Apts were built before the area was part of the city. But it is an island surrounded by R-1 zoning. The RM-15 zoning of the orchard and R-2 of the Maybell sections was clearly intended as a way to transition gradually from those apartments to the existing R-1 area. The rest of Maybell not right on El Camino, to either side of that R-2 low-density zoning on Maybell, is R-1 residential. The apartments are so massive and they tower over the community so much it, it's easy to see why someone who doesn't live here would miss and dismiss the whole surrounding, unobtrusive neighborhood. But that's exactly why that area shouldn't be rezoned to high density, it doesn't fit, and it would drastically change the character of the existing neighborhood (using that grandfathered-in ISLAND of apartment as an excuse). This is spot zoning our neighborhood for high density, and the city should not allow it. Other reasons we oppose the rezoning: 1) Safety. Putting high density right where there are already such traffic problems, at the only inlets/outlets to the neighborhood (which has no inlets/outlets to the south or west) hurts emergency vehicle access to Juana Briones School, Terman School, the residents of the neighborhood, even Gunn, should an emergency happen during the wrong hours. We live in an area prone to earthquakes, and fire is a common second disaster afterwards. Having egress/ingress to the neighborhood will mean life and death to residents. It is unsafe to put a high density development right where it would impact the only two routes on ingress/egress to the neighborhood which has none at all to the west or south. Maybell doesn't even have a straight shot on the sidewalks for emergency vehicles, should there be heavy traffic in both directions as there is at certain times daily. Maybell doesn't have sidewalk at all or bike path on one side, and only a narrow, heavily interrupted on on the other, even though it is considered a "safe" route to school. I have been trying to express this safety concern to planners for quite some time now to no avail. But none of them live in the area, and they continue to make the same kind of deaf-to-residents arguments that got us the Miki's Market debacle. THAT LOCATION SHOULD NOT BE REZONED TO HIGH DENSITY FROM THE CURRENT LOW DENSITY ON THE SAFETY ISSUE ALONE. Where dozens of people died in the Oakland firestorm, it was precisely because of similar predictable egress problems from a neighborhood. In San Bruno, by contrast, despite the sudden and even worse conflagration from the pipeline explosion, fewer people died because rapid egress was possible, and good ingress by rescuers. We already have safety concerns because of EXISTING traffic. 2 2) Traffic!! Maybell is already too narrow, Arastradero on the other side is crammed with cars at certain times of the day, and kids weave in and out of traffic on Maybell already because it's so narrow. Link to the traffic study: http://www.bpapaloalto.org/2013/04/10/traffic-study-for-maybell-homes-senior-housing-project/ 3) Traffic!!!! The Palo Alto Housing Corp is claiming the high-rise will just be seniors who won't make traffic, but there are NO WALKABLE SERVICES there, or as if seniors will never make medical appointments or in the morning or between noon and 7pm when school traffic and work traffic surges at intervals. Residents will have to drive out or have helpers drive in. Seniors have visitors, too. They should build in this neighborhood only WITHIN EXISTING LOW DENSITY ZONING. The PAHC is developing other larger projects RIGHT NOW near to Stanford which would be better for seniors (walkable or easily drivable to medical, grocery, Avenidas, free entertainment, restaurants, etc). 4) Negative impact on neighborhood quality of life. Zoning exists for a purpose, so families who invest huge amounts of money buying into the area know what will be there in the future. This is a small, cohesive neighborhood and rezoning to high density carves away a big part of the neighborhood and hurts the residential character. Maybell at Juana Briones is NOT part of the high density El Camino corridor as developers are trying to portray it, it is part of the Greenacres residential neighborhood and should stay low density. Greenacres is a stable, quiet, single-family residential neighborhood and one of the best-kept secrets in Palo Alto. But none of those making the decisions about our future live here or understand just how negatively they will be affecting residents by rezoning for high density. 5) "Attractive nuisance" Surveys show neighborhood seniors stay in their homes and don't move (they wouldn't quality for the development if they sold a home anyway). Residents will come from elsewhere, and it's just a fact that in this immediate neighborhood, some will move there to sneak grandchildren in at Gunn or Terman, especially attractive because of the low cost. Rules are not enough, people find ways to break those rules and do, and others are often loathe to report them. This encourages seniors to break up their families to move there so grandchildren can attend Terman or Gunn. Anyone who doesn't take that inevitability seriously does not have a realistic handle on this neighborhood. 6) Fairness. Rezoning that area is spot zoning plain and simple - since (despite the island of apartments which were built when that area was still county) that whole patch is surrounded by a REGION of R-1 single-family residential zoning. Take a look at the zoning map again http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6422 7) The rezoning violates MANY policies of the city's general plan as applied to residential neighborhoods: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8170 8) The city's loan to the PAHC may constitute contract zoning, which would also be illegal. At the least, it is a conflict of interest. The city loaned PAHC millions to purchase the property, on the proviso that they pay the money back when high-density homes - completely out of character with the residential neighborhood and with no setbacks, on Maybell and Clemo are built and sold. That location is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to expand the existing park and make a much needed playing field on this side of town! Such a field could be reached by kids by bikes from Los Altos and all the neighborhoods along the bike path. Instead of having to be driven all the way out to the Baylands, kids could have more opportunities to be independent and active. The benefits to the community are legion and real, not just cover for more density and developers. 3 PAHC are welcome to build senior housing there, WITHIN existing low-density zoning. But that location is better for a desperately needed playing field on this side of town! Please do not rezone our residential neighborhood for high density. Our quality of life has already been so negatively impacted by all the other development that has so dramatically increased traffic in the neighborhood. Please learn from the debacle at Miki's Market and DO NOT just dismiss the concerns of the neighborhood in favor of justifications by people who do not have to live with the consequences. A Concerned Greenacres Family (Given that any written correspondence is public record online, we are signing anonymously, but any future correspondence by us with be signed with the same moniker so you know it is not a duplicate. You may reach us at the above email address.) 1 Ellner, Robin From:Renee and Mark Alloy <alloyfam@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, April 19, 2013 6:50 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; BPA- Board@googlegroups.com Subject:high density zoning in south palo alto To whom it may concern, I am writing to you as a resident of south Palo Alto, in the neighborhood of Green Acres - where high density housing is being considered for Senior housing. I am very much opposed to this idea. To begin with the traffic in our neighborhood has become a zoo. We used to have lovely double lanes on Arastradero which helped move traffic out of the neighborhood - reducing El Camino, Foothill, and even Page Mill traffic, but now we have a parking lot each morning and afternoon on Arastradero. There is just as much traffic on the parallel street of Maybell - where they try to redirect bikers going to school. Parents use Maybell when they drop their children off to the various school in this neighborhood - we have Juana Briones, Terman, a private school - Bowman, and Gunn High School. Its getting so there is traffic backing up, kids darting out on foot or on bikes at almost any time of day. It is already a dangerous area without ANY more housing added. Safety and Traffic are huge factors in my opposition to this project. I have no idea why Seniors would want to live there anyway - across from a playground, the only walkable place would be Walgreens - no grocery stores or libraries. AND If they aren't walking they would be driving making yet MORE traffic on these already jammed streets. Secondly, I feel this would have a negative impact on our already impacted neighborhood. I don't think it would improve the value of my home, or the home I would be giving my children as inheritance. This hurts the character of our neighborhood, we have a village type feel to our neighborhood many streets in the adjoining Barron Park neighborhood don't have sidewalks, even several in Green acres don't. Its a safe, cozy space that is being encroached on by expanding schools, low incoming housing, and building projects everywhere ( many like the one on Maybell that has already been an unsightly mess for numerous year because the people have been building it for like 7-8 years with NO end in sight). I fear for the neighborhood feel, as well as the value of my property. The El Camino corridor is already bearing down on us. I want my neighborhood to remain a low density neighborhood - I wish building would slow WAY down, as most of it is not good. As a school teacher in this district I would like to also bring up a fact that continues to surface at our school - parents use their parents (grandparents = seniors) addresses to get their children into our schools - which are also impacted. I KNOW that this would also happen in this senior development - now and in the future. We are kidding ourselves if we don't face that fact as well. Rules are broken regularly and its hard to police them. We don't need any more housing that brings in classrooms full of students that we don't have space to house. Our classroom size continue to increase and that creates more issues within each classroom to deal with and special education services to offer. Each of these drain public funds. I took the following policies out of the general plan for the city of Palo Alto and I believe the comments I have made above directly infringe on these Policies we have for motorist and ordinances which enhance our neighborhoods. Our neighborhood already houses way more schools than most neighborhoods in Palo Alto, without this additional building. This rezoning violates the policies of the general plan. POLICY L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. The City’s neighborhoods are varied in character and architectural style, reflecting the stages of the City’s development as well as the range of incomes and tastes of its residents. POLICY L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. 2 Scale is the relationship of various parts of the environment to each other, to people, and to the limits of perception. It is what establishes some neighborhoods or streets as pedestrianoriented and others as automobile-oriented. In older portions of Palo Alto, the grid of City terns and building placement are oriented primarily to the automobile user. In the newer commercial areas, buildings are usually set behind parking lots located along the street, and landscaping sometimes provides a visual buffer for the motorist. POLICY L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. PROGRAM L-7: Establish a system to monitor the rate of non-residential development and traffic conditions related to both residential and non-residential development at key intersections including those identified in the 1989 Citywide Study and additional intersections identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. If the rate of growth reaches the point where the citywide development maximum might be reached, the City will reevaluate development policies and regulations. Mixed Use Areas POLICY L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that mixed use environments can be interesting and dynamic. A new mixed use land use classification has been created to encourage this type of development in the future. This represents a change from past attitudes that sought to separate different uses from each other as a means of protecting property values, public safety, and the quality of life. With proper guidance such concerns can be addressed, allowing a more vital urban environment to be created. Please consider the community plan for the city of Palo Alto land use policies I have included here. I would love to see a bit more public space - this land would be a perfect place for a playing field - something the south side of Palo Alto desperately needs and would add to our neighborhood - more balance and beauty and community space. The field that is being used, part of the Juana Briones park is really not well thought out this other piece of land would allow for a field that had appropriate boundaries and trees and benches and make that area a much needed balance. I hope we don't let this once in a life time opportunity to expand this park slip through our fingers. I don't see why my neighborhood needs to offer more density and dollars to developers. Rezoning is a conflict of interest to myself and numerous neighbors who feel this same exact way - our neighborhood newletter is teaming with angry families. Renee and Mark Alloy 627 Georgia Ave. Palo Alto 1 Ellner, Robin From:renu virdi <renuvirdi@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 20, 2013 5:49 PM To:Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; Planning Commission Cc:Trilochan Virdi; renu virdi Subject:Do not rezone Green Acres 2 - Maybell Senior Housing Project Dear Palo Alto City Council and Planning Commission Members, We have been a member of the Green Acres 2 community since 2006. Our children have attended and one is still currently attending the neighborhood scools. One of the greatest benefit of this neighborhood is to have the students bike and walk to the neighborhood schools. It is heartening to see more and more students bike and walk to school. I was a PTA co‐chair at Gunn to promote biking to schools and every year the number of students who bike showed a significant increase. Unfortunately, recent developments in the neighborhood have increased the populations Peak commute/school drop‐off times already result in significant traffic backups on Maybell and Arastradero. New housing developments currently being built nearby along El Camino in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos will likely only increase this traffic. Adding one more high density housing complex with vehicular access via Maybell Ave, an already busy neighborhood street near several schools, seems like a recipe for disaster. Maybell is very heavily used by student bikers so please do not put a life in danger by increasing population and consquently vehiclular density on this street. Please do not support Palo Alto Housing Corporation's push for unwanted high density housing complex in the middle of our community across from Juana Briones park along Maybell Ave and Clemo Ave. We are asking that elected officials and Palo Alto city employees refuse the rezoning of Green Acres 2 for high density housing. It will only reduce the quality of life in a quiet Palo Alto neighborhood, increase car traffic on already congested neighborhood streets, and create a potentially dangerous situation for children walking and biking to school. Local email lists from this neighborhood and others indicate that a significant number of people feel the same way. Please prevent the rezoning for this development and help preserve our community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Renu and Trilochan Virdi 4170 Hubbartt Drive Palo Alto, CA 650‐388‐8424 1 Ellner, Robin From:Vibhu Mittal <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:01 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- This matters to all Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: This matters to all of us! Sincerely, Vibhu Mittal Palo Alto, California There are now 20 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:tlawer <tlawer@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:52 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim Subject:Comment on Proposed Rezoning in Green Acres 2 for Maybell Senior Housing Project Dear Planning Commission: This letter is intended to document my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning for the Maybell Senior Housing Project and related higher density single family housing. I oppose the rezoning for the following three major reasons:  It is a suboptimal location for low income senior housing o The location is not located within walking distance of any services (health, food etc.) and is not within easy walking distance of direct commute routes to such services. There are far better locations for senior housing in Palo Alto that would provide them with services and a better quality of life. o The congested traffic situation here will slow down access to emergency services for the seniors. The proposed project's access is limited to very busy roads that are bumper to bumper for several hours each day. Should the seniors have medical emergencies during this time, it will be very difficult to transport them to a hospital in a timely manner. o The Tan Apartments next door on Arastradero will completely overwhelm the parking and access to these facilities due to the high density of the apartments and need for additional parking and search for faster traffic patterns than the only current option on Arastradero.  The neighborhood and especially Maybell Ave. cannot handle higher density development o During peak times, traffic is already bumper to bumper  The whole Arastredero-Charleston corridor is highly congested during peak hours and recently even on off peak hours.  Other potential projects in the area, such as the proposed project for the trailer park, are already going to increase.  The proposal will connect the Tan apartments to Maybell. However, the traffic impact of cars from the Tan Apartments on traffic on Maybell was not taken into account in the traffic studies. o The proposed development on Maybell will further narrow an already narrow road. By creating minimal sidewalks and no setback housing plus allowing street parking, the current road will be narrowed, which will make it more dangerous for the children commuting to school and exacerbate the current congestion, even without additional cars. o Both Maybell and Arastredero have been designated as school commute corridors and they are heavily used. Our understanding is that the current traffic studies for the development did not take the heavy bicycle use into account. While under Palo Alto rules, they may not be required to, but Palo 2 Alto rules also state that for development along school commute corridors there is supposed to be a heightened review for traffic. o The nearby schools are already at or over capacity. The market rate housing will exacerbate the issues. THis mistake was already shown once with the Hyatt Rickey development and the corresponding increase in enrollment at the neighborhood schools. Since the developers are subsidizing the senior housing, they cannot be required to address the impact on the local schools of the increased children in the area.  The proposed zoning goes against the general plan and general zoning rules for Palo Alto. o This area is in a neighborhood of single family homes. While the Tan Apartments are a multi-family housing development in the area, the Tan Apartments are a grandfathered development prior to the area being incorporated into Palo Alto. o Under the general plan, this area should not be rezoned for more intensive development, but rather to serve as a buffer between the Tan Apartments and the surrounding area. Four story multi-family development and three story houses right on Maybell do not serve this purpose. o “POLICY L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Scale is the relationship of various parts of the environment to each other.” The scale of the proposed project is out of proportion to the current neighborhood and would destroy the character of the neighborhood. “POLICY L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density ….. between residential areas of different densities. ..” The proposed development would dwarf the remaining houses in the area and transform this suburban residential neighborhood into an urban eyesore.  o Rezoning may be illegal since it likely will be classified as spot zoning. This is an opportunistic attempt to add intensive development to a single family home residential area. Note that the neighborhood groups will be hiring an attorney to defend their interests and the attorney will be directed to pursue this concern. o There appears to be a conflict of interest on the part of Palo Alto since it loaned the money to purchase the property with the knowledge that it will be used for high density housing even though it was not zoned for that. I find this a very troubling process since it appears to anticipate the result prior to any neighborhood feedback on a project that will have such a significant effect on the character of the community 3  4. Additionally, though not a reason, the Planning Commission and the City Council should know that community does not see the benefit of this project o There is significant opposition to the project in the neighborhood. Of the 100+ people who have responded to the neighborhood survey on the project, 96% are opposed. o There will be a high level of activism due to our disappointment at the recent developments, the negative impact we find from them on our neighborhood and all of Palo Alto and the seeming disregard of the city for these negative effects. Between the misrepresented impact of the Hyatt Rickey's project (it won't be any greater impact than the hotel), the continued disconnect between the City and the community on the adverse impact of the Arastredero restriping, our observations of other poorly planned and designed high density projects in South Palo Alto (funny how so many are approved down here) and the lack of infrastructure improvement in conjunction with the higher density development, the residents of Green Acres have lost confidence in the intentions and the competence of the City in its development strategy. We don't believe the traffic studies, since they contradict our day to day experience. We are disappointed that there is no strategy for school crowding due to the new developments and that the higher rate of enrollment seems to have taken the City by surprise with the Hyatt Rickey's development and likely will be ignored with this new development. o We dislike the no setback buildings that alter the character of Palo Alto and makes it look a lot more like a section of Brooklyn, than a jewel in Northern California. o While providing senior housing to poor seniors is a noble goal, we don't understand, including the many seniors in the community, why we have to sacrifice our neighborhood character to house 60 seniors that will likely come from out of the city and certainly out of the neighborhood. Tom Lawer 4156 Crosby Court  1 Ellner, Robin From:Rachna Rustagi <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:17 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Rachna Rustagi Palo Alto, California There are now 16 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Patrick Muffler <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:26 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Impact on traffic and Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Impact on traffic and quality of life in Barron Park. Sincerely, Patrick Muffler Palo Alto, California There are now 18 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Patti Kahn <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:25 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Traffic gridlock, safety concerns, Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Traffic gridlock, safety concerns, quality of life in the neighborhood Sincerely, Patti Kahn Palo Alto, California There are now 35 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Olga Knauer <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:12 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Olga Knauer Palo Alto, California There are now 14 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Nathan Walker <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:30 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Nathan Walker Palo Alto, California There are now 22 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Laura Saxon <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 7:27 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Laura Saxon morriston, Florida There are now 8 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Lori Krolik <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:48 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- There's way too many Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: There's way too many exceptions to the rule being approved by the PA zoning commission. This project is way too big for the area. Sincerely, Lori Krolik Palo Alto, California There are now 19 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Limei Geng <limeigeng@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:55 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:No for rezoning Maybell and Clemo and build senior housing and townhome Dear Sir and Madam, I against this rezoning petition simply for the safety of young students to elementary, middle and high school heavily taking Maybell Road every day during school days. It is an outrage not considering of young students and for personal gain to request rezoning. I am wondering why we are not aware of this important petition as an resident live less a block away. I am a resident at current address for 27 years. We know the area and we against the petition to rezone and create heavy traffic. Please come out during school hours in the morning and you will agree with us. Thank you for your understanding to have a safe street for young students. Sincerely yours, Hwaiyu Geng and Limei Geng 4182 Coulombe Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Kristen Johnson <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:44 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Kristen Johnson Palo Alto, California There are now 24 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jean Wren <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:37 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- The area of Palo Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: The area of Palo Alto south of Oregon/Page Mill is being inundated with high density housing that is nowhere Caltrain. It is time to stop. This was, and a few parts still are quiet single family residential streets. Second Maybel is a bike route to local elementary and high schools. There is already considerable traffic. A high density housing project would increase traffic on a narrow street making it less safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Stop the rezoning. We do not want or need new development in this neighborhood. Sincerely, Jean Wren Palo Alto, California There are now 32 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:John Wiley <hwaiyugeng@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:42 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Against rezoning Maybell and Clemo and build senior housing and townhome Dear Sir and Madam, My wife and I against this rezoning petition simply for the safety of young students to elementary, middle and high school heavily taking Maybell Road every day during school days. It is an outrage not considering of young students and for personal gain to request rezoning. I am wondering why we are not aware of this important petition as an resident live less a block away. We know the area and we against the petition to rezone and create heavy traffic. Please come out during school hours in the morning and you will agree with us. Thank you for your understanding to have a safe street for young students. Sincerely yours, Hwaiyu and Limei Geng 4182 Coulombe Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jacquelyn Summers <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:15 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Jacquelyn Summers Palo Alto, California There are now 15 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Joan Semeria <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:23 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Joan Semeria Palo Alto, California There are now 11 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Joy Hinton <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 7:47 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Joy Hinton Palo Alto, California There are now 10 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jimmy Chen <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:47 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Jimmy Chen Palo Alto, California There are now 25 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Hong Xiang <hong_xiang@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:20 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:No to spot zoning proposal at 576 Maybell Avenue To whom it may concern, I am writing to you to against the spot zoning proposal at 567 Maybell Avenue. The high density house will affect the quality of life for current residence. The developer only thinks about how to make money without considering anything for the community. Thank you, Hong 1 Ellner, Robin From:Holland St. John the recipient's shipping Name <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:00 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Holland St. John the recipient's shipping Name Palo Alto, California There are now 30 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Heidi Axtell <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 7:45 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- I live on this Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: I live on this already too busy street. Vote no rezoning. Sincerely, Heidi Axtell Palo Alto, California There are now 10 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Gwen Luce <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:55 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Gwen Luce Palo Alto, California There are now 32 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Gail Jones Beatrice <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:36 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- The proposed change to Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: The proposed change to high density zoning adversely affects neighborhood character; it is visually inconsistent with neighborhood context, and would negatively effect already difficult traffic congestion. It simply doesn't feel like Palo Alto. Sincerely, Gail Jones Beatrice Palo Alto, California There are now 23 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Fatijah Clark <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:52 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- This would cause an Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: This would cause an insidious change to the character of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Fatijah Clark Palo Alto, There are now 26 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Eugene Lee <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:09 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Eugene Lee Palo Alto, California There are now 27 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Ellen Gold <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:04 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Ellen Gold Palo Alto, California There are now 21 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:David Thomas <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:25 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, David Thomas Palo Alto, California There are now 12 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:David Gmail <ngdavids@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 7:48 PM To:Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; Planning Commission Subject:Opposition to Rezoning of Maybell/Clemo for High Density Senior Housing Councilmen and City Representatives, My wife and I are vehemently opposed to the Re-zoning for the Maybell/Clemo high density housing. - The narrowing of Arastradero has significantly increased traffic and congestion onto Maybell. Maybell is the primary residential street for students and families to walk, bike, and ride to elementary, middle, and high schools. We constantly have bumper to bumper traffic during the morning hours which makes it hazardous to walk to school. The safety of students and families are at risk due to increased traffic congestion and parked vehicles already on the road currently from the Arastradero Apts and will only increase with high density housing. Street parking blocks bicyclist and pedestrian paths making them enter the street or enter private property. - I reviewed the traffic study and found that there were assumptions that vehicular traffic did not go all the way down on Maybell onto Donald Drive. With a large influx of new multi-generational families moving into this project, we would have over 100 move cars that would potentially be entering and exiting the Maybell area to avoid driving on Arastradero. The multi-family project could potentially generate over 100 additional cars on Maybell. Seniors will own cars because they are active, living longer, and there are no senior services (hospitals, clinics, grocery stores, etc.) that are within walkable distance to Maybell and Clemo. Additionally, if seniors don't drive, then senior shuttles or cars to and fro will also contribute to more traffic on Maybell. - The proposed 3-story homes and 4-story high density housing is incompatible with the residential neighborhood and the single family homes in the neighborhood. The immensity of the development with 12 feet setbacks and close to 50 feet height will change the entire look and feel of this neighborhood. Homeowners expect that zoning laws would be upheld when buying and owning a residential home in the Green Acres area. The impact of traffic congestion, safety concerns, nuisances, and high density housing depreciates home property values and drastically changes the look and feel of our neighborhood. Regards, David Ng Wendy Lin Green Acres Resident on Donald Drive 1 Ellner, Robin From:Casie Walker <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:19 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- It is already difficult Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: It is already difficult to bike or walk to school safely in this neighborhood. Increasing traffic by rezoning this area would make it significantly worse. Sincerely, Casie Walker Palo Alto, California There are now 17 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Cindy Goral <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:02 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Please preserve our neighborhood Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Please preserve our neighborhood character and what little ability we have left to drive around in it. Sincerely, Cindy Goral Palo Alto, California There are now 13 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Concerned Citizen <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:20 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Concerned Citizen New City, New York There are now 29 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Annette Puskarich <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:06 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Annette Puskarich Palo Alto, California There are now 28 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Zoe Peters <zozies@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 01, 2013 7:49 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Concerned Neighbor To Whom it May Concern, I am writing to express my concerns about the amount of development in Palo Alto. I have lived here since I was born, now 42 years. I have seen fields covered with houses, school sites bulldozed for houses, enormous buildings placed on busy streets and a huge influx of traffic. My children attend Juana Briones Elementary school. I drive them or bike with them across El Camino Real and then let them continue on their own. I cringe each morning as I watch red lights run, no stopping on right turns and the constant stream of "California stops" through stop signs on Maybell. (There is no placed crossing guard at the stop sign on Maybell near the Briones Park.). I am stunned to hear you are considering letting a Developer build on the space adjacent to Juana Briones Park. I urge you to carefully investigate the pros and cons before making your decision. Please remember the safety of school children, (there are three schools in the direct vicinity of the proposed site), the increased amount of traffic - (consider three schools and their starting and finishing times) and the ridiculous amount of buildings/housing we already have in Palo Alto. We place such an emphasis on our educational system, but we don't enable our students to get to school safely or independently. Such a shame. Thank you, Zoe Anna Peters 4242 Newberry Court Palo Alto, Ca 94306 Sent from my iPhone 1 Ellner, Robin From:Yvonne LaMaster <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:28 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- High density housing is Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: High density housing is ruining our city. Street safety, biking, walking is critically impacted in a negative way by this type of housing. The school are over enrolled and the traffic is already horrible in that area of town. Sincerely, Yvonne LaMaster Palo Alto, California There are now 128 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:xinyu zhang <xin_yu_zhang@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:19 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Opposing rezoning on 567 Maybell avenue To whom it may concerns, My name is Xinyu Zhang, a palo alto resident at 570 Pena Ct., Palo Alto, CA 94306. I strongly oppose rezoning at 567 Maybell ave and keep the existing zoning law. Thank you very much! Xinyu 650-8567915(h) 1 Ellner, Robin From:Victoria Stjohn <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:05 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Have you tried driving Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Have you tried driving towards TERMAN or Gunn?...... The traffic is horrendous!! Sincerely, Victoria Stjohn Palo Alto, California There are now 39 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Tasha Souter <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:09 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- This project is located Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: This project is located right along a busy biking route with 4 schools and a park. The increased traffic congestion will compromise safety for pedestrians and bikers leading to even more cars, pollution, and negatively impact the entire neighborhood. Too much high density housing is being planned for this area without due consideration of the neighbors or the children affected. Sincerely, Tasha Souter Palo Alto, California There are now 112 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Tom Pamilla <tompamilla@stevensonhouse.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 01, 2013 2:21 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell Orchard Development Dear Commission Members: Thank you for all of your dedication and concern for all of the residents of Palo Alto. I am writing to you in support of the proposed Maybell Orchard development. As the Executive Director of Stevenson House, located at 455 E. Charleston Road in Palo Alto, I see on a daily basis the great need not only for senior housing, but especially for affordable senior housing. Palo Alto is a beautiful community that has so much to offer to its residents. The truth is, however, that it is a very expensive community in which to live. Every day I meet seniors who have an admirable history and background, seniors who have overcome tremendous difficulties in their lives, and yet have contributed greatly to our current society. I also see seniors at Stevenson House who care for and watch out for their neighbors and who share with each other, who volunteer in the community—and who need each other. Many of our seniors no longer drive or can afford a vehicle. In fact, the bicycle has become a common method of transportation for a good number of our residents. We all know that one illness or one tragedy has the potential to eliminate a bank account and throw one into economic crisis. All of us are vulnerable. An older adult has fewer options to recover economic stability than do younger people. Many of the elders who come to Stevenson House looking for affordable housing tell us of the extremely long waiting lists they have encountered in their search for housing. The Maybell Orchard development is extremely important to the elders who have truly earned the right to live in a wonderfully caring community such as Palo Alto. It is so important to keep in mind that these very seniors will not only live in 2 Palo Alto, but will also enrich our environment with their presence, their involvement, their sharing. I look forward to seeing Maybell Orchard completed, and to encouraging a close collaboration between Maybell Orchard and Stevenson House. Thomas M. Pamilla, MSW Executive Director Stevenson House 455 E. Charleston Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 494-1944 ext.12 www.stevensonhouse.org 1 Ellner, Robin From:Tom LaWer <mail@change.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 07, 2013 8:38 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- The density of our Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: The density of our neighborhood is already getting too high for a single family home neighborhood with terrible traffic on Arastradero and Maybell. With additional high density developments all along El Camino, including at the trailer park, we cannot tolerate any more high density housing and preserve any shred of the character of our neighborhood. It feels like Palo Alto is turning into Brooklyn NY with all row houses and no setbacks. Sincerely, Tom LaWer Palo Alto, California There are now 89 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Tomas Kong <mail@change.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:39 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- A high-density housing development Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: A high-density housing development at this location would create a very dangerous street for kids who use Maybell to access the three schools in the area, and the traffic study presented by the developer did not factor in the foot and bicycle traffic from the kids. A shocking case of neglicence or data manipulation. Sincerely, Tomas Kong Palo Alto, California There are now 85 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Tomas Kong <mail@change.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:39 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Stephanie Shaw, Kay Luo… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 85 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 81. Stephanie Shaw Palo Alto, California 82. Kay Luo Palo Alto, California 83. Arthur Li Palo Alto, California 84. Annie Young Palo Alto, California 85. Tomas Kong Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Sunny <sunnyzhai@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 26, 2013 12:01 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Opposition of the maybel ave rezoning Hi, this is sunny Zhai. I am the home owner of 4151 amaranta ave, palo alto 94306. Our family‐benny auyeung, synny zhai, victor auyeung, chloe auyeung and gavin auyeung, strongly oppose the maybel ave rezoning to this high density development. The planned housing will disturb our current quiet community and will attract more traffic to maybel ave, where a lot of students bike or walk to school. The three level town home will affect the whole outlook of this neighborhood. Please return the rural look to our neighborhood. Have a nice day! Sunny Zhai 1 Ellner, Robin From:Susan Voll <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:06 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Please don't rezone in Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Please don't rezone in this area. It is a bad area to try to stuff more housing. It is along an already crowded road and it would ruin a nice greenbelt area that we all enjoy. Why are we continually trying to stuff more housing into Palo Alto? We can't maintain the same quality of living we have enjoyed if our schools, roads and services are beyond capacity. Palo Alto is losing it's lovely, quaintness and will soon be just like all the other crowded and cemented over communities around us. Sincerely, Susan Voll Palo Alto, California There are now 39 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Samina Shetty <mail@change.org> Sent:Friday, May 10, 2013 9:18 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Would like my neighborhood Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Would like my neighborhood to remain quiet and peaceful. Sincerely, Samina Shetty Palo Alto, California There are now 102 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Steve Rothenberg <steverothenberg@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:55 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:rezoning 567 and 595 Maybell Hello, As a resident of 4154 Interdale Way, I strongly oppose rezoning 567 and 595 Maybell to a “Planned Community” zone distinct for purposes of building a high density 60-unit, 4-story, low income senior housing and 15-home development. Maybell Ave is already a busy street and the residential neighborhood will be adversely affected by this high density housing. We do not need to pack more people into Palo Alto and especially into a residential (single family) low density zone like Barron Park. Stop the urbanization of Palo Alto….are you trying to make it into a city like San Francisco!!!! Yuk!!!! Thank you for listening, Steve Rothenberg 1 Ellner, Robin From:steven rosenberg <canuck94306@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:31 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:info; canuck94306 Subject:PAHC proposed rezoning and approval of the MAYBELL/CLEMO project Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Dear sirs, I want to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning and construction of the PAHC Maybell/Clemo project. This project is completely inappropriate for this location and will have severe negative impacts on the safety of pedestrians, children and bicyclists. It will also significantly degrade the quality of life in the community (this is why the current zoning prohibits these types of high density developments), and also significantly degrades the adjacent Juana Briones park. This type of high density spot zoning is completely inappropriate in my view, and certainly should not be done unless proper review and input from the community has been gathered, and valid environmental impact reviews collected. I do not think either of these has occurred. The community input, gathered very late, has been dismissed. Given we are a small city, and the purpose of the city government is to serve its residents, I think the desires of the community should play a much larger part in any decision process, particularly since there is an extremely severe impact to the community. The environmental impact statement explicitly did not consider the effects of pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. on Maybell, which is thronged with them mornings and late afternoons. It only looked at a few hours that did not necessarily cooincide with the highest use times, it did not evaluate the impact on Juana Briones park, and the effect of turning Clemo into a cut-through via the new develpment from Arastradero, a very congested street. Given the gridlock situation on Amaranta and on Maybell during morning school and commute hours, the conclusion that adding additional traffic onto Maybell will have negligable impact is laughable. There are many other inadequacies as well. While it is true that there are currently some larger developments along Arastradero, these apartment complexes were built when the whole neighborhood was part of the county, and the zoning grandfathered in. They by no means set a precendent. This entire part of Palo Alto is zoned for Residential single-family R-1, this is a residential neighborhood with a residential feel. Turning our low-density transition buffer to the neighborhood into a high-density high-rise zone is inappropriate spot zoning. The PAHC are welcome to build senior housing there, WITHIN existing low-density zoning. Some of the specific problems are: 1. Traffic impact: Maybell is already too narrow, and this development will crowd the street further and most likely result in further on-street parking, causing further congestion. Kids weave in and out of traffic on Maybell already because it's so narrow. Further traffic would be very unsafe, and every school day impact the ability of several hundreds of our children to get to school safely by biking or walking. The Palo Alto Housing Corp is claiming the high-rise will just be seniors who won't make traffic, but there are NO WALKABLE SERVICES there. Residents will have to drive out or have helpers drive in. Seniors have visitors, too! The "senior" designation is a pretense to get the area rezoned for high density. The PAHC is developing other larger projects RIGHT NOW near to Stanford 2 which would be better for seniors (walkable to medical, grocery, Avenidas, free entertainment, restaurants, etc). They should build in this neighborhood only WITHIN EXISTING LOW DENSITY ZONING. 2 Safety. Putting high density right in that location where there is already such traffic problems, and at one of the only inlets/outlets to the neighborhood (which has no egress to the south or west) is an accident waiting to happen for the kids at Briones and Terman. And elderly neighbors who could see delayed emergency vehicle access. Emergency vehicles don't even have a clear shot to drive in on sidewalks along Maybell because it's so narrow. Putting the traffic out at Arastradero instead of Maybell will not solve the problem it just shifts it to the other too-busy inlet/outlet to the neighborhood and makes Gunn and Terman harder to reach in an emergency during the wrong hours. 2) Liveability. The housing corp wants to put a senior development there. But there are no walkable services at that location, not even a grocery store nearby. Residents will have to drive out or have helpers drive in. 3) Negative impact on neighborhood quality of life. Zoning exists for a purpose, so those who want to invest huge amounts of money buying into the area know what will be there in the future. This is a small, cohesive neighborhood and rezoning single-family and R2 zoning to high density carves away a big part of the neighborhood and hurts the residential character. We are taking more than our share of high density at more appropriate locations in the neighborhood, at locations already zoned for high density. 4) Our area is not well served with parks and playing fields. Juana Briones park is our little gem. This development will severely impact it by a) turning Clemo, which is a quiet street with lots of parking, into a busy traffic street, and lining the facing side with close packed houses. Right now, neighbourhood residents can easily drive to the park if needed, and find parking. With the loss of Clemo and more on-street parking being used the new row houses without facing driveways on Maybell, this will impact accessability. Increased traffic on adjacent streets will also affect this. 5) "Attractive nuisance" All surveys of senior citizens in the neighborhood show they aren't moving to senior housing and pretty much stay in their homes. Residents will be coming from elsewhere to live there, and it's just a fact of this immediate neighborhood that there will be people who move there to sneak grandchildren in at Gunn or Terman. Saying there will be rules against it is not enough, people find ways to break those rules and do, and others are often loathe to report them. This encourages seniors to break up their families to move in there so the grandchildren can attend Gunn. Anyone who doesn't take that inevitability seriously does not have a realistic handle on this neighborhood. 6) Zoning change may be illegal and certainly seems to be a conflict of interest for the city. The rezoning violates many policies of the city's general plan and may consitute illegal "spot zoning". The city's loan to the PAHC may constitute contract zoning, which would also be illegal. At the very least, it is a conflict of interest. The city loaned PAHC millions to purchase the property, on the proviso that they pay the money back when high-density homes - completely out of character with the residential neighborhood - on Maybell and Clemo are built and sold, which could not be built to that density under the existing zoning. 7) loosing opportunity to create a real community benefit. That location is a once-in-a-lifetime 3 opportunity to expand the existing park and make a much needed playing field on this side of town. Such a field could be reached by kids by bikes from Los Altos and all the neighborhoods along the bike path. Instead of having to be driven all the way out to the Baylands, kids could have more opportunities to be independent and active. The benefits to the community are legion and real, not just cover for more density and developers. Sincerely, Steven Rosenberg 4073 Amaranta ave. 1 Ellner, Robin From:susanppines@gmail.com on behalf of Susan Pines <susan@pines.com> Sent:Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Opposition to Zoning changes/exemptions for Maybell development To whom it may concern: This letter is in strong opposition to the City of Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council's plans to rezone Maybell Avenue and/or grant zoning exceptions for high-density development and senior housing. I am a 30 year resident of Donald Drive and am opposed to this rezoning and/or exemption on the following grounds: 1) Safety: Maybell is a narrow street that is a designated "bike and walk to school" route for 3 schools. Maybell is problematic in itself as the street does not even have a designated bike lane for the hundreds of children using this street. (Is this legal ? maybe, but it is certainly not good public safety practice ) Putting high density right where there are already unsafe conditions and traffic problems will exacerbate any emergency situations in the schools or neighborhoods. Emergency egress and access to the entire area will be compromised. 2) Traffic: The Traffic studies already indicate more cars than considered suitable for a local residential street and the figures do not take bicycle traffic into consideration. On a daily basis, drivers have to give way for bikers riding 4 across, and as noted, there is no designated bike lane on any of this street, which varies in width, block by block, but appears especially narrow at the area proposed to be redeveloped. Meanwhile, the major route, Arastradero on the other side is crammed with cars at certain times of the day, and so drivers are using Maybell to avoid the major street. This tendency would continue with more development. 3) Traffic: The Palo Alto Housing Corp is claiming the high-rise will just be seniors who won't make traffic, but there are NO WALKABLE SERVICES there. The closest grocery store (which recently closed) is not walkable for most people, being across El Camino, Alma and the Railroad Tracks. Residents will have to drive out or have helpers drive in. 4) Negative impact on neighborhood quality of life. This is a small, cohesive neighborhood and rezoning to high density destroys the character of this neighborhood. 5) The rezoning violates policies of the city's general plan: “POLICY L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Scale is the relationship of various parts of the environment to each other.” 2 The scale of the proposed project is out of proportion to the current neighborhood and would destroy the character of the neighborhood. The only high rise in the area, was grandfathered in when the City annexed the land over 30 years ago. It is/was not part of the City's general plan. “POLICY L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density ….. between residential areas of different densities. ..” The proposed development would dwarf the remaining houses in the area and transform this suburban residential neighborhood into an urban eyesore. The lack of a reasonable set back on Maybell is especially troubling, as it reflects the continuation of the "ugly, unfriendly and unwalkable aesthetic" of the Ricky's El Camino development and the Miki's Market/Alma development, as well as making it impossible to ever improve (i.e. widen) Maybell to allow for a designated bike lane. In short, I am strongly opposed to rezoning the Maybell parcel to permit construction of an outsized housing development, while sympathetic to senior and low income housing in general. Let's put this housing on El Camino, or in the Page Mill/El Camino area near to California Avenue and adjacent to retail services and transportation. Regards, Susan P Pines 4109 Donald Drive Palo Alto 1 Ellner, Robin From:Sally O'Neil <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:28 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Please do not rezone Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Please do not rezone without more carefully considering the whole area and recent changes here. We already have significant traffic and safety problems here. Sincerely, Sally O'Neil Palo Alto, California There are now 39 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Sammy Oh <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:09 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Darcy Huston, Viresh Rustagi… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 130 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 126. Darcy Huston Palo Alto, California 127. Viresh Rustagi Palo Alto , California 128. Yvonne LaMaster Palo Alto, California 129. Mamta Samantray Palo Alto, California 130. Sammy Oh Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Sheila Mooney <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:06 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Affects our route to Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Affects our route to our school. Sincerely, Sheila Mooney Palo Alto, California There are now 124 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Sandi McFarlin <mail@change.org> Sent:Friday, May 10, 2013 6:28 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Lori McCormick, Cecile K… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 100 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 96. Lori McCormick Palo Alto, California 97. Cecile K Palo Alto, California 98. Tina Peak Palo Alto, California 99. Yumi I. Palo Alto, California 100. Sandi McFarlin Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Stephanie Langley <mail@change.org> Sent:Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:20 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- This development if it Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: This development if it gets built as it is now planned will create an even more unsafe and overly traveled traffic route. Sincerely, Stephanie Langley Palo Alto, California There are now 53 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Scott Hayes <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 01, 2013 11:52 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- The area is already Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: The area is already well built up, schools are already crowded and the traffic is very heavy now. A limited number of private homes may work, but not anymore low density housing. Sincerely, Scott Hayes Palo Alto, California There are now 61 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Soroor Ebnesajjad <sorooreb@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 28, 2013 1:47 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:High density housing on Maybell an Clemo Dear City Council and the Planning Commission, I am writing to ask you to disallow the change of zoning of the property on Clemo and Maybell so that the project can not proceed as it is planned. There are many issues with this development but I will only point out one in this email. PAHC tells us that the reason for choosing this location is that Palo Alto is nice and these seniors will enjoy living here. They also say these seniors are very poor so few of the residents will own cars. I live near this site and know that there are no grocery stores or other essential services nearby. Being a low income senior with no car and not living near any reasonable shopping places can not be an easy life. The residents will always be dependent on others to help with their shopping, etc. In response to these concerns PAHC says that there will be lots of meals on wheels deliveries, etc. Wouldn't that will clog up the roads around the development further? Why not build it in a location where there are shops within walking distance? Please try to understand that if you go ahead with this project you will be endangering the lives of many children who walk or bike that path. And some others like myself who bike a lot will have to think twice and perhaps opt for driving in order to be safe. Sincerely Soroor Ebnesajjad Florales Dr. Palo Alto 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Sam and Ida Holmes <isholmes@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:13 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:567 Maybell Avenue Project Dear Commissioners: I wanted to write to you to express my strong opposition to the proposed re‐zoning of this lot and the authorization of a 75 unit (MOL) development. The purpose of zoning laws is to assure character and livability of neighborhoods and to prevent out of control development. One only has to go to places with lax zoning laws (e.g. Houston) to see how destructive uncontrolled development can be. The proposed development will permanently alter the character of this Barron Park neighborhood. We have taken steps to preserve trees, limit alterations to and destruction of historic buildings in order to preserve neighborhood ambience, etc. so why would we allow this kind of development. Sincerely, Samuel and Ida Holmes 4144 Maybell Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Ramona Zulch <mail@change.org> Sent:Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:20 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Increasing the density of Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Increasing the density of housing on Maybell needs to be denied for numerous reasons. Most important, consider the safety of the many children who bike, walk and skateboard to school each day. Maybell is so narrow that there is only room for a sidewalk on one side. As a result the children bike and walk out in the street, often confronting impatient drivers who use Maybell as a short cut to Arastradero. As a senior citizen who lives just one block from Maybell I often walk our charming and very diverse neighborhood. Visit our area and envision three story buildings built right up to the sidewalk with hundreds of children walking and biking to and from school and you will better understand our objections to this high density development. This is a neighborhood that is as important as any other neighborhood in Palo Alto. We, too, want our children safe! Deal with the need for affordable and senior housing but not by introducing added danger to our community. Deny the zoning change! Sincerely, Ramona Zulch Palo Alto, California There are now 56 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Richard Wedenig <mail@change.org> Sent:Monday, May 13, 2013 10:07 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Dave Chou, Katherine Fife… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 110 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 106. Dave Chou Palo Alto, Illinois 107. Katherine Fife Palo Alto, California 108. Dylan Riley Palo Alto, California 109. Rosa Dell'Oca Palo Alto, California 110. Richard Wedenig Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Richard Wedenig <mail@change.org> Sent:Monday, May 13, 2013 10:07 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- It will have a Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: It will have a huge impact on our quiet neighborhood. It will not be nice for the current residents nor the seniors. Please reduce the scope and scale of this project so that it has no visible or felt impact on the existing community Sincerely, Richard Wedenig Palo Alto, California There are now 110 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Richard Simoni <rich@assetman.com> Sent:Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:59 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Re-zoning for Maybell Avenue project, and the $3 million Dear members of the council and commission, I am completely against the rezoning for the new housing project on Maybell Avenue. Even though the goals of this particular project may resonate with some (although not me), the rezoning of south Palo Alto for all kinds of projects the last few years has gone too far, and our neighborhood sees the brunt of the results. It's just too much...please stop already and just let the zoning be. If the fact that the City already put in $3 million from its housing fund factors into this rezoning decision, then I have to say, it would smell really bad from a conflict‐of‐interest point of view and this angry neighborhood will undoubtedly make sure it gets plenty of press coverage. Nobody wants to derail good‐intentioned projects in general, but the neighborhood has just "had it up to here," so to speak, and this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. The city has not done south Palo Alto any favors with all of its re‐zoned projects so far, so frankly it is not operating from a strong base of credibility on this matter. I believe the city would be delinquent if it doesn't at least investigate whether in this real estate market, PAHC could sell the land under existing zoning and return the city's housing fund money. The fact that this money has gone in doesn't have to make this project a foregone conclusion. Best regards, Rich Simoni 4188 King Arthur Ct Palo Alto, CA 1 Ellner, Robin From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net> Sent:Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:38 PM To:recycler100@sonic.net; jdewit@paloaltohousingcorp.org Cc:cgonzalez@paloaltohousingcorp.org; Council, City; Planning Commission; Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis Subject:Re: P.S. Newsletter article to PAHC residents Another refutation of the totally false claim that local residents are opposing BMRs and lower income housing is the formal opposition of the Barron Park Association and many Barron Park residents to closure of the Buena Vista mobile home park and replacing over 110 low income units with high density expensive housing. The neighborhood made it very clear that this low income, mainly Hispanic group should be allowed to stay. In fact a major objection to the project was the excedssive number and inadequate setbacks of the market rate homes, not the fact that the senior units would be BMRs. There were more requests to reduce the number of market rate homes than of BMR units. As noted, the problems are excessive bulk and density, traffic, risk to children along the Safe Routes to School route, and incompatability with the adjacent R-1 homes. This proposal is a classic example of the useleness and dangers of PC zoning. The "public benefit" is BMR housing which is the reason PAHC exists, so wild card zoning is justified for doing what PAHC does anyway. If PAHC wants to build high density senior housing, the best approach is to do it in an area already zoned for it, which also has the advantage that those high density areas are near services that seniors want and use, unlike the Maybell/Clemo site that is not near any shopping or services. It further verifies that PC zoning is a terrible idea. If it proceeds I will do everything possible to prohibit future PC zoning and any developments under that wild card zoning in Palo Alto. Regards, Bob Moss From: "recycler100@sonic.net" <recycler100@sonic.net> To: jdewit@paloaltohousingcorp.org Cc: cgonzalez@paloaltohousingcorp.org; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org; tim.wong@cityofpaloalto.org; curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 1:16:18 PM Subject: P.S. Newsletter article to PAHC residents P.S. Dear Jessica, I would just like to make one more important point: Your newsletter listed the Maybell property as being in Barron Park. While neighbors significantly impacted by the development on the east side of Maybell are in Barron Park, and Barron Park is impacted by the traffic, safety, and emergency issues it presents (as are several other surrounding neighborhoods and school communities, which is why opposition to rezoning that property is so widespread), the property you are trying to rezone is squarely in the middle of Greenacres. Greenacres residents are the most negatively affected by the rezoning. After all that has transpired, you and those trying to rezone the neighborhood know so little about the area that you don't even know which neighborhood your proposed rezoning is in. Which is strange, since PAHC owns quite a few BMR units in Greenacres. Here are some neighborhood maps for your future reference: 2 http://www.paloaltoonline.com/media/reports/1233787698.pdf http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/28940/ > Hi Jessica, > I have received a copy of a newsletter article in PAHC's Collective Wisdom newsletter to its residents. It says "A vocal group of community members are stating their opposition to more affordable housing in Palo Alto," and invites existing residents to come to the Planning Commission and City Council Meetings (scheduled to discuss the rezoning) in order to speak in support of affordable housing. > > Can you please tell who wrote this article? It amounts to a coercive attempt to drum up support for PAHC's high-density rezoning, without ever stating it or being honest about what is really going on. You know very well that those meetings are not a referendum on affordable housing or whether affordable housing has benefited anyone, as the flyer indicates. Using BMR residents in a dishonest political ploy rather than addressing the specific concerns at hand in that low-density to high-density rezoning effort is beneath the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, and I think PAHC owes not only the neighborhood, but the BMR residents an apology for it. > > I would like to remind you of a few things: > 1) You invited neighbors to come to the April meeting. > > 2) Prior to the meeting, you expressed your strong disbelief that there was any opposition to rezoning for high-density in the neighborhood. > > 3) Neighbors at the meeting never once stated any opposition to "more affordable housing in Palo Alto," in fact several people prefaced their comments against this particular attempt at high-density rezoning and the serious problems it poses to safety and traffic with positive comments in support of PAHC and its work. Some members even expressed support for that project, at a safer location. I myself stopped to tell a PAHC employee of my support for PAHC on my way from the meeting, and to reiterate that opposition was only to the specifics of that particular low-density residential to high-density rezoning effort by PAHC. > > One community member recorded most of the meeting; if you believe anyone said anything negative about PAHC or having more affordable housing in Palo Alto, can you please let me know when that happened, because we can't find it. > > 4) To my knowledge, neighbors have welcomed PAHC to build within the existing zoning, even stating a preference for PAHC to build within the existing zoning over another developer doing so. This is hardly "opposition to more affordable housing in Palo Alto" or even at that location. Neighbors are opposed to unwise and unsafe high-density building of any kind at a traffic bottleneck in the neighborhood that impacts the only two routes in and out of the neighborhood (and other neighborhoods along Arastradero), egress for the fire station, and safe routes to school traveled by over a thousand school children on bikes every day. There is no other way for traffic generated by a high-density development at that location to go except via those two routes, which are both safe routes to school. > > 5) Some of the school children whose safety is impacted by more traffic on those routes are PAHC residents. Some of the existing neighbors whose jobs, livelihoods, and quality of life will be impacted negatively by traffic and emergency bottleneck delays are PAHC residents. To misdirect the conversation to make it a referendum on affordable housing rather than dealing with the specific safety and traffic issues of the high-density rezoning does them a disservice just as it does the other neighbors who deserve to have their concerns addressed. > 3 > 6) No one at the meeting stated any opposition to more affordable housing in Palo Alto, but many did state their opposition to making the safe routes to school more dangerous and congested. Many stated serious concerns about the limitations of PAHC's traffic study, which we were told at the meeting did not take the thousands of student bikers into account. Given that those issues affect affordable housing residents as well, why was there no attempt to educate them about the specifics? > > 7) Residents of existing affordable housing are integrated in the neighborhood and have many connections in school and the community. For PAHC to try to portray neighborhood opposition of a low-density to high- density zoning change as opposition to them and affordable housing is cynical and inflammatory, and could create a wedge in a previously cohesive community and even undermine support for PAHC in general where support was previously good. > > 8) For someone in PAHC to make such a dishonest attempt to drum up participation at a rezoning meeting in a letter to residents whose affordable housing depends on PAHC could be construed as coercive, especially since it may not even be in residents' best interests as part of the neighborhood to be inserted in a manufactured red herring controversy about affordable housing in general, as the flyer tries to make it. In whose best interest is it to incite controversy over affordable housing, theirs, or your own? > > 9) In planning the project, you and PAHC have created very constrained development circumstances that seem to make it impossible for you to compromise for safety and other concerns specific to that site. At the meeting, neighbors were told that in order for the project to be financially feasible, PAHC promised the developer it would get the low-density residential zoning changed to high-density, so the developer could put a wall of tall houses with tiny lots and minimal setback on a narrow street zoned R-1 to either side and across the street. This is reminiscent of what has happened at Alma Plaza/Miki's Market, which many residents in Palo Alto can see is a bad idea, only now it's not even on Alma, it's on narrow Maybell on a residential street. Opposition to such excessive development in residential areas and to your manufactured all-or-nothing constraints have nothing to do with support or opposition to "affordable housing in Palo Alto" and it was wrong of you to try to make it so. > > You know as well as anyone that your attempt to rezone that low-density residential parcel isn't somehow the only chance for PAHC to add affordable housing in Palo Alto, that every private housing development of less than five acres is required to set aside at least 15 percent of units as affordable housing, more for larger developments, and there are many high density developments going in this part of town as we speak. No one opposed to high density rezoning of that location has ever said one word or even hinted at opposing the set aside of 15-25% of privately developed housing as affordable housing at all. Additionally, PAHC could choose to build low-income units under the existing zoning, but never made any alternative plans with residents' concerns in mind. > > 10) If there are any general issues involved here, it's whether residential zoning in Palo Alto should be so easily rezoned for high density PC zones with no setback or height restrictions, not whether affordable housing is a good idea. You told me yourself that you had no problems with the idea of rezoning residential areas for high density and had done so before. If you would like to hold some public meetings on that issue, I think given all the development around town, many people would attend. > > The opposition to high-density PC rezoning in the neighborhood isn't limited to the few hundred neighbors who were able to make the April 22 meeting. There was no formal neighborhood organization or particular "vocal group" involved as your letter portrayed the neighbors who came to your meeting at your invitation. You owe the community an apology for this dishonest portrayal of the neighbors, the opposition to the high-density rezoning, the mischaracerization of the planning meetings which could end up wasting valuable time not dealing with the matters at hand, and even BMR residents' sense of security about support for affordable housing in this community. 4 > > You need to be honest that this is about high-density rezoning in a specific residential location, specifically about your own plan/project, not about affordable housing in general. No one would be opposed if PAHC built affordable housing in that location within existing zoning, especially if it involved widening Maybell for safety, you would be applauded. You need to remember that there are existing residents in the those neighborhoods whose lives are impacted, they are not beside the point. If you continue making this about your own professional success with a particular plan, regardless of the negatives to the community, you will ultimately be the one hurting affordable housing and affordable housing residents here in Palo Alto. > > I am fine with you passing along my concerns as stated in my letter to you, but please remove my name and email address as private. Please let me know at whose direction that letter was sent out to PAHC residents. Thank you. > Regards, > Anne 1 Ellner, Robin From:RICHARD HUANG <mail@change.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 07, 2013 11:05 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Our neighborhood already has Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Our neighborhood already has too much impact from the 4 local schools. Adding high density housing will increase traffic congestion and compromise the safety of students who commute on Maybell. Arastradero traffic is also bad enough and geting worse given the added office space at the nearby Veterans Hospital. Sincerely, RICHARD HUANG PALO ALTO, California There are now 90 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:RICHARD HUANG <mail@change.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 07, 2013 11:05 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Mati Merilo, Jessica HUANG… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 90 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 86. Mati Merilo Palo Alto, California 87. Jessica HUANG Palo Alto, California 88. Karen Chin Palo Alto, California 89. Tom LaWer Palo Alto, California 90. RICHARD HUANG PALO ALTO, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:R. Cunanan-Dinh <rcunanandinh@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 06, 2013 6:13 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Rezoning Proposal on 567 Maybell Ave. To Whom it May Concern, We understand that a developer proposes to change zoning laws on the 567‐595 block on Maybell & Clemo to build a 60‐unit low‐income senior housing and 15‐home development . Because of these high‐density structures we are extremely concerned about their impact on the already burgeoning traffic and safety problems in this area. We have children who walk to Terman Middle School and Juana Briones Elementary School, and as it is we worry everyday about their safety. On several occasions my son has come home with stories of how a schoolmate has been hit while walking or biking to school. My daughter and I have almost been victims of careless drivers while walking to school. We plan to attend the meeting on Wednesday, May 22 to demonstrate our opposition this rezoning proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Allen Dinh Renelyn Cunanan‐Dinh 535 Georgia Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Pamela Davis <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, May 09, 2013 8:58 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Craig Mohr, Anne LaWer… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 95 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 91. Craig Mohr Palo Alto, California 92. Anne LaWer Palo Alto, California 93. Brian McCormick Mountain view, California 94. Pearl Tan Palo Alto, California 95. Pamela Davis Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Monal Sonecha <mail@change.org> Sent:Monday, May 06, 2013 3:51 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: elizabeth fraze, Marisol Borbolla… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 80 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 76. elizabeth fraze palo alto, California 77. Marisol Borbolla Palo Alto, California 78. Jill Kohlmeier Palo Alto, California 79. Jace Kohlmeier Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Mamta Samantray <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:08 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Safety of our kids. Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Safety of our kids. Access to school. Sincerely, Mamta Samantray Palo Alto, California There are now 129 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Marianne McKissock <mail@change.org> Sent:Sunday, May 05, 2013 5:10 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Safety for traffic, pedestrian, Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Safety for traffic, pedestrian, bikers both school and otherwise. Increase of current traffic flow levels which are already very high on Maybell, Donald and other streets in Greenacres. Cutting thru Greenacres is the only exit route from area that avoids El Camino. Sincerely, Marianne McKissock Palo Alto, California There are now 75 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Marianne McKissock <mail@change.org> Sent:Sunday, May 05, 2013 5:10 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Smita Shah, Brooke Bailey… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 75 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 71. Smita Shah Palo Alto, California 72. Brooke Bailey Palo Alto, California 73. lilian lao palo alto, California 74. Paul Cole Palo Alto, California 75. Marianne McKissock Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:martha mccall <brewski4@aol.com> Sent:Monday, May 13, 2013 10:53 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:rezoning of 567 maybell Ave. Dear Commission and City Council, I want to go on record, as a resident at 4169 Willmar Drive, as objecting to the rezoning and subsequent development of 567 Maybell Avenue. I believe the great variation in setbacks, height, and density, are irresponsible in a neighborhood where the residents' lives and those of their children revolve around safety ‐ walking to school, walking to Walgreen's and El Camino buses, and enjoying what's left of the symmetry of a family neighborhood. The traffic increase, including shuttle, emergency, home care visits, family caregivers, van transport to and from clinics and hospitals, not to mention the cars of hired staff, would become a real impediment to movement along Maybell. I am a senior and believe ardently in senior focused housing. I hope you will, however, make certain that 567 Maybell might be built here or somewhere else responsibly, and with the sort of thought and response to existing residents that will create a positive, not a negative, neighborhood addition. Sincerely, Martha T. McCall 4169 Willmar Drive Palo Alto 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Muriel Kmet <murielkmet@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 10, 2013 11:10 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Opposition to the rezoning of the Clemo-Maybell project Dear Sir/Madam, As a citizen and a Palo Alto resident, I would like to inform you of my firm opposition to the rezoning of the Clemo‐ Maybell area. This project is absolutely incompatible with our residential neighborhood. Here are some of the many reasons why this project should be reconsidered: 1) This project will have a tremendous impact on the traffic on Maybell Avenue. Maybell is already suffering from intense traffic going to the 3 schools in the area. During school days, we cannot get out of our driveway due to the dense traffic going to Gunn‐Briones‐Terman schools. Also, this project will influence the bike traffic of many children that are using Maybell Avenue to reach their school, increasing bike safety concerns of these children. The increased traffic is also incompatible with the high density of children walking, biking to the three schools and to Briones park. Increasing traffic to Maybell will increase safety concerns for all our children and is truly unacceptable. 2) This project will have an impact on the residential quality of life of our neighborhood. The wall of houses that you are proposing to build will be not only disfigure our street but destroy the harmony of one story houses around the neighborhood. The Barron Park area is proud of his rural feel and this project should be downsized and respect current zoning laws. 3) The impact on parking from the increased density proposed would be tremendous. No parking is currently possible on one side of Maybell, which would mean an increased burden on the traffic flow of the street and in the surrounding area. This project needs to be reconsidered and hope you will listen to your constituents. Thank you. Muriel Kmet Bruno Kranzen 576 Maybell Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Marisol Borbolla <mail@change.org> Sent:Sunday, May 05, 2013 8:49 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Please don't rezone with Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Please don't rezone with only financial interests in mind and complete disregard to the safety and interests of the existing members of this community. This monster development increases the likelihood of one of more of our children being hurt (or killed) in a traffic accident. The proposed project is going to permanently affect the community for the worse, in every aspect. If this plan moves ahead, it will make us seriously consider selling our home and move somewhere else. Sincerely, Marisol Borbolla Palo Alto, California There are now 77 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Vanderbeek, Loren <Loren.Vanderbeek@elekta.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:20 AM To:Planning Commission; citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Rezoning at 567 Maybell Avenue Hi, my name is Loren Vanderbeek and I live at 4138 Baker Ave which is 2 blocks from this proposed development. The basic problem is parking. There will be insufficient off street parking and the overflow of cars will run up amaranta, Abel and Baker. There is already significant overflow from the apartment complex which spans Maybell and Arastradero and adjoins the proposed development. Additional cars from this development will add to the street parking congestion. In addition, Maybell is a major bike route in the mornings feeding Briones, Terman and Gunn and is busy with cars and bikes who use it as an alternative to Arastradero from 7 to 8:30, and the afternoon. Rainy day and special event traffic on Maybell is already excessive making it difficult at times to simpy leave the neighborhood. There are two great examples of too little off street parking in the area: Driscoll Place which stores its 20 excess vehicles on El Camino, and the Ricky's development which uses Wilkie as a parking lot. I lived on Driscoll place, and moved out because of the lack of parking. I don't want the same situation to arise in my neighborhood because of this development that asks the local neighborhood to suffer for the increased profits of the developer who will not allocate sufficient land for parking. Please don't rezone. Ask the developer to develop under existing rules. Thanks, Loren Vanderbeek | Senior Software Engineer Elekta 100 Mathilda Place, Fifth Floor Sunnyvale, CA 94086, United States Office: +1 408 830 8069 Loren.Vanderbeek@elekta.com | www.elekta.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. The contents of this e-mail message (including any attachments) are confidential to and are intended to be conveyed for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed only. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify the sender of this immediately and delete the message from your system. Any distribution, reproduction or use of this message by someone other than recipient is not authorized and may be unlawful. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Lisa Penninger <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:32 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Palo Alto is turning Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Palo Alto is turning into one big hive. I definitely do not want high-density housing in Barron Park. Sincerely, Lisa Penninger Palo Alto, California There are now 39 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:lilian lao <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, May 02, 2013 2:56 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- I concern the safety Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: I concern the safety of school kids walk or bike to school. I also worry the safy in the park. Many young children play there. If it changed to high Density zone, will be more strangers in the park everyday. Those strangers can be the seniors helpers. Kids and their parents will not feel safe anymore. Sincerely, lilian lao palo alto, California There are now 73 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Lara Ephron <lara@ephron.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:39 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:NO building on Maybell Ave. Please do not allow the high‐density housing to go up on Maybell Ave./Clemo Ave. My kids and I have already nearly been run over by both bikes and cars at the Maybell/Clemo/Amaranta crosswalk several times as we crossed from Juana Briones park to their school (Juana Briones) and back. The drivers and cyclists are so frustrated by the heavy traffic that they race through the stop signs. Most of the drivers are young Gunn students trying to make it to school on time. Crossing that street is so dangerous that I no longer walk my kids to school but drive them. Please do not allow high‐ density housing at Maybell/Clemo. It will just add to the already nightmarish traffic. Please, please, take a few minutes to observe the traffic yourselves during school drop off/pick up hours. (And please consider hiring a crossing guard for the Maybell/Clemo crosswalk. The crossing guard on Maybell is a block up at Coulombe, but because there's no sidewalk on the other side of Maybell there, no one wants their kids to walk OUT IN THE STREET with the crazy traffic. Most students use the crosswalk on Maybell Ave. at Amaranta/Clemo.) Thank you, Lara & David Ephron 259 Whitclem Ct. Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Karen Kunkel <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 01, 2013 11:51 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- We can not have Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: We can not have more traffic in this already busy area where kids are driving and riding bikes to 4 schools!! Sincerely, Karen Kunkel Palo Alto, California There are now 60 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Karen Kunkel <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 01, 2013 11:51 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Ramona Zulch, Bridget Akama… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 60 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 56. Ramona Zulch Palo Alto, California 57. Bridget Akama Palo Alto, California 58. Ruchita Parat Palo Alto, California 59. Vineeta Gupta Palo Alto, California 60. Karen Kunkel Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Kevin Hauck <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:25 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Kevin Hauck Palo Alto, California There are now 41 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Kevin Hauck <kevhauck@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:38 AM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Opposition Letter to 567 Maybell Rezoning Planning Commission and City Council: I'm writing to raise issues regarding the traffic study and conflict of interests facing the decision making entities for the Maybell high density rezoning project. The fact that the city chose unilaterally to lend $4M of public funds to a city-backed developer for a project before examining traffic and other impacts on the neighborhood creates an incentive to dismiss the neighborhood concerns and push the project without affording the neighborhood the benefit of a neutral evaluation of the project (which should be the government's role). Now the city government has essentially put itself into the role of a developer who gets to write his own permits. This conflict of interest needs to be addressed. If the city has already committed itself financially to one party, it cannot be an unbiased arbiter. It's troubling that the city-backed developer paid a consultant to produce a traffic study that is critically flawed. It's equally troubling that staff accepts it as a basis for recommending the rezoning. Maybell is a corridor for thousands of students, does not have proper bike lanes, and is often clogged by permanent street parking causing further funneling of traffic. The morning school traffic; including cars, bikes, and pedestrians; comes in concentrated bursts over a short period of time (which the developer tried to minimize by smoothing the data over a full hour). The stop signs placed in the middle of the street are run down at a rate of about 1 per month. The developer-paid traffic study, however chose to ignore ALL bicycle and pedestrian traffic. This alone makes it a fatally flawed document, but the list goes on. The developer traffic study focuses on a metric that is based on the hypothesis that already crowded streets can take more incremental traffic because it's difficult to notice more cars on high traffic streets. It claims to establish a baseline traffic load based on only 12 datapoints, of which two were measured two years ago and a third was taken during PAUSD spring break. A manipulated biased document based on insufficient, cherry-picked, and massaged data isn't an accurate reflection of the hazards of adding more traffic to Maybell. The lack of scientific, statistical, or common sense merit in the traffic study needs to be addressed. Why then should staff simply accept this work product? Do they honestly believe that bikes and pedestrians are not a relevant factor on a one lane street with no bike lanes serving thousands of commuting students? Do they honestly believe that once a street is overcrowded, it's fine to add more traffic since nobody will notice since its already so packed? The notion that that staff lost their ability to remain impartial when their bosses' bosses, the city council, already cast the strongest of votes in favor of the project: a vote backed by $4M tax dollars, needs to be addressed and explored. Given the conflict of interest facing staff, as well as their acceptance of a grossly flawed document, staff's recommendation to approve the rezoning is tainted and should not be a factor in the decision process. If the planning commission approves the rezone and it goes before the same city council that put $4M of the city's money on the rezone, we're really back to the developer writing his own permits situation. I urge the city to leave the project site zoned the same way it was when the city backed entity purchased it. I look forward to the city's written responses to the above cited concerns. 2 Regards, Kevin Hauck 1 Ellner, Robin From:Kevin Hauck <kevhauck@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:50 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Errors in Maybell Clemo project traffic report Dear planning commission: After reviewing the developer sponsored traffic study for the proposed Maybell Clemo housing project, I am writing to add my objections to the project and the proposed zoning exception. The traffic study is clearly a marketing document commissioned by the developer. The study chooses to focus on linear changes in traffic instead of the current state of overcrowding, which masks the traffic impacts by viewing them against the already overcrowded baseline. The traffic study also used a small number of daily reads (12 in all, at six intersections) to define what typical traffic in the area is. Two of the data points are two years old. A third was measured when PAUSD was on spring break. Is the commission and the public to believe that a typical traffic day in the neighborhood can be defined relying heavily on data taken when Gunm, Terman, and Briones were not on session. That 25% of the data used that is stale or corrupted is alarming and unacceptable. If the traffic consultants are sloppy or incompetent, that's a problem. More likely, they were cherry picking data to produce a report that would please their end customer, the developer. For the city to trample the rights of the neighborhood by carving out an exemption to zoning laws based on such a biased, error ridden study would be a huge breach of the public trust. The document also chose to ignore all traffic impacts during construction, which will be much worse. Regards Kevin Hauck Green Acres Resident 1 Ellner, Robin From:Ken Hahn <kenhahn@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:21 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Continued Damage to Baron Park / Green Acres Neighborhoods To: Palo Alto Planning Commission, Palo Alto City Council (via email) Ladies and Gentlemen, We have been Palo Alto residents for the past ten years and are still in the process of raising three boys in the Baron Park neighborhood. The recently proposed zoning variance for 567-595 Maybell/Clemo is, in my opinion, over the top as it relates to city planning decisions that do harm to our neighborhood. You must put a halt to it! You should not allow a zoning variance for the 567-595 Maybell/Clemo project because: - It is out of character with the surrounding area neighborhood (this is not a high density area and you are changing the rules to add high density building right in the middle of the community) - It is dangerous and a real threat to the safety of children (the site is right next to our largest park and on the travel route to the elementary school, middle school and high school; more cars around young children means someone will get hurt. I am sure that is not your intent, but that will be the result) - Traffic is already becoming a problem in our neighborhoods and this will make it worse, especially after the Arastradero lane elimination last year (I know your consultant says a bit more traffic won't hurt us, but really, if we were to send a hundred or two hundred more cars daily down the street in front of your house, do you think you would care? I think you would, especially if you had children) I fail to understand why Palo Alto's building and planning department and city council continue to grant zoning variations that damage our neighborhood. South Palo Alto has now taken far more than its fair share of high density zoning changes. It needs to stop now before you permit a high density project smack in the middle of our neighborhood. I am sure the builders, with deep pockets, are placing relentless pressure, money and influence into the project . . . but this time it has gone too far in terms of the complete disregard for our community. Is it not your responsibility to make sure you are not damaging existing neighborhoods when approving zoning changes? The damage to the Baron Park / Green Acres Neighborhoods and the vicinity has been very real in the past ten years that we have lived here. Our local elementary school has become more crowded and the quality of education has deteriorated despite the valiant efforts of several great teachers. Obviously, this is not a primary issue with a proposed senior center (though it does come with increased density of additional residential homes), but the point is that the accumulation of damage from your zoning variance agreements over time is hurting our neighborhood. If you have been given bad information as to the cumulative effects of the recent high density zoning variances, then please understand this better. If you have understood it before approval, then shame on you for what your are doing to Baron Park and Green Acres. You must stop granting these zoning variances that put money in the pockets of builders and damage the community. Please enter this in the public record for the property (567-595 Maybell/Clemo). Please reject any zoning variance to that property. Please stop changing the rules and hurting our neighborhood. Regards, Ken Hahn 1 Ellner, Robin From:Ken Hahn <kenhahn@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:40 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Continued Damage to Barron Park / Green Acres Neighborhoods To: Palo Alto Planning Commission, Palo Alto City Council (via email) Ladies and Gentlemen, We have been Palo Alto residents for the past ten years and are still in the process of raising three boys in the Barron Park neighborhood. The recently proposed zoning variance for 567-595 Maybell/Clemo is, in my opinion, over the top as it relates to city planning decisions that do harm to our neighborhood. You must put a halt to it! You should not allow a zoning variance for the 567-595 Maybell/Clemo project because: - It is out of character with the surrounding area neighborhood (this is not a high density area and you are changing the rules to add high density building right in the middle of the community) - It is dangerous and a real threat to the safety of children (the site is right next to our largest park and on the travel route to the elementary school, middle school and high school; more cars around young children means someone will get hurt. I am sure that is not your intent, but that will be the result) - Traffic is already becoming a problem in our neighborhoods and this will make it worse, especially after the Arastradero lane elimination last year (I know your consultant says a bit more traffic won't hurt us, but really, if we were to send a hundred or two hundred more cars daily down the street in front of your house, do you think you would care? I think you would, especially if you had children) I fail to understand why Palo Alto's building and planning department and city council continue to grant zoning variations that damage our neighborhood. South Palo Alto has now taken far more than its fair share of high density zoning changes. It needs to stop now before you permit a high density project smack in the middle of our neighborhood. I am sure the builders, with deep pockets, are placing relentless pressure, money and influence into the project . . . but this time it has gone too far in terms of the complete disregard for our community. Is it not your responsibility to make sure you are not damaging existing neighborhoods when approving zoning changes? The damage to the Barron Park / Green Acres Neighborhoods and the vicinity has been very real in the past ten years that we have lived here. Our local elementary school has become more crowded and the quality of education has deteriorated despite the valiant efforts of several great teachers. Obviously, this is not a primary issue with a proposed senior center (though it does come with increased density of additional residential homes), but the point is that the accumulation of damage from your zoning variance agreements over time is hurting our neighborhood. If you have been given bad information as to the cumulative effects of the recent high density zoning variances, then please understand this better. If you have understood it before approval, then shame on you for what your are doing to Barron Park and Green Acres. You must stop granting these zoning variances that put money in the pockets of builders and damage the community. Please enter this in the public record for the property (567-595 Maybell/Clemo). Please reject any zoning variance to that property. Please stop changing the rules and hurting our neighborhood. Regards, Ken Hahn 1 Ellner, Robin From:Ken Hahn <kenhahn@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:41 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Re: Continued Damage to Barron Park / Green Acres Neighborhoods please use this second mailing to correct a typo thank you. please help us!! this development is really, truly terrible From: Ken Hahn <kenhahn@yahoo.com> To: "planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org" <planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; "city.council@cityofpaloalto.org" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:39 AM Subject: Continued Damage to Barron Park / Green Acres Neighborhoods To: Palo Alto Planning Commission, Palo Alto City Council (via email) Ladies and Gentlemen, We have been Palo Alto residents for the past ten years and are still in the process of raising three boys in the Barron Park neighborhood. The recently proposed zoning variance for 567-595 Maybell/Clemo is, in my opinion, over the top as it relates to city planning decisions that do harm to our neighborhood. You must put a halt to it! You should not allow a zoning variance for the 567-595 Maybell/Clemo project because: - It is out of character with the surrounding area neighborhood (this is not a high density area and you are changing the rules to add high density building right in the middle of the community) - It is dangerous and a real threat to the safety of children (the site is right next to our largest park and on the travel route to the elementary school, middle school and high school; more cars around young children means someone will get hurt. I am sure that is not your intent, but that will be the result) - Traffic is already becoming a problem in our neighborhoods and this will make it worse, especially after the Arastradero lane elimination last year (I know your consultant says a bit more traffic won't hurt us, but really, if we were to send a hundred or two hundred more cars daily down the street in front of your house, do you think you would care? I think you would, especially if you had children) I fail to understand why Palo Alto's building and planning department and city council continue to grant zoning variations that damage our neighborhood. South Palo Alto has now taken far more than its fair share of high density zoning changes. It needs to stop now before you permit a high density project smack in the middle of our neighborhood. I am sure the builders, with deep pockets, are placing relentless pressure, money and influence into the project . . . but this time it has gone too far in terms of the complete disregard for our community. Is it not your responsibility to make sure you are not damaging existing neighborhoods when approving zoning changes? The damage to the Barron Park / Green Acres Neighborhoods and the vicinity has been very real in the past ten years that we have lived here. Our local elementary school has become more crowded and the quality of education has deteriorated despite the valiant efforts of several great teachers. Obviously, this is not a primary issue with a proposed senior center (though it does come with increased density of additional residential homes), but the point is that the accumulation of damage from your zoning variance agreements over time is hurting our neighborhood. 2 If you have been given bad information as to the cumulative effects of the recent high density zoning variances, then please understand this better. If you have understood it before approval, then shame on you for what your are doing to Barron Park and Green Acres. You must stop granting these zoning variances that put money in the pockets of builders and damage the community. Please enter this in the public record for the property (567-595 Maybell/Clemo). Please reject any zoning variance to that property. Please stop changing the rules and hurting our neighborhood. Regards, Ken Hahn 1 Ellner, Robin From:Kathleen M Eisenhardt <kme@stanford.edu> Sent:Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:20 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell-Clemo - Remove from Housing Element Planning Commission I have forwarded my letter to the City Council below as a concerned neighbor. But in brief, I oppose rezoning the Maybell‐Clemo area and building the proposed PAHC complex because of its very adverse effects on an already bad safety and traffic situation (made worse by the city's changes to Arastradero), poor siting of a senior development with no services, spot zoning to high density, architectural inconsistency with the area (tall, narrow single family homes), and the need for playing fields in this area. In addition, the PAHC travel consultant seemed particularly inept with an inability to answer even basic questions. Overall, this rezoning and PAHC project are inappropriate. Kathy Eisenhardt 4184 Donald Drive Palo Alto 94306 ‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐ From: "Kathleen M Eisenhardt" <kme@stanford.edu> To: "city council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: kme@stanford.edu Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 2:16:57 PM Subject: Maybell‐Clemo ‐ Remove from Housing Element Council Members Although I am out of town for today's meeting, I am writing to encourage you strongly to remove the Maybell‐Clemo from Housing Element and to stop any re‐zoning. There are several important problems with the PAHC plan: ‐ the PAHC project will generate excessive traffic and congestion in already dangerous and over‐crowded area. The PAHC traffic consultant seemed incompetent with regard to the reality of the situation. For example, she claimed that there would be less traffic on Maybell ‐ which of course is unlikely to be true and she admitted that she was ignoring more traffic on Arastradero (it will often be impossible to turn left or right out of Clemo) and skipped bicycle and pedestrian traffic which is significant for the 4 schools in the area. This proposed housing development also simply makes worse the very unpopular and dangerous change to Arastradero that the Council instituted. We have a congested and dangerous traffic situation in this neighborhood at critical parts of the day. Yet, this plan ignores these realities. 2 ‐ the PAHC plan is not a good place for seniors b/c of the lack of facilities and distance from transit. PAHC has also not demonstrated the need for the housing. The PAHC rep at community meetings as been unable to discuss this effectively. Sr housing does nothing to improve a jobs/housing imbalance. ‐ This process is also in violation of Palo Alto's rezoning process. ‐ the single family houses (as they are designed ‐ high density, 3‐story houses close to the street) are not architecturally in tune with the area ‐ it seems that PAHC is planning a repeat of the Miki's market planning disaster on Alma. Overall, I could write much more. But the main point is that the PAHC request for rezoning should be denied because the Maybell‐Clemo PAHC project is a poorly conceived idea ‐ too big, wrong clients, too much traffic, too dangerous. Finally, PAHC has tried to portray the neighbors as against poor seniors.That is a cheap shot. The neighborhood has PAHC housing and neighbors support it. What we dont support is a poor development that will make the congestion (which the Council made worse by the Arastradero changes) even worse ‐ more frustrating, more dangerous, more polluting.. Thank you. Kathleen Eisenhardt 4184 Donald Drive Palo Alto 1 Ellner, Robin From:Joan Wilson <joanwilson@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:44 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:I oppose rezoning on Maybell Dear Commission and Council Members, I have lived on Willmar Drive in Green Acres for many years and drive up and down Maybell frequently. Over the years I have seen modest developments on Maybell, but I strongly oppose this new "Planned Community" rezoning to allow much more aggressive development. High density, heavy traffic and more traffic dangers for those using Briones Park and Elementary School are intolerable. Why would you even consider such a monstrosity?? We expect you to enforce existing laws and not grant this variance. Sincerely, Jeanne D. Hutchins 4127 Willmar Drive 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:James Pflasterer <mail@change.org> Sent:Friday, April 26, 2013 4:13 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Not the best use Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Not the best use for that land. Sincerely, James Pflasterer Palo Alto, California There are now 49 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jill Kohlmeier <jill.kohlmeier@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 29, 2013 10:44 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Opposing rezoning for 567 Maybell Avenue To whom it may concern at the City Counsil and the Planning Commission: We live on Coulombe Drive in Palo Alto across from Juana Briones Park and are writing to voice our opposition to the proposed rezoning for construction at 567 Maybell. We feel the current zoning laws are in place to protect the integrity of the neighborhood and should be observed and enforced. We are unable to attend the meeting on May 1, but wanted to share our feelings with you. Thank you, Jill & Jace Kohlmeier 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jessica HUANG <mail@change.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 07, 2013 6:23 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- This will impact on Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: This will impact on traffic and safety of our community. Sincerely, Jessica HUANG Palo Alto, California There are now 87 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jen Hess <jen.hess@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 06, 2013 5:44 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Proposed Maybell Project I have lived on Orme Street in Barron Park for 6 years. In order to exit my neighborhood I have two choices, Los Robles or Maybell Ave. I have extensively used both. When I use Maybell during the school year at School drop off times, I often seen students bicycling in violation of the law. Not stopping at stop signs, ignoring crossing guards, absence of helmets, not using hand signals and a host of other issues. In addition, I have seen cars trying to anticipate these issues. Cars back up at the stop sign at Amaranta and Maybell stop intersection. Sometimes cars are caught in the intersection. These issues are a daily occurrence. When I drive down Los Robles during drop off or pick up time, I see high school students riding 2 or 3 abreast in the middle of the road. Some of them play chicken with drivers. Pulling to the side to let them pass and then pulling into the middle of the lane as the driver prepares to pass. Given the fact that we have may younger children on their bikes and we want to encourage them to bike to school rather than have their parents drive them. You really need to strongly consider that traffic when considering including additional housing and traffic on these arteries. Our city's road network is designed to discourage traffic through the use of re-striping to slow traffic down with one lane roads. Yet, what happens is the same amount of traffic uses these roads and more interactions occur between students bikers / walkers and cars. Please consider the safety of Palo Alto's students with regard to this proposed development. -- Jen Hess Sent with Sparrow 1 Ellner, Robin From:JC Ross <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:13 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, JC Ross Palo Alto, California There are now 42 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jon Aderhold <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:51 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Traffic is already getting Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Traffic is already getting difficult and crowded. Don't make our Palo Alto quality of life go down any more. Sincerely, Jon Aderhold Palo Alto, California There are now 125 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jon Aderhold <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:51 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Helen Riley, Christine James… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 125 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 121. Helen Riley Palo Alto, California 122. Christine James Palo Alto, California 123. Zong-Chih Yang Palo Alto, California 124. Sheila Mooney Palo Alto, California 125. Jon Aderhold Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Hongxia Xiong <mail@change.org> Sent:Friday, May 10, 2013 11:11 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Yuri Knauer, Samina Shetty… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 105 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 101. Yuri Knauer Palo Alto, California 102. Samina Shetty Palo Alto, California 103. Nancy Rushing palo, California 104. Vicky Hsu Burlingame, California 105. Hongxia Xiong Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Hayyah Muller <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:58 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Hayyah Muller Palo Alto, California There are now 44 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Greg Kunkel <gdkunkel@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:06 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Shepherd, Nancy (internal); Burt, Patrick; Berman, Marc; Holman, Karen (internal); Price, Gail (internal); Klein, Larry; Schmid, Greg; Kniss, Liz (internal) Subject:opposition to to rezoning by Briones Park To whom it may concern, I am sending you this email to let you know that I am very disappointed that the city would even consider a development such as the one proposed across from Briones Park in Palo Alto.This is a single family, low density housing area, and the fact that the city would approve three story homes stacked like bricks along Maybell and Clemo is beyond me. The traffic along Maybell during the times before and after school is already terrible, and it would be awful to have any increase in that traffic. It can only be for money. It's sad that we have to go through this to protect our beautiful town from our own city managers. I hope you reconsider this proposal. Greg Kunkel 4139 Frandon ct. Palo Alto, ca. 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Eitan Medina <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:34 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Jian Ma, Daniel Apple… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 120 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 116. Jian Ma Palo Alto, California 117. Daniel Apple Palo Alto, California 118. Elinor Manor Palo Alto, California 119. Aisha Piracha-Zakariya Palo Alto, California 120. Eitan Medina palo alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Eitan Medina <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:34 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Safety of our children Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Safety of our children Sincerely, Eitan Medina palo alto, California There are now 120 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Eric Filseth <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:35 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- The City staff have Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: The City staff have lost their way on zoning issues. They grant far too many exemptions, not just in Barron Park but in the rest of Palo Alto as well. The result is excessive traffic and services degradation, as well as a wave of ugly, eyesore development like the Miki's building, JCC etc. This needs to stop. Sincerely, Eric Filseth Palo Alto, California There are now 43 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Debi Snipp <mail@change.org> Sent:Saturday, April 27, 2013 9:37 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Katie O'Connor, Sue Benjamin… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 55 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 51. Katie O'Connor Palo Alto, California 52. Sue Benjamin Palo Alto, California 53. Stephanie Langley Palo Alto, California 54. Jeanny Punzalan Palo Alto, California 55. Debi Snipp Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Dylan Riley <mail@change.org> Sent:Monday, May 13, 2013 9:12 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Bicycle, pedestrian, and car Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Bicycle, pedestrian, and car traffic has become increasingly dangerous for children in the morning on their way to the four surrounding schools. Funneling any additional traffic through already congested residential neighborhood streets (already designated as Safe Routes to school) will make this situation much worse. Please help preserve the safety of our neigborhoods and do not rezone this parcel. Sincerely, Dylan Riley Palo Alto, California There are now 108 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Diane Lee <dianedcl@comcast.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 08, 2013 7:56 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Our Objections to Maybell and Clemo Development Project Mr. Wong and Members of the City Council: In case you have issues with the attachment in the prior email we sent, we are including our objections to the consideration of re-zoning of the property at Maybell and Clemo Avenue directly in this email. Thank you for your consideration of our objections. Diane Lee and Jim Jurkovich 4132 Willmar Dr. Palo Alto, Ca.94306 We are writing to you to voice our objections to the planned re‐zoning of the property on Maybell Avenue in order to construct a high density ‘Planned Community’ project at Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue. Our objections are based on unsafe increased traffic flow and more importantly the encroachment of high density housing into our neighborhoods. We live on Willmar drive and commute on Maybell Avenue every day. This street is already congested with traffic and does not need more traffic. Ever since the narrowing of traffic lanes on Arastradero Road, more traffic has been funneled onto Maybell Avenue. This includes a large percentage of bicycle and car traffic during school hours. Portions of Maybell Avenue do not have sidewalks, so it is already risky for pedestrians to walk this street. Adding more traffic onto this street will only exacerbate the congestion problem and make the street unsafe for both bicycle and pedestrian traffic. This neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods are designed as single family residential neighborhoods and should remain so. Our neighborhood should not migrate into a set of high density housing. This project would set a bad precedent for which there would be no turning around. The idea of having high density housing only seems to be motivated by the city and the developers to reap larger profits. The currently zoning of R‐15 allows for only 32 residences maximum. There is no justification for a project that is attempting to build more than twice the number of allowed residences. This is direct conflict with the City’s Land Development use policies that state: “Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale” and “Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures”. The city and planning commission would need to spot zone this area to permit a project of this size. Zoning in this neighborhood provides no substantive value to the community that would justify this type zoning. We would expect any development along Maybell Avenue to follow common sense guidelines that would include; housing project density constraints consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, adequate setbacks, building heights consistent with current zoning, and sidewalks for safety of pedestrians. I urge the Planning Commission and City Council to not re‐zone this property and consider a project that is in line with the context of the existing neighborhood. Thank you, Diane Lee and Jim Jurkovich 1 Ellner, Robin From:Darcy Huston <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:57 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- I have 3 daughters Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: I have 3 daughters who travel this route to school. Already 1/2 the time people do not stop at the crosswalk at the fire station blinking light when my kids are walking to school!! Sincerely, Darcy Huston Palo Alto, California There are now 126 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:David Ephron <david@ephron.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:59 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue I am writing to express my very strong opposition to the proposed rezoning at 567‐595 Maybell Avenue. Maybell is a prime corridor for children going to school in the morning ‐ including students attending Juana Briones, Terman, and Gunn. It is already overloaded and extremely dangerous. The addition of high density housing at this location would jeopardize the safety of children and contradicts the efforts of the city to create safe routes for students to walk and bike to school. It is not an appropriate location for high density housing in excess of the current zoning limitations. Thank you, David Ephron 259 Whitclem Court Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:David Ephron <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:52 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Maybell is a prime Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Maybell is a prime corridor for children going to school in the morning - including students attending Juana Briones, Terman, and Gunn. It is already overloaded and extremely dangerous. The addition of high density housing at this location would jeopardize the safety of children and contradicts the efforts of the city to create safe routes for students to walk and bike to school. Sincerely, David Ephron Palo Alto, California There are now 68 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Daniel Apple <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:27 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- This would cause too Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: This would cause too much traffic, and is not sufficiently thought out. Sincerely, Daniel Apple Palo Alto, California There are now 117 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Cindy Ziebelman <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:55 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- A lot of time Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: A lot of time and money was spent on making Maybell and Arastradero safe routes for students biking/walking to four different schools. This project would completely undo all of these efforts and expenses. There was a reason for zoning for a neighborhood and rezoning and adding this density will completely compromise the neighborhood. Sincerely, Cindy Ziebelman Palo Alto, California There are now 46 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Joshua Walker <jwalker@paloaltohousingcorp.org> Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:13 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Wong, Tim Subject:CWG Endorsement of PAHC Maybell Project Attachments:Resolution.pdf Dear Planning and Transportation Commission, Attached is an endorsement from the Community Working Group's Board of Directors for PAHC's Maybell Orchard Project. The CWG Board voted unanimously to support the project. Sincerely, Josh 1 Ellner, Robin From:Cara Stoneburner <mail@change.org> Sent:Friday, April 26, 2013 11:52 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Cara Stoneburner Palo Alto, California There are now 48 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Cassandra Moore <cassandra_moore@att.net> Sent:Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:19 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell-Clemo To the Planning Commission: I am writing to oppose strongly the high density senior housing and home development proposed for the corner of Maybell and Clemo in the Ballard Park neighborhood. The development is incompatible with the community of Barron Park and, in addition to being unattractive, poses problems for bicyclists and pedestrians. Slashing setbacks from 20 to 12 feet would leave only a narrow walkway, dangerous for senior pedestrians who may have difficulty walking. Moreover, Maybell is a designated bike route to 4 schools. Mixing bicyclists with senior citizens could easily lead to disaster To summarize: the entire proposed development exceeds multifamily and village zoning designations. It fails to take into account daylight plane restrictions and ignores the greatly increased traffic flow from the proposed development onto Maybell. The proposed three-story townhomes on Clemo would clash with surrounding one and two-story single-family zoned homes on Maybell and elsewhere in Barron Park and Green Acres. The spot zoning would run roughshod over the wishes of the neighboring community and would be considered an exercise in arrogance. Cassandra Moore cassandra_moore@att.net Resident, Barron Park Cassandra Moore cassandra_moore@att.net 1 Ellner, Robin From:Craig Mohr <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 08, 2013 5:45 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- This is too high-density Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: This is too high-density for this area! Sincerely, Craig Mohr Palo Alto, California There are now 91 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Carol Ann McAusland <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:01 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Carol Ann McAusland Palo Alto, California There are now 38 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Christine James <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:51 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- It impacts the the Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: It impacts the the safety of our children getting to and from 5 schools in the neighborhood. Sincerely, Christine James Palo Alto, California There are now 122 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Cynthia Chen <cindirocks@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:47 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:We oppose the 567 Maybell Avenue development Hello, My family and I have lived on Abel Avenue for over 15 years. We strongly urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to prohibit re-zoning in our neighborhood. Maybell Avenue already has heavy morning and afternoon traffic due to its close proximity to three schools (Juana Briones, Terman, and Gunn). Maybell Avenue has three large speed tables to reduce speeding. Adding a high-density housing development on Maybell Avenue makes absolutely no sense! Undoubtedly there will be even more traffic congestion on Maybell Avenue. This will lead to increased safety hazards to the children playing at Juana Briones park, which is adjacent to the proposed development. Additionally, Maybell is already a narrow street, so there is already an existing safety hazard for pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed development will pose an even greater danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Please keep our neighborhood safe! Thank you. Sincerely, The Chen Family (family of six) 1 Ellner, Robin From:Becky Thomas <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:50 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- The streets are busy Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "City of Palo Alto and Planning Commission of Palo Alto: Stop Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: The streets are busy enough and the kids already have a hard time getting to school with all the traffic. Sincerely, Becky Thomas Palo Alto, California There are now 39 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-palo-alto-and-planning-commission-of-palo-alto-stop-rezoning-in- barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Bridget Shepherd <mail@change.org> Sent:Friday, April 26, 2013 5:21 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Bridget Shepherd Los Altos, California There are now 50 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Brooke Bailey <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:25 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- This roads in this Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: This roads in this area are already extremely congested and pose significant risks to the numerous school-age children who commute through here, en masse, each day to one of the several schools nearby. Rezoning this site, as well as the proposed rezoning of the lot adjacent to the Zen Hotel, is not in the best interests of this community. Sincerely, Brooke Bailey Palo Alto, California There are now 72 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Ale Woo <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:43 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Ale Woo Palo Alt, California There are now 40 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Aparna Sinha <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 01, 2013 2:38 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Scott Hayes, TIna Huysmans… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 65 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 61. Scott Hayes Palo Alto, California 62. TIna Huysmans Palo Alto, California 63. Andrew Huysmans Palo Alto, California 64. Arlene Sheehan Palo Alto, California 65. Aparna Sinha Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Alison Simonetti <mail@change.org> Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:30 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:I just signed "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, Alison Simonetti Palo Alto, California There are now 45 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Arlene Sheehan <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 01, 2013 2:00 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- I live one block Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: I live one block from the proposed development. I bike to work at Stanford. I consider the morning traffic jam on Maybell Ave the most hazardous part of my commute. The combination of harried automobile drivers, middle and high school kids rushing to get to class, and elementary school kids crossing multiple busy intersections all at the same time is an accident waiting to happen. I challenge the planning commissioners to visit our neighborhood at 8:15 on a schoolday morning. Not in a car, but on bike or foot, and experience the situation for yourselves. I think if you do you will not hesitate to vote against rezoning. Sincerely, Arlene Sheehan Palo Alto, California There are now 64 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Aisha Piracha-Zakariya <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:30 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- We don't need more Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: We don't need more housing, cars, families, traffic and additional pressure on an already densely populated residential neighborhood. PAUSD needs to be a part of this petition to stop more students from over crowding our schools. We know this will bring tax $ to the city, but the residents and PAUSD need to stand up. Now. Sincerely, Aisha Piracha-Zakariya Palo Alto, California There are now 119 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:recycler100@sonic.net Sent:Saturday, May 04, 2013 1:16 PM To:jdewit@paloaltohousingcorp.org Cc:cgonzalez@paloaltohousingcorp.org; Council, City; Planning Commission; Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis Subject:P.S. Newsletter article to PAHC residents Attachments:PAHC Newsletter May-June 2013.pdf; PAHC properties.pdf P.S. Dear Jessica, I would just like to make one more important point: Your newsletter listed the Maybell property as being in Barron Park. While neighbors significantly impacted by the development on the east side of Maybell are in Barron Park, and Barron Park is impacted by the traffic, safety, and emergency issues it presents (as are several other surrounding neighborhoods and school communities, which is why opposition to rezoning that property is so widespread), the property you are trying to rezone is squarely in the middle of Greenacres. Greenacres residents are the most negatively affected by the rezoning. After all that has transpired, you and those trying to rezone the neighborhood know so little about the area that you don't even know which neighborhood your proposed rezoning is in. Which is strange, since PAHC owns quite a few BMR units in Greenacres. Here are some neighborhood maps for your future reference: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/media/reports/1233787698.pdf http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/28940/ >Hi Jessica, >I have received a copy of a newsletter article in PAHC's Collective >Wisdom newsletter to its residents. It says "A vocal group of >community members are stating their opposition to more affordable >housing in Palo Alto," and invites existing residents to come to the >Planning Commission and City Council Meetings (scheduled to discuss the >rezoning) in order to speak in support of affordable housing. > >Can you please tell who wrote this article? It amounts to a coercive >attempt to drum up support for PAHC's high‐density rezoning, without >ever stating it or being honest about what is really going on. You >know very well that those meetings are not a referendum on affordable >housing or whether affordable housing has benefited anyone, as the >flyer indicates. Using BMR residents in a dishonest political ploy >rather than addressing the specific concerns at hand in that >low‐density to high‐density rezoning effort is beneath the Palo Alto >Housing Corporation, and I think PAHC owes not only the neighborhood, >but the BMR residents an apology for it. > >I would like to remind you of a few things: >1) You invited neighbors to come to the April meeting. > >2) Prior to the meeting, you expressed your strong disbelief that >there was any opposition to rezoning for high‐density in the >neighborhood. 2 > >3) Neighbors at the meeting never once stated any opposition to "more >affordable housing in Palo Alto," in fact several people prefaced their >comments against this particular attempt at high‐density rezoning and >the serious problems it poses to safety and traffic with positive >comments in support of PAHC and its work. >Some members even expressed support for that project, at a safer >location. I myself stopped to tell a PAHC employee of my support for >PAHC on my way from the meeting, and to reiterate that opposition was >only to the specifics of that particular low‐density residential to >high‐density rezoning effort by PAHC. > >One community member recorded most of the meeting; if you believe >anyone said anything negative about PAHC or having more affordable >housing in Palo Alto, can you please let me know when that happened, >because we can't find it. > >4) To my knowledge, neighbors have welcomed PAHC to build within the >existing zoning, even stating a preference for PAHC to build within the >existing zoning over another developer doing so. This is hardly >"opposition to more affordable housing in Palo Alto" or even at that >location. Neighbors are opposed to unwise and unsafe high‐density >building of any kind at a traffic bottleneck in the neighborhood that >impacts the only two routes in and out of the neighborhood (and other >neighborhoods along Arastradero), egress for the fire station, and safe >routes to school traveled by over a thousand school children on bikes >every day. There is no other way for traffic generated by a >high‐density development at that location to go except via those two >routes, which are both safe routes to school. > >5) Some of the school children whose safety is impacted by more >traffic on those routes are PAHC residents. Some of the existing >neighbors whose jobs, livelihoods, and quality of life will be impacted >negatively by traffic and emergency bottleneck delays are PAHC >residents. To misdirect the conversation to make it a referendum on >affordable housing rather than dealing with the specific safety and >traffic issues of the high‐density rezoning does them a disservice just >as it does the other neighbors who deserve to have their concerns >addressed. > >6) No one at the meeting stated any opposition to more affordable >housing in Palo Alto, but many did state their opposition to making the >safe routes to school more dangerous and congested. Many stated >serious concerns about the limitations of PAHC's traffic study, which >we were told at the meeting did not take the thousands of student >bikers into account. Given that those issues affect affordable housing >residents as well, why was there no attempt to educate them about the >specifics? > >7) Residents of existing affordable housing are integrated in the >neighborhood and have many connections in school and the community. >For PAHC to try to portray neighborhood opposition of a low‐density to 3 >high‐density zoning change as opposition to them and affordable housing >is cynical and inflammatory, and could create a wedge in a previously >cohesive community and even undermine support for PAHC in general where >support was previously good. > >8) For someone in PAHC to make such a dishonest attempt to drum up >participation at a rezoning meeting in a letter to residents whose >affordable housing depends on PAHC could be construed as coercive, >especially since it may not even be in residents' best interests as >part of the neighborhood to be inserted in a manufactured red herring >controversy about affordable housing in general, as the flyer tries to >make it. In whose best interest is it to incite controversy over >affordable housing, theirs, or your own? > >9) In planning the project, you and PAHC have created very constrained >development circumstances that seem to make it impossible for you to >compromise for safety and other concerns specific to that site. At the >meeting, neighbors were told that in order for the project to be >financially feasible, PAHC promised the developer it would get the >low‐density residential zoning changed to high‐density, so the >developer could put a wall of tall houses with tiny lots and minimal >setback on a narrow street zoned R‐1 to either side and across the >street. This is reminiscent of what has happened at Alma Plaza/Miki's >Market, which many residents in Palo Alto can see is a bad idea, only >now it's not even on Alma, it's on >narrow Maybell on a residential street. Opposition to such >excessive development in residential areas and to your manufactured >all‐or‐nothing constraints have nothing to do with support or >opposition to "affordable housing in Palo Alto" and it was wrong of you >to try to make it so. > >You know as well as anyone that your attempt to rezone that low‐density >residential parcel isn't somehow the only chance for PAHC to add >affordable housing in Palo Alto, that every private housing development >of less than five acres is required to set aside at least 15 percent of >units as affordable housing, more for larger developments, and there >are many high density developments going in this part of town as we >speak. No one opposed to high density rezoning of that location has >ever said one word or even hinted at opposing the set aside of 15‐25% >of privately developed housing as affordable housing at all. >Additionally, PAHC could choose to build low‐income units under the >existing zoning, but never made any alternative plans with residents' >concerns in mind. > >10) If there are any general issues involved here, it's whether >residential zoning in Palo Alto should be so easily rezoned for high >density PC zones with no setback or height restrictions, not whether >affordable housing is a good idea. You told me yourself that you had >no problems with the idea of rezoning residential areas for high >density and had done so before. If you would like to hold some public >meetings on that issue, I think given all the development around town, >many people would attend. 4 > >The opposition to high‐density PC rezoning in the neighborhood isn't >limited to the few hundred neighbors who were able to make the April >22 meeting. There was no formal neighborhood organization or >particular "vocal group" involved as your letter portrayed the >neighbors who came to your meeting at your invitation. You owe the >community an apology for this dishonest portrayal of the neighbors, the >opposition to the high‐density rezoning, the mischaracerization of the >planning meetings which could end up wasting valuable time not dealing >with the matters at hand, and even BMR residents' sense of security >about support for affordable housing in this community. > >You need to be honest that this is about high‐density rezoning in a >specific residential location, specifically about your own >plan/project, not about affordable housing in general. No one would be >opposed if PAHC built affordable housing in that location within >existing zoning, especially if it involved widening Maybell for safety, >you would be applauded. You need to remember that there are existing >residents in the those neighborhoods whose lives are impacted, they are >not beside the point. If you continue making this about your own >professional success with a particular plan, regardless of the >negatives to the community, you will ultimately be the one hurting >affordable housing and affordable housing residents here in Palo Alto. > >I am fine with you passing along my concerns as stated in my letter to >you, but please remove my name and email address as private. >Please let me know at whose direction that letter was sent out to PAHC >residents. Thank you. >Regards, >Anne 1 Ellner, Robin From:recycler100@sonic.net Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:03 AM To:Jessica de Wit Cc:Planning Commission; Council, City; Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; BPA- Board@googlegroups.com; bjohnson@paweekly.com Subject:Re: Please come to Neighbor Mtg next week? HI Jessica, There has been some confusion in the neighborhood about this meeting -- who is sponsoring it, what is the purpose? Hardly anyone seems to have any official notice. I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that it's being held on Palo Alto Housing Corporation property -- is it a PAHC meeting? Is it officially related to the rezoning request, i.e., a mandated meeting? Is it a meeting primarily for PAHC residents? The last city meeting related to the Arastradero restriping, for example, was held at the local middle school. Can you please clarify this morning, so that I can try to at least reach some of the neighbors online? Thanks very much! Best, Anne Hi Anne - Per the message I just left with your husband by phone, I hope you'll attend our Maybell Orchard neighbor meeting this Wednesday. It is the same location and time as all of the other neighbor meetings that we have held. I'm also happy to talk before the meeting as well. Date: April 24 Time: 6:30pm Location: Arastradero Park Apartments Community Room, 574 Arastradero Thanks, Jessica _______________________ Jessica de Wit PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION 725 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301‐2403 650.321.9709 Phone 650.321.4341 Fax jdewit@paloaltohousingcorp.org 1 Ellner, Robin From:Anne Maggioncalda <mail@change.org> Sent:Friday, April 26, 2013 5:04 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Congestion and overpopulation will Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Congestion and overpopulation will negatively impact the quality of life for people who already live in Barron Park and Green Acres. As tax-paying property owners we should have some say in the development of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Anne Maggioncalda Palo Alto, California There are now 47 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Andrew Huysmans <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:06 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Increased traffic + a Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Increased traffic + a growing community of young kids = safety hazard (STOP THE REZONE!) Sincerely, Andrew Huysmans Palo Alto, California There are now 63 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Amy Hartinger <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:10 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- the added traffic will Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: the added traffic will be dangerous and it will ony be a matter of time before there is a fatality! Sincerely, Amy Hartinger Palo Alto, California There are now 115 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Amy Hartinger <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:10 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Jason Fischl, Tasha Souter… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 115 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 111. Jason Fischl Palo Alto, California 112. Tasha Souter Palo Alto, California 113. Scott Souter Palo Alto, California 114. Sumit Bhargava Palo Alto, California 115. Amy Hartinger Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Allen Dinh <mail@change.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 01, 2013 9:50 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Zoe Peters, Lara Ephron… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 70 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school and to Juana Briones Park each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. We are also concerned about responsible and reasonable development in this neighborhood. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Maybell is a small street but already overburdened as a main artery, thoroughfare, and primary access point in this neighborhood - putting up 75 new housing units would essentially "trap" existing residents by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino - we should take time to study the impact before allowing rezoning to occur in the Barron Park neighborhood. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. Sincerely, 66. Zoe Peters Palo Alto, California 67. Lara Ephron Palo Alto, California 68. David Ephron Palo Alto, California 69. R. Cunanan-Dinh Palo Alto, California 70. Allen Dinh Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Yvonne Burtness <yburtness@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:59 PM To:Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Planning Commission; Wong, Tim Cc:Green Acres Subject:Do Not Rezone Green Acres 2 To Whom It May Concern: I cannot believe what is happening to our neighborhood! My family came here over 35 years ago when the area was a quiet and lovely neighborhood. Our daughter went to the Palo Alto Schools by walking or biking with all of the other children. The feeling we had was, "we are lucky" to live in such a wonderful place. We had little traffic, our children were safe and we had some open spaces. Looking at the neighborhood now, I realize how much it has changed. Of course, all things change, but should the quality of life go downhill for not only the adults, but also for our children? We have 4 major schools that are about 2 blocks away from each other. If you visited our neighborhood in the morning and in the evening, you would see a horrible example of traffic!! Many of the children can't come to school on their own; they are driven to and picked up after school. I find that sad because freedom is taken away from these kids. Also, what about the environment??? We have enough housing in our area and I can't understand why anyone wants to rezone this neighborhood by adding high density development. We have very few open spaces; why can't you think of keeping them as open spaces?? Wouldn't this be important for the environment, too?? I hope you think more carefully and show strong opposition against this rezoning. In fact, I hope you use this property for open space which will enhance the environment and our quality of living, the Palo Alto Way. Thank you, Yvonne Burtness Donald Dr Palo Alto, CA 1 Ellner, Robin From:W Shotts <wvshotts@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 22, 2013 2:01 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Protest of Plans to Rezone on Maybell This letter is to protest the City of Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council's intent to rezone Maybell Avenue and/or otherwise grant zoning exceptions for high‐density development and senior housing. We are residents of Willmar Drive and are opposed to this rezoning and/or exemption for the following reasons: ‐ Maybell is supposedly a "safe route" for kids to walk and commute to local schools. This is already a hectic area during school days. Cars race down Maybell and our street as well, particularly high school students on the way to Gunn. ‐ Quality of Living. We don't want to be crowded by high‐density housing, and we are concerned about the degradation of our intimate community by the introduction of high‐density housing and the associated increase in traffic. ‐Privacy, Eye‐blight. We understand the City plans to approve exceptions to setbacks as well as maximum number of stories allowed in single family units. This disturbs privacy for homes across from the units and we are also concerned about the crowding toward the street that setback exceptions will create. We do not agree with any rezoning or exemption for Maybell Avenue. Thank You, Wendy & Rick Shotts AFTER PACKET ITEMS DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: PUBLIC COMMENT ON 567-595 MAYBELL AVENUE 1 Ellner, Robin From:Cindy Ziebelman <2cindy@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:09 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Wong, Tim Subject:Maybell Reszoning To all involved, The City of PA did a plan for traffic calming/ Safe Route to Schools when Terman reopened. Quite a bit of time and money was put into this project. That study showed that there was not enough room for a bike lane then and there still is not. The study concluded with the "best" they could do for Maybell which was to add speed tables and stop signs in the middle of the street to calm the cars at the intersections (since drivers would have to manage around the cement curbs holding the stop signs). That was all that could be done. Those stop signs are run over on an average of once a month. The next solution, according to the City, is to move the stop signs back in the intersection so that they do not have to replace the stop signs so often. This goes against the study and does not give any relief to the students. The only thing that this will accomplish is to make the stop signs safer. The point is that the City of PA can call any corridor anything that they want to but it will NOT change the facts. Maybell is an accident waiting to happen. If 65-70 new residences are added in the 2.5 acres then we are potentially adding 70-150 more cars that will be traveling the "safe corridor" all day long when students are returning from schools. And please do not say that low income seniors will not all have cars. You may be right, however some will have two because each of the residences could have more than one person living in them. Then there are the caregivers, the deliveries, the family visitors and the single family homes that could have 2-5 cars per household. No planning is being made for parking all of these cars so narrow parts of Maybell will add more parked cars as well as more cars moving through the neighborhood all day long. Folks are not against seniors they are opposed to the density and they are for protecting the students. Sincerely, Cindy Ziebelman 1 Ellner, Robin From:Peter Ziebelman <peter@pavp.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:42 PM To:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; Council, City; Planning Commission; info@paloaltoville.com Subject:please do not rezone Maybell avenue to a higher density my letter is for the official record for the 567 Maybell property my letter is for the official record for the 595 Maybell property I hereby strongly oppose rezoning 567 and 595 Maybell to a “Planned Community” zone distinct for purposes of building a high density 60-unit, 4-story, low income senior housing and 15-home development. I believe Rezoning the 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 is not compatible with the neighborhood. I am against rezoning this area to a higher density. We are quite happy with low income senior affordable rental housing units if they are within current zoning guide lines. Thank you, Peter Ziebelman 644 maybell avenue 1 Ellner, Robin From:Karen White <karenwhite4@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:30 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell Proposal Should Be Rejected Dear Planning Commissioners: My mother lives on Maybell Way and, like her Barron Park and Green Acres II neighbors, is aghast at the proposal to over-build the site at 567 Maybell Avenue. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation's proposal to create Transit-Oriented Development in the middle of Barron Park's residential neighborhood is unacceptable on many levels and should be decisively rejected. Among considerations are these: First, apart from land-use considerations: The City and PAHC are locked so tightly in a conflict of interest that, if this proposal moves forward, it should and I understand will be legally challenged. The credibility of both the City and PAHC has been tarnished by the process that has been undertaken to secure financing for this proposed project. Second: Transit-Oriented Development projects, such as the Maybell proposal, are completely unacceptable in the middle of R1 neighborhoods and should be rejected on that basis alone. As others have pointed out, the site is not near shops or medical facilities and would force residents to drive to meet their needs. In addition, from a land-use and zoning perspective as described in the Comprehensive Plan, high-density should not be considered immediately adjacent to, or in the middle of, R1 zones. Third: Related - The notion that traffic will not be impacted is ludicrous. Retired seniors don't drive to and from work. Rather, because they're retired, they drive all day long rather than merely at rush hour. Those who have caretakers will rely on caretakers to drive for shopping, errands, etc.; health-care professionals who visit ailing seniors will drive to their visits. It may be that seniors actually drive MORE than younger individuals who are in the workforce. Now that Arastradero is near-gridlock at certain times of the day, Maybell Avenue has become a de facto cut-through street, as I can attest, unsafe at times even now for children going to and from our schools. This proposed project will exacerbate existing traffic problems on both Maybell and Arastradero. Finally: This scale of this proposal is unacceptable regardless of whether the development is proposed by PAHC or by a commercial developer proposing market-rate units. The core problem stems from the fact that a high-density Transit Oriented Development is being proposed for a site where high density does not belong. Accordingly, this proposal should be rejected. Thank you for your consideration. Karen White 146 Walter Hays Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 1 Ellner, Robin From:Joshua Walker <jwalker@paloaltohousingcorp.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:09 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Support for 567 Maybell Ave Rezoning Planning and Transportation Commission City Hall 250 Hamilton Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 567 Maybell Ave Rezoning for Affordable Housing Development Dear Commissioners: I am a Palo Alto Resident and I support Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s proposal to rezone the property located at 567 Maybell Avenue, Palo Alto, to a Planned Community (PC) Zone for the development of affordable housing. We need to define who we are as a community and what we stand for. We have always been a community that looks towards the future. Palo Alto will continue to grow and we need to make sure we are growing in a way that ensures that there is a place for all, including seniors and other community members that require low‐income housing. Increased density should not be a choice. If we don’t build up, we will have to spread which will hurt all that is beautiful about our area. I strongly encourage you to support this project. Sincerely, ‐‐ Gina D. Dalma 3201 Greer Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94303 1 Ellner, Robin From:Joshua Walker <jwalker@paloaltohousingcorp.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:25 PM To:Vu-Bang Nguyen; Planning Commission Subject:RE: Maybell Orchard Affordable Senior Housing Hi Vu‐Bang, Thank you so much for your letter(s) of support! We truly appreciate having transit‐focused and affordable‐minded organizational support. The report is excellent‐ I am especially interested in the survey data of people living in affordable housing communities in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. If possible, could you send me the survey results referenced on page 11? Thanks so much! Josh From: Vu‐Bang Nguyen [mailto:vubang@urbanhabitat.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:03 PM To: Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: RE: Maybell Orchard Affordable Senior Housing Hello Commissioners, Urban Habitat would like to submit the following letter of support for Palo Alto Housing Corporation's Maybell Orchard Affordable Senior Housing development for tomorrow's Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. Thank you. -- Vu-Bang Nguyen, AICP Land Use Program Coordinator Urban Habitat 1212 Broadway, Suite 500, Oakland, CA 94612 510-839-9510 x318 Find us on Facebook 1 Ellner, Robin From:renu virdi <renuvirdi@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:05 PM To:Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; Planning Commission Cc:Trilochan Virdi; renu virdi Subject:FW: Do not rezone Green Acres 2 - Maybell Senior Housing Project Dear Palo Alto City Council and Planning Commission Members, Reference: 567 Maybell Ave Housing Project: Proposed access and circulation for 15 single family homes and 60 senior housing units; consideration of school commute safety impacts I have written about this previouly in opposition of the above rezoning and would like add the following additional comments for your consideration. I attended the community meeting held by PAHC on April 24th and asked why there is a disclaimer in the Traffic Study about bicyclists and the response from PAHC was that they did not take into account bicyclists and pedestrians. Maybell and Arastedero are Safe Routes to School corridors and bicyclists and pedestrians account for the majority of the traffic during the AM commute. If the traffic study does not take this into account then the study should be considered invalid. The City council and the Planning Commission should not accept such a blatently biased study. Here is an extract from the study (pg 8 and 9) that is very concerning: Existing Site Observations Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service calculation does not accurately reflect level of service in the field. Most of the study intersections operate adequately during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, and the level of service analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. However, field observations showed the following operational issues that are not reflected in the level of service calculations: • Arastradero Road is congested between 7:50 AM and 8:25 AM between Coulombe Drive and El Camino Real. The Clemo Avenue/Arastradero Road intersection is intermittently blocked during this period by the southbound vehicle queue on Arastradero Road from its intersection with Coulombe Drive. At its peak, this southbound queue extends to El Camino Real, which blocks the sight distance for a left turning vehicle from Clemo Avenue. In addition, there are a significant number of pedestrians and bikes that cross Arastradero Road at Clemo Avenue, which adds to the difficulty of making a left turn from Clemo Avenue. • Maybell Avenue is congested between 7:45 AM and 8:15 AM. Southbound vehicle queues on Maybell Avenue extend from the intersection of Coulombe Drive/Maybell Avenue past Amaranta Avenue and a short distance past Clemo Avenue. In addition, there are hundreds of pedestrians and bikes that use the Maybell corridor during this period to access the nearby schools. This reduces the capacity for motor vehicle traffic through the corridor. At the intersection of Coulombe Drive/Maybell Avenue, the vehicle queues westbound on Coulombe Drive extend approximately 150 feet during the peak morning period. The intersection of Coulombe Drive/Maybell Avenue is controlled by a crossing guard during school hours to assist with the heavy pedestrian and bike traffic. Here is a link to the study from the Barron Park website for refernce: 2 http://www.bpapaloalto.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Maybell-Clemo-projectTraffic-Study.pdf Any accident or god forbid fatality due to the increase in traffic from this rezoning will be squarely on your shoulders. Maybell is particularly narrow in this stratch and as per the recent city guidelines, any new development should infact increase the width of the sidewalks. Do not agree to a construction which will decrease setbacks. This would be in direct opposition to the recent city guidelines. Here is a link to the article from April 9th Palo Alto Weekly which states that "Palo Alto councilmembers want wider sidewalks": http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=29236 Please do the right thing and oppose the rezoning for this development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Renu and Trilochan Virdi 4170 Hubbartt Drive Palo Alto, CA 650-388-8424 From: renuvirdi@hotmail.com To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org; tim.wong@cityofpaloalto.org; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org CC: info@virdigroup.com; renuvirdi@hotmail.com Subject: Do not rezone Green Acres 2 ‐ Maybell Senior Housing Project Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:48:42 ‐0700 Dear Palo Alto City Council and Planning Commission Members, We have been a member of the Green Acres 2 community since 2006. Our children have attended and one is still currently attending the neighborhood scools. One of the greatest benefit of this neighborhood is to have the students bike and walk to the neighborhood schools. It is heartening to see more and more students bike and walk to school. I was a PTA co‐chair at Gunn to promote biking to schools and every year the number of students who bike showed a significant increase. Unfortunately, recent developments in the neighborhood have increased the populations Peak commute/school drop‐off times already result in significant traffic backups on Maybell and Arastradero. New housing developments currently being built nearby along El Camino in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos will likely only increase this traffic. Adding one more high density housing complex with vehicular access via Maybell Ave, an already busy neighborhood street near several schools, seems like a recipe for disaster. Maybell is very heavily used by student bikers so please do not put a life in danger by increasing population and consquently vehiclular density on this street. 3 Please do not support Palo Alto Housing Corporation's push for unwanted high density housing complex in the middle of our community across from Juana Briones park along Maybell Ave and Clemo Ave. We are asking that elected officials and Palo Alto city employees refuse the rezoning of Green Acres 2 for high density housing. It will only reduce the quality of life in a quiet Palo Alto neighborhood, increase car traffic on already congested neighborhood streets, and create a potentially dangerous situation for children walking and biking to school. Local email lists from this neighborhood and others indicate that a significant number of people feel the same way. Please prevent the rezoning for this development and help preserve our community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Renu and Trilochan Virdi 4170 Hubbartt Drive Palo Alto, CA 650‐388‐8424 __._,_.___ Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) RECENT ACTIVITY: Visit Your Group Post message: greenacres2@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: greenacres2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: greenacres2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com List owner: greenacres2-owner@yahoogroups.com MARKETPLACE Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Yahoo! Groups Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . __,_._,___ 9 1 Ellner, Robin From:Vaniah Holtz <vholtz@svleadershipgroup.org> Sent:Friday, May 17, 2013 12:30 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:jdewit@paloaltohousingcorp.org Subject:Support Letter for the Maybell Orchard Proposal Attachments:Maybell Place - PA Housing Corporation.docx Attached is our support letter. Thank you, Vaniah Holtz -- Vaniah Holtz Silicon Valley Leadership Group Housing Coordinator 2001 Gateway Place, Suite 101E San Jose, CA 95110 Phone: (253) 442-5562 Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition The Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition is comprised of a broad range of organizations and individuals who have, as a common goal, the vision of affordable, well-constructed and appropriately located housing May 17, 2013 Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Members of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, I am writing to express support for the Maybell Orchard development proposal by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, (PAHC). By way of reference, the Housing Action Coalition includes more than 100 organizations and individuals. Its goal is the production of well‐built, appropriately‐located homes that are affordable to families and workers in Silicon Valley. Organizations participating in the HAC represent business, labor, environmental organizations and many more. The Maybell Orchard proposal provides a great opportunity to add much needed affordable homes for seniors to Palo Alto. The proposal will be 100% affordable and will serve seniors with incomes ranging between 30‐60% AMI for Santa Clara County. The whole property is a 2.46 acre site, but it will be rezoned and subdivided so that a portion of the site will accommodate single‐family homes, which will be transferred to and built by a private developer. However, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s overall goal for this site is to create fifty‐nine (59) one‐bedroom homes for extremely‐low and low‐ income seniors on a 1.1 acre parcel. Furthermore, this proposal will help create a close‐knit community beyond the apartment’s own walls through multi‐generational events, as at it is adjacent to a family property that is also owned by PAHC. In terms of access to transportation, the proposal is within 500 feet of the north‐south peninsula artery, El Camino Real, which is served by multiple VTA bus routes such as the "22", "Rapid 522" and "88." The bus stop for each of these routes is less than a five‐ minute walk from the property. Moreover, railway access is readily available at the Palo Alto (3.5 mi), San Antonio (1.9 mi), and California Avenue (2.0 mi) Caltrain stations. This proximity to transit is very wise public policy as seniors are less likely to be able to drive. These transit opportunities allow our senior population to stay active and happily engaged in the community. Also very important is the fact that the accessible public transit opportunities encourage transit ridership versus auto‐ownership, therefore minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and benefiting the environment. Overall, we believe the Maybell Orchard proposal will be highly beneficial, not only by creating homes for low income seniors in Palo Alto, but also by serving to benefit the community as a whole. We encourage your support of this proposal and thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Margaret Bard Housing Action Coalition Chair _________________________________________________ 436 14th Street. Suite 1205, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 839-‐9510 ● Fax: (510) 839-‐9610 www.urbanhabitat.org May 15, 2013 Planning & Transportation Commission City Hall 250 Hamilton Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 567 Maybell Ave Rezoning for Affordable Housing Development Dear Commissioners, Urban Habitat is pleased to support Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s proposal to rezone the property located at 567 Maybell Avenue, Palo Alto, to a Planned Community (PC) Zone for the development of affordable housing. Urban Habitat builds power in low-‐income communities and communities of color by combining education, advocacy, research and coalition building to advance environmental, economic and social justice in the Bay Area. We envision a society where all people live in economically and environmentally healthy neighborhoods. Clean air, land and water are recognized as fundamental human rights. Effective public transportation and land-‐use planning connect people to the resources, opportunities and services to thrive. And affordable housing provides a healthy and safe home for all. We recently released a report that shows the need for quality transit and affordable housing in Santa Clara County with very helpful graphs and charts showing the average costs for residents. The full report can be found here: http://nonprofithousing.org/pdf_pubs/MovingSiliconValleyForward.pdf There is a desperate need for affordable housing in Santa Clara County, especially in cities such as Palo Alto. As baby boomers begin to reach the age where a single-‐family home with 3 bedrooms and daily car use are no longer the most convenient way of life, there needs to be other options to continue living in world class cities such as Palo Alto. Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s proposal is one of these opportunities. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation is proposing to develop 60-‐units of affordable housing for seniors with incomes ranging between 30-‐60% area BOARD MEMBERS JOE BROOKS Chair ROMEL PASCUAL Vice-‐Chair TAMAR DORFMAN Treasurer CARL ANTHONY WADE CROWFOOT MALO HUTSON ARNOLD PERKINS _________________________________________________ 436 14th Street. Suite 1205, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 839-‐9510 ● Fax: (510) 839-‐9610 www.urbanhabitat.org median income (AMI). Many Palo Alto seniors who are reliant on low fixed-‐ incomes fall within this income bracket. These lower-‐income seniors deserve the chance to age in place with dignity and independence. The Maybell Orchard development will add 60 units of desperately needed affordable senior housing to the City’s affordable housing stock while having negligible impacts on neighborhood traffic. The development will provide pedestrian connection to Maybell Avenue and Juana Briones Park and will include indoor bicycle parking for residents in order to encourage residents to walk, bike, and take public transportation. We strongly encourage you to support this project. Sincerely, Vu-Bang Nguyen Associate Director of Land Use & Housing Urban Habitat 1 Ellner, Robin From:Eric Tsui <k.eric.tsui@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 11:44 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue Dear Members of the Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I am writing to urge you to please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. The senior- housing project is not a solution but instead a poor "short cut" to what it is intended to achieve. It would create a lot more problems than it could resolve. All the issues that residents around here have brought up are not "not-in-my-back-yard" type of noise but real issues that would most likely happen once the project would be completed. In fact, the traffic analysis performed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. is obviously flawed. One of the most troubling statements made in the report says that "it is unlikely that residents along Maybell Avenue would notice an increase in traffic as a result of the proposed development." Apparently, the report tries to convince readers that adding 75 units to this already overburdened area would not cause any noticeable increase in traffic. It attempts to challenge the basic common sense most ordinary people have. What the City of Palo Alto needs to do is re-evaluate all of the land uses and the quota of housing units on this city and come up with a city-wide master plan that would minimize the impact of new housing developments to any neighborhood rather than short-sightedly look for few pieces of land for high-density developments. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Eric Tsui 4155 Frandon Court Palo Alo 1 Ellner, Robin From:lucata@aol.com Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:33 PM To:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Maybell rezone I am vehemently against the rezoning of this property. My husband & I have been residents of Greenacres I since 1966. I know change is inevitable but there is way too much that we in South Palo Alto have had to endure. Currently, the traffic situation is impossible on Arastradero Rd. & on surrounding streets. One can not make a left turn from Los Palos on to Arastradero going west. One can hardly make a right turn! Everyone is constantly complaining. I am amazed that there are not more accidents though I hear sirens a lot! Our quality of life has really been affected by all the traffic which, to me, is the big issue. This is especially so around morning commute time, lunch time & early evening (in others words more often than not). Unfortunately my husband is very ill & I am unable to attend meetings as a result. This piece of property should not be rezoned. I think it is time for the City Council to think of the long term effects on the residents of this Palo Alto neighborhood & what is best for them, not other fleeting interests. Carol S. Tannenwald 4256 Los Palos Pl. Palo Alto SummerHill HomesSM 777 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Tel: (650) 857-0122 Fax: (650) 857-1077 May 21, 2013 VIA E-MAIL Planning Commissioners City Councilmembers City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Palo Alto Housing Corporation Project at 575 Maybell Avenue Planning Commission hearing May 22nd Dear Commissioners and Councilmembers: We have been following with great interest the subject Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) project and the PAHC representatives have requested our guidance from the market rate homebuilder’s perspective. More specifically, they asked us to comment on their most recent land plan that includes 15 single family detached homes that will be reviewed by the Planning Commission tomorrow evening. From a builder perspective, the number of lots is critical to the business plan. Given the small number of market rate lots (15) in the current PAHC plan, the loss of a single market rate lot presents a significant loss in the underlying land value. Even if the loss of a single lot enables the remaining homes to increase in size, that simple trade-off results is nowhere equivalent land value for the property owner, in this case Palo Alto Housing Corporation. We recognize that a tremendous effort has gone into a creative site solution for this property and we fully support PAHC’s approach. The placement of homes with the garages oriented away from the existing streets is a very sensitive way to minimize the potential traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. We believe that their plan is creative and a plan that will be a development of great benefit for the City given the combination of high quality single family detached homes and affordable housing for local seniors. Best Regards, Katia Kamangar Sr. Vice President Cc: Candice Gonzalez Jessica DeWit 1 Ellner, Robin From:Mark Solloway <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:50 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Rezoning will adversely affect Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Rezoning will adversely affect the neighborhood in numerous ways. Sincerely, Mark Solloway Palo Alto, California There are now 140 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Alice Smith <asmith36@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 6:37 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Maybell Planned Community and Senior Citizen Housing project To: Palo Alto Planning Commission cc: City Council of Palo Alto I write in support of the rezoning of the property at Clemo and Maybell for the purpose of having 60 low income senior citizen housing units under the control of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. I understand that in order to obtain that public purpose, that there will be 15 private homes to be developed on Maybell. It is to the private home development which I would like to comment: (1) I would have preferred to have had at least 2 of these houses be owned by the Housing Corporation and added to its housing rental program. My understanding is that the sale of these houses would help defray the cost of the senior citizen housing units. (2) To address the concerns of the neighbors on Maybell and GreenAcres II, I would urge that no parking be allowed on Maybell and that all the garage access, parking as well as the ingress and egress be through Arastradero Road. This would reduce the impact on the Juana Briones Park area which is a well designed and well used local park. (3) There will need to be a traffic light into the development with a cross walk carefully designed so that the flow of traffic on Arastradero is not exacerbated. There is already a dangerous crosswalk at Clemo, on the east side which is used by bicyclists and walkers frequently. Some drivers fail to stop at that crosswalk when the lights are flickering, so a careful traffic review is required, taking into consideration (a) the fire station, (b) the park needs (c) the school children who use the crossover to go from Maybell to Arastradero via Clemo already. (4) I certainly would not have a driveway on Clemo into this development as contemplated by the plans I have already seen. This would compromise the park inter alia and would mean that the users of the park would have no parking available, as all the parking on Clemo would quickly be taken up by the users of the apartments or housing development. Parking should be limited to say 3 hours so that the housing development does not overrun what little on street parking is available for the park. In addition, I think that the Senior Housing Unit might also provide a public toilet for the park as an additional benefit --not in the park itself but one which would have the benefit of the management of the senior housing overseeing its use during the hours of 8 am til 8 pm. hours at the park. I have lived in Greenacres I since 1965 and have been an advocate for housing for all in Palo Alto. I would like to add that any seniors living at Buena Vista should be given first priority for the senior housing. I have a commitment of long standing on Wednesday night or I would have made these comments at that time. Yours faithfully, Alice Schaffer Smith 2 4284 Los Palos Circle Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:A2sklar <a2sklar@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:40 AM To:kennethdueker@cityofpaloalto.org; Planning Commission Subject:Fwd: Proposed rezoning of Maybel /Clemo PropetyMaybel -----Original Message----- From: A2sklar <a2sklar@aol.com> To: ""\"planning. commission\"" <"planning. commission""@cityofpaloalto.org; "Lumsdaine <Lumsdaine"@alum Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 1:22 am Subject: Proposed rezoning of Maybel /Clemo PropetyMaybel I am writing to protest the down zoning of the property at Maybell and Clemo in order to make it possible for the Housing Corporation to build 60 senior housing units and 15 individual family homes. Although I am supportive of finding affordable housing for seniors I do not believe that it is necessary to downgrade the lifestyle of the adjacent neighborhoods in order to do this. Surely, there is room on streets like El Camino Real to build four story units for senior housing rather than disrupt and endanger residents of Greenacres I and 2, Barron Park, the schools along this corridor, the public park and the fire station. If the housing Corporation needs the proposed rezoning to make this project financially feasible I suggest that you advise them to sell it to a developer who can build single family homes there and not need a change in zoning. Land in Palo Alto is always going up in value and I feel sure that this foolish investment need not result in a loss of public funds which can be better used elsewhere. I have lived in this neighborhood for 43 years and my understanding has always been that when the Tan Apartments were built the city zoned the neighborhood such that no further tall structures would intrude into Barron Park and Greenacres. I hope that this commitment will be honored despite the well intended but poorly conceived plans of the Housing Corporation. I regret that I am unable to attend the hearing for this important issue. Sincerely, Alice Sklar 1 Ellner, Robin From:Stephanie Shaw <slshaw23@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:18 AM To:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Maybell/Clemo housing project To Whom it May Concern: I have serious concerns and objections to the proposed development activities and rezoning being planned for the Maybell/Clemo housing project. I have lived in the Barron Park neighborhood for over 5 years, and every weekday must commute out and in of the neighborhood and back and forth on Arastradero to get to my work on Hillview Avenue and to take my children to their nearby daycare and school. My three young children ages 6 and under, all are, or will be, attending neighborhood schools and Hoover Elementary. The most direct route for my commute would be to take Amaranta to Maybell to Arastradero, but I refuse to do so, both in the mornings from 7:50 to 8:40am or the afternoons 2:30-3:15pm due to the overabundance of traffic, large number of children, and the resulting safety and traffic issues that result. As a result, my commute doubles or triples during peak times. Instead I travel west to El Camino and then Arastradero, or even further out of the way to Page Mill, Hanover, and Hillview to avoid further congesting the Maybell area. Children (particularly the older ones) often block the roadway itself, require long crossings at street corners, and both young and older children are unpredictable in their actions. I have frequently seen children run or duck into the roads without looking, even with parents and crossing guards present. In fact, despite the presence of two crossing guards nearby (right in front of Juana Briones Elementary and at Arastradero), I have often thought an additional guard at Maybell and Amaranta was warranted based on existing conditions. The concerns I have for my own children commuting in this area are substantial. When they are older they will be biking along these roads, among walkers, bikers, and drivers, both those related to the schools and those independent. I fear for their safety on the neighborhood roads, Arastradero, and especially Maybell due to the existing high density and frequently speeding traffic. It is unconscionable that the Palo Alto Housing Commission plans for the Maybell/Clemo site thus far have studied impacts to traffic patterns (albeit incompletely and with lack of context, in my view) but not impacts to pedestrians, bikers, and with special focus on high density of schools and young children in the area. This region is already substantially overtrafficked, and adding any more vehicles will contribute risk; considering these will be senior age drivers increases that risk even further. And this is all happening in an area that supposedly includes Safe Routes to Schools! Several questions that must be answered before any further planning on this project is done include: What has the City done to study bicycle and pedestrian traffic or safety in this area, before AND after any proposed building or rezoning? How will appropriate emergency access be ensured to and from the neighborhood and the proposed PAHC facility in the event to of a disaster? We are also frequent users of the Juana Briones park on weekends and holidays. Due to the popularity of this jewel, Maybell in particular but also Clemo are frequently very busy and it is not 2 uncommon to have to park a couple blocks away. On weekdays outside of school hours, several children’s groups (like soccer or other sports teams) have large numbers of children on the fields right next to Maybell. Given the likelihood that the new housing development will have insufficient parking for all its residents, this will require higher usage of street parking, which will have dramatic impacts on access (parking, pedestrian, biking) during commuting and school times, but also impacts at other days/times as well that should also be considered. Please note that none of my concerns about the impact of this project on the neighborhood have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) document as compared to the original version, which has not included responses to any neighbor comments. Please include my objections in the records for the Maybell property and Housing Element. I am also upset about the misrepresentation of our community’s feedback in the PAHC newsletter. Given that I personally have older relatives who could be housed in such facilities if they lived locally, and that our community will be losing crucial affordable housing due to the neighborhood Buena Vista Trailer Park closing imminently, I understand the need for affordable housing in Palo Alto. However, the issue of needing this type of housing is not my complaint. I am not 'against affordable housing for seniors' as your inflammatory newsletter suggests. The Maybell/Clemo location is a terrible site to attempt to rezone, and to build in this manner, and it is clear the city has not considered the crucial implications of doing so. Sincerely, Stephanie Shaw 3875 El Centro Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:jenny.rose.robertson@gmail.com on behalf of Jenny Robertson <jenny_robertson@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:57 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:affordable senior housing Hello, As a disclaimer, I'm not a Palo Alto resident. But, I am a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto, and have had the benefit of seeing their relationship with Stevenson House, a housing project for affordable senior living next door to the church. It's been my experience that there is very little traffic associated with Stevenson House, and the residents are fine and interesting individuals. They have created a community garden that puts others to shame! I'm saddened to hear that plans for a new affordable senior living facility may not be approved, as there is high demand and no downside that I can see. Respectfully, Jenny Robertson (Los Altos resident) Richard W. Evans 4168 Thain Way Palo Alto, California 94306 Page 1 May 21, 2013 Dear City Council Members, City Planner/Housing Coordinator, and Planning Commission Members, I have been informed of the proposed change in the Palo Alto comprehensive plan to rezone property on Maybell Avenue which was before the Regional Housing Mandate Committee: H2.2.8 PROGRAM 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. I now understand that on May 9th Palo Alto’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC) voted to include this project in its Housing Element. As a resident of Thain Way, which exits only onto Maybell, I am concerned about RHMC’s rush to approve a plan in the face of considerable neighborhood opposition. This plan is, of course, illegal under current zoning. My concern is that this an effort by a collection of local special interests with a special relationship to the City of Palo Alto to bypass the normal rezoning process and thereby blunt, or totally thwart effective citizen input into the necessary rezoning decision. As presently proposed, this proposed development places virtually all of the costs and burdens of the City’s desire to provide housing for this segment of its population on the residents of the Barron Park neighborhood, particularly those live on or near Maybell. The decision to recommend this high density development was made by the RHMC (as it was done earlier by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)) without adequate notice to the broader affected neighborhood, without sufficiently careful study of the impacts it would have on the surrounding neighborhood, and with disregard for the impact that the implementation of this plan will have on the greater South Palo Alto community whose children attend school at Briones Elementary, Terman Middle School, Bowman International, or Gunn High School now or in the future, when the enrollments at least at Gunn High School are projected to increase significantly. While I favor affordable housing and am not against some additional affordable housing on Maybell (we already have Arastradero Park Apartments, a substantial development), I want the density of any such development on Maybell to comply with the current zoning in place on that property. Any such development must also be consistent with the character of our neighborhood. I am strongly opposed to this proposed rezoning. This high density development is inappropriate for this location for a variety of reasons, most of which were either ignored or inadequately considered by the Housing Authority, the ARB, the PTC and the RHMC. While, at this point, I do not wish to accuse anyone of improper conduct, the speed of approvals and lack of neighborhood input give the appearance of a closely-knit group of government groups who determined to railroad this project through the approval process with as little citizen input as possible. Possibly these boards and committees are so enamored of the opportunity to reach low income housing and senior housing goals, that they are more than willing to shift the lion’s share of the true costs of this development onto the backs of the impacted neighborhoods. As I mentioned above, I am concerned about the lack of reasonable notice to the community before the initial stage approvals were obtained. I live in the Barron Square Townhomes development Richard W. Evans 4168 Thain Way Palo Alto, California 94306 Page 2 and did not learn of the City’s plans until Sunday, April 21, 2013, when a neighbor from Pena Court came by and informed me that the Housing Authority was going to present this plan at Arastradero Park Apartments on Wednesday, April 24th. I bicycle commute up Maybell three times a week and did not see any posting of Zoning changes or proposed developments on the property. To me and many other residents who will definitely suffer the negative impacts of this development should it be built, the narrow scope of notice smacks of secrecy and an insider’s game where the desired end (meeting a regional goal of new housing and senior housing) justifies any means,those means including at least perceived secrecy until it is too late to react, placing a disproportionate share of the costs on the immediately surrounding community, and the perception that the establishment is railroading the plan through the approval process. I strongly urge you PTC members to reconsider your hasty decision and you as City Council members to listen to the impacted community, reject this ill-considered development plan, and require the Housing Authority to submit a plan that is both within the current zoning restrictions, is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and takes into account the safety of our school children. The process which brought this high density project to the City Council for consideration has done none of these things.. First, the plan was approved by the Architectural Review Board in disregard of its stated goals and purposes. To approve this plan the ARB had to ignore its own goals and purposes. The Board has five goals and purposes and this development violates at least 4 of them, nos. 2-5: This project will not “Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city.” To the contrary, the risk to the safety of school children, the increased traffic in a neighborhood already overburdened with school hour traffic, the further degradation of the already miserable school day traffic on the now constricted Arastradero Road, and the negative impact on the property values of the single family houses of the wall of townhomes 12 feet from Maybell and the increased traffic and increased street parking that this plan will cause, to mention a few negative impacts, demonstrate that this high density project will diminish the “desirability of residence or investment in the city.” Why invest in single family residence on Maybell when the city will surround your home with high density development? The project will not “Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements.” We do not oppose zoning-compliant development if these properties. But we strongly disagree with the ARB’s conclusion that this huge, high density project is the most desirable use of this small parcel of land. The project will not “Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas.” It will do the exact opposite. For the reasons stated above, and elaborated below, this will have a significant, negative impact on the living conditions of all of the residents of the existing neighborhood, including those now living in the low income housing project at 574 Arastradero. In fact, one of the proposals suggested by the ARB was to make one outlet on to Maybell for the new development, through the existing parking lot of 574 Arastradero, increasing traffic and risk to the children living in, and walking to school from, that existing project. At the end of this letter I suggest some Richard W. Evans 4168 Thain Way Palo Alto, California 94306 Page 3 changes to the plan which could at least mitigate the damage to the neighborhood, if not enhance our living conditions. The project will not “Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other.” This project is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, in density, verticality, and setback from the road. It is not considerate of the surrounding development. This project reminds me a lot of the Hyatt Rickeys PUD, particularly as that project was before the residents of Wilkie Way finally obtained concessions which prevented the high density development from extending to Wilkie Way or from exiting onto Wilkie Way. Despite these concessions, it is well known to the surrounding community that the lack of parking in the Hyatt Rickey development has had a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. It seems that the ARB and the Planning and Transportation Commission do not learn from past mistakes. It is also notable that none of the members of either the ARB or the PTC live in the impacted neighborhoods. Second, Maybell is a substandard width street which already overburdened by school day/rush hour traffic including a very significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Maybell is a designated bicycle boulevard and a key street for safe routes to school, but even today without this proposed development, when most needed as a bicycle boulevard during school commute times, it barely functions as one due to the clog of cars, bicyclists, skateboarders, push scooter rides, etc, trying to get to one of the various schools. It is not currently a safe route to school due to the dangerous mix of cars, bicycles and pedestrians which clog the narrow road during the morning commute period of time. Did I mention that the road is narrow? The bicycle lanes along Maybell end at the end of the Walgreens property. There is no continuous sidewalk on the south side of Maybell and, unless the City condemns a portion of the lots of the houses between Walgreens and Arastradero Park Apartments and between Briones Park and Coulomb, there will be none even if this project is completed. Maybell is a narrow street with discontinuous sidewalks. When I was working with the Safe Routes to School committee several years ago, I expressed my concerns about the problems with Maybell and the hazards to which it exposed our children on their way to and from school. I was informed that there was nothing the City could do because of the inadequate right of way on the street. This means it is a designated bicycle route without any bicycle lanes and without any room for bicycle lanes. Further, the aggravation of the discontinuous sidewalks on the higher density south side of Maybell means that the majority of pedestrians walk in the street rather than on the sidewalks. Even the sidewalk on the north side of the street, which is continuous from El Camino to Briones School fails to consistently attract pedestrians, particularly those with strollers or other wheeled vehicles because of the decision the City made when creating the sidewalk to favor a large redwood tree at the corner of Pena and Maybell at the expense of pedestrian safety. I cycle on Maybell several days a week Richard W. Evans 4168 Thain Way Palo Alto, California 94306 Page 4 and always see adults walking their dogs, seniors with walkers and motorized wheelchairs and young mothers pushing strollers all walking down the street rather than trying to use the inadequate sidewalks. Finally, a significant number of our school age children live in the Arastradero Park Apartments, 574 Arastradero Road, a Housing Authority Low Income Family Housing project. These kids do not cross the road to access the sidewalk, they simply walk, usually three or more abreast, down the south side of the street. Third, the traffic study was intentionally inadequate to accurately assess the current traffic situation on Maybell or to assess the impact on traffic of the proposed development. At the community meeting held at the community room at Arastradero Park Apartments, many community members expressed concerns about the impact on school day traffic of such a high density development. Particular concerns were expressed due to the very large number of bicyclists and pedestrians using this route which is a designated “safe routes to school” route. The person who performed the traffic study stated that none of the pedestrian or bicycle traffic could be considered under the City’s traffic study guidelines. While she said she was forced to ignore all non-vehicular traffic elements, she also told us that a more modern set of guidelines were under consideration but had not yet been adopted by Palo Alto. We believe that an adequate study using criteria which encompass all relevant modes of transportation, including pedestrian traffic and bicycle traffic must be used before any project is considered for approval. Because of the special nature of this area due to the large number of closely spaced schools, the significant amount of traffic generated by school-related trips, and the absence of any roads capable of handling the high volume of school day traffic, I believe that the current traffic study methodology underestimates the traffic impacts caused by school related traffic. The other flaw in the current traffic study methodology is the requirement that the traffic be averaged over a 3 hour period. Peak traffic impacts are thus ignored. Maybell is not overly congested at 7:30AM,further it is not overly congested at 9AM. This does not mean that it is safe to add 75 more living units of traffic to the street at 7:45-8:30AM. Additionally, the school traffic issue will only increase. Gunn has to build to accommodate the projected enrollment increases. These increases and their impact on traffic were not factored into the study. Fourth, the proposed PUD imposes high density market rate housing along Maybell and Clemo which is in consistent with the character of our community. The proposed development, particularly the wall to wall 15 "market rate" housing units on Maybell and Clemo, and the 4 story senior housing building with 60 units but only 40 parking spaces is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and will have significant, negative impacts on all the surrounding neighborhoods. The reduced set off (12 feet) from Maybell where every other building is at least 20 feet) and the much higher density will form a wall of three story housing looming over an unusually narrow street where all of the other houses enjoy almost double the setbacks. The council Richard W. Evans 4168 Thain Way Palo Alto, California 94306 Page 5 should not approve any plan which changes the lot setback requirements. We don’t want a wall of housing directly next to a small sidewalk, as the City permitted on the Rickey’s Hyatt property. Fifth, the ARB and PTC’s approval of a plan with only 40 parking spaces for 60 apartment units is unreasonable and will place further burdens on the community. The idea that senior housing residents have fewer cars than family housing residents may have some merit. However, there is no evidence that a change in the required number of parking spaces from two per unit to two for every three units is reasonable. Our experience with the seniors we know is that those who are able to live independently drive own cars. Further, as senior health improves, the proportion of independently living seniors who drive will increase. At the meeting on April 24th at Arastradero Park Apartments the Housing Authority representative mentioned a lack of problem with the number of parking places at Stevenson House as evidence that 40 spaces for 60 units is adequate. I disagree. There is almost never an open parking space at Stevenson House. Visitor parking is provided (consciously or unconsciously) by the adjacent Unitarian Fellowship during the school day and by the next door Hoover Elementary School in the evenings and on weekends. The only “hard date” offered by the Housing Authority are national studies which do not reflect the driving habits of Palo Alto’s senior residents. I suggest that, without better data, no reduction in required parking be permitted; this would require 120 spaces for 60 units. Sixth, the cramming onto Maybell and Clemo of 15 market rate units where there is only room for 7 to reduce the cost to the Housing Authority of the low income housing apartment building is an undue burden on the neighborhood. The proposed PUD includes 15 market rate town houses along Maybell and Clemo. The proposed narrow, three story, wall-to-wall townhomes, are proposed with half the setback of any other construction on Maybell or Clemo. These units will not fit into the character of the neighborhood. First, they are simply too close to a very narrow street. Second they overburden the neighborhood. The Housing Authority should not get away with a bad development simply to save money. Further, as atrocious as was the approval of the Hyatt Rickey development, at least, after citizen outrage, the City protected the residents of Wilkie way by (1) requiring the building of regular houses on regular lots with compliant setbacks and (2) prohibiting ingress and ingress to the high density development from Wilkie Way. The City should afford the residents of Maybell the same protection. By way of emphasis, in contrast to Maybell, Wilkie Way is a regulation width street with ample space for parking on both sides. As already mentioned, Maybell is much narrower. The proposal to alleviate the traffic caused by this doubling of the permitted density is to direct the traffic from these market unit houses to rear driveway which will exit onto both Maybell and Clemo. One of the so called benefits of this design is that the current driveway breaks for the four normal houses now on Maybell will be replaced with continuous curbing permitting more on street parking. This is not a benefit, because more parking on this, the narrowest part of Maybell, is a further hazard. As previously mentioned, due to the failure of the City to provide adequate sidewalks, most residents simply walk down the road. The narrowness of Maybell in the proposed block where the development is to occur makes additional street parking a hazard to pedestrians. Richard W. Evans 4168 Thain Way Palo Alto, California 94306 Page 6 Further, under the proposal which includes only 40 parking spaces for 60 units, all the extra cars forced to park along Maybell. Not only will this be a danger to pedestrians, but will further detract from the appearance of the entire neighborhood, and damage property values. Requiring the market rate houses to comply with zoning may slightly increase the financial burden on the Housing Authority. If this is the case, the City should raise the funds to make up the difference. This would more equitably spread the burden of the costs of the senior housing on the community at large and not inflict it preferentially on the residents of the impacted neighborhood. Seventh, no change in density should be permitted until Arastradero is returned to a full two lanes in each direction. Ironically, ARB and PTC have recommended to the housing authority that it provide vehicular ingress and egress for the development to Maybell in preference to Clemo and Arastradero. One suggestion was to both create an easement between the current Arastradero Park Apartments driveway and the development so vehicles can exit either Arastradero or Maybell through Arastradero Park, and to move the current barrier on Clemo south of the proposed Clemo driveway to the development, forcing these vehicles onto Maybell rather than Arastradero. This is at least some recognition of the PTC and the ARB that the Arastradero Traffic Calming Project has dramatically diminished the carrying capacity of Arastradero Road. It is the height of irony that, to protect the commuters on Arastradero from having to endure even more onerous traffic delays caused by the proposed high density development, the reviewers recommended that the Housing Authority change its site plan from exclusive ingress and egress from Clemo to Arastradero to preferentially ingress and egress directly to Maybell. This is not a solution, but merely an aggravation of an existing and worsening, self-inflicted problem. The so-called calming has already increased traffic through Barron Park by 25%. This adds a further injury. A casual comparison of the City’s right of way on Arastradero and Maybell shows which road should be preferred for ingress and egress from the proposed development. Arastradero easily supports two bike lanes and four automobile lanes and on street parking on at least one side of the road. Maybell has no bike lanes, in adequate clearance for on street parking and pedestrian vehicle conflicts. The City must require the traffic to route to Arastradero rather than Maybell. Further, if it is determined that this overburdens Arastradero, the City must act to alter Arastradero to the point where it can handle the increased traffic from the development before approving any development. Eighth, the proposed location is not a desirable one for senior citizens. The location of the proposed project is not a desirable one for seniors. It is not near medical offices, hospitals, grocery stores or other shopping, with the exception of Walgreens. While there is a Walgreens at the corner of Maybell and El Camino, for many seniors, Walgreens will not be in walking distance. Pedestrians and those who are using walkers or motorized wheelchairs will be forced into the street due to the discontinuous sidewalk. Those with walkers or motorized wheelchairs, for the entire distance, even totally ambulatory pedestrians must leave the sidewalk and walk in the road before they Richard W. Evans 4168 Thain Way Palo Alto, California 94306 Page 7 reach Walgreens. To avoid this danger, even those who are able and might prefer to walk may choose to drive. Consequently, almost every trip a senior resident makes for necessities will of necessity or for safety reasons be by automobile. Conclusion and suggestion. The proposed development offers no benefit to the impacted neighborhood. The detriments are many and significant as stated in detail above. In particular increased safety risks, particularly to our children, increased traffic congestion in our neighborhoods, and a reduction in our property values and our aesthetic enjoyment of our neighborhood. Further, the location is not particularly good for seniors as walking can be hazardous and few amenities are within walking distance. As a resident of the neighborhood, I am not opposed to reasonable development. My suggestion is that the size of the Housing Authority project be reduced so it meets zoning requirements. That the City purchase from the Housing Authority a sufficient portion of the property along Maybell to increase the width of the road to regulation width, and permit only the currently permitted number of market rate houses to be build, all with the required setback. Further, the City should negotiate with the home owners between Arastradero Park and Walgreens or use its power of eminent domain to obtain the right to extend the existing sidewalk all the way from the existing sidewalk to Walgreens . The City should also negotiate with the home owners between Briones Park and Coulomb or use its power of eminent domain to obtain the right to extend the existing sidewalk from Briones Park to Coulomb. These rights of way should be obtained and the sidewalk constructed to protect our children and other pedestrians as a precondition to the construction of the project. Sincerely, Richard Evans 4168 Thain Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jeffrey Rensch <jrensch@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 8:34 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell Orchards Dear Planning Commisioners - I attended the recent Regional Housing Mandate committee and experienced, along with Commissioner Michael and others, the intensity of the opposition of some neighbors to the Maybell Orchards affordable senior housing development. I live near the neighborhood concerned. Some comments: 1. The negative comments were virtually all about traffic -- indeed mostly about problems with current traffic. The proposed project will add less traffic than other potential uses of this land. Moreover, this is an issue for the traffic staff to consider -- it is not about affordable housing per se, and a modest housing development should not play the scapegoat for traffic problems caused by other sources. 2. The vociferous neighbors are scared to wager some present comfort for the sake of what is a significant long term need for our city, namely affordable housing. They naturally view the city's welfare from a self-interested point of view. But you are stewards of our city's long term welfare and must consider more than the short term comfort of current residents, important as that also is. We need this housing development, it is a good and moderate proposal, and the opposition has gotten very far out of hand. Some of it is now verging on a form of bullying. thank you, Jeff Rensch 741 Chimalus Dr Palo Alto CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:recycler100@sonic.net Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 8:59 AM To:Council, City Cc:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; Planning Commission Subject:ADDITION to Comment: Maybell project proposal Please Note: This is a re-mailed comment from earlier with an addendum as follows. I wanted to add: Has the Planning Commission or Council considered the impact on the families who come to the OH for rehabilitation? Not just for delaying their trips to and from, though that is a consideration, too. Traffic and parking can be an issue when events happen at the school, and putting pressure on parking across from the school and park (which are right across from the proposed development that has only 47 parking spots for 60 residents, staff, aids, helpers, family and other visitors, and ironically, medical help like rehabilitation) will increase the number of people who misuse the OH parking lot. There is already tension over the misuse of the lot under current traffic conditions. Did anyone bring these circumstances to the attention of Public Advocates when they reviewed the housing element (was the Maybell project even included then)? Thank you in advance for considering my input from this letter and answering my questions. Here is my original letter: Since no one on the Council or Planning Commission is familiar with the neighborhood that will be so drastically changed by this proposed rezoning, I want to point out that the proposed market rate houses on Maybell and Clemo will be catty corner to the back entrance of Juana Briones Elementary. Actually, the very back end is the OH, which houses a physical therapy wing where disabled children from around the county come for rehabilitation, and the district's most disabled children attend preschool and elementary programs, as they have for decades. Since Juana Briones Elementary has such a small campus with so little open space, children are often brought to the park during the day. Have you thought about how this development will degrade these families' quality of life? Like most of the neighborhood, my biggest problem with this rezoning is not the affordable housing (which I would welcome if built within the existing zoning), but mainly the market-rate housing. These tall, skinny chimney-like houses with not enough setback ala Miki's Market will loom over that end of Maybell and the playground area at Juana Briones park. Why are we encouraging the building of so many of these chimney houses these days in Palo Alto anyway? Such homes completely shut out the disabled. Developers maximize their profits, and more and more housing stock goes into Palo Alto that no one in a wheel chair or with serious mobility problems can even visit comfortably. How many of you have had family or friends in wheel chairs or with severe arthritis? We built a house once with many universal design features, which made an enormous difference to friends with mobility problems, where before we couldn't even host our friends in our home. Those with mobility problems represent a sizeable percentage of the population, around 10%, and not just the elderly, though as you can imagine, the percentage of the population affected by mobility problems increases with age. "Reports of mobility problems are common, including among middle-aged adults." (See "Mobility Difficulties Are Not Only a Problem of Old Age" PMCID:PMC1495195 ) Have you thought about how the City Council has been encouraging the building of homes that are virtually inaccessible to at least 10% of the population? Shouldn't accessibility and quality of life for the 2 disabled be a matter the City Council has on its radar in this day and age? And not just to throw the disabled accessibility scraps here and there, but to make Palo Alto a city where diversity and tolerance are valued? Have you thought about the symbolism of allowing the building of such completely inaccessible, out-of-character (stick-out-like-a-sore-thumb) homes right across from a long-time school program for severely disabled students? You would think we would have long gotten over having to fight for government to be sensitive to the need for accessibility. Have you thought about the message you will be sending to these children and their families, to have such an edifice to greed and disregard of disability in their faces every day? (Forgetting for a moment the traffic and parking problems that have not been addressed for the project will make once lovely trips to the park a dangerous obstacle course for these kids, as development residents and their visitors are guaranteed to use the street next to Juana Briones park to park their cars.) It's one thing for us to make excuses for older construction, for narrow hallways and doors, quite another in new construction when we have a choice to do what is right, when we know so much now about universal design, yet build chimney-like houses with steep staircases the disabled can barely visit. You cannot tell me no developer would want the opportunity to just build regular homes there. The proposal to put in chimney houses is another way the new development is completely incompatible with the neighborhood. This neighborhood is mostly single-story ranch homes. Seniors comprise a large percentage of the neighborhood. According to surveys, they pretty much like to remain in their homes until they die. Turnover in this neighborhood is some of the lowest in Palo Alto. Yet the City wants to allow a zoning exception to allow homes that would be virtually impossible to remain in throughout life like the other homes in the neighborhood. Neighborhood homes may be worth a lot of money now, but to seniors who have been here for decades, the cost of remaining in their homes is often quite low - affordable. Allowing such chimney-like homes to be built would limit who could live there and make for greater transience among a cluster of occupants. For heaven's sake, the first thing in the Comprehensive Plan under land use is a policy to "maintain a citywide structure of residential neighborhoods," with a goal of "safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character," and you're not even listening to us tell you how this development will irrevocably alter the character of the neighborhood for the worse. Look, it was a creative idea, to use profit from part of a purchased property to finance an affordable part. I get that, I think it was clever. But if you can't do it without going so far outside any reasonable zoning rules, this is not the place for it, and maybe that approach should be reconsidered if it can only work by ignoring the concerns of residents, destroying the neighborhood character, creating safety problems, and building a looming reminder to the disabled community that Palo Alto is building to exclude them as fast as it can. (Quite ironic that it will front a development for seniors.) None of the concerns I am submitting now have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objections in the record for the Maybell property and Housing Element. Sincerely, A Lumsdaine 1 Ellner, Robin From:recycler100@sonic.net Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 2:52 AM To:Council, City Cc:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; Planning Commission Subject:Comment: Maybell project proposal Since no one on the Council or Planning Commission is familiar with the neighborhood that will be so drastically changed by this proposed rezoning, I want to point out that the proposed market rate houses on Maybell and Clemo will be catty corner to the back entrance of Juana Briones Elementary. Actually, the very back end is the OH, which houses a physical therapy wing where disabled children from around the county come for rehabilitation, and the district's most disabled children attend preschool and elementary programs, as they have for decades. Since Juana Briones Elementary has such a small campus with so little open space, children are often brought to the park during the day. Have you thought about how this development will degrade these families' quality of life? Like most of the neighborhood, my biggest problem with this rezoning is not the affordable housing (which I would welcome if built within the existing zoning), but mainly the market-rate housing. These tall, skinny chimney-like houses with not enough setback ala Miki's Market will loom over that end of Maybell and the playground area at Juana Briones park. Why are we encouraging the building of so many of these chimney houses these days in Palo Alto anyway? Such homes completely shut out the disabled. Developers maximize their profits, and more and more housing stock goes into Palo Alto that no one in a wheel chair or with serious mobility problems can even visit comfortably. How many of you have had family or friends in wheel chairs or with severe arthritis? We built a house once with many universal design features, which made an enormous difference to friends with mobility problems, where before we couldn't even host our friends in our home. Those with mobility problems represent a sizeable percentage of the population, around 10%, and not just the elderly, though as you can imagine, the percentage of the population affected by mobility problems increases with age. "Reports of mobility problems are common, including among middle-aged adults." (See "Mobility Difficulties Are Not Only a Problem of Old Age" PMCID:PMC1495195 ) Have you thought about how the City Council has been encouraging the building of homes that are virtually inaccessible to at least 10% of the population? Shouldn't accessibility and quality of life for the disabled be a matter the City Council has on its radar in this day and age? And not just to throw the disabled accessibility scraps here and there, but to make Palo Alto a city where diversity and tolerance are valued? Have you thought about the symbolism of allowing the building of such completely inaccessible, out-of-character (stick-out-like-a-sore-thumb) homes right across from a long-time school program for severely disabled students? You would think we would have long gotten over having to fight for government to be sensitive to the need for accessibility. Have you thought about the message you will be sending to these children and their families, to have such an edifice to greed and disregard of disability in their faces every day? (Forgetting for a moment the traffic and parking problems that have not been addressed for the project will make once lovely trips to the park a dangerous obstacle course for these kids, as development residents and their visitors are guaranteed to use the street next to Juana Briones park to park their cars.) It's one thing for us to make excuses for older construction, for narrow hallways and doors, quite another in new construction when we have a choice to do what is right, 2 when we know so much now about universal design, yet build chimney-like houses with steep staircases the disabled can barely visit. You cannot tell me no developer would want the opportunity to just build regular homes there. The proposal to put in chimney houses is another way the new development is completely incompatible with the neighborhood. This neighborhood is mostly single-story ranch homes. Seniors comprise a large percentage of the neighborhood. According to surveys, they pretty much like to remain in their homes until they die. Turnover in this neighborhood is some of the lowest in Palo Alto. Yet the City wants to allow a zoning exception to allow homes that would be virtually impossible to remain in throughout life like the other homes in the neighborhood. Neighborhood homes may be worth a lot of money now, but to seniors who have been here for decades, the cost of remaining in their homes is often quite low - affordable. Allowing such chimney-like homes to be built would limit who could live there and make for greater transience among a cluster of occupants. For heaven's sake, the first thing in the Comprehensive Plan under land use is a policy to "maintain a citywide structure of residential neighborhoods," with a goal of "safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character," and you're not even listening to us tell you how this development will irrevocably alter the character of the neighborhood for the worse. Look, it was a creative idea, to use profit from part of a purchased property to finance an affordable part. I get that, I think it was clever. But if you can't do it without going so far outside any reasonable zoning rules, this is not the place for it, and maybe that approach should be reconsidered if it can only work by ignoring the concerns of residents, destroying the neighborhood character, creating safety problems, and building a looming reminder to the disabled community that Palo Alto is building to exclude them as fast as it can. (Quite ironic that it will front a development for seniors.) None of the concerns I am submitting now have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objections in the record for the Maybell property and Housing Element. Sincerely, A Lumsdaine 1 Ellner, Robin From:Pat Raynak <praynak@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 11:56 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Maybell Zoning Hi City Council: I oppose that re‐zoning of Maybell/Clemo to high destiny, we have dangerous and terrible problem with traffic, this is a vey narrow street, which has no side walks, and no bike room, lots of cars, kids and people of who walk. People do not stop at the stop signs on Maybell or Amaranta. I walk my dog daily and have come close to being hit several times. You have already reduced the lanes on Arastradero Rd which put a lot more traffic on all the side streets, which people use to short cut including Baker/Abel & Georgia and few do a 25 miles, most speed. Please consider the quality of life of the residence, children and our older neighbors who live in this area. We do not need More High Destiny in our area. This is why out of line. Sincerely, Pat Raynak 544 Georgia Palo Alto 1 Ellner, Robin From:Renee Alloy <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:33 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- I believe that Maybell Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: I believe that Maybell is already impacted and traffic represents a hazard to pedestrians, bikers as well as cars. We don't need any more traffic on Maybell or Arastradero. Sincerely, Renee Alloy Palo Alto, California There are now 139 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jennifer Fryhling <jfryhling@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:09 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis Subject:Petition Signatures Attachments:PetitionSignaturesNoRezone21May2013.pdf; PetitionSignaturesNoRezone20May2013.pdf; PetitionSignaturesNoRezone22May2013.pdf Dear Planning Commission: Please find attached copies of paper petitions signed by residents opposing the rezone of 567-595 Maybell to Planned Community. Please include these signatures on the paper petitions attached for the public record in this matter before the Planning Commission. Regards, Jennifer Fryhling (l)-)dAFl $S*6 r trr ss (' u qrtr I g tn, \\ : V EF|-3c{ dIBI.Fla $ SS $ \ $rE dA 1j s J h d € {N _N N -tr I I q) AF' a-lt{$$ $I l- N$.A.o- $* \rrl IA IJ t-*! IfitQ Ia-t I !;F-? ryt\\s Iot/t \I ''ttl ${g (F-(b t\ .Q'0o f\N F vt\s J qL FI.iGaFIF'rd \t, i\ $iFi l- F.F \t\'s s. 5 { 8l * c/f{r0'.S *[j0 ur d F3l,$gr G/Ipr >! .:t If' s * $a*Sa,B F J\-( s \ \ rla ) \ 2 (naEEftv g *s $ u c 2II $ .s\r\ tseE53 d0 cff I { \ *rt-.( J 5 3 ,: d F ! j * : $ SL s \F s€EttU E \fi $ \ \./\sso(r4s\n.ers q) AxEclz {J--.F IF{ .t3 !P \ss,r ,!istl >\L 0Y\r $lr T-(n odct sa $N(A € ,a/ E $"a(Br € Y? ,x 3 f -.3=t T J t\'5 vfr ea4 ? rFo 5 I J $+iL 2 oql ( zqx-{ Nit 'J h,r_a-5F F (1Fo(J rFl-"XvxF( E..'l cu+tr== 1 LL (l)V''Vtr- 6 sa I .E g€ --u)(l)(|)- .= -OE z = bc.rA E €E:_- o z, orrl U r71 ED ; e,A z O -' F = 5 Enc= 6t =F\-liw6t7- = hbn -E.-_ o- *,..A 'J E qq5J EE EO= Jl 'F-E EE]H=tr t x.b I 6' grg trh A= .g as.^ tr o.Fp E 05 A F r'.= r l-i o&>FGia ? 6a-= Ei E-rr, cg A *,Fr{ f >, h-A O -Or5Y zb G- h+tt|!lx+ a -J 4 -r E'=F = E= TcJcg ==;.F ,q Eh rJ v jj.= = h g? 1&€r-:{=(l)H 9 YE 2 € EE"YFA.EcsElr 'll tl)= E 6.gp \J O- 2.! - .. E=V-.. .E rE. .Fl aIz E'#b O a ov)v-H-=qilti p 5- - >b rj Eo.Ar-r '1, e Er+.rt CJts.9O r-rr= .3 ,OE o.'g--EFK c)+, AE [Y'T $, \ 0\\I VI(I { .lru ".ttl N t\\n aN) \A \-Ds q) L!a rF. - ul a (,q 1:' :\ \q *l N ( NV l oll\t- R, ,tlf ' lI.Y \ J t\ Ln JN N \\\' \\N \\ NN $ \ $ €) f,I -A,- r-u\s \9 ts n dr\I NN HrO $ $ J6' ra €-r^hw \iii I }Orr 0n D*- h' 1 tt'" BF \9 A$rrQ q^ $ cgaEI I L a)Z47-26 ,4<^ o ! fdr $ {,s & -$ ,r.$ Jnsl -6 f.T+\.\ A)g,-) (noq) LErl sCJ :.7u ^/1 \/1 w\ wXv ? Vo $ {s J eE lv2 # 4.s7a't4 wA2 7 F=t* $dN l,'q'4 {iisN\N J'+Ns{ \ s-r\-.<, Q-s=Gt< \rG{D6 6 <'c t+ FJ*+ $o) ll* c.l U q) E clz .F)aI !A-l tLdr, )dqil al. {sq h\ $rs to \tU -N ,\,A d }','z 6 u \ \b\/< V\ ".V\ qs- 1.\\0 \\.Q { 0r\.d.\-{ +1 { vva c; -J -\ :3 U) ) st\ .Jt2 co G^ t h!tlc FaJ HEAv(J FtxVY r,ri-l ?1Li!. .lGl-t =tr4OrO)\?Jtr o 6 se. v -!rl)\4-t O -; ^-7roo z = l'c.rAlcsr = s=o4,^Fd o ;.E -) E i^' \,^| zOF= 5 E'oi cg =c 4 g io:o-., d' \n '; i tr bO-'l F .E'5- -- F--c= - =-F ; Nii 1 I ergJbo?= i. 9e4--- i\' >r EF 1! tr oU9\ Cg \-cvi = 3'=* : s? .i9 = oo :' 6l a *l-/ f >h'- o .o5v rh cq b+L./FY 71, -.n E 'F F = q= 7e€= = -=x ,q Egr-l v ii .:Ip h H? rg u 9€0 o ds-- = 8.3!v J -=_- A F o '*d = ? aso\l & sD.-tFF/llJ : t=- .- rr"5 > +i _=J(!4 tr a oA(DrA\J s :!aE .i =()== pE- Li t! rl EO. Oi .= .!bo q_< tri e.i{ qF.E.9u*.H.o 'o qlP F:r -\FK { tl}+ratA-l r \ <fX\{\ qf \ .Qh\' lc..''"' ,sl . -\.t',N. ( (t .S s -\\ ; N''v) -']\r rVD ql kt-*r{ltrut.Flo J\-\ \/}\ d i: ** \ \ I $ UNN,'$ l \ / $ \ t: { d C B { *bIt s {\J s(?\ il IJ-o/IH-t{ m ..S ,--,. L. 0lr-f 95 .T i,R }$ ! (*., \,:or- (.9 i{e "tr's5-\ f, &' $0 CI:r ?:0R\Nvl "9 I^NX r'$ 8\\s F {" rlv)j *94 cb. sn $\ $ ,tu \o -l.-at{{ Er-'!FI i+<qJ 8c ;lv k.6t {r- 4. \s Ai b $*s ts g ;S rJ "q' L .4.) \ \ 1>\ -&rsIof-f -Es<$ P\) \- $i Jiil 3o g fq, or) I N ,V)u d U)rt)g €€ dt 0D IJ ps * s s t 't* bi\ b**- .N 96 4 Y _9 <. #{3. Xrxil-. t' d-s sv: 1 cO cn .> rrIg1 F"\ |\N \A c-lr e.A $F,THaz +r--{.rlt3{ $al9(b 11 I g j"1 4 € b D Ps f*\1.s" l-_ q/ |} \J \) t"\, q) In{) --,,? )F,* 4cs \s !s IJ \A \, E -.o .(') \ r-_._ .\ \t \ b x : sv 4>'{-} g d-EF.FdU t-. \JrJ97,f{E\xa .l Gllarr!=F4. I+ 4)y):tr O d Kia - _E s€ el12a)c) ?r7 = h. crft E €E Ed U rp1 -E 7 tr g,A 7 O -'- fi E Eeii. 6r = -\-3lvi -riRie4 = lc=o - f .n'E i 4 q3J S €6= J1 'E= t-aF=n E ilg< f. g9' = .g gg aF- g tr ou fiF*-E Fl = H?{a = op-= t. EF:' t E *,n f >.'L'F O -oEV>-1(|)(n 'LClhlr.'r H rrr VY'7 , *-r= r E'Ez g G7 a=>'GN E E:.f:rl v i: .En >-, =g,-r F =614 e 9€ A € EEY 4 'S-c E .e ;== 3 6.9)a fi: ;.s A, '=E \J - r=F.Egs z E '#E O g .ea= t E4tr pF. -L'frl 9 o' E- -== bS'i-'.56B.E8E-oEri.t {L} g EHFF q,*)6sAFl$fo .\ $ $ 0oF cn-= aS\,^ flFI-+a6€-IBI.Fla I \ $ R5\$ .] )\ N $ {s\t t q)-ta a-tA.E .'U *rb { 'yr l\l "',1 $t9s :fi;T!is { t-t*r tlo &s \- Aa-€ttAFItF1 R \\ d \ \riq :.F.;.{ 5\J i-{ISll qq dT v\ vtt ;rJ atf)o -$ J q,) =o o 5 B:FAo{-st\noDos-t.)-$ J\R rt)oEFFIv€ S"f,\J \T $sPer{ io! o}R? oxRN!{t+vvds \ p4Sc ,;g$t 3sJ5 $eT t3bo sJ js-a1 3"dzstr q) a4FFIGz*)a-a.E Fr Sq, d sr J T \- )i- <(t\5 *I\d 1 \ Qn { 5 5 Po s'l35r-) g €G *\) \h nht.d d,r+ l1F EoU OEh:iLF'.'l cui{r:= -J r! €)?:trr- A Ga v \ts'\)\J Fr g ;; 4. 'd =t ^-q(D(l)- .= -OE ry tr bclA E SE:_ofrl U 61 -- 5 ; g.A ?i7 O -'- =, .5 EcEH cg =c\-uiecc7- = I}ao - !F rn.=J q qp3 J tq tro= -t- '=E - F 6r-E E X.= 1 GI -c2gtitl aEr Fi oqz .= A=-^ trl o-^KI F 06n .= a.E*,' F{ Eo -F rr == rr. G^ A j, fr f hh-A O -O{=Y ;d-t;rri i: os4? ,-s E'=F = E=Tetcr ==;.N iErYl 'v ii .== >-. E?l=/ rlJ ?) l-r :r-r = (l) !=r LJ YE 2 € EEY F c Fc€ti E d.10v i- ,a.a.--+- -V-u'-. o =Ez E ';a O .$ q(A = 5 =(1)E= =F.r\LF .== rrl Ea. Or '= i< ao€.gE i.=oi..,F{ fn - 't-( A-,\J \J olgF5FF NFI d(D e- ='€()-'-= ,-+ 0QO'- r-l 5vH r- lt:ltl'v\r F. 1I=n. 4 -1 r? 6 f -idd E' coa 5-n '=' FFsE i t:3 /A, at.-v=z- = Arirc D? v:-l ^r}iOY I=f. $= 5 6 o-I ^ Fl;h v )a\v -.r ;EA.F F] 3€E OiF E. z==--F= t 4 N6T-+ Dt rr v)(? F6 0 \/:-< -l +l,:lr^-r + P tl-o = o\ <!jF{<OQ F+r I3< E g Orro; = ul {\1-t9 =' 7i:3 6 '- E6 :; Lr.B =.=- --. =. F,= - ftl5FJ-'9 =' at -;o-v = t-5. '^ (a F3 E .- 61 Fl. \ =- =r Fl-- 5' Zrr, .-l - (4 lv5i/r O l!L.,' > O =-=Zry . /i EO-(t =. rCD.D4,vt = 4. t-E\E; E C SlqriFRg-p - =;1r+llL.H )HH') cDA v o ?. .H ='K, es f- = h \s cb, \a5./\ s C s.be $= +< 3\ € v [.t 7fr ?o (1 POFz t rlvlp' rA <. I-l \A\ 7-b-tr. ; \ N s $,'F 1l t-lIt -l t" Intrl I' P \ P (- s \.|\ $.t T $ bl.\D\s E<(sF :(' ?' f a( ? 9{o) t -) -> .t nJ H o P trto Cno H f.l ts Fl.z Ir{ tD \, -S.A s N IFt *1 -A.I (- su- \ (/?' :)' ()\ ab"p O bb n ":P v0-\ \,,\i { trnsY 6Dd F.s() 4 Sr*; e \? \l r'A -\ (5cc -\ > (\ o0+ j tl L:rI f5 L^) $ bl \"1 6.s I-(ia \ -\. g \, qn o\,st sJ qp,. i'q w=F R-\ itl F \ -c \"r.tr \/\x<,-.1- FF-s \F s :' c.-/r;', $n-{ -U : .} \J+ o0 a nrn\ ,n' oss-e 1I\ o q {4. a| Fl(D00 RsR S-., bs -lr > E 4 F,a \ r }1 \ %'5 3=sa5-ci-313:- i,Ugr i,D raF-\n ct'Yf I "--,h\'*1 /N:t {tl 5" :, Fo q'' "(b\st!y s- $..i.s'F.F' (/\ i\ \ RTT\n f$ IS >F"..R R:\\)\ *:tN .l Llrltr t lr trx, J- '^0 .l @ P(o \S G tr A -l r !|-| T\)s. \ 'S) h \JA F-R Nt, Sr.\ <zt I6i nQr €t \N .|lf, hfl lg {,}t e oo. P thih\o I l,b.oc} w:]s, q r.\*t- _ -.$ r" .L J-r t AE "\"-. ".{rEl \-ts RY\*i .(l .. I co-J e. -Sr \., \-r'(-* $eI J r -1. p\ r"l ii d 0+ N,0t do-t 6-( (7 \\l",s"b iI.(s, H tD :.l N]rl*l \l\lol \l$l Ft g RF-b\JH\ ilf ". r F \>\ \ .'h 3 $r F) { \ \iN",,i\,l \ A\ Svs $N. L T .dN sP trt' ) :- , { I a f (n raE FF(--f.t (D s \h \\ \ S-. s -9 X t\\ Ut. \DI ul \ \JNU{ v l:.*-\ ir \4_$l_N rl \ \^ J q 01 * Vr J €L { C -v FftD \ AD,b s I .*(- |J(q(q (1 (q^ U AH\JYrHF! -.,1.l rr!r== /O-1)?:tr- d €o. :7F-l-v f-i O +-, = r- tt) () C)- '= -oE'-7 = Zt .;rz- tr s=r 5 :5 td () .r)-c a\l) tr i-'h.7O Zr .- ?-i= ..- =E=ctr==\ {r rv CrJ-LN . = \n.-\9ia! tr b.O-t,r 6 -=I E(--. =-m ; *o 4 :"- 92e\hn|r''=r = o(,2 .= o-tr ! tr cU il F 2'.8 _l ,*r bIJ >f--c-- I = oc Y' G -- >itr f >h'^ o .o.=v iLJl7- -! .. $ Ei . E'fI,.t7u5-z---l A = >\O- = =\oN.rh kl \i/ i: .=I-1=-.r 6t!. u 9€ A O -=A = -.=.v-J-= AnJ!FI AOXivI /.\ cE A- :jJV Fr ca.5.i r-{/A v - = ==.r arr - r-7 i- -=J (Lz-tru)o A0)rA\J E :! .n iir-C)=L =ar\l-- L.dtrl E a. A:-- 56Ef,+,.-o ;>.= Oe*tn_.F AF,\J v\# uPSE l-r N 0) A-g \r -<.(g* - "x N'\rt \ \s *\N F $\r) {$.. \ u- ro c) L i-) U a \,J / .: K (, Ic'\ ( t\9\s \ihti \TN t! .N d Aflq=+ \ \N- N \\) $N r NN rl /l 1 \'9 =lq t (B ( {x q) frl LT Jt*) TF $-t>\s; - o*A J *s+ { cr- $ NLo<s'l Po\SN $ N , f. !g S,c) t\a\ BN.u \ T\.A,il os $ N $\s v':)* T M SA C] tl I\t'\s F td .g\)E € 'niJ e bl6 c J X d I{\t' :.cr ,$ \.$ \N _b rQ \J * { c{ s {\< $,NS !\ \.:d $ .* $\b\ $saq C--t< s N E (o aa)L - x J.)) ;(*\r Jg Vg \ .t{ t $ $ { il\ \c s ff+ { \^ J} \0f$ * *dV)N r\r \z R5 $s N $ =$s R E NE t" MO qJ z lr- *-A L) ?:E /4 C-+ jr dB K \-} ?<Y!vs.o *J C s- { s,t (xC J\\\) )lsq( a/<Y qs { $sq. $ S>s >- \4< € $ Rl_L -lI N L lrtE6 . u2 *7 3gs E \\ V o)+i6tA- G.\.> a.) s V \ N I d^ CV1:{>\. Sv^ \i = LF {. lr rn n 3fr ( .F {re \r l6 tt\ v ln 0r $ tn \.:} :\* \-] rsu*s I\ \4 Lf,\ a q) LI lrJcg Iat a s-/:JN G< S>zsK\Nl, ),XN"s. S\ I ) $ NN J \ € -\ t l { i {d $ \ \N Nr$r\t s 5 $ J €)- A- A,- L-9 P rf t/I 9e <-9 IfDO rJ \a ( : : 5j \ J<r I I\\J Qi\:s xItrl {5 --J-'-{ q ry s-,I5-9r5" s'5 .P_o/ NN $Ns' t a\J 3 €c+ \J(r, E 2(lJ N41 @-g \ ({as-9-sorx €-t ae(l. q *t\) t ,} ,d ( ,r+,f r E\a):s3g?.\s\-s flv 8J(}\ $|, 5 \ -s s ri. t/ ;( 6p $$ ftd so\s a\) \l \ qs q)s (nv)c)lr- -5Jsg, 8{ J,< s/ L)rJ L)9 -,1 l;u)? I 9c'o:) tf s o€ db-9*€U l-c"-\J --]- c:€ J: \s o* Ir*- 3u;e9,,q e Xq.zas>a rP1o7# d :$ $$ Yss4 $$ $$fr\ -9 .<u- D{ I apD-{ {qt:brd,< b.tr ( v-ss +<]r)r|\.t/K(*5 ds\r {[6{$r>{ fs fl--w E,-;() o ql- <(s*:,d s,/ sd; E B: 5 R.\9\5 Ns \, $ rr {f 3\-},aad J^ d' 7"c'\r f €) tsI(\lz !,t trA,- "?-auJ { < : E UJ f\ \i\\Jv \) \\ \-.J+ \* :-> ng b 1<- I C (- \! auf;G 2z'6 J sxs(sN \Es 6v)v * "tu I !z * q! 1 *.<p g l_ t/4 \) ss. t\tI) 0A l.l J J J eKc\ d,E So'\4 6 ( st -< O J,e d dt \.s\s\J \ x J \-: ."4 -* s ;5"*,. ^> +).- el tJ,F,!FE a! rAvU-AHVYr-EA\H.'I cU q I'j o-'. 6\?Jtro E :+-t-(Jv rr I -= A-(/r(Dc)'= -oE >- E l.al= E €EOA.lt.l C ;.Eal\ |-) tr ;: \a'7O Zr .i rt= jJ =E= Gr =. ' t: (n.= J ; u9i F .95 z\ F (-trJ ? :-E ; Xb 4 w q6Jb!9=FOva -= o,tr--A5t tr o5 il * :'.8* : s>io : 9-9 Y' cs- a >.lE/ f >, !'a o .oi3V'-Lrl rl .! "r $\J Z1 - E'E-- 7U1JJZJ--t r- = >,ON N E:.LJ v i:.tsItv h =7 rrl U 9€ V) o -i-qA = 5.=vJ.= A\!-- a. O ii ie- A G O,:iJ v i .2.-.--/A()Jri-V-- .E *5 >-- *i .=J (! 4 tr rn OAOrA\JEv)a= : '= o)tl- =6,lr- Fd EO. AL!- bo \+r fi+.-o ?.=O+,F( q) -.JAFtY. v-n,P JFN q) A- g I $ \'9 b rn_:_ <] p \\5\= \s$, \-e t\ {) \-.$ N 6' v -o trl f\ \-9 'tn () !r *r) bl a IJs fry $ I { \ { \s,s IIrl I I \ni K "\/sq \It |-ft $ ."}dn \l-l I $ \\ \^ { e) -{ FfrtgssiN $ -.\st Fdh r*r iil.* l r.ft r.J tg c'i5 i. h,M r.i*tH-*.'FtL{\\.Nil - LVt ,sr.J\ $ r<\ r\C-* 6jr- d,(\ v\ fq,{qq Fs{; coO sY fF$ c)bstoi J €e T ;A ttF - g TXftv06 l€ d*r\L TG-, :s" \;q lr\ \$ -\ i "3) ? |Jr), t<LJ t"-,* "h\ \*iw b- __J.:'\r 'A \{ ,l '\p *J sG \sRq( trd rr \)'T= ttt :6 *e,.o .\lJ F,--9-\) g ::F*-.4 eu \v \ J) .t,,l -.t f$ (R 5\r J c_s aa€)L Ys?g ff $+-$t" $r N$h{ 4i.<# * "Av {c) 5 rk \s .) $ \J.,b \o.s\'nt -) Y \ its. lr'Vr E s b N i)3 La -6 c-A .$)a\5' f.\U\.-s $=5 -3s$.{. \\) r \ ?-1 -a I4)tr "J q) z trA,- $s 5Z d \.N \ \ \J .JaJ ,4 \5 f, { F s \ \ * \ \V\)x{T -: -)N ,$ q .--sr "g5 \t -.3 \ .r{ ({.() 4-,s\ J "( "4..) 4 .5 :\ \ \' .H- H-)(-.l-! d(- r- r)v EtAXvYrF .]ftl- r--1o-t,\rt):e - d csa v -l-v i-l O +); ^-v)()()- '= -oEz = _?g: 5 =a trl Q rni af\ |-) tr ;.tn'7OZr .- Ft = ir =nJi cg = c - = rn.= rsr(hb'l tr bO -tr F C'X I (.IrJ - =-e ; xo <l :'_ !2 6\hn', <r=oG.,a .= a-tr rn = F-o. e :-EVt = ="=r : s=ia -- -., OvY' e a >.,tr f >h'A O -oE V '- tr tZl .Y ,r $UJlTY a -- -.=. \r/ I:z '9 G? .A = >\O- = =\c N-HrJ \J J.=-4-..-C) r-l U 9€ret O nJA = -.=v1=-A IAOXI A eq O- :l'v i .2.2 A '='O -r--:F o C.tE arr - 17 5 .=(Lz-- tr ac AC)rA\J E ::A=ii=c)7-A- r=1r\l-IL.ts f-l E a' A--.o bo* fi+r.i{ o >.= (J-=.3Arl.YvH o.,P +rArVf-r N x"$ 7-XTs €) A- ! f m \\ \ \:) N N N\ * ""F Itt \4 \S\A s5 T tn ^(\ g v1 I :J L] {as J-t F-\s- F ND r t :a K ?) $ *) bI a \ $ S Ns' \Nb \ il.N \ \\ \N\ iltr \Exst \S I =>r II q {\ \ )=ss $-T LA '\ IIN jI lituI44,, Jx AJ\ .{ \ €.) / A,T t-'-, t- I \9or A IA tl w/'A $ s $ .J .r"\N' \\.io f\\N d Ia\'\o \>\5(\ 9\ltr C\)\o\.-, \9 \.-{)o f ! slo \C bq 9[ b o \ )\8 N ( f\ bo Dg ,e .-b It \-o l\- b{,4\o L.c.= ()(f <-., Eq cr,ni"(r\U:t+.G \ $s"O \r\I "-gt {V \'h !s T .o I l- v ,9\0*S $-icr\ $ $- \.'} FF - F)a *saqil, J J\JR \.r\, (\, J\nw1'v {-'sv \\s NsY* A/ hJ^\N\ s N ys JUJt t$I+*I '\ \Jo\ *U Nt 4Q = .->l s--s EJ q'scs\n\):5 *st+.>€ G 7o-> :"\ v.c r€!-f'e5l-\6vt (- l)w rS S_ IJ -=? s=qJ:a iSCt N> -S tO .>q C-ruftVn V' ; IYP \ "(G,{ :l 4^ O .F F-s { { tF $ *)\_- ^l. al \, 3 tr*s -l -s<.-E<)-<.\).-L J s iSj-s lts\t' N-.0 ?s\-F\\s\sss 4F, E"-7 aaq) ti -SnfiJxtrr{ t-t \J $f; d{ EY$N\dt + \\SJ\r..iq* \ $s $rt{ $$ s^\ \:-* -.9 0\<a -_9r\\-o,-r € 9.-b.$ al *rsN\D \$ \:t- \$ € -s €+\J oefi Kfts=?$ ilv+4 q,>& C]) = t4OoA -*6 II ,1L J f,s+ $* nlQ $ lr'5< 9Rh{Fs{F$q\F'r{ \)s!cL\ , -*{\^t rt Jfi=$ j.* -;t +Sss .<rTS rf E< a =\sJa, Cb \oa=* JL \cR ":< 3'\t "\v": 0) F z L(A- f q/ {o D )4'-/Xs \C\Hr!\l_ -P \F- \Jss--l \f. \>\j-\) Ss-$ N \ \fss \ \ ! \ I t : v J- Src-l \"'#s6a b.$ \* ( d .7- .? cJ,o I-7t :F J Btfr 7v $fr 5 ry c'=q qi - 'r4 J J -tv\a \ a tl \X +g = J j-\ \J 5 )- tnz {) VIJ U- \5Y- -l)jc t(Ic -E \< ( {s\tr 1 K \' n +).-(- -)' F .l(-^ U E{xvx /Flrl -1't ttl -ri= /O-t)\?:F ; s.v==f r v J- o +16 4'7.=--(,,cic)i-r '= 3Ez = -?ga = 2= Fr] U rrs AI) r ;: (n .7Oz_ =_ 7\-riEr6!=C j tt, -' .6 '- =- qJn ,l 6l tr ^I r-\.-C-cFrt-=ra ; x0 '1 ,'I ag\hn.d:!-=oq.)2 .= a-tr -;^L !0 = d8q cE >rcrn - -'-'.- * : sF I = o-ctr) 6l i ttr f >FA C ,Oj3v'-- ri Izr .Y "'$-7=-E 7 -.=6 \r'-=c= 7a.ctr'rC2--l A = >\O- = =\o N-= l.-) V i: .= \Cvt4-.- = -nrd e 9€ 2 S E=so ::' J '== A\.P- AOXiJ-fil o-= v il .2.- .t rl-r -q=va=- .= FofZ E .AE -'!.au)v1i-- - - C)Ti- p6- r\l-- tr) Eo- 'i.=;--.o bo +_ fi+.ii (.) -._ O -Fr-A-.Fa#,l) vH o,P !rvriN Ii ii ~----- :j i: Ii 'I Ii !t -_._._---._---_ .. _------ ... i ._------------.------ -----------_.- -------+l----.-----.-------I, ii .--------.------ II II I I 1! -----rt-.---!, ._-------------------------------_._-- \ ~, f~. '~.t. ." 05117/2013 Dear Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council, CIT ; ~F if·-.l .G.' LlO.Ci\ CITY cu::mrs OFF ICE 13 MAY I 7 PM 2: 1+ ~ My name is Mikhail Lipatov and I am writing to express my support for the new Maybell Orchard affordable housing development. I work and make a living in the field of early childhood education. My specialties and expertise include teaching kids about nature, science and mathematics. I have lived in Palo Alto for more than six years. I originally came to the San Francisco Bay Area to study in graduate school and decided to stay because of the incredible diversity of human beings that populate this area. In fact, the ethnic, linguistic and socio-cultural diversity of people I meet in Palo Alto is only comparable to that I encountered in Jackson Heights, Queens, New York -the place where my family settled eighteen years ago when we came to the United States. The above-mentioned diversity is the reason I have chosen to live in the San Francisco Bay Area in general and in Palo Alto specifically. As a school teacher, I earn a modest salary. As a first-generation immigrant in this country, I don't have expensive tastes in housing or living. The former means that I need to live in housing that is affordably priced. The latter means that I can benefit from the social and life opportunities that arise from living at such housing. I am very grateful for the opportunity to live in the San Francisco Bay in general and in Palo Alto in particular -the opportunity afforded to me by the affordable housing program in this City. The structure of the affordable housing program in this City has afforded me many opportunities to .',... "l,,~''i' interact with a diverse group of intelligent, interesting human beings. Same goes for the location of the building where I live -Alma Place, which is conveniently located next to Stanford University and downtown Palo Alto, within easy reach of the rest of the Santa Clara Valley by bus, San Francisco by Caltrain and BART, the East and North San Francisco Bay by car and long-range public transport. I greatly appreciate any and all the efforts made by the City of Palo Alto to build and maintain affordable housing for people such as me. For me, it translates into a living and working environment that I am more comfortable with and a community of people who are interesting for me to interact with. Sincerely, WE.~rov,p~ May 16, 2013 To Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council, (.Ii( 0F f7t.LO tA llO, CA CITY CL[id~'S OFFICE Ja HAY 17 PM 2: 49 I am so happy to live in affordable housing on Arastradero Rd. This was a great opportunity for my husband and I to live here. We have lived here for 22 years. We are seniors now, but when we were younger, I worked as a housekeeper and caregiver and my husband was a pool cleaner in Palo Alto. Without affordable housing we sould not afford to continue living here in our retirement. I support the new affordable housing project on Maybell Rd. for seniors. Please support this opportunity for low-income seniors like me. Thank you Sincerely, J 3 M Y J 7 P~I 2: '+ 9 May 16, 2013 Dear Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council Members, I'm a divorced disabled senior and working artist (www.etsy.com/shop/Serenabythesea). Most of my life was spent as a corporate management gal and in professional sales. I have two master's degrees, am a published novelist and hold several professional licenses. I have lived in Palo Alto and environs (Menlo Park, to be specific) for nearly all of my adult life. I feel that Palo Alto is a city like none else on Earth and I cherish my time here. I like it so much that I would hate to live anywhere else in the world. The sheer physical beauty of the town is matched, remarkably so, by its wonderful cultural richness and diversity. I am strongly in favor of any project that would afford other low-income seniors, like myself, the chance to live here. Remember, the targeted population is gentlemen and - women" of a certain age" who are customarily neat, quiet, respectful, educated, considerate people who themselves would enrich any neighborhood in which they'd reside. To give these people a chance, in their elder years, to experience all that the city of Palo Alto has to offer, and in turn to offer them the opportunity, which they would take, to give back to the community their collective wisdom, kindness, experience, strength, and diverse cultural gifts, would be a lovely and wonderful thing. I live in lower-income housing in a delightful location in downtown Palo Alto, and it has been a profound blessing. I live where I can hear and feel the heartbeat of the city, and not a day goes by that, do not offer up a prayer of thanks to my Higher Power. I live within walking distance of a library, the Post Office, many fine shops and restaurants, my medical facility, the Apple Store, my pharmacy, superior grocery stores, my art supply shop, my art club, the police station, entertainment, and just about anything I could possibly want or need. i \ \ ..... " To sum, I wholeheartedly believe that the proposed construction of a facility for lower- income seniors is an excellent idea, on many levels. Remember again, the targeted development of living space for seniors would not only have NO negative impact on its neighbors, but would indeed be beneficial to the community and to the City of Palo Alto. Sincerely Robin Anr:.nx:a- May 16,2013 Dear Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council, 13 MAY I 7 Pt-1 2: 49 I am writing to express my support for the new Maybell Orchard affordable housing development. I am a single mother of a ten year old and a fIrst grade teacher. We are neighbors of the development site. We have been living at Arastradero Park Apartments, a Palo Alto Housing Corporation (P AHC) property, in an affordable housing unit ourselves for the past 9 years. I would never be able to raise my son here if it wasn't for PAHC and the affordable housing it provides. The affordable housing I was fortunate enough to be eligible for, enabled me to go to college and establish my career in education. Affordable housing is an important aspect of nurturing a diverse community. In an area like Palo Alto, where wealth is abundant, there is a danger of exclusivity and the rising cost of housing and gentrifIcation have made it difficult for many different types of people to live here. I grew up in Palo Alto, and appreciate its many benefits. The community involvement that P AHC nurtures at their properties goes above and beyond what most apartment complexes provide their tenants. At my property there are wonderful services and programs for the children, parents and seniors to explore available opportunities and improve their lives. I believe the Maybell Orchard property would be just as successful as other P AHC properties have been at creating and maintaining communities that encourage health, happiness and empowerment. As I understand it, this is to be a senior housing complex that will provide many services within the property for the seniors to benefit from. I believe this will also benefit the seniors living at my property and the larger community in general. I am a Zero Waste Block Leader for the city of Palo Alto and we are hoping to begin composting service at our property in coordination with the new property. This new development has potential to be a model on how to work towards Palo Alto's zero waste goals. I do not believe seniors will create a lot of waste, traffic or impact the surrounding community negatively in any way. I see this project as a win for everyone, and I hope you will also support P AHC in their continued growth and contributions to making Palo Alto a more diverse, healthy city.Best Regards, Nina Haletky, Palo Alto Resident 574 Arastradero Rd. #60 Palo Alto, CA 94306 en y el" f)\l[) !4.lJO, C;\ Dear Planning Commission and City Council, £IT"Y CU:.HI'"S OFFHT I understand that people are against the new Maybell 8r~~~~J cb~~~~6tion and want to let people know my experience of living in affordable housing and what an enormous benefit it is to the community. I am a mom of 4 kids and getting affordable housing like this was a blessing from God for my family. I would not be able to live in Palo Alto without affordable housing. I worked for Palo Alto Community Childcare for 8 years and am now a caregiver. In my experience, this housing was an excellent opportunity for us and these type of programs support low-income workers and it is a huge help for us. There are so many low-income older people with very small social security income, they would not be able to rent a regular apartment in this area, it is impossible. Just think about those seniors, it will be wonderful to have a decent place to live with a lot of support, where they feel safe and have other people the same age who can support each other. I don't think these seniors will bring more traffic to the community. I live with many seniors in my complex and many of them don't drive and use public transportation. Sincerely, Maria Covarrubias 574 Arastradero Rd. #28 el i {~F PA Le ,;\U 0, CA Cfry CLERK 'S OFf ICE 13MAY 17 PH 2: 49 To Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council, I support the construction of the senior homes in Maybell Street. I am a neighbor and am a mother and I walk my son to school everyday. I am not worried about safety of children getting to school because of more housing. I believe that this project will be helpful to other members of the community. ~ Sincerely, ~~ Maria Ibarra 5/16/13 13 MAY 17 PM 2: 49 May 16,2013 Dear Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council, I am writing to express my support for the new Maybell Orchard affordable housing development. My name is Etta Walton and I am a single retired senior at this time. I have lived and worked in Palo Alto for the past 13 years. I was working at the Casa Olga Intermediate Care Center in Palo Alto, and I was struggling to pay rent and raise 2 teenage sons. In the year 2000 I was able to get an apartment with affordable rent. That made the big difference in our lives, and I was able to raise my sons to get a good education here in Palo Alto, and they have since found good jobs and are raising their own families. Without affordable housing, the outcome would have been very negative. Palo Alto is such a convenient place for seniors such as my self and others who now have to live on a fixed income. Without affordable housing it will be impossible to live in Palo Alto. We cannot even afford a small studio, because it exceeds our limited income. The transportation system is good for us to get to our Doctors appointments and to the stores, 'Pld to the libraries here in downtown Palo Alto, as well as South Palo Alto. Many of us are unable to drive due to sight problem and other disabilities. Our children work every day to care for their families. We have to take care of ourselves, so we do appreciate the convenience. We really need our City as well as our caring residents to look out for our behalf. In speaking with other seniors, we all agree, that we feel very safe here in Palo Alto, and would like to continue to live here for the rest of our lives. So please consider our unique and special needs and allow the Maybell Orchard housing development to move forward. Our seniors will be most grateful. Thank you for your kind consideration, /.!ilcw~ Etta Walton r"~" ~c .. ,,;i r 0. r~L;; :LiP C'\ eli Y CLEr K'S OFFI'CE 05/14/2013 Dear Palo Alto Planning Comission and City CounCil, 13 MAY 17 PH 2: 49 I am writing to express my support for the new Maybell Orchard affordable housing development. I have been living in Palo Alto for 12 years. I am a senior, disabled. I live in affordable housing and it's the only possibility for me to rent an apartment. Palo Alto is the one of the most beautiful places in the Bay Area and I love to walk around. I don't drive, but in Palo Alto I can get to many places I need without a car. I can get to many other places by public transportation. In our appartments we can attend some free classes, get information about free or affordable programs for people with low income and get help from staff with this and many other problems. Many seniors, who used to live and (or) to work in Palo Alto, now can't afford to rent here, Palo Alto is too expensive. But it's especially important for this age to stay close to relatives and friends, to keep old connections and customs. Affordable Housing for seniors could give a chance for these people, they deserve it. Seniors are good neighbours, they are calm and not noisy. Compared with other people, seniors don't drive too much, some of them don't drive at all, so they wouldn't increase traffic too much. But, living just one block off EI Camino, they could easy get public transportation. So, it could be a great opportunity for seniors and not a big problem for other Palo Alto residents. Sincerely, Faina Belitskaya, Oak Court Apartments 13 MAY I7 Pt1 2:50 To Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council, I think the new Maybell senior housing is a good idea. I live in the neighborhood. There are many old people who need a place to live and do not have big families. The new complex will be a nice place for older people, it will be a very quiet place and next to the park, which will be nice for them to take a walk. I am a senior and live in the Arastradero Park Apts for more than 8 years. I am so thankful for affordable housing-my apartment is wonderful and I love this area. Sincerely, 5/16/13 ~ i 1',4 n <!7c. 13 r C2/r.-e/}" vu CVn.- ,-:5~,J~5 -OS',/6, 20/0 May 15, 2013 f311AY 17 PH 2: 50 Dear Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council, I am writing in support of the Maybell Orchard affordable housing development for seniors. I am an affordable housing resident myself, 68 years old and it has benefitted me tremendously. I first came to Palo Alto to get my PhD from Stanford, I then worked as a professor and teacher for many years at various schools around the country. When I retired from teaching, I was a single father and returned to Palo Alto for my son to complete his education. My son has now graduated from Harvard with his master's degree. As a retired school teacher, I could not have financially been able to live in Palo Alto. This has allowed my son to get an excellent education and us access to the first-rate resources of this community, including libraries and healthcare. I am now a full-time volunteer worker and I give my services to tutoring, helping elderly as well as continuing my engineering work on research into affordable solar hot water systems. I enjoy the great diversity of people, not only ethnic origin, but also the diversity of the different professions that my neighbors in affordable housing are doing. My neighbors are healthcare workers, maintenance workers, janitorial workers, bakers, waitresses and many are working in support positions at the University. It will be a great loss to the City if a class of people is excluded from living here due to the unaffordability of housing. Sincerely, ~~ Nisar Shaikh 6Y ~ ROJVVl'~ ~~b ~h,. ~ " '>' --... - Iff~ rife .j&YY1~'t1 ft', tJ('1flJ IV) ~1I ert'oI.t'Z:I'JJ.f!y &~(JJlhflfhr-IV! fa)v Jt/fo , /3ofb of &S' ~re IYI f) Ie -I h a}1 . 10 yeBJJ ~tl Ifi-c4 JiYJ e to t!A1-us A-as f~4t( gees () h ~ we re Y) t:J f- atfe to , Jef ut Ivf ttd(1 ufe of· t1JrL c1.Yl J d [ t({ ((er+1 ' /)Ie rue res ( 0( (JnZi 1- t)flK (!rJurt-a~h, tk 1ff£fl'a t;-e fJJJ-. ~m ~f ~ rfy (!oul1~i/ fa YYifLU fI(~fC( agf€a-; Mt(£r'~J d€vefopb'Jf'Wr for £eYlt'o!?, ']0-re rtf l 'tI! reJl1lflI apari-m fYlH ('.s C'ffre PrJ c? 4 ~'I-r e Y),~ eve {1 }1 rI fI 0 Y1 -a/fc9 rd (), Ii for t,orn€ "SQh"orff20fP<,\ /;u} we wan-!- -to fA Iff-/}I\ tie rerldel1f(v; f)f ow U«i ttl>} ~Aildrefl CVM--O do hot h~t'-h'm~ ~r d9J'fo/ LlSL{cd http U$. Jill Our {lr~(+TY1 ~~ t-J w-e-. ~()A/Q eiJef'!tiu'l1~ [har YYl iJJj ~ l Ii (' . /) 5 {V1 (le f(Jt1of.et1~ . [114 'IrI,}) I: " ' ~-tJ //1 .' ,. I • ,-' • e (f-' . 'C q({ (('--if WI' t lV,s I 0 rs fo!' r II M tl 'v-tOI~(.+.O jCtrag'.e O,tev"Gf) ~o!YJf()rfa((Je, /ZJ'5 i &eYl[ ~c.(J it.es II-a/f IS a /w'??ufJ r(w.dy +0 herp Us; SO)jIJ(!Jc' »IU we }2fetJ/ 6-fl'e cp b:/ oJviu'i fLe+ Je.fLi. ~;ffPl!) Uf( rJtN:/ fA leal hf/t fo~'11 ouf ,f,OME' t1fFI(c(~+t'on> C 1'~i~/wdIIAJ som(~ o<t;fvrJatfe r'-(JJ(/)W1~) aM4 ~-o ot1· .]~L . Gf&}f, ~(/n~J,. r(!iu!~~ [\V1fvr~(}~J~VJ {A c; 111{JLif~ 1e Vt.t[ [Dr sef ~ 0 m f? 11I!.p7 il1l){l ~ -I [ D vi &' 11 -H~~ l~ a roD I (U1 d t~e k,,,: l! tV (]ttLoLd-Qu.o eo~mu"d+;f ei~/ te(i.D~ aeolA t fl~(d& f& rro&('~.Wi; I m~d't.(d all fO { ~1 {"m C 11 ? r-e \!e J.1 H r free (' I ~ >.C: f'.t / ; l-lj? ~ C r.e e VI {/'1 j 5 e +-L' f tOME' t}1 0 hth s. ~(J \,D.e h 0--C( ~ 0 j Q c I f1 c; S Q 1 {J)1 J e 11 JO # e ~ . 1.(.. AI . } J ill I' /} III .LO /)jf) rfVJ {( to ur tJJ e. 00 'lDt flnV' T II e.e. QlcaJ e ( /L'i i' VI J t o Y,)'1Wl ~1 L1 i f-1f r i (men r -2 - ..... re~tQc.(im(2J1t famf> 011 ~er'e/t1f_{)tlr re f! e ~ ts a f.e {if 1-:fr'L: 01 tH ,~ 0 fI7 a~ r 62.1'5 t ~-e<" 0 1111 C1 (L! [1'1 f, f(iJ! !-t 00 hd r \, uS to ~(Jve arwmeJ1tJ ;1;) tjbod \\, ~ 0 Y/ d r' h 0 til a J1 d ~ I e a JI) ; i1 II'd (l {j /1 01 \'" 00.. l--~t'J.e . (;0 I /11 II 0 L{!, r'VlJ iii ~ · our ~f/Y)/tJ1/) I [tlforda1t.e t's tV1 ar:s e f /IA our fO/1W}t(~\" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I May 8,2013 13 MA Y I 7 PM 2: 50 Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to express my support for the new Maybell Orchard affordable housing property. We need more affordable housing in Palo Alto! I have been a recipient of affordable housing and it has had a tremendous impact on my life. I am 60 years old and physically disabled. When I was younger I worked as a teacher's aide in the Palo Alto School district. I also spent many years as a caregiver for the elderly. Now that I am older and my health has been bad, I could not survive in Palo Alto without affordable housing. I do not drive, J use public transportation and walk when my health allows me to. I know there are many other such seniors in the community like me, who cannot continue to live in this community, the community in which they have worked and lived, without low-income housing. Please support this project so that more people can have a safe, affordable place to live. Thank you. Sincerely, May 16,2013 To Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council, r '-: 'f ~~ i-Il~ L b 4 Lr :J . C A 'Clry CLEf{' '5 OFfiCE \3 MA~ 17 PF' 2: 50 I am in support of the Maybell Orchard housing development. I feel it is in the best interest of our seniors that we provide more affordable housing. I am a parent who lives in the Maybell! Arastradero Rd. neighborhood. My children attend Terman and Gunn. I do not think this new building is a bad idea or will create traffic congestion. I am not concerned about my children's safety going to school because of this new housing development. Currently I do not see much traffic coming out of the Arastradero Park Apts complex so I don't see a problem with increased traffic with an additional housing complex in the neighborhood. Sincerely, ~ Dear City Council and Planning Commission, l' \ 'r, "F ::.:... \ < ;\ L 1 O. CPo C\\''( -'CL'E\~K'S -OfF ICE 13'MA~ \ 1 Pt~ 2:50 I want to let you know that I support the new housing complex for seniors on Maybell St. I have lived at 574 Arastradero Rd for 33 years. I am a senior and I worked as a housekeeper for several families in Palo Alto and Menlo Park for 30 years. I could not afford to live in Palo Alto without affordable housing. I would like other seniors like me to have the opportunity to live where they have worked for many years as well. It is a clean, quiet, friendly neighborhood and I very happy to live here. More senior housing is good because senior people need somebody to help them. It is a good idea to build more apartments for seniors. Thank you, ~~ Argenti na Pen na nt May 16,2013 13 M~~ 11 PM 2d50 To Palo Alto City Council and Planning Commission, I am a resident of the Arastradero Park Apartments and I am totally in support of the Palo Alto Housing Corporp-tion building more senior housing on Maybell St. I am a Community Health Educator and my husband is a landscaper. We have 3 children that attend local schools. More affordable housing is a good idea for the community and for the many seniors who need it. So many Palo Alto seniors have to move out of the area far away from family and friends when they retire because of the high cost of living here. Sincerely, (}/{#rutt~ Carla Paniagua i • H 0 no r Ovb Ie, L i hi . (ou-n c (( 0..1) J P l\-t?TY~r' ;\?:) .: LJll.CA P lo...,nnl r)3 Co fY)1'Yli S S JOn. (,11 Y CU~d\'S Or-F le E . I 0 13 "A Y 4J-h ~ 2: SO We live.. C\..+ 5"14 ArCts+raoe-.-ro noC(~r) Q Uff"M(J\f5 <AdjCL c.en+ ~'o -f-he., fro posed meAY be. II p _I <:"e.~$)r I-Ious tho ProJec.{" S I{-e., 0..+ fYlCA..'.ibe.1/ Ho(Y)es o..lIq .J . .J . cl ' I (And C \ efYIo D. ven u€.S. \...\. (A.\I \n5 \ Ive her-(..I h +-he.. I °0-1 '\-<-o...()<A..,\ -\-' {Y)en-\S ) 0.. P CA.1 0 fA \ + 0 f.,ru 51-TO. o..e.. ro'" , \-, . f'orporQ-hon (PAHC) low \nc.o1Y\-e.. proper+"-l \-\ ou 5 I n3 \.., I ) BI'nc~ \'1'"14/ \A)e., w\"Iole.heo.J,-te.dly SL.Lppor-t +-he deve\optvle..n+ of· -\-his proper+'( o..-t-(r\Qybel.! o.rld Clemo ~S · i·n+e.hded '0,/ ..\-he. rAH C -t-o pr~v Ide.. Q~~ordQ6le. housin3 fbI" sen'lors Qhd. (5 sIngle.., ~O, . .rhIJy hoMes , l-lo...vln9 be.en C\.ble +0 \\Ve 'In o..n C\.~~o('Ja.ble ~Ou.s(n~ ($f))r\ex ('n +he.. C'(+y h~.s 6een 0-.. +re. rne.ndous 61e..5S in<:j ~o r-0 l-Lf' f(A ~ Ii Y C\.ncl 'lS dQdy a..pprecl(;{.f-e.d gre4--H 'f ' the PAt-( C. c:>b{o..,ined own.e..rsh/p & ~he. J\.r-qsf('a.du--o fo.....rl-<. O-p()...r~~ehts in 19 L15'. ; '1 order +0 lY)a.ln+~/n +he 1010 IncoMe:. ?+-a+G1S of ,+-he. prc>per+y .r:or~ bLLr 'rno.-n'l -tQtr)llles o..tJe/ SenI<DC'S who II've he.re., T 'he PAl-Ie.. 'IS to be. cbfY)('()ended) oS u.ppo r-r'e.d o..ncl. honore.d ~of' +-he ...\=t'ne/ dedlcQte.cL (And hCl..rd \.uvrk +-hq-f -\--hey dod 0:. tI Y + D pro viol e. , h l3 h '1..lA ct I i +y ex. f -+' c r d. a. b Ie. ~ou51 h<j +-0 ,f)) o..n '/ pe 0 pte) +-~tn dies) c.h'd d re Tl o..nd. Se.hlor'si whtch ~nvolves dl-f'+,'cu 1+ o..nd +e.d.io us 'Ieclx-li r-e c.e-r-\-l f \~+ I'D n.s in 0 rde r +0 Secu..r e. n.e.ceSSCl.-r,)l +~ede...rC\.1 9overnmefl.+ ~LA..nd.in3 ~o(' ~he"lf" ~rope-.r--h€s . The: PA J-{C ~cts 0,)50 OVer mGt-hy yeOvrs Se.c.u-r-e.c( ~u.nclln.9 --1-0 COMpte.te.ly ... ; t'e.1I C\lCL+e ) LLpc1a.Je } a..nd r'e.m odel +he. e..n+tf'e. Ara,s+rCAdero Po...r k CA..PQ('t m e..l1t s <?J)~ every. O-.fa...r+h1e.rr+ u.n'i+. e, u. -i--+he. hJ I S5 i c n o~ p .r~D \l \ d, I nj 9., Ltcti (+y , Clf,f-D r d G\. bl e hOUS'W1 9 . -t'O 1 () w \ nCDme Pe-rSD (\$) -fCr..1Y) ({ ie'S I SenIDr'S QncL +he. ([Isa"bl-e:.d.. of: Po..lo A\~~['o 'IS hO-t +-·he. on iy ~oCl.1 o{--\-he, p ~ He, ,hey. CLre C-Qrn p,le+e.(y dedjecc-\--ecL +0 prD\I(olln~ Cl\. ca..P'(\3 c.om!"Y\unl+Y Df SLt t'Por--t c..nd S6C'ICl( Serv t'C<2.s -for ecx..c.h Qnc.{ every ("eS\den.-+ cA' '11'$ tnQh,/ Qnd VCLr\'ed prore-r+tes, ,he)' b~ll+-o..nd deciJcQ-t-e.cL a.. c.ornY); u.n 1+'1 Cel)+~r 0.+ A Y"o.s+ra..de. ro PO-I k CLpo--r+ Me..rtts ind-o 10, lrJ !+h +he -follo w 'I()3 d,~ni+IL('I'e.S in ~-H-e.ry;jQnce 1l<.:,ct ""peCLk.; 1')3 on behaJ~ of .}he PA He v IS 101'1 --mr lo\.oJ t (leo me... ~ou.si().9 Qnd "-c...Oh')/'Yll.l~i+Y b+ Sl..A.ppo~t Se.rv\ce.s', \'Y)(;L..r \ei\e Prende.0 gCtS-1-I +'ol'm-e..-r tD h9+(rY)e .. oL~ rec+b(" o~ +he. P A He. L'rl.. k ni S's ) -former Sa.n+cz.. c..10-1~ (.Ol.Ln+y I , S 0...f!e-rV)Sb(' J G....-nd CL represehta.+1 v~ of Joe S', ~t-+IQI1 ) s+o.+e. I\ssernbl Yl"rtoJl. "Ih'l$ co MfYllA...~ 1+1 of s u.ppo ~ , Se.rvl'c.e--s is prov',ded 6'1 Sj)< dedl'cD-feeL Res>tJe..n:+ 5'erv(loes S+Ct~~ ~e.,ty)b...rs who P rO~td.e. Pf"'0 9 rCcmS, rSe-s C l. . . ' / . cou.--J ctsses) +k+orln:3 i sc...hoICLT'sh1p5, o€du...~+IC:Jhcx..1 O-ncA eot [e.oe s· + I r • -.J L-Vp po r . I o...nQA-'Mo.f'ty "l'lAJI prog rQrn S -fo +h chi \cl-,e n. 0.9 P A He -h n 'd '.. r e. . . I e I"\es \ e..n.+ Serv t Ce.s S+Cl+.f' QJso rrc>v ld-e 'fYlD--ny pre> 3f'a.rns, cJ S S I , C( S e. O-..n a 3. l-LfPo r+ cf 0 r p o..-re n.+ ~) D... cl t..t ( +-S CLh d s e.h (0 r S 0+ PA M C ~ 'Th e:- PA k\C. Resident SerVICeS Prov'lcle.. each or . " . .1 . : i_ -r us res ICienis \/',)1 +n Q. r e.. 9 lA l Clr lie IN S Ie + + e. r .' r ' r· h d 1 (1, Or-hit hg 0, -t' e. t"Jon er-ru.. \ o..hd hLAmer-DUB DI\<joing p CA.r\d +,ec.h no I 0 ~ \./ QCC e SS cUid +. " rOl9 rC\.i"'t!S ) Co tnp ~+er 7 rQr 1\\ (\~ ) C D.S Se.S h J ) e.. p ) Of> f0t'-h-;"~ltte..S ) serVlc.eS I \e~+v--res O-lIcL h!u ~h more. .~ \\-\15 s-ro.t:f of people reC\..\I,,/ reecch OU+ f-o VlS j he.lp uS i ~re +-hel'e -9or us i Q.,hd. re.~ [~y cQr'e Qbou.-r u ~. ::t:n o..n Qrea.. whe..re +he need -0a.r ·exce..ec1s -l-he. s u. p P 1 'I ~ 0 I' Gl f-Fa r d ct b Ie. h <:) U S I it 3) 'I f r tno.... y -1-t"Yl ,( S e !-f w h CA..' + +-h e .p A H C h. as dOh e 'r' e. ~ eo.: \ 1 ), , , , , ) Qhci. c..oh+lhueS --t-o Jo) for 1+5 residents, IS +0 be c.cm mende.6) su.ppor+ed o.hd hOhored.. t-h re ~~rds 1-D +he I'S Sl,{ e ok' \h c.reqsed. -iTC{+..f=; c ) ~rC\.s-\-To..de..rro ~ Q,('~. he{ S (, C:, o...PO,_f'+ me.n+ s) h~ uS l'nS ~O-~\tle.S \j-J\+-h chdcLre.n. of CIvil a.3 es Rhd. SehlorS; w~ \.o-.ve \ (ved here .for. 3Ll ~eQrs) o..nd +·he +'ra++f'C ~ehero..+eJ here. 'IS '\rlS'\gh"l-tl'c.c\.h+. We c-t..11 C.bMe, Qnd '30 Q+ ol,-f-0e.'en.-t -tlirJes Io..nd. +-he. +ro.-f,f;c. +(OIAJ ~n o,\')c1 0 u-t .of 0 u...r Co I'h P le'>( 'lS ver"{ qI.-L-', e+ j rnoJ.e:.s-t / hDi-n 0+ l c,e cL) (And wet{ +-0 Ie-r a. + e. d by -l-he, -eh -{-Ir e, S,u.rroLl0dtng he\'<jh6orhoOclj C\S 'If has been s(nce, ...\-ht5 C\~OvI-hY\eh.+ c.o iY") p te)Z Qo...rne \n+o e'l-l S+Gh. c. e: In 1 : 1 1-\. Th~ ~ rD. p 0 S e. d s e.(l.\ 0 rho LA Sin 3 ~ r 0 J e C -+ -1-0 be. '0 \.)..,d+ , 'In, -t'hlS he'5hbor hODcL +00 W'rll s.how bnly CLn \YlS\~h\,flcC"-.r-r+ I tY'\od.ex-Ov+e-; hO/"'fY)o.".l rOLt+ln-e i-rC\..(2-9; L ~ \O~ I poi rt+ ins b l.{-t t-ho.-1-s,e. ~ i 0 r C 1,·h'2-e.n.s de h b+ 0 w rt 'N)a.,'n"l tnO+DI' vehl cJes . InCA.X,",,! 'Se.h\ ors no I aha I· " Je.r Clrlve) C\..\'"\~ hlOS{ o..re hot \je:r'! o..C.+IVe. CJ....t-\d MOb' { h' , 'd ( e) e.nce... -the. ,I v,;l ({ hot be I h. Qn ou.+' of 0... CCLr + (I .' 7 , 0 b -rreq, ue.h.+ Iy. f\-\ t\' a.S+ rGtcle..r-o P O.r k I we. heAVe 'rY\oJ),/ Seh l ors r€ S'lcllng . \ DtS J--he'l hcx..ve. o..\VJ~'j5 bee-n. And. whea,,+ I 'ne re ) S c.o 1Y\t'Y10 rz , .rl. , . \.-J'I1-h \-\115 ~YDLc.p '1.5 +~e. +ro..ns pcr+aA-('O n q SOl; s-ta.hC!€.. k-he. y r'e c e 'I:' e. -frDrY) 0,-,+ rec..cl, c..r>d AVe h 'I d«s Se..n ior ve, hIe les, + a. X is a.nd r Ltb (i c bL(ses, r. Se.e. +hese se.nlDrs wo...(K'U)j tr.",-i'lly J ho+ cLrlvl'n'j. ~ I') ""Y D P"I h io n. ) +1,'1$ Se ~ Ie,,... h Ol.\. sin <] pro J e.c+ \,J'iI! blend 'In well Wlt!--t i-hiS nelgl,borhood, whl~h 1"1> cI u.des -to.. \ I 0.. P o, .. r+ me ni-s -+he I "-..., P 1"'20. Q + +he QOr'ne..r ~ A~s+ra.oI€.-ro o..nc1. <: lenoo I A ro.s+ro..duo P.oD.d o..!'C>..r .. hY\e.rr+s of' wh,cl, +here a..re Sev"-"'a...1 61'] ..\-hIS s-\-ree+, 0..,,0/ Q P()....rJ.;) J\.AQn<>.. t)r1ones o..c.roso; l-he. S+r-e-e+ I o..."d +he. +'I're S+R+\::' rt on c.( e..""o , \--\01') () r a. 6 Ie. ~ "" .Ioe;rs of +he, c'i+Y c.bl.Ln<i rI "-,,0( +he ~I.o..n n',,", 3 Co,,", rn ISS I 0 Y1., 1.. bel le v€.. P A t-I C does "'-I 0+ ~ 3cod +0 heip people. Ple.qse QUOIN, +helY\-to CO'1+,hU€.. ifl who.+ +he./ do bes+) serv(1l9 +he. ned'f he. re. ill P Qlo Al+o, --rh"'hi<, You. 0..nd gl'nce..re..i y Q wr \(L (dc....'-l9 hl-<..\') Ovn d. t .. cLl')QJ ,.,., 0-1-he..r ) A 10.. J n, 0 13 HAY 17 PI 2: 50 Dear City Council and Planning Commission, I live at 574 Arastradero Road and I support the new proposed senior housing development on Maybell St. I am a mom and my kids go to Juana Briones. Elderly people need their own space and more affordable housing. I work at Walgreens and couldn't afford to live in Palo Alto without affordable housing. Many people who worked in Palo Alto for years in jobs like me, can't live here. There are many seniors who need this housing and we cannot forget them. Someday we will all be old and we don't know if we will be poor or rich at that time. We need to give a chance to the older people who don't have a lot of money. I don't think this development will cause more traffic or any problems in the community. Seniors are quiet and good neighbors. I would be very happy to have this complex as neighbors to me. We need it so much. Maria Alvarez ,,/ it )It jlL Dear City Council and Planning Commission, e!f ( vF :'t\L~ ,·\Lf O, eA efTY CLlt~K 'S OFF ICE 13 HAY 17 PI4 2: 50 I am a senior and I live at 574 Arastradero Road and I support the Maybell senior housing development which will be next to my apartment building. I know how difficult it is to live without secure housing. When I moved to affordable housing it gave me a great sense of ~ecurity. I felt so good, happy, and had no depression. My life changed and I think other people deserve the same treatment. Old people who work all their life need it. In their last years of life they need a happy space for living. I hope the City of Palo Alto makes the right decision. My dear neighbors, please don't be selfish, maybe someday you will need this apartment. Sincerely, /L1,~ of-/G~ /3 Michael Leytes ,'i"r { L';i= t')!;.! .. ,: ,"',LT1 i CA l,_ t r -1 ' I I ~:;". 'k,.' • 'f' ,-_ Dear Palo Alto City Council and Planning Commissw,b~ CLERh'S OFFICE I am so lucky to live in affordable housing in Palo AI~~Art Qaf~ ite~~ opportunity for me and my family to live here. My husband is a delivery driver for Coca-cola and delivers to the Palo Alto area. We live on Arastradero Rd. with my two children. When I moved in and opened the door I thought IIthis is incredible". That was 8 years ago and I have been blessed ever since to live in this great community. I support the new Maybell Orchard affordable housing development, which is right next door to my apartment building. I think more people need the same opportunity that I have. Not all people have good jobs or good education. Older people need this help even more than younger people. Please support this wonderful opportunity for loW-income seniors. Sincerely, '1./ ~. r:d Padilla 574 Arastradero Rd. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Maryanne Welton <mare@robquigley.com> Sent:Friday, May 17, 2013 2:55 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:567-595 Maybell Avenue (12PLN-00453) The Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s mission is to provide affordable housing in our community. It is not an easy task to acquire land and develop it at a density that makes affordable housing feasible in Palo Alto. The inevitable opposition from neighbors (who always say they aren’t opposed to affordable housing, just this project in their neighborhood) and the difficulty stitching together a patchwork quilt of funding sources combine to make the task of developing new low-income housing nearly impossible. I understand that neighbors are upset about potential increases to traffic and school impacts. I can sympathize with their wish to turn the former orchard into an extension of Briones Park, a dream for which there is no funding. They don’t take into account that many of their homes were most likely orchards at one time and that the development of their neighborhood changed traffic and school populations. Palo Alto is a continually evolving city and has been over many decades. The PC process, General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Housing Element are tools that make a project like this possible. If PAHC doesn’t develop this property, a for-profit developer will. Personally, I prefer that economic and social diversity are allowed to fit in appropriate locations in my neighborhood. The proposed project is adjacent to existing multi-family housing, which makes the site ideal for this type of development. I support this project and encourage you to sift through the noise of opposition to approve it. Maryanne Welton 660 Kendall Avenue Palo Alto, CA 1 Ellner, Robin From:Patrick Muffler <patrickmuffler@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:36 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim Subject:Maybell/Clemo rezoning as part of the Housing Element Council Members, Planning Commission Members, and City Staff: I wish to add my objections to the proposal to rezone 567–595 Maybell (at the corner of Maybell and Clemo) to allow high‐density residential development. I choose not waste your time and mine by reiterating the many reasons the City of Palo should avoid this action; many others have stated these reasons more eloquently and effectively than I can. Bottom line is that you should listen to the affected citizens of Palo Alto. We are the ones who live here and pay taxes that support the City. I particularly object to the strategy that the City Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council have used to ram this development through without due process or involvement of the affected community. It would be an ethical travesty were the City Council to approve the Housing Element that includes the Maybell/Clemo rezoning. If approved, I suspect that the City of Palo Alto is setting itself up for appropriate and protracted litigation from a very embittered community. Please include my objections in the formal records for the Maybell/Clemo property and the Housing Element. Patrick Muffler 961 Ilima Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 650‐493‐6439 patrickmuffler@pacbell.net 1 Ellner, Robin From:Mark Solloway <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:50 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Inna Kaplan, Linda Fresco… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 140 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. This rezoning would significantly and negatively impact several neighborhoods - Green Acres, Barron Park, Charleston Meadows, and Palo Alto Orchards, in terms of traffic, safety, school access, quality of life, and aesthetics of the neighborhood. The most serious concern is bike and pedestrian safety as Maybell is a small road that is the main thoroughfare for hundreds of students attending Juana Briones Elementary School, Juana Briones Occupationally Handicapped Center, Juana Briones Kids Club, Terman Middle School, Gunn High School, and Barron Park Elementary School, in addition to those who regularly use Juana Briones Park for field-trip and after-school activities. Given the central and primary access to five schools in this area, Maybell has been designated a "Safe to School Route" - and the Palo Alto School District and the City of Palo consistently urge parents and families to have our children bike or walk to school. And yet, even though this is a designated "Safet to School Route" - it is already way over safe traffic capacity limits. Every day, parents and residents witness dangerous driving and school kids in near-miss situations. There are no sidewalks, no curbs, and no bike paths on Maybell Avenue, and bikes, pedestrians, strollers, and motorists all share the same road. Maybell is already a choke-hold, there are no other ingress points directly into this neighborhood. Arastradero has been re-striped and narrowed, driving traffic onto Maybell. The traffic overflows to Amarantha and Georgia, which also have no sidewalks, curbs, or bike paths. Young children on bikes and walking are often forced to weave between parked cars - just to get to school. I have personally seen cars backing up or pulling out, almost hitting young children on their bikes that they can't see. How staggeringly unreasonable and irresponsible it would be for the City to ignore the warnings, information, and pleas from parents and residents. If anything were to happen to a child due to a known traffic safety issue, the fault would squarely be theirs. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Putting up 75 new housing units would increase known traffic dangers, and also essentially "trap" residents and emergency/disaster vehicles by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino and plenty of reasonable development potential throughout the city There are dozens of empty, unleased-for-years buildings in commercial and high-density zoned areas already that are wasteland, and yet the City would consider seriously putting children's lives at risk by building high-density in a residential neighborhood that feeds into five schools. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. 2 Sincerely, 136. Inna Kaplan Palo Alto, California 137. Linda Fresco Palo Alto, California 138. Craig Comitet Palo Alto, California 139. Renee Alloy Palo Alto, California 140. Mark Solloway Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Marlene Prendergast <mhp560@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:12 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Palo Alto Housing Project at Maybell and Clemo Attachments:MaybellClemotoPlanningCommission.docx; ATT00001.htm Please find attached letter of support for the above-mentioned application at the next Planning Commission meeting. Thank you. Marlene Prendergast mhp560@gmail.com 650-327-8744 Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Palo Alto Housing Corporation Housing Application Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to urge you to approve the application of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) to construct affordable housing at Maybell and Clemo Avenues. The planned project is appropriate for the site, will provide affordable housing for seniors with low, very low and extremely low‐income levels, and is needed in that part of town. PAHC has hoped to acquire this property for many years, as it is adjacent to an exiting PAHC property, Arastradero Park Apartments. The addition of market‐ rate housing is essential to provide development costs for the senior component. I was the Executive Director of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation between the years of 1992 to 2008. During that time we proposed and built a number of housing projects for low‐income members of the community. We also purchased and renovated other properties for the same population. In every case, the neighborhood objected. In every case, the neighborhood made many attempts to stop the projects based on traffic, density, access, crime, parking, and a desire to leave a neighborhood “the way it was,” always proclaiming that it wasn’t the potential population that was at issue. In every case, the PAHC projects, when completed, were attractive, improved a neighborhood, did not create traffic problems, provided parking beyond their needs, and were less dense that what a market rate developer would have created. In every case, the public officials who approved these projects were pleased with the results and the neighborhoods experienced no negative results. And life went on just fine. 2 Since 1970, PAHC has developed affordable housing in our community. Many properties are scattered in all parts of town. Please refer to www.paloaltohousingcorp.org for history, photographs, and descriptions of the many beautiful, well built, and well‐managed affordable communities. The Maybell development is needed in this part of town and will, as with all others, be a positive contribution to Palo Alto. Please get on with it so that the urgent financial application deadlines can be completed. . Sincerely, Signed and in mail Marlene H. Prendergast Former Executive Director‐Palo Alto Housing Corporation 560 Chaucer Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Ellner, Robin From:Marianne McKissock <mck333@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:06 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Survey Results for Maybell/Clemo Rezoning Attachments:Rezoning Survey Resulta.pdf DO NOT PASS THE REZONING OF 567-595 MAYBELL AVE [12PLN-00453] The survey on the Maybell/Clemo rezoning issue was sent to residents of Greenacres and Barron Park. There were 150 responses. 96% favored NOT rezoning the area to permit high density housing. About 2/3 of the responses were from the Greenacres neighborhood. About ½ of the responses favor open space/park/playing fields but there is significant support of housing meeting the current zoning level – either at or below market rate. The comments written in this survey are consistent with the opinions expressed in the hundreds of responses to local newspaper articles. The concern is based on traffic/safety of bicyclers/pedestrians. Narrow Maybell is the major route for school traffic to 4 schools and very busy Briones Park which is adjacent to the proposed plan. The only way to leave the neighborhood from Maybell (other that El Caminio) is through the residential streets of Greenacres. Attached is the complete survey showing the actual wording and all unedited comments. This can also be viewed at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0AzCBsU9_VfcmlyZUVNOS1hdzA/edit?usp=sharing Submitted by: Marianne McKissock Donald Drive Palo Alto The survey on the Maybell/Clemo rezoning issue was sent to residents of Greenacres and Barron Park. There were 150 responses. 96% favored NOT rezoning the area to permit high density housing. About 2/3 of the responses were from the Greenacres neighborhood. About ½ of the responses favor open space/park/playing fields but there is significant support of housing meeting the current zoning level – either at or below market rate. The comments written in this survey are consistent with the opinions expressed in the hundreds of responses to local newspaper articles. The concern is based on traffic/safety of bicyclers/pedestrians. Narrow Maybell is the major route for school traffic to 4 schools and very busy Briones Park which is adjacent to the proposed plan. The only way to leave the neighborhood from Maybell (other that El Caminio) is through the residential streets of Greenacres. The following is the complete survey showing the actual wording and all unedited comments. Submitted by: Marianne McKissock Donald Drive Palo Alto 1. Should the zoning be changed from low Density to high density at the Maybel/llClemo site? No change from the current zoning. 96% Change current zoning to permit high density/low income housing. 4% Comments: no. rezoning for high-density in this area will impact traffic, safety, parking, and neighborhood quality. I see the impact on Maybell now and the near misses with bicycles. I also see impact to parking for those who want to enjoy Juana Briones Park. 5/8/2013 7:42 AM Traffic, bicycle/pedestrian safety already very bad on Maybell, 4 neighborhood schools and adjacent children's play park 5/8/2013 7:33 AM Absolutely too dangerous and crowded for high density housing in this residential school neighborhood. This corridor affects hundreds at 4 schools (Bowman, Terman, Briones, and Gunn) and all the commuters and bus routes along Arastradero. This spot re-zoning was poorly planned and researched. Due diligence was not done. The stake holders were not consulted. Traffic studies ignored school traffic. This precedent of our city stewards over-reaching their authority is dangerous and irresponsible. This is how frankenstein-like cities develop-- with short term logic and little long term, cross- generational foresight. 5/8/2013 4:59 AM This is an extremely highly used travel corridor for children traveling to grammar, middle and high school. They specially reroute off of 'Arastradero Highway'. SECONDLY, this is a very popular park full of small children that may run out into the road from the 'tots' play area. The close street is perfect for creating a safe parking/transition to park area. This is a crazy idea to change to high density at this site. 5/8/2013 1:45 AM Even in the day time, not in the morning, the traffic is always bad. Rezoning will add more traffic to the current horrible traffic. It is not safe for the bikers, especially the kids in the morning. 5/7/2013 5:15 PM Changing the zoning to accommodate the proposed plan is a disservice to the current residents of the area, and also to the potential new residents. The community is thriving in the existing zoning, and the proposed zoning would disrupt the balance that allows it to thrive. Let's find another way--a way that allows us to achieve the goals of 1) the existing residents, 2) those with needs for low-income housing in Palo Alto, and 3) the current owners of the property in question. 4/28/2013 5:45 PM Too much traffic (cars, bikes, people) already on their way to school in morning and in the afternoon on Maybell. No high density housing!!! 4/26/2013 8:04 AM It's too crowded on the South side as it is - no more squeezing in!!!!!!! 4/25/2013 11:24 PM I fail to understand why we keep allowing zoning variances that damage Baron Park / Green Acres. It is truly terrible. Traffic has become increasingly worse and the schools have suffered. The effect has been dramatic over the last five years or so. This really has to stop. Not fair to damage our neighborhood on an ongoing basis. 4/24/2013 6:35 PM Already too much high density housing in our area. Hyatt Rickeys and across the street, former bowling alley, alma plaza, etc. Must STOP!!!! 4/24/2013 5:29 PM Changing the zoning will have a major negative impact on the neighborhood. 4/23/2013 10:41 PM That area is already crowded and dangerous for small children. Maybel is too narrow to support anymore traffic especially near the park and school area. 4/23/2013 9:09 PM Too many housing units in area and too , too much traffic at school times especially-no services nearby with easy access to non drivers 4/23/2013 8:00 PM I am not opposed to the low income housing component. It's the high density part that is problematic. 4/23/2013 3:16 PM We already have traffic issues in this area, especially during the time when kids are walking and biking to school. More people, more cars, will make it significantly less safe for our kids. 4/23/2013 2:43 PM When the population grows people need live somewhere, it’s immoral to assume that “we can keep our own” while other people will be pushed to Texas or Florida. I know many elder people that lived in Palo Alto for many years and once retired had to leave their community to “exile” in FL, is that more just them 50 more cars on Maybel? 4/23/2013 2:32 PM Adding more traffic in an area that is already impacted by four major schools and a main artery (divided between Maybell and Arastradero) for 280 and LAH to drive in to Palo Alto is completely unfair to the neighborhood community. Arastradero has been turned into mess both traffic wise and appearance. Maybell as been impacted tremendously with delays on Arastradero. For one comparison, please try and find another street in Palo Alto that needed stop signs put in the middle of the street (Maybell) and then had them continually plowed over by cars cutting off the delays on Arastradero by turning on Columbe and zipping right or left (without stopping) onto Maybell only to hit the stop signs. Please remember that this is a 25mph zone in front of an elementary school. I have lived on Maybell for 25 years and anyone who says that there has been no impact on Maybell is completely wrong. 4/23/2013 1:56 PM Maybell Ave. and Arastradero are both narrow streets, please do not make the rush hour traffic jams even worse and ruin our neighborhood!!! 4/22/2013 11:37 PM Rezoning is not necessary and would be detrimental to the neighborhood. The original zoning is correct. It is my understanding that any rezoning would be illegal, and would result in costly attorney fees to fight a neighborhood lawsuit.. Traffic is already very heavy in this area, and additional housing will only make a bad situation worse, putting local children at risk. This project is out character for the neighborhood, Ill advised, unnecessary, unwanted by the locals. 4/22/2013 1:58 PM already too much traffic in the area. 4/22/2013 1:57 PM Maybell is not a large street and cannot accommodate the additional traffic that high density housing would add to the street. 4/22/2013 1:49 PM Proposed change will generate too much traffic on an already-crowded Maybell. 4/22/2013 12:28 AM We have a lovely safe neighborhood in Barron Park. With no sidewalks & few streetlights, increasing the density will make it unsafe as well as unpleasant. 4/22/2013 11:10 AM It is very difficult for affordable housing to be built in Palo Alto without rezoning. I support this project and the rezoning. While it would be nice to have the land converted into a park, there is no money from the city to purchase or maintain it. PAHC does a great job developing and managing affordable housing in Palo Alto. 4/22/2013 11:01 AM The density is high enough in this city; give us a break! I've lived here for decades and am tired of seeing nothing but expansion; we are becoming too crowded and unsafe. 4/22/2013 9:30 AM There is a shortage of housing in the Peninsula. i am in favor of using this vacant lot to increase the supply, especially for lower income elderly, which will not add to the school burden. 4/22/2013 9:25 AM There's already too much traffic in this residential corridor, which is also a bike route for nearby schools. We should be trying to reduce the traffic, not increase it! 4/22/2013 8:48 AM Palo Alto desperately needs more low-income housing, and this is a good location. Traffic issues are much easier to solve than housing issues. 4/22/2013 8:00 AM The section of Palo Alto south of Page Mill/Oregon and west of El Camino should not be the dumping ground for the huge number of low income high density residences that Palo Alto is required to provide. Developers of the area to the north of Page Mill/Oregon should provide ALL the required low income high density housing and parking for their business plans. 4/22/2013 7:46 AM Rezone to build mostly below market rate housing for seniors. 4/22/2013 7:20 AM ABSOLUTELY OVER CONGESTED IN GREEN ACRES ALREADY!!! Kids are nearly KILLED daily by the traffic on Maybell and Arastradero. Now drivers are speeding on Georgia. High density housing should NOT be placed in this single family home neighborhood. (El Camino corridor such as Buena Vista Mobile Home Park lot is much more in accordance with city plan layout.) Palo Alto is sliding down a slippery slope to sacrifice children's safety, long term city design, and neighborhood character for a short term gain. Use the Maybell/Clemo lot for logically coherent purposes such as athletic fields (of short supply according to the AYSO lottery debate), public pool, educational open space (herb/spice/fragrance garden, japanese tea garden, arboretum), etc. 4/22/2013 6:21 AM We have significant traffic concerns in this area. High density would make this worse. 4/21/2013 8:49 PM The apartments next to the Maybell Clemo site were built before the area was part of Palo Alto. The Maybell/Clemo zoning was clearly intended to be a transition zone to the R-1 areas which surround the apartment/Maybell/Clemo patch. Rezoning to make this high density would be spot zoning, is completely inappropriate for the neighborhood, and would negatively affect existing residents' quality of life and property values, especially along Maybell. 4/21/2013 3:33 PM There are no walkable facilities near this location. The increased traffic would be unbearable. 4/21/2013 2:25 PM Our neighborhood homeowners are so strongly opposed to high density zoning. 4/21/2013 2:10 PM This is a poor location for high density housing. The traffic congestion is already high and the location is not within walking distance of basic services. 4/21/2013 1:51 PM We need more low-income housing in Palo Alto. 4/21/2013 1:11 PM The zoning change would drastically and negatively change the neighborhood, adding traffic, congestion, cutting down sunlight, making the park area busier, louder, more polluted, less safe because of increased traffic. 4/21/2013 11:24 AM This area has already been overcrowded with traffic (both cars and bikes) in addition to many young students walking to schools in the very narrow street of Maybell. We have been living in this region for more than 30 years and our children have been riding bikes to schools and to shopping. With the increasing price of gasoline, we predict many more residents will be using bikes instead of driving for many activities. We strongly oppose the proposal for Rezoning for High-Density Housing in the area. 4/21/2013 9:46 AM Maybell Avenue and Arastradero are already highly congested roads due to the thousands of students, and the cars and bicycles that transport these students back and forth to school twice a day to Gunn, Terman, and Juana Briones. I vote a strong NO on adding high density housing in this neighborhood, for safety concerns for the children, and for quality of life. 4/21/2013 1:03 AM Traffic is already a nightmare with the narrowing of Arasterdero, Terman, and Juana Briones. 4/21/2013 12:00 AM There has been quite enough high density development in the Arastradero/El Camino area. Zoning should not be changed on the Maybell/Clemo property. PAHC will have the opportunity to do a high density project at the Trailer Property on El Camino in the near future. Juana Briones Elementary, Terman Middle, and Gunn High School will be adversely affected by the additional students from a project such as this. The city has used our tax monies for a loan to PAHC to do this project. This seems a conflict of interest. Many neighbors are opposed to this project. 4/20/2013 10:30 PM There has been quite enough high density development in the Arastradero/El Camino area. Zoning should not be changed on the Maybell/Clemo property. PAHC will have the opportunity to do a high density project at the Trailer Property on El Camino in the near future. Juana Briones Elementary, Terman Middle, and Gunn High School will be adversely affected by the additional students from a project such as this. The city has used our tax monies for a loan to PAHC to do this project. This seems a conflict of interest. Many neighbors are opposed to this project. 4/20/2013 10:30 PM have senior housing that fits the current zoning 4/20/2013 9:51 PM Commuting from Maybell is just short of intolerable. High density will make it more than intolerable. What will be done about the schools? They are already over-crowded. 4/20/2013 9:12 PM Increased traffic in an already busy area. It takes forever to get out to Arastradero in the mornings. You've underestimated the impact of auto traffic, in my opinion--there appears to be absolutely NO factual data to support you claims. People will be sneaking kids into Gunn and Terman--get real, it's happening like crazy already, and it's already against the law. People do it anyway. Elderly drivers + lots of kids running into street = Disaster in the Making. No walkable senior service in the area save Walgreen's (which I'm sure would be overjoyed to have a senior development just down the street. 4/20/2013 9:09 PM I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning for the high density development planned for the site next to Maybell and on Aratradero. Maybell already has enough traffic problems and threats to our children. Arastradero is a mess created by your two-lane traffic plan - try driving it in the morning or evening rush hours. And the mess on Arastradero diverts traffic (including high speed reckless student drivers) onto Georgia and Maybell, which you have not corrected. Also, Aratradero has Gunn High School which creates its own problems - this rezoning is another example of asking South Palo Alto to do more than its share, and dumping the North's problems on the South. Try placing this high density housing in Crescent Park instead - it is similar but just higher rent. Or, correct your own misguided zoning of El Camino and place the development there and rezone the whole length - right now it has too few people to sustain the stores and commercial development you want. Lastly, it appears this is an illegal spot zoning. There are sufficient concerned residents and attorney-residents to sue you on this basis and win. Back off and don't pick a fight you cannot win and which makes you look misguided, stupid and venal as well. 4/20/2013 9:09 PM Absolutely NOT 4/20/2013 7:32 PM High density residences already exist in this residential neighborhood (e.g, Tan Appts.). Many schools nearby. Much school children traffic exists on Maybell street, a narrow road. Infrastructure such as sidewalks virtually non-existent. 4/20/2013 7:12 PM Traffic congestion & bike & pedestrian safety are already issues in this area. 4/20/2013 7:03 PM Green acres 2 should remain a residential community and not include high density housing. 4/20/2013 6:37 PM I'm strongly opposed to projects that further increase the housing density of South Palo Alto and the Maybell-Clemo area in particular. We lost athletic fields to the Terman Apartments and suffered unacceptable increases in density with the developments at Ricky's and Alma Plaza with associated traffic loads and unsightly tall walls right to the sidewalk. It's time to stop dropping high density projects into this end of town and start focusing on improving or at least preserving the nature of our existing neighborhoods. Kenneth Scholz 4150 Willmar Dr Palo Alto 4/20/2013 6:03 PM Absolutely not!!!! Our roads are packed already with too many cars and people!!! 4/20/2013 5:54 PM our neighborhood can't handle any more traffic from more residence - please don't do this to our community 4/20/2013 5:39 PM The traffic is barely tolerable on Arastradero and on Maybell as it is. New construction continues on El Camino with those streets being the major access to 280 as well. There is limited movement on these streets at peak hours and our neighborhood has no access out or in if there should be an emergency. 4/20/2013 5:36 PM Maybell Avenue is already a precarious street due to car traffic, lack of adequate sidewalks, an abundance of bike traffic (and inadequate bike lanes for this number of bikes), and a combination of these aforementioned factors. It is definitely an unsafe street and, at certain times of day, a scary road on which to bike or drive. The proposed development will quite likely overload an already overloaded area. With the proposed developments on El Camino in Barron Park we will have even more congestion. I also am concerned (worried) that architecturally this development might be another huge eyesore to our part of the city. Let's face it: Residents in other neighborhoods of PA probably don't really care what happens here. 4/20/2013 1:06 PM No confidence in City of Palo Alto disagree with California Avenue and Arastradero messes - and ugly construction everywhere - no more please! 4/20/2013 12:15 AM 2. What is your preferred use for the land at Maybell/Clemo? Open Space -‐ perhaps part of Juana Briones. 57% Market rate housing under current zoning. 17% Rezoned for higher density housing. 4% Other: 22% Comments: Open Space is preferred, or even community center buildings. Market Rate housing is more realistic and would not create impacts if the housing "fit" into the current neighborhood with similar setbacks. 5/8/2013 7:42 AM We have few athletic fields in this southern corner of Palo Alto. A pool would be nice too. Consider an educational garden. The Palo Alto Open Space organization could purchase this land and preserve it. 5/8/2013 4:59 AM Either expand the park or create playing fields. What an incredible opportunity to do something for the community instead of changing the community. High-density housing should be expanded in the areas where it already is. Could you imagine if San Francisco high rises were scattered throughout every city? No. The point is that high density together is clever and single family homes in character 'make' the feeling of a city. 5/8/2013 1:45 AM Athletic facilities 5/7/2013 6:20 PM So many young family have been moved in this area. It will be so nice to have extra space for the kids and families. 5/7/2013 5:15 PM Below market rate housing, but not high density. Yes, they can be separated. People with less income still need space to live and breathe, as do those of us who live next door to them. 4/26/2013 10:32 PM Open space preferred . . . but there are cost considerations to extend I am sure. If not that, should be current zoning. 4/24/2013 6:35 PM We should just extend it as part of the park. This park is a highly used park by both Juana-Briones and Terman children not to mention other children too. 4/23/2013 9:09 PM We need more open space in Palo Alto, not more buildings which creates more traffic which we already have PLENTY OF (thank you). The Arastradero corridor is a nightmare. While we do not live in the Barron Park or Greenacres neighborhood, we live in Greater Miranda and have to travel through both of these to get almost anywhere. Please do not add to the incredibly problematic traffic we deal with on a daily basis! 4/23/2013 3:16 PM The last thing we need more of in South Palo Alto is high density housing. With the new development at Arbor Real (formerly Hyatt Rickey's) we are already experiencing increased traffic and overflowing schools. 4/23/2013 2:46 PM Obviously open space would be the best option, but I am realistic. I would welcome low density, fair market housing which would not have the same impact as high density housing. 4/23/2013 2:43 PM Open space would be great, a tribute to the apricot orchards of the old days would be fabulous. Second choice would be housing under current zoning that would add to our neighborhood without overburdening the neighborhood. 4/23/2013 1:56 PM Open space is our first choice, or market rate housing under current zoning. DO NOT REZONE!!!! 4/22/2013 1:58 PM Heritage orchard. Community demonstration garden. Community center. 4/22/2013 12:21 AM Do not dump any more low income high density housing south of Page Mill/Oregon on either side of El Camino. Our schools are overcrowded and are losing their neighborhood character. Any more high density housing in this area will destroy the intent and livability of the surrounding single family neighborhood. 4/22/2013 7:46 AM For mostly badly needed, below market rate housing, rezoned as necessary. It will be adjacent to other existing multi-family housing projects along Arastradero. There may be some specific improvements to the project to be considered? 4/22/2013 7:20 AM Use the Maybell/Clemo lot for logically coherent purposes such as athletic fields (of short supply according to the AYSO lottery debate), public pool, educational open space (herb/spice/fragrance garden, japanese tea garden, arboretum), etc. Consider moving the Juana Briones Orthopedically Handicapped center there and using the existing space to expand the capacity of Juana Briones. 4/22/2013 6:21 AM A playing field(s). Having a playing field on this side of town would allow the many school children on this side of town to take themselves to after school games, rather than being driven out to the Baylands. Allowing children to have recreational resources where they live is a tremendous benefit to the community. The 2.5 acres of that property could fit two full-size playing fields. If the PAHC wants to built there, they should consider building within the existing zoning. There are no services that seniors need within close distance from the Maybell site, but the MayFIELD site they are building near Stanford is close to medical, Avenidas, Palo Alto Adult School classes, restaurants, grocery (Trader Joe's, Sigona's, etc), everything they need. I think PAHC should consider renovating the houses on Mayfield instead of tearing them down. If they add on to each so they are over 2,000 sq feet, and add two similar houses on Clemo, they could sell the 6 houses each for more than $2million in this neighborhood and recoupe as much as for the tall skinny houses they were going to put there (because the costs would be much less and they would see in total for nearly as much). Then put some nice duplexes behind there, within the existing zoning, for families who qualify, so their kids can attend the local schools. That keeps economic diversity in the neighborhood without creating a segregated "Densityville" (high density spot zoning) that the residential neighbors will resent -- in fact, adding high density there will probably create resentment against the existing residents at the Arastradero apartments, too. 4/21/2013 3:33 PM This property should be used for the good of Palo Altans. Open space (parklands or ball park) is a possibility. If housing is the only alternative, market rate housing should be built. 4/20/2013 10:30 PM This property should be used for the good of Palo Altans. Open space (parklands or ball park) is a possibility. If housing is the only alternative, market rate housing should be built. 4/20/2013 10:30 PM market rate or senior housing within the current zoning guidelines 4/20/2013 9:51 PM Make a park with a heritage orchard, partner with the master gardeners and canopy. Open space. I know that we need low income senior housing in PA-- but why here? Maybell doesn't even have a sidewalk! 4/20/2013 9:48 PM A combination of open space where the orchard is currently and market rate single family housing along Maybell. 4/20/2013 9:37 PM Open space preferred, but market rate housing if necessary. How many open pieces of land like that are left in Palo Alto? How about keeping it as a Heritage Park, with some of the orchard present? How many of you in the planning department grew up here? It would be great to see some of our history be preserved, instead of tax-generating infill jammed into every open space. The quality of life here is definitely going down hill. 4/20/2013 9:09 PM Leave it alone 4/20/2013 7:32 PM If not open space, then leave zoning unchanged (i.e., Market rate housing under current zoning). 4/20/2013 7:12 PM We have little open space and that is important to our lives and to the environment. 4/20/2013 5:54 PM a playing field would be welcome - open park space - to improve, beautify our neighborhood not over populate it and cause more traffic 4/20/2013 5:39 PM playing fields with some free space 4/20/2013 5:36 PM Market rate density housing would be our second choice 4/20/2013 5:23 PM Open Space would be heavenly but maybe unrealistic. Second choice: A combination of open space and market rate housing. Third choice is market-rate housing on "reasonable" sized lots. 4/20/2013 1:06 PM either open space or market rate housing under current zoning 4/20/2013 12:43 AM Barron Park has 2 r's 4/20/2013 12:15 AM 3. Where do you live? Barron Park 36.0% 36 Greenacres 60.0% 60 Other neighborhood within Palo Alto 1.0% 1 Other (please specify) Show Responses 3.0% 3 Miranda Green 4/26/2013 11:05 AM The Orchards Palo Alto Orchards (sometimes referred to as a part of Green Acres). 4/23/2013 2:43 PM We love 2 blocks from the proposed project on Orme Street. 4/22/2013 1:58 PM Tan Plaza 580 Arastradero Road, #605 4/22/2013 9:25 AM Charleston meadows 4/21/2013 10:51 PM 1 Ellner, Robin From:Heather MeiLing Marson <sml.marson@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:04 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis Subject:Rezoning Area Near Juana Briones Park to High Density - 567 and 595 Maybell Avenue Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to oppose the above rezoning. My husband and I live in the Barron Square complex on Maybell Avenue and rasied two children here. They are now in college, but we know the traffic situation on Arastradero and Maybell very well. We don’t oppose senior housing (in fact I recently started work for an assisted living development near Page Mill and El Camino), but the traffic on Maybell and Arastradero is very croweded already and 65 units is far too many to add to that area. None of the concerns that I am submitting have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objections in the records for the Maybell property and Housing Element. The traffic on Maybell near Juana Briones School is already congested in the hours when school starts and is dismissed. Arastradero has a steady stream of cars and bicycles going to Terman and Gunn. I have to watch very carefully already when I drive through that area and more traffic will make it even more dangerous. Although older people drive less, there are no stores nearby. The residents of the 65 new units must either drive or someone must drive them to get groceries, see the doctor and take care of other needs. In my job, I drive to work and return home every day from the assisted living center as do most of the other caregivers. It doesn't seem like a development like the one proposed would have substantially less traffic that if younger people lived there. Thank you for considering this letter. Hearther MeiLing Marson 4150 Thain Way Palo Alto 94306 1 Jean K. McCown 527 Seale Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 May 20, 2013 Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Maybell Affordable Senior Housing Proposal Dear Chairman Martinez and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission: I am a Board Member of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) and I write to request your support for the Planned Community zoning for the property at the corner of Maybell and Clemo Avenues. This zoning will allow the construction of 60 apartments for seniors with low, very low and extremely low income levels (as defined by City guidelines.) You previously considered and approved the initiation of this zoning request at your February 13, 2013 meeting. The project design has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and a number of suggestions from your prior meeting and the ARB meeting have been included in the plan before you now. The senior apartments will be located in the interior of the property where the neighbors on two sides are existing multi-family buildings (one owned by PAHC.) The proposal also includes fifteen small lot single family homes that will front on Maybell and Clemo. The land is presently zoned for multi-family (RM 15) and duplexes (R-2) The Staff Report for your May 22 hearing discusses a number of important considerations in arriving at its recommendation to approve the zone change, with conditions and mitigations that are specified. I will comment on two aspects: density and trip generation. Density Over the years I served as a Planning Commissioner and City Council member, it was consistently evident that affordable housing in Palo Alto (whether for seniors or others) needs higher densities to be financially feasible. Acknowledging this reality, beneficial affordable housing has been provided throughout our community over many decades. This housing demonstrates that higher densities can be accomplished in attractive, high-quality facilities that are successfully compatible with nearby single family neighborhoods. They become good neighbors and contributors to a diversity of housing types, for all income levels, in Palo Alto. Examples are abundant, and here are just a few: Lytton Gardens provides several hundred units of senior housing of differing types/services in multiple buildings spread in and around the Downtown North neighborhood; Stevenson House, on Charleston, has been a welcome neighbor since the 1960s. 2 Examples of typical densities in senior complexes include: Palo Alto Commons (Senior): 120 units / 2.32 acres = 52 units / acre Sheridan Apartments (Senior): 57 units / .8636 acres = 66 units / acre The proposed Maybell project is very much in line with these at 54.5 units / acre if only the senior parcel is counted. If the single family parcel is included, as they are both part of the PC zoning, the density is 30.5 units / acre (the overall density of the entire site.) Trip Generation The Hexagon traffic study and the Staff Report set forth the analysis of how many automobile trips are expected to be generated. They show very low numbers of net new trips in the peak congested periods, resulting in no significant impact, because of the character of the low income senior apartments. This is being questioned by some so I did some research to see what other studies of senior housing projects have revealed. I too found the studies mentioned in the Staff Report, one from an Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) paper and one from San Diego. The ITE paper made the following observation based on data, including California: “The peak-hour volumes of the facility occurred at lunch time and mid-afternoon (2:00 to 4:00 PM). Caltrans data indicated that the peak-hour occurred between 11:00 AM and 4:00 PM, depending on the facility. These peak-hour times do not coincide with the peak-hour of adjacent street traffic because the residents do not have or want to travel during the rush hour.” Another recent study is by Transportation Solutions Inc. (February 1, 2013) for a 70 unit affordable senior project in Redmond, Washington. That study concluded the project would generate 241 daily and 16 pm peak trips, quite similar to the estimates for Maybell. It also stated: “We note that the ITE data does not account for the fact that the proposed development will support affordable housing, or lower than median income tenants. There is a strong likelihood that future tenants will have less of an impact on the local roadways since most will not drive.” Skepticism about traffic studies is not a substitute for actual data, analysis and experience. The ITE methodology, relied on by Hexagon and used by the City of Palo Alto on projects of all types throughout the city, is based on data, analysis and experience. As noted in the studies mentioned above, ITE may possibly overstate the amount of auto ownership and use by low income residents, but it is the method we rely on and we should do so in this case. Sincerely Yours, Jean McCown Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition The Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition is comprised of a broad range of organizations and individuals who have, as a common goal, the vision of affordable, well-constructed and appropriately located housing May 17, 2013 Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Members of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, I am writing to express support for the Maybell Orchard development proposal by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, (PAHC). By way of reference, the Housing Action Coalition includes more than 100 organizations and individuals. Its goal is the production of well‐built, appropriately‐located homes that are affordable to families and workers in Silicon Valley. Organizations participating in the HAC represent business, labor, environmental organizations and many more. The Maybell Orchard proposal provides a great opportunity to add much needed affordable homes for seniors to Palo Alto. The proposal will be 100% affordable and will serve seniors with incomes ranging between 30‐60% AMI for Santa Clara County. The whole property is a 2.46 acre site, but it will be rezoned and subdivided so that a portion of the site will accommodate single‐family homes, which will be transferred to and built by a private developer. However, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s overall goal for this site is to create fifty‐nine (59) one‐bedroom homes for extremely‐low and low‐ income seniors on a 1.1 acre parcel. Furthermore, this proposal will help create a close‐knit community beyond the apartment’s own walls through multi‐generational events, as at it is adjacent to a family property that is also owned by PAHC. In terms of access to transportation, the proposal is within 500 feet of the north‐south peninsula artery, El Camino Real, which is served by multiple VTA bus routes such as the "22", "Rapid 522" and "88." The bus stop for each of these routes is less than a five‐ minute walk from the property. Moreover, railway access is readily available at the Palo Alto (3.5 mi), San Antonio (1.9 mi), and California Avenue (2.0 mi) Caltrain stations. This proximity to transit is very wise public policy as seniors are less likely to be able to drive. These transit opportunities allow our senior population to stay active and happily engaged in the community. Also very important is the fact that the accessible public transit opportunities encourage transit ridership versus auto‐ownership, therefore minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and benefiting the environment. Overall, we believe the Maybell Orchard proposal will be highly beneficial, not only by creating homes for low income seniors in Palo Alto, but also by serving to benefit the community as a whole. We encourage your support of this proposal and thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Margaret Bard Housing Action Coalition Chair 1 Ellner, Robin From:mlhmatsu@aol.com Sent:Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:03 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Palo Alto Housing Corporation Application for Maybel & Clemo -- SUPPORT Honorable Commissioners: I am writing in support of the application of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) to construct affordable housing at Maybell and Clemo Avenues. I am Executive Director of a retirement community in Palo Alto but I am writing not as a representative of my community but as an individual who has served seniors for over 33 years. I started my career managing a HUD Section 231/8 housing project in the Mission District in San Francisco serving about 150 very low‐income seniors. I saw how critical decent, safe and affordable housing was for our residents. It was the foundation for service to seniors, and without that foundation, the other important elements of a quality life—health, nutrition, socialization, meaningful activity, and so on—were much more difficult to sustain. Too often I saw low‐income seniors out in the community released from a hospital, for instance, only to return to the very environment that contributed to the poor health in the first place. I also saw first‐hand that the project was not just a resource to its residents but rather a resource to and an enhancer of the total health of the larger community. A personal anecdote: my neighbor opposed a senior housing development near our homes for much the same reasons PAHC’s opponents have cited; now her father lives in that community and she is grateful that it is there. The planned project seems to me appropriate for the site. It appears to me that the needed studies to address the legitimate concerns of its neighbors regarding traffic and parking have been done. I urge you to support PAHC’s housing application. Sincerely, Melvin Matsumoto May 18, 2013 1 Ellner, Robin From:Allan Marson <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:23 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- We live in Barron Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: We live in Barron Square right next to the development and already have to deal with traffic and congestion from other nearby developments. Sincerely, Allan Marson Palo Alto, California There are now 144 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Renee and Mark Alloy <alloyfam@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:19 AM To:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; Council, City; Planning Commission; info@paloaltoville.com Mayor and Council Members I attended last week's meeting for the Housing Element and heard many people from my neighborhood address safety, traffic, emergency routes, among other topics. But I understand that objections and testimonies that were made at that meeting will not be part of your 10 pm meeting on Monday. I want some of those objections to be on file for this upcoming meeting so I am writing again. I just perused the article that https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/34464 Planning and Transportation Report. I have the following objections for you to consider before you pass this - which I assume you will considering you have already loaned the developers the money, which to me seems like a conflict of interest where the residence interest should take front seat. 1. I question the comment that this wouldn't push us to exceed capacity on this narrow road that does not have continuous sidewalk and has parking on both sides of the street - already I view many people opting to walk in the street at various junctures. 2. I disagree that it would have "no impact" in traffic patterns. 3. I disagree that it wouldn't impact emergency ingress/egress. 4. I disagree that it would deterioate LOS - loss of service or that it won't increase delays - its ludicrous to even hint that would be the case. 5. This project will impact pedestrians and bikers along this road. 6. the project plans to move MORE traffic onto Maybell, an already impacted street, I don't believe the traffic surveys were done at enough junctures to really take in the true traffic patterns. 7. The TIRE index indicates that we could endure 825 additional trips along this road - what a joke - it also states that this project would add only 80 more. How can 150 units times 2 equal 80. 8. The report does not include bikers and pedestrians. 9. Finally it only has 42 parking spaces + 5 reserved for seniors with disabilities, for 150 people -- where do the rest of them park? None of the concerns that I submitted before and am now re-submitting have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objections in the records for the Maybell property and Housing Element. Please consider, I also want to object to having so many high density housing units in the same neighborhood we already have the projects on Charleston/El Camino, low income housing by Terman and on Maybell/Arastradero, and there is currently senior housing on Charleston and El Camino Way. I don't think its fair to group all of this in South Palo Alto as it lowers our property values and takes away from the look of a neighborhood and changes it to high density housing. Renee Alloy 627 Georgia Ave 1 Ellner, Robin From:heymack@gmail.com on behalf of Gerald Mack <g_e_mack@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 3:32 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell Senior Housing I am in favor of the senior housing project on Maybell. We need more senior housing and Stevenson House has been a very good neighbor to the Unitarian Church of which I'm a member. Please support this important and needed project! Sincerely, Gerry Mack 2331 Hanover St Palo Alto 1 Ellner, Robin From:Barb Luis <barbluis@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:17 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:info@paloaltoville.com; aruggiero@padailypost.com Subject:Unrepresentative Mitigated Negative Declaration Good evening. I hope you're all well. My name is Barb Luis, and I am a 10-year resident of Greenacres II, and a lifelong Palo Altan. Thank you, in advance, for considering my concerns regarding the Maybell/Clemo project and the unchanged Mitigated Negative Declaration. I trust in your good will, and in our shared desire to both protect the integrity of our Palo Altan neighborhoods and help our city move into the future. Please include this email in the public record. I'm deeply concerned about the Maybell/Clemo project for a number of reasons: 1. Traffic: The morning and afternoon traffic situations have become untenable. While our elementary school, Juana Briones, does a great job at promoting walk/ride/roll to school, many of us who use Maybell to get to school find the sheer number of cars and traffic on Maybell to be a deterrent to walking to school. It's simply too dangerous, and that's without a new, large development. 2. Emergency Access: One goal of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was to enable citizens to quickly leave the city in the event of an atomic disaster. Anyone who has even driven during rush house knows that that would be impossible, given how populated many cities are. It is equally ridiculous to presume that, with the existing population density of the Greenacres and Bol Park neighborhoods, in the event of an emergency, first responders would find Maybell or Arastradero passable. Adding more homes, more people, and more cars to an already narrow road would make a difficult situation even worse. 3. Bicycles: The good news is that many Gunn and Terman students ride their bikes on Maybell to get to school. The bad news is that they, alone, cause a great deal of traffic congestion. Adding more cars to the mix is not a winning combination. Just ask the stop sign on the corner of Coulombe and Maybell. 4. Lack of public benefit: Much has been touted about ABAG, and funding for our city should Palo Alto meet the requirements of ABAG. What is the compelling reason that, as a city, we are bending over backwards to meet its demands? When will it end? When will we say 'enough is enough'? Where is the public benefit to this neighborhood? How can the city appease ABAG and defend the nature and characteristics of our neighborhood? 5. Bad data: It's time to hire an independent consultant to study the existing traffic situation in the neighborhood during a normal school day (not Spring Break), and counting pedestrians and bicyclists as well as cars. Don't make policy decisions using inaccurate and unrepresentative data. Understandably, this orchard lot and parcel with 4 homes will be developed in some way. What I sincerely request is that all of you in positions of power in Palo Alto have the courage and vision to halt the existing project now, consider the concerns of the neighborhood and city, and reconsider the plans. I'm certain that there is some sort of compromise that will help meet the city's need for housing while respecting the wishes and protecting the integrity of our beloved neighborhood. We, members of the neighborhood, are trusting in your good will and honest declaration that nothing has already been decided regarding this project. PLEASE DON'T LET US DOWN. Hear our concerns. Compromise with us. You're making decisions that could prove to be incredibly costly to us and to our neighborhood. And if you have the time, please join me in the morning when we walk our kids to school, and the afternoon when we pick them up. I have a sinking suspicion that such first-hand experience will go a long way to illustrating for you why so many of us are passionately against the existing Maybell/Clemo project. 2 Regards, Barb Luis Donald Drive 1 Ellner, Robin From:M <mloislin07@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 9:38 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Maybell/Clemo rezoning Dear Planning Commission members, We would like to add our voice to the community, strongly urging you to not allow the Maybell/Clemo corridor to be rezoned. Traffic is already too dense during peak commute times, children's live are in danger on what is considered a "safe" street for them to use to and from school, and the density and setbacks are unrealistic for the neighborhood. We already avoid driving in and out of our neighborhood during peak commute hours, and fear for the safety of the children. Rezoning and the subsequent new housing will only make a bad situation worse. We totally support more affordable housing for our seniors. The low income housing we already have in the neighborhood has been a good addition to our neighborhood, well maintained and well integrated into our area. However, a senior housing development of such density as currently planned, with dense housing set too close to street to pay for it, should be placed in an area that is appropriate. Seniors need and deserve good facilities nearby so they do not have to commute by car to reach grocery stores and other activities. The argument that seniors will not drive is ridiculous given that the only local place to grocery shop currently is Walgreens, which has a very limited "junk food" selection at best. Also, the Maybell location is a small street with only partial sidewalks and would be hazardous for seniors to use for walking. Please include this email in the permanent records. Please give our concerns your open‐minded and unbiased consideration. Lois and Paul Lin Orme Street 1 Ellner, Robin From:ForestLight <forest129@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 8:48 PM To:Wong, Tim; Clerk, City; Planning Commission; Council, City; Williams, Curtis Subject:567-595 Maybell Ave. PC Rezoning Proposal May 18, 2013 To: City of Palo Alto Planning Commission: Topic: 567-595 Maybell Ave. PC Rezoning Proposal This is to inform you that I strongly oppose the rezoning of 567-595 Maybell (at the corner of Maybell and Clemo) in order to build 60 high-density “senior housing units” and 15 homes. Despite predictably cynical and purposely distractive claims that local residents ‘…oppose the development of affordable housing for seniors,’ the opposition to this rezoning/construction proposal that I have heard is due to the extremely high density that is completely out of reasonably consonance with the existing zoning and construction standards in this residential neighborhood. The rezoning itself sets an extremely poor precedent that invites yet more PC applications for high-density projects in whatever land parcels become available for construction throughout Palo Alto— including in established residential neighborhoods. This particular rezoning and project would significantly and adversely impact several neighborhoods - Green Acres I, Green Acres II, Barron Park, Charleston Meadows, and Palo Alto Orchards, in terms of traffic, safety, school access, quality of life, and aesthetics of the neighborhood. In particular the proposed rezoning and construction would place an additional heavy burden on already badly strained traffic on both Arastradero Road and Maybell Ave, which are important school access corridors for the Juana Briones, Terman and Gunn. The additional burden this development will place on Maybell Avenue is also of particular concern from a child/student safety standpoint. As foot traffic and bicycle traffic have increased along Maybell due to the recent Arastradero project and the growing popularity of bicycle ridership as Gunn and Terman, an increase in automotive traffic along Maybell poses additional risk to students traveling Maybell, especially at peak school transit times. Of particular personal concern to me is the following finding in the Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. study dated April 23, 2013: Proposed – Clemo Avenue ingress/egress to Arastradero Road The non-signalized intersection of Clemo Avenue and Arastradero Road is intermittently blocked by southbound traffic on Arastradero Road between 7:50 AM and 8:25 AM. There are also a significant number of bicycles and pedestrians that cross that intersection during that time, adding to the difficulty of turning left onto Arastradero Road. 2 By adding the proposed project trips to the intersection, the study found that it would incur a substantial increase in delay and deterioration in the level of service. The intersection currently operates at a level of service (LOS) “C”. With the addition of traffic from the project, it would exacerbate the existing congestion at the intersection and downgrade the LOS to“D”. This is not considered a significant impact under the City’s traffic thresholds. However, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) law requires that any project be reviewed for cumulative impacts. Cumulative is a represented forecast in the future (year 2020). The cumulative impact of that the intersection, without the project, will be a LOS of “D”. With the project, the cumulative impact would deteriorate down to LOS “E”. The deterioration of service to LOS “E” creates a potentially significant impact. As a resident of the Greenacres One neighborhood, I support the now carefully engineered, successful Arastradero restriping project. Yet our ability to enter and depart from our Gredenacres I neighborhood depends entirely on our only two access points, the intersections Pomona and Los Palos with Arastradeo Road and our access to Arastradero is now in a carefully engineered state of balance. Any changes in local housing density zoning and attendant changes in traffic load which will negatively affect our ability to access Arastradero are simply going to prove unworkable for us. Of additional serious concern to concern to me — the City’s participation and role in this rezoning/PAHC scheme raises immediate conflict of interest concerns. The City’s direct fiscal involvement in the Palo Alto Housing Corporation and its financial backing for this particular scheme render the City, in my opinion, completely unable to debate discuss or proceed in anything approximating a responsible, objective manner on this issue. And the extreme haste the City has shown in accommodating the PAHC’s efforts to push this matter to completion on an extremely short timeline bespeaks obvious hopes of arriving at a decision before substantial opposition has had time to emerge. That the City should become a direct party to this development scheme which requires changing the existing zoning regulations in this residential neighborhood, zoning restrictions that were essential to the purchase decisions of most of the residents (including ourselves) that bought homes in this neighborhood, is a betrayal of almost astonishing proportions. We have all become all too familiar with the City’s growing propensity to accommodate the various unsatisfactory and even disastrous PC developments proposed and built by private developers… The ‘public benefits and 'mitigations'' that turn out to be miniscule, unenforceable, misguided, or simply never actually provided seem to be the very common result of the PC rezoning loophole, a loophole that should be eliminated immediately. But that the city should actually become fiscally involved in such a development effort strikes me as deeply dismaying evidence that the city itself is now directly engaged in using such loopholes to increase housing density and undermine its own residential property owner’s interests and desired quality of life standards. 3 A frequently heard rationale for such high-density developments in Palo Alto is, of course, that the much-dreaded ABAG sets the ‘targets’ for the cities housing construction and requires cities to build such excessive high density housing. But this is a vague “…the devil makes us do it” argument. Not once in the years I have been monitoring development issues in Palo Alto have I heard anyone list precisely what sorts of rewards and punishments might be in store for the City if it fails to meets such ‘targets’ or openly defies ABAG’s various imperial demands. My questions in this regard have typically been met with vague generalities to the effect: “…Oh, well, the City might lose a chance at some grants, or other funding… maybe from the State...or something.’) If we are to make any sort of carefully considered, rational response to the threats of an (unelected and therefore unaccountable) ‘regional’ agency such as the aptly-named ABAG, we should know precisely what funds we would be ‘losing’, and whatever other sorts of punishments might be in store for us should we choose not to participate in the rabbit-warren, heavily urban environment they are mandating for us. (None of the concerns that I have submitted above have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objections in the records for the Maybell property and Housing Element.) Sincerely, Michael Maurier 646 Fairmede Ave. Palo Alto, CA 1 Ellner, Robin From:Art Liberman <art_liberman@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:36 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Modifications necessary for PAHC Maybell homes and Clemo senior housing We, the undersigned Barron Park Association Board members acting as individuals and not representing the Board, call upon on the Planning and Transportation Commission to reject the current plan from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC). To be approved, PAHC must reduce the number of single family homes by a factor of two and to limit them to 2 stories with the same setback as other homes in the area. Summary: We understand the need and support the effort by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to build affordable housing for seniors. However, we feel that the project proposed for the property on Maybell‐Clemo requires some significant modifications, as we have identified below. Unless these changes are made, you should not approve the requested zoning change. These modifications include reducing the size and number of the single family market rate homes proposed to front Maybell and Clemo to a total of eight. This and other changes would reduce the potentially negative traffic consequences for the neighborhood. We recognize this may require PAHC to review the overall funding structure for this project and find additional funding sources or reduce the size of the senior housing structure. But without such modifications, the proposal will continue to engender opposition from the Board of the BPA and from a large segment of the neighborhood. Background: The proposed development in its current form would create a significant negative impact in our neighborhood. The density and size of the proposed single family housing is completely out of scale with the surrounding community. The neighborhood already suffers from a serious traffic issue. The average daily automobile traffic (ADT) on Maybell – one of Palo Alto’s bicycle boulevards and heavily used by both bicyclists and pedestrians going to and from one of the several schools in the area– increased by 25% since 2008. It is already at a level, 3350 vehicles per day on a weekday, that significantly exceeds the acceptable volume on a local residential street (2500 vehicles per day) defined by Palo Alto’s own Traffic Calming Program. We categorically reject statements in the Traffic Study commissioned by the PAHC and in the MND that the additional amount of traffic on Maybell ‘would not be significant.’ The consequences of the traffic to pedestrians and bicyclists were not even considered! The proposal specifies that all automobiles enter and exit the project only via a driveway on Clemo. This would direct all traffic to and from a stop‐controlled intersection on Arastradero. The ‘Mitigated Negative Declaration” (MND) states for the environmental review states that this would create an adverse impact to traffic circulation. Instead of recommending changes on Arastradero (for example, extending 4 lanes on Arastradero to Coulombe Drive, or adding a traffic signal), the MND recommendation (by the Traffic Division staff) states this must be mitigated by allowing traffic to flow into and out of the project on Maybell. We believe this adds to an already serious problem of heavy traffic on Maybell that has been exacerbated by the recent changes to Arastradero. 2 Specific Recommendations: These are the changes we request of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation proposal: 1) Reduce the number and scale of single family homes along Maybell and Clemo to be commensurate with the other single family homes in the neighborhood.   Reduce the number of single family homes along Maybell to five and along Clemo to three. Because half of the traffic from the project is generated by the proposed 15 single family homes in the initial project, this would reduce the overall traffic generated by the project by 25%.   Limit the vertical scale of these single family homes to no more than two stories. 2) Increase the setback of these single family homes to the standard setback for R1 development—20 feet. 3) Require a traffic study conducted with the methodology that includes non‐motoring cohorts. We are stunned that a study for this project did not include an analysis of the consequences of traffic to the large number of pedestrians and bicycles on Maybell (including young children walkers and riders), completely ignored the safety issues associated with this non‐motoring cohort, and made no reference to the City’s own ‘Safe Routes to School’ maps for Briones, Terman and Gunn schools. 4) Eliminate any mention or require any contingency in the environmental review that would involve moving the traffic barriers on Clemo. Moving these barriers would create a very significant safety hazard, especially to young children, by allowing entrance and egress to the project almost diagonally opposite Briones elementary school, and create a significant traffic route immediately in front of the Briones Park toddler play area. Arthur Liberman ‐ 751 Chimalus Drive, Palo Alto BPA Board member and President Lynnie Melena – 3846 Magnolia Drive, Palo Alto BPA Board member and former President Coalition for Safe and Sensible Zoning P.O. Box 60383 Palo Alto, CA 94306 safezoning@gmail.com May 22, 2013 VIA E-MAIL Tim Wong Housing Coordinator City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: Comments on The Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Project Title: 567 Maybell Avenue (APN 137-25-108/109) – Proposed Planned Community Zone District and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Development of 15 Single Family Residences And a 60-Unit Multifamily Affordable Rental Project For Seniors Dear Mr. Wong: The Coalition for Safe and Sensible Zoning is concerned about zoning changes that are being proposed in Palo Alto, particularly zoning changes that will impact safety on neighborhood streets and school commute corridors. Members live near 567 Maybell Avenue, where the Project1 is proposed to be located, and will be directly impacted by the environmental effects that would result from the proposed project. We are submitting these comments on the Revised Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration dated May 9, 2013 for the above-referenced project (“IS/MND”). Many of the concerns raised in these comments were submitted by residents prior to the recirculation of the Revised Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, but none of the concerns have been addressed by any of the revisions. We plan to consult a traffic expert in order to further substantiate the concerns with traffic and safety raised in these comments. The public record for 567 Maybell and this letter will be further supplemented. 1. Traffic and Circulation Impacts on Maybell Avenue Have Not Been Addressed 1 “The Project” or “the proposed project”: 567 Maybell Avenue (APN 137-25-108/109) – Proposed Planned Community Zone District and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Development of 15 Single Family Residences And a 60-Unit Multifamily Affordable Rental Project For Seniors 2 The “Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Residential Development at Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue in Palo Alto, California,” prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., February 26, 2013 (“TIA”) is cited in the IS/MND as the analytical source supporting the determination of Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation regarding Transportation and Traffic, Section P of the IS/MND. However, the only mitigations that are proposed are designed to address the Project’s potential impact at the Clemo Avenue (“Clemo”) and Arastradero Road (‘Arastradero”) intersection. Both mitigations will result in diverting project traffic to Maybell Avenue (“Maybell”). The TIA does make the following observation: Maybell Avenue is congested between 7:45 AM and 8:15 AM. Southbound vehicle queues on Maybell Avenue extend from the intersection of Coulombe Drive/Maybell Avenue past Amaranta Avenue and a short distance past Clemo Avenue. In addition, there are hundreds of pedestrians and bikes that use the Maybell corridor during this period to access the nearby schools. This reduces the capacity for motor vehicle traffic through the corridor. At the intersection of Coulombe Drive/Maybell Avenue, the vehicle queues westbound on Coulombe Drive extend approximately 150 feet during the peak morning period. The intersection of Coulombe Drive/Maybell Avenue is controlled by a crossing guard during school hours to assist with the heavy pedestrian and bike traffic.2 Yet, despite this observation, the proposed IS/MND mitigations for traffic circulation divert project traffic onto Maybell Avenue, either at Clemo Avenue or at the Arastradero Park Apartments (“APAC”) driveway at Maybell. The IS/MND has misunderstood or ignored the problems on Maybell. The major problems on Maybell are caused by vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic that converge on Maybell during a 20 to 45 minute period during school commute times. During this period, a single additional car turning onto Maybell at or near Clemo is a potential significant impact to the safety of “hundreds of pedestrians and bikes,” to other motorists, and to property on Maybell. When the queue of vehicles on Maybell is at a standstill, it impedes emergency access as well, and a single additional vehicle attempting to enter Maybell at or near Clemo not only can add to the queue, but can obstruct any open lanes when attempting to turn onto Maybell to join the queue, thus further obstructing emergency access. Maybell Avenue is a designated school commute corridor in the Safe Routes to School network.3 Hundreds of students who bicycle to Gunn High school and to Terman Middle School use Maybell, which is a designated bicycle boulevard,4 as part of their route to school. Maybell is only two lanes wide, is substandard in width for a Palo Alto 2Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Residential Development at Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue in Palo Alto, California, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., February 26, 2013 (“TIA”), p 9. 3 Adopted School Commute Corridors Network map, available at http://www.saferoutes.paloaltopta.org/Sept2011/SR2S-2004.pdf 4 City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Adopted July 2012, p 3-19. 3 street,5 and has many vehicles parked on it at all times of day near Clemo. The parked cars force bicyclists and pedestrians into the same part of the street as the moving vehicles because there are no bike lanes or sidewalks along the full length of Maybell. Yet, despite the heavy pedestrian and bicycle usage of Maybell, which is encouraged by the City of a Palo Alto and the Schools by their policies, the IS/MND ignores all impacts on bicyclists and pedestrians in its analysis and conclusions. Note that Clemo is presently blocked by a permanent barrier at Maybell, and the proposed mitigation of moving the barrier away from Maybell towards Arastradero, forcing all vehicles from the Project driveway to enter/exit Clemo via Maybell will create a new and dangerous entry/exit of turning vehicles onto/from Maybell, in a location that is right next to Juana Briones Park and Juana Briones elementary school. Arastradero Park Apartments (APAC) does not provide enough onsite parking to meet its residents’ needs and APAC residents park many vehicles along Maybell. This street parking adds to the hazardous conditions on Maybell during the school commute because, as noted above, bicyclists and pedestrians are forced to travel in the street to navigate around the parked cars, as there are no sidewalks or bike lanes along the length of Maybell to get to the schools. The parked cars also hinder the visibility of oncoming traffic. The APAC driveway is located just a few hundred feet north of Clemo, and additional cars entering or exiting Maybell from the APAC driveway will have similar impacts as would cars coming from Clemo, and the parked vehicles that always surround the APAC driveway not only funnel pedestrians and bicyclists into the street, but impact visibility to oncoming vehicles. The TIA itself described queues that extend along Maybell from Coulombe Drive to past Clemo in the AM peak hour. With a queue of vehicles blocking a left turn from Clemo onto Maybell, it is illogical to conclude that the intersection at Clemo and Maybell would operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour,6 especially with the “hundreds of bikes and pedestrians” using this section of Maybell during this time. Neighborhood residents have reported that the stop signs located on Maybell at the intersection of Coulombe Street, one block south of Clemo, are regularly (about once a month) knocked to the ground, presumably by vehicles. It is essential that the IS/MND carefully evaluate and mitigate the impacts of the project on bicyclists and pedestrians on Maybell, yet this has not been done. Furthermore, the observation of congestion on Maybell in the TIA does not fully describe the problem. First, “congestion” is a problem on both Arastradero and Maybell, and the congestion on Arastradero has contributed to, if not caused, the congestion on 5 A resident has measured Maybell to be 27-feet wide, plus 2 feet of gutter. In comparison, the private Palo street included in the proposed project to serve the single-family homes is required to be a minimum 32- feet wide. 6 Revised Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated May 9, 2013 for the Project (“IS/MND”), p 41; TIA, op.cit., p 23. 4 Maybell. In 2010, the City of Palo Alto (“the City”) initiated a “traffic calming” trial where the City re-striped Arastradero between El Camino Real and Gunn High School (“Gunn”) to reduce the number of lanes from 4 to 2-plus-turning pockets. This resulted in congestion and frustration of drivers on Arastradero, and diverted vehicles coming from El Camino Real trying to reach Gunn, to use Maybell, a designated local street, instead of Arastradero, a designated Residential Arterial.7 The City made the re-striping trial on Arastradero permanent in 2012, over the protests of many residents living near Maybell. The City of Palo Alto’s own traffic count numbers show an increase from 408 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour on Maybell at Pena Ct. in Spring 2008, before the Arastradero re-striping, to 690 vehicle trips in Spring 2012.8 To be fair, City staff points to a count of 443 vehicles trips in Fall 2011, during the first year of the re-striping trial, as showing that the re-striping trial was not the cause of the 69% increase in traffic on Maybell. Nevertheless, many residents are convinced that the lane reductions on Arastradero Road diverted traffic to Maybell and resulted in severe traffic impacts. In any case, there was a 69% increase in vehicle trips on Maybell in the AM peak hour from Spring 2008 to Spring 2012, and a 56% increase since from Fall 2011 to Spring 2012, therefore using a baseline measured in May 2012 does not reflect the cumulative impacts of recent projects that have led to the severe congestion on Maybell. 2. Cumulative Impacts Have Not Been Adequately Studied California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines9 require that analysis of cumulative impacts consider the incremental impacts of the Project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects.10 The IS/MND fails to adequately consider the cumulative impacts of the project. The TIA analyzed cumulative conditions at intersections by estimating cumulative conditions “by applying an annual growth factor of 1.1 percent over a period between the date of the existing traffic counts and year 2020” and then adding the project trips to estimate plus project conditions.11 This cumulative analysis is grossly inadequate. A 1.1 percent increase in annual growth over a period of 17 years greatly under-estimates traffic growth. The City of Palo Alto has measured a 69% increase in traffic on Maybell Avenue at Pena Ct. from Spring 2008 to Spring 2012, an annual growth rate of 17%.12 From Spring 2008 to Fall 2011, there was an increase in traffic on Maybell at Pena Ct. of 8.57%, an increase that the City has characterized to residents as insignificant, yet represents a 2.4% annual growth, more than twice the annual growth figure of 1.1% used in the TIA’s cumulative analysis. 7 City of Palo Alto Street Network web page http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1077&TargetID=106 8 Arastradero Road Trial Restriping Project, City of Palo Alto, Presentation at Community Outreach Meeting, June 12, 2012, slide #11, available at http://www.paloaltoonline.com/media/reports/1339786888.pdf 9 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 -15387. 10 Id, section 15355. 11 TIA, op. cit., p.14. 12 Arastradero Road Trial Restriping Project, op. cit. 5 Specific projects have been approved for development nearby and are presently under construction. A 174-guest room hotel is under construction at 4214 El Camino Real, approximately 100 feet south of Arastradero Road. The hotel will also include 200- seats of meeting rooms and a 3700 square-foot restaurant. 178 parking spaces are being provided on-site. At 4301 and 4329 El Camino Real, a 138-guest room hotel is under construction, along with 26 townhomes. That hotel provides 143 on-site parking spaces. Although the hotels may not increase traffic on Maybell Avenue directly, they will increase traffic on Arastradero Road. Increase in traffic on Arastradero Road will further divert traffic onto Maybell Road. No cumulative analysis that includes these projects was done in the IS/MND. Another project that is still under construction, and is yet to be fully occupied, is a 300,000 square foot expansion of office space just west of Arastradero Road near Foothill Expressway in the Stanford Research Park that will be the home of VMware. The hundreds of new vehicle trips resulting from this office expansion have not been considered in the cumulative impact analysis, even though vehicles traveling between the future VMware offices and Highway 101 will likely drive on Arastradero Road during commute hours. No cumulative analysis that includes the VMware project was done in the IS/MND. 3. Inadequate Project Parking Would Have Significant Impacts The proposed project provides 42 parking spaces and five reserve spaces for a 60- unit senior development. The IS/MND does admit that, typically, a development of this size would require 91 parking spaces. However, the IS/MND tries to justify the reduced onsite parking by implying that many seniors will not need to park a car. We strongly disagree with the portrayal of senior citizens as not requiring a car, especially in a development such as this one that is not situated near necessary amenities such grocery stores, banks or post offices, and residents of the project will need a motor vehicle to access such amenities. Furthermore, where will visitors park? With less than one parking space provided per unit, most if not all visitors will be forced to park on the street. If, indeed, the residents of the senior housing will not drive their own vehicles as claimed in the IS/MND, then presumably these residents will rely more heavily on services that are delivered to the site, which means that a higher number of service vehicles will be visiting the site on a regular basis. Mitigation measure number 2 for Transportation and Traffic in the IS/MND says that the curb east of the Clemo driveway shall be painted red for a distance of 65 feet east of the driveway.13 This will result in loss of existing street parking on Clemo. No analysis was made of the parking impacts that will result from the red-striping and loss of street parking. Loss of existing street parking will have a severe impact on nearby parking, and thus on traffic and circulation on Clemo and Maybell, especially considering 13 IS/MND, op. cit.,p 44. 6 the inadequate on-site parking provided by the project, and the existing demand for street parking by APAC in the adjoining property. Clemo Avenue street parking is heavily used by visitors to Juana Briones Park. In recent years, since the renovation of the Park, use of the Park by neighborhood residents of all ages has increased. In addition, youth team sports such as AYSO (soccer), and Little League (baseball and t-ball) regularly hold scheduled practices and games at Juana Briones Park. Loss of street parking on Clemo Avenue to red-painted curbs and additional parking demand from the under-parked senior housing in the Project will severely affect available parking for users of Juana Briones Park, one of only three neighborhood parks south of El Camino Real and east of Page Mill Road in Palo Alto. Furthermore, the cumulative impacts of the Project on parking have not been considered. As pointed out above, the nearby project at 4214 El Camino Real that is currently under construction does not provide enough onsite parking to accommodate full occupancy and full use of facilities. Employees at hotels at 4329 and 4214 El Camino Real will be forced to park their vehicles on the nearby streets, adding to the demand for street parking. As additional vehicles roam the nearby streets to find parking, this adds to congestion and to the safety hazards described. The loss of available street parking and increase in demand for street parking will also impact air quality as parking becomes harder to find and vehicle emissions rise and accumulate as vehicles search for a place to park. Many service vans and vehicles and visitors to the project will also contribute to emissions. The degradation of air quality that occurs from this project will be concentrated on an area adjacent to Juana Briones Park with its children’s playground and to Juana Briones elementary school. Additional delays in traffic caused by the project and longer queues on Maybell will further degrade air quality. The lowered air quality also impacts the bicyclists and pedestrians that heavily use Maybell. 4. A. Aesthetics The Project Will Have a Substantial Adverse Effect On a Public View or View Corridor We question the knowledge of the reference sources cited in the IS/MND when it comes to familiarity with the project and the project area because of the false statement in the IS/MND that “the project area . . . does not offer views of the foothills from the project street.” In fact, there is an unobstructed view of the foothills/mountains from both sides of Maybell Avenue at 567 Maybell Avenue looking southward down the street, and this view of the foothills/mountains continues as one looks across and through the interspersed trees in Juana Briones Park from Maybell Avenue next to the project site. The view of the foothills/mountains looking across Juana Briones Park from Maybell will be blocked by the project homes along Maybell, which are proposed to be 35 feet tall and situated much closer to the street than the existing single-story homes. Therefore the project would violate Policy L-3 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public streets in the developed portions of the City. 7 The Project Will Violate Existing Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Visual Resources We also strongly disagree with the IS/MND’s statement that “The proposed project is generally compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood.”14 The IS/MND tries to justify this inaccurate statement by improperly comparing the 35-ft. high 3-story single family units in the proposed project to the maximum allowable heights of 30-33 feet, depending on roof pitch, in the R-1 zone district. However, the IS/MND’s responsibility is to compare the project to existing conditions, not hypothetical conditions. The fact is that there are no 3-story homes in the neighborhood, and none of the existing nearby homes approach the 35-ft. height of the proposed project’s single- family homes. The current zoning of the project property along Maybell is R-2, not R-1, and R-2 limits residence height to 30 feet. Furthermore, the proposed project’s single family homes are set back only 12 feet from Maybell Avenue. This reduced setback greatly amplifies the impact of the height of the proposed 3-story single family homes in the project in the context of the surrounding area. (R-1 and R-2 zoning require a minimum 20-ft front setback). The 8-foot side-separations (4-ft. setbacks compared to minimum 6-ft. side setbacks for the R-1 and R-2 zones) between the proposed project’s 3-story single family homes effectively create a wall of multiple 35-ft. buildings very close to the street. This project would dramatically deviate from the existing scale and character of the single-family homes nearby. This project clearly violates Policy L-5 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Moreover, the comparison of the Project’s prosed single-family homes to permitted R-1 heights in the IS/MND ignores that construction of new 2-story homes, or an addition of a second story in the R-1 zone district is subject to the Individual Review process to assure that the unique character of the neighborhood is preserved, that the new construction is compatible with the existing residential neighborhood, that the surrounding context is respected, that the neighbors’ concerns are considered with respect to privacy, scale and massing, and streetscape, and that there is awareness of each property's effect upon neighboring properties.15 The single-family homes proposed by the project have not undergone Individual Review. In addition, the size and scale of the proposed senior building in the project is unacceptable. The senior building portion of the project proposes to build 60 units of housing on 1 acre of re-zoned land. That land is currently zoned RM-15, which permits up to 15 units per acre. As the IS/MND points out, the closest zone designation in Palo Alto to the proposed senior development is RM-40, which permits up to 40 units per acre. Note that the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC) describes the purpose of the RM-40 zone district as follows: 14 Id, p11. 15 Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”), section 18.12.110. 8 The RM-40 high density multiple-family residence district is intended to create, preserve and enhance locations for apartment living at the highest density deemed appropriate for Palo Alto. The most suitable locations for this district are in the downtown area, in select sites in the California Avenue area and along major transportation corridors which are close to mass transportation facilities and major employment and service centers. Permitted densities in the RM-40 residence district range from thirty-one to forty dwelling units per acre.16 So, according to the language of Palo Alto’s zoning code, the proposed senior building exceeds, by 50%, the “highest density deemed appropriate for Palo Alto.” In order to build this inappropriately high density senior building, the building is proposed to have an “overall height of 50 feet.”17 The PAMC limits the maximum building height in the RM-40 zone district to 40 feet, (or 35 feet of those portions of a site within 50 feet of a more restrictive residential district or a site containing a residential use in a nonresidential district).18 The proposed senior building exceeds the maximum height permitted in RM-40, the highest density zoning deemed appropriate for Palo Alto, as well as the 30-foot maximum height permitted in RM-15, the current zoning designation for the senior building site. We also note that the project location is not a “most suitable” location for RM-40 zoning (the highest density deemed appropriate for Palo Alto) as described in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. It is not located in the downtown area, in the California Avenue area or along a major transportation corridor which is close to mass transportation facilities and major employment and service centers. Therefore, the proposed project clearly conflicts with the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Land Use and Planning impacts of the Project are discussed further below. However, we point out the inconsistency of the Project with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies L-3 and L-5 here to refute the discussion of these policies on page 11 of the IS/MND which appears under the A. Aesthetics section. 5. B. Agricultural and Forest Resources The IS/MND tries to characterize the orchard that currently exists on the project property as non-agricultural. However, an orchard of 90 fruit trees,19 mostly apricot, is rare on the Peninsula, and even rarer in the urbanized part of Palo Alto. The fruit trees can continue to bear fruit and can serve an agricultural purpose, and the IS/MND’s attempt to minimalize this unique resource is troubling. The orchard is a unique agricultural, biological and aesthetic resource, much valued by the neighborhood residents. 6. J. Land Use and Planning 16 PAMC op. cit., section18.13.010 (c), emphasis added. 17 IS/MND, op. cit., p 7. (Note that on p10 an “overall height of 46 feet” contradicts the ht. listed on p 7) 18 PAMC, op. cit., section 18.13.040, Table 2. 19 IS/MND, op. cit., p 11. 9 The Palo Alto’s General Plan is titled the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (“The Comprehensive Plan”). Discussion of the Project’s conflicts with Policy L-3 and Policy L-5 of the Comprehensive Plan is discussed above in the 4. A. Aesthetics section. In addition, that above discussion pointed out that the project conflicts with the PAMC zoning code. To that discussion, we add that the current zoning for the senior building is RM-15 and the PAMC describes the purpose of the RM-15 zone as follows: The RM-15 low-density multiple-family residence district is intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for a mixture of single-family and multiple-family housing which is compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby, including single-family residence districts. The RM-15 residence district also serves as a transition to moderate density multiple-family districts or districts with nonresidential uses. Permitted densities in the RM-15 residence district range from eight to fifteen dwelling units per acre.20 The RM-15 zoning that currently exists for part of the project site is appropriate and consistent with Policy L-6 of the Comprehensive Plan, which appears below: Policy L-6 Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Yet the Project proposes to replace RM-15 zoning with a Planned Community zoning whose density exceeds the highest density zoning deemed appropriate in Palo Alto by 50%, abruptly changing the density from the adjacent single-family residential zone. The proposed zoning would be four times the maximum density permitted by current RM-15 zoning. RM-30, medium density multiple-family residential zoning would offer less of an abrupt change in density than the proposed senior housing project, which is essentially RM-40 plus 50%, and would at least offer some consistency with Policy L-6 and the purposes of multiple-family residence zones stated in the PAMC, but a project conforming to RM-30 development standards was not proposed. The project also proposes an abrupt change in scale from single-family homes to a 60-unit senior housing building that (at 50 feet) even exceeds the 40-foot height limit of a building in the RM-40 zone district, not to mention the 30-foot height limit of RM-15 zoning. (See the discussion of size and scale in 4. A. Aesthetics, above). To promote some degree of transition, the project must at least limit the size, scale and density of the proposed senior building to RM-30, medium density housing, not exceed the limits of RM-40, the highest density housing deemed appropriate for Palo Alto. The project also proposes an abrupt change in scale and density between the R-1 zoned homes on Maybell and the proposed single-family Project homes. In addition to the setbacks and height restrictions described in the discussion above, R-1 and R-2 zone 20 PAMC, op. cit., 18.13.010 (a) 10 districts require a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. The proposed project’s single- family homes would be on lots the size of 2,300 to 3,400 square feet, approximately half the required minimum size of R-1 or R-2 lots. The proposed increase in scale and density is abrupt, doubling the density, and is not at mid-block location as suggested by Policy L- 6. 7. O. Recreation The project would increase the use of an existing neighborhood park such that the substantial physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated. The proposed project provides limited on-site open space and is located just across Clemo Avenue from Juana Briones Park. The increased use of Juana Briones Park resulting from the 60-unit senior building and the 15 single family homes will accelerate substantial deterioration of the park facilities, and the senior building will not contribute any development impact fees to help maintain park facilities. 8. R. Mandatory Findings of Significance The inadequacy of the IS/MND with respect to cumulative impacts has been discussed above. In addition, the project will have environmental effects, discussed above, that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. When the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians is impacted, substantial physical harm can result. Furthermore, impeding and delaying emergency access also can result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, including death. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City should proceed to prepare an EIR in order to adequately assess the Project and its impacts. Sincerely, Coalition for Safe and Sensible Zoning Cc: Palo Alto Planning Commission 1 Ellner, Robin From:Diane Lee <dianedcl@comcast.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:26 AM To:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Our Objections to Maybell and Clemo Development Project Members of the Planning Commission and Members of the City Council: We are writing to you to voice our objections to the planned re‐zoning of the property on Maybell Avenue in order to construct a high density ‘Planned Community’ project at Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue. Our objections are based on unsafe increased traffic flow and more importantly the encroachment of high density housing into our neighborhoods. We live on Willmar drive and commute on Maybell Avenue every day. This street is already congested with traffic and does not need more traffic. Ever since the narrowing of traffic lanes on Arastradero Road, more traffic has been funneled onto Maybell Avenue. This includes a large percentage of bicycle and car traffic during school hours. Portions of Maybell Avenue do not have sidewalks, so it is already risky for pedestrians to walk this street. Adding more traffic onto this street will only exacerbate the congestion problem and make the street unsafe for both bicycle and pedestrian traffic. This neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods are designed as single family residential neighborhoods and should remain so. Our neighborhood should not migrate into a set of high density housing. This project would set a bad precedent for which there would be no turning around. The idea of having high density housing only seems to be motivated by the city and the developers to reap larger profits. The currently zoning of R‐15 allows for only 32 residences maximum. There is no justification for a project that is attempting to build more than twice the number of allowed residences. This is direct conflict with the City’s Land Development use policies that state: “Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale” and “Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures”. The city and planning commission would need to spot zone this area to permit a project of this size. Zoning in this neighborhood provides no substantive value to the community that would justify this type zoning. We would expect any development along Maybell Avenue to follow common sense guidelines that would include; housing project density constraints consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, adequate setbacks, building heights consistent with current zoning, and sidewalks for safety of pedestrians. I urge the Planning Commission and City Council to not re‐zone this property and consider a project that is in line with the context of the existing neighborhood. Thank you, Diane Lee and Jim Jurkovich 1 Ellner, Robin From:Tomas Kong <kongs@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 12:36 AM To:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Opposition to Maybell/Clemo project - include objections in records Dear Tim, Curtis, and City Council and Planning Commission members, I’m writing again to express my concern and opposition to the proposed rezoning for the Maybell/Clemo project. None of the concerns that I submitted before and am now re-submitting have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objections in the records for the Maybell property and Housing Element. Specifically, the traffic study presented by PAHC did not take into account pedestrian and bicycle traffic, especially during peak school commute hours. I regularly use Maybell during these hours, and simply cannot understand why the city would add high-density housing that would exacerbate what’s already a challenging situation given the amount of kids from the three nearby schools who use this as a bicycle route (Briones, Terman, Gunn). Despite the stories from PAHC about senior citizens not driving much, I think this is a faulty assumption given that this location is not conveniently located near public transportation and/or senior services. Whether it’s the senior citizens themselves or their caretakers/relatives driving, the truth is that this increased traffic flowing through Maybell and adjacent streets constitute a significant risk to a residential neighborhood and the kids on their way to/from school. I certainly hope we don’t have to come back to this kind of warning later on to determine liability, if and when we have a traffic accident caused by poor planning decisions by the city. By then PAHC will have moved on, and any liability issues will have to be addressed and paid by the city, impacting all of us. Please note that over 95% of neighbors surveyed oppose this project, and I expect you as city officials to represent the interest and the needs of our neighborhood. Sincerely yours, Tomas Kong Willmar Drive 1 Ellner, Robin From:Lynn Kidder <lykidder@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:05 PM To:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Opposed to Maybell/Clemo Rezoning Dear Planning Commission, We are strongly opposed to the rezoning of Maybell to a high density zone. The proposed high density project is between two major commute corridors for school students (Maybell and Arastradero), and there are 11 schools along the Arastradero/Charleston corridor. This area is a designated "Safe Route to School/Traffic Calming" area that affects over 3,000 students. There are over 1,000 bicyclists that travel on Maybell. EVEN THOUGH this is a designated school commute route, and EVEN THOUGH traffic calming measures have been put in place on Arastradero, there is still far too much car commute traffic on Maybell and Arastradero, and many, many cars exceed the 25mph speed limit on Arastradero. According to the City of Palo Alto's traffic study report from 2009, "The Arastradero Road–Charleston Road corridor carries higher levels of traffic at higher speeds than any of the other study corridors." We do not believe the city has done enough to study the bicycle traffic and safety issues along this very important school commute corridor. I have observed many, many mornings when the waves of kids biking to Terman and Gunn cross over El Camino onto Maybell. They are KIDS, as young as 11 or 12. They weave, they laugh, they bike in groups, they talk to one another, and they do unexpected things. Cars that travel along these same roads can create a hazardous condition, especially when the cars try to pull out and speed around groups of kids. We should be doing all we can to encourage MORE students to bike to school. The City's goal of rezoning Maybell to high density in the General Plan is unacceptable, because the impact it will have on a supposedly "safe" route to school is certainly going to be a negative one. The concerns that we have submitted before and are now re-submitting have not been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objections in the records for the Maybell property and Housing Element. Thank you, Lynn and Peter Kidder Willmar Drive, Palo Alto 1 Ellner, Robin From:Richard Keller <rakinc@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:45 AM To:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:rezone Maybell/Clemo None of the concerns that I submitted before and am now re-submitting have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objections in the records for the Maybell property and Housing Element. I personally do not want more high density housing in the Barron Park Neighborhood. Higher density always means more access traffic. There are four schools in close proximity to the Maybell / Clemo intersection, as well as the public park all of which have children of all ages and their parents. The street traffic by students on bike, foot and car now focus on this section of Barron Park, the traffic study offered by the proponents of the zoning change apparently did not take this into account and is flawed. Keep the zoning of the Maybell / Clemo subject property as it is now. No not rezone for High Densty housing. Richard Keller 642 Georgia Ave. Palo Alto, CA. 94306-3810 1 Ellner, Robin From:Kathy Eisenhardt <kme@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 10:20 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell-Clemo Planning Commission members: I wanted to let you know that I believe that this editorial is a highly effective statement of some of the problems with the proposed PAHC proposal. You simply are doing something illegal, unfair, and unwise. I provide it below for your information. The botches of the Arastradero corridor and Miki's Market should be a lesson of how poor the planning has become at this end of the city. Finally, the serious safety, congestion, and pollution issues of the PAHC project remain unaddressed. Sincerely, Kathleen Eisenhardt 4184 Donald Drive Editorial: A backwards process on Maybell project "Not a done deal" defense rings hollow for proposed senior‐housing development Imagine making a substantial family investment in something before determining its value, how other family members felt about it and deciding if it was the best way to meet your family goals? That's exactly what has happened with the city of Palo Alto's botched handling of a development proposed by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), and neighbors of the Maybell Avenue project site in Barron Park have every reason to feel the fix is in. The problem began last November when the council agreed to loan PAHC $3.2 million to acquire the land for the project at 567 Maybell Ave., a street with no sidewalks one block north of Arastradero Road that has been severely impacted by drivers and bicyclists trying to avoid the congestion on Arastradero due to the lane reductions. The council added another $2.6 million loan in March, even though the project itself had not received approvals from the Planning and Transportation Commission or the City Council and environmental review and public hearings hadn't been completed. PAHC's laudable mission is to increase the amount of affordable housing in Palo Alto with the goal of maintaining a diverse community. It had the opportunity to buy two large parcels totaling 2.5 acres but needed loans from the city to close the deal, and ultimately will need the city to approve a special planned community (PC) zone in order to build a four‐story 60‐unit apartment building and 15 single‐family homes. The homes would be sold at market rate and the profits from those sales would enable the city to eventually be repaid. 2 Neighborhood residents, who were caught unaware during the early consideration of the loan request, now have a wide range of legitimate complaints, especially the impact of traffic which they say the city's consultant downplayed, and what they feel is the tone‐deaf way the city bureaucracy went about slipping the project into the city's required Housing Element, set to be approved by the City Council Monday night. If approved, it will be another action supporting the project taken prior to the council holding public hearings and considering the PAHC application for a PC zone. It is not credible, as some council members have stated, that their minds are completely open on whether to approve the project and that prior actions won't have any influence as they consider the development in future weeks. Maybell‐area residents have to feel like the deck is stacked against them, when before the project is even approved, it has received more than $5 million in loans from the City Council and is included in the city's much ballyhooed Housing Element. At last week's meeting of the council's Regional Housing Mandate Committee the vote was 3‐0 (Scharff, Schmid, Berman, with Holman absent) to approve the Housing Element with the yet‐to‐be approved Maybell housing development included. When the Association of Bay Area Governments told Palo Alto it must plan and zone for 2,860 new housing units in the current planning period it sent officials scrambling to meet the quota. Planning Director Curtis Williams said last week that including Maybell is an important part of helping the city comply with ABAG. Without it he said, "We'd have to go back to the drawing board ..." Despite their 3‐0 vote to approve including Maybell, members of the Housing Mandate committee tried to reassure residents that their minds were not made up. There is plenty of leeway for the council to reject the Maybell housing and then revise the Housing Element if necessary, they say. "I have not made up my mind on Maybell and this is not a done deal," Mayor Greg Scharff told the largely hostile audience at the meeting last Thursday, saying he voted to approve it because he said it is required by law but could be revised later. New development and particularly the development of low‐income housing that exceeds the allowable zoning is always going to create controversy in Palo Alto. That means city officials need to bend over backwards to ensure early and transparent engagement with neighbors and a process that progresses in an ethically and legally acceptable fashion. This hasn't happened with this development proposal, and the City Council now needs to do the right thing and remove the proposed Maybell project from the official housing plan. That gesture won't repair the damage that has been done, but it will at least signal that the council now understands the neighborhood's outrage and accepts responsibility for the poor process. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt Stanford Warren Ascherman M.D. Professor Co‐director, Stanford Technology Ventures Program 345 Huang Engineering Center. Stanford, CA 94305‐4121 Stanford University Tel: 650‐723‐1887 Fax: 650‐723‐1614 http://soe.stanford.edu/research/layoutMSnE.php?sunetid=kme http://stvp.stanford.edu/ 1 Ellner, Robin From:Wong, Tim Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 12:51 PM To:Ellner, Robin Subject:FW: Maybell-Clemo and editorial ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Kathy Eisenhardt [mailto:kme@stanford.edu] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:26 AM To: Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis Subject: Maybell‐Clemo and editorial Mr. Wong, Mr. Williams: I wanted to let you know that I believe that this editorial is a highly effective statement of some of the problems with the proposed PAHC proposal. You simply are doing something illegal, unfair, and unwise. I provide it below for your information. The botches of the Arastradero corridor and Miki's Market should be a lesson of how poor the planning has become at this end of the city. Sincerely, Kathleen Eisenhardt 4184 Donald Drive Editorial: A backwards process on Maybell project "Not a done deal" defense rings hollow for proposed senior‐housing development Imagine making a substantial family investment in something before determining its value, how other family members felt about it and deciding if it was the best way to meet your family goals? That's exactly what has happened with the city of Palo Alto's botched handling of a development proposed by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), and neighbors of the Maybell Avenue project site in Barron Park have every reason to feel the fix is in. The problem began last November when the council agreed to loan PAHC $3.2 million to acquire the land for the project at 567 Maybell Ave., a street with no sidewalks one block north of Arastradero Road that has been severely impacted by drivers and bicyclists trying to avoid the congestion on Arastradero due to the lane reductions. The council added another $2.6 million loan in March, even though the project itself had not received approvals from the Planning and Transportation Commission or the City Council and environmental review and public hearings hadn't been completed. PAHC's laudable mission is to increase the amount of affordable housing in Palo Alto with the goal of maintaining a diverse community. It had the opportunity to buy two large parcels totaling 2 2.5 acres but needed loans from the city to close the deal, and ultimately will need the city to approve a special planned community (PC) zone in order to build a four‐story 60‐unit apartment building and 15 single‐family homes. The homes would be sold at market rate and the profits from those sales would enable the city to eventually be repaid. Neighborhood residents, who were caught unaware during the early consideration of the loan request, now have a wide range of legitimate complaints, especially the impact of traffic which they say the city's consultant downplayed, and what they feel is the tone‐deaf way the city bureaucracy went about slipping the project into the city's required Housing Element, set to be approved by the City Council Monday night. If approved, it will be another action supporting the project taken prior to the council holding public hearings and considering the PAHC application for a PC zone. It is not credible, as some council members have stated, that their minds are completely open on whether to approve the project and that prior actions won't have any influence as they consider the development in future weeks. Maybell‐area residents have to feel like the deck is stacked against them, when before the project is even approved, it has received more than $5 million in loans from the City Council and is included in the city's much ballyhooed Housing Element. At last week's meeting of the council's Regional Housing Mandate Committee the vote was 3‐0 (Scharff, Schmid, Berman, with Holman absent) to approve the Housing Element with the yet‐to‐be approved Maybell housing development included. When the Association of Bay Area Governments told Palo Alto it must plan and zone for 2,860 new housing units in the current planning period it sent officials scrambling to meet the quota. Planning Director Curtis Williams said last week that including Maybell is an important part of helping the city comply with ABAG. Without it he said, "We'd have to go back to the drawing board ..." Despite their 3‐0 vote to approve including Maybell, members of the Housing Mandate committee tried to reassure residents that their minds were not made up. There is plenty of leeway for the council to reject the Maybell housing and then revise the Housing Element if necessary, they say. "I have not made up my mind on Maybell and this is not a done deal," Mayor Greg Scharff told the largely hostile audience at the meeting last Thursday, saying he voted to approve it because he said it is required by law but could be revised later. New development and particularly the development of low‐income housing that exceeds the allowable zoning is always going to create controversy in Palo Alto. That means city officials need to bend over backwards to ensure early and transparent engagement with neighbors and a process that progresses in an ethically and legally acceptable fashion. This hasn't happened with this development proposal, and the City Council now needs to do the right thing and remove the proposed Maybell project from the official housing plan. That gesture won't repair the damage that has been done, but it will at least signal that the council now understands the neighborhood's outrage and accepts responsibility for the poor process. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Edie Keating <edie.keating100@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:13 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:The Proposed Maybell Senior Housing Should be Recommend To the Palo Alto Planning Commission - I believe that the proposed Maybell Senior Housing Project is a truly superior project, and I hope you will recommend its approval. I also believe the concerns some have expressed are not well founded. I attend church next door to Stephenson House, which provides over 100 units of affordable senior housing. It has been my pleasure to know many of its residents, including retired librarians, retired nursery school teachers, and grandparents of local families. Many of the people there have long connections to our community, and affordable senior housing gives them the opportunity and security that they can stay. Stephenson House always has a wait list, typically over 100 people long, and waits for units can be up to two years. With the baby boomer population bulge heading for retirement, I have no doubt that there will be many applicants for the 60 units at Maybell. There is one assumption of the project that I think I can confirm. The residents at Stephenson House don't drive much. When I turn into church, which is at a varied range of times, not just Sunday morning, it is hard to remember seeing a car coming in or out of the driveway next door. However, I often need to slow down because a Stephenson House resident is walking across our driveway, on there way to Piazza's Market. Some of them have stopped driving entirely. Stephenson House is next door to Hoover School, and Thatcher Preschool is on site at our church. Too my knowledge, all these vehicles, pedestrians and bikes manage to get where they are going without incident. Unlike most of us, senior drivers are not in a rush, and they can schedule their trips to avoid rush hour traffic. The added sidewalk on Maybell will add to pedestrian safety. Having garages and driveways for all 15 single family homes on the interior alley, rather than on Maybell, also will limit the points where cars enter onto Maybell, again increasing pedestrian safety, and the suggested no parking from 7am to 7pm on Maybell will increase bicycle safety. Just as the Tan Plaza tower does not impact the street level ambience on Maybell, neither will the remote corner senior housing site impact the Maybell ambience. While there have been compaints about setbacks, the existing houses have narrow setbacks already, and the proposal to increase setbacks on Clemo to preserve the large oak trees there preserves a wonderful feature of this location. What will happen if this project is not approved? It is likely that Palo Alto Housing corporation will sell the land to a for profit housing developer. As the staff report states, and as is intuitively sensible, building market rate family housing with the current zoning results in more peak hour (i.e. school commute time) trips than the proposed project. It is unrealistic that a for profit developer will build less than the zoning allows. So given the current zoning, I cannot think of a better way than this proposal to minimize projected car trips, given that this multimillion dollar site will be developed. I hope that the neighbors who state their support for safe school communtes, and their support for affordable senior housing, will begin to see that the proposed project is far superior on both counts than any project within current zoning would be. 2 Home owners with a predictable mortgage and prop 13 tax protection have stability in their housing costs. Renters are vulnerable to suddenly increasing rental rates, as the current rental market reminds us. Non profits like Palo Alto Housing Corporation will not increase rents just because they can. Non profit housing is an oasis of rent level stability, and the whole city of Palo Alto benefits from as our stock of non profit rental housing grows. The Palo Alto City Council made a good choice to support acquisition of this property financially. If the project is not approved, the land can easily be resold. But the difficult thing that the city helped acheive was the acquistion of this significant site by non profit Palo Alto Housing Corporation. I hope you will think of the reduced traffic, the value of affordable senior housing, and appreciate the community sensitive project features, and recommend approval of this project. When presented with an opportunity like these 60 units, I look to city leadership to balance the value of these units to the whole community with any potential impact on the neighbors. But happily, this project is also the lowest impact housing project that I can imagine for this site. The single family homes transition with the neighborhood, and the far corner senior housing reduces school hour traffic, compared to the likely alternative of market rate housing. Hurray! This project will be a win for both the wider Palo Alto community, and the Maybell neighbors, even if they can't see that at this time. Please recommend approval of this project. Sincerely, Edie Keating 3553 Alma St. #5 Palo Alto CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Patti Kahn <patti@kornfeld.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 9:57 AM To:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; Planning Commission; Council, City; info@paloaltoville.com Subject:Rezoning of Maybell and Clemo I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the city's proposed rezoning of the area at Maybell and Clemo to allow the building of high‐density housing. Traffic on Maybell in the mornings and afternoons is already a nightmare of gridlock. Because Maybell is a designated safe bike route to four schools, there are dozens and dozens of bicyclists and pedestrians sharing this narrow road with dozens and dozens of cars each morning and afternoon. Evidently, the traffic study that was done did not take into account this high‐volume bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Adding 60 high‐density housing units and 15 homes will ensure that the already‐gridlocked traffic becomes simply unbearable‐‐both for current users of the street and residents of the new housing units. But more importantly, unless one of you can personally guarantee that no emergency‐response vehicle will ever need to travel on Maybell between 7:30 and 9:00 a.m.‐‐that is, that no ambulance will ever need to go there or no fire will ever break out during that time‐‐I believe you will be personally responsible for any tragedy that may occur during those hours in that neighborhood. During those busy hours, there would be absolutely no way‐‐I repeat, NO way‐‐for an emergency‐response vehicle to get through. I cannot urge you strongly enough to oppose the rezoning and proposed building of high‐density housing in a neighborhood that simply cannot handle it safely. Thank you for your time. Sincerely Yours, Patti Kahn Barron Park resident 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jonathan Marson <800gallons@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:01 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim Subject:567 and 595 Maybell Avenue Rezoning Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to oppose the above rezoning. I grew up in the Barron Square condos. Although I am away at university now, my parents still live there. I know the traffic situation on Arastradero and Maybell and it is very congested, especially when the schools start and get out. None of the concerns that I am submitting have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objections in the records for the Maybell property and Housing Element. I rode my bicycle to Barron Park primary school and to Gunn High School. The traffic on both those streets is very heavy. There are a lot of kids walking and bicycling, and cars everywhere during those times can be dangerous. I had a friend who was once hit by a car while leaving the bike path from Gunn. Fortunately, her injuries were minor, but this could become a far more dangerous situation in the future with greater congestion. I understand that there will be 65 new units in total, which is a lot for that area. Even though older people drive less, there will still be more traffic because they need to go to the grocery store and doctor, and they need help when they have an emergency. I also oppose this development because it is overwhelming for the area due to its size and scale. Most of the surrounding places or single-family homes – this new development will be very different and not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. Also, this is only the most recent of many new developments that have changed south Palo Alto. When we first moved there, it seemed like a safe place to walk and bicycle, even when we had to cross El Camino. With all the new houses and apartments that are being built, the traffic on the main streets is becoming much worse, and the designated bicycle lanes (which were helpful to me) actually make the car traffic more crowded. Since bus service is not as available in Palo Alto as in a city, and we don’t have a subway, I request that you deny this request to change the zoning for now. Thank you for considering this request, Jonathan Marson 4150 Thain Way 2 800gallons@gmail.com 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jonathan Marson <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:38 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: wenlin chen, Eva Gal… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 145 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. This rezoning would significantly and negatively impact several neighborhoods - Green Acres, Barron Park, Charleston Meadows, and Palo Alto Orchards, in terms of traffic, safety, school access, quality of life, and aesthetics of the neighborhood. The most serious concern is bike and pedestrian safety as Maybell is a small road that is the main thoroughfare for hundreds of students attending Juana Briones Elementary School, Juana Briones Occupationally Handicapped Center, Juana Briones Kids Club, Terman Middle School, Gunn High School, and Barron Park Elementary School, in addition to those who regularly use Juana Briones Park for field-trip and after-school activities. Given the central and primary access to five schools in this area, Maybell has been designated a "Safe to School Route" - and the Palo Alto School District and the City of Palo consistently urge parents and families to have our children bike or walk to school. And yet, even though this is a designated "Safet to School Route" - it is already way over safe traffic capacity limits. Every day, parents and residents witness dangerous driving and school kids in near-miss situations. There are no sidewalks, no curbs, and no bike paths on Maybell Avenue, and bikes, pedestrians, strollers, and motorists all share the same road. Maybell is already a choke-hold, there are no other ingress points directly into this neighborhood. Arastradero has been re-striped and narrowed, driving traffic onto Maybell. The traffic overflows to Amarantha and Georgia, which also have no sidewalks, curbs, or bike paths. Young children on bikes and walking are often forced to weave between parked cars - just to get to school. I have personally seen cars backing up or pulling out, almost hitting young children on their bikes that they can't see. How staggeringly unreasonable and irresponsible it would be for the City to ignore the warnings, information, and pleas from parents and residents. If anything were to happen to a child due to a known traffic safety issue, the fault would squarely be theirs. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Putting up 75 new housing units would increase known traffic dangers, and also essentially "trap" residents and emergency/disaster vehicles by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino and plenty of reasonable development potential throughout the city There are dozens of empty, unleased-for-years buildings in commercial and high-density zoned areas already that are wasteland, and yet the City would consider seriously putting children's lives at risk by building high-density in a residential neighborhood that feeds into five schools. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. 2 Sincerely, 141. wenlin chen Palo Alto, California 142. Eva Gal Palo Alto, California 143. Lucy Yuan Palo Alto, California 144. Allan Marson Palo Alto, California 145. Jonathan Marson Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jonathan Marson <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:38 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- My parents live near Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: My parents live near the relevant zone and this will affect them, as well as the community, negatively in terms of congestion and the safety of children who attend the nearby schools. Sincerely, Jonathan Marson Palo Alto, California There are now 145 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jacob Hartinger (jharting) <jharting@cisco.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:05 PM To:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Maybell rezoning Dear local government leaders, I am writing to express my objection to the rezoning of the Maybell/Clemo parcel. I do not object to senior housing and welcome the City to identify appropriate locations. I have been a resident of Barron Park near Maybell for more than 20 years. I have seen Terman open as a middle school. I have seen increases in Gunn and Juana Briones student enrollment. Most notably I have witnessed the traffic behavior on the community following the Arastadero lane re‐stripe project and see the huge increase in Maybell traffic from cars seeking to avoid the backup on Arastadero. The increase in traffic has been exponential and the impact to safety significant. On school days I often wait for 3‐5 minutes to make a left turn from Abel on to Maybell, watching over a hundred cyclists go by, with the road completely clogged with cars. This is an unsafe situation as people are in a hurry, car doors can open and accidents wait to happen. I also pass Arastadero on El Camino and often notice red‐light violations and intersection blockage due to the traffic headed to Terman and/or Gunn. I have seen the Maybell stop signs at Coloumbe and Maybell "taken out" multiple times. People are hurrying and the situation is currently unsafe. Please do not rezone and make that situation worse! I also have a significant concern regarding Maybell street width between Baker and Amaranta. If you walk those two blocks you will notice that Maybell gets 5ft narrower on the West site of Baker an then narrower again on the west side of Abel. This road configuration is unexpected for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists and raises a safety risk. I have not seen this addressed in any development plan and it should be. I also have concern about Emergency vehicle access to Maybell from Clemo. Traffic is blocked with 4 inch park barrier however Emergency vehicles sometimes use this as access to the Barron Park community. The area on Maybell around Clemo should designated as "no stopping" to allow emergency vehicle access. Again, Access to Barron Park for Emergency Vehicles can only get worse with the rezoning. Please do not rezone! Regards, Jake Hartinger 4143 Abel Ave. Palo Alto Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition The Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition is comprised of a broad range of organizations and individuals who have, as a common goal, the vision of affordable, well-constructed and appropriately located housing May 17, 2013 Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Members of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, I am writing to express support for the Maybell Orchard development proposal by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, (PAHC). By way of reference, the Housing Action Coalition includes more than 100 organizations and individuals. Its goal is the production of well-built, appropriately-located homes that are affordable to families and workers in Silicon Valley. Organizations participating in the HAC represent business, labor, environmental organizations and many more. The Maybell Orchard proposal provides a great opportunity to add much needed affordable homes for seniors to Palo Alto. The proposal will be 100% affordable and will serve seniors with incomes ranging between 30-60% AMI for Santa Clara County. The whole property is a 2.46 acre site, but it will be rezoned and subdivided so that a portion of the site will accommodate single-family homes, which will be transferred to and built by a private developer. However, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s overall goal for this site is to create fifty-nine (59) one-bedroom homes for extremely-low and low- income seniors on a 1.1 acre parcel. Furthermore, this proposal will help create a close-knit community beyond the apartment’s own walls through multi-generational events, as at it is adjacent to a family property that is also owned by PAHC. In terms of access to transportation, the proposal is within 500 feet of the north-south peninsula artery, El Camino Real, which is served by multiple VTA bus routes such as the "22", "Rapid 522" and "88." The bus stop for each of these routes is less than a five- minute walk from the property. Moreover, railway access is readily available at the Palo Alto (3.5 mi), San Antonio (1.9 mi), and California Avenue (2.0 mi) Caltrain stations. This proximity to transit is very wise public policy as seniors are less likely to be able to drive. These transit opportunities allow our senior population to stay active and happily engaged in the community. Also very important is the fact that the accessible public transit opportunities encourage transit ridership versus auto-ownership, therefore minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and benefiting the environment. Overall, we believe the Maybell Orchard proposal will be highly beneficial, not only by creating homes for low income seniors in Palo Alto, but also by serving to benefit the community as a whole. We encourage your support of this proposal and thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Margaret Bard Housing Action Coalition Chair 1 Ellner, Robin From:Eva Gal <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:40 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Why I signed -- Thge proposed rezoning is Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, I just signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Thge proposed rezoning is illegal,; the process has violated every element of an open and transparent city council process; the rezoning will create severe traffic, emergency and school safety issues Sincerely, Eva Gal Palo Alto, California There are now 142 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Ellner, Robin From:eugene zukowsky <eandzz@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 9:37 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Clemo/Maybell project As a long time resident of Maybell Way, we have already weathered one strongly contested plan, i.e., the Charlston/Arastradero corridor. Having sat through the open meetings listening to the arguments and feeling the futility of anything we predict making an impact, leaves us with the sense of "I have been there before". Every prediction we made to you then has been correct!! Given the way the traffic is on Arastradero and the spillover on Maybell Ave. you could not call that a success. It's now time to suggest to you that the predictions of your Clemo/Maybell plan that you have made are wrong, again. Based on inadequate data regarding traffic, the obvious overcrowding on Maybell Ave. and the dangers of the mixture of bikes, cars and people cannot be minimized. Ironically, your major criteria for the Arastradero project was bike safety. Additionally, we are VERY concerned about access to emergency vehicles. We are seniors, living on a cul‐de‐sac full of seniors and are all too familiar with having the need to have emergency vehicles come to our homes. Now you're planning on compounding these problems and it looks like you, again, don't see it. In all humility, we who live here know better than you!!! Gene and Zita Zukowsky 4153 Maybell Way 1 Ellner, Robin From:Wong, Tim Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 9:44 AM To:Ellner, Robin Subject:FW: Clemo/Maybell project An additional comment on Maybell . . . ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: eugene zukowsky [mailto:eandzz@stanford.edu] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM To: Wong, Tim Subject: Clemo/Maybell project As a long time resident of Maybell Way, we have already weathered one strongly contested plan, i.e., the Charlston/Arastradero corridor. Having sat through the open meetings listening to the arguments and feeling the futility of anything we predict making an impact, leaves us with the sense of "I have been there before". Every prediction we made to you then has been correct!! Given the way the traffic is on Arastradero and the spillover on Maybell Ave. you could not call that a success. It's now time to suggest to you that the predictions of your Clemo/Maybell plan that you have made are wrong, again. Based on inadequate data regarding traffic, the obvious overcrowding on Maybell Ave. and the dangers of the mixture of bikes, cars and people cannot be minimized. Ironically, your major criteria for the Arastradero project was bike safety. Additionally, we are VERY concerned about access to emergency vehicles. We are seniors, living on a cul‐de‐sac full of seniors and are all too familiar with having the need to have emergency vehicles come to our homes. Now you're planning on compounding these problems and it looks like you, again, don't see it. In all humility, we who live here know better than you!!! Gene and Zita Zukowsky 4153 Maybell Way 1 Ellner, Robin From:Ree Dufresne <ree_duff@comcast.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:19 AM To:Wong, Tim; Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Williams, Curtis Subject:Maybell/ Palo Alto Housing Project Attachments:Mom 74 now.JPG Hello All, Once again I appeal to you to "stop pushing through increased zoning projects here in Palo Alto." Specifically, the Project on Maybell at Clemo which is actually going to create a more dangerous situation for everyone using Maybell, than we already have. "The safety of our children and the impact on our schools and all of the services that will be required if you add anything to Maybell -- which is already substandard in its width -- is going to be outrageous. I can't believe there isn't another place where you can put this project that would be more safe for all of us." At times there are transport trucks on Maybell, dropping off cars to Volvo causing pedestrians and bicyclists to "blindly" face head on traffic in both directions on Maybell. My husband and I are pushing 80 and have lived on Thain Way for over 30 years. We are both very active with going to the Gym every day, trips to the golf course, Volunteering at the VA, Mentoring "at risk children at different schools, and going to Mt. View to shop, etc. At times we cannot get out onto Maybell to run our errands due to the excess traffic created by the Debacle of the Arastradero/Charleston Corridor forcing more cars and bicycles onto Maybell. Moms and Nannys are walking children in Strollers in the street on their way to the park, we & other dog owners are walking our dogs on Maybell daily, along with many children on Bicycles riding 4 abreast at times in the middle of the street, competing with 3000 pound automobiles for the space. I am 77 years old and I am a good driver (as opposed to the ones some folks are complaining about) and there are times when I have to drive 3 miles an hour behind children on bicycles, for fear that they don't realize that cars are behind them. Adding this project ( Maybell at Clemo ) with increased zoning to our already negatively impacted street, is irresponsible in so many ways that it is inconceivable to 2 me that this Commission would allow it to be approved. I am not opposed to Senior Housing or Low income housing, as I own a property in another city that is a Section 8 home because I feel it is the right thing to do. I just feel that this project is a danger to our community. I also think that you have "put out the word to Developers that they can submit plans with increased Zoning, and it will get approved", since all of the Projects I've seen submitted recently are assuming they will get an increase from Rm-15 to Rm-30 or better, here in Palo Alto. I plan to speak at the meeting on May 22nd as I did at the "Housing Element Meeting" so I am attaching a photo, so you don't think all 77 year olds are too old to be driving. Sincerely, Rosemarie Dufresne Rosemarie (Ree) Campaña Dufresne 522 Thain Way Palo Alto, CA 94306-3918 650-856-2024 Cell: 650-224-8845 1 Ellner, Robin From:Debra Sutherland <mail@changemail.org> Sent:Friday, May 17, 2013 3:53 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:5 new petition signatures: Yao Zou, marta apple… 5 new people recently signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. There are now 135 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=3ef3feea1f96 Dear Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto, Please vote against rezoning at 567-595 Maybell Avenue. We understand that a developer is proposing that this small area would be rezoned from four single-family homes to allow 75 housing units. This high-density development will have a significant, negative impact on traffic, safety, school access, and property values in this neighborhood. With no sidewalks in this neighborhood, and so many children and teenagers walking and biking up Maybell and Georgia to and from school each day, increased traffic and serious safety issues concern us all. This rezoning would significantly and negatively impact several neighborhoods - Green Acres, Barron Park, Charleston Meadows, and Palo Alto Orchards, in terms of traffic, safety, school access, quality of life, and aesthetics of the neighborhood. The most serious concern is bike and pedestrian safety as Maybell is a small road that is the main thoroughfare for hundreds of students attending Juana Briones Elementary School, Juana Briones Occupationally Handicapped Center, Juana Briones Kids Club, Terman Middle School, Gunn High School, and Barron Park Elementary School, in addition to those who regularly use Juana Briones Park for field-trip and after-school activities. Given the central and primary access to five schools in this area, Maybell has been designated a "Safe to School Route" - and the Palo Alto School District and the City of Palo consistently urge parents and families to have our children bike or walk to school. And yet, even though this is a designated "Safet to School Route" - it is already way over safe traffic capacity limits. Every day, parents and residents witness dangerous driving and school kids in near-miss situations. There are no sidewalks, no curbs, and no bike paths on Maybell Avenue, and bikes, pedestrians, strollers, and motorists all share the same road. Maybell is already a choke-hold, there are no other ingress points directly into this neighborhood. Arastradero has been re-striped and narrowed, driving traffic onto Maybell. The traffic overflows to Amarantha and Georgia, which also have no sidewalks, curbs, or bike paths. Young children on bikes and walking are often forced to weave between parked cars - just to get to school. I have personally seen cars backing up or pulling out, almost hitting young children on their bikes that they can't see. How staggeringly unreasonable and irresponsible it would be for the City to ignore the warnings, information, and pleas from parents and residents. If anything were to happen to a child due to a known traffic safety issue, the fault would squarely be theirs. The existing zoning already provides for R-2 single family homes and duplexes in addition to RM-15 for lower-density housing. Putting up 75 new housing units would increase known traffic dangers, and also essentially "trap" residents and emergency/disaster vehicles by blocking up access on Maybell. There is already a lot of new housing development occurring all along El Camino and plenty of reasonable development potential throughout the city There are dozens of empty, unleased-for-years buildings in commercial and high-density zoned areas already that are wasteland, and yet the City would consider seriously putting children's lives at risk by building high-density in a residential neighborhood that feeds into five schools. Be Reasonable. Be Responsible. Don't Rezone. 2 Sincerely, 131. Yao Zou Palo Alto, California 132. marta apple palo alto, California 133. Jacob Hartinger Palo Alto, California 134. Kate Hill Palo Alto, California 135. Debra Sutherland Palo Alto, California Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the Planning and Transportation Commission May 14, 2013 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Maybell senior housing Dear members of the Planning and Transportation Commission, Maybell senior housing will provide 60 units of affordable housing to our aging senior population in Palo Alto. We all benefit from a diverse community that includes residents of all ages and differing income levels. Due to insufficient affordable housing, it would be a shame to lose residents that have contributed their time and energy to help make Palo Alto the extraordinary place it is today. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation has developed a plan that allows 60 senior households to continue to live, work and enjoy their community. Affordable housing opportunities start with land acquisition. PAHC was fortunate to acquire the 2.5 acre Maybell property when so many developers were interested in the site for housing. The current zoning will support 34 homes, resulting in more square footage on the property than the senior building and 15 the proposed houses. The large site, unusual for Palo Alto, allows the senior building to be set back from the surrounding streets and neighborhood. The fifteen houses maintain the residential character of the existing streetscape while providing a smooth transition in height and massing for the neighborhood. The Maybell site is an excellent location for senior housing in Palo Alto. The site is adjacent to Arastradero Park Apartments, a 65 unit affordable family housing development owned and managed by PAHC. The proximity of the family housing and new senior housing allows PAHC to provide management and services in a more efficient manner. As has been demonstrated in our other affordable housing projects, residents take advantage of regional transportation, carpooling, and shuttle services. We have found that our senior residents do not own cars in the same proportion as family homeowners. Based on parking requirements at other senior projects in Palo Alto, the 47 parking spaces for 60 units (parking ratio of .78) will be generous. Sheridan Senior Apartments and Stevenson House have ratios of .35 and .45 respectively. Our experience with other properties suggests that the project will be over-‐parked. Therefore, five of the parking spaces will be held in landscape reserve to reduce the impact of unused parking spaces on the site plan. Seniors are not tied to commute hours as many other residents are. Living in the same building, seniors are more likely to carpool or utilize shuttle vans to get around town, go shopping, and enjoy the amenities in and around Palo Alto. By directing the relatively small amount of additional vehicular traffic directly to Arastradero Road, the circulation into and out of the new development has been designed to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. Access to all the parking for the senior building and new houses is from Clemo Avenue only. Additionally, Briones Park is a beautiful amenity in the neighborhood. Pedestrian access has been designed within the property to allow seniors and families from Arastradero Park Apartments to walk to the park. PAHC has held two public outreach meetings, listened carefully to the concerns of the neighbors, and has incorporated solutions to those concerns into the design. The ideas and comments of the City Council, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the Architectural Review Board have been integral in the development of the housing plans for Maybell. The plan has been developed into a unique opportunity to provide much needed low income senior housing in Palo Alto. PAHC has developed affordable housing throughout Palo Alto since 1970. We manage our own properties and provide extensive social services to the communities we serve. Our mission is to develop and manage affordable housing for Palo Alto and the surrounding communities. We are very excited to have this opportunity to support our low income seniors with housing built in our community. Maybell senior housing can be another important component in maintaining age and income diversity in our city. Thank you, David Easton, Architect Board member of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation 1 Ellner, Robin From:Nancy Cohen <ncohen@family.stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 2:12 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Maybell/Clemo project I am writing to object to the ill‐advised proposal for the combination of market value houses with a low income housing component on the Maybell/Clemo project. Low income housing should be a priority for the City of Palo Alto and I would be in favor of such a project on this site if such housing could accommodate disabled residents, it did not add a traffic burden to the already heavily traveled surrounding roads and did not require such a drastic change in zoning. However, to finance that project by putting nine ugly houses along Maybell where four small homes currently exist in addition to the six on Clemo, all of which are outside the required setbacks, etc. that the City requires other homeowners to obey is not tenable. When remodeling our home on Maybell we were required to narrow the living room because the house is on a corner and the narrow side is viewed as the front of the house. This made little sense as the front door has been on Maybell for over 50 years, but we did it. Now houses are proposed with little setback and no space between them. Trying to leave our house in the morning when school is in session is already a taxing feat. Adding to that congestion by rezoning this property for higher density right across from one of the four schools in this corridor will add to this burden. The argument that seniors do not travel at this time of day is false; we are in our 70’s and need to go out several mornings a week at the same time as the school traffic. I reiterate what a neighbor has already told you, “[T]he first thing in the Comprehensive Plan under land use is a policy to "maintain a citywide structure of residential neighborhoods," with a goal of "safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character." This project will destroy the residential, leafy aspect of this neighborhood. Children and dogs will be in danger in an area now catering to those aspects of the neighborhood. Please do not grant this change in zoning. The City must find another way to meet Housing Element objectives. Nancy Mahoney Cohen 1 Ellner, Robin From:Carolyn Johnson <rhunterg@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 12:58 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell/Clemo rezoning and architectural impact As a long‐time taxpayer and multi‐generational resident of Palo Alto, I respectfully ask that the City's position in this matter be re‐ considered. 1. As I'm sure you will all agree, the **safety of our children must be paramount**. In my view, Maybell is already an unsafe area for all of us during before‐and after‐school hours due to the congestion of young people on bicycles, walking, on skateboards, riding, and driving to and from the many schools within close proximity. It already scares the heck out of me to drive in that area during those hours and since I'm retired ‐ I simply avoid them. But others won't have that luxury. Have thorough studies of this aspect been undertaken independently by the City? 2. Where will all the cars related to these proposed bldgs park? On a beautiful day like yesterday, parking is already non‐existent around our Briones Park ‐ better known to my daughter and granddaughters as "The Choo‐choo Train Park" from the years when **my** mother lived nearby. Congested and/or non‐existent parking will only add to the difficulties of ingress/egress in the area, particularly for emergency situations. Has this been studied? 3. With all due respect, no doubt we can all probably agree that "ugly" is subjective. But let's face it ‐ monolithic, fortress‐like, overcrowded bldgs with little or no surrounding open spaces and inadequate infrastructure will ultimately tend to lead to blighted conditions. The buildings as proposed bear no relationship to the long‐time and well‐ established architectural criteria for building in our city. 4. Hoping you'll bear with me, but as a "Senior" member of Palo Alto's community, this starts to get personal. It seems to me the proposed design and location of the "senior housing" is entirely inappropriate, to put it lightly. Everything I've seen and heard about them would make them unlivable for most of us. They don't incorporate "Universal Design". There are no services for everyday living within walking distance ‐ even assuming one can walk and carry substantial packages. Perhaps the architects are using a "model" of "Yesterday's" Seniors? We have two cars and a truck (in addition to our bicycles) ‐ where will we park? (so much for the myth that "seniors don't drive") Are the units to be multi‐story? If so, will they incorporate elevators? Will there be space for small personal gardens? Will a community center be incorporated for Senior meetings, classes, etc. Will there be exercise/rehab facilities? Have any or all of these aspects been reviewed by the City? My husband broke his leg and hand riding a "Century" (100 miles) on his bicycle and was in a wheelchair for two months (as noted, we aren't "Yesterday's" Seniors !) Are these apartments completely accessible to wheelchairs should either one of us need one? Are the bathrooms and kitchens designed to be "accessible? Could any of you advise me why I would want to live in one of them? If possible, I'd like to request copies specifically of the studies **already** done by the City of Palo Alto (**not** by the developer!) that address Items 1, 2, and 4 as noted above. I find it difficult to imagine that any City employee or Board/Council member would move ahead on this project ‐ much less the incorporation of the Re‐zoning in the Master Plan ‐ without a multitude of these and other **independent** studies. Thank you for your kind attention to the above and to our concerns. Respectfully 2 Carolyn M. Johnson "None of the concerns that I submitted before and am now re‐submitting have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objections in the records for the Maybell property and Housing Element." 1 Ellner, Robin From:Wong, Tim Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 12:51 PM To:Ellner, Robin Subject:FW: Maybell Property Re-zoning From: Carolyn Johnson [mailto:rhunterg@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:47 PM To: Wong, Tim Subject: Maybell Property Re-zoning As a multi-generational long-time taxpayer in Palo Alto, I respectfully ask that you re-consider the City's position in this matter. 1. As I'm sure you'll agree, the **safety of our children must be paramount**. In my view, Maybell is already an unsafe area for all of us during before-and after-school hours due to the congestion of young people on bicycles, walking, on skateboards, riding, and driving to and from the many schools within close proximity. It already scares the heck out of me to drive in that area during those hours and since I'm retired - I simply avoid them. But others won't have that luxury. Have thorough studies of this aspect been undertaken independently by the City? 2. Where will all the cars related to these proposed bldgs park? On a beautiful day like yesterday, parking is already non-existent around our Briones Park - better known to my daughter and granddaughters as "The Choo- choo Train Park" from the years when **my** mother lived nearby. Congested and/or non-existent parking will only add to the difficulties of ingress/egress in the area, particularly for emergency situations. Has this been studied? 3. With all due respect, you and I would agree, no doubt, that "ugly" is subjective. But let's face it - monolithic, fortress-like, overcrowded bldgs with little or no surrounding open spaces and inadequate infrastructure will ultimately tend to lead to blighted conditions. 4. Hoping you'll bear with me, but as a "Senior" member of Palo Alto's community, this starts to get personal. It seems to me the proposed design and location of the "senior housing" is entirely inappropriate, to put it lightly. Everything I've seen and heard about them would make them unlivable for most of us. They don't incorporate "Universal Design". There are no services for everyday living within walking distance - even assuming one can walk and carry substantial packages. Perhaps the architects are using a "model" of "Yesterday's" Seniors? We have two cars and a truck (in addition to our bicycles) - where will we park? (so much for the myth that "seniors don't drive") Are the units to be multi-story? If so, will they incorporate elevators? Will there be space for small personal gardens? Will a community center be incorporated for Senior meetings, classes, etc. Will there be exercise/rehab facilities? Have any or all of these aspects been reviewed by the City? My husband broke his leg and hand riding a "Century" (100 miles) on his bicycle and was in a wheelchair for two months (as noted, we aren't "Yesterday's" Seniors !) Are these apartments completely accessible to wheelchairs should either one of us need one? Are the bathrooms and kitchens designed to be "accessible? Could you advise me why I would want to live in one of them? 2 If possible, I'd like to request copies specifically of the studies **already** done by the City of Palo Alto (**not** by the developer!) that address Items 1, 2, and 4 as noted above. I'd find it difficult to imagine that any City employee or Board/Council member would move ahead on this project - much less the incorporation of the Re-zoning in the Master Plan - without a multitude of these and other **independent** studies. Thank you for your kind attention to the above and to our concerns. Respectfully Carolyn M. Johnson "None of the concerns that I submitted before and am now re-submitting have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objections in the records for the Maybell property and Housing Element." 1 Ellner, Robin From:Kin Cho <send.kin.mail@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:09 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:info@paloaltoville.com Subject:Stop High-density High-rise across from Briones Dear Palo Alto city leaders and city planners, I'm a Palo Alto resident and my home is on Maybell Ave. Maybell Ave. and Arastradero are both narrow streets, please do not make the rush hour traffic jams even worse and ruin our neighborhood!!! Please, NO "High-density high-rise across from Briones". Sincerely, Kin Cho 1 Ellner, Robin From:Karen Chin <karenlo@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:27 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:info@paloaltoville.com Subject:Do not rezone Maybell/Clemo To City Council and Planning Commission members, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the Maybell-Clemo site. I have a few concerns: 1. Zoning exists for a reason. In the corporate environments in which I have worked, we create design rules and criteria ahead of the time we need to do a design or perform an engineering evaluation so that we can effectively judge whether the design fits the goals. We iterate on the design when it doesn't. We don't allow the designer to change the criteria when it becomes tough to meet the goals or because doing so meets some short-term desired objective; that would be poor design methodology and produce a shoddy product. Rezoning is like changing the criteria/rules to allow a design to fit when it otherwise wouldn't. Don't bend the rules - build affordable housing within the existing zoning regulations. 2. One of the most important responsibilities of government officials is to resolve the issues brought to light by residents, not add to them. There are already a number of challenges that the Green Acres II neighborhood faces in terms of school and commuter traffic. Commuters are cutting through on Maybell to avoid the traffic on Arastradero. It shouldn't take me almost 25 minutes to reach Cubberley Community Center from my home in Green Acres II at rush hour, but it does. There are Gunn High School students driving on Georgia Ave at twice the speed limit, endangering pedestrians and bikers. Rezoning would add more vehicles and pedestrians to the congestion. And the traffic study of the project didn't even take bikers into account, which is a huge portion of the traffic during school hours. The city of Palo Alto seems more interested in adding density without having the infrastructure to support even what already exists or to address problems created by the cars already on our streets. Please spend your time resolving the problems we already have. Regards, Karen Chin Georgia Ave. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Simanta Chakraborty <simantachak@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:28 PM To:Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Maybell/Clemo Housing project Dear City Leadership, The Mercury News reported on a pedestrian death at a high school in East Palo Alto: "The accident follows another fatal crash that claimed the life of a 15-year-old sophomore as he rode his bicycle to Silver Creek High School on Monday morning. Last week, a 5-year-old girl was killed when an SUV rammed into her family as they crossed the street in front of Parkview Elementary School in South San Jose." I bring these recent deaths to your attention because of the planned Maybell/Clemo housing project, bringing dense housing without sufficient parking to the Barron Park Neighborhood directly into the child commuting routes to Juana Briones Elementary, Briones Park, Terman Middle School and Gunn High School. The majority of commuting students pass by the proposed property as they walk and bike to and from these schools twice a day. As a father with three daughters who will attend these schools, adding both traffic and parked cars is unacceptable. I encourage you all to walk on Maybell or Arastradero during commute hours to see the hundreds of children making their way to school. It looks like critical mass in San Francisco. As a matter of fact, Arastradero was recently reconfigured to discourage a large number of cars on it. Dense housing needs safe roads for the extra traffic. El Camino, San Antonio, Page Mill and Alma should be the types of locations where we locate these housing initiatives. These roads are not supposed to be safe school routes. I urge you to look to the safety of our children as the paramount consideration and halt the planned proposal for dense housing at this property. Please do not risk the death of children to satisfy development requirements. Regards, Simanta Chakraborty 1 Ellner, Robin From:Cedric de La Beaujardiere <cedricdlb@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:26 AM To:Planning Commission; cgonzalez@paloaltohousingcorp.org; Cedric de La Beaujardiere gmail Subject:567-595 Maybell: Compare PAHC to Private Dev Honorable Commissioners and Staff, I generally support the PAHC's project for 567-595 Maybell Avenue. COMPARE TO LIKELY ALTERNATIVE: In your deliberations on the fate of the 567-595 Maybell Avenue site, it would be relevant and informative to consider the traffic impacts of the PAHC proposed development to those of a private developer of the same site under existing zoning. While the PAHC project seeks to double the zoning density of the multi-family residential area, this is housing for seniors who I would think that by the time they come to live in a senior housing development they are not driving much, especially if they are on a budget. In addition, the residents of the units would be seniors without children, versus a regular private development would likely have families. Thus, the density of actual drivers per acre may be less in the PAHC proposal than for a private development under current zoning, and it would be good to know this with more clarity. TRAFFIC: On the traffic plan, I would not move the barrier on Clemo at this time. I would provisionally allow access through the adjacent property to access Maybell, with the condition that this access may be disabled if its traffic turns out to significantly impact Maybell. I would consider a traffic signal at Clemo and Arastradero if you think that there would be so much traffic from the current and proposed development that it is warranted. BIKE PARKING: There's an indication of a bike rack for 7 bikes on the south-east corner of the senior housing building, but it does not appear to be large enough for 7 bikes. Please work with Transportation staff (Jaime, Rafael, Sylvia) and/or PABAC to ensure the racks are of the approved design and spacing for Palo Alto. If I recall correctly (and you should check), these are typically inverted U racks with 3 feet of clearance between racks, and need room before and behind the racks. SUSTAINABILITY - POWER/CLIMATE: It seems like there could be a lot more solar PV on the roof of the senior housing. There should be solar PV and hot water on the top of the homes too, and just plan for that now so that it can clear any aesthetic issues as long as the project is moving through ARB. Maybe solar shingles if their reliability is there. Maybe the sloping roof of plan 1A in the front above the second floor and hidden by the parapet should slope southward instead of northward, so it can accommodate some panels All non-solar roofs should be cool roofs, and there are or should be (I know they have been developed and studied) heat-reflective/emissive cool roofs that are of darker colors and traditional materials, so you don't have to have a white roof to be a cool roof. SUSTAINABILITY - WATER: I appreciate the storm water treatment basins. Perhaps all paved surfaces on the site should be permeable, and the front yards of the homes should also serve as runoff collectors. I recommend rain water cisterns and 2 collection be added for each building to supplement the irrigation system, given our region's the current and future scarcity of water. SUSTAINABILITY - LANDSCAPE: Please require all native plants for the installed landscaping. Native wildlife will be taking a hit with the loss of the fallow orchard and the construction activities, let's give them back plants that support our local ecology. SENIOR WORKING SPACE: It seems that the senior housing units are very small in that there does not appear to be room for both a desk/work area and a social space. However, I did once visit Ellen Fletcher's apartment at the JCC where she had a similar one-bedroom unit, and there she had a desk in the living room along with a couch, easy chair, and coffee table. If the PAHC's units' living rooms are equal in size to those for seniors at the JCC on Charleston, that is fine, but if they are much smaller then perhaps they are too small, and some provision should be made for space to manage ones affairs. MISCELANEOUS: In the shading on page 4 of Attachment M Section 1 (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/34465), the small isometric views should have north arrows because they are rotated about 90 degrees counter clockwise relative to the larger plan views below them, so it is confusing. There should be a door for the Bedroom 4 on the third floor of Plan 1A. I'm not saying it's an error in the plan set, but that a door should be added to the design. Regards, Cedric de La Beaujardiere 741 Josina Avenue 1 Ellner, Robin From:leabowmer@comcast.net Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 4:08 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:High Density development in Palo Alto at Maybell and Clemo Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to you in opposition to the proposed High Density Housing planned for the Palo Alto neighborhood near Juana Briones Elementary School. (at the intersection of Maybell and Clemo). I am opposed to the development of High Density Housing due to the already severe traffic congestion and the potential jeopardy to the safety of children who are pedestrians or are riding bicycles. Thank you for supporting a safe environment for our children. Best regards, Lea and William Bowmer Resident: 595 Glenbrook Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 858-6828 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jackie Berman <juberman@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:14 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell/Clemo PC designation Dear Members of the Palo Alto Planning Commission , I am writing as an interested citizen. I live on Miranda Green, south‐west of the Maybell/Clemo area. However, I pass by there often and am quite familiar with the neighborhood. I am writing this to urge you not to change the zoning to accommodate high density buildings. It seems to me that neighborhood is already impacted with several high density buildings and cannot reasonably absorb more. I also think that the process has been deeply flawed with the city loaning money to the applicants before public input and consideration of the matter. I am aware of the pressure the City is under to increase affordable housing, an admirable goal. However this should not be accomplished at the cost of creating an unsafe environment and ruining a neighborhood . Sincerely, Jackie Berman 810 Miranda Green Palo Alto, CA 94306 650‐948‐6015 1 Ellner, Robin From:brian susan anuskewicz <basdesigns@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:01 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:567-595 Maybell Avenue Project To: Planning & Transportation Commission Subject: 567-595 Maybell Avenue Greetings Commissioners, Today the PTC will be reviewing this project in which the applicant will be asking for a zoning change to Planned Community [P.C.]. A few weeks ago a local paper reported 'Breaks for developers questioned' in which a PTC memo was sent to council to provide more information on what, exactly, represents a public benefit. You will go into this meeting without any directives from council to guide this subject "What is a public benefit?" The rezoning represents half of what the applicant is asking for while the other half is invoking the State Density Bonus Law 65915. The applicant is making two concessions, one for building height and one for daylight plane intrusion. In rezoning this project to P.C. the building height is reduced from the maximum of 50 feet to 35 feet as required by its proximity to residential neighbors. This requirement of P.C. zoning will then be overruled by the State Density Bonus Law and return the maximum building height to 50 feet, along with the noncompliance of the Daylight Plane regulations. How can this be any public benefit to its immediate neighbors and the charater of the neighborhood? The simple answer is it cannot. It is to the commission to not support the applicant's request for a zoning change at this time and have council answer your memo so this project does not become another project that becomes questioned after its approval. This commission has the ability to deny both requests by the applicant. Do not add to the 'muddle' of what currently remains unanswered "What is really a public benefit?" With best regards, Brian Anuskewicz 1 Ellner, Robin From:Renee and Mark Alloy <alloyfam@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:43 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis; "BPA- Board@googlegroups.com" Subject:request to vote against high density zoning in south palo alto City Council Members, I am writing to ask you to vote against high density rezoning in south Palo Alto along Maybell and Clemo. I live in the neighborhood of Green Acres - where high density housing is being considered for Senior housing. I am very much opposed to this idea. To begin with the traffic in our neighborhood has become unsafe, congested, and truthfully the daily traffic children and residence are faced with daily is unfair - I doubt there are many, if any other neighborhoods that face daily hurdles that our neighborhood is inundated with, from students driving to Gunn to parents driving children to 5 - 6 local schools in our neighborhood. We have Challenger school on El Camino, Gunn, Terman and Bowman on Arastradero and access to Gunn off Georgia (my home street) as well as access to Juana Briones - from both Maybell or Georgia. Then we have through traffic using Amaranta to access Barron Park. We used to have lovely double lanes on Arastradero which helped move traffic out of the neighborhood - reducing El Camino, Foothill, and even Page Mill traffic, but now we have a parking lot each morning and afternoon on Arastradero. There is just as much traffic on the parallel street of Maybell - where they try to redirect bikers going to school. In addition to parents and driving students using Maybell when they drop their children off to the various school in this neighborhood or get to school, there are thousands of pedestrians and bikers using these streets. It is already a dangerous area without ANY more housing added. Safety and Traffic are huge factors in my opposition to this project. The other concern I have deals with why Seniors would want to live there anyway - across from a playground, the only walkable place would be Walgreens - no grocery stores or libraries. AND If they 2 aren't walking they would be driving making yet MORE traffic on these already jammed streets. Secondly, I feel this would have a negative impact on our already impacted neighborhood. I don't think it would improve the value of my home, or the home I would be giving my children as inheritance. This hurts the character of our neighborhood, we have a village type feel to our neighborhood many streets in the adjoining Barron Park neighborhood don't have sidewalks, even several in Green acres don't. Its a safe, cozy space that is being encroached on by expanding schools, low incoming housing, and building projects everywhere ( many like the one on Maybell that has already been an unsightly mess for numerous year because the people have been building it for like 7-8 years with NO end in sight). I fear for the neighborhood feel, as well as the value of my property. The El Camino corridor is already bearing down on us. I want my neighborhood to remain a low density neighborhood - I wish building would slow WAY down, as most of it is not good. I don't understand why South Palo Alto continues to be impacted with all of the building to add these low income housing units and if they should be added - tear down some of the eye sores along El Camino and build something that would add beauty to our neighbor and not impact the already congested traffic along Arastradero and the narrow street of Maybell. We can't assume anymore traffic safely here. I site the following policies that drew me to live in this area and to which I feel the above rezoning does not adhere to: POLICY L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. The City’s neighborhoods are varied in character and architectural style, reflecting the stages of the City’s development as well as the range of incomes and tastes of its residents. I see no enhancement although it offers more range of incomes - which I do not oppose but our neighborhood already houses other low income residence - how many do we need or can we handle without changing the desirable quality of our neighborhood? POLICY L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Scale is the relationship of various parts of the environment to each other, to people, and to the limits of perception. It is what 3 establishes some neighborhoods or streets as pedestrian oriented and others as automobile-oriented. In older portions of Palo Alto, the grid of City terns and building placement are oriented primarily to the automobile user. In the newer commercial areas, buildings are usually set behind parking lots located along the street, and landscaping sometimes provides a visual buffer for the motorist. Current plan for the 15 housing units - are planned to be set right against the sidewalk. The amount of housing presented to be built here are ridiculously packed into a small space. POLICY L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. Our neighborhood does not desire this as you must know by this point from the other letters, petitions and outpour of discontent. PROGRAM L-7: Establish a system to monitor the rate of non-residential development and traffic conditions related to both residential and non-residential development at key intersections including those identified in the 1989 Citywide Study and additional intersections identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. If the rate of growth reaches the point where the citywide development maximum might be reached, the City will reevaluate development policies and regulations. The traffic study that was done in our neighborhood was done during spring break - that is ludicrous it needs to be done during traffic hours and on a variety of days and months - try during graduation, or back to school events - our neighborhood already become a breakneck traffic jam area. Mixed Use Areas POLICY L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that mixed use environments can be interesting and dynamic. A new mixed use land use classification has been created to encourage this type of development in the future. This represents a change from past attitudes that sought to separate different uses from each other as a means of protecting property values, public safety, and the quality of life. With proper guidance such concerns can be addressed, allowing a more vital urban environment to be created. 4 What is being planned does not take into consideration property values, and certainly is not looking at public safety. Please consider the community plan for the city of Palo Alto land use policies I have included here. Renee and Mark Alloy 627 Georgia Ave. Palo Alto 1 Ellner, Robin From:AKAM <akam@seanet.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:17 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Opposition to Rezoning Area Near Juana Briones Park to High Density - 567 and 595 Maybell Avenue Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the above rezoning. My wife and I and our two sons have lived in the Barron Square complex on Maybell Avenue since 2002 and are very familiar with the traffic situation on Arastradero and Maybell around the area proposed for rezoning. We don’t oppose senior housing or even doubling the number of units on the four lots to be rezoned, but 65 units is far too many. None of the concerns that I am submitting have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objections in the records for the Maybell property and Housing Element. The traffic on Maybell near Juana Briones School is already congested in the hours when school starts and is dismissed. Arastradero has a constant stream of cars and bicycles going to Terman and Gunn. I avoid driving through those areas, especially Maybell, not only because of the wait, but because there are kids, cars and bicycles everywhere during those times and it’s dangerous. Even though older people drive less, there are no stores nearby except Walgreen’s. The residents of the proposed 65 units must either drive or someone must drive them every day or two to get groceries, see the doctor, etc. Also, elderly people have emergencies that can happen at any time, and routing emergency vehicles into that area when the kids or coming and going to school creates a high risk. I quote from an article on the housing study for this project (see www.bpapaloalto.org/2013/04/10/traffic‐study‐for‐ maybell‐homes‐senior‐housing‐project). “As a baseline, they use the ADT weekday of 3320 on Maybell Ave and estimate the average increase from the project would be 120, which is well below their criteria of what is a noticeable increase. However, they do not mention that the ADT on Maybell increased by 25% over what it was prior to the Arastradero restriping project and is already at a level that exceeds ‘2500 vpd, the maximum acceptable volume on a local residential street as defined by Palo Alto’s neighborhood traffic calming program.’ [Gale Likens, former Palo Alto Transportation manager in Establishing thresholds of significance under CEQA]” I also oppose the scale and scope of this development, which does not comply with the Palo Alto City General Plan to: “Policy L5 ‐ Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.” Although this is admittedly not an industrial project, it is an example of a residential development that is overwhelming and unacceptable due to size and scale – 65 units on four lots next to a primary school between streets that are already over‐crowded at certain times of the day. “Policy L6 ‐ Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between . . . residential areas of different densities.” Again, putting 65 units on four lots zoned for low density and a generally single family area is abrupt. If the zoning must be changed, allowing 8 or 10 units on the lots would be more in line with Policy L6. 2 “Program L4: Review and change zoning regulations to promote gradual transitions in the scale of development where residential districts abut more intense uses.” This rezoning seems to be part of a pattern of ad hoc changes that have substantially, even radically, changed the character of the corridors along roads like El Camino and Charleston since we moved here, and impacted other parts of the city as well. From a comfortable suburban feel, El Camino in the south part of Palo Alto is becoming a “canyon of steel”, to use Isaac Asimov’s phrase. I spent 13 years living in such urban and suburban canyons in Taipei and Beijing, and it is not a pleasant environment. The changes in the last 10 years are not really gradual transitions, but rather are changing the complete character of this area of the city exception by exception. If the character of the city to be changed, it should be done as part of an overall plan, rather than by repeated exceptions to the existing plan. When we bought our unit here, we did so on the assumption that the zoning plan would generally be followed, or else changed comprehensively. For the reasons above, I request you do authorize the rezoning of 567 and 595 Maybell Avenue to high density. Thank you for considering this letter. Allan K. A. Marson 4150 Thain Way Palo Alto 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Wong, Tim Sent:Monday, May 20, 2013 12:51 PM To:Ellner, Robin Subject:FW: Opposition to Rezoning Area Near Juana Briones Park to High Density - 567 and 595 Maybell Avenue From: AKAM [mailto:akam@seanet.com] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:48 PM To: Wong, Tim Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Area Near Juana Briones Park to High Density - 567 and 595 Maybell Avenue Dear Mr. Wong, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the above rezoning. My wife and I and our two sons have lived in the Barron Square complex on Maybell Avenue since 2002 and are very familiar with the traffic situation on Arastradero and Maybell around the area proposed for rezoning. We don’t oppose senior housing or even doubling the number of units on the four lots to be rezoned, but 65 units is far too many. None of the concerns that I am submitting have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objections in the records for the Maybell property and Housing Element. The traffic on Maybell near Juana Briones School is already congested in the hours when school starts and is dismissed. Arastradero has a constant stream of cars and bicycles going to Terman and Gunn. I avoid driving through those areas, especially Maybell, not only because of the wait, but because there are kids, cars and bicycles everywhere during those times and it’s dangerous. Even though older people drive less, there are no stores nearby except Walgreen’s. The residents of the proposed 65 units must either drive or someone must drive them every day or two to get groceries, see the doctor, etc. Also, elderly people have emergencies that can happen at any time, and routing emergency vehicles into that area when the kids or coming and going to school creates a high risk. I quote from an article on the housing study for this project (see www.bpapaloalto.org/2013/04/10/traffic‐study‐for‐ maybell‐homes‐senior‐housing‐project). “As a baseline, they use the ADT weekday of 3320 on Maybell Ave and estimate the average increase from the project would be 120, which is well below their criteria of what is a noticeable increase. However, they do not mention that the ADT on Maybell increased by 25% over what it was prior to the Arastradero restriping project and is already at a level that exceeds ‘2500 vpd, the maximum acceptable volume on a local residential street as defined by Palo Alto’s neighborhood traffic calming program.’ [Gale Likens, former Palo Alto Transportation manager in Establishing thresholds of significance under CEQA]” I also oppose the scale and scope of this development, which does not comply with the Palo Alto City General Plan to: “Policy L5 ‐ Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.” 2 Although this is admittedly not an industrial project, it is an example of a residential development that is overwhelming and unacceptable due to size and scale – 65 units on four lots next to a primary school between streets that are already over‐crowded at certain times of the day. “Policy L6 ‐ Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between . . . residential areas of different densities.” Again, putting 65 units on four lots zoned for low density and a generally single family area is abrupt. If the zoning must be changed, allowing 8 or 10 units on the lots would be more in line with Policy L6. “Program L4: Review and change zoning regulations to promote gradual transitions in the scale of development where residential districts abut more intense uses.” This rezoning seems to be part of a pattern of ad hoc changes that have substantially, even radically, changed the character of the corridors along roads like El Camino and Charleston since we moved here, and impacted other parts of the city as well. From a comfortable suburban feel, El Camino in the south part of Palo Alto is becoming a “canyon of steel”, to use Isaac Asimov’s phrase. I spent 13 years living in such urban and suburban canyons in Taipei and Beijing, and it is not a pleasant environment. The changes in the last 10 years are not really gradual transitions, but rather are changing the complete character of this area of the city exception by exception. If the character of the city to be changed, it should be done as part of an overall plan, rather than by repeated exceptions to the existing plan. When we bought our unit here, we did so on the assumption that the zoning plan would generally be followed, or else changed comprehensively. For the reasons above, I request you do authorize the rezoning of 567 and 595 Maybell Avenue to high density. Thank you for considering this letter. Allan K. A. Marson 4150 Thain Way Palo Alto 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Scott & Tasha Souter <souter98@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:04 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Rezoning 567-595 Maybell Dear Palo Alto City Planning Commission and City Council, We want to help you make an informed decision regarding the potential rezoning in Barron Park along Maybell. The stakes in the near and long term are high. Rezoning this part of Barron park changes what Barron Park is, and we love Barron Park. When I hear Barron Park, I think of Niner and Perry, garden railroads, and rural Palo Alto: individuality, eclecticism, and space. There are people walking in the street, interacting with neighbors. I want to repeat, people walking IN the street. This is Barron Park From cities in which I lived, I found as population density goes up, anonymity goes up. I have lived in Manhattan, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. I barely knew my neighbors there. In fact "neighbors" is a bit too folksy of a word for people in those contexts. They were simply people in adjoining apartments or flats. In Barron Park, we're neighbors. My wife grew up blocks from University Avenue, and attended Ohlone and Castilleja. I served as Juana Briones PTA president. We're very invested in community, and considered many parts of Palo Alto before we chose Barron Park for its identity in which to settle and raise our family. That identity is now threatened. We know that something is going to be built at 567‐595 Maybell. Please, please make it Barron park. We fear oversized generic structures to merely store more people. Please help us maintain Barron Park as a desirable neighborhood. We fear it will become just someplace that you sleep until the next day at work. We don't want whatever is built there to look like Phoenix, Santa Clarita, or Mountain View for that matter. Please keep it special. Let whatever goes here, be the kind of project that makes architects become architects in the first place. Let it be Barron park: unique, innovative, and individualistic. In addition to the fear of losing the social‐emotional aspects of what makes the neighborhood desirable, we also fear for our walking and bicycling safety. Traffic generated by the development either is, or is not, going to be increased. If it not anticipated to increase, then there is no reason that Maybell should be necessary for any egress. If traffic is anticipated to increase, why would it be directed onto a safe school route? The message that sends to our kids, is that their safety is not paramount: it shows an unwillingness do everything we can to show we value them and their safety ‐ even if it is just putting one less car on Maybell. Even worse than passing an opportunity to make the route one less car safer, would be to add traffic and increase the opportunities for collisions. I fear the is community at a disadvantage. So much of what we're responding to is not as quantifiable as money or mandates in the short term. Over long run, I fear we'll look back and see the decaying effects that deciding to build a 2 planned community could have. Let's have foresight and respect. The neighbors here and now and are going to be the ones living with your decisions. We're in your hands, and need your help. Something is going to happen. We're at a crossroads. We can either decay the neighborhood or reinforce the neighborhood. I hope you have a better understanding of what we love, what we fear, and how much we need your help in keeping Barron Park, Barron Park. Thank You, Scott and Tasha Souter Baker Avenue 1 Ellner, Robin From:Bin's Hotmail <binhewan@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:22 PM To:Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; Planning Commission Subject:Safety Concerns for Maybell Senior Housing Project Rezoning Dear City council members and Planning commission members, I want this on the public record! I’m a resident in Green Acres and has two kids in Terman Middle school. I’m writing to you about my concerns of traffic safety for proposed Maybell Senior Housing Project. Maybell and Arastradero are the traffic corridors of four schools, of which more than half the kids walk or bike to school. Among them Gunn High has over two thousand students along. Also these two roads are leading to I 280, Veteran's Hospital. The traffic in the morning rushing is already very congested and resulted in many dangerous situation. A lot of Gunn high school use Maybell as a short cut to Gunn High’s back entrance on Georgia Avenue. If we have another more than 75 units housing built on Maybell I think it will become a accident hotspot. Therefore our family strongly oppose this project and ask council to put our kid’s safety first, not politics. Thank you very much for your consideration! Bin He King Arthur Court. 1 Ellner, Robin From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:31 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Seniors on Maybell: bad idea First: there are no services that seniors need nearby. Walgreens yes. But Volvo? Tutoring? Fiskar? This is a ridiculous placement for senior housing: they all will need cars. Second: the mix of traffic and bicycles is already treacherous. My husband bikes to work and is almost hit daily by some distracted parent driving their kids to school. I drive to work and I am always aware that kids on bikes are erratic. Reaction times, depth perception, and predictability are all impaired in both seniors and kids. So the planning commission is exercising really poor judgment in thinking that mixing these populations in an already stressed transport corridor would work. Third: Setbacks can create a safety zone and more ease in passage. Building out creates claustrophobia, nervous driving, tenseness, and is ugly. Conversely beautiful setbacks increase ease and flow. Stop degrading our living environment, and thus our neighborhood relationships by building up to the street. A civil society needs development that considers the human effects. Fourth: I support increased density near public transport corridors. El Camino is hardly that. Look towards Caltrain and California Avenue, please. It makes more sense and is more safe. Cheryl Lilienstein Barron Park resident for 22 years 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jennifer Fryhling <jfryhling@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:27 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Comments re 567 Maybell Dear Commissioners: Please vote NO to rezoning to PC high density on 567 Maybell. My comments are for the public record in this matter and relate to (1) incompatibility with the neighborhood, (2) street parking, (3) lack of public benefit for PC Zoning, and (5) Inadequacy of notices. INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD Right now there are 4 single family one story homes and an orchard. The single family homes lot is zoned for R-2 and the orchard is RM-15. What the developer is proposing for a replacement is mammoth for the neighborhood. The developer will squeeze-in 9 single family market rate homes where there are 4 right now – more than double. Except for 3 home, all of 12 single family homes will be 3 stories high. There is not a single 3 story home in all of Barron Park and Greenacres neighborhoods. On Maybell, the 9 homes will only have a 12 feet setback. So basically 3 stories close to the curb. The developer’s abutting complex APAC has at least a 20 feet setback from the curb. That complex is not immediately in people’s faces Another problem is that between each home in Maybell, there is only 8 feet. Again, squeezed together and 3 stories high practically on the street. R-2 zoning requires 30 feet height so 2 stories maximum, each lot has to be at least 6,000 square feet, at least 20 feet setback and at least 12 feet distance from the next home. Here, each lot is reduced almost in half to squeeze in over twice as many market rate single family homes at 2,500-3,500 square feet for each lot. This type of zoning for a market rate single family home would never be problematic in Palo Alto – 3 stories, 12 feet setback, 8 feet from the next home on a tiny lot. The rest of the surrounding neighborhood is zoned R-1. These are 15 market rate single family homes and should be subject to the same guidelines that other developers of market rate single family homes would follow. The 60-unit complex is so dense in scale and size. The lot is RM-15 so 15 units per acre. The developer wants to build 60 units on 1 acre. On 1 acre! 60 units is 4x the density currently allowable under RM-15 zoning. The developer compares itself to Tan Plaza, but its 61 units is over 2 acres and APAC’s 65 units is over 3 acres, yet a new precedent will set for housing allowance of RM-15 to be increased fourfold to 60 units on one acre. The complex is 50 feet high. Current zoning under RM-15 is 30 feet high – so it’s 2/3 higher than what it should be. The abutting APAC property is only 2 and 3 stories high with deep setbacks across 3 acre surrounded by trees (not tall & skinny homes). If APAC is the model, the new complex should be cut in half. It is totally out of scale, too immense, too dense, and too high on only 1 acre. I ask if any Commissioner or City Staff would like to volunteer the lot across from where they live to view a “wall” of 9 tall skinny homes with 12 feet setbacks, 3 stories high, with only 8 feet in between each home on less than 3,500 lot each home along with backdrop of a 4 story 60 unit complex right next to it? I can see the 2 foothills walking up Maybell Avenue, but now my view is endangered by a proposed “wall” of 9 tall and skinny homes right up against the street on Maybell. STREET PARKING The Staff Report recommends a “no parking” sign in front of the single family homes on Maybell to reduce conflict with bicycles and pedestrians. This mitigation is insufficient for two reasons. First, the abutting APAC property has street parking 24/7 on Maybell. The cars and commercial vehicles are ALWAYS parked there because I see it everyday. I have taken photographs of the parking at different times in the morning and night and tenant cars are parked on the street constantly. I spoke with residents there, and they state that each unit has only 1 slot for onsite parking, but each unit may have 2 or 3 cars so that is why they have to park on the street. The rest of the community has to bear the burden of PAHC not originally providing for enough onsite parking at APAC. Street parking leads to narrowing Maybell so bicyclists get pushed out in the middle of the street and having to maneuver around all the parked cars in the street. PAHC should address the problems at APAC if they sincerely wish to mitigate parking impact from their newest proposed project. Second, PAHC appears to re-creating the same scenario at the proposed 60 unit development by providing only 42 spots for residents. They assume seniors don’t drive yet there are no senior services in walkable distances so they have to drive or many transport services will have to pick them up. PAHC hasn’t addressed how it will accommodate any increase demand for parking. Rather, again the public has to disproportionately bear the burden of all additional cars that don’t have spots on the property to be parked on the street, just like APAC. It is very plausible that there could be up to 120 more cars at the senior unit despite what assumptions PAHC makes about seniors because 2 seniors could live in 1 unit and be active and driving. 42 spots is providing for about 1/3 of the possible parking needs that could reasonably be needed by tenants at a 60 unit complex. PAHC should have to provide more parking onsite especially given the lessons learned from the misassumptions applied at APAC where clearly inadequate onsite parking is provided resulting in a tremendous burden on the neighborhood and increased safety risk with so many bicycles and pedestrians that use Maybell. The public should not have to disproportionately bear the burden of PAHC’s inadequate onsite parking allotments for its tenants. The Staff Report proposes red painting 65 feet on Clemo. The negative impact of this development of red painting 65 feet of parking is to take away a public benefit on Clemo available for Briones park visitors. All of Palo Alto benefits from having street parking at the park that hosts many sporting games and practices from residents all over Palo Alto. By eliminating parking on Clemo takes away a public benefit from all residents of Palo Alto at the expense of accommodating a project that doesn’t provide for inadequate onsite parking for its tenants. It is unfair that a disproportionate burden of the proposed high density project is being passed onto the neighborhood and residents of Palo Alto. PAHC should accommodate for the inevitable parking problem when its tenants don’t have a place to park onsite and will take away parking that should be available from visitors to the park. A lesson should be learned from the APAC street parking problem. LACK OF PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR PC ZONING PC should only be allowed where “development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of the general districts.” The cited public benefits include: (1) 60 affordable units and (2) a small sidewalk segment that connects the Briones park’s sidewalk with APAC’s sidewalk. 3 First, the one acre is zoned currently for RM-15 can provide affordable housing under existing zoning. We can still provide affordable housing without the severe environmental impact that will be caused by upzoning the lot 4x higher in density. Building the units under current zoning could possibly help mitigate the environmental impacts of bicycle and pedestrian safety, traffic congestion on narrow Maybell and congested Arastradero, emissions of more vehicles, parking issues, emergency access, block views, hasten deterioration of park facilities, and disproportionate burden on the immediate neighborhood to absorb all these environmental impacts. This neighborhood supports affordable housing. That is not the issue, in fact, we host several low income housing in our neighborhood, including Arastradero Park Apartments (APAC), Terman Apartments, Treehouse, Oak Manor Townhouses, and Buena Vista. The problem is the size and scale of 75 housing units and severe environmental impacts do not outweigh the public benefit of affordable housing when the same can be achieved under current zoning with a reduced number of affordable housing on 1 acre. Second, adding a small sidewalk segment on Maybell in front of the now 4 single family one story homes is not a public benefits that outweighs the severe environment impacts of building 75 units. The proposed sidewalk only connects Briones park to the APAC property on Maybell. From APAC going east to Walgreens toward El Camino Real, there is no further sidewalk on the same side. After the park going further west, there is also no further sidewalk on that same side on Maybell. In other words, there is no continuous sidewalk all along Maybell from end to end going east toward El Camion so there is marginal, if any public benefit by offering one sidewalk segment in exchange for the environmental impact resulting from PC zoning. By filling-in one gap on a sidewalk, it doesn’t make the road any safer. Pedestrian still have to cross the street to walk on an opposite sidewalk that runs from El Camino Real to the park. Bikers aren’t even allowed on sidewalks so their safety issues haven’t been addressed. There is no bike lane, and they are still pushed out near the middle of the street with all the street parking. INADEQUACY OF NOTICE OF PROJECT The City claims it notified residents within 600 feet of the proposed project. However, such notice was inadequate because more than half of the surrounding area around the project is open area so what would typically be notification of single family residents, none live in the open areas so very few residents were actually and in fact notified. Next to the proposed project is a large park, diagonal to the project is an elementary school with a large playground, on the other side of the project is the 2 acre Tan Plaza that is a single owner and another side of the project is the 3 acre APAC and then finally on one last strip are the single family homes. Had the City done a better job of actually notifying residents given the typography of the neighborhood, it would had know early on that the size and scale of 75 housing units has too many negative environmental impacts to warrant PC zoning. The same goes for PAHC, they claim they notified residents of their neighborhood outreach meetings, but they didn’t reach me and I live within 600 feet of this proposed project. I’m not a member of Greenacres or BPA although I recently paid and now am a member of BPA. Nevertheless, there are 1,500 people that live in BPA and less than 1/3 are members so solely relying on emails lists as the venue to reach residents isn’t adequate because PAHC has overlooked the residents that are most directly affected by proposed project. Sincerely J. Fryhling 1 Ellner, Robin From:recycler100@sonic.net Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:02 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; lkou@apr.com; bmoss33@att.net Subject:567-595 Maybell/Clemo Rezoning Attachments:ZoningMapShowingSpotZoning4.jpg Dear City Council and Planning Commission, I would like to ask the Planning Commission to please vote No on the rezoning of 567-595 Maybell Avenue and the orchard on Clemo behind it. I would note that the Planning Commission has already wisely questioned PC zoning and the use of the "public benefit" exception to wholesale circumvent the intent of City land use policies under current zoning rules. As we enter some of the worst fire season conditions in memory, we should not be approving a rezoning that poses such significant burdens to safety and emergency response, without careful analysis of of the impacts, including potential loss of property and life. I see no mention at all of these issues in the staff report and MND, despite voicing them on numerous occasions. As you all know, the big concern is that the proposed development would sit right at the juncture between the only two routes in and out of our neighborhood, Maybell (substandard in width) and Arastradero between El Camino and Foothill. That same stretch of Arastradero also happens to be the ONLY route of egress for all of the neighborhoods to the east of Arastradero. Both routes are designated "safe routes to school", and often heavily congested with car, pedestrian, and bike traffic. While I support well-done affordable housing, and believe senior affordable housing under the existing zoning would be one of the most preferable uses of the property other than a park extension or community orchard, this process has brought to light a number of troubling safety issues in regards to building on that property at all, which have not been studied or even considered in the MND. Parenthetically, I would like to point out that staff analysis of the property assumed the highest number of units per acre for the property. This violates the policy of the City's own Comprehensive Plan, which states under "Multiple Family Residential" that "Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single family residential areas." Since RM-15 zoning is 8-15 units per acre, the property in total under existing zoning rules would be closer to 8-10 units per acre since the region around it is R-1 single family residential. The traffic comparison failed to take into account the zoning rules in their original report. In considering the rezoning of this property, City leaders need to be especially aware of conditions today, and of Palo Alto's vulnerability to disaster, and not add to an already unsafe set of circumstances without at least first studying the situation. Background The staff report on the project doesn't adequately describe the context of the property, focusing on the neighboring apartment complexes which are PC zones and exceptions in the area (and if PAHA resources are correct, built under county rules and grandfathered-in when they became part of Palo Alto). The property is clearly a gradual transition zone from those properties to the R-1 neighborhood and region that wraps around and surrounds the island of the apartments/orchard. Please refer to the attached zoning map, which makes much 2 more clear the R-1 residential context. Rezoning the property would make for abrupt transitions in density in the middle of a residential neighborhood, which violates the City's own land use policies. (see attachment) Traffic Impacts I will not reiterate other concerns about traffic that have already been expressed by other neighbors, but I do want to point out some important safety concerns. The property sits between Maybell and Arastradero, both safe routes to school, both heavily congested at times daily under the best of circumstances. There are no other real outlets from the Greenacres neighborhood other than Maybell and Arastradero, which has no outlet/inlet to the south or west. There is also no place for traffic from the proposed project to go except onto one of those two routes. If the traffic goes onto Clemo, it ends up on either of those streets. If it's Clemo to Arastradero, traffic seeking to go to El Camino will almost certainly have to turn right and go around the block at Coulomb and up Maybell anyway. This already happens. Currently there is very little traffic on Clemo, but if there were much more, it increases the very real possibility that both driveways for the fire department could be blocked and delay emergency response to the area. That fire station serves not only the immediate area, but also the hills. It could also delay emergency response to the schools and neighborhood. When neighbors inquired about this safety concern at the April 22 meeting, project representatives told attendees that they had checked into this and the fire department said there was no problem, that it "met code". But when I called the Fire Marshall, Rich Dean, this week, he told me he had been called by the developer's group some time ago. They asked if there would be a delay in GETTING TO the development, and he said no, it's across the street from the fire station! That's it. No one involved with the development has studied or followed up on the concerns of delays to emergency services because of traffic gridlock or additional traffic from the project. These issues were never addressed in the MND. There are many other safety concerns because of that sites particular circumstances. They include: 1) increasing congestion at a bottleneck of egress and ingress to our neighborhood and all the neighborhoods to the east of Arastradero, including several schools, and how that would impact evacuation and emergency response, since all of these neighborhoods have limited access routes 2) increasing congestion in the neighborhood, including the very real possibility of blocking both entrances of the fire station on a daily basis leading to emergency response delays in the area or even failures. Given that the additional traffic will increase the likelihood of an accident involving a child on one of the safe routes to school - since the proposed development has no other exit except on a heavily traveled designated "safe route to school" - and since the most likely time for both driveways of the fire station to be blocked would be when the streets are congested and kids are out biking to and from school - in other words, the most likely time of an accident with a child is also the most likely time the fire station driveways would be blocked - EMT's could very likely be delayed in responding should the worst happen. My concern is that we are rushing headlong into preventable tragedy, and children's lives are at stake. Also, given such limited routes of egress from the neighborhood, meaning basically Maybell which is substandard in width, and Arastradero under which a major gas transmission line runs, and given that we live in earthquake country and fire is a huge threat following earthquake, and that we have had such a spate of high- density building in the area in the last few years, at a minimum, we are overdue for risk assessment to map out an egress network in case of emergency. http://www.fema.gov/fire-prevention-safety-grants/fire-prevention-safety-grants-success-stories-berkeley-ca Has the City considered how the neighborhood would evacuate if there were a disaster along the Arastradero pipeline? The only outlet for the neighborhood then is Maybell, the only inlet for emergency responders, too. In the San Bruno disaster, as bad as it was, only 8 people died because there was relatively good egress and ingress for responders. In the Oakland fire, a few dozen people died, almost all because of predictable egress 3 and ingress issues, similar to what we have here in this neighborhood today. Egress is already so compromised in this area, it is unsafe to put a large development right at that bottleneck. The issue should be studied before anything at all is built there. It may very well be that, given the site's location at a traffic bottleneck, infrastructure constraints, traffic congestion, and existing and planned project impacts, building on that property at all at this time could pose a significant threat to public safety for residents in the area. I personally feel, and many in the neighborhood prefer, for the site to become a much lower-traffic use with significant public benefit, such as a community orchard or a playing field. I called the Palo Alto Fire Department's chief of operations about these issues, and was told the department hadn't been apprised of any of these safety or emergency concerns or consulted about them to date. We live in earthquake country, and the biggest risk to loss of life and property after an earthquake is fire. Greenacres I & II, and all the neighborhoods to the east of Arastradero road, have limited routes of ingress and egress, both to evacuate residents and for emergency responder access. This project adds traffic and density right at the bottleneck of those routes. None of the concerns that I submitted before and am now re-submitting and adding to here have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objects in the records for the Maybell/Clemo property and Housing Element. Residents of this neighborhood and the surrounding areas are really relying on the Planning Commission to consider all of the factors and at least require further study before any building at all is approved at that location. Regardless, it's clear to everyone who lives here that increasing density there is unwise and could potentially contribute to preventable loss of life and property. Therefore, we urge you to vote against rezoning. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, A Lumsdaine 1 Ellner, Robin From:Ree Dufresne <ree_duff@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, May 24, 2013 1:56 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell Rezoning Appreciation Hello Mr. Martinez, Mr. Michael, Mr. Panelli, Mr. Alcheck and Mr. Keller. I wanted to thank you for your patience with our "group" opposing the Maybell Project, last evening. I realize that you are all "Volunteering" your time on our behalf, and are limited in some ways because you "trust staff" to answer your questions "in full" and "honestly" in order for you to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, the Staff has been working " for" this project. The contention that building market-rate units under the existing zoning would have more impacts than the proposed project doesn't add up. The Comprehensive Plan States: "Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single family residential areas." That means 8-10 units per acre for the just under 2 remaining acres. So max use under the existing zoning would be more like 20-24 total structures. I would note that the lower end of 8 units is higher than the lower end of RM-15 zoning when that orchard was zoned for RM-15 originally, as a transition zone from the neighboring older apartments. It was raised to 8 in the last Comprehensive Plan. So the original zoning actually was envisioned for even lower density than 20-24 total structures. Compare that to 15 market-rate houses and 60 affordable structures? It's not forthcoming "for Staff" to claim that building within existing zoning would not provide enough Market rate units to support a Senior Project. If they built within the existing zoning for seniors, the neighborhood would welcome it. I would also argue that "Staff" hasn't checked our property values in the 94306 Zip code lately. Those market rate houses would bring $2M each in today's market. It is similar to the "Traffic Study folks that "inadvertently" gave you numbers from 2011 when stating their findings were from 2012 . They only reworded the data when we pointed out that the dates were during "Spring Break, and didn't include Pedestrians or Bicyclists because "the City directive for traffic studies doesn't require it." We (many of us who were at the meeting on the 22nd) had opposed the Arastradero Corridor Project, but felt that we were not listened to at all, that Staff was not doing their job and the Commission was buying into what Staff said as being accurate data. 2 When we spoke to the City Council members, they were looking at the ceiling or around the room while each of us who opposed the "Corridor calming Project" was speaking and then accepted the "Staff Report" once again. I personally spoke to Jaime Rodrigues about this project and the concerns of my fellow neighbors who opposed the project and he told me, "that I was the only call that he had received, opposing the Arastradero/Charleston project". After that conversation, I knew that even though he had already made mistakes that cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to "fix" after the "temporary" configuration prevented people from leaving their homes, that his report was going to be accepted by the Council and become "permanent". If he was doing his job, he would know that some of the children crossing El Camino on foot or bicycle are actually traveling all the way to Gunn on Maybell, not just Juana Briones and Terman. They are avoiding Arastradero going to and from School for the same reasons that cars are using Maybell & Donald Drive to avoid Arastradero. Mr. Rodrigues should also know that if you live on Thain Way, Peña Court or other streets along Maybell, that you are trapped there in the "am" and "pm" hours because those streets have no other exit route. He should also know that it is "impossible to widen Maybell" because the City would have to take the front lawns of Homeowners along Maybell to accomplish that. I would also like to know if there is not going to be any parking along Clemo or Maybell, how are parents going to take their children and belongings to the park? As you can tell by my remarks, I have no faith in the system as it currently exists. Over the 40 years that I have lived here in Palo Alto, I raised 5 children & 3 grandchildren. I have observed that our City Councils over the past 10 years or so, have been willing to trade the desires of the Community in favor of the Developers, giving up "set backs" eliminating any open space for landscaping and ending up with Institutional looking buildings with little or no parking. Anyone who believes that placing Seniors in that project is a "public benefit," without a grocery store, or other amenities for daily living within walking distance, is too young to know any better. I am an active 77 year old who retired at age 69 and immediately began doing more Volunteer work for both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, working with "at risk" youth and other Non Profits. However, If I had to walk to El Camino to the only Store there and made a purchase, I'm not sure that I could make the walk back with my items, even with my "new knee". I drive to the Gym at Cubberly for Cardiac Therapy 3 days a week and have to go to the class at 9:30 in order to get out of Thain Way. 3 I realize that you have already voted on this "Project" and listened at great length to all of our comments for and against. However, I would ask that when the "next Project" comes before you, that you "hold staff accountable for the answers that they give you" when you ask questions. Staff also neglected to tell you that the Property which Fry''s Electronics occupies, is zoned "Residential". Their lease is up in 2014 and the word is that they are not planning to renew it. So that would be a more desirable location for this Project as it is near California Ave. shopping and the Cal Train Station. Much of this project was a "back door deal" as the City only sends notices to homes within 600 feet of the project. This project is surrounded on one side with a Park and on another with a School, the other side is the property owned by the person selling the land, so those of us who were most impacted by this and the Arastradero/Corridor Project didn't find out until the last minute, what was going on. The move to put the Senior Project into the "Housing Element" before you even approved it, only makes the perception of Impropriety more pervasive in this process which lacks Transparency. Thank you once again for your Service and your time and patience. Sincerely, Ree Campaña Dufresne Ree Campaña Dufresne Court Appointed Child Advocate Superior Court, Santa Clara County Cell: 650-224-8845 1 Ellner, Robin From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:16 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:robert@neffs.net Subject:New senior housing and homes being developed on Maybell. Dear Planning and Transportation Committee, I am writing in support of the proposed senior apartments and homes project on Maybell Ave. I think the senior housing will be a valuable addition to our city, much as other senior housing currently is. I am not worried about the density of the single family homes. We have similar homes on Vista, and at the Hyatt Ricky's site. I think the traffic and school impacts are lower than allowing full development at current zoning. I think the new proposed parking restrictions and sidewalks for Maybell will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety on that short section of the street. In general, I think PAHC is doing good work for our community. I am a resident of South Palo Alto, and I frequently bicycle on Maybell and Clemo on my way to and from work. ‐‐ Robert Neff Emerson Street near Loma Verde Palo Alto robert@neffs.net 1 Ellner, Robin From:Tom Watzka <twatzka@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:39 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Maybell/Clemo Rezoning Hello, I am in strong opposition to the proposed re-zoning of the Maybell/Clemo area that is under discussion. This rezoning will house workers likely destined for Silicon Valley. This area has no proximity to any mass transit and will place these new workers on the Safe Routes for local schools. This will also add significantly to Arastradero corridor traffic bound for US101 and US280. These residences provide no meaningful tax revenue for Palo Alto. We are already turning our surface streets in to canyons due to the reduced setbacks. This is all about developer profits. Please deny this request. Thanks for your consideration. Tom & Elise Watzka 870 Miranda Green Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Tom Watzka <twatzka@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:39 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Maybell/Clemo Rezoning Hello, I am in strong opposition to the proposed re-zoning of the Maybell/Clemo area that is under discussion. This rezoning will house workers likely destined for Silicon Valley. This area has no proximity to any mass transit and will place these new workers on the Safe Routes for local schools. This will also add significantly to Arastradero corridor traffic bound for US101 and US280. These residences provide no meaningful tax revenue for Palo Alto. We are already turning our surface streets in to canyons due to the reduced setbacks. This is all about developer profits. Please deny this request. Thanks for your consideration. Tom & Elise Watzka 870 Miranda Green Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Ellner, Robin From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:16 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:robert@neffs.net Subject:New senior housing and homes being developed on Maybell. Dear Planning and Transportation Committee, I am writing in support of the proposed senior apartments and homes project on Maybell Ave. I think the senior housing will be a valuable addition to our city, much as other senior housing currently is. I am not worried about the density of the single family homes. We have similar homes on Vista, and at the Hyatt Ricky's site. I think the traffic and school impacts are lower than allowing full development at current zoning. I think the new proposed parking restrictions and sidewalks for Maybell will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety on that short section of the street. In general, I think PAHC is doing good work for our community. I am a resident of South Palo Alto, and I frequently bicycle on Maybell and Clemo on my way to and from work. ‐‐ Robert Neff Emerson Street near Loma Verde Palo Alto robert@neffs.net 1 Ellner, Robin From:Ree Dufresne <ree_duff@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, May 24, 2013 1:56 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Maybell Rezoning Appreciation Hello Mr. Martinez, Mr. Michael, Mr. Panelli, Mr. Alcheck and Mr. Keller. I wanted to thank you for your patience with our "group" opposing the Maybell Project, last evening. I realize that you are all "Volunteering" your time on our behalf, and are limited in some ways because you "trust staff" to answer your questions "in full" and "honestly" in order for you to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, the Staff has been working " for" this project. The contention that building market-rate units under the existing zoning would have more impacts than the proposed project doesn't add up. The Comprehensive Plan States: "Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single family residential areas." That means 8-10 units per acre for the just under 2 remaining acres. So max use under the existing zoning would be more like 20-24 total structures. I would note that the lower end of 8 units is higher than the lower end of RM-15 zoning when that orchard was zoned for RM-15 originally, as a transition zone from the neighboring older apartments. It was raised to 8 in the last Comprehensive Plan. So the original zoning actually was envisioned for even lower density than 20-24 total structures. Compare that to 15 market-rate houses and 60 affordable structures? It's not forthcoming "for Staff" to claim that building within existing zoning would not provide enough Market rate units to support a Senior Project. If they built within the existing zoning for seniors, the neighborhood would welcome it. I would also argue that "Staff" hasn't checked our property values in the 94306 Zip code lately. Those market rate houses would bring $2M each in today's market. It is similar to the "Traffic Study folks that "inadvertently" gave you numbers from 2011 when stating their findings were from 2012 . They only reworded the data when we pointed out that the dates were during "Spring Break, and didn't include Pedestrians or Bicyclists because "the City directive for traffic studies doesn't require it." We (many of us who were at the meeting on the 22nd) had opposed the Arastradero Corridor Project, but felt that we were not listened to at all, that Staff was not doing their job and the Commission was buying into what Staff said as being accurate data. 2 When we spoke to the City Council members, they were looking at the ceiling or around the room while each of us who opposed the "Corridor calming Project" was speaking and then accepted the "Staff Report" once again. I personally spoke to Jaime Rodrigues about this project and the concerns of my fellow neighbors who opposed the project and he told me, "that I was the only call that he had received, opposing the Arastradero/Charleston project". After that conversation, I knew that even though he had already made mistakes that cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to "fix" after the "temporary" configuration prevented people from leaving their homes, that his report was going to be accepted by the Council and become "permanent". If he was doing his job, he would know that some of the children crossing El Camino on foot or bicycle are actually traveling all the way to Gunn on Maybell, not just Juana Briones and Terman. They are avoiding Arastradero going to and from School for the same reasons that cars are using Maybell & Donald Drive to avoid Arastradero. Mr. Rodrigues should also know that if you live on Thain Way, Peña Court or other streets along Maybell, that you are trapped there in the "am" and "pm" hours because those streets have no other exit route. He should also know that it is "impossible to widen Maybell" because the City would have to take the front lawns of Homeowners along Maybell to accomplish that. I would also like to know if there is not going to be any parking along Clemo or Maybell, how are parents going to take their children and belongings to the park? As you can tell by my remarks, I have no faith in the system as it currently exists. Over the 40 years that I have lived here in Palo Alto, I raised 5 children & 3 grandchildren. I have observed that our City Councils over the past 10 years or so, have been willing to trade the desires of the Community in favor of the Developers, giving up "set backs" eliminating any open space for landscaping and ending up with Institutional looking buildings with little or no parking. Anyone who believes that placing Seniors in that project is a "public benefit," without a grocery store, or other amenities for daily living within walking distance, is too young to know any better. I am an active 77 year old who retired at age 69 and immediately began doing more Volunteer work for both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, working with "at risk" youth and other Non Profits. However, If I had to walk to El Camino to the only Store there and made a purchase, I'm not sure that I could make the walk back with my items, even with my "new knee". I drive to the Gym at Cubberly for Cardiac Therapy 3 days a week and have to go to the class at 9:30 in order to get out of Thain Way. 3 I realize that you have already voted on this "Project" and listened at great length to all of our comments for and against. However, I would ask that when the "next Project" comes before you, that you "hold staff accountable for the answers that they give you" when you ask questions. Staff also neglected to tell you that the Property which Fry''s Electronics occupies, is zoned "Residential". Their lease is up in 2014 and the word is that they are not planning to renew it. So that would be a more desirable location for this Project as it is near California Ave. shopping and the Cal Train Station. Much of this project was a "back door deal" as the City only sends notices to homes within 600 feet of the project. This project is surrounded on one side with a Park and on another with a School, the other side is the property owned by the person selling the land, so those of us who were most impacted by this and the Arastradero/Corridor Project didn't find out until the last minute, what was going on. The move to put the Senior Project into the "Housing Element" before you even approved it, only makes the perception of Impropriety more pervasive in this process which lacks Transparency. Thank you once again for your Service and your time and patience. Sincerely, Ree Campaña Dufresne Ree Campaña Dufresne Court Appointed Child Advocate Superior Court, Santa Clara County Cell: 650-224-8845 1 Ellner, Robin From:recycler100@sonic.net Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:02 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; lkou@apr.com; bmoss33@att.net Subject:567-595 Maybell/Clemo Rezoning Attachments:ZoningMapShowingSpotZoning4.jpg Dear City Council and Planning Commission, I would like to ask the Planning Commission to please vote No on the rezoning of 567-595 Maybell Avenue and the orchard on Clemo behind it. I would note that the Planning Commission has already wisely questioned PC zoning and the use of the "public benefit" exception to wholesale circumvent the intent of City land use policies under current zoning rules. As we enter some of the worst fire season conditions in memory, we should not be approving a rezoning that poses such significant burdens to safety and emergency response, without careful analysis of of the impacts, including potential loss of property and life. I see no mention at all of these issues in the staff report and MND, despite voicing them on numerous occasions. As you all know, the big concern is that the proposed development would sit right at the juncture between the only two routes in and out of our neighborhood, Maybell (substandard in width) and Arastradero between El Camino and Foothill. That same stretch of Arastradero also happens to be the ONLY route of egress for all of the neighborhoods to the east of Arastradero. Both routes are designated "safe routes to school", and often heavily congested with car, pedestrian, and bike traffic. While I support well-done affordable housing, and believe senior affordable housing under the existing zoning would be one of the most preferable uses of the property other than a park extension or community orchard, this process has brought to light a number of troubling safety issues in regards to building on that property at all, which have not been studied or even considered in the MND. Parenthetically, I would like to point out that staff analysis of the property assumed the highest number of units per acre for the property. This violates the policy of the City's own Comprehensive Plan, which states under "Multiple Family Residential" that "Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single family residential areas." Since RM-15 zoning is 8-15 units per acre, the property in total under existing zoning rules would be closer to 8-10 units per acre since the region around it is R-1 single family residential. The traffic comparison failed to take into account the zoning rules in their original report. In considering the rezoning of this property, City leaders need to be especially aware of conditions today, and of Palo Alto's vulnerability to disaster, and not add to an already unsafe set of circumstances without at least first studying the situation. Background The staff report on the project doesn't adequately describe the context of the property, focusing on the neighboring apartment complexes which are PC zones and exceptions in the area (and if PAHA resources are correct, built under county rules and grandfathered-in when they became part of Palo Alto). The property is clearly a gradual transition zone from those properties to the R-1 neighborhood and region that wraps around and surrounds the island of the apartments/orchard. Please refer to the attached zoning map, which makes much 2 more clear the R-1 residential context. Rezoning the property would make for abrupt transitions in density in the middle of a residential neighborhood, which violates the City's own land use policies. (see attachment) Traffic Impacts I will not reiterate other concerns about traffic that have already been expressed by other neighbors, but I do want to point out some important safety concerns. The property sits between Maybell and Arastradero, both safe routes to school, both heavily congested at times daily under the best of circumstances. There are no other real outlets from the Greenacres neighborhood other than Maybell and Arastradero, which has no outlet/inlet to the south or west. There is also no place for traffic from the proposed project to go except onto one of those two routes. If the traffic goes onto Clemo, it ends up on either of those streets. If it's Clemo to Arastradero, traffic seeking to go to El Camino will almost certainly have to turn right and go around the block at Coulomb and up Maybell anyway. This already happens. Currently there is very little traffic on Clemo, but if there were much more, it increases the very real possibility that both driveways for the fire department could be blocked and delay emergency response to the area. That fire station serves not only the immediate area, but also the hills. It could also delay emergency response to the schools and neighborhood. When neighbors inquired about this safety concern at the April 22 meeting, project representatives told attendees that they had checked into this and the fire department said there was no problem, that it "met code". But when I called the Fire Marshall, Rich Dean, this week, he told me he had been called by the developer's group some time ago. They asked if there would be a delay in GETTING TO the development, and he said no, it's across the street from the fire station! That's it. No one involved with the development has studied or followed up on the concerns of delays to emergency services because of traffic gridlock or additional traffic from the project. These issues were never addressed in the MND. There are many other safety concerns because of that sites particular circumstances. They include: 1) increasing congestion at a bottleneck of egress and ingress to our neighborhood and all the neighborhoods to the east of Arastradero, including several schools, and how that would impact evacuation and emergency response, since all of these neighborhoods have limited access routes 2) increasing congestion in the neighborhood, including the very real possibility of blocking both entrances of the fire station on a daily basis leading to emergency response delays in the area or even failures. Given that the additional traffic will increase the likelihood of an accident involving a child on one of the safe routes to school - since the proposed development has no other exit except on a heavily traveled designated "safe route to school" - and since the most likely time for both driveways of the fire station to be blocked would be when the streets are congested and kids are out biking to and from school - in other words, the most likely time of an accident with a child is also the most likely time the fire station driveways would be blocked - EMT's could very likely be delayed in responding should the worst happen. My concern is that we are rushing headlong into preventable tragedy, and children's lives are at stake. Also, given such limited routes of egress from the neighborhood, meaning basically Maybell which is substandard in width, and Arastradero under which a major gas transmission line runs, and given that we live in earthquake country and fire is a huge threat following earthquake, and that we have had such a spate of high- density building in the area in the last few years, at a minimum, we are overdue for risk assessment to map out an egress network in case of emergency. http://www.fema.gov/fire-prevention-safety-grants/fire-prevention-safety-grants-success-stories-berkeley-ca Has the City considered how the neighborhood would evacuate if there were a disaster along the Arastradero pipeline? The only outlet for the neighborhood then is Maybell, the only inlet for emergency responders, too. In the San Bruno disaster, as bad as it was, only 8 people died because there was relatively good egress and ingress for responders. In the Oakland fire, a few dozen people died, almost all because of predictable egress 3 and ingress issues, similar to what we have here in this neighborhood today. Egress is already so compromised in this area, it is unsafe to put a large development right at that bottleneck. The issue should be studied before anything at all is built there. It may very well be that, given the site's location at a traffic bottleneck, infrastructure constraints, traffic congestion, and existing and planned project impacts, building on that property at all at this time could pose a significant threat to public safety for residents in the area. I personally feel, and many in the neighborhood prefer, for the site to become a much lower-traffic use with significant public benefit, such as a community orchard or a playing field. I called the Palo Alto Fire Department's chief of operations about these issues, and was told the department hadn't been apprised of any of these safety or emergency concerns or consulted about them to date. We live in earthquake country, and the biggest risk to loss of life and property after an earthquake is fire. Greenacres I & II, and all the neighborhoods to the east of Arastradero road, have limited routes of ingress and egress, both to evacuate residents and for emergency responder access. This project adds traffic and density right at the bottleneck of those routes. None of the concerns that I submitted before and am now re-submitting and adding to here have been addressed or mitigated in the Revised MND. Please include my objects in the records for the Maybell/Clemo property and Housing Element. Residents of this neighborhood and the surrounding areas are really relying on the Planning Commission to consider all of the factors and at least require further study before any building at all is approved at that location. Regardless, it's clear to everyone who lives here that increasing density there is unwise and could potentially contribute to preventable loss of life and property. Therefore, we urge you to vote against rezoning. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, A Lumsdaine 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jennifer Fryhling <jfryhling@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:27 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Comments re 567 Maybell Dear Commissioners: Please vote NO to rezoning to PC high density on 567 Maybell. My comments are for the public record in this matter and relate to (1) incompatibility with the neighborhood, (2) street parking, (3) lack of public benefit for PC Zoning, and (5) Inadequacy of notices. INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD Right now there are 4 single family one story homes and an orchard. The single family homes lot is zoned for R-2 and the orchard is RM-15. What the developer is proposing for a replacement is mammoth for the neighborhood. The developer will squeeze-in 9 single family market rate homes where there are 4 right now – more than double. Except for 3 home, all of 12 single family homes will be 3 stories high. There is not a single 3 story home in all of Barron Park and Greenacres neighborhoods. On Maybell, the 9 homes will only have a 12 feet setback. So basically 3 stories close to the curb. The developer’s abutting complex APAC has at least a 20 feet setback from the curb. That complex is not immediately in people’s faces Another problem is that between each home in Maybell, there is only 8 feet. Again, squeezed together and 3 stories high practically on the street. R-2 zoning requires 30 feet height so 2 stories maximum, each lot has to be at least 6,000 square feet, at least 20 feet setback and at least 12 feet distance from the next home. Here, each lot is reduced almost in half to squeeze in over twice as many market rate single family homes at 2,500-3,500 square feet for each lot. This type of zoning for a market rate single family home would never be problematic in Palo Alto – 3 stories, 12 feet setback, 8 feet from the next home on a tiny lot. The rest of the surrounding neighborhood is zoned R-1. These are 15 market rate single family homes and should be subject to the same guidelines that other developers of market rate single family homes would follow. The 60-unit complex is so dense in scale and size. The lot is RM-15 so 15 units per acre. The developer wants to build 60 units on 1 acre. On 1 acre! 60 units is 4x the density currently allowable under RM-15 zoning. The developer compares itself to Tan Plaza, but its 61 units is over 2 acres and APAC’s 65 units is over 3 acres, yet a new precedent will set for housing allowance of RM-15 to be increased fourfold to 60 units on one acre. The complex is 50 feet high. Current zoning under RM-15 is 30 feet high – so it’s 2/3 higher than what it should be. The abutting APAC property is only 2 and 3 stories high with deep setbacks across 3 acre surrounded by trees (not tall & skinny homes). If APAC is the model, the new complex should be cut in half. It is totally out of scale, too immense, too dense, and too high on only 1 acre. I ask if any Commissioner or City Staff would like to volunteer the lot across from where they live to view a “wall” of 9 tall skinny homes with 12 feet setbacks, 3 stories high, with only 8 feet in between each home on less than 3,500 lot each home along with backdrop of a 4 story 60 unit complex right next to it? I can see the 2 foothills walking up Maybell Avenue, but now my view is endangered by a proposed “wall” of 9 tall and skinny homes right up against the street on Maybell. STREET PARKING The Staff Report recommends a “no parking” sign in front of the single family homes on Maybell to reduce conflict with bicycles and pedestrians. This mitigation is insufficient for two reasons. First, the abutting APAC property has street parking 24/7 on Maybell. The cars and commercial vehicles are ALWAYS parked there because I see it everyday. I have taken photographs of the parking at different times in the morning and night and tenant cars are parked on the street constantly. I spoke with residents there, and they state that each unit has only 1 slot for onsite parking, but each unit may have 2 or 3 cars so that is why they have to park on the street. The rest of the community has to bear the burden of PAHC not originally providing for enough onsite parking at APAC. Street parking leads to narrowing Maybell so bicyclists get pushed out in the middle of the street and having to maneuver around all the parked cars in the street. PAHC should address the problems at APAC if they sincerely wish to mitigate parking impact from their newest proposed project. Second, PAHC appears to re-creating the same scenario at the proposed 60 unit development by providing only 42 spots for residents. They assume seniors don’t drive yet there are no senior services in walkable distances so they have to drive or many transport services will have to pick them up. PAHC hasn’t addressed how it will accommodate any increase demand for parking. Rather, again the public has to disproportionately bear the burden of all additional cars that don’t have spots on the property to be parked on the street, just like APAC. It is very plausible that there could be up to 120 more cars at the senior unit despite what assumptions PAHC makes about seniors because 2 seniors could live in 1 unit and be active and driving. 42 spots is providing for about 1/3 of the possible parking needs that could reasonably be needed by tenants at a 60 unit complex. PAHC should have to provide more parking onsite especially given the lessons learned from the misassumptions applied at APAC where clearly inadequate onsite parking is provided resulting in a tremendous burden on the neighborhood and increased safety risk with so many bicycles and pedestrians that use Maybell. The public should not have to disproportionately bear the burden of PAHC’s inadequate onsite parking allotments for its tenants. The Staff Report proposes red painting 65 feet on Clemo. The negative impact of this development of red painting 65 feet of parking is to take away a public benefit on Clemo available for Briones park visitors. All of Palo Alto benefits from having street parking at the park that hosts many sporting games and practices from residents all over Palo Alto. By eliminating parking on Clemo takes away a public benefit from all residents of Palo Alto at the expense of accommodating a project that doesn’t provide for inadequate onsite parking for its tenants. It is unfair that a disproportionate burden of the proposed high density project is being passed onto the neighborhood and residents of Palo Alto. PAHC should accommodate for the inevitable parking problem when its tenants don’t have a place to park onsite and will take away parking that should be available from visitors to the park. A lesson should be learned from the APAC street parking problem. LACK OF PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR PC ZONING PC should only be allowed where “development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of the general districts.” The cited public benefits include: (1) 60 affordable units and (2) a small sidewalk segment that connects the Briones park’s sidewalk with APAC’s sidewalk. 3 First, the one acre is zoned currently for RM-15 can provide affordable housing under existing zoning. We can still provide affordable housing without the severe environmental impact that will be caused by upzoning the lot 4x higher in density. Building the units under current zoning could possibly help mitigate the environmental impacts of bicycle and pedestrian safety, traffic congestion on narrow Maybell and congested Arastradero, emissions of more vehicles, parking issues, emergency access, block views, hasten deterioration of park facilities, and disproportionate burden on the immediate neighborhood to absorb all these environmental impacts. This neighborhood supports affordable housing. That is not the issue, in fact, we host several low income housing in our neighborhood, including Arastradero Park Apartments (APAC), Terman Apartments, Treehouse, Oak Manor Townhouses, and Buena Vista. The problem is the size and scale of 75 housing units and severe environmental impacts do not outweigh the public benefit of affordable housing when the same can be achieved under current zoning with a reduced number of affordable housing on 1 acre. Second, adding a small sidewalk segment on Maybell in front of the now 4 single family one story homes is not a public benefits that outweighs the severe environment impacts of building 75 units. The proposed sidewalk only connects Briones park to the APAC property on Maybell. From APAC going east to Walgreens toward El Camino Real, there is no further sidewalk on the same side. After the park going further west, there is also no further sidewalk on that same side on Maybell. In other words, there is no continuous sidewalk all along Maybell from end to end going east toward El Camion so there is marginal, if any public benefit by offering one sidewalk segment in exchange for the environmental impact resulting from PC zoning. By filling-in one gap on a sidewalk, it doesn’t make the road any safer. Pedestrian still have to cross the street to walk on an opposite sidewalk that runs from El Camino Real to the park. Bikers aren’t even allowed on sidewalks so their safety issues haven’t been addressed. There is no bike lane, and they are still pushed out near the middle of the street with all the street parking. INADEQUACY OF NOTICE OF PROJECT The City claims it notified residents within 600 feet of the proposed project. However, such notice was inadequate because more than half of the surrounding area around the project is open area so what would typically be notification of single family residents, none live in the open areas so very few residents were actually and in fact notified. Next to the proposed project is a large park, diagonal to the project is an elementary school with a large playground, on the other side of the project is the 2 acre Tan Plaza that is a single owner and another side of the project is the 3 acre APAC and then finally on one last strip are the single family homes. Had the City done a better job of actually notifying residents given the typography of the neighborhood, it would had know early on that the size and scale of 75 housing units has too many negative environmental impacts to warrant PC zoning. The same goes for PAHC, they claim they notified residents of their neighborhood outreach meetings, but they didn’t reach me and I live within 600 feet of this proposed project. I’m not a member of Greenacres or BPA although I recently paid and now am a member of BPA. Nevertheless, there are 1,500 people that live in BPA and less than 1/3 are members so solely relying on emails lists as the venue to reach residents isn’t adequate because PAHC has overlooked the residents that are most directly affected by proposed project. Sincerely J. Fryhling 1 Ellner, Robin From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:31 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Seniors on Maybell: bad idea First: there are no services that seniors need nearby. Walgreens yes. But Volvo? Tutoring? Fiskar? This is a ridiculous placement for senior housing: they all will need cars. Second: the mix of traffic and bicycles is already treacherous. My husband bikes to work and is almost hit daily by some distracted parent driving their kids to school. I drive to work and I am always aware that kids on bikes are erratic. Reaction times, depth perception, and predictability are all impaired in both seniors and kids. So the planning commission is exercising really poor judgment in thinking that mixing these populations in an already stressed transport corridor would work. Third: Setbacks can create a safety zone and more ease in passage. Building out creates claustrophobia, nervous driving, tenseness, and is ugly. Conversely beautiful setbacks increase ease and flow. Stop degrading our living environment, and thus our neighborhood relationships by building up to the street. A civil society needs development that considers the human effects. Fourth: I support increased density near public transport corridors. El Camino is hardly that. Look towards Caltrain and California Avenue, please. It makes more sense and is more safe. Cheryl Lilienstein Barron Park resident for 22 years 1 Ellner, Robin From:Bin's Hotmail <binhewan@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:22 PM To:Council, City; Williams, Curtis; Wong, Tim; Planning Commission Subject:Safety Concerns for Maybell Senior Housing Project Rezoning Dear City council members and Planning commission members, I want this on the public record! I’m a resident in Green Acres and has two kids in Terman Middle school. I’m writing to you about my concerns of traffic safety for proposed Maybell Senior Housing Project. Maybell and Arastradero are the traffic corridors of four schools, of which more than half the kids walk or bike to school. Among them Gunn High has over two thousand students along. Also these two roads are leading to I 280, Veteran's Hospital. The traffic in the morning rushing is already very congested and resulted in many dangerous situation. A lot of Gunn high school use Maybell as a short cut to Gunn High’s back entrance on Georgia Avenue. If we have another more than 75 units housing built on Maybell I think it will become a accident hotspot. Therefore our family strongly oppose this project and ask council to put our kid’s safety first, not politics. Thank you very much for your consideration! Bin He King Arthur Court. Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Brent Barker <brentgbarker@gmaiLcom> <j. \ 9 Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:24 PM \ '3 -'3 Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board;ctraboard CIRA Board Statement on Mayfield Housing Project CIRA Statement on Mayfield Agreement Housing.pdf Members of the City Council and Planning Commissioners, Attached is a statement by CTRA Board of Directors regarding the Mayfield Housing Project that will be coming before the city in various forums this year. There will be a preliminary review by the ARB on June 6th, and a more comprehensive overview presented by Stanford to the Planning and Transportation Commission on June 12th. A hearing on the Construction Management Plan will be held later this year, and numerous residents from College Terrace will be addressing the City Council on the issues summarized in this statement. Weare seeking your help and support in keeping construction truck traffic off California Avenue and preserving the City's successful traffic calming program in College Terrace. Alternatives and justification are laid out in the attached statement. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Brent Barker President, CTRA Board of Directors 1 College Terrace Residents' Association 2331 Amherst Street, Palo Alto, California 94306 May 29, 2013 CTRA Board Statement on the Mayfield Agreement Housing Ban demolition and construction truck traffic on the streets of College Terrace to protect the health and safety of our residents, and maintain our quality of life. • Trucks will impose an undue and unnecessary burden of noise, dirt, traffic congestion, and damage to California A venue. They will bring asbestos and other contaminants through our streets. They will endanger children, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. • For the upper California Mayfield site, Stanford has recently identified an alternative access route from Page Mill. However, they want to impose limitations (one-way for one year). College Terrace wants those limitations removed. It is both feasible and desirable to use the existing corridor at 1450 Page Mill for two-way construction traffic during the estimated four years of construction. • For the El Camino site, direct access, or shortest path to El Camino is essential. Preserve the successful traffic mitigation measures undertaken by the city over the last ten years. • The City has worked with College Terrace since 2003 on a traffic-calming program. It has been successful in reducing both traffic volumes and speed. The significant gains of this program need to be sustained and supported. • The upper California Avenue Mayfield project of 180 residential units will generate an estimated 1500 trips/day. The 2005 plan assumed a small percentage of households would work at Stanford. Recently, this has been changed to 100%. Therefore, many more residents will drive through College Terrace on their way to work, potentially increasing traffic on interior streets significantly (i.e. >25%, as per the TIRE index). • Based on CTRA's recent, two-day study of traffic patterns into and out of the Stanford Peter Coutts housing project, we estimate about 50% of the residents' trips are to Page Mill Road. Since Peter Coutts is a reasonable model for the new residents (100% . Stanford faculty), a permanent road to Page Mill could divert as much as 50% of the new traffic away from the streets of College Terrace. • At the back of the El Camino site, a safe corridor is needed for children trying to reach Escondido School or homes in College Terrace. • When exiting the El Camino site onto California A venue, the out-of-kilter alignment with Yale makes a left-hand tum problematic. Minor. Beth From: Sent: To: Elaine Heal <eheaIJ4@yahoo.com> Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:14 PM 13 JUN -3 Mi 9: 14 Council, City; Planning Commission Cc: aruggiero@padailypost.com; bkerr@padailypost.com Subject: Maybell Rezoning public comment Dear City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: Thank you for taking the time to consider all of our comments in this process of determining whether to rezone the properties at 567-595 Maybell Ave. (the Maybell project). I live on Arastradero Road near Clemo. I drive on Arastradero daily and walk on Arastradero and Maybell with my four young children going to the park and to Juana Briones Elementary School. I attended the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting on May 22nd and listened to ~e \ Applicant, the traffic consultant representative, the public comment, and the Commission. Upon consideration of all the information, I am opposed to the rezoning of the Maybell project for the following reasons: 1. 1. Concerns over whether the residents will be seniors I am confused after attending the May 22nd PTC meeting. At the meeting I raised a concern that I didn't know if we had any assurance the project would get PC zoning based on parking and a traffic study for seniors and then be open to anyone to live there at some point in the future. The Commission asked the Applicant that question. The way I understand the answer is that at least one of the funding sources require that the project have seniors live there for 55 years. However, that answer raises more questions than it answers. What percentage of seniors need to live there to meet the requirements? If there are as few as about 25% of the units allocated to non-seniors (75% to seniors), then the numbers in the traffic study are approximately twice as high according to the staff report comparing what is allowed under the current zoning. Obviously, if it were 50% seniors that would be far worse than what is allowed under the current zoning and not studied at all. Another question it raises is what happens if that funding source is paid off one way or another? One path to paying it off could be that P AHC decides to sell the property. Another could be to payoff the loan and obtain different financing. Essentially, I am not satisfied that the neighborhood has any kind of assurance that the project will remain 100% a senior project. And if it does not, then all the numbers that were put forth in order to get the up- zoning would be no longer applicable. Instead we would be left with a situation where the zoning was obtained with low numbers for seniors, but the reality would be much higher numbers for non-seniors. It would be nice to have some aSsurance that the project must be occupied 100% by seniors in perpetuity. I am also a bit confused about the live/work preference for Palo Alto. The Applicant stated that it could have a live/work in Palo Alto preference for its residents. However, the Applicant also stated that the vast majority of its senior residents do not work. And if a potential resident already lives in Palo Alto, then it seems like they already have a place to live and would not necessarily need to move into this project. Therefore, I am confused by this preference. 2. 2. Concerns over an inaccurate comparison to the Stevenson House There was a lot of comparison of the Maybell projectto the Stevenson House at the May 22nd PTC meeting. However, the two facilities are an apples to oranges comparison. First, Stevenson House is located near an elementary school, Hoover, churches, and a private school. Hoover is a choice school, rather than a neighborhood school. Therefore, there are many fewer people who walk or bike to Hoover than the three 1 neighborhood schools surrounding the Maybell project proposed site. Also, the Stevenson House has grocery shopping, restaurants, and amenities directly across the street in a truly walkable location for seniors. The proposed Maybell project site has none ofthat. Finally, the proposed Maybell project also has 15 single family homes surrounding it, which the Stevenson House does not have. The Stevenson House and the proposed Maybell project are truly very different. 3. 3. Concern about visual impact I want to correct what I believe to be a misstatement at the May 22nd PTC meeting. Several times during the meeting it was noted that the project site has no visual impact to surrounding houses. That statement is wrong. As I said above, I live on Arastradero Road and I can see this project site from my bedroom window, the window of my kids' bedroom, and my front driveway. It does have a visual impact to me from my home. It will also have a visual impact from other Arastradero and Maybell single family homes. 4. 4. Concerns regarding traffic and safety Crosswalk at Clemo Another concern I have is with the ingress/egress being on Clemo to Arastradero. At the PTC meeting on May 22nd, the Applicant indicated that they anticipate most traffic out the project will head towards EI Camino. Assuming that most traffic will go to EI Camino, then cars exiting the project will have to tum left onto Clemo and left again from Clemo to Arastradero. Currently, there is a cross walk across Arastradero to the east of Clemo, meaning that the cars turning left would need to go through the crosswalk. This crosswalk was installed as part of the Arastradero calming project about 2 years ago and is heavily used. Even if vehicle traffic permitted a left tum onto Arastradero, then pedestrian or bike traffic in the cross walk could inhibit left tum ability. Since frequently cars do not currently stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk (and there is no crossing guard at this intersection), it adds a level of danger to crossing the street at that location because then more cars would be coming from three directions. To make matters even more difficult for left turners onto Arastradero from Clemo, there is a median at that point for pedestrians on the crosswalk, so the cars loose the benefit of the middle tum lane generally available on Arastradero. My experience driving on Arastradero tells me that at most times of day a left tum from Clemo to Arastradero will be virtually impossible or very dangerous to both the car turning left and to pedestrians on the crosswalk. Emergency access Furthermore, the fire station is located at the comer of Arastradero and Clemo. Very frequently during peak traffic times, the driveway from the fire station to Arastradero is blocked, despite the "Keep Clear" writing on the road. The fire trucks frequently use the Clemo exit of the fire station to avoid that blockage and the traffic on Arastradero. However, ifthere are only two or three cars waiting to turn left onto Arastradero from Clemo due to the traffic or pedestrians described above, then there is a very real possibility that both fire station driveways will be blocked. In that case, the emergency vehicles will be delayed. Arastradero calming The traffic on Arastradero and Maybell is already bad due in part to the unique neighborhood described above, and in part to the Arastradero calming project. While I believe one goal of the project was to make Arastradero safer for bikes and pedestrians, it also had the impact of increasing traffic delay on both Arastradero and Maybell. It appears that there are serial projects each making traffic only a little bit worse so we (the residents of the neighborhoods affected) won't notice. First, the Arastradero calming projected increased traffic on Maybell and traffic delays on Arastradero. Now, just a few years later, PC zoning is proposed to increase the density on Maybell and Clemo and the Applicant saying the traffic will only go up a little so we won't notice. This reasoning is flawed. To say that we won't notice because it is only increased a little bit may be right for one increase, but with multiple back to back increases, there is an additive effect. We do notice. Also, it would be unfortunate to negate the positive impact to pedestrians and bikes that was gained from the Arastradero calming project with the added traffic and risk from the Maybell project. 2 Video shown at May 22nd PTe meeting I also wanted to reply to a comment made by Chair Martinez at the May 22nd PTC meeting. He indicated that the video shown during public comment of the intersection at Maybell and Clemo showed how well behaved kids and cars were. However, what is perhaps difficult to notice in the video is the largenumber of bikes that do not stop at that stop sign. Most of the packs of bikes do not stop at all at the stop sign. I walk through that intersection every morning on the way to school and nearly get pummeled by the bikes every day. Just today there was a car stuck literally in the middle of the intersection because it tried to go but was stopped by pedestrians in the cross walk. There is no crossing guard at that intersection and it is a free for all. . There is a crossing guard at the intersection of Maybell and Coulombe and she has to scream at the bikes to get them to stop at the stop sign. Traffic Study I understand that the Hexagon representative said that the traffic study commissioned by the Applicant followed the analysis methodology typically used. However, it is possible that the unique situation of this neighborhood should warrant different consideration. For example, due to the number of neighborhood schools in close proximity to each other and to the Maybell project, there are a large number of bikes and pedestrians that should be considered and included in the analysis. Also, the traffic peak times are unique to the combination of the schools, the business parks on Arastradero (or other streets requiring travel on Arastradero, like Foothill, Hillview, etc), and the fact that Arastradero is one of only a limited number of EastIW est passages across Palo Alto, between 280 and 101. Thus, there are not only peak times, but really peak times, for example, between 7:45 and 8:15 a.m., where all of the above factors give rise to traffic beyond just peak traffic on Arastradero and Maybell. By focusing on the larger peak time between 7 and 9 a.m., the average number of trips dilutes the real problem, which occurs in the really peak time of7:45 to 8:15 a.m. Therefore, some consideration should be given to whether this neighborhood warrants a different traffic study methodology to adequately analyze the current and predicted traffic. In conclusion, I urge you to consider rejecting the up-zoning application for the safety of our children and other pedestrians and cyclists. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Elaine Heal Resident on Arastradero Road 3 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Subject: To: Palo Alto City Council Members My husband and I are past 80. We've lived on Maybell Way since 1969 and Maybell Way is full of seniors, many of them much older than we are. We have had a number of instances of having to call ambulances to take us to hospitals as well as the fact that I have had to drive my husband to ER's on several occasions. On one occasion the paramedic told us that Stanford ER was too crowded to treat my husband who was in serious pain and needed immediate attention. They took us to the VA Hospital instead, told us that traffic to Sequoia Hospital was too heavy and would take too long (it was evening commute time). On one occasion I drove my husband to the VA Hospital myself (also in pain but not fainting) and got stuck on Arastradero in the right turn lane when the car ahead of me would not make the right turn onto Miranda towards the hospital (I kept honking to no avail). Instead on many occasions I see cars stay in that lane and then they quickly scoot onto Foothill Expressway. So you can see why I'm especially concerned about emergency vehicle access and egress from Maybell Way. We are a cul-de-sac with no other way in or out except onto Maybell Ave. Maybell is too narrow for emergency vehicle to bypass cars and bikes and go onto sidewalks. Mostly there are none. Arastradero is crowded. We are not the only house on Maybell Way that has had ambulances come to us. In fact, we had police cars and emergency vehicles on our street on Tuesday of this week, luckily not during commute times. It's a fact of life that seniors will need them. I think the issue of accessibility for emergency vehicles is a VERY important issue including the fact that the proposed project includes a building full of seniors! My husband and I implore you to take very seriously the issues raised by so many of the residents of our neighborhood as well as the one that I have outlined above and NOT rezone Maybell/Clemo. We know that you have had a historic outpouring of objections to the project planned by the PAHC. It is time to listen to the voices of the residents of Palo Alto who voted for you and depend upon you to act as a voice for us and not for developers. Zita Zukowsky 4153 Maybell Way 1 Minor, Beth From: Sent: Cheryl Lilienstein < mail@changemail.org> Friday, May 31,2013 3:50 PM t 3 JUN -3' AM ,: 12 To: , Council, City Subject: Why I signed --The city should not Dear City of Palo Alto, Ijust signed Elaine D's petition "Stop High-Density Rezoning in Barron Park" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: The city should not allow ANY MORE CARS on bike routes. Development has already clogged our roadways. How about this: require developers to IMPROVE transit --and DECREASE the number of cars-- as a condition for building? Sincerely, Cheryl Lilienstein Palo alto, California There are now 189 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Elaine D by clicking here: http://www.change.orglpetitions/stop-high-density-rezoning-in-barron-park?response=99c88e57756d I [!l i 1 Minor, Beth i·.',i,l , ' From: Tom Pamilla <tompamilla@stevensonhouse.or~iJY Sent: To: Saturday, June 01,2013 11:33 AM 13 Council, City Subject: Maybell Senior Housing Project Honorable Council Members: I am reaching out to each of you to emphasize the importance of your June Jdh vote to approve the Maybell Senior Housing Project. As the Executive Director of Stevenson House here on busy Charleston Road, it is clear to me that a well-run senior housing project can be integrated harmoniously with the surrounding community. My message is twofold,' a senior housing project such as the Maybell project in many ways adds to the quality of the community. It provides a home to elders who have helped to build our community. It allows the wisdom, experience and insight of these seniors to enrich our community. The youth who live and study in the surrounding area' have the opportunity to participate in valuable intergenerational activities in which both generations learn and grow. The second element of my message is that for 45 years Stevenson House has flourished in this community and has been an invaluable asset and resource. As will be with the Maybell project, Stevenson House functions within a very active community. We are across the street from private homes, next to Hoover Elementary school the Unitarian Church, Abilities United, down the block from Challenger school and around the corner from Achieve Kids, and near very popular Mitchell Park and JLS Middle Schoo!. Rather than problems and conflicts, this community has developed a healthy interrelationship that is truly beneficial to each organization. I encourage both sides of the Maybell project to work together with open minds to address concerns. Both sides are interested in the community and both sides have the opportunity to learn from each other. Maybell has made efforts to resolve some of those community concerns. With collaboration of both sides of 1 this issue, the remaining concerns can and will be resolved Above all we must keep in mind that affordable senior housing in Palo Alto is a real need Thank you for your attention to this vitally important subject. Respectfully, . Thomas M. Pamilla, MSW Executive Director Stevenson House 455 E. Charleston Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 494-1944 ext. 12 www.stevensonhouse.org 2 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Subject: Maryanne Welton <mare@robquigley.com> Sunday, June 02, 2013 2:57 PM Council, City 567-595 Maybell Avenue (12PLN-00453) en'( 'ct' 13 JUN -3 Ari ~: '0 The Palo Alto Housing Corporation's mission is to provide affordable housing in our community. It is not an easy task to acquire land and develop it at a density that makes affordable housing feasible in Palo Alto. The inevitable opposition from neighbors (who always say they aren't opposed to affordable housing, just this . project in their neighborhood) and the difficulty stitching together a patchwork quilt of funding sources combine to make the task of developing new low-income housing nearly impossible. I understand that neighbors are upset about potential increases to traffic and school impacts. I can sympathize with their wish to turn the former orchard into an extension of Briones Park, a dream for which there is no funding. They don't take into account that many of their homes were most likely orchards or agricultural land at one time and that the development of their neighborhood changed traffic and school populations. Palo Alto is a continually evolving city and has been over many decades. The PC process, General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Housing Element are tools that make a project like this possible. If P ARC doesn't develop this property, a for-profit developer will. Personally, I prefer that economic and social diversity are allowed to fit in appropriate locations in my neighborhood. The proposed project is adjacent to existing multi-family housing, which makes the site ideal for this type of development. When the Planning Commission approved the project they noted that the existing traffic issues should be addressed, rather than stop this project, which will have a minimal impact on the current situation. The opposition is hoping to have even more people attend the City Council meeting. I have faith that you will see beyond their emotional demands that this project is wrong for this location. As a Barron Park resident, J support this project and encourage you to sift through the noise of opposition to approve it. Maryanne Welton 1 Minor. Beth From: Sent: recycierlOO@sonic.net Monday, June 03,2013 3:52 PM 13 JUN -4 Ar~ ,: 13 To: Council, City Cc: Wong, Tim; Williams, Curtis Subject: REZONING: Please consider - a WIN-WIN proposal Dear Council, As I'm sure you are aware by now, there is a strong opposition to rezoning the property at Maybell and Clemo. This email is about finding a win-win for everyone: for the neighborhood, for the City, for affordable housing advocates and the future residents. Because we neighbors can't just speak out against what we don't want for our neighborhood, as neighbors at Alma Plaza did (and ended up with such negative results), we have to have an idea of what we want there and ask. I'd like to propose a vision for a WIN-WIN, which I hope you will consider as a positive way forward for all parties. As you all are very well aware, both Maybell and Arastradero are already overly congested school transit corridors traveled by over a thousand kids on foot and bike every school day, and hundreds more in the next few years. The proposed rezoning would tear down 4 perfectly good ranch houses to put up in their place on Maybell 9 for-profit tall skinny 3-story houses like at Alma Plaza, with little setback, plus 6 more next to them directly across from Juana Briones park on Clemo. (Who thought it was a good idea to put a looming wall of new skinny for-profit homes the disabled could never live in or visit right across from a long-time school and rehabilitation center for disabled children from around Palo Alto and Santa Clara County and the park they visit daily? Around 11 % of the population has mobility problems -why the City of Palo Alto is building as fast as it can to shut out the disabled is a whole other problem! But doing so in the park directly across from the OR is only more evidence of the insensitivity of those pushing this rezoning in that location. Ironic that the scheme is to profit from those 15 out-of-character- with-the-neighborhood homes in order to finance a high-density development of 60 units next to it for seniors. PARC has said they will not compromise on the Alma-plaza-like for-profit houses.) The development has no other routes in and out except via those heavily traveled school corridors, on Maybell and a most congested part of Arastradero, and there are no convenient walkableamenities like medical services or grocery. One of the streets, Maybell, of substandard width, is actually designated one of only two Bicycle Boulevards in the City's Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (the other is Bryant!), amazingly saying, "Bicycle boulevards are signed, shared roadways with especially low motor vehicle volume, such that motorists passing bicyclists can use the full width of the roadway. Bicycle boulevards prioritize convenient and safe bicycle travel through traffic calming strategies, wayfmding, and other measures." Traffic on Maybell already far exceeds 2500 vpd, the maximum acceptable volume on a local residential street as defined by Palo Alto's neighborhood traffic calming program. The City Council also adopted a policy in 2003 that principle school commute routes be given "priority for public investment purposes and be accorded enhanced review as 1 regards proposals for new commercial driveways and other street changes." [emphases mine] Those pushing for the rezoning have a sincere desire to build more affordable housing. But they have no real way to mitigate the problems of that location to the neighborhood or the residents. As Commissioner Panelli pointed out, it's not really on a transit corridor, either. If the City rezones, the problem promises to explode into massive distrust of City Hall and certain legal challenges. Bob Moss told the PTC that this rezoning has the . most opposition he's seen in 30 years. The City has been warning that even building under the existing zoning could create significant traffic. What if there were another way? A win-win for everyone? A no-or low-traffic use ofthe property at 567- 595 Maybell, and a truly great location for even more affordable housing, made possible by that no-additional- traffic use for that property?!! 27 University has 200,000 sq ft of proposed office space, but not one housing unit. There are places in Palo Alto where it is appropriate to think of denser housing, yet in this plan, there are no housing units. Rather than Maybell, here is a place that is appropriate, and not only that, a real opportunity. Furthermore, there is a historic house sitting onthat property, Hostess House (formerly Macarthur Park restaurant), which cannot be tom down to optimize this ambitious project at 27 University. The City has discussed moving it to a playing field at EI Camino Park (where it would eliminate a playing field), or out at the golf course (where the damp bay air will do the historic building no favors). THE VISION: What if the City were to move Hostess House to the Maybell orchard property, and make -it a community orchard? Like Gamble Gardens, only for trees? There are currently 12 grand ancient oaks on the property (10 to be preserved), and 90 some historic fruit trees (otherwise slated to be tom down). Along with Hostess House, the property could become an educational center for the surrounding nearby schools. A place for science programs, community meetings. Plus it sits directly across from an existing park! It could also be a meeting place where veterans are welcomed once again, as it was historically, since the neighborhood is next to the VA. It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a unique community asset! The 4 existing ranch homes could be sold, at market prices, making back $9-11 million of the original purchase price, leaving less than the amount the City loaned to buy the property in the first place. If the City were willing to put up just half of that loan total as a matching grant from the Stanford funds - a small fraction of the total of the Stanford funds, which some in the City Council have expressed a desire to spend on just such visionary projects -the neighbors could raise the rest. It would truly show a commitment to the City policy of prioritizing safe routes to school through an investment in a visionary asset that guarantees no appreciable traffic added to that traffic bottleneck of only more heavily used safe routes to school into the future. With Hostess House moved, 27 University could be developed to its full potential. An arts and innovation center downtown would be an incredible asset for the City. If it could possibly include some affordable housing, the developer would get positive "PR" on the project. Making some or all of the affordable housing available to low-income seniors could generate relaxation on some of the other development issues, so the developer wins, too. (Having affordable housing where residents truly do not need a car may mean tax credits, ·as well.) The development itself could allow for even more affordable housing units than at Maybell, which could be all for low income seniors, or some multigenerational. Residents could step literally right outside their doorsteps and take a train or bus anywhere in the Bay Area. They could take a short walk to A venidas for free meals, 2 community, and classes for the ~lderly. They could go to Stanford for museums and exercise. Seniors living there would have only to walk outside their doors to volunteer usher for events at the new performing art center, something seniors often to do see cultural events for free. . Their aids and family visitors could also take transit to visit them, but if they took a car, any overflow weekend parking needs could be met by sharing the empty business parking. Most importantly, the seniors themselves really would have real freedom and quality of life, without needing a car, without having the expense of a car. They could even take the train just one stop to the farmer's market on California. They would be just moments away from medical services at P AMF and Stanford. As a parent, I have seen my share of children's programs where a couple of clueless puppets wander around holding something the other clearly needs, where the audience can see that if they just got together, the puzzle would fit, and everyone's problems would be solved. I hope everyone can see how we can solve this through the same kind of cooperation, to everyone's benefit. I humbly ask you to consider this vision and win-win solution for Palo Alto tomorrow. If the neighborhood can provide conceptual drawings of what a community orchard would look like and the enormous public benefit it would bring to our town, please contact me. Anne 3 Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, Dianelakubowski <dianejak@yahoo.com> Tuesday, June 04, 2013 7:55 AM Council, City Alternate plan for Maybell-Clemo I Write to support an alternate plan as written by Art Liberman: 13 JUN -4 AM!: I '* htt,p://www.bpapaloalto.org/2013/05/30/an-alternative~position-on-the-maybell-c1emo-projectl Fifteen single family homes in the P AHC proposal are too many -the homes are too narrow, too close to each other, on too small lots -and would generate a sizable amount ofth~ total traffic. I hope the council will learn from the mistake at Alma Plaza and other recent developments and start moving forward with better decisions. Regards, Diane Jakubowski 4021 Villa Vista 1 Gonsalves. Ronna From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear City Council- Kevin Zwick <kevin@housingtrustsv.org> Wednesday, June OS, 2013 9:42 AM Council, City 567 Maybell -Support maybell support.PDF f3JIJN-5 AIHO:09 Please accept the following letter of support for affordable housing at 567 Maybell Ave. Thank you, Kevin Kevin Zwick I Chief Executive Officer Housing Trust Silicon Valley 95 S. Market Street, Suite 610 I San Jose, CA 95113 [p] 408.436.3450 ext. 225 I [f] 408.436.3454 kevin@housingtrustsv.orgl www.housingtrustsv.org Make a Donation Notice to recipient: This communication is intended for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is prohibited by Federal and/or State law. If you receive this in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately by telephone or email and delete the email nd any attachments from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. 1 City:Caundl atyHaU l$OiHamUtoA Street :Palo Altot CA94301 ji;:S&7"N!aybeIIA'Je Retoningfot Aflon:l.bl.Ho~mIDevelepment, Dear CQuooilmembet'$} ',', .,.' .. ,' ....... ', .. \ ......... . The HOUS1NG TaUSTSU.lCONVidl.&Y, formerly, HOUSING TftU$TQF'$ANTA;CtARA,cql)N'l'Yis pleased to support Palo~A:lto'HbbSil'ls~t:otporatloWs'proposalto relone the';p:ropertylacated;a:t561 ;:~:~,~i:~i:::::i1;e~6n;~~~=~,~::;:t~~ej!~:;t~::=~:!::~~;;::~:hle affof:datJleplacert(j 1~.Hnt;f$in$'ti'ust S,ili~n,:\l.nev makeslQans and ~ilnts to inc"tea:SE! the supply Qr~i:lffQr~l;)I~;t1f,lus'ng, a~i~t ft~t.;time t1Qroe.t)A;lye~; preV!i!nt hi,1me'l!$~ne$,apd.s.t1Jb,mze; , , 'fJetghi\lorhoods. the Palo Alto Housing Corporation 'is proposing to deveIOl;l,6Q"unitsof affornablehQusing,for ( ;senlorswitt11ncon:le~rangingi~~\IV~n sP:,b~~ at~a: me1#ianin~()me (AMl).Many.~a:loAl'g$~nip:rJ " whQ;a~f!JeUant gjj IQw'fb(e'd~ln(o:mg$fa,{rwlth(n thf$ln'C(jm,~<btacl<et. These]oW¢t~incqrile$enjot$ 'l'Jii$ervetheehante to age in plaoe'wJthdighityand independence. th~ M~Y:f'JeIIO,.Qhp,.d devel~Pment'lAiill add;6(hml~ of'~perat~lyneededaffotd;'bIe. senior h9U~l1gto _ the~ditYs,~t11~ablebop~ing$~~kwhlle haV1flg.negligible !rnlla~ on neitfiborhoodtrafflt:. 'The :dev,ja,prnehtwlll providepedeStrian¢onned:iQO'to May~eUAveriue and Juana Briones ParR ario Will Includeindoo.l':b:kycle parkil'l8for resldentsinordert(Jem::ou~ge resh:len~ toV'@I~; i:like; and take ' pl.ilbt~transpo!*ati(;m. :~~SSL c:hj~fExecutiv:e (jffl:Qer HOUSING tRuStSIUCON VALLEY 95 RMarket St, #61 (;) -.I San Gonsalves. Ronna From: Sent: Sue Luttner <suelu@ix.netcom.com> Tuesday, June 04, 2013 12:30 PM f 3 JUN -5 At'110: O!j To: Council, City . Subject: Maybell Housing Project Honorable Council Members, Because I support the goals of the senior·housing project on Maybell, I am hoping we can find a design that works for both our neighborhood and the city as a whole. I am grateful for the design changes that have already been made, but I am still concerned about the set-back on Maybell. We have known for years that the street isn't wide enough to safely accommodate both car and bicycle traffic during school commute hours. The proposed development edges a significant portion of a short but problematic corridor. Could we turn this into a chance to widen the public right of way? Or at least leave enough room to make widening plausible in the future? Based on the common wisdom about car ownership, I would also suggest fewer single-family homes in the project, but my main concern is the Maybell set-back. Thank you for your hard work keeping the city on track, and for your consideration of our neighborhood's input on this issue. Sue Luttner . Technical writer and editor suelu@ix.netcom.com 4035 Orme Street Palo Alto CA 94306 650-387-4102 http://sueluttner.com/ http://onsbs.coml 16 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Jeffrey Rensch <jrensch@gmail.com> Tuesday, June 04,2013 3:46 PM Council, City 13 JUN -5 lUi 10: 09 Subject: Support for Maybell Orchards --re June 10 Council meeting Dear Mayor Scharff and Councilmembers I am a resident of Barron Park writing in strong support of the Maybell Orchards development of senior affordable housing as supported by market rate houses, which of course you will be discussing at your June 10 meeting. Personally I consider this a model development that will enhance the neighborhood in which it will be sited. It is actually a rather modest development. So I have been astonished by the emotional and hostile reaction of some of my neighbors. They seem to feel their private domain has been "invaded" by a potential use that is very good for the city and very good for the region but that doesn't provide them with an immediate amenity. They should cbnsider that Palo Alto is not a private community and not a gated community. We are a city filled with more financially struggling seniors than the market can comfortably house. Surely the needs of those seniors should drive your decision. Thank you Jeff Rensch, 741 Chimalus Dr, Palo Alto 11 Gonsalves. Ronna en Y bU_i\lFWr>1e From: Sent: Donald Anderson <donanderson44@gmail.com> Tuesday, June 04,2013 4:39 PM 13 JUN -5 MilO: O~ To: Council, City Subject: Support for Maybell Project --June 10 City Council Agenda Dear Mayor Scharff and Councilmembers: I am a resident of Barron Park writing in strong support of the P ABC proposal to build affordable senior housing on Maybell in Palo Alto. I have-lived on the same block as the proposed development for more than 25 years. I believe the PARC project will serve an underserved group of people in our city, and could be a boon to many of us with aged parents who wish to move closer to us but can't afford it. A small but vocal group of my neighbors in the Barron Park and Green Acres neighborhoods has raised objections to the proposed development. (The Barron Park Neighborhood Board voted to oppose the P ABC proposal on a close 6-4 vote with one member absent. The Board is not elected, and conducted no survey of neighborhood residents on the issue). Objections have focused mainly on: 1) Presumed deleterious impact on traffic and on safety of children commuting to and from school on bikes and as pedestrians. 2) Aesthetic incompatibility with the adjoining neighborhood. Through a course of public hearings, P ARC and the city have responded to criticisms by changing the design to eliminate driveways onto Maybell from the single family residences, scaling down the size of the residences, providing two additIonal means of automobile egress from the property, widening the sidewalks, and increasing the setbacks. I have spoken with several longstanding and knowledgeable advocates for "Safe Routes to School" in Palo Alto who say they have studied the situation and that they do NOT believe that this project will make an appreciable impact on traffic or bike/pedestrian commute safety. The proposed development is surrounded on two sides by large existing apartment complexes, on one side by a city park (Juana Briones Park), and is across the street from a vacant lot, a small rented house, and several newer, larger, two story houses. I personally think that the proposed development is compatible with the immediately surrounding neighborchood --and of course provides for much needed affordable senior housing. Please vote to approve the P ABC Maybell project. Don Anderson 4185 Alta Mesa Avenue 10 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Subject: Tom Wasow <twasow@gmail.com> Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:56 PM Council, City i3 JUN -s MilO: 09 Support for Maybell Project --June 10 City Council Agenda Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing in strong support of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation's proposed low-income senior housing project on the corner of Maybell and Clemo. I am a 36-year resident of Barron Park, and I have been unconvinced by my neighbors' criticisms of the project. PAHC has done careful research and modified the project in ways that address the criticisms, yet the critics ignore PAHC's data. I value the diversity of our community, and do not want to live in a city with only rich residents. There is a critical need for low-income housing in Palo Alto, and the Maybell project will make a significant contribution toward meeting that need. Please think about the long-term future of Palo Alto when considering the Maybell/Clemo project and put it ahead of the nimbyism of some of my neighbors. They do not speak for the entire Barron Park neighborhood. Sincerely, TomWasow 758 Barron Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 9 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Subject: l~i~"Y~~L ~:#I~!~7~~'IC:·t Dena Mossar <dmossar@yahoo.com> Tuesd~y, J.une 04,2013 5:15 PMf 3 JUN -5 AM 10: 09 Council, City Support for Maybell Project --June 10 City Council Agenda Dear City Council Members: I am writing in support of the P AHC proposal to build low income senior housing on Maybell in Palo Alto. Though I understand the concerns of the project's near-neighbors, the reality is that income disparity in the Bay Area is growing by leaps and bounds. It is essential that Palo Alto provide housing for those seniors, workers and families who are less fortunate than many of us. The simple truth is that there is hot enough money available to build affordable housing without making trade-offs like those used in this development proposal. The low income senior housing project will be a fine addition to Palo Alto's housing stock. There was a tim~ in my life when senior housing seemed like a distant need. But, in fact, we will all face major life changes as we age. Providing low income housing for seniors today, may well provide the housing that we each will need tomorrow. ' I urge your support for P AHC's proposal. Dena Mossar 1024 Emerson St., Palo Alto 8 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Subject: efT y CL~Hj,\CD·~rF\eE Mid Fuller <midfuller@gmail.com> Wednesday, June 05, 2ro~bb.,rfM AM to: O!) Council, City Support for Maybell Avenue Project --June 10 City Council Agenda Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I support the PAHC proposal to build low income senior housing on Maybell Avenue in Palo Alto. I hope that the City Council which represents a city with the wealth and influence of Palo Alto can find away to move ahead with a project that provides affordable housing for seniors who increasingly cannot afford to live or stay in our city. Providing affordable apartments for seniors will have a beneficial impact on the neighborhood and will not detract from the contrived notion of neighborhood "aesthetics" that opponents often cite. Also, there doesn't seem to be any tangible evidence that the Maybell Project would increase risks to students bike commuting or walking to area schools during peak hours. The alternative of building 34 single family homes on this site under current zoning would surely increase general traffic and congestion inthe area far more than the proposed planned community for seniors. Formal, independent traffic studies and projections support these conclusions. I urge you to vote to approve the P AHC Maybell Project. Mid Fuller 3181.Macka11 Way Palo Alto 7 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: . Subject: Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members: I am a Barron Park resident. I strongly support the Palo Alto Housing Corporation's Maybell-Clemo proposal to build 60 units of low income senior housing. There are many seniors in our community that are on long waiting lists for this kind of housing. I urge you to support this project as a benefit for Palo Alto. Sincerely, Trina lovercheck 1070 McGregor Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 3 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Subject: bl i f bu~r&;:;; GiFlEt Cheryl Fuller <cldfuller@gmail,com> Wednesday, June 05,2013 9:23 ~UN -5 M110: OB Council, City Support for Maybell Project --June 10 City Council Agenda Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council: I am a Palo Alto resident who supports the PAHC proposal to build affordable senior housing on Maybell in Palo Alto. I believe the PAHC project will provide much needed housing for seniors who find it increasingly difficult to live or stay in our city. I believe this proposed development will benefit the neighborhood and be compatible with the existing surroundings of apartment complexes, a city park, a vacant lot and several single family homes. The design changes that PAHC and the city have made reduce the traffic problems and address the issues of pedestrian and bike safety. An addition of 34 single family homes under the current zoning laws would impact general traffic congestion far more than a planned community for seniors as the independent traffic studies and projections have indicated. This is a much needed and excellent addition to our city. I urge you to vote to approve the PAHC Maybell project. Cheryl Fuller 3181 Mackall Way, Palo Alto 2 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: Brian Darrow <brian@wpusa.org> Tuesday, June 04, 2013 9:45 PM 13 JUN -5 AM 10: 4 I To: Council, City Subject: support letter from Working Partnerships USA Attachments: Maybell housing project -Letter of support -WPUSA.pdf Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council, Please find the attached letter of support for the Maybell Orchard senior housing project submitted on behalf of Working Partnerships. Thank you for your consideration, Brian Brian Darrow Director of Land Use and Urban Policy Working Partnerships USA 2102 Almaden Road, Suite 107 San Jose, CA 95125 (408) 269-7872 X571 1 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Cc: Michael Kovitch <mkovitch@liifund.org> Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:32 PM Council, City Liz Tracey; Cecile Chalifour f 3 JUN -5 AM 10: 4 I Subject: Attachments: 567 Maybell Avenue Rezoning for Affordable Housing Development Maybell Rezoning.pdf Councilmembers: I am sending this on behalf LlIF's Senior Vice President of the Western Region, Elizabeth Tracey. Attached is a letter signed by Ms. Tracey in support of the rezoning of the above stated property. The Maybell Orchard Development 'will give your community desperately needed affordable senior housing. Please share with all Councilmembers our desire in assisting your community with this project. Kind regards, Michael Kovitch Program Associate mkovitch@liifund.org 1 T: 415.489.6150 LlIF I capital for healthy families & communities 100 Pine Street Suite 1800 San Francisco California, 94111 T: 415.772.90941 F: 415.772.90951 http://www.liifund.org/ Connect: Facebook 1 Twitter 1 YouTube 1 Linkedln Learn how LlIF invested $1 billion to benefit one million people! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 1 June 4,2013 City Council City Hall 250 Hamilton Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 567 Maybell Ave Rezoning for Affordable Housing Development Dear Councilmembers~ capitaL for healthy families & communities The Low Income Investment Fund is pleased to support Palo Alto Housing Corporation's proposal to rezone the property located at 567 Maybell Avenue, Palo Alto, to a Planned Community (PC) Zone for the development of affordable housing. The mission of the Low Income Investment Fund is to be a steward for capital invested in community building initiatives. In so doing, lIlFprovides a bridge between private capital markets and low income neighborhoods. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation is proposing to develop 60 units of affordable housing for seniors with incomes ranging between 30-.60% area median income (AMI). Many Palo Alto seniors who are reliant on low fixed-incomes fall within this income bracket. These lower- income seniors deserve the chance to age in place with dignity and independence. . The Maybell Orchard development will add 60 units of desperately needed affordable senior housing to the City's affordable housing stock while having negligible impacts on neighborhood traffic. The development will provide pedestrian connection to Maybell Avenue and Juana Briones Park and will include indoor bicycle parking for residents in order to encourage residents to walk, bike, and take public transportation. We strongly encourage you to support this project. Sincerely, Elizabeth Tracey Senior Vice President, Western Region Low Income Investment Fund Low Income Investment Fund 100 Pine Street Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94111 415.772.9094 tel 415.772.9095 fax www.liifund.org San Francisco los Angeles New York Washington, D.~. John Caruso 488 W. Charleston Road #302 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Reference Affordable Housing in Palo Alto To: Whom it may concern 11:50 I'm writing in favor of affordable housing here in Palo Alto. I moved to this wonderful city from New York 34 years ago and have lived here ever since. I lived 32 of those years renting at different locations in Palo Alto and the past 1 Yz at The Tree House Apartments which is operated by The Palo Alto Housing Corporation. I live in a Tax Credit Apartment due to a disability that I have and low income resulting from this disability. I'm in extreme pain everyday from a nerve disorder but I'm blessed to be able to still live in a city that I love. My Mother also has a disability, she is legally blind and has hearing loss and she lives in The Sheridan Apartments in Palo Alto also run by The Palo Alto Housing Corporation. She feels blessed as well and if it were not for affordable housing here in Palo Alto my Mother and I could not live in the city we moved to 34 years ago and the city that we love. Please take it from me and my Mom and until you have a disability or have low income, you could not fully understand how important that it is to have affordable housing. Even though my Mother and I struggle each and every day with our disabilities and trying to make ends meet we have some dignity left because we are able to have good affordable housing. It is so hard nowadays living on low income and having a disability with the high cost of medical and prescriptions and given our disabilities it is so important to be able to have a place to call home that is safe, clean and most importantly affordable. Every night when I try to go to sleep I get into my bed and say my prayers and thank God that I have the comfort of a warm good place to call home. If we did not have affordable housing here in Palo Alto it would be so very sad, especially when there are so many people who live here who are well off and that can afford homes or apartments at the going rate. I grew up believing that we always need a balance in life with work, play sleep and I think the same for affordable housing, it's good for our town, the community and brings a healthy balance to the people that work and live in this wonderful town called Palo Alto California. Please Support Affordable Housing for all the people who don't have much of a voice so that they can live in a safe and nice community, please support this and may God Bless you. Sincerely, John F Caruso and Leona Caruso, Affordable Housing Residents of The Palo Alto Housing Corporation Minor, Beth From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Councilmembers, eny Lynnie Melena <Iynniemelena@gmail.com> Wednesday, June OS, 2013 10:56 AM 13 Council, City 06 Support for Maybell-Clemo Rezoning--June 10 City Council Agenda I urge you to approve the application of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to rezone the Maybell-Clemo property to PC to allow construction of 60 units of affordable senior housing, and if absolutely needed for financial feasibility, the 15 single-family housing units. I am writing this as an individual and not as immediate past president of the Barron Park Association. The BP A Board voted to oppose the rezoning, but you should know the vote was 6-4 and would have been 6-5 with all members present. I am supporting the affordable senior housing because there is a need and there are few locations available for such housing. The size and density of this building is appropriate in this location which is adjacent to two other higher density housing projects. I do have concerns about the the design of the individual houses which I believe will look quite different from the houses they face across Maybell. If there is some way to reduce the number of houses, reduce the height or the setbacks, it would be helpful. Much has been said about traffic impacts on Maybell, and while the traffic study was perhaps too formulaic and did not give as much weight as the neighborhood desires to the heavy school bicycle commute on this street, the staff report has now adequately addressed those impacts. Eliminating driveways so that cars cannot back out onto Maybell and prohibiting on-street parking during the day are significant mitigations. Also, traffic exiting the site onto Maybell in the morning will more likely be turning east toward EI Camino to avoid the congestion around Juana Briones School, and will not be in direct conflict with the west-bound bicyclists. This project will contribute much more to the diversity of our community than the 34 to 46 expensive homes possible under existing rezoning. And it will generate less traffic and fewer students than 34-46 units will. Please approve this rezoning. Lynnie Melena 3846 Magnolia Drive I have read all of the reports related to this project and attended two of the three community meetings held by the P ARC and have concluded this project should go forward. 1 Minor, Beth ,_, : --': __ ~_' ~~~ ?;~, L.J -~)-!'--'c.-_:~ !e,C From: Winnie McGannon <jwinnie@pacbell.net>Cil r Ci_Gi';/\.'S OFF!CE Sent: To: Subject: Dear Council Members, Wednesday, June 05, 2013 11:18 AM Council, City Maybell project 13 -5 06 As a long time resident of Green Acres\, I am very concerned regarding the rezoning of the parcel on Maybell and Clemo. First off, I find it very stressful to drive on Maybell during school times. I think it is wonderful that so many kids are now biking to school and that should be promoted. More traffic on that street will not make them feel welcome or their parents feel that is a safe route for them. A study of bike and car traffic during school commute hours is NECESSARY. Do not vote to rezone until this has been done. Secondly, allowing 15 skinny tall houses does not fit in to the neighborhood. Please do not make this mistake. I realize you have lent money with the idea of this for profit plan paying youback. There must be a better way. Protect our neighborhood. That should be your first concern. Thankyou Edwina McGannon 4148 Donald Dr. 6504936823 1 '. May 17, 2013 Dear Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council, 13JUN-4 AHIf:SJ I am writing to express my support for the new Maybell Orchard affordable housing development. I am a single parent of three and am a homecare provider for seniors, disabled, and those with mental health. I have lived in Palo Alto for 4 years thanks to affordable housing. I lived in the Opportunity Center and moved to the Tree House Apartment in 2011. I think Palo Alto is a beautiful place to live and has given me a lot of opportunities. Public transportation is great and I am able to live and work in Palo Alto. Living in the Tree House Apartments has impacted my life through the various services that are offered to me as a resident. I have taken healthy cooking classes, computer classes, attended health workshops and fitness classes. The resident services also helped me with job search, counseling, and finding a great community. These services have greatly improved my health and living. I was able to secure a good position within Senior Care and am independent. In the grand opening of our Tree House apartments in 2012, I proudly open the doors to my apartment and showed various community members including the Mayor of Palo Alto my beautiful home. I believe we need more affordable housing in Palo Alto because it helps many resident be able to live healthier and have a home. We have a large population of homeless people in Palo Alto and seeing that makes me feel like if I have a home, they should be able to have one too. Affordable hO~Sin ~ble to provide those who cannot afford to live here a safe and warm home. \ '- Sincerely" / {)JI/\::!J Nancy Medina PROJECT PLANS SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT - HARDCOPIES DISTRIBUTED TO CITY COUNCIL AND LIBRARIES ONLY City of Palo Alto (ID # 3782) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/3/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: City Finances Summary Title: Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Adoption Title: PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSITION 218 HEARING: Adoption of Budget Amendment Ordinance for FY 2014, including Adoption of Operating and Capital Budgets and Municipal Fee Schedule; Adoption of 6 Resolutions, including: Adopting a Dark Fiber Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2; Adopting a Water Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and W-7; Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to Increase Storm Drain Rates by 2.2 Percent Per Month Per Equivalent Residential Unit for Fiscal Year 2014; Amending the 2011-2013 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Adopted by Resolution No. 9282 to Change the Title and Salary of One Position; Amending the 2012-2013 Memorandum of Agreement for Local 521, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Adopted by Resolution No. 9277 to Add One new Classification and Amending the 2010- 2014 Compensation Plan for the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Adopted by Resolution No. 9204 to Properly Record the Top Step Salary for One Existing and Create One New Position From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff and the Finance Committee recommend that Council approve the following: A. Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A), which includes: 1. Exhibit 1: the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Operating and Capital Budget, previously distributed in the April 29th Council Packet; Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Municipal Free Schedule previously distributed on May 16th 2. Exhibit 2: Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed City of Palo Alto Page 2 Operating and Capital Budget 3. Exhibit 3: Revised City Table of Organization 4. Exhibit 4: Revised Municipal Fee Schedule pages B. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Dark Fiber Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 (Attachment B) C. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Water Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and W-7 (Attachment C) D. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to Increase Storm Drain Rates by 2.2 Percent Per Month Per Equivalent Residential Unit for Fiscal Year 2014 (Attachment D) E. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2011-2013 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Adopted by Resolution No. 9282 to Change the Title and Salary of One Position (Attachment E) F. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2012-2013 Memorandum of Agreement for Local 521, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Adopted by Resolution No. 9277 to Add One new Classification (Attachment F) G. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2010-2014 Compensation Plan for the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Adopted by Resolution No. 9204 to Properly Record the Top Step Salary for One Existing and Create One New Position (Attachment G) Executive Summary The attached documents outline the amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2014 Operating and Capital Proposed Budgets, Utility rate changes, and amendments to various employee compensation plans. Background The City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Operating Budget and the Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Capital Budget were submitted to City Council on April 29, 2013. During the month of May, the Finance Committee held hearings and reviewed the Proposed Budget, including the General Fund, Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Capital Improvement Programs, and the Municipal Fee Schedule. A total of five public hearings were held on May 7, 9, 14, 16, and 23 during which the Committee reviewed and discussed the City’s operating and capital expenditures for the next year. As a result of the hearings, the Finance Committee and staff have recommended changes to the Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget as discussed below. Detail for these transactions is listed in City of Palo Alto Page 3 the Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget schedule (Attachment A, Exhibit 2). Staff is to presenting to Council a balanced budget that does not contain significant cost/service reductions as in prior years. The vigorous local economy has generated a trend of rising revenues and has resulted in a recovery of the City’s tax and permit revenues. Tax revenues have experienced 20.6 percent grown from Fiscal Year 2009, from $65.8 million to $79.3 million in FY 2013. The Fiscal Year 2014 projects 5 percent overall growth over the Fiscal Year 2013 adopted budget. Improved revenue has allowed the General Fund to fund for a series of important one-time investments and to fill positions that were frozen due to financial constraints. In addition to improved revenues, a key element that helped yield a balance budget is cost savings. Since Fiscal Year 2010, the City has made $26.3 million in one-time and ongoing expense reductions. Of this amount, the General Fund reduced costs by $5.9 million majority of which were reductions of employee salary and benefit costs. The City Manager’s transmittal letter, which can be found on pp. xi-xviii of the Proposed City Manager’s Operating Budget provides a detailed overview and discussion of these items as well as future challenges that the City faces. Discussion This staff report focuses primarily on the financial changes recommended by the Finance Committee and staff during the public hearing process that followed the submission of the original proposed budget. Certain key non-financial changes are also highlighted in this report. All other non-financial recommended changes to the proposed budget are described in the budget wrap memorandum (Appendix 1), which was distributed to the Finance Committee on May 23rd, and will be incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2014 Adopted Budget. Adjustments to Date This section summarizes actions made by the Finance Committee during the department budget hearings that occurred in May and wrapped on May 23rd. Detail in this section is organized by fund then by department. The discussion below segregates changes that were initiated by the Finance Committee from changes that are initiated by staff. A summary of Full- Time Equivalent (FTE) changes is presented following fund detail. Human Services Resource Allocation Process Fiscal Year 2014 Funding Recommendation At the May 9, 2013 Finance Committee meeting, city staff introduced the draft funding recommendation for the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) for FY 2014. The City of Palo Alto Page 4 funding recommendation allocated $300,737 to fourteen agencies, including two new agencies. Staff explained that funding was freed up for the two new agencies only as a result of a 5 percent cut to current grantees. HSRAP funding has been reduced 10 percent since 2005 due to City budget constraints. Members of the Finance Committee expressed a desire to allocate additional HSRAP funding but felt that the decision needed to be made within the context of the full Community Services Department (CSD) budget discussion later that meeting. During that subsequent discussion, the Committee passed a motion to allocate $55,523 in additional HSRAP funding. The Human Relations Commission (HRC) was then charged with bringing back a proposal for fund distribution. A sub-committee of the HRC drafted a funding recommendation that that was presented to the full HRC on May 24, 2013 where it passed unanimously. An explanation of the proposed funding recommendation (Attachment H) is as follows: 1) Previous recommended funding reduction of 5 percent for FY 2014 restored to agencies affected. This amounted to $15,037 for the existing fourteen agencies. 2) $11,511 used as base amount for new increases for Inn Vision Shelter Network (IVSN). This was amount proposed by the HRC before additional funds were recommended by the Finance Committee. Staff found that if IVSN was returned to their base grant amount for FY 2012-13, $8,920, as the starting point for the new increases, they would be the only agency which would not be better off with the increased funds recommended by the Finance Committee. The HRC wanted to make substantial increase in IVSN’s funding as the primary provider of food for homeless and low income people in the community. 3) Additional funding recommended for Dream Catchers and Palo Alto Housing Corporation. 4) “Starter” grant of $5,000 recommended for VISTA Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired. 5) 1 percent increase recommended for Palo Alto Community Child Care and Avenidas. 6) Balance of $24,426 distributed in equal percentage to each remaining agency based proportionally on their current contract amount. Kara, a grief counseling organization, was not recommended for funding. It was the opinion of the HRC that their recent Human Services Needs Assessment did not uncover an unmet need for grief services. They also felt that the fee structure for clinical services was beyond the reach of many low- to moderate-income residents. Finally the HRC felt that funding three new agencies was already a calculated risk, given HSRAP's limited funding and history of budget cuts. Funding a fourth, especially one whose programs are not as well aligned with community needs and human services gaps, was not reasonable at this time. City of Palo Alto Page 5 General Fund The Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget presented to City Council on April 29th reflected a $220,000 budget surplus. Changes approved by the Finance Committee resulted in a net budget surplus of $31 thousand. Based on the latest audited financials (as of June 30, 2012), the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) balance at the end of Fiscal Year 2014 is estimated to be $30.306 million, or 18.9 percent of the Proposed Operating Budget $160.0 million for total expenses. The City’s adopted reserve policy stipulates that a reserve range of 15 to 20 percent of General Fund operating expenditures, with a target of 18.5 percent, shall be maintained. The Fiscal Year 2014 projected BSR percentage falls within this range and meets the targeted BSR percentage. Table 1: Amendments to the Proposed General Fund Budget Date Dept Description Amount Proposed budget - BSR increase $220 5/7 PSO HRIS consultant (exp incr)(50) 5/7 POL PD scheduling software (exp incr)(50) 5/9 CSD *Add'l HSRAP (exp incr)(56) 5/16 Various Adjustments for parking district (exp decr)128 5/16 PWD Remove PW non-sal for parking district (exp decr)40 5/16 PWD Infrastructure ballot funding (exp decr)15 5/16 PWD Tree trimming contract (exp incr)(70) 5/23 POL *Add 1 FTE School Resource Officer (SRO) (exp incr)(168) 5/23 POL *Contribution from PAUSD for SRO (rev incr)84 5/23 CSD Baylands California Land Management (exp incr)(77) 5/23 COU Remove add'l funding for council meals (exp decr)15 Subtotal - tentatively approved changes to date ($189) Tentatively approved budget - BSR increase $31 * Change initiated by the Finance Committee. Finance Committee Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget Community Services Department, net $55,523 budget increase The Finance Committee initiated a proposed $55,523 increase to HSRAP funding the the Community Services Department Budget. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Police Department, net $84,250 budget increase The Finance Committee initiated a proposed net increase of $84,250 increase to the Police Department budget, and approved an additional 1 FTE Police Officer for the School Resource Officer program. The addition of this position, $168,500, is contingent upon the Palo Alto Unified School District reimbursing the City for one half , $84,250, of the total cost of the position. Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget Community Services Department, net $76,610 budget increase California Land Management provides both ranger patrol and park maintenance services within the Baylands Nature Preserve. In addition to these services, the contractor also enforces City regulations and ordinances, maintenance, and litter and trash removal. The Community Services and Public Works Departments (through the Refuse Fund) share the cost of the contract. In anticipation of the landfill closure, Community Services will assume the contract costs in its Department budget. People Strategy and Operations, net $50,000 budget increase In addition to changes outlined in the People Strategy and Operations department proposed budget, $50,000 is being requested for a consultant to assist in preliminary planning and selection of a Human Resources Information System (HRIS). The department is looking for a system that is much more intuitive; organized the way staff handles daily operations. Parking Permit Fund related changes, net $126,643 budget reduction For 2014, activity for the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund and the California Avenue Parking Permit Fund is centralized and consolidated in the proposed budget. Previously, the expenditures related to the maintenance and administration of these funds was budgeted in the General Fund and Refuse Fund, with the General Fund and Refuse Fund being reimbursed for those costs out of the appropriate parking fund, via fund transfers. Beginning in 2014, all costs associated with the districts are budgeted directly in the parking funds. As staff was preparing all of the necessary changes, a few adjustments were inadvertently omitted, and are therefore recommended to be corrected as part of this memorandum. The benefits associated with parking-related positions in the Planning Department, Administrative Services Department, and Public Works Department were not eliminated from the General Fund. No adjustments for the benefits are required in the Parking Funds. These changes result in a decrease of $139,620 in the General Fund, and will be realized as follows: City of Palo Alto Page 7 Administrative Services Department: ($62,555) Planning and Community Environment: ($8,079) Public Works Department: ($68,986) Additionally, the budget for utilities at the garages was established in the Parking Funds, but not reduced from the Public Works Department. A reduction to the Utilities budget in the Public Works Department in the amount of $139,905 is recommended. In the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund, a transfer from the General Fund ($152,882), Utilities Funds ($27,093), and Technology Fund ($13,546) is recommended. This transfer, which was assumed in the Parking Fund but not budgeted for in the General Fund, is intended to reimburse the Parking District for the share of spaces in the garages and lots utilized by City staff. The budget in the Parking Funds is correctly stated in the proposed budget. Public Works Department, net $40,250 budget reduction Previously, the expenses related to maintenance and administration of these funds was budgeted in the General Fund, with those funds reimbursed by transfers from the Parking Permit Funds (primarily through permit sales). A decrease of $40,250 to the Public Works General Fund budget is recommended, as these costs ($40,000 for contract services and $250 for General Expenses) are now accounted for in the Parking Permit Funds. An increase of $70,000 is recommended for the Public Works General Fund budget because bids for tree trimming services are higher than originally anticipated. Police Department, net $50,000 budget increase In addition to changes outlined in the Police Department proposed budget, $50,000 is being requested for the purchase of scheduling software. The department currently tracks overtime and schedules manually with spreadsheets. City Council, net $15,000 budget decrease The 2014 Proposed Budget for the City Council included a recommended $15,000 increase for meals. The increase was in response to a higher number of meetings requiring meals. Upon further review, it has been determined that the increased meals costs can be accommodated City of Palo Alto Page 8 through existing resources; therefore, a $15,000 reduction to the City Council proposed budget is recommended. Enterprise Funds Changes to the Enterprise Funds Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget are listed below. Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget Utilities Department, net $198,179 budget increase 0.87 FTE Sr. Technologist was inadvertently moved to the Information Technology Fund – this change is to restore funding to the Utilities Department. This change has a net $162,780 budget increase. The Proposed Budget includes a full-time equivalent (FTE) add of 0.5 FTE Program Assistant I and results in a salaries and benefits increase of $52,287. Staff requests an amendments to the Proposed Budget to drop 0.5 FTE Program Assistant I, and add 1.0 FTE Utilities Project, Coordinator. The gross salaries and benefits impact of this change is an increase of $94,686. The result is a net budget increase of $42,399 to the proposed budget. This Utilities Project, Coordinator position will assist the Communications Manager by coordinating complex communications projects, including program and service outreach and education. Allocated charges to the Water Fund from the Wastewater Treatment Fund are decreased from $51,000 to $44,000 to align the budget with expected actuals. These charges represent laboratory work done for the Water Fund by staff at the Water Quality Control Plant. Utilities Parking Permit Fund related changes, net $27,093 budget increase In the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund, a transfer from the Utilities Funds ($27,093) is recommended. This transfer, which was assumed in the Parking Fund but not budgeted for in the Utilities Fund, is intended to reimburse the Parking District for the share of spaces in the garages and lots utilized by City staff. The budget in the Parking Funds is correctly stated in the proposed budget. Public Work Department, net $24,324 budget increase 0.13 FTE Sr. Technologist was inadvertently moved to the Information Technology Fund – this change is to restore funding to the Public Works Department. This change has a net $24,324 budget increase. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Special Revenue Funds Finance Committee Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget Stanford University Medical Center Fund The 2014 Proposed Operating Budget included a recommendation to fund the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010; $1.2 million) from the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Fund. The Finance Committee recommended against the usage of SUMC funds at this time, as the Policy and Services Committee will be reviewing the allocation process for the SUMC Fund. To ensure that the project can continue in the meantime, until the Council makes a final determination, the Finance Committee recommended that the Infrastructure Reserve be used. Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget University Avenue Parking Permit Fund In the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund, an increase to the budgeted revenue estimate of $118,915 is recommended. This revenue increase is anticipated to be achieved through an 8.5 percent increase to the parking permit, day pass, and ticket machine fees. Additionally, a transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund in the amount of $340,900 is recommended for improvements within the district. California Avenue Parking Permit Fund In the California Avenue Parking Permit Fund, a transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund in the amount of $186,400 is recommended for improvements within the district. No adjustment to the budgeted revenue estimate is recommended, although a 15 percent increase to the fees is proposed. Debt Service Funds Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget Sale of the second series of the Measure N General Obligation (GO) bonds will occur in June 2013. The GO bonds will fund capital improvements to the Mitchell Park, Downtown, and Main libraries and to the Mitchell Park community center. The Measure allows for a total issuance amount of $76 million, of which $55 million was issued in May 2010. The second series of the GO bonds is estimated to be $21 million and will fund planned improvements to the Main Library and potentially to cover any unanticipated costs associated with the Mitchell Park library and community center projects. Annual debt service is estimated to be $0.6 million and is offset by assessed property tax. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Internal Service Funds Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget Information Technology Department, net zero budget impact The first recommended adjustment to the Information Technology Fund is an increase of $50,000 allowing for the purchase of police scheduling software. The current process for scheduling police hours and shifts is very manual and time intensive. An increase to Information Technology Fund revenue ($50,000) is also recommended, as is a corresponding increase to the Police Department General Fund allocation. The second recommended change is a correction to the staffing level in the Information Technology Department. The Proposed Budget Changes table indicates that a Sr. Technologist position was reallocated from Enterprise Funds to the Information Technology Fund. The reallocation of this position was inadvertent and is therefore recommended that the funding for this position be eliminated from the Information Technology Fund and restored to the Utilities Funds (87%), Refuse Fund (11%), and Storm Drain Fund (2%). The total cost of this position, including benefits, is $187,104. Information Technology Parking Permit Fund related changes, net $13,546 budget increase In the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund, a transfer from Technology Fund ($13,546) is recommended. This transfer, which was assumed in the Parking Fund but not budgeted for in the Information Technology Fund, is intended to reimburse the Parking District for the share of spaces in the garages and lots utilized by City staff. The budget in the Parking Funds is correctly stated in the proposed budget. Vehicle Replacement Fund, net $300,000 budget increase The FY 2014 budget for CIP VR-14000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements is increased by $300,000 from $2,700,000 to $3,000,000. This increase includes $100,000 to purchase and outfit a 2013 Chevy Suburban for the Fire Department. This vehicle will replace their current command unit #6059. An additional $200,000 is needed for the purchase of an aerial ladder truck for the Fire Department. Subsequent to the development of the Proposed Capital Budget, a quote of $1,195,346 was received which is approximately $200,000 above the original estimate. Both of these items have been reviewed and approved by the Fleet Review Committee. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Infrastructure/Capital Fund Finance Committee Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget Infrastructure Reserve, $1.2 million budget impact The 2014 Proposed Operating Budget included a recommendation to fund the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010; $1.2 million) from the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Fund. The Finance Committee recommended against the usage of SUMC funds at this time, as the Policy and Services Committee will be reviewing the allocation process for the SUMC Fund. To ensure that the project can continue in the meantime, the Finance Committee recommended that the Infrastructure Reserve be used for this project. Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget Capital Projects Fund, net $527,300 budget increase CIP PF-14003 University Avenue Parking District Parking Improvements created to account for capital work to parking facilities. Fiscal Year 2014 expenses projected of $340,900. CIP PF-14004 California Avenue Parking District Parking Improvements created to account for capital work to parking facilities. Fiscal Year 2014 expenses projected of $186,400. Follow Up Items for the Finance Committee Police Department – School Resource Officer The Finance Committee recommended a $84,250 net budget increase to the Police Department to add 1.0 FTE Police Officer as the School Resource Officer Program. The total cost of the Police Officer, $168,500, is recommended to be offset by a contribution from the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), $84,250, reimbursing for half of the position. The addition of resources for this program is contingent upon the reimbursement from PAUSD. Staff will follow up discussion with PAUSD regarding partial reimbursement of this position. If discussions do not result in a contribution from PAUSD, staff will return to Council for further discussion. Table of Organization Amended pages to the Fiscal Year 2013 Position Allocation by Department are included with this report (see Attachment A, Exhibit 3). The table has been revised to reflect the staffing changes presented in this report. Changes reflected in the Table of Organization will be incorporated into the relevant department organization charts and the revised organization charts will be published in the adopted budget. The changes are as follows: City of Palo Alto Page 12  Utilities allocations – net increase 0.87 FTE o Reclassify 1.00 FTE Program Assistant I to 1.00 FTE Coordinator Utilities Projects o Reallocate 0.87 FTE Sr. Technologist from Information Technology to Utilities  Public Works allocations – net increase 0.13 FTE o Reallocate 0.13 FTE Sr. Technologist from Information Technology to Refuse Fund (0.11 FTE) and Storm Drainage Fund (0.02 FTE)  Information Technology allocations – net decrease 1.00 FTE o Reallocate 1.00 FTE Sr. Technologist to the City’s Enterprise Funds  Police Department – net increase 1.00 FTE School Resource Officer (Police Officer)  Community Services Department – net change 0.00 FTE o Reclassify 1.00 FTE Division Manager Recreation and Golf to Assistant Director Community Services o Reclassify 1.00 FTE Community Services Manager to Community Services Senior Program Manager Compared to the Fiscal Year 2013 Adjusted Budget, the Proposed Budget presented to Council on April 29th had a net 4 FTE increase. Below is a summary by fund of these changes. Detail for the FTE Amendments to the Proposed Budget is discussed previously in this report within each department section. Table 2: Summary of FTE Changes General Fund Enterprise Funds Other Funds*Citywide FY 2013 Adopted 578.06 357.82 78.47 1014.35 FY 2013 Net Midyear Changes 1.65 0.00 (0.65)1.00 FY 2013 Adjusted 579.71 357.82 77.82 1015.35 FY 2014 Reallocations (1.86)(5.12)6.98 0.00 FY 2014 Eliminations (7.50)0.00 0.00 (7.50) FY 2014 Adds 7.45 1.85 2.20 11.50 Subtotal of 2014 Changes (1.91)(3.27)9.18 4.00 FY 2014 Proposed**577.80 354.55 87.00 1019.35 * Other Funds are Internal Service Funds, Special Revenue Funds, and the Capital Fund ** Includes 2 frozen FTE in the Library Department Municipal Fee Schedule City of Palo Alto Page 13 On May 16th, the Finance Committee recommended that the Council adopt the changes to the Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule (staff report ID #3804) with amendments (Attachment A, Exhibit 4). Fee increases were deferred pending completion of the cost of services study. For Fiscal Year 2014, changes have been limited to fees which are mandated, new fees, corrections to previous year fee adjustments and enhancements to fee descriptions to provide reader clarity. Based on prior years’ fee analyses and rising benefit costs, the fees will still remain below full cost recovery levels. Once the cost of services study is finalized additional fee modifications will be discussed. Please refer to staff report ID #3804 for additional information. The staff recommended, and was accepted by the Finance Committee, the following changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. The recommendations are: 1. Development Impact Fees:  Parks - Both residential and nonresidential fees decreased $1/unit  Libraries – Residential, Multi-family cost per unit decreased $10 for units greater than 900 square feet 2. Housing Impact Fees:  Increased Housing Impact fee $0.45 per square foot for nonresidential development 3. Traffic Impact Fees:  Citywide Transportation Impact Fee – Increased transportation impact fee $144 per net new PM peak hour trip  Charleston/Arastradero – Increased fee $0.01 per square foot for commercial units and $53 per square foot for residential units 4. Parkland Dedication Fee:  Increased fees for both Single-family and Multi-family projects by $1,849/unit and $1,288/unit, respectively. 5. Transportation Fees: (8.5% - University Ave, 15% - California Ave)  Increased fees for quarterly permits and quarterly transferable permits within Business Districts by $6.50.  Increased fees for annual permits within Business Districts by $26  Increased fee for one-day parking permit in California Avenue Business District by $1  Increased fee for one-day parking permit in University Avenue Business District by $1.50 City of Palo Alto Page 14  Increased fee for quarterly permits and quarterly transferable permits within the University Avenue Parking District by $11.50  Increased fee for annual permits within the University Avenue Parking District by $46 Rate Changes Staff and the Finance Committee recommend that Council approve the following Utility Rate Changes:  Fiber Optic Rate Increase (Attachment B): rates are adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Fiber Optic Rate will increase 2.2 percent to reflect the annual CPI change. See Staff Report ID #3778 for additional information.  Water Rate Increase (Attachment C): 7 percent increase due to changes in water purchase cost, operating costs, and capital projects in the fund. See Staff Report ID #3596 for additional information.  Storm Drain Rate Increase (Attachment D): rates are adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Storm Drain Rate will increase 2.2 percent to reflect the annual CPI change. See Staff Report ID #3641 for additional information. Compensation Plans Changes in the proposed Fiscal Year 2013 budget result in these amendments to the following compensation plans:  Management and Professional (Attachment E): title change and salary for the Chief Sustainability Officer  Service Employees International Union (SEIU) (Attachment F): add the Senior Industrial Waste Investigator classification  International Association of Fire Fighters (Attachment G): adjust top step for the Haz Mat Inspector classification and add the Haz Mat Inspector – EMT classification Resource Impact The Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget as submitted by staff to the City Council results in a BSR contribution of $31 thousand. The projected ending balance for the BSR in Fiscal Year 2014 is $160.0 million and equals 18.9 percent of the Proposed Operating Budget. Per the adopted reserve policy, a reserve range of 15 to 20 percent of the General Fund operating expenditures, with a target of 18.5 percent, shall be maintained. The projected FY 2014 ending BSR balance of 18.9 percent of General Fund operating expenditures falls within the 15 to 20 percent range of the adopted reserve policy. City of Palo Alto Page 15 As a result of the changes to the capital budget, the projected ending balance in the Infrastructure Reserve (IR) for Fiscal Year 2014 is $10.6 million. Additional changes to the Enterprise Funds result in an approximately $0.2 million net decrease in reserve balances in Fiscal Year 2014 from the proposed document. The proposed FY 2014 budget for Internal Service Funds results in a net decrease to reserves totaling $0.1 million. Environmental Review The adoption of the City’s Annual Budget is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments:  Attachment A - Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Adoption Budget Amendment Ordinance (PDF)  Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2014 Proposed Budget & Muni Fee Previously Distributed (DOCX)  Attachment A, Exhibit 2 - Amendments to Proposed Budget (PDF)  Attachment A, Exhibit 3 - Revised Table of Organization (PDF)  Attachment A, Exhibit 4 - Revised Muni Fees (PDF)  Attachment B - Resolution for Dark Fiber Rate Increase (PDF)  Attachment C - Resolution for Water Rate Increase (PDF)  Attachment D - Resolution for Storm Drain Rate Increase (PDF)  Attachment E - Resolution for Management & Professional Compensation Plan Changes (PDF)  Attachment F - Resolution for Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Changes (PDF)  Attachment G - Resolution for International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Compensation Plan Changes (PDF)  Attachment H - 2013-15 HSRAP Funding Recommendations to City Council (PDF)  Appendix 1 - Budget Wrap Up Memo (May 23, 2013) (PDF)  Appendix 2 - Memos Distributed to Finance Committee At Places (PDF)  Appendix 3 - Staff Presentations to Finance Committee (PDF)  Appendix 4 - Finance Committee Minutes May 7, 2013 (DOC)  Appendix 4 - Finance Committee Minutes May 9, 2013 (DOC)  Appendix 4 - Finance Committee Minutes May 14, 2013 (DOC) City of Palo Alto Page 16  Appendix 4 - Finance Committee Minutes May 16, 2013 (DOC)  Appendix 4 - Finance Committee Minutes May 23, 2013 (DOC)  Letter to Council - Item 17 (PDF) ATTACHMENT A 1 ORDINANCE NO. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 6(g) of Article IV of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Chapter 2.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the City Manager has prepared and submitted to the City Council, by letter of transmittal, a budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2014; and B. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter, the Council did, on June 3 and 10, 2012, hold public hearings on the budget after publication of notice in accordance with Section 2.28.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and C. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8 of Division 1, of Title 7, commencing with Section 66016 of the Government Code, as applicable, the Council did on June 3 and 10, 2012, hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Municipal Fee Schedule, after publication of notice and after availability of the data supporting the amendments was made available to the public at least 10 days prior to the hearing. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Chapter 2.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the following documents, collectively referred to as “the budget” are hereby approved and adopted for Fiscal Year 2014: (a) The budget document (Exhibit “1”) containing the proposed operating and capital budgets submitted on April 29, 2013, by the City Manager for Fiscal Year 2014, entitled “City of Palo Alto - City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget” covering General Government Funds, Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Funds, a copy of which is on file in the Department of Administrative Services, to which copy reference is hereby made concerning the full particulars thereof, and by such reference is made a part hereof; and ATTACHMENT A 2 (b) The Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget, attached hereto as Exhibit “2,” and made a part hereof; and (c) Changes and revised pages in the Table of Organization, attached hereto as Exhibit “3,” and made a part hereof; and (d) Revised pages of the Municipal Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit “4”; and SECTION 3. The sums set forth in the budget for the various departments of the City, as herein amended, are hereby appropriated to the uses and purposes set forth therein. SECTION 4. All expenditures made on behalf of the City, directly or through any agency, except those required by state law, shall be made in accordance with the authorization contained in this ordinance and the budget as herein amended. SECTION 5. Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2013 that are encumbered by approved purchase orders and contracts for which goods or services have not been received or contract completed, and/or for which all payments have not been made, by the last day of the Fiscal Year 2013 shall be carried forward and added to the fund or department appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014. SECTION 6. The City Manager is authorized and directed to make changes in the department and fund totals and summary pages of the budget necessary to reflect the amendments enumerated and aggregated in the budget as shown in Exhibit “2” and the Fiscal Year 2013 appropriations carried forward as provided in Section 5. SECTION 7. As specified in Section 2.04.320 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a majority vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 8. As specified in Section 2.28.140(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby delegates the authority to invest the City’s funds to the Director of Administrative Services, as Treasurer, in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2014. SECTION 9. The Council of the City of Palo Alto adopts the changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule as set forth in Exhibit “4”. The amount of the new or increased fees and charges is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental ATTACHMENT A 3 activity, and the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payer bears a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer’s burden on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. All new and increased fees shall go into effect immediately; provided that pursuant to Government Code Section 66017, all Planning Department fees relating to a “development project” as defined in Government Code Section 66000 shall become effective sixty (60) days from the date of adoption. SECTION 10. Fees in the Municipal Fee Schedule are for government services provided directly to the payor that are not provided to those not charged. The amount of this fee does not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the services. Consequently, pursuant to Art. XIII C, Section 1(e)(2), such fees are not a tax. SECTION 11. 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. SECTION 12. Except as specified in Section 9, as provided in Section 2.04.330 (a)(3) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ______________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTACHMENT A 4 APPROVED: City Manager Director of Administrative Services ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Fiscal Year 2014 City Manager’s Proposed Operating & Capital Budget These documents were originally distributed in Council Packet April 29, 2013. Printed copies are available upon request for $22 per book. The Proposed Fiscal Year 2014 Municipal Fee Schedule was distributed in Council Packet on May 16, 2013 These documents may be viewed at any City of Palo Alto Library or the City’s website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/budget.asp ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Category Amount Description GENERAL FUND Operating Transfer 152,882 Establish Transfer to University Avenue Parking Fund for City Share 152,882 (152,882)$ Salaries and Benefits (43,082) Reduce Benefits associated with University Avenue Parking Fund Salaries and Benefits (19,475) Reduce Benefits associated with California Avenue Parking Fund (62,557) 62,557$ CITY COUNCIL General Expense (15,000) City Council Meals (15,000) 15,000$ Contract Services 76,610 California Land Management Contract 55,523 Additional HSRAP funding 132,133 (132,133)$ Contract Services 50,000 Planning consultant for an HRIS system 50,000 (50,000)$ Salaries and Benefits (7,271) Reduce Benefits Associated with University Avenue Parking Fund Salaries and Benefits (808) Reduce Benefits Associated with California Avenue Parking Fund (8,079) 8,079$ Reimbursement 84,250 Reimbursement from Palo Alto Unified School District for one half of School Resource Officer expansion 84,250 Salaries and Benefits 168,500 Additional Police Officer position for expansion of School Resource Officer Program. Allocated Charges 50,000 Staffing and scheduling software 218,500 (134,250)$ Use Changes POLICE Use Changes Net Changes To (From) Reserves Use Changes PLANNING & COMMUNITY PEOPLE STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS Use Changes Net Changes To (From) Reserves Net Changes To (From) Reserves Net Changes To (From) Reserves Use Changes Net Changes To (From) Reserves Use Changes Net Changes To (From) Reserves COMMUNITY SERVICES Net Changes To (From) Reserves ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Use Changes Use Changes NON‐DEPARTMENTAL CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2014 PROPOSED BUDGET 5/29/2013 General Fund 2012 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Category Amount Description CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2014 PROPOSED BUDGET Salaries and Benefits (59,135) Reduce Benefits associated with University Avenue Parking Fund Salaries and Benefits (9,851) Reduce Benefits associated with California Avenue Parking Fund Allocated Charges (18,187) Eliminate Budget for Utilities associated with California Avenue Parking Permit Fund. Allocated Charges (121,719) Eliminate Budget for Utilities associated with University Avenue Parking Permit Fund. Contract Services/General Expense (40,250) Eliminate Contract Services ($40,000) and General Expenses ($250) formerly associated with University Avenue and California Avenue Parking Permit Funds. (15,000) Engineering support for potential infrastructure measure 70,000 Tree trimming contract ‐ responses are coming in higher than budgeted (194,142) 194,142$ Total General Fund Changes to BSR (189,487)$ Tsf from Other Funds (1,200,000) Decrease transfer from SUMC development agreement for CIP PL‐11000 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Tsf from Other Funds 186,400 Transfer from California Ave Parking Permit Fund for CIP project Tsf from Other Funds 340,900 Transfer from University Ave Parking Permit Fund for CIP project Source Changes (672,700) CIP 186,400 Establish CIP PF‐14004 California Ave Parking District Parking Improvements CIP 340,900 Establish CIP PF‐14003 University Ave Parking District Parking Improvements Use Changes 527,300 (1,200,000)$ Capital Fund Infrastructure ReserveNet Changes To (From) Reserves PUBLIC WORKS Use Changes Net Changes To (From) Reserves GENERAL FUND CIP 5/29/2013 General Fund 2012 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Category Amount Description ENTERPRISE FUNDS UTILITIES ADMIN Reimbursements 69,492 Reimbursements from Utilities Funds for add 1.0 FTE Utilities Coordinator, Projects; drop 1.0 FTE Program Assistant I, and for transfer to Univ. Ave. Parking Permit Fund Source Changes 69,492 Salaries and benefits 42,399 To add 1.0 FTE Utilities Coordinator, Projects; drop 1.0 FTE Program Assistant I Tsf to Other Funds 27,093 Establish Transfer to University Avenue Permit Parking Fund for City Share Use Changes 69,492 Net Changes To (From) Reserves ‐ Fund Balancing Entries ‐ Change in Fund Balance Total Utilities Administration Fund ‐ ELECTRIC FUND Salaries and benefits 54,260 Reallocate 0.29 FTE Sr. Technologist back to Electric Fund from Technology Fund (position was reallocated in error) Allocated charges 31,618 Increase utilities administration charges to add 1.0 FTE Utilities Coordinator, Projects; drop 1.0 FTE Program Assistant I, and for transfer to Univ. Ave. Parking Permit Fund Use Changes 85,878 Net Changes To (From) Reserves (85,878) Fund Balancing Entries (85,878) Change in Fund Balance Total Electric Fund (85,878) CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2014 PROPOSED BUDGET 5/29/2013 Enterprise Funds 2012 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Category Amount Description CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2014 PROPOSED BUDGET FIBER OPTICS FUND Allocated charges 1,851 Increase utilities administration charges to add 1.0 FTE Utilities Coordinator, Projects; drop 1.0 FTE Program Assistant I, and for transfer to Univ. Ave. Parking Permit Fund Use Changes 1,851 Net Changes To (From) Reserves (1,851) Fund Balancing Entries (1,851) Change in Fund Balance Total Fiber Optics Fund (1,851) GAS FUND 7 Salaries and benefits 54,260 Reallocate 0.29 FTE Sr. Technologist back to Gas Fund from Technology Fund (position was reallocated in error) Allocated charges 14,578 Increase utilities administration charges to add 1.0 FTE Utilities Coordinator, Projects; drop 1.0 FTE Program Assistant I, and for transfer to Univ. Ave. Parking Permit Fund Use Changes 68,838 Net Changes To (From) Reserves (68,838) Fund Balancing Entries (68,838) Change in Fund Balance Total Gas Fund (68,838) Allocated charges 8,265 Increase utilities administration charges to add 1.0 FTE Utilities Coordinator, Projects; drop 1.0 FTE Program Assistant I, and for transfer to Univ. Ave. Parking Permit Fund Use Changes 8,265 Net Changes To (From) Reserves (8,265) Fund Balancing Entries (8,265) Change in Fund Balance Total Wastewater Collection Fund (8,265) WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND 5/29/2013 Enterprise Funds 2012 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Category Amount Description CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2014 PROPOSED BUDGET WATER FUND 7 Salaries and benefits 54,260 Reallocate 0.29 FTE Sr. Technologist back to Water Fund from Technology Fund (position was reallocated in error) Allocated charges (7,000) Decrease charges from Wastewater Treatment Fund to align budget with expected actuals for Water Quality Control Plan lab charges Allocated charges 13,180 Increase utilities administration charges to add 1.0 FTE Utilities Coordinator, Projects; drop 1.0 FTE Program Assistant I, and for transfer to Univ. Ave. Parking Permit Fund Use Changes 60,440 Net Changes To (From) Reserves (60,440) Fund Balancing Entries (60,440) Change in Fund Balance Total Water Fund (60,440) REFUSE FUND Salaries and benefits 20,581 Reallocate 0.11 FTE Sr. Technologist back to Refuse from Technology Fund (position was reallocated in error) Use Changes 20,581 Net Changes To (From) Reserves (20,581) Fund Balancing Entries (20,581) Change in Fund Balance Total Refuse Fund (20,581) STORM DRAINAGE FUND Salaries and benefits 3,742 Reallocate 0.02 FTE Sr. Technologist back to Storm Drainage Fund from Technology Fund (position was reallocated in error) Use Changes 3,742 Net Changes To (From) Reserves (3,742) Fund Balancing Entries (3,742) Change in Fund Balance Total Refuse Fund (3,742) 5/29/2013 Enterprise Funds 2012 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Category Description Operating Transfer 186,400 Resurface Lot 7 186,400 Use Changes (186,400) Service Fees/Permits/ Licenses 118,915 8.5% parking permit fee increase 118,915 Operating Transfer 340,900 Various capital Improvements to Parking Districts Use Changes 340,900 (221,985) 563,703 Library G.O. Bonds, Election of 2008, Series 2013 Source Changes (563,703) 563,703 Library G.O. Bonds, Election of 2008, Series 2013 Use Changes 563,703 (0) 300,000 Purchase fire command vehicle and aerial ladder truck (CIP VR‐14000) Use Changes 300,000 (300,000) Operating Transfer 50,000 Charges from Police Department associated with PD scheduling software. Source Changes 50,000 Contract Services 50,000 PD Scheduling Software Salaries and Benefits (187,104) Reallocate Sr. Technologist to Enterprise Funds Operating Transfer 13,546 Establish Transfer to University Avenue Parking Fund (City Share) Use Changes (123,558) 173,558 CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING PERMIT FUND LIBRARY PROJECT DEBT SERVICE FUND VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND Net Changes To (From) Reserves Net Changes To (From) Reserves UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING PERMIT FUND Source Changes Net Changes To (From) Reserves CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2014 PROPOSED BUDGET SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Amount Net Changes To (From) Reserves INTERNAL SERVICE Net Changes To (From) Reserves 5/29/2013 Other Funds 2012 - 1 - City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Summary of Position Changes FTE GENERAL FUND FY 2013 ADOPTED BUDGET 578.06 FY 2013 BAO Position Adjustments ASD - Assistant Director, Administrative Services 0.10 ASD - Dir Adm Svcs/Chief Financial Officer 0.05 AUD - Performance Auditor 0.50 CSD - Community Services Manager 6.00 CSD - Community Services Senior Program manager 2.00 CSD - Community Services Superintendent 2.00 CSD - Community Services Superintendent (2.00) CSD - Supt Parks (2.00) CSD - Supv Open Space, Supv Parks, Supv Rec Prog (6.00) HRD - Human Resources Asst Conf (1.00) HRD - Human Resources Representative 1.00 HRD - Mgr, Employee Relations 1.00 HRD - Sr. Administrator Human Resources (1.00) LIB - Sr. Librarian 0.50 PCE - Management Analyst 0.50 PCE - Senior Planner 1.00 POL - Animal Control Officer (0.50) POL - Animal Control Officer (0.50) POL - Animal Services Supervisor (1.00) POL - Senior Management Analyst 1.00 FY 2013 Total BAO Positions 1.65 FY 2013 ADJUSTED TOTAL 579.71 FY 2014 Additions CSD - Program Assistant II 0.25 CSD - Volunteer Coordinator 0.25 PCE - Administrative Assistant 1.00 PCE - Administrative Associate III 1.00 PCE - Bldg/Plg Technician 2.00 PCE - Mgr, Planning 1.00 POL - Animal Control Officer 0.50 POL - Police Officer - Intermediate 1.00 PWD - Project Manager 0.45 FY 2014 Total Additions 7.45 FY 2014 Elimination or Reduction CLK - Administrative Associate III (1.00) MGR/PCE - Deputy City Manager Special Projects (1.00) PCE - Asst Building Official (1.00) PCE - Building Inspector (1.00) PCE - Building Inspector (1.00) PCE - Plans Check Engineer (1.00) PCE - Plans Examiner (1.00) POL - Volunteer Coordinator (0.50) City of Palo Alto - 2 - Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Summary of Position Changes FY 2014 Total Elimination or Reduction (7.50) FY 2014 General Fund Net Increase/(Decrease) FY 2014 General Fund Net Change from Additions/Eliminations or Reduction (0.05) FY 2014 Reclassified, Add/Drop, and Title Changes CSD - Community Services Manager (1.00) CSD - Community Services Senior Program Manager 1.00 CSD - Division Manager, Recreation & Golf (1.00) CSD - Assistant Director Community Services 1.00 CSD - Program Assistant I (1.00) CSD - Program Assistant II 1.00 FIR - Administrative Assistant 1.00 FIR - Administrative Associate II (1.00) FIR - Public Safety Dispatcher - Lead (0.40) FIR - Business Analyst 0.40 HRD - Human Resources Representative (1.00) HRD - Manager, Employee Benefits 1.00 MGR - Asst to City Mgr (0.55) MGR - Chief Sustainability Officer 0.55 PCE - Bldg Inspector (2.00) PCE - Bldg Inspector Specialist 2.00 PCE - Bldg/Plg Technician (2.00) PCE - Development Project Coordinator II 2.00 PCE - Engr Tech II (1.00) PCE - Sr. Project Engineer 1.00 POL - Public Safety Dispatcher - Lead (0.60) POL - Business Analyst 0.60 PWD - Associate Engineer 0.10 PWD - Engineering Tech III (0.10) PWD - Inspector Field Services 0.78 PWD - Surveying Assistant (0.78) FY 2014 Total Reclassified Positions 0.00 FY 2014 Reallocated Positions ASD - Acct Spec - Lead (0.24) ASD - Acct Spec (0.20) ASD - Acct Specialist - Lead (0.17) ASD - Acct Specialist (0.25) ASD - Acct Specialist (0.60) ASD - Asst Dir Adm Svcs (0.25) ASD - Asst Dir Adm Svcs 0.10 ASD - Buyer 0.05 ASD - Contracts Administrator 0.30 ASD - Dir Adm Svcs / Chief Financial Officer 0.15 ASD - Sr. Financial Analyst (0.20) CSD - Heavy Equipment Operator 0.07 FIR - Fire Captain EMT 0.01 FIR - Fire Fighter EMT 0.01 FTE - 3 - City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Summary of Position Changes FIR - GIS Specialist (0.50) MGR - Chief Sustainability Officer (0.50) OES - Fire Captain EMT (0.01) OES - Fire Fighter EMT (0.01) OS - Chief Sustainability Officer 0.50 PCE - Associate Planner 1.00 PCE - Chief Transportation Officer (0.10) PCE - Management Analyst (0.10) POL - GIS Specialist 0.50 PWD - Administrative Associate I 0.10 PWD - Associate Engineer 0.10 PWD - Heavy Equipment Operator 0.23 PWD - Inspector Field Services (0.45) PWD - Project Engineer 0.10 PWD - Sr. Engineer 0.10 PWD - Administrative Associate II (0.20) PWD - Bldg Serviceperson - Lead (0.20) PWD - Electrician (0.20) PWD - Facilities Maintenance - Lead (0.15) PWD - Facilities Mech (0.45) PWD - Facilities Painter (0.25) PWD - Mgr, Maint Operations (0.15) FY 2014 Total Reallocated Positions (1.87) FY 2014 TOTAL PROPOSED GENERAL FUND POSITIONS 577.80 ENTERPRISE FUNDS FY 2013 ADOPTED BUDGET 357.82 FY 2013 BAO Position Adjustments PWD - Program Assistant I (1.00) PWD - Program Assistant II 1.00 UTL - Supervisor Water Transmission (1.00) UTL - Utilities Supervisor 6.00 UTL - WGW Supervisor (5.00) FY 2013 Total BAO Positions 0.00 FY 2013 ADJUSTED TOTAL 357.82 FY 2014 New Positions PWD - Project Manager 0.35 UTL - Utilities Credit/Collection Specialist 1.00 FY 2014 Total New Positions 1.35 FY 2014 Elimination or Reduction FY 2014 Total Eliminated Positions 0.00 FY 2014 Enterprise Fund Net Increase/(Decrease) FY 2014 Enterprise Fund Net Change from Additions/Eliminations or Reduction 1.35 FY 2014 Reclassified, Add/Drop, and Title Changes PWD - Associate Engineer (1.00) PWD - Asst to City Mgr (0.45) FTE City of Palo Alto - 4 - Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Summary of Position Changes PWD - Chief Sustainability Officer 0.45 PWD - Engineering Tech III (1.00) PWD - Industrial Waste Inspector 1.00 PWD - Inspector Field Services 0.11 PWD - Senior Industrial Waste Investigator 1.00 PWD - Surveying Assistant (0.11) PWD - Technologist 1.00 PWD - WQC Operator II (1.00) UTL - Administrative Associate I (1.00) UTL - Administrative Associate II (1.00) UTL - Coordinator, Utilities Projects 1.00 UTL - Customer Service Representative 1.00 UTL - Heavy Equiptment Operator 1.00 UTL - Inspector, Field Services (1.00) UTL - Manager, Utilities Credit and Collection 1.00 UTL - Program Assistant I (0.50) UTL - Coordinator, Utilities Projects 1.00 UTL - Senior Project Engineer 1.00 UTL - Senior Resource Planner (1.00) UTL - Supervising Project Engineer (1.00) UTL - Supervisor, Inspection Services 1.00 UTL - Water Meter Cross Connection Technician (1.00) FY 2014 Total Reclassified Positions 0.50 FY 2014 Reallocated Positions PWD - Administrative Associate I 0.10 PWD - Administrative Associate III 0.10 PWD - Associate Engineer (0.50) PWD - Associate Planner (1.00) PWD - Inspector, Field Services (0.11) PWD - Management Analyst 0.10 PWD - Project Engineer (0.15) PWD - Sr. Engineer (0.10) PWD - Heavy Equipment Operator (0.29) PWD - Heavy Equipment Operator - Lead (0.29) PWD - Mgr, Maint Operations (0.04) PWD - Street Maintenance Asst (2.00) PWD - Street Sweeper Operator (1.04) UTL - Associate Engineer 0.50 UTL - Asst Dir Adm Svcs 0.25 UTL - Contracts Administrator (0.30) UTL - Dir Adm Svcs / Chief Financial Offier (0.05) UTL - Heavy Equipment Operator (0.30) FY 2014 Total Reallocated Positions (5.12) FY 2014 TOTAL PROPOSED ENTERPRISE FUND POSITIONS 354.55 OTHER FUNDS FY 2013 ADOPTED BUDGET 78.47 FY 2013 BAO Position Adjustments FTE - 5 - City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Summary of Position Changes IT - Assistant Director, Administrative Services (0.10) IT - Dir Adm Svcs/Chief Financial Officer (0.05) PCE - Management Analyst (0.50) FY 2013 Total BAO Positions (0.65) FY 2013 ADJUSTED TOTAL 77.82 FY 2014 New Positions IT - Technologist 1.00 PWD - Project Engineer 1.00 PWD - Project Manager 0.20 FY 2014 Total New Positions 2.20 FY 2014 Elimination or Reduction FY 2014 Total Eliminated Positions 0.00 FY 2014 Reclassified Positions PWD - Associate Engineer 0.90 PWD - Associate Engineer 1.00 PWD - Engineering Tech III (0.90) PWD - Engineering Tech III (1.00) PWD - Inspector Field Services 0.11 PWD - Surveying Assistant (0.11) FY 2014 Total Reclassified Positions (0.00) FY 2014 Reallocated Positions ASD - Acct Spec - Lead 0.17 ASD - Acct Spec - Lead 0.24 ASD - Acct Spec 0.25 ASD - Acct Spec 0.60 ASD - Acct Spec 0.20 ASD - Sr. Financial Analyst 0.20 IT - Asst Dir Adm Svcs (0.10) IT - Dir Adm Svcs / Chief Financial Officer (0.10) PCE - Chief Transportation Officer 0.10 PWD - Administrative Associate I (0.20) PWD - Administrative Associate III (0.10) PWD - Associate Engineer (0.10) PWD - Buyer (0.05) PWD - Inspector, Field Services 0.56 PWD - Management Analyst 0.10 PWD - Management Analyst (0.10) PWD - Project Engineer (0.10) PWD - Project Engineer 0.15 PWD - Heavy Equipment Operator 0.29 PWD - Heavy Equipment Operator - Lead 0.29 PWD - Mgr, Maint Operations 0.04 PWD - Street Maintenance Asst 2.00 PWD - Street Sweeper Operator 1.04 PWD - Administrative Associate II 0.20 PWD - Bldg Serviceperson - Lead 0.20 FTE City of Palo Alto - 6 - Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Summary of Position Changes PWD - Electrician 0.20 PWD - Facilities Maintenance - Lead 0.15 PWD - Facilities Mech 0.45 PWD - Facilities Painter 0.25 PWD - Mgr, Maint Operations 0.15 FY 2014 Total Reallocated Positions 6.98 FY 2014 TOTAL PROPOSED OTHER FUNDS POSITIONS 87.00 FY 2014 TOTAL PROPOSED CITYWIDE POSITIONS 1019.35 FISCAL YEAR 2014 FROZEN POSITIONS LIB - 1.00 FTE Librarian LIB - 1.00 FTE Library Assistant FTE - 7 - City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Table of Organization FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change FTE GENERAL FUND Administrative Services Accountant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Acct Spec 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.95 (1.05) Acct Spec-Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.59 (0.41) Admin Assistant 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Administrative Associate III 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Asst Director Adm Svcs 0.60 1.50 1.70 1.80 1.65 (0.05) Buyer 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 2.00 0.05 Contracts Administrator 1.401.401.401.401.700.30 Deputy Dir Adm Svcs 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dir Adm Svcs/Chief Financial Officer 0.500.500.500.550.700.20 Director, Office of Management and Budget 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Graphic Designer 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mgr Accounting 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Mgr Pur & Cntr Admin 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Mgr Real Property 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Payroll Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 (1.00) Payroll Analyst - S 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Principal Financial Analyst 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr. Accountant 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Sr. Financial Analyst 5.81 4.91 6.10 6.10 5.90 (0.20) Storekeeper-L 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Warehouse Supv 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 Total Administrative Services 37.49 37.69 39.15 39.30 37.99 (1.16) City Attorney Asst City Atty 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Claims Investigator 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Legal Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Secretary To City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Senior Legal Secretary - Confidential 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr. Asst City Atty 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Sr. Deputy City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Total City Attorney 9.60 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.00 City Auditor Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Auditor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 City Auditor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr. Performance Auditor 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Total City Auditor 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.50 4.50 0.50 City of Palo Alto - 8 - Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Table of Organization City Clerk Administrative Associate III 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 (1.00) Asst City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Deputy City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Parking Examiner 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 Total City Clerk 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 5.75 (1.00) City Manager Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Administrative Associate I 1.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Administrative Associate III 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Asst City Manager/Chief Operating Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Asst To City Mgr 1.50 1.55 1.05 1.05 1.00 (0.05) Chief Communication Officer 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Chief Sustainability Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Communications Mgr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Deputy City Mgr Spec Proj 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 (0.50) Executive Assistant To The City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Management Analyst 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mgr Economic Dev 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Total City Manager 9.00 10.05 9.55 9.55 9.05 (0.50) Community Services Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Administrative Associate III 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 Arts & Culture Div Mgr 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Assistant Director CSD 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Bldg Serviceperson 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Bldg Serviceperson-L 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Community Services Senior Program Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 Community Services Superintendent 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Coord Rec Prog 4.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 Dir Comm Svcs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Division Manager, Recreations & Golf 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00) Heavy Equip Oper 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 Inspector, Field Svc 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Junior Museum & Zoo Educator 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 0.00 Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 (1.00) Management Assistant - S 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Mgr Arts 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 (2.00) Open Spc & Parks Div Mgr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Park Maint - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Park Maint Person 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 Park Ranger 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change FTE - 9 - City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Table of Organization Parks/Golf Crew-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Prod Arts/Sci Prog 12.00 12.00 11.75 11.75 11.75 0.00 Program Assistant I 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 6.75 (0.75) Program Assistant II 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sprinkler Sys Repr 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 Supt Parks 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 (2.00) Supv Open Space 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 (2.00) Supv Parks 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 Supv Rec Prog 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 (3.00) Theater Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Volunteer Coord 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.25 Total Community Services 74.50 74.00 73.75 73.75 74.32 0.57 Library Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Assistant Director, Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Coord Library Prog 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Dir Libraries 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Division Head, Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Librarian 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 Library Associate 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 Library Asst 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 0.00 Library Services manager 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 Library Specialist 8.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr Librarian 7.75 7.75 7.75 8.25 8.25 0.50 Total Library 41.25 41.25 41.25 41.75 41.75 0.50 Office of Sustainability Asst To City Mgr 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 (0.50) Chief Sustainability Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 Total Office of Sustainability 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 People Strategy and Operations Adm Human Res 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 (1.00) Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Assistant Director Human Resources 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Dir Human Resources 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Human Resources Rep 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 Human Rsrce Asst Cnf 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 (1.00) Mgr Emp Benefits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Mgr Employee Relations 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Total People Strategy and Operations 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00 Planning and Community Environment Adm Pln & Comm Envrn 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change FTE City of Palo Alto - 10 - Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Table of Organization Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Administrative Associate I 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Administrative Associate II 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 0.00 Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Assistant Director Planning & Comm Env 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Assoc Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Assoc Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Asst Build Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00) Asst To City Mgr 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bldg Inspector 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 (4.00) Bldg Inspector Spec 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 Bldg/Plg Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Chief Bld Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Chief Plg Official 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Chief Transp Off 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 (0.10) Code Enforcement Off 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Coor Trans Sys Mgmt 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 (0.50) Coor Trans Sys Mgmt - S 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 Deputy City Mgr Spec Proj 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 (0.50) Development Center Manager 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Development Project Coordinator II 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 Development Project Coordinator III 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Development Services Director 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Dir Plan/Comm Envir 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Engr Tech II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00) Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.40 0.40 Mgr Economic Dev 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mgr Planning 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Planner 5.75 5.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 0.00 Planning Arborist 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plans Check Engr 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 (1.00) Plans Examiner 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00) Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr Planner 5.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 1.00 Sr. Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Supv Bldg Inspection 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Total Planning and Community Environment 44.60 43.05 47.55 49.05 49.35 1.80 Public Safety 40-Hr Training Captain 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Administrative Associate II 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 (1.00) Animal Control Off 4.50 4.50 4.50 3.50 4.00 (0.50) Animal Services Spec 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Animal Services Spec II 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change FTE - 11 - City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Table of Organization Assistant Police Chief - Adv 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Battalion Chief 56-Hour Workweek 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Code Enforcement Off 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Comm Tech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Community Serv Offcr 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 0.00 Court Liaison Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Crime Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.00 Deputy Director Technical Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Deputy Fire Chief 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Emergency Services Director 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 EMS Data Specialist 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 EMS Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Fire Apparatus Op 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00 Fire Captain 27.00 27.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 0.00 Fire Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Fire Fighter 45.00 45.00 41.00 41.00 41.00 0.00 Fire Inspector 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 GIS Specialist 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Haz Mat Inspector 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 0.00 OES Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Police Agent 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 0.00 Police Captain-Adv 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Police Chief-Adv 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Police Lieut-Adv 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 Police Officer 49.00 49.00 49.00 49.00 50.00 1.00 Police Records Specialist - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Police Records Specialist II 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 Police Sergeant 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00 Program Assistant 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Property Evid Tech 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Public Safety Disp 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Public Safety Dispatcher - Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 (1.00) Public Safety Dispatcher II 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00 Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Supt Animal Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Supv Animal Svcs 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 (1.00) Supv Police Service 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Veterinarian 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Veterinarian Tech 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Volunteer Coord 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 (0.50) Total Public Safety 277.24 278.24 273.24 272.24 273.24 0.00 Public Works Accountant 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change FTE City of Palo Alto - 12 - Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Table of Organization Acct Spec 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Administrative Associate I 1.700.700.500.500.600.10 Administrative Associate II 1.80 1.80 2.85 2.85 2.65 (0.20) Assoc Engineer 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.20 Asst Dir Public Wrks 1.10 1.10 1.30 1.30 1.30 0.00 Bldg Serviceperson 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Bldg Serviceperson-L 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.80 (0.20) Dir Pw/City Engr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Electrician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 (0.20) Engineer 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 Engr Tech III 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.20 (0.10) Equip Operator 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 0.00 Facilities Carpenter 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Facilities Maint-L 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.85 (0.15) Facilities Mech 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.55 (0.45) Facilities Painter 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 (0.25) Heavy Equip Oper 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 2.13 0.23 Heavy Equip Oper-L 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 Inspector, Field Svc 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 0.33 Management Analyst 0.00 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Managing Arborist 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mgr Fac Maint & Proj 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mgr Maint Oper 0.12 1.72 2.10 2.10 1.95 (0.15) Planning Arborist 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Project Engineer 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.10 Project Mgr 1.750.751.251.251.700.45 Senior Management Analyst 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.00 Sr. Accountant 0.020.020.000.000.000.00 Sr. Engineer 0.20 0.20 1.10 1.10 1.20 0.10 Sr. Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 Sr. Project Manager 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 Supt PW Opns 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supv Facil Mgt 1.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supv Insp/Surv Pw 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 Surveying Asst 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00 (0.78) Surveyor, Public Wks 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00 Traf Cont Maint I 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 0.00 Traf Cont Maint II 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Traf Cont Maint-L 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Tree Maint Person 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Tree Trim/Ln Clr 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 Tree Trim/Ln Clr-L 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Urban Forester 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Total Public Works 58.57 56.37 57.32 57.32 56.35 (0.97) Total GENERAL FUND 579.00 576.40 578.06 579.71 577.80 (0.26) FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change FTE - 13 - City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Table of Organization ENTERPRISE FUNDS Public Works - Enterprise Funds Accountant 0.23 0.23 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 Acct Spec 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 Administrative Associate I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 Administrative Associate II 3.20 3.20 2.15 2.15 2.15 0.00 Administrative Associate III 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 Administrator, Refuse 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Airport Manager 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Assistant Director, Environmental Services 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Assoc Engineer 3.30 3.30 3.00 3.00 1.50 (1.50) Assoc Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00) Asst Dir Public Wrks 0.75 0.75 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 Asst Mgr WQCP 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Asst To City Mgr 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 (0.10) Business Analyst 1.13 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.13 Buyer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Chemist 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Chief Sustainability Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 Coord Pub Wks Proj 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Coord Zero Waste 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 Electrician 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Electrician-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Engr Tech III 1.40 1.40 1.30 1.30 0.30 (1.00) Environmental Spec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Equip Operator 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.00 Executive Assistant 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Haz Mat Inspector 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 Heavy Equip Oper 5.90 5.90 1.90 1.90 1.61 (0.29) Heavy Equip Oper-L 3.15 3.15 2.15 2.15 1.86 (0.29) Ind Waste Inspec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Ind Waste Invtgtr 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Laboratory Tech WQC 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.00 Landfill Technician 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Maint Mech 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 Management Analyst 0.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.30 0.10 Mgr Env Control Prog 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Mgr Envrn Compliance 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Mgr Lab Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Mgr Maint Oper 1.38 1.38 1.00 1.00 0.96 (0.04) Mgr Solid Waste 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Mgr WQC Plant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Program Assistant I 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 (1.00) FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change FTE City of Palo Alto - 14 - Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Table of Organization Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.85 (0.15) Project Mgr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 Refuse Disp Atten 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Senior Management Analyst 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 Sr Chemist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr Ind Waster Inspect 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Sr Mech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr Operator WQC 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 Sr. Accountant 0.23 0.23 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 Sr. Business Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 (0.13) Sr. Engineer 2.75 2.25 1.90 1.90 1.80 (0.10) Sr. Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 Sr. Technologist 0.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 0.00 St Maint Asst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 (2.00) St Sweeper Op 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.96 (1.04) Storekeeper 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Supt PW Opns 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supv Public Works 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supv WQC Oper 5.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Surveying Asst 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 (0.11) Surveyor, Public Wks 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 Technologist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Traf Cont Maint I 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 Watershed Protection Manager 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 (1.00) WQC Plt Oper II 16.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 16.00 (1.00) Total Public Works - Enterprise Funds 115.01 114.51 104.06 104.06 99.19 (4.87) Utilities Accountant 0.75 0.75 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Acct Spec 2.50 2.50 2.55 2.55 2.55 0.00 Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Administrative Associate I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 (1.00) Administrative Associate II 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 (1.00) Assistant Director Utilities Engineering 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Assistant Director Utilities Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Assistant Director Utl Cust Support Svs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Assoc Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 Asst Dir Ut/Res Mgmt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Asst Director Adm Svcs 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 Asst To City Mgr 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 (0.35) Business Analyst 2.874.875.875.875.870.00 Cathodic Protection Technician Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Cathodic Tech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Cement Finisher 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Chief Sustainability Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 Communications Mgr 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 (1.00) FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change FTE - 15 - City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Table of Organization Contracts Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 (0.30) Coord Util Saf & Sec 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Coord Utility Proj 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 6.00 2.00 Cust Srv Specialist-L 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Cust Svc Represent 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 1.00 Cust Svc Spec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 Deputy Dir Adm Svcs 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dir Adm Svcs/Chief Financial Officer 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.20 (0.05) Dir Utilities 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Elec Asst I 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 Elec Undgd Inspec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Electric Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Electric Underground Inspector - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Electrician 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00 Electrician-Lead 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 Engr Mgr - Electric 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Engr Mgr - WGW 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Engr Tech III 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Equip Operator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Gas System Tech 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Gas System Technician II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Haz Mat Inspector 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 Heavy Equip Oper 9.00 9.00 8.00 8.00 8.70 0.70 Inspector, Field Svc 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 (1.00) Lineper/Cable Spl 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.00 Lineper/Cable Spl-L 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 Maint Mech 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maintenance Mechanic-Welding 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Manager Energy Risk 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Marketing Eng 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Meter Reader 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 Meter Reader-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Mgr Communications 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Mgr Cust Svc & Meter Reading 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Mgr Electric Oprns 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Mgr Util Mkt Svcs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Mgr Util Oprns WGW 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Mgr Util Telecomm 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Offset Equip Op 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.00 OH UG Troubleman 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Planner 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 Power Engr 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Program Assistant I 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 (0.50) Project Engineer 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change FTE City of Palo Alto - 16 - Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Table of Organization Project Mgr 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 Resource Planner 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 Restoration Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr Mech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr Mkt Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr Util Field Svc Rep 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr Water Sys Oper 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Sr. Accountant 0.750.750.700.700.700.00 Sr. Business Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Sr. Deputy City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr. Electric Project Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 Sr. Financial Analyst 1.10 1.60 1.40 1.40 1.40 0.00 Sr. Performance Auditor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr. Project Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 Sr. Resource Planner 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 (1.00) Sr. Technologist 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.00 Storekeeper 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Supervising Electric Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Supervising Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00) Supervisor, Inspection Services/Utilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Supv Water Trans 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 (1.00) Supv WGW 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 (5.00) Tree Maint Person 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Util Acct Rep 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 Util Comp Tech 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Util Comp Tech-L 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Util Credit/Col Spec 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Util Engr Estimator 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 Util Fld Svcs Rep 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 Util Install/Rep 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 Util Install/Rep Ast 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Util Install/Rep-L 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 Util Key Acct Rep 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Util Locator 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Util Syst Oper 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 Utilities Compliance Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Utilities Supervisor 5.00 5.00 5.00 11.00 11.00 6.00 Utl Install Repair Lead-Welding Cert 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Utl Install Repair-Welding Cert 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Warehouse Supv 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 Water Sys Oper II 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 Wtr Mtr Crs Cn Tec 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 (1.00) Total Utilities 250.71 251.11 253.76 253.76 255.36 1.60 Total ENTERPRISE FUNDS 365.72 365.62 357.82 357.82 354.55 (3.27) FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change FTE - 17 - City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Table of Organization OTHER FUNDS Capital Administrative Associate I 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.80 (0.20) Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 (0.10) Assoc Engineer 0.60 0.60 0.90 0.90 2.70 1.80 Asst Dir Public Wrks 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 Cement Finisher 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Cement Finisher Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Contracts Administrator 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Engineer 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 0.00 Engr Tech III 2.30 2.30 2.40 2.40 0.50 (1.90) Heavy Equip Oper 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 Inspector, Field Svc 0.000.000.000.000.670.67 Landscape Architect/Pk Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Management Analyst 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.00 Mgr Fac Maint & Proj 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mgr Maint Oper 0.50 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00 Program Assistant I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Project Engineer 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 4.85 1.05 Project Mgr 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.20 Sr. Engineer 2.05 2.55 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Sr. Financial Analyst 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Sr. Project Manager 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00 Supt PW Opns 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supv Facil Mgt 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supv Insp/Surv Pw 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 Surveying Asst 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 (0.11) Surveyor, Public Wks 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 Total Capital 23.67 24.37 26.07 26.07 27.48 1.41 Information Technology Admin Assistant 0.071.071.001.001.000.00 Administrative Associate II 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asst Director Adm Svcs 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 (0.20) Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Chief Information Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Desktop Technician 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 Dir Adm Svcs/Chief Financial Officer 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.20 0.10 (0.15) Information Technology Security Manager 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Management Analyst 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Mgr IT 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 Sr. Business Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Sr. Financial Analyst 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sr. Technologist 13.00 13.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 Technologist 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 Total Information Technology 30.41 30.41 31.55 31.40 32.20 0.65 FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change FTE City of Palo Alto - 18 - Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Table of Organization Authorization is given to create no more than 20.0 FTE temporary overstrength positions. Overstrength positions are justified by business needs and provide a vacancy to allow for cross training of a critical classification. These interim positions facilitate organizational transitions and succession planning in the cases of long-term disability, Printing and Mailing Fund Buyer 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 (0.05) Offset Equip Op 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 0.00 Sr. Financial Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 Total Printing and Mailing Fund 1.57 1.57 1.67 1.67 1.62 (0.05) Special Revenue Acct Spec 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.55 1.05 Acct Spec-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 Administrative Associate II 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.20 Bldg Serviceperson-L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 Chief Transp Off 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 Community Serv Offcr 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 Facilities Maint-L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 Facilities Mech 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 Facilities Painter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 Heavy Equip Oper 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 Heavy Equip Oper-L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 (0.50) Mgr Maint Oper 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 Planner 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.00 Sr. Financial Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 St Maint Asst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 St Sweeper Op 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 Total Special Revenue 2.15 2.15 2.65 2.15 9.17 6.52 Vehicle Replacement Fund Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Asst Dir Public Wrks 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 Asst Fleet Mgr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Equip Maint Serv Per 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Fleet Svcs Coord 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 Mobile Service Tech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Motor Equipment Mechanic II 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 Senior Fleet Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr. Financial Analyst 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 Total Vehicle Replacement Fund 16.08 16.08 16.53 16.53 16.53 0.00 Total OTHER FUNDS 73.88 74.58 78.47 77.82 87.00 8.53 Total Citywide Positions 1,018.60 1,016.60 1,014.35 1,015.35 1,019.35 5.00 FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change FTE - 19 - City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Table of Organization retirement, and critical vacancies. The overstrength positions also accommodate newly approved provisional employment programs. Refer to City Council Staff Report ID #1812 for additional information. Refundable Key Deposit Rental Fee Bicycle Training (or other training TBD) Parking Permits – Business Districts All Lots Transferable Permit Lot X (Sheraton Parking Lot) One-Day Parking Permits-California Avenue One-Day Parking Permits-University Avenue Replacement Permit University Avenue Parking District Wait list registration (applied to permit fee)$10 $10 All Lots Transferable Permit 800 High Street Parking Garage Parking Permit Residential Parking Permit Program Annual Permit - College Terrace Lost Annual Permit - College Terrace Guest Permit - College Terrace Lost Guest Permit - College Terrace Day Use Permit - College Terrace Residential Parking Permit - Other (Trial) Parking Permits – Commercial/Construction Construction/Maintenance Vehicles Emergency Repair Vehicles Wide Load/Heavy Load Permits Per Vehicle Each Occurrence Building Moving/Relocating Permit To site outside City To site within City Valet Parking Permit Application Permit Application Renewal (annual) Short-term Application Fee On-street Parking Space Rental Valet Parking Sign and Curb Markings $183.00/year $5.00/permit $22.00 $65.00/quarter, $250/year $119.00 plus cash deposit or bond $50 through trial period $40.00/permit $606.00 plus cash deposit or bond $10.00/permit $76.00/space per week $43.00/quarter, $123.00/year $26.00/quarter, $75.00/year $7.00/day $40.00/permit FY 2013 FEE $6.00 $16.00-$54.00 per class $88.00/year $270.00 $76.00/space per week $973.00 $40.00/permit $579.00 $16.00/day $10.00 $135.00/quarter, $420.00/year $135.00/quarter $43.00/quarter $27.00 FY 2014 FEE $27.00 $6.00 $16.00-$54.00 per class $49.50/quarter, $149.00/year $49.50/quarter $5.00/permit $26.00/quarter, $75.00/year $8.00/day $17.50/day $10.00 $146.50/quarter, $466.00/year $146.50/quarter $40.00/permit $40.00/permit $973.00 Bicycle Locker Rental $50 through trial period $76.00/space per week $183.00/year $22.00 $119.00 plus cash deposit or bond $606.00 plus cash deposit or bond $65.00/quarter, $250/year PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT Transportation $579.00 $88.00/year $270.00 $76.00/space per week $40.00/permit $10.00/permit City of Palo Alto FY 2014 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-1 For more information on impact fees and parkland dedication, refer to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 16.45; 16.46;16.47; 16.57; 16.58; 16.59;16.60; and 21.50. Development Impact Fees PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT Impact Fees (1) For the purposes of this fee, "single-family" is defined as a single dwelling unit that does not share a common wall with another dwelling unit. A second dwelling unit, as defined in 18.04.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, is considered a multi-family unit for purposes of calculating this fee. Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $243 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel, $102 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof. FY 2014 FEE Residential: Single family $10,638/residence (or $15,885/residence larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family $6,963 unit (or $3,521/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square feet). Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $4,517 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel, $2,043 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof. Residential: Single family1 $2,758/residence (or $4,129/residence larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family $1,815/unit (or $916/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square feet). Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $255 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel, $115 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof. Residential: Single family $963/residence (or $1,434/residence larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family $565 unit (or $316/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square feet). Residential: Single family1 $963/residence (or $1,434/residence larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family $575/unit (or $316/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square feet). Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $4,518 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel, $2,043 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof. Libraries Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $243 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel, $102 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof. FY 2013 FEE Residential: Single family1 $10,639/residence (or $15,887/residence larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family $6,964/unit (or $3,521/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square feet). Community Centers Residential: Single family1 $2,758/residence (or $4,129/residence larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family $1,815/unit (or $916/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square feet). Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $255 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel, $115 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof. Parks City of Palo Alto FY 2014 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-3 PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT Impact Fees FY 2014 FEEFY 2013 FEE Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real CS Zone San Antonio / West Bayshore Area Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Charleston/ Arastradero Parking in lieu fee for the Downtown Assessment District Only applies to residential projects that require a subdivision or parcel map. Land dedication is required for subdivisions resulting in more than 50 parcels. When parkland dedication applies, park impact fees (above) do not apply. $60,750 per parking space Land required: Single-family = 555 square feet / unit, Multi-family = 382 sq. ft. / unit In-lieu Fee: Single-family = $58,366/unit, Multi-family - $40,187/unit. $18.89 per square foot applies to nonresidential development $11.08 per net new square foot $2.28 per square foot $3,197 per net new PM peak hour trip $0.34 per square foot - commerical; $1,168 per residential unit $3,053 per net new PM peak hour trip Traffic Impact Fees $0.33 per square foot - commerical; $1,115 per residential unit $11.08 per net new square foot 18.44 per square foot applies to nonresidential development Housing Impact Fees $60,750/parking space Parkland Dedication Fee Land required: Single-family = 555 square feet / unit, Multi-family = 382 sq. ft. / unit In-lieu Fee: Single-family = $56,517/unit, Multi-family - $38,899/unit $2.28 per square foot City of Palo Alto FY 2014 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-4 Certificate of Compliance /Certificate of Correction/Map Amendment Construction in Public Right-of-Way (including public or private subdivision streets) Improvement Plan Review Excellent (Pavement Score 94-100) Good (Pavement Score 81-93) Fair (Pavement Score 63-80) Poor (Pavement Score 0-62) Service Lateral Connection - Per Trench Dumpster, Container Fence Non-residential Long Term > 5 days Residential Non-residential Short Term < 5 days Non-residential 1 DayVTA Bus Shelters' Installation/Relocation Flood variance fee 101-1,000 cubic yards 1,001-10,000 cubic yards 10,001 cubic yards or more $11.00 per sq. ft. of trench $920.00 $1,080.00 $140.00 for the first 100 cubic yards, plus $140.00 for each additional 100 yards, or fraction thereof. $215.00 $460.00 $430.00 $3,240 $260.00 minimum, or 5% of contract work Initial deposit of $1,080.00, 100 percent of processing costs will be recovered plus any permit fees per the Municipal Fee Schedule. $340.00 City cost plus 15% $2,685.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $140.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Excavating, Grading and Fill Permits $1,415.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards, plus $140.00 for each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof. FY 2014 FEE $3,000 $260.00 minimum, or 5% of contract work Initial deposit of $1,080.00, 100 percent of processing costs will be recovered plus any permit fees per the Municipal Fee Schedule. $16.00 per sq. ft. of trench Pavement Condition FY 2013 FEE $16.00 per sq. ft. of trench $11.00 per sq. ft. of trench $8.00 per sq. ft. of trench $5.00 per sq. ft. of trench $1,080.00 $8.00 per sq. ft. of trench $5.00 per sq. ft. of trench $145.00 $145.00 Encroachment Permit *Based on Pavement Maintenance Management System $145.00 $145.00 $920.00 $430.00 $460.00 $215.00 $340.00 City cost plus 15% $140.00 for the first 100 cubic yards, plus $140.00 for each additional 100 yards, or fraction thereof. $1,415.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards, plus $140.00 for each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof. $2,685.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $140.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Fees Street Cut Fee City of Palo Alto FY 2014 Municipal Fee Schedule 20-1 Flood Zone Determination Letter Temporary Elevation Benchmarks Temporary Discharge to Storm Drain from Construction Site Dewatering. Plan Check Fee Inspection Fee Construction and Repair STRAIGHT: $93.00 OT: $140.00 STRAIGHT: $93.00 OT: $140.00 Sweeping Services STRAIGHT: $96.00 OT: $144.00 STRAIGHT: $96.00 OT: $144.00 Traffic Control/Graffiti Services STRAIGHT: $85.00 OT: $128.00 STRAIGHT: $85.00 OT: $128.00 Tree Services STRAIGHT: $79.00 OT: $119.00 STRAIGHT: $79.00 OT: $119.00 Supervision STRAIGHT: $92.00 OT: $138.00 STRAIGHT: $92.00 OT: $138.00 Newsrack Impoundment Fee Street trees-new trees for subdivisions Tree Removal (any tree requiring removal) Tree Inspection for private development FY 2014 FEEFY 2013 FEE $57.00 per letter $292.00 per benchmark FY 2013 FEE $54.00 for the first day of impoundment, plus $3.00 for each subsequent day of impoundment $140.00 per request to discharge + $82.00 per month of discharge to storm drain. $360.00 per project $330.00 per inspection (up to 4 hours) + $82.00 per hour thereafter. $115 per inspection/minimum 2 visits Special Fees Street Tree Destruction To determine fee, the trunk diameter is to be measured 4.5 feet above ground level. If the tree is multi-trunk, use 1.5 times the diameter of the largest trunk to determine fee. If there is tree damage 4-5 feet above ground level, trunk diameter is to be measured 1 foot above ground level and 1 inch is to be subtracted from the diameter to determine fee. $100.00/inch of trunk diameter plus planting installation $54.00 for the first day of impoundment, plus $3.00 for each subsequent day of impoundment $100.00/tree $100.00/inch of trunk diameter plus planting installation $100.00/inch of damage (Trees will be assessed a fee by measuring damage at the widest diameter.) FY 2014 FEE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Operations Maintenance and Repair Charges For services provided by Public Works/Operations to support an unbudgeted special event, repair damage to public property (ie: graffiti clean-up) or to bill other outside agencies for services (i.e. Caltrans for street sweeping El Camino Real). Also used to determine inter-departmental charges for employee services to other departments. $57.00 per letter $292.00 per benchmark $140.00 per request to discharge + $82.00 per month of discharge to storm drain. $360.00 per project $330.00 per inspection (up to 4 hours) + $82.00 per hour thereafter. $100.00/tree $100.00/inch of damage (Trees will be assessed a fee by measuring damage at the widest diameter.) $115 per inspection/minimum 2 visits Fees Storm Water Fees for Development Project Subject to PAMC Chapter 16.11 (C.3 Regulations) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Storm Drain City of Palo Alto FY 2014 Municipal Fee Schedule 20-2 Specific Fees Dirt from commercial loads (acceptance subject to need). Rate subject to change based on site needs. Dirt from commercial loads. The landfill is now closed. Call 650- 329-2113 for soil drop- off availability. Rate subject to change based on site needs. $35/cubic yard Dirt from commercial loads. The landfill is now closed. Call 650- 329-2113 for soil drop- off availability. Rate subject to change based on site needs. $35/cubic yard Construction & Demolition Program Fees Demolitions Commercial and Multi-Family projects greater than or equal to $25,000 in valuation $230.00/permit $230.00/permit Single Family and Two Family projects greater than 75,000 in valuation $205.00/permit $205.00/permit Single Family and Two Family projects greater than $25,000 and less than $75,000 in valuation 1 $77.00/permit $77.00/permit Materials Per Load of 1000 gal or less Each Additional 500 gal Per Load of 1000 gal or less Each Additional 500 gal Septic Tank Waste and Portable Toilet Pumpings $63.70 $31.80 $63.70 $31.80 Grease Trap Waste $106.00 $53.00 $106.00 $53.00 Industrial Waste Discharge BMP: Best Management Practices. Small, non-categorical, facilities with minimal process discharge Exceptional Waste: Short term, non- standard discharges Groundwater: Groundwater remediation discharges Basic: Non-categorical/small categorical with only minor pollutant concerns Permit Fee FY 2013 FEE $425.00 $750.00 $750.00 $1,250.00 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Wastewater Treatment FY 2014 FEE FY 2013 FEE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT $750.00 $1,250.00 These charges were previously reflected on Utilities S-2 rate schedule. Permiting fees are required for the issuance of an Industrial Discharge Permit. Permits have five year durations except for Exceptional Waste. Industrial Permit requirements and definitions are contained in Chapter 16.09 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Exceptional Waste discharges in excess of 25 CCF are subject to volume based discharge fees as shown in Utilities Schedule S-2. Permit Fee $425.00 $750.00 Refuse FY 2014 FEE Additional refuse rates can be found in Utility Rate Schedules R. City of Palo Alto FY 2014 Municipal Fee Schedule 20-3 Full: Categorical or Significant Industrial Users with ability to impact the Regional Water Quality Control Plant $2,100.00 $2,100.00 City of Palo Alto FY 2014 Municipal Fee Schedule 20-4 *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 130514 dm 015018 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Dark Fiber Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule EDF-1 (Dark Fiber Licensing Services) is hereby amended to read in accordance with sheets EDF-1-1 and EDF-1-2, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule EDF-1, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2013. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule EDF-2 (Dark Fiber Connection Fees) is hereby amended to read in accordance with sheet EDF-2-1, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule EDF-2, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2013. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution increasing dark fiber rates by the Consumer Price Index to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of // // // // // // // // ATTACHMENT B *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 130514 dm 015018 Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After reviewing the fiber rate staff reports presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Utilities _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ATTACHMENT B DARK FIBER LICENSING SERVICES UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE EDF-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No EDF-1-1 Effective 07-01-20123 dated 7-01-20121 Sheet No. EDF-1-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This rate schedule applies to customer accounts established prior to September 18, 2006, unless the customer elects to apply the EDF-3 rate to the entire customer account. This rate applies to Fiber Optic services from the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) pertaining to the City's network (Backbone and associated connections). B. TERRITORY: Within the incorporated limits of the City of Palo Alto and land owned or leased by the City. C. FEES: 1. DARK FIBER BACKBONE LICENSE FEES: The values or ranges for each of these price components are shown below: (1) Fiber Price………………………………………………………………. $3270.7890/FM/month (2) Quantity discount ……………………………………………………… $0 to $59.84/FM/month (3) Buffer tube discount……………………………………………………….. $0 to $59.84/FM/month (4) Route length discount…………………………………………………….. $0 to $77.80/FM/month (5) Ring topology discount………………………………………………………$0 to $23.94/FM/month (6) Length of term discount…………………………………………………… $0 to $46.80/FM/month Minimum Backbone License Fee ...................................................................................... $48595.1693/month Project Minimum Backbone Fees apply to any project proposal signed after September 18, 2006 in which the project connects with the Backbone. Description for Discounts: Quantity discount: based on an array of discounts for quantities of fiber licensed on a specific path. Buffer tube discount: discount for numbers of full buffer tubes licensed on a specific path. Route length discount: based on the route length licensed on a specific project. Ring topology discount: The ring topology discount for customers contracting for complete rings. Term discount: based on an array of discounts for contracts greater than one and less than ten years. 2. DARK FIBER LATERAL CONNECTION FEES: Customer responsibilities and fees for drop and custom cable construction are described in the CPAU Rules and Regulations, Rate Schedule EDF-2, project proposals and other associated documents. In all cases, the Licensee shall pay an annual Drop/Custom Cable Management Fee based on the follow per foot fees: (1) Drop Cable Management Fees (for the first 12-Fibers) …………………………… $0.02-$0.06/ft/month (2) Custom Cable Management Fees (for the first 12-Fibers)……………………….. $0.312/ft/month (3) Fees for additional Drop or Custom Cable fibers (each additional set of 12-Fibers) $0.06/ft/month Minimum Drop or Custom Cable Management Fees ........................................................ $23945.7305/month Minimum Drop Cable Management Fees apply to any project proposal signed after September 18, 2006. ATTACHMENT B DARK FIBER LICENSING SERVICES UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE EDF-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No EDF-1-2 Effective 07-01-20123 dated 7-01-20121 Sheet No. EDF-1-2 3. EARLY TERMINATION FEES: If the Licensee chooses to terminate for convenience the License Agreement or the term of any project under the License Agreement, then the Licensee shall pay the applicable termination payment as specified in this schedule or in the License Agreement, as provided below. Unless otherwise provided in the License Agreement, the Licensee shall pay a termination fee in one of the following amounts, whichever is less:  Annual fee of the contract year that the Licensee chooses to terminates in full without term discounts, or  Remaining fees of the project term as indicated in the License Agreement. D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. All fees must be paid to the City in accordance with the terms of the Dark Fiber License Agreement, the customer’s project proposals and all the applicable Utilities Rates, Rules, and Regulations. 2. All fees and minimum charges are subject to Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments, to be applied annually, except as defined by Section D.3 of this Rate Schedule. Discounts will not be modified by changes to CPI. 3. The CPI adjustment will be based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose MSA, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The adjustment is calculated by dividing the most recent calendar year December CPI by the December CPI in the year rates last changed. In the event that the change between December CPI’s indicates an adjustment of less than 1% is required, a change to rate schedules may not be made for the upcoming year. Future rate changes will take the last year of change as the new base year for purposes of calculation. {End} ATTACHMENT B DARK FIBER SERVICE CONNECTION FEES UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE EDF-2 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No EDF-2-1 Effective 7-01-20123 dated 7-01-20112 Sheet No. EDF-2-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all connections, expansions, and upgrades to the City's Dark Fiber network (Backbone). B. TERRITORY: All territory within the incorporated limits of the City and land owned or leased by the City. C. FEES: 1. ADVANCE ENGINEERING FEES: Advance engineering (AER) fees must be paid to start the engineering process and are non-refundable. The fees will be credited against the estimated project cost prior to the collection of the project construction fees. (1) Commercial/Industrial AER minimum fee ..................................................................... $76683.00 (2) Special conditions (requiring expert assessment) ........................................................... By Estimate 2. ESTIMATED SERVICE CONNECTION AND RECONFIGURATION FEES All estimated service connection and reconfiguration fees must be paid prior to the scheduling of any construction or reconnections to the City's Dark Fiber network. (1) Service connection (Interconnection) fee ...................................................... By Estimate (2) Reconfiguration Fees ..................................................................................... By Estimate Labor rates are subject to change as stated in the Utility Rate Schedule C-1. D. NOTES: 1. The Customer is responsible for the installation and maintenance of all ducts and pathways from the facility to the property line in compliance with City of Palo Alto Utilities Rules and Regulations and contract agreements. 2. The City shall not be held liable for delays or interruptions in service, but will make reasonable efforts to provide timely continuous service. 3. All fees are subject to Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments, to be applied annually. The CPI adjustment will be based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose MSA, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The adjustment is calculated by dividing the most recent calendar year December CPI by the December CPI in the year rates last changed. In the event that the change between December CPI’s indicates an adjustment of less than 1% is required, a change to rate schedules may not be made for the upcoming year. Future rate changes will take the last year of change as the new base year for purposes of calculation. {End} ATTACHMENT B *Not Yet Approved* 130312 dm 015005 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Water Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules W-1,W-2, W-3, W-4 and W-7 R E C I T A L S A. Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services, fees and charges. B. Pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on June 3, 2013, the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the proposed water rate amendments. C. The total number of written protests presented by the close of the public hearing was less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and property owners subject to the proposed water rate amendments. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-1 (General Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-1, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2013. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-2, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2013. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-3 (Fire Service Connections) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-3, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2013. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-4, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2013. SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-7, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2013. ATTACHMENT C *Not Yet Approved* 130312 dm 015005 SECTION 6. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 7. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing water rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After reviewing the staff report presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ____________________________ Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Utilities _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ATTACHMENT C GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 Effective 7-1-20132 dated 10-1-20117-1-2012 Sheet No W-1-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all separately metered single family residential water services. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: Per Meter Monthly Service Charge: Per Month For 5/8-inch meter ..................................................................................................... $ 13.7414.67 For 3/4 inch meter ..................................................................................................... 18.2819.51 For 1 inch meter ........................................................................................................ 27.3529.18 For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................................. 50.0353.37 For 2-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 77.2582.39 For 3-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 163.44174.29 For 4-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 290.46309.72 For 6-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 594.39633.80 For 8-inch meter ........................................................................................................1,093.391,165.86 For 10-inch meter ......................................................................................................1,728.481,843.02 For 12-inch meter ....................................................................................................... 2,423.45 Commodity Rate: (To be added to Service Charge and applicable to all pressure zones.) Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf) Per Month All Pressure Zones Tier 1 usage ........................................................................................................................$4.9954 Tier 2 usage (All usage over 100% of Tier 1) ........................................................................ 7.5806 Temporary unmetered service to residential subdivision developers, per connection ........................................................................ $6.00 ATTACHMENT C GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-1-2 Effective 7-1-20132 dated 10-1-20117-1-2012 Sheet No W-1-2 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Calculation of Cost Components The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C. 2. Calculation of Usage Tiers Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.2 ccf per day rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. As an example, for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1 level would be 0 through 6 ccf. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11. {End} ATTACHMENT C WATER SERVICE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-2 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-2-1 Effective 7-1-20123 dated 7-1-200912 Sheet No W-2-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all water taken from fire hydrants for construction, maintenance, and other uses in conformance with provisions of a Hydrant Meter Permit. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: 1. Monthly Service Charge. METER SIZE 5/8 inch ........................................................................................................................... 50.00 3 inch ........................................................................................................................... 125.00 2. Commodity Rate: (per hundred cubic feet) ................................................................ $5.756.15 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Monthly charges shall include the applicable monthly service charge in addition to usage billed at the commodity rate. 2. Any applicant using a hydrant without obtaining a Hydrant Meter Permit or any permittee using a hydrant without a Hydrant Meter Permit shall pay a fee of $50.00 for each day of such use in addition to all other costs and fees provided in this schedule. A hydrant permit may be denied or revoked for failure to pay such fee. 3. A meter deposit of $750.00 may be charged any applicant for a Hydrant Meter Permit as a prerequisite to the issuance of a permit and meter(s). A charge of $50.00 per day will be added for delinquent return of hydrant meters. A fee will be charged for any meter returned with missing or damaged parts. 4. Any person or company using a fire hydrant improperly or without a permit, or who draws water from a hydrant without a meter installed and properly recording usage shall, in addition to all other applicable charges be subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. {End} ATTACHMENT C FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-3-1 Effective 7-1-20132 dated 10-1-20117-1-2012 Sheet No W-3-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all public fire hydrants and private fire service connections. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: 1. Monthly Service Charges Public Fire Hydrant .................................................................................................... $5.00 Private Fire Service: 2-inch connection .......................................................................................................$3.303.03 4-inch connection .......................................................................................................20.4418.78 6-inch connection ....................................................................................................... 59.3854.55 8-inch connection .......................................................................................................126.54116.24 10-inch connection .....................................................................................................227.56209.03 12-inch connection ..................................................................................................... 337.65 2. Commodity (To be added to Service Charge unless water is used for fire extinguishing or testing purposes.) Per Hundred Cubic Feet All water usage........................................................................................................... $10.00 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Service under this schedule may be discontinued if water is used for any purpose other than fire extinguishing or testing and repairing the fire extinguishing facilities. Using hydrants and fire services for other purposes is illegal and will be subject to the commodity charge as noted above, fines, and criminal prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 2. For a combination water and fire service, the general water service schedule shall apply. ATTACHMENT C FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-3-2 Effective 7-1-20132 dated 10-1-20117-1-2012 Sheet No W-3-2 3. Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 21 provides additional information on Automatic Fire Services. 4. Repairs and testing of fire extinguishing facilities are not considered unauthorized use of water if records and documentation are supplied by the customer. {End} ATTACHMENT C RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-4-1 Effective 7-1-20123 dated 10-1-20117-1-2012 Sheet No W-4-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to non-residential water service in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution area. This schedule is also applicable to multi-family residential customers served through a master meter. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: Per Meter Monthly Service Charge Per Month For 5/8-inch meter .................................................................................... $ 13.7414.67 For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 18.2819.51 For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 27.3529.18 For 1 ½-inch meter .................................................................................... 50.0353.37 For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 77.2582.39 For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 163.44174.29 For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 290.46309.72 For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 594.39633.80 For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,093.391,165.86 For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................1,728.481,843.02 For 12-inch meter .................................................................................... 2,423.45 Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge) Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf) Per Month All Pressure Zones Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 5.756.15 ATTACHMENT C RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-4-2 Effective 7-1-20123 dated 10-1-20117-1-2012 Sheet No W-4-2 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Calculation of Cost Components The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C. {End} ATTACHMENT C NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-7-1 Effective 7-1-20123 dated 10-1-20117-1-2012 Sheet No W-7-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to non-residential water service supplying dedicated irrigation meters in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution area. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: Per Meter Monthly Service Charge Per Month For 5/8-inch meter .................................................................................... $ 13.7414.67 For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 18.2819.51 For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 27.3529.18 For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................... 50.0353.37 For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 77.2582.39 For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 163.44174.29 For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 290.46309.72 For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 594.39633.80 For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,093.391.165.86 For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................1,728.481.843.02 For 12-inch meter .................................................................................... 2,423.45 Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge) Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf) Per Month All Pressure Zones Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 7.1952 ATTACHMENT C NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-7-2 Effective 7-1-20123 dated 10-1-20117-1-2012 Sheet No W-7-2 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Calculation of Cost Components The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C. {End} ATTACHMENT C NOTYETAPPROVED 1 130319jb0131057 ResolutionNo.______ ResolutionoftheCounciloftheCity ofPaloAltoAmendingUtilityRate ScheduleD1(StormandSurfaceWaterDrainage)toIncreaseStorm DrainRatesby2.2%PerMonthPerEquivalentResidentialUnitfor FiscalYear2014 TheCounciloftheCityofPaloAltoRESOLVESasfollows: SECTION1.PursuanttoSection12.20.010ofthePaloAltoMunicipalCode,Utility Rate Schedule D1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) is hereby amended to read in accordancewithsheetD11,attachedheretoandincorporatedherein.TheforegoingUtility RateSchedule,asamended,shallbecomeeffectiveJuly1,2013. SECTION2.TheCouncilfindsthatthisrateincreaseisbeingimposedtooffsetthe effectsofinflationonlaborandmaterialcostspursuanttotheannualinflationaryfeeescalator provisionoftheStormDrainageFeeballotmeasure,whichwasapprovedbyamajorityofPalo AltopropertyownersonApril26,2005. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized adoptionenumeratedhereinshallbeusedonlyforthepurposesetforthinArticleVII,Section 2,oftheCharteroftheCityofPaloAlto. SECTION4.TheCouncilfindsthatmodificationandapprovalofthischangetothe UtilityRateScheduleD1(StormandSurfaceWaterDrainage)forthepurposeofmeeting // // // // // // // // // ATTACHMENT D NOTYETAPPROVED 2 130319jb0131057 operatingexpensesisstatutorilyexemptfrom CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA) review,pursuanttoPublicResourcesCodeSection15273(a). INTRODUCEDANDPASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ CityClerk Mayor APPROVEDASTOFORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _____________________________ SeniorAsst.CityAttorney CityManager _____________________________ DirectorofPublicWorks _____________________________ DirectorofAdministrative Services ATTACHMENT D GENERAL STORM AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE D-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 7-1-2013 Supersedes Sheet No.D-1-1 dated 7-1-2012 Sheet No. D-1-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all storm and surface water drainage service, excepting only those users and to the extent that they are constitutionally exempt under the Constitution of the State of California or who are determined to be exempt pursuant to Rule and Regulation 25. B. TERRITORY: Inside the incorporated limits of the city of Palo Alto and land owned or leased by the city. C. RATES: Per Month: Storm Drainage Fee per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) .......................................................$11.99 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. An Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is the basic unit for computation of storm drainage fees for residential and non-residential customers. All single-family residential properties shall be billed the number of ERUs specified in the following table, based on an analysis of the relationship between impervious area and lot size for Palo Alto properties. RESIDENTIAL RATES (Single-Family Residential Properties PARCEL SIZE (sq.ft.) ERU <6,000 sq.ft. 0.8 ERU 6,000 - 11,000 sq.ft. 1.0 ERU >11,000 sq.ft. 1.4 ERU All other properties will have ERU's computed to the nearest 1/10 ERU using the following formula: No. of ERU = Impervious Area (Sq. Ft.) 2,500 Sq. Ft. 2. For more details on the storm drainage fee, refer to Utilities Rule and Regulation 25. {End} ATTACHMENT D NOT YET APPROVED 130514 sh 0140094 1 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2011- 2013 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Adopted by Resolution No. 9282 to Change the Title and Salary of One Position. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the 2011-2013 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel, adopted by Resolution No. 9282 is hereby amended to change the title and salary of one position as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, effective with the pay period including July 1, 2013. SECTION 2. The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to implement the amended Compensation Plan as set forth in Section 1. SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Chief People Officer ATTACHMENT E NOT YET APPROVED 130514 sh 0140094 2 EXHIBIT A Management/Professional Compensation Plan Changes – Effective July 1, 2013 Job Code Classification Title Grade Code Control Point Approx. Annual Hourly TBD Chief Sustainability Officer (title and salary change from Assistant to City Manager) 28 11,067.28 132,807.33 63.85 ATTACHMENT E *NOT YET APPROVED* 130513 sh 0140092 1 Resolution No. _______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2012- 2013 Memorandum of Agreement for Local 521, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Adopted by Resolution No. 9277 to Add One New Classification The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the 2012-2013 Memorandum of Agreement for SEIU Personnel, adopted by Resolution No. 9277, is hereby amended to add one new classification, as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, effective with the pay period including July 1, 2013. SECTION 2. The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to implement the amended Compensation Plan as set forth in Section 1. SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Chief People Officer ATTACHMENT F *NOT YET APPROVED* 130513 sh 0140092 2 EXHIBIT A SEIU Memorandum of Agreement Change – Effective July 1, 2013 Job Code Classification Title Grade Code Control Point Approx. Annual Hourly TBD Senior Industrial Waste Investigator (new classification) TBD $7427.33 89,135.50 $42.85 ATTACHMENT F ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 130513 sh 0140091 1 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2010- 2014 Compensation Plan for IAFF Adopted by Resolution No. 9204 to Properly Record the Top Step Salary for One Existing and Create One New Position The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the 2010-2014 Compensation Plan for IAFF, adopted by Resolution No. 9204, is hereby amended to properly record the top step salary of one existing position and create one new position, as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, effective with the pay period including July 1, 2013. SECTION 2. The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to implement the amended Compensation Plan as set forth in Section 1. SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Chief People Officer ATTACHMENT G ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 130513 sh 0140091 2 EXHIBIT A IAFF Compensation Plan Changes – Effective July 1, 2013 Job Code Classification Title Grade Code Top Step Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly 646 HAZ MAT INSPECTOR (properly record top step pay rate) R78 53.85 9,335 112,015 TBD HAZ MAT INSPECTOR - EMT (new position) TBD 55.47 9,615 115,375 ATTACHMENT G ATTACHMENT H 2013-2015 Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) Funding Recommendations to City Council June 2014 No.Agency Program Description 2012-13 Contract Amount 2013-14 Agency's Request for Funding 2013-14 Proposed Funding Recommendation Six-Year Contracts Avenidas Senior Services $ 402,224 $ 406,246 PACCC Child Care Subsidy Program $ 407,491 $ 411,566 Six-Year Contracts Total $ 809,715 $ 817,812 Two-Year Contracts 2013-14 Proposed Funding Recommendation 1 Abilities United Disability Services 37,642$ 53,111$ $ 40,352 2 Adolescent Counseling Sv On Campus Counseling Sv 87,561$ 110,000$ $ 93,861 3 Community Health Awareness Council Outlet Program 8,930$ 13,742$ $ 9,573 4 Community Technology Alliance Shared Technical Infrastructure 5,432$ 8,000$ $ 5,823 5 Downtown Streets Team Downtown Streets Team 33,666$ 75,000$ $ 36,090 6 DreamCatchers Tutoring & Mentoring low-income PA Youth 55,000$ 8,000$ 7 InnVision Shelter Network Opportunity Service Center 8,920$ 25,000$ $ 12,340 8 Kara (No Funding Recommendation)Grief Support for Children and Adults 60,000$ 9 La Comida de California Hot Meals for the Elderly 30,362$ 33,300$ $ 32,548 10 MayView Community Health Center Health Care for Low Income & Homeless PA Residents 16,074$ 25,000$ $ 17,231 11 Momentum for Mental Health Homeless Outreach Program 24,111$ 30,000$ $ 25,847 12 Palo Alto Housing Corporation Stepping Stone to Success- Academic support: 1st-12th grade 47,730$ 10,000$ 13 Peninsula HealthCare Connection Inc Project Downtown Connect 25,000$ 41,200$ $ 26,800 14 Senior Adults Legal Assistance Legal Assistance to Elders 8,037$ 9,000$ $ 8,616 15 Vista Center for the Blind & Visually Impaired Vision Rehab. Svs for Seniors 20,650$ $ 5,000 16 Youth Community Service Service and leadership 15,002$ 16,000$ $ 16,082 Two-Year Contracts Total 300,737$ 622,733$ 348,163$ Overall Total 1,110,452$ 1,165,975$ 5/28/2013 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 5/22/2013 City of Palo Alto M E M O R A N D U M TO: Finance Committee DATE: May 9, 2013 SUBJECT: Additional Information Pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Staff would like to provide the Finance Committee with additional information pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Hearings. Community Services Department There was a formula error for the Golf Course Financial Summary on page 146, which has been corrected and a replacement page is provided. (See Attachment 1). Planning and Community Environment/University Avenue Parking Permit Fund & California Avenue Parking Permit Fund For 2014, activity for the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund and the California Avenue Parking Permit Fund is centralized and consolidated in the proposed budget. Previously, the expenditures related to the maintenance and administration of these funds was budgeted in the General Fund and Refuse Fund, with the General Fund and Refuse Fund being reimbursed for those costs out of the appropriate parking fund, via fund transfers. Beginning in 2014, all costs associated with the districts are budgeted directly in the parking funds. As staff was preparing all of the necessary changes, a few adjustments were inadvertently omitted, and are therefore recommended to be corrected as part of this memorandum. The benefits associated with parking‐related positions in the Planning Department, Administrative Services Department, and Public Works Department were not eliminated from the General Fund. No adjustments for the benefits are required in the Parking Funds. These changes result in a decrease of $139,620 in the General Fund, and will be realized as follows: Administrative Services Department: ($62,555) Planning and Community Environment: ($8,079) Public Works Department: ($68,986) Additionally, the budget for utilities at the garages was established in the Parking Funds, but not reduced from the Public Works Department. A reduction to the Utilities budget in the Public Works Department in the amount of $139,905 is recommended. Lastly, in the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund, a transfer from the General Fund ($152,882), Utilities Funds ($27,093), and Technology Fund ($13,546) is recommended. This transfer, which was assumed in the Parking Fund but not budgeted for in the General Fund, is intended to reimburse the Parking District for the share of spaces in the garages and lots utilized by City staff. The budget in the Parking Funds is correctly stated in the proposed budget. In total, these recommendations related to the Parking Funds will have the following Impact: APPENDIX 2 5/22/2013 General Fund: a net reduction of $126,643 Utilities Fund: increased costs of $27,093 Technology Fund: increased costs of $13,546 It should be noted that additional recommendations related to the Parking Permit Funds are anticipated to be brought forward at the May 16, 2013 Finance Committee meeting. Information Pertaining to the Storm Drain Fund A memorandum from the members of the Storm Drain Oversight Committee is attached for your review (Attachment 2). The Public Works Department Budget is scheduled to be reviewed by the Finance Committee on May 16th. Information Pertaining to the Proposed Capital Improvement Program Attached for your review is a letter from the Chair of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) summarizing the Commissions review of the Fiscal Year 2014‐2018 proposed Capital Improvement Plan (Attachment 3) and the Planning and Transportation Division staff report (Attachment 4) that was presented to the PTC that contains detail for the Capital Improvement Plan. Minutes from this meeting are also included for your review (Attachment 5). These items are reference for the May 16th Finance Committee meeting. DEPARTMENT HEAD: LALO PEREZ Director, Administrative Services/CFO CITY MANAGER: JAMES KEENE City Manager APPENDIX 2 - 13 -City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Community Services Golf Course Financial Summary FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Projected FY 2014 Proposed Budget REVENUES Tournament fees $2,190 $1,878 $1,754 $1,250 Green Fees 1,859,473 1,779,053 1,508,490 1,040,550 Monthly play cards 154,933 161,672 166,059 99,700 Driving range 343,878 355,594 303,071 253,750 Cart/club rentals 302,815 301,225 230,578 169,400 Proshop lease 26,537 29,966 32,000 22,500 Restaurant lease 55,075 43,827 67,200 58,800 Restaurant Utilities 25,920 21,600 25,920 22,032 Interest Income - Debt Service 36,866 -- Sale of Golf Course equipment*35,230 -- Total Revenue $2,842,917 $2,694,815 $2,335,072 $1,667,982 EXPENDITURES Operating Expenses Salaries 154,006 88,340 101,546 100,883 Benefits 105,449 41,246 70,059 68,569 Miscellaneous Supplies and Materials 43,742 12,238 36,607 29,447 General Expense 582 754 800 1,438 Rents and Leases 0 - - 1,000 Facilities and Equipment Purchases 93 - - - Allocated Charges 509,704 314,653 495,860 412,338 Subtotal $813,576 $457,231 $704,872 $613,675 Contract Services Golf Maintenance 475000 772,540 832,351 616,974 Miscellaneous 32,708 18,318 23,733 22,003 Range fees 130,152 135,310 127,290 110,173 Cart rentals 117,529 114,621 90,843 64,785 Club rentals 5,576 6,061 6,000 2,975 Fixed management fees 343,544 343,544 343,544 248,965 Credit card fees 38,000 41,474 38,000 38,000 Subtotal $1,142,509 $1,431,868 $1,461,761 $1,103,875 Total Operating Expenses $1,956,085 $1,889,099 $2,166,633 $1,717,550 Income From Operations $886,832 $805,716 $168,439 $(49,568) Debt Expenses Debt Service 560,000 499,075 428,180 429,020 Loan payment to General Fund for CIP Projects PG-08001 and PG-07700 94,849 - - - Subtotal $654,849 $499,075 $428,180 $429,020 Cost Plan Charges 44,151 16,892 23,327 25,317 Net Income (Loss)$187,832 $289,749 $(283,067)$(503,905) Golf Rounds 67,381 *The maintenance of the Golf Course was contracted out to ValleyCrest in October 2010. Golf course equipment and certain vehicles were purchased by ValleyCrest. APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3654) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/24/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2014-2018 Proposed CIP- Comprehensive Plan Compliance Report Title: Review and Recommendation to City Council Regarding 2014-2018 Proposed CIP- Comprehensive Plan Compliance Report From: Chitra Moitra, Planner Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) find the proposed 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and forward the finding to the City Council. BACKGROUND The Planning and Transportation Commission is required to review the proposed CIP for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and forward its recommendations to the City Council on an annual basis. The Commission is charged with using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide for reviewing the CIPs and examining its impacts on the physical development of the City. The Commission may also suggest modifications to the CIP. These suggested modifications are typically communicated as a letter to the City Council, which is sent after the PTC makes their CIP recommendations. The most recent letter to the City Council concerning the 2013-2017 CIP, dated May 14, 2012 is contained in Attachment A. DISCUSSION Over the past year, City staff has worked with the PTC CIP subcommittee (Commissioners Arthur Keller and Alex Panelli). The subcommittee made several recommendations for the CIP, fiscal year 2014-2018. On September 12, 2012, a study session was held to inform the PTC of the changes proposed to be made to the CIP document. PTC recommendations from that meeting are incorporated into the document. The link to the memorandum from City of Palo Alto’s Administrative Service Department and the September 12, 2012 meeting minutes are provided below: <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31076>. <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=31539> APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 2 The 2013-2017 CIP letter to the City Council formed the basis for the improvements for this year’s CIP review process. Highlights of the changes to the document format include the following: Project Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan: The relationship of each project to the City’s Comprehensive Plan is more clearly communicated. The primary Comprehensive Plan element to which a given project is linked is now more readily apparent on each project page. Each CIP now has a primary element, section of Comprehensive Plan, goal and a policy assigned to it. Some projects also have secondary element and goal. Project Designation: Each project has been designated as either “Annual Recurring” or “Nonrecurring” to distinguish those projects which are one-time in nature versus those which occur every year. Project Maintenance Designation: For certain General Fund projects, labels as defined by the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) have been assigned. “Keep-up” refers to the annual maintenance of existing infrastructure. “Catch-up” refers to deferred maintenance needs. “New” refers to other needs not considered “keep-up” or “catch-up”. Visuals: Each project page now contains a picture or graphic for better illustration. Salaries and Benefits: For FY 2014 only, salaries and benefits have been included in certain CIP projects where appropriate and possible. This change is intended to give the reader a more complete representation of the total costs for a given project. Planning Staff has provided an in-depth analysis of the 2014-2018 CIPs in Attachment B. The Analysis report consists of the following graphs, tables and charts that illustrate the Comprehensive Plan’s relationships to the CIPs. The analysis of the Capital Improvement Program Projects and the Comprehensive Plan resulted in the following charts and tables: Chart 1: Comprehensive Plan Elements by Number of Citations; Table 1: Number of Citations by Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs; Chart 2: Goals, Policies and Programs Citations, by Element; Chart 3: Total CIP Budget by Comprehensive Plan Element; Table 2: Most Cited Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs, by Element; Chart 4: Comprehensive Plan Elements by Source of Funds;  Chart 5: Capital Improvement Project Budget Summary by Comprehensive Plan Element and Policy Sections: APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 3  Chart 5.1 Natural Environment Element  Chart 5.2 Community Service and Facilities Element  Chart 5.3 Transportation Element  Chart 5.4 Land use Element and  Chart 5.5 Business and Governance Elements Chart 6: Capital Improvement Project Summary by City Council Priorities. The spreadsheet database requested by PTC subcommittee is contained in Attachments C. The PTC’s recommendation will be presented to the Finance Committee during CIP budget hearing on May 7, 2013. The City Council will hold public hearing on the CIP budget in June and adoption of the entire budget is scheduled for June 10, 2013. POLICY IMPLICATIONS All CIP projects shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has reviewed the 2014- 2018 CIP for consistency with the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. A list of the Comprehensive Plan policies and programs cited in the CIP is provided in Attachment D. RESOURCE IMPACT The impact on City resources from individual projects, both fiscal and operational, is addressed in each project CIP description. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Capital Improvement Program is not a project under CEQA. Individual projects may or may not be subject to CEQA; an environmental determination will be made on each individual project at the time of project implementation. Attachments:  Attachment A: PTC Letter on CIP to City Council May 14, 2012 (PDF)  Attachment B: Comprehensive Plan Analysis Report of the Proposed 2014-18 Capital Improvement Programs (PDF)  Attachment C: Financial and Infrastructure Analysis Report of the Proposed 2014-18 CIPs (PDF)  Attachment D: List of 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Projects (PDF)  Attachment E: List of 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs Cited in the CIP (PDF)  Attachment F: Proposed Capital Improvement Program 2014-2018 Rough Book Link, copies to Planning & Transportation Commission, Libraries and Development Services Center (PDF) APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 . May 14, 2012 Honorable City Council c/o City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Review of 2013-2017 Proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) At the meeting of May 9, 2012, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) completed its review of the 2013-2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and determined that the projects in the CIP are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion to determine that that 2013-2017 CIP is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan passed on a vote of 6-0. The Commission was particularly pleased with the efforts of staff to provide an analysis of the relationship of CIP projects to Comprehensive Plan elements, the ranking of projects in terms of Council priorities and staff’s responsiveness to PTC concerns from last year. The CIP planning team has proposed to meet with the Commission in the summer months to develop additional measures to analyze next year’s CIP compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. We will forward to Council these recommendations prior to the start of work on the 2014-2018 CIP. Respectfully submitted, Eduardo Martinez, Chair Planning and Transportation Commission APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 1 | P a g e ATTACHMENT B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHART 1: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS BY NUMBER OF CITATIONS 2 46 2 15 70 10 Business & Economics Community Services & Facilities Governance Land Use and Community Design Natural Environment Comprehensive Plan Element by Number of Citations A total of 327 times goals, policies, and programs of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan were cited. 80% of the citations were from Natural Environment and Community Service Elements. APPENDIX 2 2 | P a g e TABLE 1: NUMBER OF CITATIONS BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS CHART 2: GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAM CITATIONS BY ELEMENTS Elements Goals Policies Programs Business Element 2 2 2 Community Service 46 44 22 Governance Element 2 0 0 Landuse Element 15 15 5 Natural Environment 70 70 10 Transportation Element 10 10 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Business Element Community Service Governance Element Landuse Element Natural Environment Transportation Element Goals Policies Programs Comparison of Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Program Citations by Element APPENDIX 2 3 | P a g e CHART 3:TOTAL CIP BUDGET BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT Business & Economics 0% Community Services & Facilities 23% Governance 0% Land Use and Community Design 4% Natural Environment 59% Transportation 10% Salaries 5% Comprehensive Plan Elements by Percentage of Total Budget Invested The Total City budget for CIP is approximately $374.5 million. It comprises of General Fund ($123.7 million), Enterprise Fund ($245.5 million) and Internal Service Fund ($5.3 million). $221 Million (59%) of the total budget was invested for the Natural Environment Element and $81.6 Million (22%) for the Community Service Element. The other Elements accounted for 14% of the total budget. Salaries and Benefits related to the CIP accounted for little over 5% of the total budget. APPENDIX 2 4 | P a g e TABLE 2: MOST CITED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS BY ELEMENT Natural Environment Number of Times Cited Community Services & Facilities Number of Times Cited Land Use and Community Design Number of Times Cited Transportation Number of Times Cited N-4 31 C-4 37 L-9 10 T-3 4 N-9 31 N-44 30 C-24 38 L-79 8 T-24 3 N-19 7 T-14 3 N-18 6 N-25 6 N-1 5 N-20 5 N-24 5 N-26 5 N-36 5 C-19 16 L-80 3 T-21 1 N-2 3 L-81 3 T-19 1 N-41 2 Programs Programs Programs Programs Goals Goals Goals Goals Policies Policies Policies Policies The following are the two most cited policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24 of the Community Service Element: “Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure (38 times) Goal C-4 of Community Service Element: “Attractive, well-maintained community facilities that serve Palo Alto residents (37 times) and Policy N-44 of Natural Environment Element : “Maintain Palo Alto’s long- term supply of electricity and natural gas while addressing environmental economic concerns” (30 times) APPENDIX 2 5 | P a g e CHART 4: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS BY SOURCE OF FUNDS $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 Natural Environment Community Services & Facilities Land Use and Community Design Transportation Business & Economics Governance Salaries Comparison of Comprehensive Plan Elements by Fund Source (in Million) Internal Service Fund General Fund Enterprise Fund 85% of the Enterprise Fund is allocated for Capital Improvement Projects supporting Natural Environment Element and 52% of the General Fund for Community Service Element supporting projects. APPENDIX 2 6 | P a g e CHART 5: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BUDGETSUMMARY BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT, AND POLICY SECTION Chart 5.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT $2.8 $207.8 $10.4 $221.0 Internal Service Fund Enterprise Fund General Fund Total NEE CIP Budget CIP Budget (in Millions) Natural Hazards 2% Open Space 98% General Fund CIP Budget by Natural Environment Element Policy Section ($10.4 Million) Air Quality 1% Energy 24% Natural Hazards <1% Open Space 5% Water Resources 70% Total CIP Budget by Natural Environment Element Policy Section ($221 Million) Projects complying with Natural Environment Element constitute 10% of General Fund budget and 59% of total City’s CIP budget. Enterprise Fund is allocated for Utility Department’s projects while the General Fund money is invested in improving our open space and trails. APPENDIX 2 7 | P a g e Chart 5.2 COMMUNITY SERVICE AND FACILITIES ELEMENT $2.5 $14.3 $64.8 $81.6 Internal Service Fund Enterprise Fund General Fund Total CSE CIP Budget CIP Budget (in Millions) Access 1% Customer Service 2% Efficient Service Delivery <1% Parks & Public Faciliites 97% General Fund CIP Budget by Community Service Element Policy Section (64.8 Million) Access < 1% Customer Service 4% Efficient Service Delivery 1% Parks & Public Faciliites 95% Total CIP Budget by Community Service Element Policy Section ($81.6Million) Community Service Element accounts for 22% of total City’s CIP budget and 52% of General Fund budget. General Fund budget is mostly used for CIPs to improve and maintain conditions of City owned buildings, facilities and parks and open spaces. APPENDIX 2 8 | P a g e Chart 5.3 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT $11.9 $24.4 $36.3 Enterprise Fund General Fund Total TE CIP Budget CIP Budget (in Millions) Bicycling and Walking 85% Neighborho od Impacts 2% Traffic Safety 13% General Fund Budget by Transportation Element Policy Section ( $24.4 Million) Bicycling and Walking 56% Reducing Auto Use 34% Traffic Safety 8% Neighborho od Impacts 2% Total CIP Budget by Transportation Element Policy Section ($36.3 Million) 20% of General Fund budget for CIPs comply with the Transportation Element. Majority of the General Fund budget is allocated for projects improving bicycle and pedestrian safety. Other CIPs supporting the Transportation Element aims at reducing auto use and traffic safety. APPENDIX 2 9 | P a g e Chart 5.4 LAND USE ELEMENT $8.2 $5.3 $13.4 Enterprise Fund General Fund Total LUE CIP Budget CIP Budget (in Millions) Design of Buildings Public Places 5% Local Landuse and Growth Management 32% Public Ways 43% Residential Neighborhoo d 20% General Fund CIP Budget by Land Use Element Policy Section ($5.3 Million) Design of Buildings Public Places 2% Local Landuse and Growth Manageme nt 12% Public Ways 78% Residential Neighborho ods 8% Total CIP Budget by Land Use Element Policy Section ($13.4 Million) Approximately 4% of the total CIP budget and General Fund budget is invested for projects complying with the Land use Element. CIPs funded by the General Fund are mainly used for streets and sidewalk improvements supporting the Public Ways and Local Land use and Growth Management sections of the Land use Element. APPENDIX 2 10 | P a g e Chart 5.5 BUSINESS AND GOVERNANCE ELEMENT $1.3 $2.0 $3.3 Enterprise Fund Total BE & GE CIP Budget Total CIP Budget for Governance and Business Element (in millions) Governance Business & Economics Governance Element (Public Participation) $1.3 Milllion Business Element (Growth) $2 Million Enterprise Fund Budget by Business and Governance Elements Policy Section (3.3 Million ) Business Element and Governance Element accounts for .5% and .4% of the total City budget. All of the CIPs are funded through Enterprise Funds. These projects are related to improving commercial telecommunication need, and hardware/software upgrades. These are Utility Department projects: EL 02010, EL 02011, FO 10000 and FO 10001. APPENDIX 2 11 | P a g e CHART 6: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SUMMARY BY CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY Infrastructure Infrastructure (California Avenue Area) Infrastructure (Downtown Area) Technology $295.6 $38.0 $3.7 $18.2 Total Budget Invested in Million Dollars by City Council Priorities Approximately 79% of the total budget is invested for infrastructure. 10% of the budget invested in the California Avenue area and 1% for Downtown area. 5% of City’s budget is being invested for technology improvements. Salaries and benefits are not included in the calculation but it accounts for 5% of the total budget. APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 Buildings and Facilities $17,338,907 14% Parks and Open Space $22,211,512 18% Streets and Sidewalks $43,420,574 35% Traffic and Transportation $21,899,809 18% Salaries and Benefits‐ unallocated $18,862,194 15% Proposed FY2014‐18 General Fund CIP Total by Category Buildings and Facilities Parks and Open Space Streets and Sidewalks Traffic and Transportation Salaries and Benefits‐ unallocated APPENDIX 2 Buildings and Facilities $5,689,907 17% Parks and Open Space $11,850,512 35% Streets and Sidewalks $9,320,651 28% Traffic and Transportation $4,589,809 14% Salaries and Benefits‐ unallocated $1,976,191 6% Buildings and Facilities Parks and Open Space Streets and Sidewalks Traffic and Transportation Salaries and Benefits‐ unallocated Proposed FY2014 General Fund CIP Total by Category APPENDIX 2 Catch‐up $7,346,653 6% Keep‐up $60,442,962 49% New‐IR Funded $8,046,264 7% New‐Outside Funded $27,844,923 23% Salaries and Benefits (unallocated) $18,868,784 15% Catch‐up Keep‐up New‐IR Funded New‐Outside Funded Salaries and Benefits (unallocated) Proposed FY2014‐18 by IBRC Category APPENDIX 2 Proposed FY 2014‐2018 CIP by Category $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Buildings and Facilities Nonrecurring Recurring $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Parks and Open Space Nonrecurring Recurring $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Streets and Sidewalks Nonrecurring Recurring $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Traffic and Transportation Nonrecurring Recurring $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Buildings and Facilities Nonrecurring Recurring $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Parks and Open Space Nonrecurring Recurring $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Streets and Sidewalks Nonrecurring Recurring $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Traffic and Transportation Nonrecurring Recurring APPENDIX 2 Proposed FY2014‐2018 CIP by IBRC Recommendation $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Buildings and Facilities New‐ IR Funded Keep‐up Catch‐up $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Parks and Open Space New‐ Outside Funded New‐ IR Funded Keep‐up Catch‐up $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Streets and Sidewalks New‐ Outside Funded New‐ IR Funded Keep‐up Catch‐up $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Traffic and Transportation New‐ Outside Funded New‐ IR Funded Keep‐up Catch‐up APPENDIX 2 $27,435,262 $30,773,819 $18,312,874 $18,774,757 $19,267,036 $33,427,070 $31,112,929 $21,998,820 $17,098,619 $20,095,558 $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Sources Uses APPENDIX 2 $17,751,355 $11,759,547 $11,420,437 $7,734,491 $9,410,630 $8,582,108 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 $20,000,000 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Projected IR Balance APPENDIX 2 Buildings & Facilities Land & Land Improvements Miscellaneous Non- Infrastructure Management Plan Parks & Open Space Streets & Sidewalks Totals By Year FY 2009 10,082 2,503 110 440 1,733 6,227 21,095 FY 2010 9,312 2,353 291 7 3,460 5,855 21,278 FY 2011 20,250 98 211 889 1,731 7,422 30,601 FY 2012 23,868 17 228 31 1,113 6,977 32,235 FY 2013 YTD 8,542 0 145 1 521 4,633 13,842 Totals 72,054 4,971 985 1,368 8,558 31,114 119,051 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 General Fund Capital Improvement Program Expenditures Summarized by Project Category for Five Years: Fiscal Years 2009-2013 ($ in thousands) APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s FO-10000 45 Fiber Optics Customer Connections Utilities Y Commercial Telecommunications No Enterprise Fund Fiber Optics Fund Business & Economics Growth B-3 B-13 B-4 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Screening of pad-mount equipment will be included. This project may be subject to ARB review. $1,000,000 Technology and the Connected City FO-10001 47 Fiber Optics Network System Improvements Utilities Y Commercial Telecommunications No Enterprise Fund Fiber Optics Fund Business & Economics Growth B-3 B-13 B-4 UAC, PTC Categorically Exempt Screening of pad-mounted equipment will be included. $1,000,000 Technology and the Connected City OS-09001 60 Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair Community Services Y Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 PTC Categorically Exempt This project may require Site and Design Review. 5 20 20 10 5 60 $500,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-09003 13 City Facility Parking Lot Maintenance Public Works Y Keep- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 PTC Various location Categorically Exempt This project may require Site and Design Review. 0 15 20 10 5 50 $1,065,422 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-86070 91 Street Maintenance Public Works Y Keep- up Streets and Sidewalks No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 PTC Various locations Categorically Exempt This project will make reasonable efforts to match existing pavement. 5 20 20 20 10 75 $26,472,281 $9,283,463 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding California Avenue Area PF-00006 36 Roofing Replacement Public Works Y Keep- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 HRB, ARB Citywide Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to ARB and HRB review. 0 20 20 5 5 50 $223,111 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PF-01003 11 Building Systems Improvements Public Works Y Keep- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 ARB, HRB Citywide This project may require Mitigated Negative This project may be subject to ARB and HRB 0 15 20 5 5 45 $412,440 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PF-02022 20 Facility Interior Finishes Replacement Public Works Y Keep- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 HRB Citywide Categorically Exempt This project may require design review for historic structures. 0 15 20 10 5 50 $827,440 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PF-93009 3 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance Public Works Y Catch- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Access C-5 C-32 C-27 ARB, HRB Citywide This project may require mitigated negative declaration if Historic Building This project may be subject to ARB and HRB review. 20 15 15 10 10 70 $538,277 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PG-06001 76 Tennis and Basketball Court Resurfacing Community Services Y Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 PRC Various City parks and facilities Categorically Exempt None 0 15 20 20 5 60 $1,075,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Page 1 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s PG-06003 43 Benches, Signage, Fencing, Walkways, and Perimeter Landscaping Community Services Y Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-26 Categorically Exempt This project may require ARB or PRC review. 10 15 20 5 5 55 $750,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Downtown Area PG-09002 64 Park and Open Space Emergency Repairs Community Services Y Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 PTC, ARB Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to ARB review. This project may require Site and Design Review. 5 25 20 10 5 65 $375,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PO-89003 85 Sidewalk Repairs Public Works Y Keep- up Streets and Sidewalks No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-21 None Ventura Avenue, southern City limits, Alma St, and El Camino Real Categorically Exempt None 10 20 15 20 10 75 $9,985,553 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding California Avenue Area TE-10001 7 Utilities Customer Billing System Continuous Improvements Utilities Y Technology No Internal Service Fund Technology Fund Community Services & Facilities Customer Service C-2 C-10 C-12 PTC Categorically Exempt None $1,250,000 Technology and the Connected City TE-99010 2 Acquisition of New Computers Information Technology Y Technology No Internal Service Fund Technology Fund Community Services & Facilities Customer Service C-2 None Categorically Exempt None $375,000 Technology and the Connected City AC-14000 5 Art Center Auditorium Audio, Visual, and Furnishings Community Services N New Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 Art Center Auditorium Categorically Exempt None Required 0 0 20 20 5 45 $150,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding AC-14001 10 Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Exhibit Improvements Community Services N New Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 ARB Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Categorically Exempt Design Review 0 0 20 15 5 40 $56,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PD-14000 26 Internal Alarm System Replacement Fire N New Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Efficient Service Delivery C-1 C-24 C-19 None None 0 25 20 20 0 65 $78,000 Technology and the Connected City PE-08001 70 Rinconada Park Improvements Public Works N New Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 PRC, PAC, ARB 777 Embarcadero Road Categorically Exempt Review by PAC and ARB may be required. 0 20 20 15 5 60 $4,124,233 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-12017 15 City Hall First Floor Renovations Public Works N New Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 ARB 25 Hamilton Avenue Categorically Exempt The exterior signage/way finding elements of the project may be subject to review by the Architectural Review Board. 0 0 20 20 0 40 $900,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Page 2 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s PE-13005 50 City Hall/King Plaza Landscape Public Works N Keep- up Parks and Open Space Yes General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-26 ARB, PAC 250 Hamilton Avenue Categorically Exempt This project may require ARB and PAC review. 0 10 20 5 0 35 $124,041 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Downtown Area PE-13008 45 Bowden Park Improvements Public Works N Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 PRC 2380 High St Categorically Exempt This project may require ARB or PRC review 0 20 20 5 5 50 $199,041 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding California Avenue Area PE-14012 27 Junior Museum & Zoo Improvements Public Works N Keep- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Customer Service C-2 C-9 C-18 Land Use and Community Design Civic Uses L-8 PRC and PC 1451 Middlefield Road Categorically Exempt none 15 15 20 5 5 60 $1,175,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-14015 29 Lucie Stern Buildings Mechanical/Elec trical Upgrades Public Works N Keep- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 ARB, HRB 1305 Middlefield Rd Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to ARB and HRB review. 5 20 20 10 5 60 $2,791,964 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-14018 8 Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements and Boardwalk Repair Public Works N Keep- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 ARB, PRC, HRB Permitting from various agencies (Fish and Game, Army Corp, BCDC) will require a year prior to construction for full approval. This project may required ARB, PRC, HRB 15 25 20 10 5 75 $2,381,445 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-15005 17 Cubberley Mechanical and Electrical Upgrades Public Works N Catch- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 ARB Cubberley Community Center Categorically Exempt Exterior modification may require ARB review. 0 10 20 0 5 35 $1,450,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-15011 38 Ventura Buildings Improvements Public Works N Catch- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 ARB 3990 Ventura Circle Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to ARB review. 0 15 20 5 5 45 $690,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-18010 59 Mitchell Park Improvements Public Works N Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 none 600 East Meadow Drive Categorically Exempt none 0 15 20 5 5 45 $386,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-18012 55 Hoover Park Improvements Public Works N Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-1 C-4 C-24 ARB,PRC 2901 Cowper Street Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to ARB, PRC review 0 10 20 5 5 40 $490,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-18015 72 Robles Park Improvements Public Works N Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-1 C-24 none 4116 Park Blvd Categorically Exempt none 0 15 20 5 5 45 $325,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PF-05002 32 Municipal Service Center Improvements Public Works N Catch- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 ARB, PTC 3201 East Bayshore Road Categorically Exempt Exterior changes of this project are subject to ARB review. 5 10 20 20 5 60 $891,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Page 3 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s PF-07002 7 Baylands Interpretive Center Improvement Public Works N Catch- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 PTC, ARB, PRC 2775 Embarcadero Road Project may require environmental review. This project may be subject to ARB review. This project may require Site and Design Review. 5 20 20 15 15 75 $267,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PF-14000 19 Cubberley Roof Replacements Public Works N Catch- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 HRB, ARB 4000 Middlefield Road Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to ARB and HRB review. 0 10 20 0 5 35 $1,503,931 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PF-14002 24 Fire Station 1 Improvements Public Works N New Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Efficient Service Delivery C-4 C-24 C-19 301 Alma Street None Required None Required 0 10 20 0 5 35 $280,377 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Downtown Area PF-15000 34 Rinconada Pool Locker Room Public Works N Catch- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 Community Services & Facilities Access C-5 C-32 C-27 777 Embarcadero Road Categorically Exempt None 15 15 20 20 5 75 $400,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PF-17000 31 MSC Building A, B, & C Roofing Replacement Public Works N Keep- up Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 ARB, HRB Municipal Service Center Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to ARB and HRB review. 0 20 20 5 5 50 $1,100,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PG-13001 74 Stanford/Palo Alto Soccer Turf Replacement Community Services N Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 ARB Categorically Exempt This project may require ARB review. 0 20 20 20 5 65 $1,395,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PG-14000 69 Ramos Park Improvements Community Services N Catch- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 Parks & Rec Commiss ion Ramos Park Categorically Exempt None Required 15 20 20 15 5 75 $175,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PG-14001 68 Peers Park Improvements Community Services N Catch- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 Parks and Rec Commiss ion Peers Park Categorically Exempt None Required 5 20 20 15 5 65 $205,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding California Avenue Area PG-14002 49 Cameron Park Improvements Community Services N Catch- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 Parks and Rec Commiss ion Cameron Park Categorically Exempt None Required 15 20 20 15 5 75 $124,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding California Avenue Area PG-14003 73 Seale Park Improvements Community Services N Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 Parks and Rec Commiss ion Seale Park Categorically Exempt None Required 15 20 20 15 5 75 $121,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PG-18000 52 Golf Course Driving Range Net and Artificial Turf Replacement Community Services N Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Categorically Exempt This is a replacement project with like materials. 0 15 20 20 0 55 $770,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding TE-05000 5 Radio Infrastructure Replacement Police N Technology No Internal Service Fund Technology Fund Community Services & Facilities Customer Service C-2 C-9 Possibly ARB review Categorically Exempt None $400,000 Technology and the Connected City TE-14002 3 Library Virtual Branch Library N Technology No Internal Service Fund Technology Fund Community Services & Facilities Efficient Service Delivery C-1 LAC Categorically Exempt $195,000 Technology and the Connected City Page 4 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s VR-14002 12 MSC Fuel Station Demolition Public Works N Miscellaneous No Internal Service Fund Vehicle Replacement Fund Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 3201 East Bayshore Road CEQA Initial Study Checklist to be prepared. Hazardous material storage closure $240,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WQ-04011 14 Facility Condition Assessment & Retrofit Public Works N Wastewater Treatment - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Treatment Fund Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Categorically Exempt Possible exemption from Design Review. $5,128,500 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WQ-80021 22 Plant Equipment Replacement Public Works N Wastewater Treatment - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Treatment Fund Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 None 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Categorically Exempt Possible exemption from Design Review. $9,013,500 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WS-13006 79 Water Meter Shop Renovations Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Facilities C-4 C-24 C-19 Categorically Exempt $200,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-02011 11 Electric Utility GIS Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Governance Public Participation G-1 G-3 Transportation Reducing Auto Use T-1 T-3 T-10 UAC This is not a project under CEQA. None Required $885,000 Technology and the Connected City EL-02010 30 SCADA System Upgrades Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Governance Public Participation G-1 G-3 Transportation Housing Opportunites T-1 T-10 UAC Categorically Exempt This project may have possible exemption from Design Review. $455,000 Technology and the Connected City AC-86017 41 Art in Public Places Community Services Y Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-72 ARB, PAC Categorically Exempt Location and installation of Public Art may be subject to review by PAC and ARB. 10 15 15 5 15 60 $250,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Downtown Area EL-89031 4 Communications System Improvements Utilities Y General Services - Communications No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-79 L-81 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Pad-mounted equipment will be screened. $400,000 Technology and the Connected City EL-89038 37 Substation Protection Improvements Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-81 UAC Categorically Exempt Possible exemption from Design Review. $1,445,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PO-05054 89 Street Lights Improvements Public Works Y Keep- up Streets and Sidewalks No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-66 ARB Citywide Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to ARB review. 5 20 20 20 5 70 $1,180,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PO-11000 87 Sign Reflectivity Upgrade Public Works Y Keep- up Streets and Sidewalks No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Land Use and Community Design Design of Buildings Public Places L-6 L-50 Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-79 Citywide Categorically Exempt None 12 15 15 15 5 62 $291,385 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PO-11001 97 Thermoplastic Marking and Striping Public Works Y Keep- up Streets and Sidewalks No General Fund Street Improvement Fund Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-66 Citywide Categorically Exempt None 12 20 15 15 5 67 $421,509 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PO-12001 79 Curb and Gutter Repairs Public Works Y Keep- up Streets and Sidewalks No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Land Use and Community Design Residential Neighborhoods L-3 L-17 none Various location Categorically Exempt City Arborist will be consulted for tree root protection. 5 20 15 20 10 70 $1,061,929 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Downtown Area Page 5 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s EL-04010 13 Foothills System Rebuild Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-79 L-81 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Screening of equipment will be included in the design. CIP Design Consultant will be consulted when new above-ground equipment is located. Design Review required. $75,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-08001 39 UG District 42 - Embarcadero Rd. (Between Emerson & Middlefield) Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-79 L-80, L- 81 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Screening of pad-mounted equipment will be included. This project may be subject to ARB review.Design Review required. $2,300,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-11009 41 UG District 43 - Alma/Embarcad ero Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-79 L-80, L- 81 UAC, ARB Possible exemption. Pad-mounted equipment will be screened. This project may be subject to ARB review. $2,650,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-12000 20 Rebuild UG District 12 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-79 L-81 Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Pad-mounted equipment will be screened. This project may be subject to ARB review. $450,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-13002 27 Relocate Quarry Road/Hopkins Substations 60 kV Line (Lane A & B) Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-79 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to ARB review. $850,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Page 6 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s PE-13012 95 Structural Assessment of City Bridges Public Works N Keep- up Streets and Sidewalks No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-1 L-79 Transportation Bicycling and Walking T-2 t-14 ARB, PTC Various location throughout the City Categorically Exempt This project is coordinated with the street resurfacing program and the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan. 0 15 20 20 5 60 $185,394 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-13014 93 Streetlight Condition Assessment Public Works N New Streets and Sidewalks No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-8 L-79 ARB, PTC Various location through out the City Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to ARB review 10 0 15 0 5 30 $220,078 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-14010 57 LATP Site Development Preparation and Security Improvements Public Works N New Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Land Use and Community Design Local Landuse and Growth Management L-1 L-1 TBD 1237 San Antonio Rd. CEQA will be completed as part of this project Consultant services will be required 0 25 20 10 5 60 $1,668,782 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-13007 43 Underground Distribution System Security Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Faciliites C-4 C-24 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to ARB review. $600,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-89028 7 Electric Customer Connections Utilities Y Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-79 L-81 UAC, PTC Categorically Exempt Pad-mounted equipment will be screened. $12,000,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-89044 36 Substation Facility Improvements Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to ARB review. $945,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-98003 9 Electric System Improvements Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-79 L-81 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Pad-mounted equipment will be screened. This project may be subject to ARB review. $12,500,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding GS-02013 51 Directional Boring Machine Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC None Required None Required $303,850 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding GS-03007 49 Directional Boring Equipment Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC, PTC Categorically Exempt None Required $138,040 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding GS-03008 69 Polyethylene Fusion Equipment Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC None Required None Required $73,283 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding GS-03009 72 System Extensions - Unreimbursed Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC, PTC Categorically Exempt None Required $957,130 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding GS-11002 58 Gas System Improvements Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program. $1,140,254 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Page 7 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s GS-13002 60 General Shop Equipment/Tool s Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 Housing Housing Opportunites H-5 H-25 UAC None None $106,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding GS-80017 56 Gas System Extensions Utilities Y Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Department. $3,919,960 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding GS-80019 54 Gas Meters and Regulators Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC Categorically Exempt None $1,747,225 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding OS-00001 62 Open Space Trails and Amenities Community Services Y Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Natural Environment Open Space N-1 N-1 PRC Categorically Exempt None 15 20 15 15 10 75 $864,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding SD-06101 10 Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation Public Works Y Collection System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Storm Drainage Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-24 N-36 SDOC Various location Categorically Exempt This project is coordinated with street resurfacing program. $2,366,387 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding VR-14001 10 Emergency Repair and Replacement Program Public Works Y Miscellaneous No Internal Service Fund Vehicle Replacement Fund Natural Environment Air Quality N-5 N-26 N-41 3201 East Bayshore Road Categorically Exempt None $100,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WC-13002 101 Fusion and General Equipment/Tool s Utilities Y Collection System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Collection Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-18, N-25 UAC None None $104,500 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WC-15002 107 Wastewater System Improvements Utilities Y Collection System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Collection Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-18, N-25 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program $1,160,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WC-80020 105 Sewer System Extensions Utilities Y Collection System - Customer Design and Connection Services No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Collection Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-18, N-25 Land Use and Community Design Local Landuse and Growth Management L-1 UAC Categorically Exempt The trenching work of this project will be coordinated with Public Works Department. $1,915,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WC-99013 103 Sewer Lateral/Manhole Rehab/Replace ment Utilities Y Collection System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Collection Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-18, N-25 Land Use and Community Design Local Landuse and Growth Management L-1 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program. $500,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WS-11003 78 Water Distribution System Improvements Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-19 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program $1,161,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Page 8 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s WS-11004 87 Water System Supply Improvements Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-19 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program $1,161,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WS-13002 75 Fusion and General Equipment/Tool s Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-19 UAC None.None. $109,180 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WS-80013 85 Water System Extensions Utilities Y Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-19 UAC Categorically Exempt None $2,309,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WS-80014 83 Water Service Hydrant Replacement Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-19 UAC Categorically Exempt Screening may be required on above-grade equipment. This project may be subject to ARB review. $1,221,480 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WS-80015 81 Water Meters Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-19 UAC Categorically Exempt None $1,965,452 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-04012 44 Utility Site Security Improvements Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-40 Categorically Exempt None Required $500,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-09000 18 Middlefield Underground Rebuild Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Pad-mounted equipment will be screened. This project may be subject to ARB review. $200,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-10009 34 Street Light System Conversion Project Utilities N General Services - Street Lights No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 Transportation Traffic Safety T-6 T-39 ARB, HRB Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to ARB and HRB review. $500,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-11006 23 Rebuild UG District 18 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-79 L-81 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Pad-mounted equipment will be screened. This project may be subject to ARB review. $200,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Page 9 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s EL-12001 42 UG District 46 - Charleston/El Camino Real Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Screening of pad-mounted equipment will be included. This project may be subject to ARB review. $950,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-13000 6 Edgewood / Wildwood 4 kV Tie Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Pad-mounted equipment will be screened. This project may be subject to ARB review. $450,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-13003 22 Rebuild UG District 16 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Pad-mounted equipment will be screened. This project may be subject to ARB review. $300,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-13004 15 Hansen Way / Hanover 12kV Ties Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Pad-mounted equipment will be screened. This project may be subject to ARB review. $200,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-13006 28 Sand Hill / Quarry 12kV Tie Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 Community Services & Facilities Parks & Public Faciliites C-4 C-24 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Pad-mounted equipment will be screened. This project may be subject to ARB review. $200,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-14000 3 Coleridge/Cowp er/Tennyson 4/12 kV Conversion Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt This project will have pad- mounted equipment screened. This project may be subject to ARB review. $520,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Page 10 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s EL-14002 25 Rebuild UG District 20 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-9 L-79 L-81 UAC, ARB Categorically Exempt Pad-mounted equipment will be screened. This project may be subject to ARB review. $1,000,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-14004 17 Maybell 1&2 4/12kV Conversion Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 Categorically Exempt None $450,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding EL-14005 26 Reconfigure Quarry Feeders Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC Categorically Exempt None $450,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding FD-14002 22 Fire Ringdown System Replacement Fire N New Buildings and Facilities No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Natural Environment Natural Hazards N-10 N-53 Categorically Exempt 0 0 20 20 15 55 $157,500 Technology and the Connected City GS-12001 61 GMR - Project 22 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC Various Streets in Palo Alto Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program. $3,668,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding GS-13001 #N/A GMR - Project 23 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC Various Streets in Palo Alto Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program. $3,782,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding GS-14003 63 GMR - Project 24 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC Various Streets in Palo Alto Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program $3,957,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding GS-14004 53 Gas Distribution System Model Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC None None $150,000 Technology and the Connected City GS-15000 67 GMR - Project 25 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC Various Streets in Palo Alto Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program. $542,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding GS-15001 71 Security at City Gas Receiving Stations Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Gas Fund Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 UAC None None $150,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-13003 66 Parks Master Plan Public Works N Keep- up Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Natural Environment Open Space N-1 N-1 PRC Various location Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to PRC review 0 5 15 15 10 45 $155,677 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Page 11 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s PE-13017 81 El Camino Median Landscape Improvements Public Works N Catch- up Streets and Sidewalks Yes General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Natural Environment Open Space N-1 N-1 N-2 ARB This project may require environmental review. Caltrans review may be required 0 5 20 0 5 30 $1,102,445 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding California Avenue Area PE-13020 47 Byxbee Park Trails Public Works N New Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Natural Environment Open Space N-1 N-1 N-2 PRC Baylands Categorically Exempt This project may require PRC review. 10 5 20 5 5 45 $89,233 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PG-13003 53 Golf Course Reconfiguration and Baylands Athletic Center Improvements Public Works N New Parks and Open Space No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Natural Environment Open Space N-1 N-1 N-2 ARB, PTC, PRC 1875 Embarcadero Road An Environmental Impact Report is being prepared for this project during the design phase. Review by ARB, PTC, and PRC may be required 0 0 20 20 15 55 $8,045,505 $8,045,505 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding SD-06104 4 Connect Clara Drive Storm Drains to Matadero Pump Station Public Works N Collection System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Storm Drainage Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-24 N-36 SDOC Clara Drive (Greer Road to Louis Road) Categorically Exempt This project is coordinated with street resurfacing program. $807,064 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding SD-10101 8 Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements Public Works N Collection System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Storm Drainage Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-24 N-36 Land Use and Community Design Local Landuse and Growth Management L-1 SDOC, ARB Various location in Southgate Neighborhood Categorically Exempt This project is coordinated with the street resurfacing program $222,839 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding SD-11101 2 Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Public Works N Collection System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Storm Drainage Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-24 N-36 SDOC Lincoln Avenue (Waverley Street to Alma Street) Categorically Exempt This project is coordinated with street resurfacing program. $1,531,405 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding SD-13002 6 Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station and Trunk Lines Improvements Public Works N Collection System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Storm Drainage Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-24 N-36 SDOC, ARB Various locations in Midtown neighborhood Categorically Exempt This project is coordinated with street resurfacing program. $6,085,387 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding VR-14000 13 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements Public Works N Miscellaneous No Internal Service Fund Vehicle Replacement Fund Natural Environment Air Quality N-5 N-26 N-41 3201 East Bayshore Road Categorically Exempt None $2,700,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WC-13001 109 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 26 Utilities N Collection System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Collection Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-18 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program. $3,310,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WC-14001 111 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 27 Utilities N Collection System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Collection Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-18 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program. $3,410,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Page 12 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s WC-15001 113 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 28 Utilities N Collection System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Collection Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-18 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program $3,513,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WC-16001 115 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 29 Utilities N Collection System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Collection Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-18 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program $3,610,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WC-17001 117 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 30 Utilities N Collection System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Collection Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-18 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Streeet Maintenance Program. $350,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WQ-10001 20 Long Range Facilities Plan Public Works N Wastewater Treatment - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Treatment Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-25 ARB, PTC 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 This project may require Environmental Impact Report. This project may be subject to ARB review. This project may require Site and Design Review. $40,200 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WQ-14001 12 Biosolids Facility Public Works N Wastewater Treatment - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Treatment Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-25 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 CEQA will be required. This project may require Site and Design review. $89,039,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WQ-14002 18 Laboratory and Environmental Services Building Public Works N Wastewater Treatment - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Treatment Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-25 Yes 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 This project will require Site and Design review. This project is exempt from design review. $2,048,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WQ-14003 23 Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation Public Works N Wastewater Treatment - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Treatment Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-25 Yes 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Categorically Exempt This project may require Site and Design review. $7,313,001 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WQ-14004 16 Fixed Film Reactor Rehabilitation Public Works N Wastewater Treatment - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Wastewater Treatment Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-25 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Categorically Exempt This project is exempt from design review. $2,290,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WS-11000 89 WMR - Project 25 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-20 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program. $2,736,906 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Page 13 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s WS-12001 91 WMR - Project 26 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-20 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program. $3,480,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WS-13001 93 WMR - Project 27 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-20 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program. $3,409,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WS-14001 95 WMR - Project 28 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-20 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program. $3,769,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WS-15002 97 WMR - Project 29 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-19 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program. $3,884,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WS-16001 99 WMR - Project 30 Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Natural Environment Water Resources N-4 N-20 UAC Categorically Exempt This project will be coordinated with Public Works Street Maintenance Program. $344,020 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding AS-10000 113 Salaries and Benefits - General Fund CIP Projects Administrative Services Y Salaries No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Salaries Not Applicab le Not Applicable Not Applicable n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 $18,862,194 PL-00026 106 Safe Routes to School Planning and Community Environment Y Keep- up Traffic and Transportation No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Transportation Neighborhood Impacts T-5 T-34 Transportation Bicycling and Walking T-3 T-14 T-19 PTC Streets on Suggested Walk and Roll Routes for PAUSD schools This project may require Environmental Assessments.None 10 25 15 15 15 80 $569,536 $500,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PL-04010 99 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan - Implementation Project Planning and Community Environment Y New Traffic and Transportation No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Transportation Bicycling and Walking T-3 T-20 T-29 Land Use and Community Design Local Landuse and Growth Management L-1 PTC & PARC Citywide This project may require an environmental assessment.None 10 25 20 5 15 75 $6,118,009 $6,000,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PL-05030 108 Traffic Signal and ITS Upgrades Planning and Community Environment Y Keep- up Traffic and Transportation No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Transportation Traffic Safety T-4 T-24 Transportation Traffic Safety T-5 T-34 PTC Various intersections throughout the City. Categorically Exempt This project may be subject to PTC review. 5 25 20 20 0 70 $1,535,589 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding WS-02014 76 W-G-W Utility GIS Data Utilities Y Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Water Fund Transportation Reducing Auto Use T-1 T-2 T-10 UAC Categorically Exempt None $1,375,000 Technology and the Connected City Page 14 APPENDIX 2 Pr o j e c t I D Pa g e N u m b e r Na m e De p t . Re c u r r i n g IB R C Ca t e g o r y Ar t Fu n d S o u r c e Fu n d i n g Pr i m a r y C P E l e m e n t Pr i m a r y C P S e c t i o n Pr i m a r y C P G o a l Pr i m a r y C P P o l i c y Pr i m a r y C P P r o g r a m Se c o n d a r y C P E l e m e n t Se c o n d a r y C P S e c t i o n Se c o n d a r y C P G o a l Se c o n d a r y C P P o l i c y Se c o n d a r y C P P r o g r a m Po t e n t i a l C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t De s i g n R e v i e w Le g a l M a n d a t e ( 2 0 p t s ) He a l t h a n d S a f e t y ( 2 5 p t s ) Fa c i l i t i e s / I n f r a s t r ( 2 0 p t s ) Ci t y O p s / S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y ( 2 0 p t s ) Co u n c i l V i s i o n ( 1 5 p t s ) To t a l S c o r e To t a l B u d g e t Gr a n t s / R e i m b u r s e m e n t s / B o n d s Cit y C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e s EL-11014 32 Smart Grid Technology Installation Utilities N Distribution System - System Improvements No Enterprise Fund Electric Fund Transportation Reducing Auto Use T-1 T-3 Natural Environment Energy N-9 N-44 This project may have possible exemption from environmental review. This project may have possible exemption from Design review. $10,500,000 Technology and the Connected City PE-11011 103 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicyc le Overpass Project (formerly PL- 11000) Public Works N New Traffic and Transportation Yes General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Transportation Bicycling and Walking T-3 T-14 ARB, PRC, PTC This project may require Environmental Assessment. This project may require ARB review 10 25 20 20 10 85 $9,586,168 $9,586,168 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PE-12011 83 Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Public Works N New Streets and Sidewalks Yes General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Transportation Bicycling and Walking T-3 T-14, T- 25 Land Use and Community Design Public Ways L-1 L-72 ARB,PTC ,SFCJPA, CEPA, PAC Newell Rd at SF Creek The project is subject to environmental assessment compliant with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) This project is coordinated with the street resurfacing program and the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan. 20 25 20 0 10 75 $2,500,000 $2,213,250 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PL-12000 110 Transportation and Parking Improvements Planning and Community Environment N Keep- up Traffic and Transportation No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Transportation Traffic Safety T-4 T-24 Transportation Traffic Safety T-4 T-25 PTC Various locations throughout City. This project may require an environmental assessment. This project may be subject to PTC review. 20 20 20 20 5 85 $1,273,205 $1,125,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Downtown Area PL-14000 101 El Camino Real & Churchill Avenue Intersection Improvements - Design Planning and Community Environment N New Traffic and Transportation No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Transportation Traffic Safety T-4 T-24 Transportation Traffic Safety T-4 T-33 PTC El Camino Real & Churchill Avenue This project provides for the design phase of future capital improvements, environmental assessment of the project will be included in the design phase. The project maybe subject to PTC and ARB review. 0 25 20 0 15 60 $283,651 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding PL-14001 104 Matadero Creek Trail Planning and Community Environment N New Traffic and Transportation No General Fund Infrastructure Reserve Transportation Bicycling and Walking T-3 T-14 Transportation Bicycling and Walking T-3 T-20 PTC, PRC, ARB This project may require an environmental assessment. This project may be subject to PTC, PRC, and ARB review. 20 25 20 5 15 85 $2,533,651 $2,000,000 Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Page 15 APPENDIX 2 1 ATTACHMENT E List of most cited Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT EFFICIENT SERVICE DELIVERY GOAL C-4: Attractive, Well-maintained Community Facilities That Serve Palo Alto Residents. CUSTOMER SERVICE POLICY C-9: Deliver City services in a manner that creates and reinforces positive relationships among City employees, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders. PARKS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES POLICY C-24: Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure. PROGRAM C-19: Develop improvement plans for the maintenance, restoration and enhancement of community facilities, and keep these facilities viable community assets by investing the necessary resources. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT OPEN SPACE POLICY N-1: Manage existing public open space areas and encourage the management of private open space areas in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs. PROGRAM N-2: Examine and improve management practices for natural habitat and open space areas, including the provision of access to open space for City vehicles and equipment, to ensure that natural resources are protected. GOAL N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. WATER RESOURCES POLICY N-18: Protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. POLICY N-19: Secure a reliable, long-term supply of water for Palo Alto. APPENDIX 2 2 POLICY N-20: Maximize the conservation and efficient use of water in new and existing residences, businesses and industries. POLICY N-24: Improve storm drainage performance by constructing new system improvements where necessary and replacing undersized or otherwise inadequate lines with larger lines or parallel lines. PROGRAM N-36: Complete improvements to the storm drainage system consistent with the priorities outlined in the City's 1993 Storm Drainage Master Plan, provided that an appropriate funding mechanism is identified and approved by the City Council. POLICY N-25: Reduce pollutant levels in City wastewater discharges. AIR QUALITY POLICY N-26: Support regional, state, and federal programs that improve air quality in the Bay Area. ENERGY PROGRAM N-41: Reduce emission of particulates from wood burning stoves, construction activity, automobiles, and other sources. POLICY N-44 Maintain Palo Alto’s long-term supply of electricity and natural gas while addressing environmental and economic concerns. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOAL-T-3 Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling BICYCLING AND WALKING POLICY T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. PROGRAM T-19 Develop, periodically update, and implement street, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities programs that identify and prioritize critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities. PROGRAM T-21 Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the CalTrain tracks and implement if feasible. APPENDIX 2 3 ROADWAYS POLICY T-24: Maintain a hierarchy of streets that includes freeways, expressways, arterials, residential arterials, collectors, and local streets. LANDUSE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT GOAL-L-9 Attractive, Inviting Public Spaces and Streets that Enhance the Image and Character of the City. POLICY L-79: Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design standards. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive. PROGRAM L-80: Continue the citywide undergrounding of utility wires. Minimize the impacts of undergrounding on street tree root systems and planting areas. PROGRAM L-81: Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, and back flow preventers. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 ATTACHMENT F PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2014-2018 Hard copies provided to Planning & Transportation Commission, Libraries, and Development Services Center To view online, go to https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=34026 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 April 24, 2013 3 DRAFT 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Capital Improvement Program Plan FY 2014-18: Review of the 2014-2018 proposed 7 Capital Improvement Programs for Comprehensive Plan Compliance. 8 9 Chair Martinez: Anything else on that? Ok. We are going to go to our first item and that’s the 10 Planning Commission review of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) rough report and I’ve 11 asked Commissioner Panelli to introduce this item for us. 12 13 Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Mr. Chair. I’ll provide you with a little bit of history, brief 14 history on how I got involved in this. Close to the end of last year our esteemed Chairman 15 asked me to join this CIP committee, subcommittee and I obliged and thought it was a great 16 way to sort of segue way some of my experience on the Infrastructure Commission. Soon 17 thereafter Commissioner Tuma became former Commissioner Tuma and I found myself as the 18 senior member of the CIP subcommittee after only one meeting. So it turned out to be a little 19 bit of a trial by fire or throw me in the deep end and see if I can swim. I think I was able to 20 keep my nose above water and breathe for a little while, but it’s been, I’ve enjoyed it. I’ve 21 enjoyed the work. 22 23 I really want to commend staff for what I consider a job well done. The final product is 24 extremely good and I’m really pleased to see the level of coordination and cooperation between 25 three different departments in Planning, Public Works, and Finance. And I think what we came 26 up with is much better than what we started with. So really well, job well done. 27 28 Since I didn’t have a whole lot of history I built off of most of what Commissioner Tuma had 29 started, which is really about focusing the efforts of the Planning and Transportation 30 subcommittee on ending up with a work product that both communicates what we’re trying to 31 accomplish well, not only with Commissioners on this Commission and other commissions, but 32 also the public at large. But also have a product that actually can be used internally and isn’t 33 just a product for external communication and I think we were able to do that. Further, we 34 spent a lot of time focusing on ways to establish and communicate the linkages between 35 projects and the goals and objectives outlined in the Comprehensive Plan to make it really clear, 36 to be able to show for this year and going forward that the CIP does advance what we’re trying 37 to accomplish or what we laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. 38 39 I’m going to now turn it over to staff to go more in depth and I think we’re going to go Finance, 40 Public Works, Planning? Is that it? But one of the things I’d like to ask from our, my esteemed 41 colleagues as I, I’ll phase it as a strong suggestion is that we spend as much time as possible 42 on the CIP in relationship to Comp Plan objectives. Staff is going to be spending a lot of time 43 with a number of other commissions talking about things like the dollars and such. And so I 44 think where, and if we spend a little bit of time looking at the agenda, we’re being asked, we’re 45 being specifically asked to recommend the CIP to be adopted by Council with respect to the 46 Comprehensive Plan compliance. And so as much as possible I’d like us to focus on that and 47 less on the finances if possible. Mr. Chairman. 48 49 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Martinez: Thank you Commissioner Panelli. I also want to acknowledge the work of 1 Commissioner Keller as part of this subcommittee. I think the two of them have really helped 2 move forward what we see here tonight. Additionally since our agenda didn’t identify the staff 3 present, can we do a quick roll call on staff for the record? Thank you. 4 5 Brad Eggleston, Asst. Director, Public Works: I’m Brad Eggleston the Assistant Director of Public 6 Works. 7 8 Mike Sartor, Director, Public Works: Mike Sartor, Director of Public Works. 9 10 Lalo Perez, Chief Finance Officer, ASD: Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer. 11 12 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director, Planning: Aaron Aknin, Assistant Planning Director. 13 14 Steven Turner, Manager, Advance Planning: Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager. 15 16 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant Attorney: And Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. 17 18 Chair Martinez: And thank you all. Ok, so Lalo are you prepared to begin? 19 20 Mr. Perez: Thank you Chair Martinez, Commissioners. Thank you Commissioner Panelli and 21 Commissioner Keller also for your input through this process. As most of you are aware, some 22 of you are new and I haven’t had the pleasure to meet you yet, but we’ve been getting a lot of 23 good feedback from this Commission over the years on improving our capital budgeting. Our 24 goal is to make this document to a point where people can pick it up and be able to read it and 25 understand it. And I think a lot of the input that you’re giving us is along those lines and 26 obviously with the focus on the Comp Plan and how it relates to that. We believe that we’re 27 doing a better job in summarizing the information. Some of the comments you had given us in 28 the past was you give us this big fat book with a bunch of projects, but what does that really 29 mean? And so I think what we’re trying to do is give you a better summary and illustrate it 30 with graphs or charts as part of the suggestions that you had made. So we believe we have 31 some of that in here. 32 33 I wanted to open it up from a finance perspective and then we’ll give you a Public Works 34 perspective in terms of the projects and then Comprehensive Plan overview. We also have staff 35 behind us that are project managers of the various projects that are included in the document 36 with us tonight. The good news, if there is good news during this process is that since we last 37 came to see you we have had a better financial condition than we anticipated. We saw a 38 dramatic downturn in revenues to the point where we had to make major adjustments as an 39 organization. We reduced our workforce by 10 percent. We reduced our operating budget to 40 the tune of $16 million ongoing. A lot of that also included changes in compensation to our 41 employees and so, and thanks to the employees for the cost sharing and to the turn in the 42 economy we’re seeing better revenues and as a result when we closed the last fiscal year we 43 were able to send to the infrastructure reserve $7.6 million that was not budgeted or planned 44 for. 45 46 And so part of why I’m going into this discussion it’s just to give you an overview of how the 47 funding mechanism works. We have a Council approved policy that states that any budget that 48 is put forth in front of the Council must have a reserve and that reserve is anywhere between 49 10 and 20 percent of the expenditures of that year. And so we have a target of 18.5 percent. 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Anything above that 18.5 percent the City Manager can send to those excess funds to the 1 infrastructure reserve. So that’s an additional mechanism that we have beyond our normal 2 transfer that we make, our annual transfer is about $13 million dollars and growing with 3 inflation. We inflate part of that number. So that’s how we fund the CIP. 4 5 It goes from you then to the Finance Committee, which is comprised of four out of the nine 6 Council Members for review and as Commissioner Panelli said that’s where we do a lot of 7 discussion on the funding. Some of the changes that we made to get to your discussion 8 tonight, I say we think that we did a better job in identifying the Comp Plan Elements for each 9 project and we believe that they’re more apparent in each page of the document for each 10 project. We’ve also added the definitions or labeling such as annual reoccurring and non-11 reoccurring and we can discuss, talk about that with the team. 12 13 Keeping in mind of the excellent work that was done by the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon 14 Commission (IBRC) we are instituting some of those recommendations such as the keep up and 15 catch up. So to touch base on that there was a recommendation that we add $4.2 million 16 annually for catch up and $2.2 for keep up. The $2.2 is included in the budget of this fiscal 17 year that is active and is going to be in the proposed. Our plan is to continue that in 18 perpetuity. Probably the number would need to be inflated, but the point is we’re going to put 19 that in. The $4.2 is a little bit more of a challenge since we’re still coming out of the deep 20 recession, but as I mentioned we did put $7.6 million dollars in that was not expected. So in a 21 way you can say we’re addressing that number of need for the catch up. We also identified 22 projects that are neither one of those two in the reports. 23 24 We tried to, as you recommended, add some graphics or pictures that might better illustrate 25 the projects. Another recommendation you made was that we should include the salaries 26 wherever possible to a project. As you may recall we had all salaries and benefits lumped into 27 one project. So where it’s feasible we identified the salary and benefit for those projects. 28 Another recommendation you made was for use to include a listing of previously approved 29 projects. We’re going to include that in the document. Our first attempt I think needs a little 30 bit more work, a little more improvement, but we wanted to get started and put something in 31 play. So we have that in there. And we’re always looking for feedback. Our position is this is a 32 living document and we always want to continue to make improvements so the reader can 33 better understand what’s going on in the City of Palo Alto in terms of capital infrastructure 34 work. So we’re open to that. 35 36 What I wanted to do was just briefly go over a couple of slides. I’m looking at Attachment C, 37 which is right after Page 11 of the presentation, graphs if you will. And I wanted to show you 38 that the five year outlook for the General Fund. Here we’re looking at a budget of about $124 39 million. As you can see the biggest focus is streets and sidewalks. And our work that we’ve 40 done and the work the IBRC’s done there was a lot of discussion about our streets and our 41 sidewalks and how we need that work and funding. And so Mark and Brad can go into more 42 details, but I just wanted to show you what that focus is. You obviously see that we have equal 43 importance to traffic and parking/open space and as well as buildings, and then the support for 44 the staffing. 45 46 The next graph shows you by category type. And there you can see the 2014 budget so you’re 47 going to see that we’re spending $9 million for streets and sidewalks and $11 million in park 48 and open space and Brad will touch on some of that. We’re also addressing transportation and 49 then building and facilities. Then the last slide that I’ll touch on briefly is by IBRC 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 4 recommendation or category I should say. And as you can see about half of the five year plan 1 is for keep up in terms of the work. And catch up is about $7.3 million. With that let me turn it 2 over to Mike and see if he has any comments. 3 4 Mr. Sartor: Actually I would like to introduce Brad Eggleston, our Assistant Director of 5 Engineering Services in the Public Works Department and the persons have been working into 6 the details of putting together this plan. So Brad, go ahead. 7 8 Mr. Eggleston: Good afternoon Chair Martinez and Commissioners. I’ll kind of say a little more 9 starting really on the same slide we left off on with Lalo and I wanted to speak a little more to 10 the importance of the IBRC’s work in how we developed this five year CIP plan. And essentially 11 the IBRC’s work really was the primary driver in developing this latest plan. During the IBRC’s 12 work in identifying the catch up backlog of infrastructure work that was needed and what was 13 needed to keep up there were detailed spreadsheets developed that showed the amounts of 14 catch up that were in various areas and that showed the work that was needed year by year for 15 us to keep up on the capital projects side. So a new thing in developing this plan is that the 16 fifth year, the fiscal year 2018 is for the most part developed by looking directly at those 17 spreadsheets and pulling out what was needed to keep up. And that’s kind of a new way of 18 doing things for us from the way that we’ve sometimes put projects in, scored them, evaluating 19 them in the past. In this case we had a developed work product to take these projects from. 20 21 Also to address IBRC recommendations we’ve increased funding in some of the annual recurring 22 projects that are in the Capital Plan every year. To start catching up and addressing some of 23 that backlog. Just a couple quick examples: we’ve got about a million dollars in backlog in 24 maintaining and repairing city facility parking lots. And so we actually have doubled the annual 25 funding in that CIP and developed a plan to start addressing that backlog of parking lot work. 26 Another example is in Community Services Department’s (CSD) work in tennis and basketball 27 court resurfacing. We looked at the funding there and increased it to start working on some of 28 that backlog and start eliminating it. 29 30 Lalo also mentioned the $2.2 million in keep up funding that’s been added to the budget. And 31 if you look through this five year CIP plan you’ll note that we’ve added a million dollars a year 32 to both the streets and the sidewalks program. And there’s an additional about $2.2 million, 33 the other portion of the $2.2 million that’s going into the operating budget for operating 34 maintenance in the General Fund. I did want to make the point that we will be looking annually 35 at that $2.2 million and its uses even though we’ve shown it in the five year plan for streets and 36 sidewalks. We’ll be looking at that annually to make sure we’re meeting all the keep up needs 37 and reevaluating whether we need to make changes to how that money is allocated. Our goal 38 for putting that money in streets and sidewalks work is to address the backlogs we have in 39 those areas and really to respond to the public’s feedback about the need for improvements in 40 these areas that we see expressed in the City Auditor’s Annual Performance Report in those 41 areas. 42 43 So as I had mentioned although scoring of the projects was done this year as it has been in 44 past years, the primary drivers were the IBRC recommendations and the need to keep up and 45 catch up in those categories as well as some other projects that have been approved by 46 Council, many of which have outside funding outside of the Infrastructure Reserve and we’ll 47 touch on some of those in one of the forthcoming slides. This year in looking at the projects 48 and scoring them there was actually only one project that was removed and not funded. That 49 project was the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project. and it wasn’t removed because it 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 5 didn’t score well or wasn’t a worthy project, but rather it’s one of the projects that the City is 1 doing public opinion polling on to see if it may be part of an infrastructure revenue ballot 2 measure in the future and so was not appropriate to include with full funding at this time in the 3 CIP. 4 5 So back to the slides, Lalo’s already touched on the pie chart of the five year plan with respect 6 to IBRC category. This set of bar charts are another view of the same type of data, so in the 7 previous pie chart we had categories for buildings and facilities, parks and open space, etcetera. 8 But now here you see we’re showing you those same categories with bar charts for each of the 9 five fiscal years that are in the plan and we’re showing it in terms of categories of how much of 10 the funding in the different areas is for keep up, catch up, or new projects. I kind of wanted to 11 touch on that for a moment. When we say “new” here, we don’t mean that it’s some, a new 12 idea someone just came up with. “New” means something that wasn’t considered in the IBRC’s 13 analysis of the financial needs for infrastructure. So for instance, a grant funded or outside 14 funded project that’s come up since then or any other project that has kind of come on to the 15 table since the IBRC did its work would be defined in that way. 16 17 So I think it’s interesting in this table to look and see that median levels are relatively constant; 18 for instance, streets and sidewalks. But I wanted to touch on a couple of the places and just 19 point out where you see spikes in the funding and tell you what those projects are. So for 20 instance in streets and sidewalks in fiscal year 2015 you’ll note a little over a $2 million purple 21 piece of the bar there. The purple is for new projects that weren’t considered by IBRC but have 22 outside funding and are not funded by the General Fund Infrastructure Reserve. So that 23 project is the Newell Road Bridge Project. And then similarly if you look at the set of traffic and 24 transportation bar charts you’ll see there’s new with outside funding relatively large especially in 25 fiscal year 2015 and then quite large in fiscal year 2014. That funding is primary for the 26 Highway 101 bike bridge and it’s shown in the CIP plan as being funded by grant funding. We 27 have grant applications in that if successful would nearly fully fund the project in that way. 28 29 Moving up to the buildings and facilities category you’ll see that in fiscal year 2014 there’s a 30 large keep up project. It’s actually probably several projects. But the largest piece of that is 31 the projects for making renovations at Lucie Stern Center, the Lucie Stern Community Theatre 32 and Children’s Theatre to upgrade mechanical and electrical systems and fire/life safety 33 systems. And then moving on under buildings and facilities to fiscal year 2016 you’ll note 34 there’s about $3 million in catch up work, the blue piece of the bar. That’s primarily work on 35 mechanical and electrical systems at the Cubberley Community Center. And also in that year 36 the keep up projects there primarily consist of work on the Baylands Interpretive Center 37 Boardwalk to replace that facility and improvements to the Junior Museum and Zoo that are 38 planned in the CIP. 39 40 And in the last category of parks and open space you’ll note a very large new outside funded 41 project in fiscal year 2014. That project is the golf course renovation pause in audio at about 42 23:05 project that’s being done in conjunction with the Joint Power Authorities (JPA) Flood 43 Control Project. And I think the last one I wanted to touch on was under parks and open space 44 for fiscal year 2018, the Infrastructure Reserve funded project that’s in the green is a project in 45 Rinconada Park to implement the Rinconada Park Master Plan components that the Master Plan 46 has been under development over the last year. And the relatively large keep up project there 47 is multiple park projects that were in the IBRC spreadsheet plans as well as a driving range 48 work at the golf course. 49 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 6 We also showed the same kind of charts, bar charts with respect to instead of the IBRC 1 categories the types of projects that are happening on a reoccurring basis and are ongoing with 2 typically the same funding each pause in audio at 24:22 versus the ones that are nonrecurring 3 one time projects. And here what I’d really point out is that when you look at streets and 4 sidewalks it generally has very consistent recurring funding. Parks and open space and 5 buildings and facilities and to some extent traffic and transportation tend to have less recurring 6 funding and to have more of the projects that occur in those funded as one time projects. 7 8 And then the final slide that we have to show you is an imperfect comparison of the current five 9 year proposed CIP we were just looking at with the previous five years. And I say it’s imperfect 10 because the categories that we had this data available for the previous five years don’t match 11 up exactly with what we were just showing you, but I think it’s still useful to look at. The key 12 thing I would point out here is that if you look in the buildings and facilities all the way to the 13 left you’ll see that back two and three years ago there were very large appropriations in those 14 areas. Those are primarily in for the library projects that were funded by the Measure N funds 15 and hence the large expenditures in those years. And that concludes our Public Works 16 presentation. We’ll turn it back over to Planning. 17 18 Mr. Turner: Great, thanks Brad. Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager. Just wanted to 19 focus the Commission on what Commissioner Panelli said at the beginning of his presentation 20 that the purpose for the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) this evening is 21 relatively straightforward. It’s mainly to find that the proposed CIP is consistent with the 22 Comprehensive Plan. Staff has worked very closely with members of Staff from Administrative 23 Services Department (ASD) and Public Works to understand each project that is part of the CIP, 24 understand its Comprehensive Plan policies and programs that are applicable to those projects. 25 And after a thorough review of those projects staff is recommending that the Commission find 26 that the CIP is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That is simple enough, but certainly 27 over the years the Commission has challenged staff to look at the CIP more closely in 28 relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. 29 30 The CIP by its nature is a forward looking document that’s looking out into the future about 31 how the City wants to spend its Capital Improvement dollars and it makes sense to compare 32 that against the Comprehensive Plan, which is itself a very forward looking document looking 33 further into the future than say a single year CIP. But certainly it does make sense to really go 34 into some more detail with regards to the CIP and the Comprehensive Plan and so staff has 35 been working very hard to come up with metrics and measures and graphs and charts that 36 might show better the relationships between the CIP and the Comprehensive Plan. This 37 process started many, many months ago, right at the beginning of the CIP process where 38 Planning staff came to a meeting with the project managers and really challenged and 39 requested that the project managers take a good look at their individual CIP projects and the 40 Comprehensive Plan and find the primary and secondary policies and programs that really do fit 41 and match with their projects. We wanted to make sure that we good data into the system 42 early so that it made it easier for staff to review and analyze that data for the purposes of this 43 meeting and I think for the most part that has happened I think very successfully. 44 45 Once we received that data our staff again worked very closely with ASD and Public Works to 46 really crunch the numbers, to analyze the data, to really find those patterns, and find the 47 metrics that show how the CIP best relates with the Comprehensive Plan. And so we’ve 48 provided that data to you in a number of charts and graphs and tables that are in your 49 attachment tonight. And there’s really kind of four groupings of charts that are with you 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 7 tonight. I won’t go chart by chart, but I can explain the groupings together. The first set of 1 charts which are in Attachment B of your staff report, and that comprises of Chart 1 and Table 2 1 and Chart 2 and then even Table 2, which is on Page 4, those are really charts that take a 3 look at the Comprehensive Plan element and the number of citations for each element that 4 appear in this CIP. So we’ve presented that in a number of ways, we have kind of a pie chart 5 that shows the distribution of CIP projects related to elements. We’ve broken that down into 6 goals, policies, and programs on Table 1 and Table 2, which shows a little bit more in detail 7 about the number of times a specific policy or program was mentioned in the CIP. Chart 8 Number 2 on Page 2 is a little bit more of a visual representation of that data, but it’s all very 9 similar into, as to really the number of citations that appear in the CIP that relate to each of the 10 elements in the Comprehensive Plan. 11 12 The next set of charts begins on Page 3. These charts get into a little bit more detail about 13 how much of the CIP is going for each particular element. So we look at the total CIP budget 14 invested, took the data regarding the appropriate Comprehensive Plan policies and programs 15 and created a pie chart on Page 3 that shows the breakdown of each element and the total 16 budget that is being applied for each element within the Comprehensive Plan. On Page 5 we 17 took another look at that, but in this particular chart we look at the different types of funds and 18 how it relates to each Comprehensive Plan element. So we look at Internal Service funds, the 19 General Fund versus the Enterprise Fund and you can see the breakdown of the funds by 20 element. 21 22 The next set of charts are to me I think probably the most fascinating out of, if CIP charts can 23 be fascinating, out of this whole effort. We really looked at each individual element and really 24 tried to identify where the money was going within each element. And so you’ll see at the very 25 top there is a breakdown of the CIP budget looking at each individual element and each page is 26 a different element. So you can see how much money is spent on the Natural Environment 27 Element for example on Page 6: how much of that is from the General Fund, how much is the 28 Enterprise Fund, how much is the Internal Service Fund. And then the two pie charts down 29 below look at the spending just on the General Fund; that’s the pie chart on the left, and then 30 the total CIP budget, which includes the General Fund, the Enterprise Fund, and the Internal 31 Services Funds. And they’re broken down by kind of subchapters or sections within each 32 element. 33 34 As all of the Commissioners know working on the Comp Plan update there are a number of 35 subsections or individual sections within each element. And so we created data that shows 36 really how much money is being spent in each of those appropriate subsections. So for 37 instance, on Natural Environment in the open space section of the Natural Environment Element 38 those policies that relate to open space comprise 98 percent of the budget being spent for the 39 General Fund CIP. And so we’ve provided this for each individual element and I think it really 40 does dial down pretty deeply to show really where we are spending our CIP money. I think it 41 relates very much to the graphs that Brad showed you earlier, but certainly it’s a, we think it’s a 42 very helpful tool to really see how the Comprehensive Plan relates to the CIP. And those 43 continue through Page 10. 44 45 On Page 11 is one slide that represents a fourth category, and this is a request by the 46 Infrastructure subcommittee to really show the spending by City Council priority and so really 47 there were two sets of Council priorities that are represented, appropriately represented here in 48 terms of infrastructure and technology. Infrastructure we were able to break down into three 49 separate subcategories. There’s infrastructure in general throughout the City and then there’s 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 8 infrastructure spending in two particular geographic areas on California Avenue and in the 1 downtown area. And then fourth, spending on technology and that’s described there as well. 2 3 So all in all staff does feel again that the Comprehensive, that the CIP is consistent with the 4 Comprehensive Plan. We’re very, very pleased with the level of cooperation Planning has 5 received from ASD and Public Works. We think we’ve produced a number of enhancements 6 over the years. Certainly this is enhancement over the prior years. And I specifically wanted to 7 thank Chitra Moitra who did a lot of fabulous work on preparing these graphs. I had a vision on 8 what I wanted these to look like. Chitra ran with it and just nailed it 100 percent. So I wanted 9 to thank her and also the work of Dale Wong who worked very closely with her to crunch those 10 numbers. 11 12 And then finally I just wanted to make a reminder. As a result of this meeting the Commission 13 has typically prepared a written letter to the City Council with their determination on whether or 14 not the CIP is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That letter usually accompanies the 15 staff report that goes to the Finance Committee and then to the full Council. The Finance 16 Committee meeting I think is coming up within a few short weeks and so we would need to get 17 that letter drafted and finalized before that meeting. With that I believe that concludes the 18 staff presentation. Unless there’s any other comment? No? Good. Thank you. 19 20 Chair Martinez: Great, thank you all. With that I’m going to open the public hearing. The 21 opportunity of members of the public to speak on this item. Do we have any speaker cards? 22 We’re going to leave it open in case someone does come forth and wants the opportunity to 23 speak on it. 24 25 Commissioners let’s start with our IBRC alumni since there are many of you here and give you a 26 chance to ask questions and give comments. And we’ll begin with Commissioner Tanaka. 27 28 Commissioner Tanaka: Well I just wanted to thank the subcommittee for their work. I’ve 29 served on this committee before, subcommittee before and I realize how much work it is and 30 how much detail there is. So thank you for your work. 31 32 I have a few questions. First question is how, so the finance situation, this is for staff, the 33 financial situation is looking like it’s getting better. There was some thoughts about having 34 some sort of bond measure, have a structured bond measure. Can staff talk about what’s the 35 thoughts about that given the improved budget situation? 36 37 Mr. Sartor: Mike Sartor, Public Works Director. The City Council has formed an Infrastructure 38 Committee that is looking at staff’s work on a potential revenue measure for November 2014. 39 Staff is also in the process of doing some polling. I believe that’s going to start this weekend 40 with the public on various aspects of potential revenue measure and then they’ll bring that data 41 back to the Council Infrastructure Committee. 42 43 Commissioner Tanaka: Is there any update on the size of the bond that might be raised? 44 45 Mr. Sartor: Those decisions have not been made yet and will be dependent upon what the 46 results of the polling are and other conversations that the committee may have. Including, as 47 you’re probably aware there’s a proposal in from the J Paul Company on a Planned Community 48 (PC) project on Park Avenue that might include a public safety facility. 49 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Also I was looking at the Reserve Budget and it looks like it’s, you 1 know as it goes from Infrastructure Reserve it’s going from I guess 17 down to 8. Subjective 2 balance. 3 4 Mr. Perez: Correct. So right now the, like I mentioned the goal is to continue the $13 million 5 plus with the inflator continue with the 2.2. We’re trying to find, it’s, there’s multi lanes to 6 potential funding of infrastructure that we’re working on. One was related to your first 7 question. That’s one path. A second path that we’re looking at and we’ve had a couple of 8 preliminary meetings with the Finance Committee is to conduct what’s called a Cost of Service 9 Study. So the Cost of Service Study takes into account all of the services that we provide 10 where there’s a fee. We want to find out what is our bottom line cost for providing those 11 services and then have a policy discussion with the Council, with the community about what we 12 value, what we want, and how do we want it; meaning we could have less or more of a 13 particular service. We could have it, if it’s being subsidized at 80 percent we may have a 14 Council direction that it gets subsidized at 50 percent and the fees are changed. We could 15 make a recommendation that we chance the mode of delivery of the service. Instead of having 16 in house staff it’s contracted out. We could have a hybrid of the various options. 17 18 So that’s one, another path that we’re looking at, and we hope to have a draft report to the 19 Finance Committee in June, it’s not going to be part of the 2014 proposed budget discussions, 20 but it’s going to hopefully lead to discussions in 2015. And my, if I can go forward and envision 21 a process that we’re going to divide it in various categories, the services and either do some 22 polls, some outreach to the community to get impute and feedback and let that process go. 23 And then another process that we’re going to have is a review of the services that we provide 24 where there’s no fee in that particular type of service that we may have. And then the third 25 category is to look at what we call the back room operations, if you will. A lot of it, my shop, 26 for example we provide support to the organization. And to see what those costs are and what 27 can we do with those areas. That could be a source of funding if we decrease the costs or 28 increase revenues from that. It could potentially go to additional infrastructure funding. I don’t 29 know if I’m taking your time, so I could stop if I’m taking your time. 30 31 Commissioner Tanaka: I did have other items, but I don’t know if… (Trailed off) 32 33 Chair Martinez: No, we’re not setting any time limits since this is our only item tonight. 34 35 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. 36 37 Mr. Perez: So I think those are the areas that we are looking at. With the, it’s too early in the 38 Infrastructure Committee work right now to really tell where we’re going to be, where we’re 39 going to go. But, we would anticipate out of this that at the very least we’re going to identify 40 what the community thinks is the priority in terms of infrastructure. Whether they decide to 41 fund it or not is another question. 42 43 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Thank you. I think the idea of understanding the cost of service 44 whether, so we explicitly understand that we’re subsidizing a service by providing maybe free 45 rent or subsidized or low rent makes a lot of sense. I think the work you’re doing seems to be 46 headed in the right direction. 47 48 I have a few other items here. I don’t know whether I keep just going through them or we 49 want to do another round or… (Trailed off) 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 Chair Martinez: It’s up to you if you want to come back. 2 3 Commissioner Tanaka: I’ll keep going if it’s ok. 4 5 Chair Martinez: Sure. 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: So I was looking at Program AS 10,000 on Page 13. And on that page I 8 guess I was hoping that maybe staff could explain, when I looked at this section it looked like, 9 I’d have to flip to it myself… it looked like the salaries went from roughly $2 million in 2014 to 10 $4 million. And maybe can staff explain why does the salaries double in one year and what’s 11 the rationale behind that? 12 13 Mr. Perez: My apologies. I should’ve covered that at the beginning. I kind of glossed over it a 14 little bit. In my opening remarks I was talking about how this Commission and also the Finance 15 Committee of the Council suggested to us that we start budgeting the salary and benefits on 16 the projects. Because we’re just starting that process we were able to do that for the first year 17 of the five years. So the remaining dollars that you’re not seeing in 2014 are in the projects 18 themselves. It’s just the way we’re showing it as distribution. What we did not do for 2015 19 through 2018 is assign the salaries to the projects. Does that make sense? 20 21 Commissioner Tanaka: I think I understand. So basically you’re saying that 2014 all of the 22 salaries, most of the salaries are with the projects and 2015 through 2018 they’re not. 23 24 Mr. Perez: They’re not. They’re centralized (interrupted) 25 26 Commissioner Tanaka: Oh, I see, ok. So it’s not like people’s pay is getting doubled. 27 28 Mr. Perez: No and we’re not adding (interrupted) 29 30 Commissioner Tanaka: I was just (interrupted) 31 32 Mr. Perez: Paying more people. 33 34 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, I was just trying to understand what was going on. Ok, that makes 35 more sense. Ok. And then Cubberley; given the recent I guess discussion on Cubberley does it 36 really make sense to be investing in Cubberley given the uncertainty still surrounding the 37 project? 38 39 Mr. Perez: Let me talk from a funding level and Mike or Brad can talk on the specifics of any 40 project that they may be working on. The direction of the City Manager and it makes all the 41 sense in the world I think to everybody is we’re not going to invest in any significant capital 42 program for Cubberley until decisions are made. But if there are things that need to be taken 43 care of because of health or safety then we’re going to address those. You know if we have a 44 leaky, leaking roof or some Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) need that needs 45 to be addressed immediately as long as it’s within a reasonable nature we’ll address it. Those 46 are the only things that we’re doing are things that we had already started. But in terms of 47 projects that are of bigger magnitude than they’re being deferred until the decisions are made. 48 49 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Commissioner Tanaka: Because right now about $3 million is being spent on Cubberley. I mean 1 I, could, you said replacing roof. Could they just be patched? I mean I’m just wondering how 2 much money do you want to put in something that might not, may be bulldozed. 3 4 Mr. Sartor: Yeah, as Lalo mentioned we’ve included in the first year some roof replacements 5 because we’re experiencing leaks and that kind of thing. The bulk of is you may recall we had 6 estimated about $17 million of catch up work that needs to be done to the buildings over time. 7 That work’s been pushed out into future years dependent upon the decision that the Council 8 and the School District makes on the future of Cubberley. So at this point we don’t, are not 9 funding any of that work. We’re just showing it as needed if the buildings are to be continued 10 to be used in their current configuration if you will. 11 12 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. I would still recommend if possible to, because we don’t know 13 what’s going to happen to Cubberley still to minimize and if you patch the roof instead of 14 replacing it it’s certainly better, but that’s probably more detailed than we have to get into; but, 15 my recommendation. Actually back to Lalo on the salaries; if possible it would be great if you 16 update that table to kind of, so we can see apples to apples comparison. Because when people 17 see that salaries double people wonder what happened. So it’s probably something you could 18 fix. 19 20 Mr. Perez: Yes, thank you. 21 22 Commissioner Tanaka: And then last item is the Mayor this year has put a big emphasis on 23 trying to make fiber optic, or fiber happen in the City. And I saw some of these items on our 24 list here, although I don’t know whether we actually have any purview over it or it’s more of a 25 Utilities Advisory Committee (UAC) thing. Does staff know? Is this in our purview at all? 26 There’s like fiber optic customer connections, FO 1,000, FO, or sorry FO 10,000, FO 10,001. Is 27 this a UAC or is this a Planning Commission item? 28 29 Mr. Perez: I’m sorry I was reading back on some of the comments to see if we could have 30 answered your question on the salaries. 31 32 Commissioner Tanaka: Oh. 33 34 Mr. Perez: The UAC? 35 36 Commissioner Tanaka: I was, fiber optics? You know fiber, I think the Mayor this year has kind 37 of emphasized trying to get fiber happening again. And I saw a couple of fiber optic items on 38 our list here and I was wondering are those applicable to us? Is it UAC really? 39 40 Mr. Aknin: Yeah, I think that would be more something within the realm of UAC as well as 41 Council, another Council committee. 42 43 Commissioner Tanaka: Sounds good, thank you. 44 45 Chair Martinez: Commissioner I think it is appropriate for you to comment on whether that is 46 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. So if there’s something you want to say about that 47 continue. 48 49 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, I didn’t look too closely, but now that I know that maybe we can 1 comment I’ll think about it a little bit more and maybe come around next round. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Martinez: Ok. Commissioner Panelli, comment? 4 5 Commissioner Panelli: Mr. Chair if you’ll indulge me, since I’ve been involved in this 6 subcommittee I’d like to reserve my comments and questions after everybody else gets a 7 chance. 8 9 Chair Martinez: Ok and finally our last alumni member, Vice-Chair Michael. 10 11 Vice-Chair Michael: So just to add onto Commissioner Tanaka’s comment, this is an impressive 12 report and I think in general it’s excellent. One question that’s come up in the past and I think 13 you’ve covered it pretty well here is regarding the prioritization of the different projects. I 14 notice in Attachment D you’ve got columns relating to what’s legally mandated, health and 15 safety facilities and infrastructure, service delivery, Council vision, etcetera and you’re using a 16 scoring system to prioritize. So one of the questions that I have and the public may have is 17 that if you had an infinite amount of money, a bigger budget, what have you, you might have 18 done more. So what projects didn’t make the cut and how were the projects prioritized that 19 were not included in what we see here? Because what we see here is pretty good, but what’s 20 missing? What’s just, what didn’t make the cut? 21 22 Mr. Eggleston: So this year was different from other years in that we essentially didn’t cut 23 anything except for the one project that I had mentioned earlier, the Charleston/Arastradero 24 Corridor Project. That’s about a $10 million project to redo that entire corridor area with new 25 medians, reduce lanes, new lighting, landscaping. And the reason we didn’t fund that is 26 because it’s part of one of the infrastructure projects that we’re doing a public opinion polling 27 on to potentially fund through a ballot measure. 28 29 Mr. Sartor: Let me add to that Commissioner Michael. Thank you Brad. So what Brad’s 30 explaining is that as you recall we have a five year plan and we fund each year the first year. 31 So what we started out with was the list of projects that was proposed for the second year of 32 the plan that will be now funded in 2014, which will be the first year of the new plan. All of 33 those projects that were proposed in fiscal year 2014 in last year’s CIP are going forward and 34 funded. In addition to that we’ve added $2.2 million in keep up money, which is going as Brad 35 said earlier to primarily our streets and sidewalks programs to keep up with the street repairs 36 and sidewalk repairs. 37 38 Vice-Chair Michael: Ok. So my next question and I think you covered this pretty well, this 39 might relate to Lalo or Public Works, but in the course of the IBRC’s work we worked with staff 40 pretty closely and an enormous spreadsheet was created to track, mostly in relationship to each 41 of the infrastructure projects, first a complete inventory of all of the infrastructure, but then as 42 to each one any amount of maintenance expense that had been deferred, which became catch 43 up, and then the estimated current maintenance, which became the keep up amount. And out 44 of that the IBRC recommended and I believe the City has endorsed the notion of creating an 45 Infrastructure Management System (IMS). And I would imagine that once that system is up 46 and running it would help inform the CIP project process. Can you address what’s the status of 47 the IMS? 48 49 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Mr. Sartor: Certainly Commissioner Michael. And you’re absolutely right, the giant spreadsheet 1 from hell as we called it is perfectly usable for this year, but it will quickly become outdated. 2 We’ve identified a work team to develop an Infrastructure Management System and the work 3 team comprises experts from our IT Department, our Budget Office, and Public Works. The 4 project manager is in Public Works. We’ve conducted a number of research and meetings with 5 outside experts both looking at what private industry uses for asset management as well as 6 other cities. And we’re in the process of preparing a request for proposals that we plan to get 7 out by the June/July timeframe to get proposals from providers to develop a robust database 8 centered Infrastructure Management System that we can use for planning into the future. And 9 of course the spreadsheet data will be downloaded into that system as well as new projects as 10 they come forward. 11 12 Vice-Chair Michael: So one question that I know concerned me during the course of the IBRC 13 and I think is still open is that when we talk about the Infrastructure Reserve we’re not talking 14 about creating reserve for the replacement of facilities. We’re, it’s more a reserve for the 15 maintenance of the facilities. So for example, we’re holding this meeting in City Hall. City Hall 16 won’t last forever. Let’s say we think it will last 50 years or 40 years or 200 years, whatever we 17 would use as the estimated remaining life of City Hall. Why would the City not set aside 18 something, maybe an arbitrary something, each year for the replacement of something which is 19 inevitably going to have to be replaced? So this is kind of if you have catch up for deferred 20 maintenance, keep up for current maintenance, this obsolescence, which is I think inevitable 21 might be “replace up.” And but that’s not part of the process currently, is it? 22 23 Mr. Perez: It is not. I think ideally that would be the best way to do it. In the articles that we 24 read it’s just not something government is able to accommodate and plan for that way. This is 25 a national issue. It’s obviously a state issue. And I think with, you know I can certainly say 26 that within California, but I think it’s within the country. Some of it has to do with the salary 27 and benefit obligations that government has. We’re looking at anywhere between, I’m 28 speaking in general terms here 60 to 70 plus percent of budgets go towards that. And I can tell 29 you that we’ve attempted in the Nineties we had a, we talk about it in our document that we 30 had a $100 million infrastructure plan and we made pretty good headway. At one point we had 31 over $30 million in that fund identified for the projects that we identified. And those funds were 32 raided. They started going to other projects that were not identified on that list, new projects. 33 And we fought as hard as we could being the Finance Department to try to say, “Hey, wait a 34 minute, those are identified for these projects,” but being in the political world that we are in 35 different Councils come in and different decisions are made. So that’s why it’s difficult to try to 36 earmark or reserve because when the economy changes that is primarily the first place that 37 government goes and stops funding infrastructure. 38 39 So I think there’s been a lot of good work as a result of the IBRC and I think we’re, this Council 40 is taking it serious. And I think we’re seeing the actions and the steps and I think, I feel that 41 we’re pretty good with our policies and fiscal policies as my opening remarks in terms of having 42 a target and anything that is excess of what we expect to have it in terms reserved for general 43 operations is going to infrastructure. And I think that’s the prudent thing to do. I think we 44 need to continue to find a way to fund that other 4.2. That’s our target, that’s what we’re trying 45 to work towards. I just don’t think that we can do as you suggested for all of our 46 infrastructure. I just don’t think it’s sustainable for us in how limited we have in limitations. 47 48 Vice-Chair Michael: So my comment isn’t really on the work that you’ve presented tonight, 49 which I think is actually quite good. And really it’s maybe a question or concern that would go 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 14 to the Council’s Infrastructure Committee or some people in the future who are taking a look at 1 this. I think that at the time that the IBRC met and I’m going to have the wrong citation, but I 2 think there’s a Government and Accounting Standard 22 or something like that which relates to 3 what you could potentially adopt as an accounting method relative to the obsolescence of 4 facilities. And there is [long pause in audio at 58:19-1:57ish] 5 6 Mr. Eggleston: [already speaking] every city street to determine its current pavement condition 7 index and then we’ll have an updated number. One of the things we’re hoping to accomplish 8 with the increased funding for streets that’s proposed in this five year plan is to reach those 9 goals even earlier than 2021 although there’s a lot of issues regarding coordination with the 10 utilities projects that are ongoing that do influence whether, how soon we can actually meet 11 those goals. 12 13 Vice-Chair Michael: Ok, and then my (interrupted) 14 15 Mr. Sartor: I’d like to take a quick if you don’t mind advertisement here. We completed 16 yesterday the repaving of Alma Street from Oregon Expressway to the south boarder with 17 Mountain View. And that street has been done with rubberized asphalt. So I encourage you all 18 to go take a drive. It’s pretty cool. [Note—break in audio with music playing from 1:02—19 1:04ish] 20 21 Mr. Perez: [Note-already speaking] on its own and is running great and is off to a great start. 22 We have an excellent new CIO and we have a Governance Committee where we’re looking at 23 the needs of the organization today and then for the future. And so some of that we need to 24 plan and identify and work in conjunction with any Council subcommittee, such as like the 25 Technology one and try to see where the vision is and what we want to do. 26 27 And so I think some of those discussions I think Commissioner Tanaka talked about it earlier 28 are going to start in terms of what do we want to do with fiber to the premises for example. 29 There’s been a lot of discussion and interest about continuing the undergrounding of utilities 30 and accelerating that at a much faster pace. So there’s some discussions of that and so frankly 31 we have not identified the source of funding, but if those projects elevate than we have to 32 reprioritize what we’re doing. We would have to look at special initiatives because maybe it’s 33 something we believe and we want and if the community wants to do that we could look to 34 ways to ask the community to fund it. It could be a temporary sales tax increase as some 35 agencies have done where you say that sunsets or something similar to what the Storm Drain 36 Fund has done. They have a list of projects, I forget, 12 projects from 2005. There’s an add it 37 fee for the Storm Drain and it sunsets once these projects are funded. So it could be 38 something specific where, like that if the City were not to have the funds within its structure. 39 40 Vice-Chair Michael: Thank you. 41 42 Chair Martinez: And thank you. And now I’d like the other subcommittee member 43 Commissioner Keller. Given the opportunity to speak. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Thank you Chair. First I would like to thank the staff for their excellent 46 work. I’ve had the pleasure of participating in this and I think that the presentation material 47 certainly improved through the process. I’d like to echo the thanks to Chitra Moitra for her 48 work on this. I think that’s excellent, and all the other members of the staff who were working 49 on this. And I’d also like to thank my fellow member of the Commission, Commissioner Panelli 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 15 for his able leadership and I think that it certainly helped with the process with his background 1 in the IBRC effort. 2 3 So let me start off with a follow up to what Vice-Chair Michael mentioned, which is what’s 4 missing and didn’t make the cut. And the answer to that was interesting. It says, “Well, we’re 5 following on the second year of fiscal year 2013’s five year plan.” And in some sense we have a 6 rolling five year plan. And therefore to some extent what we should be focusing on and this 7 occurred to me now I mean I didn’t realize this in previous iterations, but we should really be 8 focusing on what entered in fiscal year 2018 because that’s what’s really new. And we’re 9 mostly focusing on what’s occurring for fiscal year 2014 when we really need to be focusing on 10 what’s inserted into the hopper and then we can rephrase Vice-Chair Michael’s question as to 11 what didn’t make it into the hopper into the fifth year of the five year plan. 12 13 And maybe next time this comes around we could have a focus on what’s new and what’s, and 14 why it got to be there. And that would allow us to effect things when they’re first entered into 15 the system and when there’s opportunity for adjustment and when there is things cut. Because 16 there are necessarily things that you have a, I would hope you have a list of things that might 17 go into fiscal year 2018 that you say, “Well, this will go into fiscal year 2018, this will probably 18 go into 2019, 2020 or whatever.” And so that’s a list that which cutting makes sense. 19 20 The next thing is I remember a few years ago when we had the, we were dealing with the 21 recession there was an issue to accelerate our CIP expenditures because the costs and bids 22 were down. In other words it was a lot cheaper to do infrastructure and so I’m wondering if 23 we’re still in that state or if they’ve come back up to prerecession levels because that has 24 something to do with the level at which, maybe we want to accelerate more while the bidding is 25 good. 26 27 Mr. Sartor: Commissioner Keller I think the good news is the construction market has, is coming 28 back. The bad news for us is that our bids are going up as well. We received bids on the main 29 library for example last week and the bids for that were higher than, well, we had one low bid. 30 It was actually withdrawn, but the second, third, and fourth bids were higher than our estimate. 31 And there was an article, a very good article in yesterday’s San Jose Mercury talking about the 32 construction industry in general in Santa Clara County and the fact that it’s getting busy. So 33 that means bids are going to start getting higher. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. It reminds me the definition of a low bidder is somebody who 36 wonders what they left out of the bid. 37 38 Ok, so it was mentioned street maintenance, so let me follow up on that too. If we look at 39 Page 91 is a street maintenance item and street maintenance is kind of an interesting category 40 because it says in here that the primary connection is the Community Services and Facilities 41 Element, parks and public facilities. And there’s Goal C4, C24, Policy C24, and Program C19, 42 but on the other hand in Attachment B, Page 9 I think that this category of Public Ways under 43 the Land Use Element is for streets and sidewalks. And I’m wondering, do I have that right or 44 am I confused? 45 46 Mr. Eggleston: That sounds correct. I’m not sure if it’s correct that Public Ways is referring to 47 streets, but if it is then we have this, clearly have this miscategorized in terms of the Comp 48 Plan. 49 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Commissioner Keller: Ok and the other part of it is that when you look at, there’s in the 1 Attachment E in the back, you look at these policies and they are very generic. And I’m 2 wondering, realizing how generic these are. Does it make sense to have more specific goals in 3 terms of having a keeping the streets and sidewalks in good repair and stuff like that? Does it 4 make sense to have goals like that specifically in the Transportation Element or is the catch all 5 in Community Services and Facilities appropriate? And maybe that’s a question for Steven 6 Turner since that, well in terms of the Comp Plan. 7 8 Mr. Turner: I think some of the effort that we’re doing with the Comp Plan Amendment is 9 recognizing that some of the existing goals and polices may in some respects make sense about 10 where they are, but could certainly also be in another element and might be more appropriate 11 in that other element. So I think we’re going through the process of making sure that each 12 goal and policy and program is placed appropriately so that they can reflect say in future CIP’s 13 where money is being spent. And I think that by its nature goals, policies, and programs are 14 general. They are not meant to be specific and certainly they are not meant to be regulations 15 or requirements. So they are general and they are broad and there’s, I don’t know if there’s 16 any other way to necessarily improve on that. 17 18 Commissioner Keller: Well what we wind up as the anomaly here then on Page 8 of Attachment 19 B you have money on transportation going for traffic safety, neighborhood impacts, and 20 bicycling and walking and no money for streets and sidewalks, which seems rather anomalous. 21 So I’m not sure how you want to characterize that to make it more clear, but if there isn’t an 22 appropriate element in the Transportation Element for that, sorry, appropriate goal, policy or 23 procedure, or program in the Transportation Element then there’s nothing to attach it to. So it 24 just, that just seems anomalous. Ok. 25 26 And I remember that from previous CIP we had a bound book. And I don’t mind having this 27 instead of a bound book. This is probably cheaper and less paper or whatever, but there was 28 something that I miss from the previous document and that was maps. The previous document 29 had these nice color maps saying where things were happening around the City and what’s for 30 example I think there was a map for the pavement condition index and there are maps where 31 the utilities work was going to be done in the next few years and I thought, that’s one thing I 32 miss. I’m wondering whether that will be returning next year. 33 34 Mr. Perez: It’s this year’s version. We just don’t have it in your packet, but we expect the 35 document, the proposed document to be released to the public next week. So you’ll see it next 36 week. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Ok. So maybe that can be provided to us when it’s available? 39 40 Mr. Perez: Fine. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: Is there a potential for grant funding for Charleston/Arastradero 43 improvements that are proposed or is that not an option? 44 45 Mr. Eggleston: There’s definitely a potential for grant funding. In fact the project has already 46 received a $450,000 Safe Routes to School to fund a portion of the project. We just heard 47 word that we’re almost certain to get $1 million towards the project for what’s called the Verves 48 Grant Program, which is Vehicle Emissions based around schools. And we also have I think a 49 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 17 $5.5 million grant application currently outstanding through the One Bay Area Grant or OBAG 1 program, which we expect to receive word on the likely outcome of essentially any day. 2 3 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So that’s another reason that should be subscribed as to why 4 it isn’t in the CIP directly, because you’re expecting it to happen from somewhere else. Be 5 funded from somewhere else. 6 7 Mr. Eggleston: Well I would add that even if it was funded through grants we would still include 8 it in the CIP book and show it as primarily funded through grants. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: No, I’m saying that’s why it was one of the things you cut from this year. 11 Because I’m hoping you’re deferring it because you’re expecting it to be paid from elsewhere 12 rather than from our own funds. 13 14 Mr. Eggleston: Yeah, it’s that and the fact that it’s one of the infrastructure public opinion 15 polling projects. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: Great. Talking about infrastructure public polling; I assume one of the 18 issues for the infrastructure public polling is the public safety building. And I’m wondering 19 whether the people are being polled with the question of would you rather have a large 20 development funding the public safety building or would you rather have the public safety 21 building funded by a bond? I’m wondering whether that question is being asked (interrupted) 22 23 Mr. Sartor: Actually think that question is being phased that way in the poll. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Yes, because I think that that’s an interesting question for the people. So 26 thank you for that. And I just want to maybe take a little, a quick note to point out a 27 suggestion I made to staff about that, which was to put the, consider putting the public safety 28 building if it’s at 395 Page Mill actually on the property on the corner of Page Mill and Ash. 29 30 Chair Martinez: You’re going off topic Commissioner. Would you just stay on the topic; that’s 31 an item that was continued. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: Ok, thank you. 34 35 Chair Martinez: Thank you. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: And the last thing about that is, the last thing I have is, is there’s a 38 consideration of undergrounding Caltrain. And I’m wondering, I think there’s a lot of interest in 39 undergrounding Caltrain. I think there are potential benefits from it, a lot of potential benefits 40 from it. There are also potential things that can happen in terms of reusing the land for various 41 purposes, some of which might pay for part of undergrounding Caltrain. And I’m wondering 42 where in the CIP process, probably not in the next five years, but might be part of 43 infrastructure bond at some point. After all I think Berkeley undergrounded Bay Area Rapid 44 Transit (BART) that way. So I’m wondering where in the CIP process, where in this whole 45 infrastructure milieu undergrounding Caltrain would go? 46 47 Mr. Sartor: Let me. At this point the Caltrain project, if you will and I’d assume you’re talking 48 about high speed rail? 49 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Commissioner Keller: No, I’m actually talking about undergrounding the train tracks whether 1 high speed rail is built or not. But in some sense some sort of engineering study of how much 2 it might cost to underground, what the, how we might create policies that cause it to be 3 undergrounded partly by us, partly paid for by us and partly paid for by somebody else. I’m 4 wondering what studies are being done in terms of undergrounding Caltrain? 5 6 Mr. Aknin: So that’s something that the Rail Committee is looking at now within the context of 7 the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) associated with Caltrain electrification. So I think as we 8 move along the lines and over this next year the Caltrain electrification EIR is going to come out 9 and they’re going to show some impacts related to that EIR and then the question is going to 10 become how are those impacts mitigated. So within the context of that EIR the Rail Committee 11 is looking, having staff look into various options for having the rail line go through Palo Alto. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: Great. If that can be, if some, the materials can be given to us when 14 available that would be useful. 15 16 Mr. Aknin: Correct. I don’t see anything coming out within the next couple of months, but 17 know over the next year or so it’s something we’re going to look into more. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 20 21 Chair Martinez: Great. Again I want to thank Commissioner Keller for his involvement in the 22 subcommittee and we know that without his input we wouldn’t have half as many charts as we 23 got. Commissioner Alcheck? 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: Thank you. Thank you for your work on this, great work on this. I was 26 not a member of IBRC. I don’t have that in my, on my resume and I didn’t sit on the 27 subcommittee. And as some of you probably know I’m a real estate land use attorney, so this 28 is really, this was sort of an astonishing read for me because this, it’s amazing how many, the 29 sort of responsibility that the City has to maintain all of these I guess features is what I would 30 call them. It is astonishing. It touches every single person in the City in probably some fashion 31 or another and it’s, it was a learning experience for me just to kind of review all the different 32 areas that you guys are consider, that is being considered. 33 34 Compliance is sort of like a relative scale. We have full compliance, partial compliance, no 35 compliance. This might seem like an odd question, but let’s assume that this is shy of full 36 compliance. Just hypothetically. What action would staff take to create greater compliance 37 with the Comprehensive Plan? I mean I assume the list of things we have to do is the list. No 38 one’s removing an item from that list because it doesn’t comply with the plan. If the street 39 signs need to be replaced because they’re not reflective enough, they’re on the list. So what 40 would you do to create greater compliance? And I ask that question because I guess I sort of 41 think the notion is a little redundant. I think if our City’s general plan requires, has all these 42 goals then the notion of sort of upkeep and maintenance of the projects that have resulted 43 from those goals should just sort of… I mean, I agree with Commissioner Keller’s sort of 44 assessment that the Community Services and Facilities Element’s general goal sort of 45 encompasses all of it. I ask this question because we’re working on the element now, the 46 various elements now and is it the department’s sort of vision that the element or that the 47 Comprehensive Plan that we’re working on will speak more specifically to these sorts of CIP 48 projects? 49 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Mr. Aknin: I think there’s either two ways you have to go about it. Either your CIP has to 1 comply with the existing Comp Plan or if the Comp Plan gets too old you have to amend your 2 Comp Plan and create relevant policies so that your CIP falls in line with it. So I mean in 3 general a lot of the CIP stuff is going to be consistent with the Comp Plan no matter what time 4 because it’s ongoing maintenance type issues like street signs that are going to be consistent. 5 For larger CIP projects let’s say that are new CIP type projects and are not within your Comp 6 Plan, which isn’t the case here, you would eventually have to catch up with your Comp Plan to 7 make sure that you are consistent. 8 9 Ms. Silver: Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. If I could just add to that; what we’re 10 looking for here is consistency rather than technical compliance. And so State law actually had 11 proscribed say a process for the Planning Commission to review the City projects so that there 12 is a finding that they are generally consistent with the General Plan or Comprehensive Plan. 13 And it’s just another check. That type of check happens through the entitlement process by 14 this body with private sector development, but it doesn’t always happen with public projects 15 largely because cities have the ability to exempt themselves from zoning codes. We don’t do 16 that here in this City so historically there has been this function that this, that Planning 17 Commission takes on to review that consistency for public projects. 18 19 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, I can appreciate that. 20 21 Chair Martinez: Excuse me. Commissioner Keller had a follow up for that. Commissioner? 22 23 Commissioner Keller: Yes. Since you weren’t on the Commission when these incidents happen I 24 figured I’d relate something based on my experience. And that is there have been two 25 particular projects that this Commission has dealt with specifically. Namely one year we 26 removed a project from the CIP because we found that it was not consistent. And that was at 27 that time we felt, this Commission as then constituted felt that the compost facility was not 28 then consistent with the Comp Plan and required further study. It shouldn’t have been done. 29 And that was removed from the CIP and it is now the subject of much further study. 30 31 The second thing is that the, there was a CIP element added one year several years ago to put 32 a study of the bike bridge across Highway 101 in South Palo Alto that’s now become a much 33 bigger project. And that was added by the PTC when it was noted that other communities 34 further south on Highway 101 were getting bike bridges and we weren’t. And the reason we 35 weren’t was because we didn’t have one studied and ready to go to be funded. So we initiated 36 that process and added it to the CIP. 37 38 So that I think is perhaps more of the kind of thing that would be within our purview in terms of 39 adding and in terms of consistency. And also in terms of, a separate thing is in terms of 40 making the description of the Comp Plan and its consistency more clear and that consistent. So 41 the backup in here describing all of the elements and the nature of the review and that kind of 42 work is part of making sure that it’s consistent and described properly. Thank you. 43 44 Chair Martinez: And thank you. Continuing, Commissioner Alcheck. 45 46 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah so no that’s, thank you for that Commissioner Keller and staff. I 47 think I appreciate sort of the process of reviewing let’s say a new expenditure like the bike 48 bridge and identifying compliance with our goals as they are stated in our Comprehensive Plan. 49 When it comes to resurfacing existing tennis courts for example, that sort of seems like a given 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 20 that it would comply with our Comp Plan. That that be maintained properly. At the same time 1 I guess it’s maybe stating the obvious to say that just because I think that the process of 2 resurfacing tennis courts is in compliance with our General Plan’s goals, that doesn’t necessarily 3 mean that the intended expenditure of resurfacing tennis courts in 2013 or 2014 is necessarily 4 necessary. I just want to throw that out there and I know that’s not our purview. I’m just 5 saying that 95 percent of this seems to me like “of course, absolutely.” And hopefully, and it’s 6 not us obviously, someone’s evaluating whether these are needed and necessary and I just 7 want to make sure that it’s obvious to everyone that I can’t make that determination. And not 8 that we’re being asked to, but I just thought I might as well say that. 9 10 I want to ask another question; hopefully I won’t get stopped. And this is for you guys. How 11 would the development of the “public benefit” of the PC that you referred to change this CIP 12 over the next five years, this proposed CIP? I ask that because the buildings and facilities 13 doesn’t really discuss, and maybe I missed it, doesn’t really discuss Police Safety Building 14 (interrupted) 15 16 Chair Martinez: I think that’s pretty clear. Why don’t you allow him to answer that question? 17 18 Mr. Perez: It’s been a challenge and I think I noticed that the Chief noted I think that we had 19 replacing the Police facility in our budget about 20 years ago. So it’s been a long, long 20 discussion. And we would have to find alternative funding. It would not be part of this CIP five 21 year plan. The reason that most of the items are compliant, in compliance most likely is 22 because we’re behind and we’re just trying to catch up. If we were to divert those funds to a 23 public safety building then we would have issues with the rest of the infrastructure in the 24 community. So we would have to look at other measures. Either potentially tax increases, 25 trying to find new revenue streams, maybe as we are seeing more hotels come on board maybe 26 we dedicate some of those revenues toward the funding. 27 28 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah so let me kind of just jump in real quick. So would you, wouldn’t 29 you argue, I mean I guess I’m going to better understand this process as we have this 30 discussion, but do items make it onto this list that we can’t budget for but that need to be 31 done? And the reason I ask that is because earlier Commissioner Michael asked if there was 32 things that didn’t make it onto the list and if the safety building is something that… if a 33 component of enhancing the current situation we have or it’s a needed infrastructure, I guess 34 it’s sort of more enjoyable to cross something off the list than to add it later because it didn’t 35 work out through this process if that is the case. I’m just sort of wondering. So would that be 36 something that is missing from the list? That like five years ago would have been? 37 38 Mr. Perez: Let me see if I understand your question. You’re saying are there things that we 39 should be funding but we’re not including them on the list. So there’s this spreadsheet that we 40 were talking about earlier. There’s this spreadsheet that goes out, it was like a 30 year 41 spreadsheet. So there are projects further out that somebody could make an argument that 42 they could be done sooner. So there are some things that we could do. There are things that 43 the community has asked for, a bigger theatre for example. And you could argue the value of 44 that. 45 46 Commissioner Alcheck: Once it makes it on here it’s budget, there’s a I guess an assumption 47 your budget can encompass it or the fund will provide for it as opposed to this Police building, 48 which is going to be so expensive it would push everything off the list and that’s why it’s not on 49 here. 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 Mr. Perez: Correct. 2 3 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, and let me ask you one more question. You know sometimes 4 perfect is the enemy of good and if you had the money for it I guess would that building be on 5 this list? And I guess I’m trying to figure out how big of a priority is it? How, I don’t know. 6 7 Mr. Perez: It is a top priority. When I first took over as the CFO in 2008 the then City Manager 8 and I were trying to find a funding mechanism and we had hopes at that time because the 9 economy was going well and strong early in 2007 when we started this process and we were 10 counting on the expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center for example as one possibility. The 11 leasing out of the Police wing once we moved them out. And so we had various funding 12 mechanisms. Some of them needed a little more work. Our attempt was there and then the 13 economy went south and so did the plan. so to answer your question directly, if we had the 14 money yes it would be in 2014. 15 16 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I’m going to that’ll be it (interrupted) 17 18 Chair Martinez: Commissioner, I’d kind of like, I’m getting a little bit nervous about talking 19 about that one (interrupted) 20 21 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah that’s it for me on that. I just wanted to sort of hear your 22 thoughts on that. 23 24 Chair Martinez: Ok. Commissioner King. 25 26 Commissioner King: Excuse me. Thanks to all for the preparation of the report. I have a 27 process question as far as how this actually gets budgeted. So the near year here 2014, so 28 then this feeds to Council in their budget preparation with the hope and expectation that they 29 will fund as per these numbers or somewhere near those? 30 31 Mr. Perez: Good question. So I should explain a little bit of that real quick here. So the five 32 year plan, you’re exactly correct being new to the PTC. The first year is adopted and is 33 obligated and we can award contracts once we go through the bidding process. And we see no 34 reason why we can’t send the money from the General Fund that we are forecasting to send. 35 What could happen is potentially some grant funding that we may have identified and are 36 accounting for may not come so then we’ll have to use reserves to make it work, but we would 37 make it work. The outer four years are adopted in concept. So there’s less emphasis by the 38 Council on that review. It’s more of a are we heading in the right direction and that’s kind of 39 why we want to have a five year plan because you want to see where we’re going as an 40 organization without investments and infrastructure. 41 42 Commissioner King: Ok, thank you. And then can you, I have to say I’m not that familiar with 43 the different funds. So can you please explain, you’ve got the General Fund, Enterprise Fund 44 from which the bulk of the funding is expected, Internal Service Fund? Could you if possible 45 give an overview of the sources of money flowing into those and the restrictions and purposes 46 for the outflow of those and then also where grants fit in? Do they go into one of those funds 47 or does it vary with the grant type? 48 49 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Mr. Perez: Good, good question. So the focus tonight and it’s typically the focus is on your 1 General Fund. In most cities the discussion is that because that’s where the challenge is to 2 have sufficient funds, revenues allocated to invest in your infrastructure. On the Enterprise 3 Fund it’s more like a business set up. And they are all, by law we have to segregate them. So 4 for example, the Electric Fund is separate from every other fund, the Gas Fund itself, the 5 Refuse fund, they all have their own account and you cannot take money from one fund to 6 another without a justifiable reason. So if you’re building an infrastructure that is benefiting 7 multiple funds then the appropriate share could be allocated that way otherwise you cannot do 8 that. The Electric Fund can’t pay for the streets for example, but they could pay if they are 9 making a cut on the street or something like that. 10 11 The funding, 50 percent of the funding for the General Fund is tax revenue, sales tax, hotel tax, 12 etcetera. The other 50 percent is fees. And the Enterprise Fund it’s a rate base. And so rates 13 are, staff makes projections on the needs for expenditures for operating and capital and based 14 on those projections they determine what the rates should be. And so the Council approves 15 those rates on an annual basis and for some of them there’s a public vote requirement and so 16 that’s also part of the process. And so annually we bring to you, the Council the five year plan 17 and it’s funded either by the revenues I mentioned or the rate base. 18 19 Commissioner King: Ok. And when you say rates does that mean those are all from utility rates 20 or? 21 22 Mr. Perez: So there’s, gosh what we have now? Nine Enterprise Funds. So most of them are 23 either utilities, we have one that is the airport. There’s really no revenue right now and so the 24 General Fund is making loans. So if you see projects from the airport they are going to be on a 25 loan basis so they won’t be rate based. So that, I think that’s the exception on the (trailed off) 26 27 Commissioner King: Ok. Ok, that’s interesting that it is such, it so overwhelms the part that 28 comes in through taxes. I guess the portion of this budget that comes from that fund. I guess 29 that’s probably because the, our utility structure has such high infrastructure costs that it’s 30 paying for itself basically? 31 32 Mr. Perez: Right and there’s also some fees in the Enterprise Funds, but it’s predominately the 33 rate that funded. I think we’re doing an organizational review of the department and the 34 preliminary reports are saying that we have well-run Utilities. And I think you can attest to that 35 by the level of service and the work that’s being done in keeping up and maintaining our 36 infrastructure. I think we have a pretty good pace of reinvesting in our infrastructure and it’s a 37 good investment to make. 38 39 Commissioner King: And the utility users tax, where does that enter? Which fund does that go 40 into? 41 42 Mr. Perez: So that was something the voters approved and it’s a tax that is on the water, gas, 43 and electric and it goes to the General Fund. And it’s a general use revenue. So in other words 44 the Council can dictate where it should be spent for General Fund purposes. 45 46 Commissioner King: Ok, great. Thanks. Let’s see, and then I had sort of a specific question on 47 the pavement condition index and how the streets are prioritized for resurfacing and do we 48 currently in that prioritization do we include bicycle use as one of the parameters? 49 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Mr. Eggleston: With respect to the streets that are selected, bicycle use is not one of the things 1 that goes into calculating the PCI. We’re generally trying to select the streets that have the 2 lowest PCI for resurfacing as long as they don’t have the utilities project conflict. But along 3 with that we also consult with the transportation group, look at the Bicycle and Pedestrian 4 Transportation Plan, and meet with Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), the bicycling 5 group. So we do kind of shuffle priorities at times to make sure that we are addressing the 6 streets without heavy bicycling use first. 7 8 Commissioner King: Ok. 9 10 Mr. Eggleston: And I can’t remember the specific example, but I know even just in this past 11 year the contract that we had we actually moved some streets out and moved some other ones 12 in based on the fact that they were bicycle boulevards in the new Bike Plan. 13 14 Commissioner King: Got it. Ok. Yeah, I don’t want to lead us out into the weeds, but if it’s in 15 North California, which is a primary bike route has horrible pavement. I think that may tie in 16 with Old Palo Alto. There seems to be some challenge in paving there because much of Old 17 Palo Alto has poor pavement. But ok, thank you. 18 19 And then I just want to say thanks. These graphs are helpful and I think in a goal of civic 20 engagement you’re probably not going to get a lot of citizens that will go through 200 pages of 21 information, but they might be drawn into the graphs, presenting the information graphically 22 and then drill down if they have questions. So I think that’s great. 23 24 I, let’s see, I had one or a question on I think this is on the Public Works graphs. Can you 25 explain I think there’s one you should break out 2014 General Fund CIP total by category and 26 then you have one for the whole time period by IBRC category. Could you explain the overlap 27 or lack thereof of IBRC categories versus CIP categories? 28 29 Mr. Eggleston: Are you referring to the pie charts or (interrupted) 30 31 Commissioner King: Well, I’m referring to as a, so I’m not, so are those IBRC, is there a 32 separate list for IBRC versus CIP? How do those two interact? 33 34 Mr. Eggleston: Oh, ok. That’s a good question. Both charts are based on the same group of 35 projects. 36 37 Commissioner King: Ok. 38 39 Mr. Eggleston: We just categorized them in different ways on different charts. So for instance 40 in one set of charts we wanted to just break them down according to which projects are 41 recurring every year and which ones are stand-alone one or two year projects. And then in the 42 next we wanted to break that, those same projects down according to those IBRC categories of 43 keep up, catch up, etcetera. 44 45 Commissioner King: Ok, so one really sort of is more applicable to CIP. When I look at the 46 graph is more applicable to oh, we can tie this into our, the Comp Plan comparison whereas the 47 IBRC really doesn’t relate to Comp Plan. It’s just about the type, the keep up versus catch up. 48 49 Mr. Eggleston: That’s correct. 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 24 1 Commissioner King: Analysis. Ok. And then the recommendation I would make is if you kept 2 consistency with the Planning staff’s graphs it makes it much easier if each page is numbered, I 3 believe. And then also if you, on the pie charts if you show a total; if you look at Planning 4 staff’s they were, that was helpful. 5 6 And then lastly and this sort of ties in, I believe ties into Commissioner Tanaka’s comment on 7 salaries and benefits issue where there is a change in how the calculation was done, where we 8 saw the jump in salaries. I note that there is a supplemental information paragraph there, but 9 it’s I would say a bit obtuse and it doesn’t hit you in the head and say, “Hey, we made a big 10 change in how we’re doing this, that’s why it changed.” It talks about salaries and benefits 11 have been included in certain projects where appropriate in 2014, but it doesn’t hit you over the 12 head. I think in this case hitting you over the head with huge change, that’s why the big jump 13 occurred. And then similarly I found it very helpful for the, on the graphs that indicated big 14 projects coming up where you saw a jump for a certain year and a certain category and you 15 mentioned that that was the redoing of some project, a large one. Your comments were 16 helpful and I think it would be helpful if you in those cases would footnote so that it would 17 explain so that a citizen looking at that would be able to say, wonder “Oh, what’s the big jump 18 there?” And then if you footnoted it on the graph I think that would be very helpful. 19 20 Mr. Eggleston: Thank you. 21 22 Mr. Perez: Very good comments. Thank you. We will, if we don’t, we’re not able to make them 23 in this proposed version we’ll definitely put them in the adopted. 24 25 Chair Martinez: Ok, all done? Chair gets to speak. Every year that the CIP comes before us 26 there’s a benefit that I personally receive. Like I got to drive on the newly repaved Homer 27 Street today. So I wanted to thank the Public Works Director for that. Maybe we should have 28 CIP’s more often and I’ll get more benefits. 29 30 This idea of is the CIP consistent with the Comp Plan, with the Comprehensive Plan is an 31 interesting question because there are two ways to look at it based on how you look at the 32 Comprehensive Plan. There are the basic needs and services that the Comprehensive Plan tries 33 to address, are our sidewalks safe? Are they accessible? Can bicycles ride on the streets 34 without hitting a pothole? And by and large the CIP does a good job. This CIP for this year 35 does a great job being consistent with that Comp Plan. There’s another Comp Plan and that’s 36 the Comp Plan that represents our values and aspirations as a community. And I think that the 37 Commissioners have largely addressed some of those ideas today. The undergrounding of 38 Caltrain; well the undergrounding, what does that do? You know it makes our community more 39 whole, it makes it more accessible. It gives us access to parts of the neighborhoods we don’t 40 have access to. 41 42 And so on the first Comp Plan I would rate the CIP A+. On the second Comp Plan, does it 43 address our long term needs in some way? Does it address climate change? Does it look at 44 our habitats? I don’t know. Does it serve all of our neighborhoods? Well, we don’t know 45 because it hasn’t addressed the Comprehensive in that way. We don’t have the chart that says 46 every neighborhood in the City has been addressed in terms of its sidewalks and streets and 47 like that; that every neighborhood would be treated equally. So in some ways I would like to 48 see if we’re going to be asked to recommend that the CIP for this year is consistent with the 49 Comp Plan I would like those higher standards to also be there in the way in which the 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Commission has asked about the year 2018 and the planning for that. As I go through the 1 rough book I see a few projects that begin to take us there. The Master Plan for let me see, for 2 Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. That definitely is appealing to the 3 Comprehensive Plan of our values and aspirations. And there are some others there as well 4 when we’re looking forward. 5 6 When I think of the IBRC’s catchy little phrase or maybe we should call it “catchy keepy” little 7 phrase about catching up and keeping up I see a great distinction between what is catch up 8 and what is keep up. And maybe it’s different from what IBRC has defined it as because if a 9 project is called repairs I look at it as a catch up. If it’s looking toward expanding a recreation 10 facilities as the golf course project is, I would call that keep up because it’s keeping up with the 11 demand. So I don’t know whether that term that you’re using is a strict definition of what, how 12 IBRC has defined it. That and I think the Vice-Chair has alluded to that addressing current 13 needs is keep up. But I think I would make it more rigorous. I would challenge you to say 14 keep up means that we’re keeping ahead of the game. We’re looking to the future; we’re 15 planning for making sure that we always have access to our libraries and community facilities 16 and like that. A different kind of keep up than what I read in the repairs and roof replacements 17 and pothole repairs and like that. 18 19 So that’s I think my criticism. And it’s not as much criticism as a suggestion that the CIP is 20 consistent and I would certainly vote to recommend that to Council. But we also have to look 21 at the CIP to be more planning oriented. And I would like the planning for future Palo Alto to 22 be a higher priority in the years to come in what we see next year and maybe addressing these 23 as priorities for our community. But again, I think you’ve come so far and it’s easy to follow, 24 clearly documented that it’s quite a good document and I want to thank you for that. 25 Commissioners, follow up? Yes, Vice-Chair. 26 27 Vice-Chair Michael: So once again I think this is going to attract a lot of support from the PTC 28 and it’s a heck of a job. I had tried to make a reference to something. I was able to look up 29 the correct reference and this was from the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB). 30 It’s Statement 34, just for the record. 31 32 When preparing basic financial statements and the management’s discussion and analysis for 33 state and local governments the GASB 34 I think is the controlling reference. And what I was 34 trying to get to in that previously if I can, I had it just a moment ago, but essentially the, and it 35 goes to the CIP process, and again I was just maybe advocating on your behalf to others who 36 have to make the decision and allocate resources. Part of what the presentation of the City’s 37 finances are intended to do is to determine, and this is from GASB 34, whether the 38 government’s overall financial position is improved or deteriorated as it relates to infrastructure 39 and maintenance and so forth is the question. And then they get into, let’s see… I had it. Well, 40 essentially it says, oh, important aspects of the government wide financial statements, this is 41 about halfway through Statement 34, “The government should report all capital assets including 42 infrastructure assets in the government wide statement of net assets and generally should 43 report appreciation expense in the statement of activities.” But then it goes on to say 44 infrastructure assets that are part of a network or subsystem of a network are not required to 45 be depreciated as long as the government manages those assets using an asset management 46 system that has certain characteristics and the government can document that the assets are 47 being preserved approximately at or above a condition level established and disclosed by the 48 government. So this seems to go to the importance of moving ahead with Infrastructure 49 Management System so that you would support the exception. Otherwise the failure to report 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 26 depreciation of the capital assets infrastructure facilities of the City would be sort of contrary to 1 how I read GASB 34. 2 3 So I just want to encourage the powers that be to support Public Works and Finance in making 4 sure either that you have a system that allows you to monitor and maintain the condition of all 5 these assets at a level at or above the level that’s designed to keep them running in perpetuity 6 or sort of consider adopting a financial reporting an MDNA per GASB 34 that has depreciation 7 and may reflect on your creation of a manageable infrastructure reserve. I apologize for diving 8 into the weeds in this. When I’m not at PTC meetings I serve on the audit committee of a 9 public company and we deal with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and it just came 10 as a great revelation that there’s GASB, so good grief. 11 12 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Panelli. 13 14 Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Mr. Chair. So the reason I asked to defer to the very end is I 15 have the distinction I suppose or indistinction of being the only person on this Commission who 16 served both on IBRC and on this CIP subcommittee. And I wanted to get a chance to hear the 17 questions and comments from my fellow Commissioners. So that’s the reason I asked to be, 18 the order to be changed. So thank you Mr. Chair for indulging me there. 19 20 The first thing I want to do is correct a huge mea culpa, a huge oversight on my part. And that 21 is I thanked everybody except my colleague Commissioner Keller who joined, who I am senior 22 to on this subcommittee by all of about six weeks. But he was absolutely instrumental. I think 23 we’ve been working on so many different things together that I think we almost share a brain 24 at this point so, but I want to say thank you. You were quite helpful and you were too kind in 25 calling me the leader of this sub commission, subcommittee. I think a better description is a 26 shepherd. There are lots of sheep and they all have minds of their own, but I was just trying to 27 keep them on the right course. 28 29 So I have a few just small questions and comments and then I have a soapbox item and it sort 30 of builds off what Commissioner Michael was talking about. The first thing, if we go, let’s see… 31 Mr. Turner. On Page 11 just for, I think I know the right answer to this, but just to be clear, 32 sorry, Page 11, Chart 6. This is in the exhibit to the staff report. Attachment B, yes. The 33 categories are, it’s basically broken down infrastructure and technology and then further broken 34 down into California Avenue infrastructure and downtown infrastructure. As I recall from our 35 meetings the first bar of infrastructure is infrastructure except California and downtown. It’s 36 not the total, right? It’s, yeah it’s exempt? 37 38 Mr. Turner: Except, yes. 39 40 Commissioner Panelli: Just want everybody to be clear about that. That’s what I thought it 41 was. On, let’s see, Brad you were talking about on the fiscal year 2009 to 2013 actual 42 expenditures chart and the one line item is fiscal year 2013 year to date. Which month is that 43 year to date through? Is that January? 44 45 Mr. Perez: It should be through December. 46 47 Commissioner Panelli: Through December? Alright so it’s a six month number? 48 49 Mr. Perez: Right. 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 27 1 Commissioner Panelli: Ok. Alright. One of the things that struck me just, and we talked a little 2 bit about it in some of the earlier meetings, was the way these, the project summaries have 3 been drafted tend to talk about the primary connection to one policy. I think though what I’m 4 hearing from my fellow Commissioners is that when you put it in the aggregate it almost skews 5 the numbers or the grouping. So for example if we go to slide, sorry, Page 2 of Exhibit B, of 6 Attachment B, and we see an inordinate number and maybe a couple of groupings and then we 7 see very few in some of the others. And I’m wondering maybe that there’s a way when we do 8 this in the future perhaps to do a waiting or I’m not exactly sure of the right way to do it, but 9 perhaps there’s a way to reflect more than just the primary connection. I think it’s great when 10 you’re looking at the individual project. When you aggregate it all up it basically says 11 everything we’re doing we’re doing for Natural Environment and Community Service and I don’t 12 think that’s necessarily true. I’m happy to see so many citations to Natural Environment and 13 Community Service... 14 15 So a quick question there. We have very few citations for Governance and Business, 16 Governance Element and Business Element. Do you think that’s just the nature of Public Works 17 projects is that they don’t, they tend to be more infrastructure related and not necessarily 18 governance and I’m just curious. If somebody off the street looks at this chart they say why 19 aren’t we investing in X? 20 21 Mr. Turner: The Governance and Business Elements, especially the Governance Element is more 22 of a process related element. A way of doing things and how government is supposed to 23 operate rather than having anything to do with tangible type of items I think that the City might 24 want to improve in the future. So I think that’s kind of a uniqueness between the Governance 25 and the Business Element as compared to the other elements. Yeah. 26 27 Commissioner Panelli: Good. I just wanted to make that explicit. And it actually leads into my 28 final item, which is my soapbox item here. I was struck by what our esteemed Assistant City 29 Attorney said earlier, which is, and I think it’s endemic in government, which is you said I think 30 municipalities so not have to observe their own zoning codes. Right? 31 32 Ms. Silver: Yes, that’s correct although Palo Alto does not follow that. 33 34 Commissioner Panelli: But it reminded me of something that I’ve really harped on during the 35 IBRC year and a half, whatever it was, which is my number one objective walking into IBRC 36 was whatever happened let’s fix it. Number one. And number two; let’s make sure it never 37 happens again. Meaning we never have some huge unfunded backlog. And as Lalo had 38 mentioned earlier it’s too easy for any given Council to forget whatever happened in the past or 39 maybe not know what happened in the past because they’re new and take money from one 40 place and move it elsewhere. 41 42 One of the laws that the State of California has and I believe all the other states has for 43 example with Homeowners Associations (HOA) is that Homeowners Associations are required by 44 law to have an infrastructure reserve. That reserve is based on the life of each component of 45 that condo or townhome association. So for example if there’s an elevator and it lasts for 20 46 years that HOA has to budget one twentieth of the cost of replacement every year in cash and 47 store it somewhere with an inflator on top of that. Ok? Now in any given year they are allowed 48 to borrow from the infrastructure reserve as long as they pay it back within the next fiscal year. 49 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 28 I had discussed this within IBRC, but again it builds off what Commissioner Michael had talked 1 about, which is in standard accounting procedures you depreciate your assets and the other 2 thing you do is if you intend to keep them for a long time you replace those dollars. I wonder if 3 our Governance Element should explicitly state that we commit to maintaining our 4 infrastructure? That’s an open question. I don’t expect us to answer it tonight, but I think that 5 that plus perhaps something that statutorily requires us to reserve for the replacement of our 6 assets gets us out of this problem of trying… we spend so much time. You know our Chair is 7 saying before we don’t spend enough time looking in the future. And I think one of the big 8 reasons we don’t spend enough time looking into the future is because we spend so much time 9 trying to fix problems from the past. And wouldn’t it be nice if instead of spending time fixing 10 problems in the past we anticipate what those problems are going to be in the future, put in 11 solutions or corrective actions up front, know that the money is going to be there when that 12 asset is gone and spend most of our working time actually planning. So anyway that’s my 13 soapbox and thank you for your indulgence. 14 15 Chair Martinez: Anybody else want the soapbox? Yeah, Commissioner Alcheck. 16 17 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I just want to say that I hope that Chair Martinez’s 18 insightfulness, I hope your insightfulness is largely a result of your tenure because then there’s 19 sort of hope for all of us. I stumbled in my prep for tonight. As I attempted to sort of 20 acknowledge compliance mainly because it seemed a little too obvious, but the notion of 21 reviewing a CIP that in addition to everything that we’ve, that’s in this one takes bold steps to 22 sort of address our vision of a future Palo Alto and then assess the compliance of those bold 23 steps with the Comp Plan I think is a noteworthy suggestion. So I think that Commissioner 24 Panelli’s comments about sort of looking, I think we need to look forward and backwards at the 25 same time if you will. 26 27 I think you’ll be happy to know that the Governance Element subcommittee discussions have 28 touched upon creating a more inviting and accessible City Hall. And one of the items here talks 29 about the first floor entryways of that, you know, the assumption there is when we pass the 30 Governance Element that could be attributed to that budget. So it will increase. But yeah, no, 31 I really love the idea of components of this CIP looking forward and having sort of, which like 32 the bike bridge does and then really evaluating does that comply with our Comp Plan. And that 33 seems like a really great suggestion. So that’s it. 34 35 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Panelli are you ready? 36 37 MOTION 38 39 Commissioner Panelli: Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. I would like to make the Motion to recommend 40 the adoption of this CIP 2014 to 2018 to Council and specifically state that we believe that it 41 does in fact comply with the Comprehensive Plan. 42 43 SECOND 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Second. 46 47 Chair Martinez: Ok, we have the Motion by Commissioner Panelli, second by Commissioner 48 Keller. Do you care to speak to this Motion? 49 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 29 Commissioner Panelli: I’ve already used up all of my energy on my soapbox item, so I’m going 1 to keep this short and sweet. I think what we have, this product that we have is much better 2 than it was at the beginning and much better than maybe past versions. And so I’m really 3 pleased with it and I think we can make it better and better going forward. And you’ve heard a 4 lot of really good suggestions here from my colleagues tonight, but don’t take those as harsh 5 criticisms. Those are constructive criticisms. I think we’ve gone above and beyond what most 6 people would’ve expected. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 9 10 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 11 12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First let me suggest that the Motion be worded as in the staff 13 report. Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission find the proposed 2014 14 to 2018 Capital Improvement Program consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and forward the 15 finding to the City Council. 16 17 Commissioner Panelli: I’m happy to accept that amendment. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. There is a wonderful quote about standing on the shoulder of 20 giants and the issue is that in some sense this work stands on the shoulder of both the IBRC 21 that has done an extensive job in understanding the infrastructure needs to bring us to the 22 point where that could be distilled into this CIP and also in terms of the extensive work of 23 previous members of the CIP subcommittees as well as previous members of the Planning 24 Commission who have continued to refine how this material is presented and I think that it 25 shows in this report. And I’m pleased to second this recommendation. Thank you. 26 27 Chair Martinez: Question to the staff. Is the staff report with the analysis of the Comp Plan 28 policies and programs attached to the CIP or what’s the plan for that? 29 30 Mr. Perez: We can definitely put it as part of our package that we present to the Finance 31 Committee and we can add your letter to that. 32 33 Chair Martinez: Ok, very good. Anyone else, comments? Commissioner Panelli. 34 35 Commissioner Panelli: I’d like to just back you up on that Mr. Chairman because I think Council 36 from what I gather and the comments I’ve gotten from certain Council Members that they 37 spend a lot of time reading the minutes from our meetings and in this particular meeting we 38 spent a lot of time referring to particular exhibits. And so I think it’s really important for those 39 to be attached so if they’re trying to follow along I think it would be helpful. 40 41 Mr. Perez: Yeah, the timing won’t allow for us to put it in the document itself, but we will 42 definitely put it in their packet. 43 44 VOTE 45 46 Chair Martinez: Ok, very good. Ok Commissioners ready to vote? Those in favor of the Motion, 47 aye (Aye). Those opposed? We see no opposed. Motion passes unanimously. And again 48 thank you all very much, great job. 49 50 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto Page 30 MOTION PASSED (7-0) 1 2 Mr. Perez: Thank you. I encourage you to put some of your thoughts into the letter into the 3 vision of the future. I wholeheartedly agree that that’s something that we need to keep 4 working on together. And I want to thank Dale, Chitra, and Brad for driving all the hard work 5 and then the rest of the project managers behind me as well and the people at the table. 6 Thank you. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Great job. 9 10 APPENDIX 2 Storm Drain Oversight Committee MEMORANDUM Date: April 24, 2013 To: Honorable Finance Committee of the Palo Alto City Council From: Members of the Storm Drain Oversight Committee Subject: Review of the Proposed FY 2014 Storm Drainage Fund budget As directed by the City Council, we have reviewed the proposed Storm Drainage Fund budget for fiscal year 2014 and compared it with the provisions of the Storm Drainage Fee increase approved by Palo Alto property owners in 2005. Based on this review, we find that the proposed budget reflects the increased fees, CIP projects, and operating expenditures approved in the ballot measure. The Committee met to discuss the proposed budget on Wednesday, April 24, 2013. Prior to the meeting, Storm Drainage staff provided a packet of informational materials about the approved ballot measure and the proposed budget for the Committee’s review. During the meeting, staff presented information regarding the Storm Drainage Fund operating and capital budgets and answered questions from the Committee members. There are several noteworthy items in this year’s proposed Storm Drainage Fund budget that the Committee discussed during the meeting. After careful consideration, the Committee voted to endorse the proposed expenditures listed below, but would like to bring them to the Finance Committee’s attention since they are non-routine in nature. 1. Proposed funding for Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation is reduced by $250,000 from levels prescribed in the ballot measure and transferred to the Connect Clara Drive Storm Drains to Matadero Pump Station CIP in order to provide adequate funding for construction of the latter project. Staff and the Committee agree that completion of the Clara Drive project is a higher priority than system rehabilitation and recommend the reallocation of the $250,000 for the Clara Drive project. 2. This year’s funding for Innovative Storm Drain Improvements ($146,000) is allocated towards the Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements and Green Street CIP in order to provide supplemental funding to cover project construction costs. $1 million in prior years’ Innovative Improvements funding has been applied to the Southgate neighborhood CIP in past years’ approved budgets. Staff and the Committee agree that the innovative nature of the Southgate Neighborhood project (bioretention planters, permeable pavement, etc.) warrants the use of the Innovative Improvements funding. 3. The proposed Storm Drainage Fund budget includes funding for an additional 0.88 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) employee positions to pay for employees who spend a portion of their time APPENDIX 2 Review of the Proposed FY 2014 Storm Drainage Fund budget April 24, 2013 Page 2 working directly on storm drain issues (storm drain capital improvement projects, storm drain system maintenance, storm water pollution prevention, storm water pump station instrumentation, etc.). Staff and the Committee agree that it is appropriate to fund all staff resources performing storm drain-related functions from the Storm Drainage Fund rather than subsidizing their efforts through the General Fund or other Enterprise Funds. The proposed reallocation of the FTEs would result in an annual cost of $114,408 to the Storm Drainage Fund. Based upon our review of the materials provided to us by Storm Drainage staff, we find that the attached matrix describing the proposed use of the Storm Drainage Fee increase for FY 2014 and the table providing a side-by-side comparison of the ballot measure and the proposed budget accurately describe the relationship between the budget and the ballot measure. In addition, the attached spreadsheet summarizes the status of the Storm Drainage Fund capital improvement program implementation to-date. Staff and the Committee concur that there will be adequate funding generated by the Storm Drainage Fee increase authorized through the 2005 ballot measure to fully fund the seven capital improvement projects specified for implementation in the ballot measure. Attachments APPENDIX 2 Proposed Use of Storm Drainage Fee Increase for FY 2014 Line Item Revenue Expenditures Fee Increase Revenue SD Fee Increase $3,745,891 Capital Improvements and Program Enhancements A. One-time SD CIP Projects San Francisquito Creek Pump Station $0 Channing/Lincoln Storm Drain $1,430,000 Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drains $146,000 Gailen/Bibbits SD Improvements $0 Clara Drive SD Improvements $750,000 Matadero Creek Pump Station & Trunks $315,000 Alma Street SD Improvements $0 B. Enhanced Maintenance SD Replacement/Rehabilitation CIP $353,000 Augmented SD Maintenance $158,367 C. Innovative SD Projects $0 D. Augmented Storm Water Quality $163,756 E. Capital Improvement Program Staffing New CIP Engineer $149,060 CIP Support Staff $32,279 SUBTOTALS $3,745,891 $3,497,462 From Storm Drainage Fund Reserves $638,480 Other storm drain expenses previously covered by General Fund subsidy $886,909 TOTALS $4,384,371 $4,384,371 Prepared for the Storm Drain Oversight Committee by Joe Teresi and Tatiana Pham 4/24/2013 APPENDIX 2 Approved Storm Drainage Fee Increase Ballot Measure vs. Preliminary FY 2014 Storm Drainage Fund Budget BALLOT MEASURE 1. Implementation of seven (7) high- priority storm drain capital improvement projects. 2. $ 500,000 annually (adjusted annually for inflation) for storm drain system repair and rehabilitation. 3. $ 90,000 annually for augmented storm drain system maintenance. 4. $ 125,000 annually (adjusted annually for inflation) for innovative projects to reduce storm water runoff and pollutant levels. 5. $ 100,000 annually (adjusted annually for salary increases) to fund storm water quality protection activities formerly funded by the Wastewater Treatment Fund. 6. $ 115,000 annually (adjusted annually for salary increases) for an engineer to assist with implementation of storm drain capital improvement projects. 7. Annual adjustment of fees by local CPI increase or 6%, whichever is lower. 8. Pre-payment of Storm Drainage Fees for City-owned properties to accelerate implementation of storm drain capital improvement projects. PROPOSED BUDGET 1. $ 1,430,000 for Lincoln Ave Storm Drain Improvements (CIP SD-11101); $750,000 for Connect Clara Drive Storm Drains to Matadero PS (CIP SD-06104); $315,000 for Matadero PS and Trunk Lines Improvements (CIP SD-13002). 2. $ 353,000 for Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation (CIP SD-06101). 3. $158,367 in additional funding for Storm Drain In-House Maintenance: ($ 90,000 for supplies & materials + 0.45 additional FTE staffing). 4. $ 146,000 allocated to Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements (CIP SD-10101). 5. $163,756 in additional funding for Storm Water Quality Protection (0.9 additional FTE staffing, $ 39,000 for non-salary expenses). 6. $181,339 in additional funding for Engineer position (1.0 FTE) and CIP support staff (0.3 FTE) funded in Storm Drain System Improvements. 7. Proposed 2.2% increase per the change in the CPI for San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose for calendar year 2012. 8. No pre-payment for FY 2012-13; all scheduled pre-payments by General Fund have been made. APPENDIX 2 Proposed Storm Drain Capital Spending Plan SF Creek Pump Station Gailen / Bibbits Alma Street Channing Lincoln Trunk Matadero PS and Trunks Clara Drive Southgate Neighborhood YEARLY PROJECT Year FY $4,500,000 $650,000 $1,500,000 $4,600,000 $3,000,000 $900,000 $2,000,000 TOTAL 1 FY 2005-06 $900,000 $650,000 $180,000 $1,730,000 2 FY 2006-07 $735,000 $735,000 3 FY 2007-08 $7,535,000 ($915,000)$6,620,000 4 FY 2008-09 $700,000 $785,000 $1,485,000 5 FY 2009-10 $820,000 $820,000 6 FY 2010-11 $895,000 $895,000 7 FY 2011-12 $1,590,000 $140,000 $1,730,000 8 FY 2012-13 $1,680,000 $860,000 $2,540,000 9 FY 2013-14 $1,430,000 $315,000 $750,000 $146,000 $2,641,000 10 FY 2014-15 $1,840,000 $1,840,000 11 FY 2015-16 $1,915,000 $1,915,000 12 FY 2016-17 $1,990,000 $1,990,000 $9,135,000 $650,000 $785,000 $6,415,000 $6,060,000 $750,000 $1,146,000 $24,941,000 NOTES: 1. Cost figures immediately below project titles reflect Year 2005 cost estimates. Spreadsheet figures represent actual incurred costs & projected future costs. 2. Shaded projects have been completed to-date. 3. Phases 1 & 2 (of 4) of the Channing/Lincoln CIP have been completed. Design of Clara Drive and Southgate Neighborhood CIPs has been completed. 4/24/13 JT APPENDIX 2 5/22/2013 City of Palo Alto M E M O R A N D U M TO: Finance Committee DATE: May 14, 2013 SUBJECT: Additional Information Pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Staff would like to provide the Finance Committee with additional information pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Hearings. Community Services Department A formula error has been corrected and total FTE changes have been adjusted on pg. 140‐142 to reflect the 10.41 FTE increase found in the Staffing section of the Community Services Department Proposed Budget. These changes have no budget impact and are solely to correct presentation errors. In addition, the Net Impact column was corrected to reflect the net cost of all line items on the budget change table. Replacement pages have been provided. (See Attachment 1). Utilities Department The Proposed Budget includes a full‐time equivalent (FTE) add of 0.5 FTE Program Assistant I and results in a salaries and benefits increase of $52,287. Staff requests an amendments to the Proposed Budget to drop 0.5 FTE Program Assistant I, and add 1.0 FTE Utilities Project, Coordinator. The gross salaries and benefits impact of this change is an increase of $94,686. The result is a net budget increase of $42,399 to the proposed budget. This Utilities Project, Coordinator position will assist the Communications Manager by coordinating complex communications projects, including program and service outreach and education. Allocated charges to the Water Fund from the Wastewater Treatment Fund are decreased from $51,000 to $44,000 to align the budget with expected actuals. These charges represent laboratory work done for the Water Fund by staff at the Water Quality Control Plant. A correction is made to the Residential Monthly Utility Cost Information on page 56 of the Proposed Operating Budget. The current FY 2013 median monthly amount for gas service should be $39.07 instead of $49.67. The proposed FY 2014 median monthly amount for gas service is estimated to be 0.5 percent higher at $39.27 than the current FY 2013 amount. It should be noted that the median monthly residential bill will vary depending on actual gas market prices. (See Attachment 2) DEPARTMENT HEAD: LALO PEREZ Director, Administrative Services/CFO CITY MANAGER: JAMES KEENE City Manager APPENDIX 2 -140- City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Community Services Department Summary General Fund Department Expenditures/FTE by Service Program/Division Proposed Budget Changes FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change $ FY 2014 Change % Positions 123.82 122.71 123.72 125.52 134.13 10.41 8% Staff Expenditures $10,707,705 $10,876,921 $11,214,219 $11,233,590 $12,014,159 $799,940 7% Other Expenditures 9,365,082 9,995,507 10,685,291 10,780,999 10,285,452 (399,839) (4%) Total Expenditures $20,072,787 $20,872,428 $21,899,510 $22,014,589 $22,299,611 $400,101 2% Total Revenues $7,154,800 $6,816,045 $7,514,936 $7,562,621 $6,151,347 $(1,363,589)(18%) FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change $ FY 2014 Change % Administration and Human Services $4,151,355 $2,882,033 $3,724,515 $3,277,460 $3,416,543 $(307,972) (8%) FTE Staff 15.31 15.71 4.99 5.88 5.13 0.14 3% Arts and Sciences 4,494,190 4,572,965 4,439,400 4,514,142 4,971,620 532,220 12% FTE Staff 36.73 36.91 37.18 38.20 43.87 6.69 18% Open Space, Parks and Golf 5,698,552 8,220,462 8,817,168 8,845,473 8,424,694 (392,474) (4%) FTE Staff 30.16 30.71 31.51 31.33 31.73 0.22 1% Recreation and Cubberley 5,728,690 5,196,968 4,918,427 5,377,514 5,486,754 568,327 12% FTE Staff 41.62 39.38 50.04 50.11 53.40 3.36 7% Total Expenditures $20,072,787 $20,872,428 $21,899,510 $22,014,589 $22,299,611 $400,101 2% Total FTE 123.82 122.71 123.72 125.52 134.13 10.41 8% Change FTE Expense Revenue Net Cost One Time Golf Course Reconfiguration (Note 1) (567,417) (1,312,188) 744,771 Marketing Outreach (Note 2) 50,000 50,000 Subtotal 0.00 (517,417) (1,312,188) 794,771 Ongoing Reduction to County reimbursement for median maintenance (Note 3)(9,000) 9,000 Art Center Foundation Contribution (Note 4) 0.50 56,000 81,000 (25,000) Increase in Recreation Programs (Note 5) 2.00 92,000 119,500 (27,500) Budget Class Fee Revenue on Historical Trends (Note 6) (242,901) 242,901 Enjoy! Catalog Expense (Note 7) 58,000 58,000 Special Events Contract (Note 8) 50,000 50,000 CIP Projects moved to Operating Budget (Note 9) 55,000 55,000 Mediation Contracts 7,000 7,000 Expenses moved to Parking District Fund (23,826) (23,826) Unfreeze 0.75 FTE Program Assistant I (Note 10) 37,804 37,804 Add 0.25 FTE Volunteer Coordinator (Note 11) 0.25 21,548 21,548 Reclassify 0.75 FTE Program Assistant I to 1.0 FTE Program Assistant II (Note 12) 0.25 25,453 25,453 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto -141- Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Community Services Budget Changes Notes Note 1: On July 23, 2012 City Council approved a reconfiguration of the golf course in conjunction with the flood mitigation project for San Francisquito Creek. The reconfiguration is estimated to begin in April 2014, which will cause the course to be closed for part of Fiscal Year 2014. As a result of the reconfiguration the course is expected to see a significant reduction in revenue from Fiscal Year 2013. In addition, major contracts for maintenance and management were renegotiated and approved by Council on March 18, 2013. Expenditures have decreased as a result of the new agreement terms. Note 2: Competition for classes and camps has increased in the region over the past five years, which has had a negative impact on enrollment numbers for the Community Services Department overall. This funding will be used to contract for marketing research to determine the needs and desires of the community to assist in developing a marketing strategy. Note 3: The City receives reimbursement from Santa Clara County for the maintenance of medians and other areas that are under the jurisdiction of the County. The reimbursement amount is set annually based on county-wide standards. The reimbursement amount is decreasing in Fiscal Year 2014. The Community Services Department is exploring cost saving measures to offset this reduction. Note 4: City Council approved an agreement with the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation on April 8, 2013. This agreement includes an annual contribution of $81,000 for the department to use to support children's educational programs at the Art Center. This will include an additional 0.5 FTE in hourly staff. Note 5: Although overall department enrollment has declined, in the past two years the Recreation Division has seen an increase in activity and enrollment for Aquatics, Lucie Stern rentals, Summer Camps and Middle School Athletics. The revenue target for these programs has been increased to reflect historical trends, which will be used to hire 2.0 FTE additional hourly staff to respond to the increase in demand for programs and services in these areas. Note 6: Class fee revenue for the Department as a whole has decreased steadily over the past five years, with most of the decline in the Arts and Sciences Division. The revenue targets are budgeted reflect historical trends. Note 7: The Enjoy! Catalog is the primary marketing tool for generating the annual revenue for programs and services. The cost for design, publication, and distribution has increased in the past five years. City Council on April 15, 2013 approved an additional $38k as part of midyear, and the department anticipates an additional $20k of increases in Fiscal Year 2014. This addition is primarily due to a summer supplement, and expanded programs in the Recreation Division. Note 8: The Community Services Department plans and manages a number of citywide events each year. Among the events are the May Fete Parade, Chili Cook Off, Senior New Year's Bash, Moonlight Run, Holiday Tree Lighting along with unplanned events to support or celebrate various city happenings. Additional funding is requested for Fiscal Year 2014 for staff overtime required for preparation and day-of activities, as well as a contracted event management services. Note 9: During the Fiscal Year 2014 Capital Improvement Planning process, it was determined that two on-going projects (CIP#: OS-00002; PG-12002) should be transferred to the Department's Operating Budget. Note 10: In the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget this position was frozen from July through December in order to achieve needed savings to balance the budget. The position has been unfrozen and the department is able to fill the vacancy. Note 11: In the past four years the Art Center has seen an 81 percent increase in the number of volunteers and a 15 percent increase in the number of service hours. The volunteer coordinator is responsible for recruiting, training and managing this pool of 575active volunteers. This position will be increased from 0.5 FTE to 0.75 FTE. Add 0.07 FTE Heavy Equipment Operator 0.07 8,600 8,600 Add 0.5 FTE Management Specialist (Note 13)0.50 48,000 48,000 Increase Temporary Staffing to meet Operational Needs (Note 14) 6.84 360,800 360,800 Increase Overtime for Special Events (Note 8)10,000 10,000 Budgeting Salary on Actual Pay Rates (Note 15)(102,633)(102,633) Citywide Benefit Changes (Note 16)262,120 262,120 Allocated Charges (Note 17)(66,527)(66,527) Other Changes 18,179 18,179 Subtotal 10.41 917,518 (51,401) 968,919 Net Change to Budget 10.41 400,101 (1,363,589)1,763,690 Change FTE Expense Revenue Net Cost APPENDIX 2 -142-City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Community Services Note 12: With the re-opening of the Mitchell Park Community Center, the Recreation Division will need a full time Program Assistant II act as a sales manager, coordinate facility rentals, oversee cash handling and provide general customer service for visitors that come to the new community center. The new center is expected to generate an increase in activity and rentals that will also provide new revenues to more than offset the cost of this customer service position. Revenues will be monitored closely and adjustment to budgeted revenue may be changed through the midyear process in Fiscal Year 2014. Note 13: This hourly staff position of Management Specialist is within the Arts and Sciences Division of and acts as the staff liaison to the Public Art Commission and is responsible for the management, maintenance, and oversight of the City's public art collection. Currently, the position is filled, but has been previously funded by attrition savings; this provides sufficient funding for the position correcting this issue. Note 14: As a result of significant reductions to regular staff that were made in the past five years, the Department has had to increase reliance on hourly staff to maintain expected service levels. An analysis of historical trends and operational needs show that the department requires an additional 6.84 FTE to maintain services at current levels and actual needs. Note 15: This year salaries are being budgeted at actual rate of pay. The City has two types of compensation systems: 1) "control point" which refers to the midpoint of the range, and 2) a five step pay system, which defines the amount of pay an employee receives. Previously, the budget was set at control point or highest step for permanent benefited positions; temporary positions were budgeted at the second step. In addition, this fiscal year vacant full-time benefited positions are budgeted at control point or the highest step; vacant temporary positions are budgeted at the second step. Most employees are hired below control point or under the highest step. A salary reserve has been set aside to account for step or increases towards control point during the year based on performance as per the memorandum of understanding. Note 16: This increase in benefits is primarily a result from increased pension, medical, and retiree medical costs. For additional information, please refer to the General Benefits Fund and Retiree Health Benefit Fund sections of this document. Note 17: General Fund cost allocation plan charges are driven primarily by changes to the budget and changes in the level of support the administrative departments provide to the direct service departments/funds. The budgeted amounts for most General Fund Information Technology allocations decreased in 2014 as compared to the 2013 Adopted Budget. For more detail on the basis for this change, please refer to the Information Technology Department Budget Changes table. Revenues and Expenditures FY 2011 Actuals FY 2012 Actuals FY 2013 Adopted Budget FY 2013 Adjusted Budget FY 2014 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Change $ FY 2014 Change % Revenues Internal Revenues $51,659 $48,659 $58,338 $58,338 $58,338 $0 0% External Revenues 7,103,141 6,767,386 7,456,598 7,504,283 6,093,009 (1,363,589) (18%) Total Revenues $7,154,800 $6,816,045 $7,514,936 $7,562,621 $6,151,347 $(1,363,589)(18%) Expenditures Salaries and Benefits $10,707,705 $10,876,921 $11,214,219 $11,233,590 $12,014,159 $799,940 7% Contract Services 3,230,863 3,739,588 3,964,852 4,013,168 3,702,838 (262,014) (7%) Supplies and Materials 575,653 601,311 688,457 686,457 682,603 (5,854) (1%) Facilities and Equipment Purchases 45,786 31,804 70,700 70,700 70,700 0 0% General Expense 1,294,177 1,296,547 1,351,018 1,368,394 1,369,098 18,080 1% Rents and Leases 15,970 22,188 25,466 25,466 25,466 0 0% Allocated Charges 4,195,643 4,295,090 4,577,808 4,579,824 4,427,757 (150,051) (3%) Operating Transfers Out 6,990 6,990 6,990 36,990 6,990 0 0% Total Expenditures $20,072,787 $20,870,439 $21,899,510 $22,014,589 $22,299,611 $400,101 2% APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto - 56- Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Residential Monthly Utility Cost Information Utility Current FY 2013 Bill Proposed FY 2014 Bill $ Difference % Difference Electric (1) $42.76 42.76 - 0.0% Water (2) 62.14 67.35 5.21 8.4% Gas (3)39.07 39.27 0.20 0.5% Wastewater (4)29.31 29.31 -0.0% Refuse (5)41.54 41.54 -0.0% Storm Drain (6)11.73 11.99 0.26 2.2% User Tax (7)7.73 7.47 (0.26) -3.4% Total Monthly Bill $234.28 $239.69 $5.41 2.3% COMMENTS: 1 - Electric comparisons based on recent residential median data: 365 kWh/month in summer (May-Oct), 453 kWh/month winter (Nov-Apr) 2 - Water comparisons based on recent residential median data: 9 ccf/month 3 - Gas comparisons based on recent residential median data: 18 therms/mo in summer (May-Oct), 54 therms/ mo. in winter (Nov-Apr). Commodity prices switched to market-rate in FY 2013. Proposed FY 2014 monthly bill is based on rates effective February 1, 2013. 4 - Wastewater comparisons are for a residential dwelling unit. Rates are not metered. 5 - Refuse rate based on 32-gallon can. 6 - Storm drain increase based on December 2012 CPI data. 7 - UUT currently 5% of Electric, Water and Gas bills. APPENDIX 2 5/22/2013 City of Palo Alto M E M O R A N D U M TO: Finance Committee DATE: May 16, 2013 SUBJECT: Additional Information Pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Staff would like to provide the Finance Committee with additional information pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Hearings. Staff Proposed Changes to Municipal Fee Schedule (See Attachments 1 and 2) Staff recommends the following changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule as presented in staff report #3804 – packet pages are listed for your reference: Planning & Community Environment/Impact Fees, beginning packet p. 77‐78, Municipal Fee book p. 17‐3 & 17‐4: 1. Development Impact Fees:  Parks ‐ Both residential and nonresidential fees decreased $1/unit  Libraries – Residential, Multi‐family cost per unit decreased $10 for units greater than 900 square feet 2. Housing Impact Fees:  Increased Housing Impact fee $0.45 per square foot for nonresidential development 3. Traffic Impact Fees:  Citywide Transportation Impact Fee – Increased transportation impact fee $144 per net new PM peak hour trip  Charleston/Arastradero – Increased fee $0.01 per square foot for commercial units and $53 per square foot for residential units 4. Parkland Dedication Fee:  Increased fees for both Single‐family and Multi‐family projects by $1,849/unit and $1,288/unit, respectively. 5. Transportation Fees: (8.5% ‐ University Ave, 15% ‐ California Ave)  Increased fees for quarterly permits and quarterly transferable permits within Business Districts by $6.50.  Increased fees for annual permits within Business Districts by $26  Increased fee for one‐day parking permit in California Avenue Business District by $1  Increased fee for one‐day parking permit in University Avenue Business District by $1.50  Increased fee for quarterly permits and quarterly transferable permits within the University Avenue Parking District by $11.50  Increased fee for annual permits within the University Avenue Parking District by $46 Revenue impact is minimal. Impact Fee updates are directed by ordinance. Contributing factors include changes in the Consumer Price Index and changes in the construction cost index, which is derived from the Engineering News Record. Justification for the increases to the Transportation Fees is provided below. APPENDIX 2 5/22/2013 University Avenue Parking Permit Fund Several adjustments are recommended in the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund. On April 23, 2013 City staff met with the Palo Alto Business and Professional Association Parking Committee (Committee). At that meeting, an 8.5% increase to the parking permit, day pass, and ticket machine fees was discussed, and is recommended for approval via the attached revisions to the FY 2014 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule (see Attachment 2). Upon approval of this increase, which was supported by the Committee, the University Avenue Parking District permits will increase from $135/quarter and $420/annual in FY 2013 to $146.5/quarter and $466/annual in FY 2014. The One‐Day Parking Permits for the district increase from $16/day to $17.50/day. The 8.5% fee increase is anticipated to generate $118,915 in additional revenue in FY 2014, therefore an increase to the budgeted revenue estimate is also recommended. This level of fee increase allows for numerous improvements over the next five years within the district, while maintaining adequate reserve balances. The improvement projects are outlined in the proposed University Avenue Parking Improvements Project (see Attachment 3, pp. 5‐6 PF‐14003). California Avenue Parking Permit Fund Several adjustments are recommended in the California Avenue Parking Permit Fund. First, a 15% increase to the fees is proposed. This increase, which is recommended for approval via the attached revisions to the FY 2014 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule, will translates to an increase of $6.50 per quarterly and $26.00 per annual permit fees, with day passes increasing by $1.00 (see Attachment 2). The revenues generated by this fee increase, and additional fee increases in future years, will fund necessary improvements within the California Avenue Parking Permit District. The improvement projects are outlined in the proposed California Avenue Parking Improvements Project (see Attachment 3, pp. 3‐4 PF‐14004). While the 15% increase is anticipated to generate an additional $25,000 annually, the additional revenue will be offset by lower than anticipated revenue for Parking Permits and Day Passes. Therefore, the overall 2014 budgeted revenue estimate is recommended to remain at $195,000. Public Works Adjustments totaling a net reduction of $194,141 to the General Fund are recommended for the Public Works Department. As outlined for the Finance Committee on May 9, 2013, a change in the budgeting methodology for the University Avenue and California Avenue Parking Permit Funds is recommended starting in FY 2014. Previously, the expenses related to maintenance and administration of these funds were budgeted in the General Fund and Refuse Fund, with those funds reimbursed by transfers from the Parking Permit Funds (primarily through permit sales). Beginning in 2014, the expenses for these funds are proposed to be budgeted directly in the parking permit funds. As staff was preparing all of the necessary changes, a few adjustments were inadvertently omitted. Most of these adjustments were detailed at the May 9th Finance Committee meeting, including the reallocation of benefits and other non‐salary expenses to the parking funds ($208,891). One additional adjustment is recommended. A decrease of $40,250 to the Public Works General Fund budget is recommended, as these costs ($40,000 for contract services and $250 for General Expenses) are now accounted for in the Parking Permit Funds. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this reduction. In addition, $15,000 in savings is available from funds previously allocated for engineering support related to the potential infrastructure finance measure for the November 2014 ballot. The 2014 Proposed Operating Budget set aside one‐time funds for this purpose, however the department has projected savings in the current year budget which can be used for this purpose. Savings related to the parking funds and Infrastructure ballot measure are partially offset by a recommended increase to contract funding associated with tree trimming. This $70,000 increase is recommended as bids for tree trimming services are coming in at higher than expected levels. APPENDIX 2 5/22/2013 Vehicle Replacement Fund (See Attachment 3, pp. 7‐8) The attached page for the FY 2014 CIP VR‐14000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements is increased by $300,000 from $2,700,000 to $3,000,000 and replaces pp. 370‐371 in the proposed capital book. This increase includes $100,000 to purchase and outfit a 2013 Chevy Suburban for the Fire Department. This vehicle will replace their current command unit #6059. An additional $200,000 is needed for the purchase of an aerial ladder truck for the Fire Department. Subsequent to the development of the Proposed Capital Budget, a quote of $1,195,346 was received which is approximately $200,000 above the original estimate. Both of these items have been reviewed and approved by the Fleet Review Committee. Capital Projects Fund (See Attachment 3) CIP PF‐07002 Baylands Interpretive Center Improvement (p. 73) is removed because it had already been included in CIP PE‐14018 Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements and Boardwalk Repair (p. 74). CIP PF‐01003 Building Systems Improvements (p. 77) is updated to reflect planned expenditures of $100,000 in FY 2018. This amount had not been included in the Proposed Capital Budget document. CIP PF‐14003 University Avenue Parking District Parking Improvements is established to account for capital work for parking facility improvements as discussed above. This project will be funded by the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund. Planned expenditures are: FY 2014 340,900 FY 2015 234,800 FY 2016 122,900 FY 2017 93,900 FY 2018 117,600 Total 910,100 CIP PF‐14004 California Avenue Parking District Parking Improvements is established to account for capital work for parking facility improvements as discussed above. This project will be funded by the California Avenue Parking Permit Fund. Planned expenditures are: FY 2014 186,400 FY 2015 0 FY 2016 0 FY 2017 0 FY 2018 222,800 Total 409,200 DEPARTMENT HEAD: LALO PEREZ Director, Administrative Services/CFO CITY MANAGER: JAMES KEENE City Manager APPENDIX 2 For more information on impact fees and parkland dedication, refer to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 16.45; 16.46;16.47; 16.57; 16.58; 16.59;16.60; and 21.50. Development Impact Fees PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT Impact Fees (1) For the purposes of this fee, "single-family" is defined as a single dwelling unit that does not share a common wall with another dwelling unit. A second dwelling unit, as defined in 18.04.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, is considered a multi-family unit for purposes of calculating this fee. Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $243 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel, $102 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof. FY 2014 FEE Residential: Single family $10,638/residence (or $15,885/residence larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family $6,963 unit (or $3,521/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square feet). Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $4,517 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel, $2,043 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof. Residential: Single family1 $2,758/residence (or $4,129/residence larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family $1,815/unit (or $916/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square feet). Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $255 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel, $115 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof. Residential: Single family $963/residence (or $1,434/residence larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family $565 unit (or $316/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square feet). Residential: Single family1 $963/residence (or $1,434/residence larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family $575/unit (or $316/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square feet). Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $4,518 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel, $2,043 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof. Libraries Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $243 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel, $102 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof. FY 2013 FEE Residential: Single family1 $10,639/residence (or $15,887/residence larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family $6,964/unit (or $3,521/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square feet). Community Centers Residential: Single family1 $2,758/residence (or $4,129/residence larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family $1,815/unit (or $916/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square feet). Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $255 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel, $115 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof. Parks City of Palo Alto FY 2014 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-3 APPENDIX 2 PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT Impact Fees FY 2014 FEEFY 2013 FEE Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real CS Zone San Antonio / West Bayshore Area Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Charleston/ Arastradero Parking in lieu fee for the Downtown Assessment District Only applies to residential projects that require a subdivision or parcel map. Land dedication is required for subdivisions resulting in more than 50 parcels. When parkland dedication applies, park impact fees (above) do not apply. $60,750 per parking space Land required: Single-family = 555 square feet / unit, Multi-family = 382 sq. ft. / unit In-lieu Fee: Single-family = $58,366/unit, Multi-family - $40,187/unit. $18.89 per square foot applies to nonresidential development $11.08 per net new square foot $2.28 per square foot $3,197 per net new PM peak hour trip $0.34 per square foot - commerical; $1,168 per residential unit $3,053 per net new PM peak hour trip Traffic Impact Fees $0.33 per square foot - commerical; $1,115 per residential unit $11.08 per net new square foot 18.44 per square foot applies to nonresidential development Housing Impact Fees $60,750/parking space Parkland Dedication Fee Land required: Single-family = 555 square feet / unit, Multi-family = 382 sq. ft. / unit In-lieu Fee: Single-family = $56,517/unit, Multi-family - $38,899/unit $2.28 per square foot City of Palo Alto FY 2014 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-4 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto - 8 - Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget PF-01003Building Systems Improvements BUILDING SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS (PF-01003) CIP FACTS: • Project Type: Annual Recurring • Project Stage: Construction • Est. Timeline: Summer 2012-Spring 2018 • Managing Department: Public Works • IBRC Reference: Keep-up • Overall Project Completion: 0% • Location: Citywide • Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, HRB IMPACT ANALYSIS: • Environmental: This project may require Miti- gated Negative Declaration if Historic Building. • Design Elements: This project may be subject to ARB and HRB review. • Operating: None Relationship to Comprehensive Plan Primary Connection • Element: Community Services & Facilities • Section: Parks & Public Faciliites • Goal: C-4 • Policy: C-24 • Program: C-19 Description: This project provides electrical, mechanical, and structural system upgrades as required at various City facilities. Upgrades may include main and emergency power sources, fixtures, fire alarm systems and devices, HVAC (inclugin adding air conditioning), and structural repairs or reinforcement. System upgrades required for code compliance are also provided through this project. Implementation of this plan is ongoing. See Supplemental Information for work in upcoming years. Justification: This project will allow upgrades to the electrical systems in facilities with systems that are overloaded or are no longer efficient. Due to increased usage of computers and other devices over the past ten years, many buildings' electrical or wiring systems are outdated and at- capacity. Heating and air-conditioning units in older buildings are at the end of their useful life. Structural systems have become damaged or fatigued due to heavier equipment requirements or increased loading. Supplemental Information: Department of Public Works uses a asset maintenance tracking software to identify the maintenance needs addressed through this CIP. Projects identified for upcoming work include: FY 2014 - Golf Course boiler replacement and City Hall chiller overhaul; FY 2015 - Art Center basement HVAC system and City Hall water pressure control system; FY 2016 - Fire Station 4 mechanical replacement and Junior Museum mechanical replacement; FY 2017 - Mitchell Park and Rinconada Park tennis court lighting replacement; FY 2018 - Utility Control Center boiler replacement and Utility Control Center boiler and chiller controls upgrade. APPENDIX 2 BUILDING SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS (PF-01003) CONTINUED - 9 -City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Prior Years Expended and Encumbered ongoing Continuing Appropriations $207,462 Expenditures FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Total Funding Salaries and Benefits $12,440 $12,440 Design Costs Construction Costs $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 Other Total Budget Request $112,440 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $512,440 Revenues FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Total Funding Infrastructure Reserve $112,440 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $512,440 Total Sources of Funds $112,440 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $512,440 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto - 10 - Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget PF-14004California Avenue Parking District Parking Improvements CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING DISTRICT PARKING IMPROVEMENTS (PF-14004) CIP FACTS: NEW • Project Type: Annual Recurring • Project Stage: Construction • Est. Timeline: Spring 2014-Summer 2018 • Managing Department: Public Works IMPACT ANALYSIS: • Design Elements: Replacement of street furniture will require ARB review • Operating: Maintaining infrastructure will reduce repair workload Relationship to Comprehensive Plan Primary Connection • Element: Transportation • Section: Parking • Goal: T-8 • Policy: T-47 • Program: T-52 Description: Establishment of this CIP will provide for improvements in the California Avenue parking district. The type of improvements that would be funded are projects that are beyond routine maintenance and include such things as parking lot resurfacing, striping and signing; parking structure painting or staining; electrical system upgrades needed to support improved lighting, security, parking, fountains or other systems; replacement or rehabilitation of parking lot signs. Justification: In the past, larger infrastructure improvements in the downtown area have been done as the need arose, after discussions with the California Avenue Area Development Association. Due the timing of these discussions, it was sometimes difficult to insert these projects into the City’s budget process. An established, recurring CIP for the California Avenue area would better merge the improvement needs with the City’s internal budget process schedule. Supplemental Information: The completion of projects identified in this CIP are dependent upon the 15% increase proposed for Fiscal Year 2014, as well as additional fee increases in future years. FY 2014 projects: resurface and restripe Lot 7 (Sherman/Birch). FY 2018 projects: resurface and restripe Lot 8 (Sherman/Ash). APPENDIX 2 CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING DISTRICT PARKING IMPROVEMENTS (PF-14004) CONTINUED - 11 -City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Expenditures FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Total Funding Salaries and Benefits Design Costs Construction Costs $186,400 $222,800 $409,200 Other Total Budget Request $186,400 $222,800 $409,200 Revenues FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Total Funding California Avenue Parking Per- mits Fund $186,400 $222,800 $409,200 Total Sources of Funds $186,400 $222,800 $409,200 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto - 38 - Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget PF-14003University Avenue Parking District Parking Improvements UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING DISTRICT PARKING IMPROVEMENTS (PF-14003) CIP FACTS: NEW • Project Type: Annual Recurring • Project Stage: Construction • Est. Timeline: Fall 2013-Summer 2018 • Managing Department: Public Works • Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB IMPACT ANALYSIS: • Design Elements: ARB review may be needed for any signage • Operating: Maintaining infrastructure will reduce repair workload Relationship to Comprehensive Plan Primary Connection • Element: Transportation • Section: Parking • Goal: T-8 • Policy: T-47 • Program: T-52 Description: Establishment of this CIP will provide for improvements in the University Avenue parking district. The improvements that would be funded are projects that are beyond routine maintenance, including parking lot resurfacing, striping and signing; parking structure painting or staining; electrical system upgrades needed to support improved lighting, security systems or other systems; design and installation of parking guidance technology to help drivers identify vacant parking spaces. Justification: In the past, larger infrastructure improvements in the downtown area have been done as the need arose, after discussions with the Chamber of Commerce Infrastructure Committee. Due the timing of these discussions, it was sometimes difficult to insert these projects into the City’s budget process. An established, recurring CIP for the downtown area would better merge the improvement needs with the City’s internal budget process schedule. Supplemental Information: The completion of projects identified in this CIP are dependent upon the 8.5% increase for parking permit, day pass, and ticket machine fees proposed for 2014. FY 2014 projects: resurface and restripe Lots A (Emerson/Lytton), H (Cowper/Hamilton) and D (Hamilton Waverly) ($90,900); restripe the Cowper/Webster garage and paint the interior so as to brighten its appearance ($175,000); parking garages security camera feasibility study and design ($25,000) FY 2015 projects: resurface and restripe Lots E (Gilman/Bryant) and G (Waverly/Gilman) ($34,800); installation of security cameras at downtown garages ($150,000). FY 2016 projects: resurface and restripe Lots N (Emerson/Hamilton), T (Lytton/Kipling), and P (High/Hamilton) FY2017 projects: resurface and restripe Lots O (Emerson/High) and F (Florence/Lytton) FY2018 projects: resurface and restripe Lots K (Lytton/Waverley) and C (Ramona/Lytton) Parking guidance system technology ($50,000 per year from FY 2014 to FY 2018) APPENDIX 2 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING DISTRICT PARKING IMPROVEMENTS (PF-14003) CONTINUED - 39 -City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Expenditures FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Total Funding Salaries and Benefits Design Costs $25,000 $25,000 Construction Costs $315,900 $234,800 $122,900 $93,900 $117,600 $885,100 Other Total Budget Request $340,900 $234,800 $122,900 $93,900 $117,600 $910,100 Revenues FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Total Funding University Avenue Parking Permits Fund $340,900 $234,800 $122,900 $93,900 $117,600 $910,100 Total Sources of Funds $340,900 $234,800 $122,900 $93,900 $117,600 $910,100 APPENDIX 2 City of Palo Alto - 4 - Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget VR-14000Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements SCHEDULED VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENTS (VR-14000) CIP FACTS: NEW • Project Type: Nonrecurring • Project Stage: Other • Est. Timeline: Summer 2013-Spring 2014 • Managing Department: Public Works • Location: 3201 East Bayshore Road IMPACT ANALYSIS: • Environmental: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15301. • Design Elements: None • Operating: This project will generate ongoing maintenance and replacement costs. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan Primary Connection • Element: Natural Environment • Section: Air Quality • Goal: N-5 • Policy: N-26 • Program: N-41 Description: This project will involve the scheduled replacement of existing City fleet vehicles and equipment for Fiscal Year 2014. A total of 20 vehicles and pieces of equipment will be replaced under this project. Significant purchases include a Fire aerial truck ($1.2M), paint truck ($200,000), lift truck ($267,000) and fork lift ($150,900). All vehicle replacements will be reviewed by the Fleet Review Committee prior to the acquisition process. Justification: The ongoing replacement of City fleet vehicles and equipment is prescribed by City Policy and Procedures Section 4-01. The policy includes guidelines for these replacements based on age, mileage accumulation, and obsolescence. Timely replacement of vehicles lowers maintenance costs, helps to maintain or even increase the productivity of client departments, and allows the City to take advantage of new technology. Supplemental Information: 20 vehicles and pieces of equipment are scheduled for replacement in FY 2014, this includes six patrol vehicles, fire department aerial truck, five trucks, an asphalt paver, two backhoes, a turf mower, and a van as well as the significant purchases mentioned above. Although a large number of vehicle and equipment replacements were completed in FY 2013, a significant backlog of pending replacements still exists which presents a significant liability in terms of increased maintenance costs, reduced efficiency and productivity, and regulatory compliance. All of the vehicles proposed for replacement are well beyond existing replacement guidelines for age and mileage accumulation. APPENDIX 2 SCHEDULED VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENTS (VR-14000) CONTINUED - 5 -City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget Expenditures FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Total Funding Salaries and Benefits Design Costs Construction Costs Other $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Total Budget Request $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Revenues FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Total Funding Vehicle Replacement Fund $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Total Sources of Funds $3,000,000 $3,000,000 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 5/22/2013 1 City Manager’s Proposed Budget Finance Committee May 7, 2013 2 Date Meeting Time/Location Agenda Tues, 5/7 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers Budget Kickoff; Departments: ‐ Council Appointed Officials & Council ‐ HR, Employee Benefits Funds ‐ General Liability Fund ‐ IT Department (capital & operating) ‐ ASD/Printing & Mailing Fund Thurs, 5/9 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers ‐ HSRAP ‐ CSD ‐ Library ‐ Planning Tues, 5/14 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers ‐ Police, Fire & Office of Emergency Services ‐ Utilities (capital & operating) ‐ Power Purchase Agreements for Project Output from Three Solar Photovoltaic Facilities ‐ Muni Fees Thurs, 5/16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers ‐General Fund Capital ‐Public Works: General Fund, Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater Treatment, Vehicle Replacement, Airport, related capital ‐ Special Revenue Funds (including Parking District & Stanford Devl Agreement Fund) ‐ Non‐departmental Thurs, 5/23 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers ‐ Wrap up with Finance Committee ‐ Management Compensation Study Mon, 6/3 City Council 6PM, Chambers Public Hearing ‐ Utility Rates (Prop 218); Budget adoption Mon, 6/10 City Council 6PM, Chambers Public Hearing ‐ Budget adoption City of Palo Alto Council & Finance Committee Budget Hearings Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Process General Fund FY 2013 Adopted Compared to FY 2014 Proposed Proposed Operating Budget, p. xix FY 2013 Adopted Budget ‐ BSR draw ($390) Revenue Changes or Enhancements Tax revenues $5,764 Golf reconfiguration project revenue impact (1,312) Plan check and permitting revenue 3,974 Equity transfer adjustment (725) Other revenue adjustments (141) Total Revenue Changes $7,560 Ongoing Expense Changes Salary & benefit adjustments for pension/healthcare increases $4,036 Unfreeze 7 positions in public safety 1,224 Net department position requests 129 Police overtime adjustment 532 Planning and Community Environment & Development Services contract expense 1,388 Final Technology Loan payment in FY 2013 (1,220) Other ongoing expense changes (209) Subtotal ‐ Ongoing Expense Changes 5,880 One‐Time Expense Changes Library collection materials funded by Library Foundation 500 Planning and Community Environment & Development Services contract expense 755 Golf Course reconfiguration project (567) Other one‐time expense changes 382 Subtotal ‐ One‐time Expense Changes 1,070 Total Expense Changes $6,950 Net General Fund Change $610 FY 2014 Proposed Budget ‐ BSR contribution $220 3 4 General Fund Overview Proposed Operating Budget, pp. 31‐44 5.0% rev increase 4.6% exp increase Pension, $0.2M; Healthcare, $1.1M; Retiree ARC, $0.2M $0.2M surplus $30.5M BSR balance, 19.1% of proposed budget General Fund Major Revenues 5 General Fund Revenue by Type $160 Million 6 Sales Tax, $23,846 , 15% Property Tax, $29,102 , 18% Transient Occupancy Tax, $11,545 , 7% Document Transfer Tax, $5,699 , 4%Utility Users Tax , $11,013 , 7% Other Taxes and Fines, $2,107 , 1% Charges for Services, $24,379 , 15% Permits & Licenses, $8,346 , 5% Return on Investment , $769 , 1% Rental Income, $12,891 , 8% From other Agencies, $168 , 0% Charges to other Funds, $10,574 , 7% Other Revenue, $2,010 , 1% Operating Transfers‐ In, $17,529 , 11% APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 2 General Fund Expenditures 7 Administration Public Works Planning Police Fire CSD and Library $5 $8 $11 $14 $17 $20 $23 $26 $29 $32 $35 Mill i o n s General Fund Expense by Category $159.8 Million 8 Salaries & Benefits , $93, 61%Contract Services , $12, 8% Supplies & Materials , $3, 2% General Expense, $10, 7% Rents and Leases, $1, 1% Facilities and Equiptment, $1, 0% Allocated Charges, $17, 11% Contingent Acct, $1, 0% Operating Trans‐Out , $15, 10% 9 Citywide Budget Summary (in millions) Operating Capital Total Percent of Total General Fund $159.8 $18.5 $178.3 38% Enterprise Funds $263.8 $23.3 $287.1 62% Total $423.6 $41.8 $465.4 100% This table does not include Internal Service Fund expense. Capital Projects by Fund $60 Million 10 Capital Project Fund (General Fund), $19,790 , 34% Vehicle Replacement Fund, $1,225 , 2% Technology Fund, $2,492 , 4% Electric Fund, $10,910 , 19% Fiber Optics Fund, $400 , 1% Gas Fund, $7,756 , 13% Water Fund, $6,115 , 10% Wastewater Collection Fund, $4,404 , 8% Wastewater Treatment Fund, $2,600 , 4% Storm Drain Fund, $3,130 , 5% 11 Enterprise Funds Overview Proposed Operating Budget, pp. 47‐56 •Water rate increase: 7% •Gas: shift in gas purchasing strategy to market-based supply rates •Refuse rate increase: varies, above reflects 32-gal can •Storm Drain & Fiber Optics rate increase 2.2% (CPI) Utility Current FY 2013 Bill Proposed FY 2014 Bill $ Difference % Difference Electric $42.76 $42.76 $0.00 0.0% Water 62.14 67.35 5.21 8.4% Gas 49.67 39.27 (10.40) ‐20.9% Wastewater 29.31 29.31 ‐ 0.0% Refuse 41.54 41.54 ‐ 0.0% Storm Drain 11.73 11.99 0.26 2.2% User Tax 7.73 7.47 (0.26) ‐3.4% Total Monthly Bill $244.88 $239.69 ($5.19)‐2.1% Citywide Position Changes Proposed Operating Budget, pp. 328‐346 *Other Funds are Internal Service Funds and the Capital Fund**Includes 2 Library Frozen FTECitywide FTE in FY 2011 was 1,078.50 FTE 12 GF ENT Other* Total FY 2013 Adopted FTE 578.06 357.82 78.47 1,014.35 Midyear Changes 1.65 - (0.65) 1.00 FY 2013 Adjusted FTE’s 579.71 357.82 77.82 1,015.35 Reallocations (1.86) (6.12) 7.98 - Eliminations/Adds (1.05) 1.85 2.20 3.00 Net FY 2014 Proposed Changes (2.91) (4.27) 10.18 3.00 FY 2014 Proposed Budget** 576.80 353.55 88.00 1,018.35 APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 3 13 Citywide Changes Change in salary budgeting methodology, $1.5M Personnel Benefits –General Benefits Internal Service Fund, $3.2M •Pension, $0.7M; healthcare, $2.4M –Retiree Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC), ($1.3M) Allocated Charges –Technology Fund, ($2M) –General Fund cost allocation plan, ($0.3M) 14 Salary Budgeting Methodology General Fund 000s Difference between control point and actual (56)$ 1) Related to new management compensation plan Increases above mid point (performance based)225$ Management Compensation study reserve for market adjustments in FY 2013 310 Total 535 2) 2% potential performance based salary increases for mgmt and SEIU employees 589 3) Salary budget for merit increases (mgmt, safety, SEIU)571 4) Pension: elect to not smooth the 0.25% discount rate decrease impact over two years 602 5) Attrition (2,000) Total General Fund salary and benefit reserve 297$ 15 Questions Finance Committee Budget Process Proposed Budget FY 2014 16 City Attorney, pp. 79‐86 Expense: None FTE Changes: None Other Changes: Decrease Attorney Contingency Account by $50,000 (in non‐departmental) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes 17 City Auditor, pp. 87‐96 Expense : $41,848 Staffing changes $33,348 Ethics Hotline annual costs $3,000 Reallocate Development Funds $5,500 FTE Changes : 0.18 FTE Add 0.5 FTE Performance Auditor Eliminate 0.32 FTE Hourly Staff Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes 18 City Clerk, pp. 96‐103 Expense : ($332,820) Eliminate 1.0 FTE Admin. Assoc. III ($110,472) Minutes Transcription Contract $56,000 Removal of Election Costs ($282,098) Reallocate Development Funds $3,750 FTE Changes : (1.0 FTE) Eliminate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate III Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 4 19 City Council, pp. 104‐106 Expense : $25,000 Council Meetings $5,000 Council Travel & Training $5,000 Council Meals $15,000 FTE Changes : None Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes 20 City Manager, pp. 107‐115 Expense : ($94,683) Staffing changes ($127,683) Communications Outreach $25,000 Reallocate Development Funds $8,000 FTE Changes : (0.5 FTE) Eliminate 0.5 FTE Deputy City Manager Drop 0.05 FTE Assistant to the City Manager Add 0.05 FTE Chief Sustainability Officer Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes 21 Office of Sustainability, pp. 117‐120 Expense : $23,023 Staffing changes $23,023 FTE Changes : 0.0 FTE Drop 0.5 FTE Assistant to the City Manager Add 0.5 FTE Chief Sustainability Officer Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes 22 People Strategy &Operations, pp. 147‐155 Expense: $34,000 City Wellness Program $30,000 New Employee Orientation $4,000 HRIS Planning Consultant $50,000 (Exhibit 2) FTE Changes : $93,466 Reduce 1.0 FTE HR Representative, add 1.0 FTE Benefits Manager, $50,642 Midyear reclassifications $42,824 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes 23 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Workers’ Compensation Fund, pp. 162‐165 Expense: $321,492 ‐Workers’ Comp Assessment Fees $29,148 ‐Estimated Claims Paid $206,480 ‐Umbrella Excess Liability $85,864 Revenue: $321,492 24 Proposed Budget FY 2014 General Benefits Fund, pp. 327‐329 Expense: $3.16M –Net pension increase, $0.74M –Net healthcare increase, $2.4M –Other benefits & admin fee increases, $0.02M Revenue: $3.16M APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 5 25 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Retiree Medical Fund, pp. 326‐327 Expense: ($1.3M) ARC increase: $0.3M, 2.2% Employee medical contribution: $1.5M Next actuarial update will be as of June 30, 2013 26 Proposed Budget FY 2014 General Liability Insurance Fund, pp. 159‐161 Expense: $125,225 ‐Umbrella Excess Liability $74,654 ‐Property Loss & Special Liability Insurance $45,571 Revenue: $125,225 27 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Information Technology, pp. 163‐173 Revenue Changes Operating Reimbursements ($2,043,000); Recommended $50,0000 Exhibit B increase Capital Projects Transfer: ($1,327,000) Technology Fee: $376,000 Interest Earnings $63,000 28 Information Technology (Cont’d.) Expenditures SAP Database Archiving Solution: $150,000 Enterprise Resource Planning Evaluation: $150,000 Cloud‐Based Communication and Productivity Suite: $150,000 29 Information Technology (Cont’d.) Expenditures Public Safety Business Intelligence and Mobile Records: $61,000 Police Scheduling Software: Exhibit B Adjustment: $50,000 Various Non‐Salary Adjustments ($125,000) Reduced CIP expenses ($2.2 million) 30 Information Technology (Cont’d.) FTE Changes Eliminate 3.38 hourly positions: ($236,000) Add 1.0 Technologist: $171,000 Reallocate 0.35 FTE to Administrative Services Department: ($74,000) Reallocate 1.0 Senior Technologist from Utilities and PW Enterprise Funds (Recommend reversal of this action in Exhibit B) APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 6 31 Proposed Capital Budget Technology Projects, pp. 375‐381 Acquisition of New Computers: $75,000 Library Virtual Branch: $100,000 Radio Infrastructure Replacement: No Funding in 2014, funding begins again in 2015 Utilities Customer Billing System Continuous Improvements: $250,000 32 Administrative Services, pp. 121‐130 Revenue Easement fee, sale of salvage, and miscellaneous revenue $38,000 Expense : $1,000 Bankcard charges $25,000 Supplies moved to parking permit funds ($24,000) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes 33 Administrative Services (cont’d) FTE Changes : $25,310 0.10 FTE net reallocations from Utilities $6,639 0.35 FTE reallocations from IT $74,338 1.66 FTE reallocations to Parking Permit Funds ($174,321) 0.05 FTE reallocation from Printing and Mailing Fund $6,733 Increase temporary salaries $111,921 34 Printing and Mailing Fund, pp. 131‐133 FTE Changes: Reallocate 0.05 Buyer to General Fund ($6,733) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes 35 Contact info: Lalo Perez Administrative Services Director/CFO City of Palo Alto Administrative Services Department Ph: (650) 329‐2692 Email: Lalo.Perez@cityofpaloalto.org URL: cityofpaloalto.org/asd 36 City Manager’s Proposed Budget Finance Committee May 7, 2013 APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 1 1 City Manager’s Proposed Budget Finance Committee May 9, 2013 2 Date Meeting Time/Location Agenda Tues, 5/7 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers Budget Kickoff; Departments: ‐ Council Appointed Officials & Council ‐ HR, Employee Benefits Funds ‐ General Liability Fund ‐ IT Department (capital & operating) ‐ ASD/Printing & Mailing Fund Thurs, 5/9 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers ‐ HSRAP ‐ CSD ‐ Library ‐ Planning Tues, 5/14 Finance Committee Special Meeting 5PM, Chambers ‐Utilities (capital & operating) ‐ Power Purchase Agreements for Project Output from Three Solar Photovoltaic Facilities Thurs, 5/16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 4PM, Chambers ‐Police, Fire & Office of Emergency Services ‐General Fund Capital ‐Muni Fees ‐Public Works: General Fund, Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater Treatment, Vehicle Replacement, Airport, related capital ‐ Special Revenue Funds (including Parking District & Stanford Devl Agreement Fund) ‐ Non‐departmental Thurs, 5/23 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers ‐ Wrap up with Finance Committee ‐ Management Compensation Study Mon, 6/3 City Council 6PM, Chambers Public Hearing ‐ Utility Rates (Prop 218); Budget adoption Mon, 6/10 City Council 6PM, Chambers Public Hearing ‐ Budget adoption City of Palo Alto Council & Finance Committee Budget Hearings Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Process 3 Community Services Department, Page 134‐146 Revenue : ($1,363,589) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes 4 Community Services (continued) Expense : $289,141 Golf Course Reconfiguration (one‐time) ($567,417) Marketing Outreach (one‐time) $50,000 Art Center Foundation Contribution $56,000 Increase in Recreation Programs $92,000 Enjoy! Catalog $58,000 Special Events Contract $50,000 CIP Projects Transferred to Operating Budget $55,000 Mediation Contracts $7,000 Expenses Moved to Parking District Fund ($23,826) Overtime Increase for Special Events $10,000 Other Staffing Changes (Outlined on next slide) $502,205 Other Changes $179 5 Community Services (continued) FTE Changes: 10.41 Regular Staff 0.57 FTE Increase Volunteer Coordinator 0.25 FTE Reclassify and Increase Program Assistant Ito Program Assistant II 0.25 FTE Add Heavy Equipment Operator 0.07 FTE Hourly Staff 9.84 FTE Increase Temporary Staffing to Meet Operational Needs 6.84 FTE Art Center Foundation Contribution 0.50 FTE Increase Recreation Programs 2.00 FTE Add Management Specialist 0.50 FTE 6 Highlight on Golf Reconfiguration FY13 Projected FY14 Proposed FY15 Projection FY16 ProjectionRevenue Fee Revenue $2,209,952 $1,564,650 $99,044 $3,008,500 Other Revenue $125,120 $103,332 $61,968 $119,500 Total Revenue $2,335,072 $1,667,982 $161,012 $3,128,000 Expense Golf Maintenance $832,351 $616,974 $686,698 $797,596 Management Contract $605,677 $464,898 $115,975 $589,146 Other Operating Costs $728,605 $635,678 $541,998 $629,960 Total Expense $2,166,633 $1,717,550 $1,344,671 $2,016,701 Income from Operations $168,439 ($49,568) ($1,183,658) $1,111,299 Less Debt Service ($428,180) ($429,020) ($428,194) ($430,790) Less Cost Plan ($23,327) ($25,317) ($27,849) ($30,634) Net Income or (Loss) ($283,067) ($503,905) ($1,680,139) $609,437 Net Impact ($1,857,674) APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 2 7 Library, pp. 174‐183 Revenue : $443,250 Library Foundation Donation $500,000 Reduced fees, fines, sales ($56,650) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes 8 Library (cont.) FTE Changes : $270,022 Unfreeze 1.0 FTE Asst. Director, 1.0 FTE Library Services Manager, 1.0 FTE Librarian $402,222 Midyear increase of 0.50 FTE $44,513 Temporary salaries decrease ($151,713) Reduce overtime ($25,000) 9 Library (cont.) Other Changes: $720,000 Library strategic plan $57,000 Link + $50,000 Collection digitization $30,000 Historical Association $2,000 Increase Library collections $550,000 Misc. supplies $3,900 Memberships, Training $9,700 Equipment, Furniture $10,700 Digital signage $6,700 10 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Planning and Community Environment, pp. 184‐198 Revenue changes: $4.0 million Personnel changes $365,000; Net add of 1.8 FTE Non‐salary changes: $2.1 million One‐time changes: $755,000 Ongoing changes: $1.3 million 11 Planning and Community Environment (continued) Department Changes: Revenues: $4.0 million increase Net Expenditure increase of $2.5 million Analysis of current and projected activity levels: $2.3 million increase Restructuring of deposit accounts: $1.5 million increase Construction and Demolition permit fees previously recognized in Refuse Fund: $0.2 million 12 Planning and Community Environment (continued) Development Services FTE Changes: (‐2.0 FTE, ‐$465,000) Eliminate 5.0 FTE Vacant Positions: 1.0 Assistant Building Official, 2.0 Building Inspector, 1.0 Plans Examiner, 1.0 Plans Check Engineer: ($755,000) Add 2.0 FTE: 1.0 Administrative Associate III and 1.0 Administrative Assistant: $130,000 Transfer 1.0 Associate Planner from Public Works: $137,000 Various Reclassifications: $23,000 APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 3 13 Planning and Community Environment (continued) Planning FTE Changes: (4.0 FTE, $670,000) Add 5.0 FTE: 1.0 Sr. Planner, 1.0 Planning Manager: $354,000 2.0 Planning/Building Technician: $222,000 1.0 Senior Project Engineer: $154,000 Eliminate 1.0 Engineering Technician: ($77,000) Reclass 1.0 Administrator to Senior Management Analyst: $17,000 14 Planning and Community Environment (continued) Development Services Department Changes (Non Salary/Benefits): Restructuring of deposit accounts: $1.4 million Scanning services contract: $145,000 Development Center Lease: $23,000 Other adjustments: ($13,000) 15 Planning and Community Environment (continued) Planning Department Changes (Non Salary/Benefits): 27 University Avenue Community Engagement Process: $250,000, one time Downtown Parking Study: $250,000, one time Comprehensive Plan Update: $105,000, one time) Climate Protection Plan Update: $50,000, one time) 16 Contact info: Lalo Perez Administrative Services Director/CFO City of Palo Alto Administrative Services Department Ph: (650) 329‐2692 Email: Lalo.Perez@cityofpaloalto.org URL: cityofpaloalto.org/asd 17 City Manager’s Proposed Budget Finance Committee May 9, 2013 APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 1 1 City Manager’s Proposed Budget Finance Committee May 14, 2013 2 Date Meeting Time/Location Agenda Tues, 5/7 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers Budget Kickoff; Departments: ‐ Council Appointed Officials & Council ‐ HR, Employee Benefits Funds ‐ General Liability Fund ‐ IT Department (capital & operating) ‐ ASD/Printing & Mailing Fund Thurs, 5/9 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers ‐ HSRAP ‐ CSD ‐ Library ‐ Planning Tues, 5/14 Finance Committee Special Meeting 5PM, Chambers ‐Utilities (capital & operating) ‐ Power Purchase Agreements for Project Output from Three Solar Photovoltaic Facilities Thurs, 5/16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 4PM, Chambers ‐Police, Fire & Office of Emergency Services ‐General Fund Capital ‐Muni Fees ‐Public Works: General Fund, Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater Treatment, Vehicle Replacement, Airport, related capital ‐ Special Revenue Funds (including Parking District & Stanford Devl Agreement Fund) ‐ Non‐departmental Thurs, 5/23 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers ‐ Wrap up with Finance Committee ‐ Management Compensation Study Mon, 6/3 City Council 6PM, Chambers Public Hearing ‐ Utility Rates (Prop 218); Budget adoption Mon, 6/10 City Council 6PM, Chambers Public Hearing ‐ Budget adoption City of Palo Alto Council & Finance Committee Budget Hearings Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Process 3 Utilities Department, pp. 273‐316 Rate Adjustments Electric: no rate change Fiber Optics: 2.2% CPI adjustment Gas: no rate change Water: 7% increase Wastewater Collection: no rate change Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Summary 4 Proposed Budget FY 2014 5 Utilities Department, pp. 273‐316 Position Changes, net 1.5 FTE increase Add 1.0 Credit Collections Specialist Drop hourly Admin. Spec. II Net impact to budget‐$60,335 increase Add 1.0 Coordinator, Utilities Project Drop 0.5 Program Assistant I Amendment required to restore original proposal Drop 1.0 Program Assistant I Net impact to budget‐$94,686 increase Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Summary 6 Electric Fund, pp. 284‐291 (Operating) No net revenue change Customer Sales: ($1.1 million) Carbon Cap and Trade Program: $1.7 million Decrease interest income: ($0.4 million) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 2 7 Electric Fund, pp. 284‐291 (Operating) Expense decrease: ($1.1 million) Increase commodity purchases: $1.5 million Decrease equity transfer to General Fund: ($0.6 million) Decrease Capital Improvement Program: ($2.3 million) Increase Emerging Technology Demonstration Program: $0.1 million Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 8 Electric Fund, pp. 197‐242 (Capital) FY 2014 Expenditures: $8.6 million Smart grid technology: $1.0 million LED streetlight conversion: $0.5 million Customer connections: $2.2 million System improvements: $2.4 million Undergrounding projects: $0.9 million Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 9 Electric Fund, pp. 284‐291 (Operating) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 10 Electric Fund, pp. 284‐291 (Operating) Based on Palo Alto’s median residential usage levels of 365 kWh/month in the summer months (May‐Oct) and 453 kWh/month in the winter months (Nov‐Apr) FY 2014 proposed Palo Alto monthly median rate is unchanged Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 11 Fiber Optics Fund, pp. 292‐296 (Operating) Revenue increase: $0.3 million 2.2% CPI rate adjustment for rate schedules EDF‐1 and EDF‐2 Fiber network to serve all 18 PAUSD schools Expense increase: $0.1 million Increase salaries and benefits: $0.1 million Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 12 Fiber Optics Fund, pp. 243‐248 (Capital) FY 2014 Expenditures: $0.4 million Network system improvements: $0.2 million Customer connections: $0.2 million Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 3 13 Fiber Optics Fund, pp. 292‐296 (Operating) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 14 Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 297‐302 (Operating) Revenue increase: $0.1 million No rate increase Increase from connection charges: $0.1 million Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 15 Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 297‐302 (Operating) Expense decrease: ($3.4 million) Decrease Capital Improvement Program: ($3.4 million) WWC system rehab/aug. projects backlog is being addressed Project 26 construction delayed to FY 2015 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 16 Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 309‐330 (Capital) FY 2014 Expenditures: $1.0 million Sewer system extensions: $0.4 million Sewer lateral/manhole rehab/replacement: $0.1 million WWC system improvements: $0.2 million WWC system rehab/augmentation Project 26: $0.3 million Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 17 Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 297‐302 (Operating) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 18 Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 297‐302 (Operating) Palo Alto residential charges are fixed monthly charges Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 4 19 Gas Fund, pp. 303‐310 (Operating) Revenue decrease: ($0.7 million) Market‐based pricing for natural gas supply Median monthly residential bill will vary depending on actual gas market prices Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 20 Gas Fund, pp. 303‐310 (Operating) Expense decrease: ($7.7 million) Decrease gas commodity purchases: ($1.1 million) Decrease Capital Improvement Program: ($6.2 million) Gas main replacement projects backlog is being addressed Cross‐bore inspection program One‐time funding FY 2013 ($0.5 million) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 21 Gas Fund, pp. 249‐277 (Capital) FY 2014 Expenditures: $1.6 million Gas system extensions: $0.7 million Gas meters and regulators: $0.3 million Gas system improvements: $0.2 million Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 22 Gas Fund, pp. 303‐310 (Operating) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 23 Gas Fund, pp. 303‐310 (Operating) Based on median residential usage levels of 18 therms per month in the summer months (May‐Oct) and 54 therms per month in the winter months (Nov‐Apr). Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 24 Water Fund, pp. 311‐316 (Operating) Revenue increase: $0.8 million 7% rate increase Effective July 1, 2013 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 5 25 Water Fund, pp. 311‐316 (Operating) Expense decrease: ($1.2 million) Increase in water purchase costs from SFPUC: $0.8 million Decrease in Capital Improvement Program: ($0.9 million) Decrease in operating transfers to other funds: ($1.3 million) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 26 Water Fund, pp. 311‐316 (Operating) Amendment to Proposed Budget: Decrease allocated charges from Wastewater Treatment Fund: ($7,000) Water Quality Control Plant lab charges Align budget with expected actuals Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 27 Water Fund, pp. 279‐308 (Capital) FY 2014 Expenditures: $5.2 million Water main replacement Project 25: $2.7 million Water main replacement Project 26: $0.5 million Water system extensions: $0.4 million Water meters: $0.4 million Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 28 Water Fund, pp. 311‐316 (Operating) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 29 Water Fund, pp. 311‐316 (Operating) FY 2014 proposed Palo Alto monthly median rate is $67.35 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Utilities Department Summary 30 Questions Proposed Budget FY 2014 APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 6 31 Contact info: Lalo Perez Administrative Services Director/CFO City of Palo Alto Administrative Services Department Ph: (650) 329‐2692 Email: Lalo.Perez@cityofpaloalto.org URL: cityofpaloalto.org/asd 32 City Manager’s Proposed Budget Finance Committee May 14, 2013 APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 1 1 City Manager’s Proposed Budget Finance Committee May 16, 2013 2 Date Meeting Time/Location Agenda Tues, 5/7 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers Budget Kickoff; Departments: ‐ Council Appointed Officials & Council ‐ HR, Employee Benefits Funds ‐ General Liability Fund ‐ IT Department (capital & operating) ‐ ASD/Printing & Mailing Fund Thurs, 5/9 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers ‐ HSRAP ‐ CSD ‐ Library ‐ Planning Tues, 5/14 Finance Committee Special Meeting 5PM, Chambers ‐Utilities (capital & operating) ‐ Power Purchase Agreements for Project Output from Three Solar Photovoltaic Facilities Thurs, 5/16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 4PM, Chambers ‐Police, Fire & Office of Emergency Services ‐General Fund Capital ‐Muni Fees ‐Public Works: General Fund, Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater Treatment, Vehicle Replacement, Airport, related capital ‐ Special Revenue Funds (including Parking District & Stanford Devl Agreement Fund) ‐ Non‐departmental Thurs, 5/23 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers ‐ Wrap up with Finance Committee ‐ Management Compensation Study Mon, 6/3 City Council 6PM, Chambers Public Hearing ‐ Utility Rates (Prop 218); Budget adoption Mon, 6/10 City Council 6PM, Chambers Public Hearing ‐ Budget adoption City of Palo Alto Council & Finance Committee Budget Hearings Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Process 3 Police Department, pp. 222‐233 Revenue Changes : $253,948 •Parking Revenue Increase $100,000 •Animal Services Revenue Increase $97,148 •Massage Ordinance Revenue $3,500 •Transfer from Radio Maintenance CIP $42,000 •Grant for 911 Maintenance $11,300 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes 4 Police Department (continued) Expense : $449,821 Unfreeze 7.0 FTE Sworn Positions $1,223,007 Budget Overtime to Historical Trends $532,100 Other Staffing Changes ($30,808) Negotiated Benefit Savings with PAPOA ($1,376,271) Cal‐ID Contract Increase $10,500 Background Check Contract Increase $10,000 SVRIA Annual Increase $8,000 Radio Maintenance Contract Increase $42,000 911 Maintenance Increase $11,300 Other Changes $19,993 Exhibit 2 Request: Police Scheduling Software (tentatively approved on May 7th with I.T. Dept) $50,000 5 Police Department (continued) FTE Changes: (1.22 FTE) Add Sr. Management Analyst 1.00 FTE Reallocate GIS Specialist from Fire 0.50 FTE Animal Services Staff Reductions (2.60 FTE) Add regular Animal Control Officer 0.50 FTE Eliminate temporary Animal Control Officer (0.50 FTE) Other temporary staffing changes (0.12 FTE) 6 Police Department (continued) Palo Alto Animal Services Projected net cost in FY 2013 is approximately $406,000 Includes one‐time donations FY 2014 net cost is estimated to be $587,000; target is $500,000 Includes the full impact of losing Mt. View, various fee increases, and staff reductions APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 2 7 Fire Department, pp. 203‐214 Revenue : $794,663 Plan Check Revenue Increase (one‐time) $531,000 EMS Revenue Increase $308,000 Stanford Revenue Impact from All Changes in Fire Department ($45,334) Hazmat Reporting Grant $20,000 Removal of Charges to Refuse due to Closing of Landfill ($19,003) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes 8 Fire Department (continued) Expense : $15,637 Community Focused Integrated Risk Management Assessment (one‐time) $45,000 Succession Planning Management Training (one‐ time) $35,000 Digitize Fire Prevention Records (one‐time)$50,000 HazMat Reporting (CUPA Grant, one‐time)$20,000 Overtime Savings ($200,000) Lexipol Procedures (Fire Study recommendation) $6,050 EKG Wireless Charges $5,040 Staffing Changes $47,577 Other Changes $6,970 9 Fire Department (continued) FTE Changes: 0.94 FTE Increase Temporary Staff 1.44 FTE Reallocate portion of GIS Specialist to Police Department (0.50 FTE) Reclassify Administrative Associate III to Administrative Assistant 0.00 FTE 10 Office of Emergency Services, pp. 215‐221 Expense: $96,226 •Unfreeze 1.0 FTE Program Assistant $96,226 No revenue or FTE changes Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Changes 11 Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2014 Changes to the Capital Budget document Relationship to City’s Comprehensive Plan more clearly communicated “Annual Recurring” vs. “Nonrecurring” designation IBRC labels assigned where applicable “Catch‐up”, “Keep‐up”, “New” Picture or graphic for each project Salaries and benefits included in projects where appropriate for FY 2014 12 2014 Proposed Citywide CIP Projects by Fund 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $60.0 Million1‐ Capital Project Fund (General Fund) ‐ 56% 2‐ Vehicle Replacement Fund ‐ 5% 3‐ Technology Fund ‐ 1% 4‐ Electric Fund ‐ 14% 5‐Fiber Optics Fund ‐ 1% 6‐ Gas Fund ‐ 3% 7‐ Water Fund ‐ 9% 8‐ Wastewater Collection Fund ‐ 2% 9‐ Wastewater Treatment Fund ‐ 5% 10‐ Storm Drain Fund ‐ 6% APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 3 13 Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2014 Internal CIP Committee Process CIP Committee began meetings in October 2012 Reviewed prioritization criteria and prioritized projects Reviewed projected Infrastructure Reserve Balance Reviewed current capacity ‐staff’s ability to start and complete projects as budgeted Met with the Planning and Transportation Commission to get input on the CIP Plan 14 Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2014 1 2 3 4 5 Total General Fund Projects ‐$33.4 Million 1‐ Buildings and Facilities ‐ 17% 2‐ Streets and Sidewalks ‐ 28% 3‐ Parks and Open Space ‐ 35% 4‐ Traffic and Transportation ‐ 14% 5‐ Salaries and Benefits (unallocated) ‐ 6% 15 16 17 Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2014 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Total SOURCES General Fund Annual Capital Transfer 13,226,485 13,627,465 14,047,123 14,509,006 15,001,285 70,411,364 Interest Income 1,075,000 1,075,000 1,075,000 1,075,000 1,075,000 5,375,000 Project Reimbursements Debt Financing 5,045,50500005,045,505 Local Agency 5,263,272 13,246,354 365,751 365,751 365,751 19,606,879 Gas Tax Fund 1,625,000 1,625,000 1,625,000 1,625,000 1,625,000 8,125,000 Stanford U. Med. Center Agreement 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 6,000,000 TOTAL SOURCES $27,435,262 $30,773,819 $18,312,874 $18,774,757 $19,267,036 $114,563,748 USES Budgeted CIP Projects 33,427,070 31,112,929 21,998,820 17,098,619 20,095,558 123,732,996 TOTAL USES $33,427,070 $31,112,929 $21,998,820 $17,098,619 $20,095,558 $123,732,996 SOURCE OVER (SHORT)(5,991,808) (339,110) (3,685,946) 1,676,138 (828,522) (9,169,248) Infrastructure Reserve Balance, beginning 17,751,355 11,759,547 11,420,437 7,734,491 9,410,629 17,751,355 Infrastructure Reserve Balance, ending $11,759,547 $11,420,437 $7,734,491 $9,410,629 $8,582,107 $8,582,107 FIVE‐YEAR PLAN Projected Infastructure Reserve Note: General Fund spending declines beginning in FY 2016 due to Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project of $8.2 million in FY 2015, and Golf Course Reconfiguration and Baylands Athletic Center Improvements of $8.0 million in FY 2014 18 FY 2013 Accomplishments Art Center Renovation Cogswell Plaza Improvements Renovation of Public Art Pieces Main Library Renovation and Expansion Bicycle Boulevard Street Signage Street Maintenance San Antonio Road Improvements Rinconada Park Master Plan University Avenue Beautification APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 4 19 Accomplishments Increased Funding for Street Maintenance FY 2010 Adopted Budget = $1.9 million FY 2011 Adopted Budget = $3.8 million FY 2014 Adopted Budget = $5.7 million Improved Pavement Condition Index score 2010 average PCI score = 74 2011 average PCI score = 76 2012 average PCI score = 77 2021 goal = 85 (now projected to reach sooner in 2019) 20 Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2014 21 Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2014 Highlights of Changes to CIP Projects Sidewalk Repairs (p. 115) Additional $1.0 million per year from GF transfer Street Maintenance (p. 121) Additional $1.0 million per year from GF transfer $477,353 each in FY 2014 and FY 2015 from One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Approx. $365,000 per year from County Vehicle Reg. Fee (Measure B, Nov. 2010) 22 Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2014 Highlights of Changes to CIP Projects (cont’d.) Golf Course Reconfiguration and Baylands Athletic Center Improvements (p. 143) $8.0 million for FY 2014 $3.0 million from SF Creek JPA $5.0 million from Certificates of Participation Bicycle & Pedestrian Transp. Plan (p. 171) Additional $1.2 million from SUMC development agreement 23 Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2014 Highlights of Changes to CIP Projects (cont’d.) Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass (p. 175) $1.4 million in FY 2014 funded by County grant Lucie Stern Building Mechanical & Electrical Upgrades (p. 96) Combined approved and proposed funding from four Lucie Stern CIP projects for efficiency 24 Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) Status: Annual maintenance (keep‐up) needs ‐$2.2 million per year Now funded by GF transfer Deferred maintenance (catch‐up) needs ‐$4.2 million for the next ten years $7.6 million FY 2012 year‐end GF surplus transferred to Capital Fund APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 5 25 Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) Status: Council Infrastructure Committee reviewing other unfunded projects Infrastructure Management System (IMS) Requirements currently under discussion 26 27 Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2014 Changes to Proposed Document Remove Baylands Interpretive Center Improvement (p. 73) Already included in new Baylands Interpretive Center project (p. 74) Update FY 2018 for Building System Improvements (p. 77)‐add $100,000 28 Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2014 Changes to Proposed Document Add California Avenue Parking District Improvements‐$186,400 in FY 2014 Funded by California Avenue Parking Permit Fund Add University Avenue Parking District Improvements‐$340,900 in FY 2014 Funded by University Avenue Parking Permit Fund 29 Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2014 Questions 30 Municipal Fees (“User Fees”) Proposition 26 (Nov. 2010) –“No Hidden Taxes” •User fees must reflect costs incurred (directly or indirectly) in order to provide the service or activity for which fee is charged Cannot exceed estimated cost but can be set below full cost recovery level APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 6 31 No revenue projection adjustments for Fiscal Year 2014 Actual revenues may vary based on changes in utilization or volume Municipal Fee Changes 32 Public Works Department, pp. 233‐272 New Positions, 2.0 FTE increase Add 1.0 Project Engineer Allocated to Capital Projects Fund Net impact to budget‐$175,527 increase Add 1.0 Project Manager 0.45 allocated to General Fund 0.20 each to Capital Projects Fund and Refuse Fund 0.15 to Storm Drainage Fund Net impact to budget‐$145,775 increase Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Summary 33 Public Works Department, pp. 233‐272 Summary of FTE Changes by Fund Additions, Drops, Reallocations, Reclassifications Proposed Budget FY 2014 Department Summary General Fund (1.06) Refuse Fund (3.52) Wastewater Treatment Fund (0.85) Storm Drainage Fund 0.88 Vehicle Replacement Fund 0.73 Subtotal, Non‐capital (3.82) Capital Projects Fund 1.46 Total FTE Changes (2.36) 34 Public Works – General Fund, pp. 233‐244 Revenue : $143,824 Special assessment (Midyear) ($23,000) Fees, permits, licenses $321,370 Property damage $4,000 Allocated charges $41,115 Internal street cut fees ($256,583) Transfers in for capital projects $51,022 Miscellaneous revenue ($7,600) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Fund Changes 35 Public Works (cont.) Expense: ($82,291) APWA Certification $25,000 San Francisquito Creek JPA $10,000 Mitchell Park custodial, maintenance, supplies $114,273 Maintenance and supplies to parking funds ($331,564) Electronic scanning, archiving $30,000 Street maintenance $70,000 36 Public Works (cont.) Exhibit 2: ($194,141) Tree trimming contracts (Exhibit 2) $70,000 Remove remaining parking district non‐ salary dollars: ($40,250) Infrastructure ballot measure engineering support (use FY13 funds): ($15,000) Reallocate benefits and other non‐salary related to parking district ($208,891) APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 7 37 Storm Drainage Fund, pp. 252‐258 Revenue : $147,512 Increased Plan Check Fees $25,000 Reduced interest income ($2,400) Residential Sales $48,665 Commercial Sales $60,126 Industrial Research Sales $16,121 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Fund Changes 38 Storm Drainage (cont.) Expense: ($308,787) Permit increase for Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff $22,000 Utility charges ($194,231) Public Works Admin allocation $1,585 CIP projects ($132,581) Debt service $960 Operating transfers out ($6,520) 39 Storm Drainage Fund, pp. 347‐360 (Capital) FY 2014 Expenditures: $3.3 million Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue storm drain improvements: $1.5 million Connect Clara Drive storm drains to Matadero Creek pump station: $0.8 million Matadero Creek pump station improvements: $0.3 million Southgate neighborhood improvements: $0.2 million Proposed Budget FY 2014 Public Works Department Summary 40 Refuse Fund, pp. 245‐251 Revenue : ($857,276) Net revenue change due to economic activity and historic actuals ($53,354) –Special fees $300,000; bin rental ($69,000); commercial retail ($11,000); industrial research ($155,354); sales to city $36,000; misc ($154,000) Construction and demolition ($140,000) Disposal fees ($60,000) Investment income ($16,700) Landfill charges and gas sales to departments ($45,025) Operating transfers to parking funds ($542,197) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Fund Changes 41 Refuse Fund (cont.) Expense: $143,449 One‐time greenhouse gas study $85,000 Household Hazardous Waste $50,000 SMartStation $61,116 Move parking fund contracts ($187,604) GreenWaste $471,249 Capital Improvement Projects, project management ($17,418) Other Changes ($42,032) Operating Transfers out ($276,862) 42 Wastewater Treatment Fund, pp. 259‐264 Revenue : $255,696 Revenue from partners, $307,065 Wastewater treatment sales, $33,231 Septic tank hauling, ($40,000) Utility service to other funds ($7,000) Investment income, ($37,600) Proposed Budget FY 2014 Fund Changes APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 8 43 Wastewater Treatment (cont.) Expense: $519,606 Chemical purchases, $68,000 Supplies for equipment needs, $131,367 Debt service ($5,606) Public Works Admin allocation, $3,395 Capital Improvement Projects, $334,132 Operating Transfers out, ($11,682) 44 Wastewater Treatment Fund, pp. 331‐345 (Capital) FY 2014 Expenditures: $2.9 million Facility condition assessment and retrofit: $1.1 million Plant equipment replacement: $1.8 million Biosolids facility planned for FY 2015‐2018: $89.0 million Proposed Budget FY 2014 Public Works Department Summary 45 Airport Fund, pp. 265‐267 Revenue : GF loan $15,000 Other Expenses: $78,074 One‐time transition support $75,000 Travel and meetings ($1,000) Public Works Admin allocation $4,074 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Fund Changes 46 Vehicle Replacement Fund, pp. 268‐272 Revenue: ($135,092) Compressed natural gas sales $14,968 Maintenance allocated charges $60,619 Replacement allocated charges ($233,179) Investment income $22,500 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Fund Changes 47 Vehicle Replacement Fund (cont.) Expense: $2,070,432 Organizational study – FY13 midyear ($50,000) Capital Improvement $1,815,000 Fire Command Vehicle and Aerial Ladder Truck (Exhibit 2) $300,000 –Public Works Admin allocation $5,432 48 Vehicle Replacement Fund, pp. 365‐371 (Capital) FY 2014 Expenditures: $3.0 million Emergency repair and replacement: $0.1 million MSC fuel station demolition: $0.2 million Scheduled vehicle and equipment replacement: $2.7 million Proposed Budget FY 2014 Public Works Department Summary APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 9 49 Vehicle Replacement Fund, pp. 365‐371 (Capital) Amendments to the Proposed Budget: Scheduled vehicle and equipment replacement Aerial ladder fire truck: $200,000 Quote above original estimate Replace fire command unit with 2013 Chevy Suburban: $100,000 Proposed Budget FY 2014 Public Works Department Summary 50 Community Development Street Improvement Federal and State Housing in‐lieu Special District Traffic Mitigation and Parking in‐lieu Public Benefit Downtown Business Improvement District Stanford University Medical Center Special Revenue Funds pp. 63‐72 51 Revenues: 8.5% fee increase proposed 2014 Expenditure Changes: Resurfacing ($91,000) Parking Guidance System ($50,000) Cowper/Webster Improvements (Restriping and Interior White Paint: $175,000) Security Cameras Feasibility Study and Design ($25,000) Projected Fund Balance, July 1, 2014: $470,000 University Avenue Parking Permit Fund, p. 69 52 Revenues: 15% fee increase proposed Expenditures: New $186,000 resurfacing project (Lot 7, Sherman/Birch) Projected Fund Balance, July 1, 2014: $180,000 California Avenue Parking Permit Fund, p. 71 53 Projected 2014 Interest Earnings: $679,000 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan: $1.2 million Project Safety Net: $260,000 Additional funds to be carried over from 2013 (including funds allocated on May 6, 2013) Policy and Services Committee to discuss guidelines for allocating SUMC Funds Stanford University Medical Center, p. 72 54 Revenues: ($938,339) Removed FY 2013 placeholders for Development Center and cost of service study estimated revenues Expense: $2.2M Salary & Benefits: $2.1M Cubberley lease payments increase: $135,000 Golf Course lease purchase debt: $429,020 Remove PAAS placeholder: $449,105 Assistance with grant applications: $40,000 Decrease transfers out: ($865,810) Other changes: $38,906 General Fund Non-Departmental, pp. 318-320 APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 10 55 Salary Budgeting Methodology General Fund 000s Difference between control point and actual (56)$ 1) Related to new management compensation plan Increases above mid point (performance based)225$ Management Compensation study reserve for market adjustments in FY 2013 310 Total 535 2) 2% potential performance based salary increases for mgmt and SEIU employees 589 3) Salary budget for merit increases (mgmt, safety, SEIU)571 4) Pension: elect to not smooth the 0.25% discount rate decrease impact over two years 602 5) Attrition (2,000) Total General Fund salary and benefit reserve 297$ 56 Contingency Accounts: ($150,000) City Attorney Contingency Account: ($50,000) Innovation Contingency Account: ($100,000) •One‐time decrease to fund the Virtual Library Project General Fund Non-Departmental, pp. 318-320 57 Contact info: Lalo Perez Administrative Services Director/CFO City of Palo Alto Administrative Services Department Ph: (650) 329‐2692 Email: Lalo.Perez@cityofpaloalto.org URL: cityofpaloalto.org/asd 58 City Manager’s Proposed Budget Finance Committee May 16, 2013 APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 1 1 City Manager’s Proposed Budget Finance Committee May 23, 2013 2 Date Meeting Time/Location Agenda Tues, 5/7 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers Budget Kickoff; Departments: ‐ Council Appointed Officials & Council ‐ HR, Employee Benefits Funds ‐ General Liability Fund ‐ IT Department (capital & operating) ‐ ASD/Printing & Mailing Fund Thurs, 5/9 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers ‐ HSRAP ‐ CSD ‐ Library ‐ Planning Tues, 5/14 Finance Committee Special Meeting 5PM, Chambers ‐Utilities (capital & operating) ‐ Power Purchase Agreements for Project Output from Three Solar Photovoltaic Facilities Thurs, 5/16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 4PM, Chambers ‐Police, Fire & Office of Emergency Services ‐General Fund Capital ‐Muni Fees ‐Public Works: General Fund, Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater Treatment, Vehicle Replacement, Airport, related capital ‐ Special Revenue Funds (including Parking District & Stanford Devl Agreement Fund) ‐ Non‐departmental Thurs, 5/23 Finance Committee Special Meeting 6PM, Chambers ‐ Wrap up with Finance Committee ‐ Management Compensation Study Mon, 6/3 City Council 6PM, Chambers Public Hearing ‐ Utility Rates (Prop 218); Budget adoption Mon, 6/10 City Council 6PM, Chambers Public Hearing ‐ Budget adoption City of Palo Alto Council & Finance Committee Budget Hearings Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Process 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Project (CIP PL‐04‐010): $1.2 million See p. 72 operating book; pp. 171‐172 capital book Stanford Development Agreement Fund 4 Revenues: ($938,339) Removed FY 2013 placeholders for Development Center and cost of service study estimated revenues Expense: $2.2M Salary & Benefits net increase: $2.1M Cubberley lease payments increase: $135,000 Golf Course lease purchase debt: $429,020 Remove PAAS placeholder: $449,105 Assistance with grant applications: $40,000 Decrease transfers out: ($865,810) Other changes: $38,906 General Fund Non-Departmental, pp. 318-320 5 General Fund Non-Departmental, pp. 318-320 Placeholder for mgmt comp study impacts 310$ Performanced based increases beyond midpoint 225$ Mert increases for all labor groups 571 2% increase for misc labor groups 589 1,385 Not phase in PERS assumption changes 602 1,987 Subtotal 2,297 Net decrease for achieved public safety concessions, attrition savings, and allocating benefit cost to dept budgets (180) Net Non‐Departmental change in salary/benefits 2,117$ 6 Salary Budgeting Methodology General Fund 000s Difference between control point and actual (56)$ 1) Related to new management compensation plan Increases above mid point (performance based)225$ Management Compensation study reserve for market adjustments in FY 2013 310 Total 535 2) 2% potential performance based salary increases for mgmt and SEIU employees 589 3) Salary budget for merit increases (mgmt, safety, SEIU)571 4) Pension: elect to not smooth the 0.25% discount rate decrease impact over two years 602 5) Attrition (2,000) Total General Fund salary and benefit reserve 297$ APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 2 7 Contingency Accounts: ($150,000) City Attorney Contingency Account: ($50,000) Innovation Contingency Account: ($100,000) •Will be used to fund the Virtual Library Project in FY 2014 General Fund Non-Departmental, pp. 318-320 8 Actions Needed Staff proposed increase for CSD Baylands CA Land Management Contract, $76,610 Debt Service for second series of GO Bonds, $563,703 and offsetting assessed revenue Any additional items proposed by the Finance Committee after review of General Fund BSR and parking lot items Budget Wrap Up 9 Parking Lot Overall review of department KPMs Additional information related to Council meals request, $15,000 Summer concert series School Resource Officer and related data Police overtime and staffing data Budget Wrap Up (con’t) 10 Items Staff Will Provide During Council Adoption Night Hotel weekend stay data, year‐over‐year increase New title for the 27 University Avenue project School Resource Officer data Budget Wrap Up (con’t) 11 Budget Wrap Up (con’t) Adjustments to the General Fund Date Dept Description Amount Proposed budget ‐ BSR increase $220 5/7 PSO HRIS consultant (exp incr) (50) 5/7 POL PD scheduling software (exp incr) (50) 5/9 CSD *Add'l HSRAP (exp incr) (56) 5/16 Various Adjustments for parking district (exp decr) 127 5/16 PWD Remove PW non‐sal for parking district (exp decr)40 5/16 PWD Infrastructure ballot funding (exp decr)15 5/16 PWD Tree trimming contract (exp incr)(70) Subtotal ‐ tentatively approved changes to date ($44) Tentatively approved budget ‐ BSR increase $176 Pending staff requests as of May 23: CSD California land mgmt contract ‐ Baylands (exp incr)($77) COU Council meals (exp decr)$15 Subtotal ‐ pending staff requests ($62) Change to BSR considering pending staff requests $114 * Change initiated by the Finance Committee. 12 Contact info: Lalo Perez Administrative Services Director/CFO City of Palo Alto Administrative Services Department Ph: (650) 329‐2692 Email: Lalo.Perez@cityofpaloalto.org URL: cityofpaloalto.org/asd APPENDIX 3 5/22/2013 3 13 City Manager’s Proposed Budget Finance Committee May 23, 2013 APPENDIX 3 APPENDIX 4 FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 1 of 31 Special Meeting Tuesday, May 7, 2013 Chairperson Burt called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Berman, Burt (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd Absent: Agenda Items 1. Overview of FY 2014 Budget. James Keene, City Manager invited all Council Members to provide questions or comments on the Budget document. The City was in a better financial position because of Council making cut backs in prior years. Economic challenges remained, particularly relating to the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services Department (ASD) recommended that the Finance Committee (Committee) use a parking lot method when they wanted to move Agenda Items in and out of the discussion. Staff or the Committee was able to initiate changes to the Budget. The last two years were financially better than expected and resulted in surpluses. Staff requested retaining surplus funds in the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) Fund. At the close of Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, the Council transferred $7.6 million from the General Fund to the Infrastructure Reserve. This amount was in addition to the $11 to $12 million transferred earlier. The Reserve Policy called for a minimum of 15 percent to a maximum of 20 percent of the Operating Budget to be placed in Reserve. Funds above 18.5 percent of the Reserve needed to be transferred to the Infrastructure Reserve at the City Manager's recommendation to the Council. Staff projected a $1.7 million surplus for FY 2013. As a result of revenue trends, the surplus was likely to be closer to $5 million. The Proposed MINUTES Page 2 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Budget recommended unfreezing seven Police Officer positions, and increasing overtime to reflect the actual expenditure experience. The Budget that was proposed added three Full Time Employees (FTE) Citywide, additional revenue for the Development Center, and increasing temporary Staff in Community Services. The Library Foundation donated $500,000 to the City for the Library Collection. The Proposed Budget did not include impacts from the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act resulted in the City offering healthcare services for temporary employees working more than 30 hours in non-benefited positions. Staff hoped the balance of the General Benefits Fund would be sufficient to cover impacts. Pension plan changes impacted the City in FY 2016. Staff hoped to provide the final report for the Cost of Services Study in the summer of 2013. Staff needed to review services without fees and administrative costs in order to include them in the FY 2015 Budget. Staff provided summary sheets of Citywide impacts of expenses shared by departments and funds. These charges were typically allocated based on different methodologies. The Enterprise Funds did not have significant changes. Rate changes were discussed in the Capital Program. Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst noted the date scheduled for adoption of the Proposed Budget was June 10, 2013. Review of the Management Compensation Study occurred on May 23, 2013. Staff recommended reallocating a Senior Technologist position in the Information Technology (IT) Department for a savings of $87,000 in salaries and benefits. Also recommended for the IT Department was an increase of $50,000 for Police Department scheduling software. Staff proposed a change of $50,000 in the People Strategy and Operations Department for a new information system. Tax revenues increased by $5.8 million. The net revenue change in the Proposed Budget compared to the FY 2013 Adopted Budget totaled $7.6 million. The Proposed Budget also included a $4 million increase in plan check and permit revenues. The majority of ongoing expense increases related to salaries and benefits. The net change included a change in salary budgeting methodology, increases for pension and healthcare, and proposed FTE changes. The Proposed Budget also contained a proposed $1.4 million increase in the Planning Department's contract expense. The net change of revenue over expense in the Proposed Budget was approximately $0.6 million. The Proposed Budget included a five percent revenue increase above the FY 2013 Adopted Budget, and a 4.6 percent increase related to salaries and benefits. This resulted in a $0.2 million surplus, or a contribution to the BSR in the General Fund. Staff projected a $30.5 million BSR balance at the end of FY 2014 based on the projected surplus for FY 2013. MINUTES Page 3 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Joe Saccio, Assistant Director of ASD indicated the FY 2014 Proposed Budget reflected the continued optimism for revenue. As a result of the unusually large transactions in the Documentary Transfer Tax, Staff decreased proposed receipts for FY 2014. The number and value of transactions increased. Staff included some revenue in FY 2014 from the Casa Olga Project into the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). Occupancy levels reached 80 percent for some months. By the end of the year, occupancy levels were expected to be 78-80 percent higher than FY 2013. Per diems moved into the $180 level, and were averaging approximately $178-$179 at the end of the year. Sales Tax and Property Tax were also doing well. Staff predicted a good rate of growth for Property Tax. Permanent revenues were also increasing. Real property prices in the area increased because of high demand and low supply. Council Member Schmid felt tax revenues were in line with the Long Term Financial Forecast. He was surprised by Staff's optimism regarding charges for services, other funds, and permits and licenses. He requested Staff comment on those increases. Mr. Perez stated permits were one of the drivers that changed in the third quarter. Staff was reviewing whether those increases were sustained in FY 2014. Council Member Schmid inquired whether that was also true for the charges for services. Charges for services and other funds seemed to be significantly higher over the past few months. Mr. Keene indicated Mr. Perez addressed the charges for services. Council Member Schmid believed Mr. Perez was discussing permits and licenses. Mr. Perez said he would answer Council Member Schmid's question a little later. Ms. Paras reported Staff included a $2.2 million increase for plan check fees, which was included in the increase for Development Center services. Staff projected a $1.8 million increase in the cost of permits alone. The main contributors to General Fund expense increases were employee benefit increases. She commented that overall, the average monthly utility bill for the customer decreased by $5.19. Staff proposed a Water Rate increase of seven percent, a Gas Rate decrease of $10.40, or 21 percent, and a Storm Drain and Fiber Optic Rate increase of 2.2 percent, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Included in the Budget summaries were a number of MINUTES Page 4 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 reallocations from the General Fund and Enterprise Funds into other funds. The majority of the funds for the 7.98 FTE’s moving to other funds were related to capital. Many Public Works Department positions moved into the capital category to address infrastructure needs. The Proposed Budget showed a net increase of three FTEs. Citywide changes were overall changes made by the Office of Management and Budget for salaries and benefits and allocated charges. The Office of Management and Budget changed the methodology for budgeting salaries and benefits to utilize actual employee pay. This resulted in a $1.5 million decrease Citywide. The second type of Citywide change was personnel benefits. The General Benefits Internal Service Fund held all costs for pension, healthcare, and similar expenses. Staff projected a Citywide increase of $0.7 million for pensions, and an increase of $2.4 million for healthcare. The General Fund had a $0.2 million increase in pensions. That increase was substantially lower because of employee contributions. The FY 2013 Adopted Budget for employee contribution paid by the City was approximately $2 million. Citywide the net change was $0.7 million. Staff included a credit of $0.5 million, which was an assumed savings realized from normal erosion within the General Fund. The Citywide change for medical expense alone was a $2.4 million increase. City employees currently paid 10 percent of their own medical to contribute towards retiree medical. In the FY 2014 Proposed Budget, Staff assigned that credit to the Retiree Medical Fund. In the FY 2013 Adopted Budget, the retiree medical annual required contribution (ARC) was $12.8 million; in the FY 2014 Proposed Budget the ARC was $13 million Citywide. The ARC amount was offset by the 10 percent employee contribution. That represented the $0.2 million increase in the Citywide ARC, which was offset by the employee 10 percent contribution. Council Member Schmid noted the $1.9 million paid by the City for employee contribution had virtually disappeared; yet, the City contribution increased by $2 million. He asked what caused the employee contribution to rise so high. Ms. Paras inquired whether Council Member Schmid was referencing the employer contribution comparison between the $12.84 million and the $14.87 million. Council Member Schmid answered yes. There was an increase of $200,000 despite the fact that employees contributed $1.9 million. Ms. Paras asked if Council Member Schmid was referring to the $128,846 number. MINUTES Page 5 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Council Member Schmid said these numbers showed the difference in employee contributions. Ms. Paras reported the main driver of the $2 million increase in employer contribution was the increase in pension rates. In FY 2013 the Miscellaneous Employee rate increased from 22.97 percent to 24.6 percent. The Safety Employee rate increased from 30.05 percent to 33.44 percent. Citywide, the impact of those rate increases was approximately $1.8 million. Council Member Schmid recalled Mr. Perez mentioned an expected increase in FY 2016, and inquired whether that increase affected Attachment A, an attachment in the Staff report. Mr. Perez indicated it would increase the table significantly. The rates were reflections of the net increase of $1.63 million for Miscellaneous Employees and $2.39 million for Safety Employees. This was assuming the City accepted a two-year smoothing of the 0.25 percent on the discount rate change impact. Staff did not recommend a two-year smoothing. Ms. Paras stated the allocated charge for the Technology Fund decreased by $2 million because the final loan payment of $1.2 million was paid to the General Fund in FY 2013. The final Citywide change was implemented toward the General Fund Cost Allocation Plan. The Citywide charge resulted in a revenue decrease of $0.3 million to the General Fund. Staff refined calculations to reflect actual activities. Mr. Perez reported the change from control point to actual salary for the General Fund was approximately $56,000 for salary and approximately $20,000 for pension. Mr. Keene indicated the numbers applied to all General Fund salaries. Mr. Perez stated the next amount applied only to the Management Compensation Group. In the Budget, Staff proposed a performance-based compensation strategy that allowed a manager to move beyond the salary midpoint. This $225,000 amount represented 0.92 percent of the total compensation of the Management Group. To bring the Management Group to the midpoint, Staff set aside $310,000 in FY 2013. If the Council did not approve the proposed plan, then the number was eliminated from the FY 2014 Budget. The $310,000 amount represented 1.26 percent of total compensation for the Management and Professional Group. Staff recommended a potential increase of two percent, based on performance and contribution toward the Management Group; that was in the Budget for a full year. He said that because of the Service Employees International MINUTES Page 6 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Union (SEIU) agreement expiring at the end of December 2013, Staff was going to show a two percent increase for the final six months of FY 2014. The City Manager made these recommendations; however, the Council had not approved them yet. Mr. Keene noted represented Safety Employees were not included because both the Palo Alto Police Officers Association and Fire Fighters' contracts expired at the end of FY 2014. Mr. Perez explained the $589,000 amount represented 2.4 percent of the total compensation for those groups. Staff budgeted salaries at the actual salary amounts employees received. He mentioned that during the fiscal year, an employee could receive a step increase in salary, and the $571,000 represented that salary increase. For the management positions, an individual was able to move closer to the midpoint. Staff strongly recommended the City not accept the two-year smoothing. If the City accepted CalPERS' change from a 15-year to a 5-year smoothing, then the City needed to change from a two-year to a single-year smoothing. Staff recommended that because it allowed the City to address its obligation sooner. The City was able to afford to make the full payment in one year rather than two because of the improved revenue situation. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff recommended the City not accept the percentage of smoothing from CalPERS. Mr. Perez answered yes. By not accepting the smoothing, the City was to pay a higher rate. Vice Mayor Shepherd understood that not accepting the smoothing made the City appear to have a greater deficit in its financial statements; she asked how that could be explained. Mr. Perez explained it was basically a $1 million Citywide increase in the pension obligation for FY 2014. While the payment increased, the unfunded liability decreased in the future. Vice Mayor Shepherd stated the City would book the amount differently from other cities, but that fact was not disclosed. She did not believe it affected the City's bond rating. Mr. Perez indicated the higher payment would impact available funds in FY 2014. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt an explanation needed to be clearly stated. MINUTES Page 7 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Mr. Keene explained that the higher payment did not make the financial statements look bad. In comparing cities, Palo Alto paid more in FY 2014 than other cities. The City made the appropriate notations regarding its actions to provide a full explanation. Mr. Perez made that clear in the final Adopted Budget document, assuming the Council approved it. Mr. Saccio reported on Standard and Poor’s (S&P) and Moody's, credit bond ratings, and asked about the City's liabilities for pension and healthcare. While those factors were a small proportion of the rating methodology, S&P and Moody's reflected the burden of the liability on cities. Making a higher payment supported the City's credit in terms of the financial statements. Vice Mayor Shepherd agreed with the proposed recommendation; however, the Council needed to explain its actions. Chair Burt believed the City would show a smaller surplus. Mr. Keene agreed that would be the net effect in FY 2014. Chair Burt expected CalPERS' projected rate of return to decrease another 0.25 percent from 7.5 percent. At that time, cities took another big hit. The hit was not as large for Palo Alto because Palo Alto paid down the liability amount. Mr. Perez agreed. Attrition provided a net result of $297,000, minus the CalPERS pension amount. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the steps were additive in nature. Mr. Perez responded yes for budgetary purposes. Some received an increase and some not because of different labor groups in the categories. Council Member Schmid asked if some groups were not listed. Mr. Perez noted the Police and Fire contracts were not currently open for negotiation. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the additive amount was up to five percent. Mr. Perez explained Item Number One was at 2.18 percent for the $535,000 amount and that was additive. MINUTES Page 8 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Mr. Keene indicated these changes were not necessarily evenly distributed to all employees. The measure, as it related to the group, was the percentage. There was discretion as to whether the funds were fully applied. Council Member Schmid stated the authorization was there for a total increase of approximately five percent. He inquired whether there would be an additive for benefits if salaries increased by that amount. Mr. Perez reported it was not a full benefit increase because not all benefits changed. It only affected those benefits related to salary, such as pension and life insurance. Council Member Schmid asked if these were sustainable revenues because as the City shifted to salary increases and benefit increases, the Council needed to ensure the revenue base continued to grow. Mr. Perez indicated Staff would discuss that at the next Council meeting. In FY 2016, Staff projected a deficit and the City needed a plan for that deficit. In the Long Range Financial Forecast Staff embedded the impacts of CalPERS' pension changes; however, Staff continued to work on the potential savings of the pension third tier. Council Member Schmid wanted to ensure the Council discussion of the Long Range Financial Forecast related to the Budget. Mr. Perez indicated the Council discussion would occur prior to approval of the Proposed Budget. Mr. Saccio noted tax revenues for the next ten years matched historical performance over the prior 20 years. Chair Burt stated the increases for FY 2014 over FY 2013 were significantly greater than FY 2013 over FY 2012. He inquired whether Staff was confident that the rate of increase would continue to grow. Mr. Saccio reported Staff was confident the FY 2013 projections were accurate and that the City could achieve the FY 2014 projections. The actual amounts for FY 2011 to FY 2012 were carryovers from the recession. Chair Burt focused on the significantly higher rates of increase that were projected for FY 2014 over FY 2013. MINUTES Page 9 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Mr. Perez believed the rates of increase for FY 2013 over FY 2012 were not great because Staff was unsure whether the recession was abating. The actual increases for FY 2013 exceeded Staff's projections. Chair Burt stated the projections for FY 2013 were not upgraded to reflect the actual increases. Mr. Keene mentioned where the Adjusted Budget amounts were in the Staff report. Chair Burt realized that was the explanation. Slide five reflected Adopted Budget amounts rather than adjusted Budget amounts. Mr. Perez added the amounts for FY 2013 and 2014. Chair Burt noted FY 2013 amounts were the original Adopted Budget amounts; Staff projected higher figures for FY 2013. Mr. Saccio reported the FY 2013 Adjusted Budget should be close to the actual figures at the end of the fiscal year. Chair Burt indicated the projected rate of increase for FY 2014 over the FY 2013 Adjusted Budget was a slower rate of increase. Mr. Saccio agreed the rates of growth were not as significant. Chair Burt inquired whether Staff tracked trends for occupancy rates on weekends, and whether weekend occupancy rates were increasing. Mr. Saccio reported the data from hotels was not refined to that degree. Chair Burt suggested one method to determine the current weekend occupancy rate was to compare the current average occupancy rate with the average occupancy rates for FY 2000-2001 and FY 2006-2008. Assuming 100 percent occupancy Monday through Thursday, any increase in the average occupancy rate probably resulted from weekend occupancy. Mr. Perez said he would approach the hotels for the information because they had shared that information in the past. Chair Burt suggested Staff request information from the hotels and that they perform the analysis he outlined. MINUTES Page 10 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Mr. Perez referenced a newspaper article stating that Santa Clara Valley led the state in growth of the Hotel Tax year over year. Chair Burt felt that was a slightly different subject. The increase in hotel capacity most likely responded to business demand on Monday through Thursday. Mr. Saccio noted a direct correlation between increased occupancy and increased rates. Increased rates were driving the increased Hotel Tax. Chair Burt requested Staff comment on the retiree annual required contribution (ARC) of negative $1.3 million. Ms. Paras reported the ARC increase was organized by fund and department. The Citywide total was $12.8 million. The ARC increase for FY 2014 was $13.03 million. Overall, there was a Citywide increase of $0.2 million, based on data from January 2011. Staff was scheduled for a revised actuarial study for the retiree medical on June 30, 2013. The employee medical contribution totaled $1.5 million Citywide. The $1.5 million amount represented the credit against the ARC that employees were paying 10 percent of their medical. That brought the Proposed Budget to $11.5 million. The change between the $12.8 million in the Adopted Budget and the $11.5 million overall was a decrease of $1.2 million. Chair Burt indicated the employee's share reduced the City's required contribution but the overall contribution was not reduced. Mr. Perez stated Staff reflected the contribution to match agreements. 2. City Attorney Budget. Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst reported the City Attorney's Office had no expense or budget augmentation requests and no Full Time Employee (FTE) or position requests. One change was a decrease in the Attorney Contingency Account of $50,000 stemming from the historical usage of the Account. Council Member Berman noted the Operating Budget indicated ten fulltime employees with two Senior Deputy City Attorneys; however, the staffing table indicated nine fulltime employees and one Senior Deputy City Attorney. Molly Stump, City Attorney explained one Senior Deputy City Attorney position was funded through the Utilities Department. That position was dedicated to supporting Utilities. MINUTES Page 11 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Council Member Berman inquired about the difference in salary amounts between the staffing table and the subtotal of the total staff expenditures. Ms. Paras reported Staff used the salary control point for the staffing table as opposed to the actual salary amount because it was easier to manage. Council Member Berman indicated the more realistic salary amount was located in the total staff expenditures table. Ms. Paras replied yes. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked where the $50,000 decrease in the Attorney Contingency Account was found. Ms. Paras stated the $50,000 decrease was located in the Non-Departmental Section, under the proposed budget changes table. Vice Mayor Shepherd requested an explanation of the $10,000 general expense change for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. Ms. Paras explained the Management Employee Group had a decrease of $10,000 in Management Training Funds, previously placed in the salaries and benefits category. The development expense was placed in the general expense for non-salary. Council Member Schmid inquired about the substantial net decrease in benefit payments. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services (ASD) reported the decrease was partly caused by changing the salary methodology from control point to actual pay. Council Member Schmid believed the methodology change affected salaries rather than benefits. Mr. Perez indicated some benefits, such as pension, Medicare, and life insurance were driven by salary. Staff needed to provide a summary of all benefits and a better explanation. Council Member Schmid noted benefits for the City Attorney's Office were strikingly lower than other departments, while salaries were somewhat similar. MINUTES Page 12 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Mr. Perez stated Staff noticed that and they were looking into the explanations. Council Member Berman referenced Performance Measure Number One which indicated a survey was conducted in the fall of 2013. He inquired whether the table showed what was not applicable for FY 2013. Ms. Stump requested clarification of the question. Council Member Berman asked if Performance Measure Number One was surveyed in FY 2013 and if an actual percentage was determined. Ms. Stump said she did not ask that survey question in FY 2013 because it was a new tool and needed refining. With Staff turnover in the office, it was not the right time to work with client departments to obtain accurate feedback. Staff needed to begin to do that on a regular basis. Council Member Berman wished to understand the measure. Ms. Stump struggled with identifying measurable, accurate, and valuable performance measures. She was working with the City Auditor's Office regarding new measures. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend the City Council approve the City Attorney’s Budget. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 3. City Auditor Budget. Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst reported expense increases totaled $41,848, due to staffing changes. The department requested an additional augmentation for Ethics Hotline annual costs. The department reallocated development funds of $5,000 from benefits to general expense. Council Member Berman inquired about the difference in the number of employees for the department. Jim Pelletier, City Auditor stated one employee was funded through the Enterprise Fund. A Senior Auditor was dedicated to auditing the Enterprise Funds. Council Member Schmid felt performance measures were less objective because departments did not reach out to the Council and citizens. He MINUTES Page 13 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 asked Staff to comment on the connection between current and past performance measures. Mr. Pelletier inquired whether Council Member Schmid wanted performance measures connected to the residents' perception of the City. Council Member Schmid stated that was one measure for departments dealing with the public. Staff had many statistical measures of activities. He asked what Staff thought about reaching out to obtain performance measures. Mr. Pelletier indicated the cost of surveying citizens was prohibitive. The National Citizens Survey (Survey) provided data from a City service perspective; unfortunately the Survey did not contain a question specific to the City Auditor's Office. In terms of performance measures, Staff did reach out to citizens directly beyond the Survey. Council Member Schmid believed the City Auditor played a role with other departments in providing suggestions for performance measures. Mr. Pelletier played a role in terms of promoting performance measurements within the City. The departments determined the key performance measures, and he encouraged them to choose the most meaningful measures. He worked with departments regarding the best performance measures to use. For departments that worked directly with the public, perhaps Staff was able to consider some measurements in terms of direct customer feedback. Council Member Schmid suggested placing performance measures in the parking lot (a method used primarily for changes in the Budget) to determine if there was a role for the City Auditor. Mr. Pelletier noted the performance measures stated in the Budget represented a subset of the performance measures for the City. Departments used the three most critical performance measures for the Budget document. James Keene, City Manager reported the City Auditor played a helpful role by providing a perspective regarding best practices. One of the reasons for restructuring the Office of Management and Budget was to provide additional Staff resources to focus on suggestions from the Auditor and other departments. MINUTES Page 14 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Council Member Schmid wished to review performance measures for all departments, and inquired whether a second was needed to place an item in the parking lot. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services Department (ASD) recommended the Finance Committee (Committee) discuss its rules for moving an item to the parking lot. Vice Mayor Shepherd recalled in 2012 a simple majority vote was needed to place an item in the parking lot. Council Member Schmid stated performance measures for the first two departments were not clear. Chair Burt felt a qualitative approach for the parking lot was different but reasonable. He suggested two members of the Committee agree to place an item in the parking lot. He requested Staff comment on the adjustment in staffing. Mr. Pelletier explained the City Auditor's Office had a part-time employee designated as a temporary employee. That employee was temporary for almost nine years. In moving to a part-time designation with benefits, the employee agreed to accept a 13 percent pay decrease to offset the cost of benefits. Chair Burt inquired whether those actions totaled the $33,000 increase in staffing expense. Mr. Pelletier replied yes. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to recommend the City Council approve the City Auditor’s Budget. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 4. City Clerk Budget. Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst reported an expense decrease of $332,820, due to the removal of election costs included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Adopted Budget. There was one Full Time Employee (FTE) reduction for an Administrative Associate III, resulting in a $110,000 decrease. The department added $56,000 for minute transcription contract costs. MINUTES Page 15 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Council Member Berman asked about the role of a Parking Examiner. Donna Grider, City Clerk explained the Parking Examiner reviewed appeals of tickets. Citizens who did not agree with the Parking Examiner's decision appealed to the Superior Court. Chair Burt inquired whether outsourcing minute transcription and eliminating the Administrative Associate III position provided a savings to the City. Ms. Grider answered yes. The savings from outsourcing minute transcription was found in the benefits. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked which Commission meetings the Clerk took minutes for. Ms. Grider reported the Clerk's Office was responsible for the City Council and Council appointed Committees. The Clerk's Office was not responsible for minutes for Commissions. Council Member Schmid agreed with the outsourcing of transcription because the turnaround time was less and the cost was less. He questioned whether transcription for more Board and Committee meetings was outsourced. Ms. Grider stated outsourcing transcription was successful. Minutes were provided quickly and were easier to edit. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend the City Council to approve the City Clerk’s Budget. Vice Mayor Shepherd thanked the Clerk for experimenting with transcription of minutes. It was a good reflection of managing the Budget. Staff needed to continue working to reduce pension costs. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 5. City Council Budget. Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst reported the proposed expense increase totaled $25,000. The majority of the $25,000 was for Council meals, and $10,000 was for special Council meetings, travel, and training. Chair Burt inquired about the increase for the cost of Council meals. MINUTES Page 16 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Donna Grider, City Clerk explained Council meetings that began earlier required a meal. The Council had more Committees and they sometimes had meetings at 4:00 P.M. or 5:00 P.M., which was when meals were required. The Council was also holding more meetings where meals were provided. Chair Burt requested a breakdown of meal costs. James Keene, City Manager indicated the food cost in the Council's Budget did not feed only Council Members. More Council meetings, more Committee meetings, and more Staff attending meetings required more food. Providing meals for Staff was less expensive than paying a per diem. Staff also discussed providing healthier food. Ms. Grider reported the average cost of meals for 15 people was $250. The meals were not elaborate; however, Council Members indicated they wanted healthier food which was going to cost more. Chair Burt noted Council Member Schmid supported moving the Item to the parking lot, (the parking lot was a term used for changes in the Budget). Vice Mayor Shepherd favored having three Committee Members support moving an item to the parking lot. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to require three Committee Members to put something into the parking lot. MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Vice Mayor Shepherd supported having meals and purchasing meals from Palo Alto small businesses. Chair Burt was concerned about food waste. Meals needed to be healthier and of better quality, without increasing the cost if waste was reduced. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked how food was being wasted. Chair Burt indicated a great deal of food was left over. Vice Mayor Shepherd requested Staff comment on food waste. Chair Burt requested Staff review the issue. MINUTES Page 17 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to ensure the public did not think the Council was wasting food and money. Council Member Berman felt a deeper analysis was helpful but he did not necessarily agree food was wasted. Chair Burt raised the question because the increase was moderately significant. Ms. Grider suggested the analysis include a projection of Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 meetings that required food and its average cost. Chair Burt did not believe there was an increase in the number of meetings. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd to recommend the City Council approve the City Council Budget. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 6. City Manager Budget. Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst reported the expense decreases totaled $94,683, primarily due to creating an Office of Sustainability. Costs were shifted from the City Manager's Budget to the Office of Sustainability's Budget. Staff proposed an increase for communications outreach to the public. The department proposed a net decrease of 0.5 Full Time Employees (FTE) due to the elimination of the Deputy City Manager position. Council Member Berman inquired about the lack of percentages for performance measures in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. James Keene, City Manager understood those questions were not included in the National Citizen Survey (Survey) for FY 2013. Council Member Berman asked if the vendor included those questions in the Survey. Mr. Keene answered yes. The contract provided for a limited number of questions that Staff could initiate. The main points of the Budget were elimination of a Deputy City Manager position and creation of the Office of Sustainability within the City Manager's Office. Chair Burt was encouraged by the reorganization of the City Manager's Office. Some assumed the changes required net increases in the Budget, MINUTES Page 18 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 but that did not appear to be the case. He inquired whether the reorganization resulted in a net decrease. Mr. Keene responded yes. Chair Burt inquired whether Performance Measure Numbers One and Two were single questions or an aggregation of related questions in the Survey. Mr. Keene understood those were single questions. Sheila Tucker, Executive Assistant to the City Manager noted Measure Number Three contained two separate questions. Chair Burt asked if Measure Number Three contained individual questions from the Survey. Ms. Tucker answered yes. Chair Burt believed the Survey results showed real trends. Mr. Keene agreed. The Survey had some margin of error, but those were actual numbers. Chair Burt was more concerned when the numbers fluctuated from year to year. He asked when results of the Survey were provided. Ms. Tucker stated the end of the calendar year. Mr. Keene added the City Auditor's Office received the results in September or October. Rating numbers for public information services needed to match people's perceptions of the quality of City services. Staff needed to improve communication outreach to have a stronger linkage with other strong scores. Chair Burt felt those numbers indicated what the community wanted and that they expected strong communications. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Chair Burt to recommend the City Council approve the City Manager’s Office Budget, to include increasing the proposed communication Key Performance Measure Number 2–Preserve transparency and enhance communication with the public–from 74 percent in 2014 to 80 percent in 2014. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the purpose of the 0.05 FTE for sustainability. MINUTES Page 19 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Mr. Keene said Staff attempted to distribute a person's time to the departments where Staff expected that person to expend time during the course of the year. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 7. Office of Sustainability Budget. Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst reported the Office of Sustainability's purpose was to develop a comprehensive and strategic plan for the City to become more environmentally sustainable. Key expense increases were shifting costs from the City Manager's Office and adding a Chief Sustainability Officer. The net increase of those changes was $23,023. The net Full Time Employee (FTE) impact was zero. James Keene, City Manager noted Staff typically did not include small office budgets in the Budget; however, the Office of Sustainability's reach extended throughout the City. Almost all aspects of the City focused on sustainability. FTE’s for the Office of Sustainability were contained in the Budgets for the Office of Sustainability, the City Manager's Office, and other Enterprise Fund operations. The Chief Sustainability Officer, while technically reporting to the City Manager, reported to a board of department directors. Chair Burt inquired whether the decrease of 0.5 FTE’s was a result of eliminating the position of Assistant to the City Manager. Mr. Keene answered yes. Chair Burt requested an explanation regarding the allocation of FTE’s. Sheila Tucker, Executive Assistant to the City Manager indicated the FTE’s were allocated as follows: City Manager's Office 0.05, Utilities 0.1, Refuse Fund 0.05, and Wastewater Treatment Fund 0.05. Chair Burt stated the FTE’s were distributed to the departments that the FTE supported, and inquired whether the FTE for the Office of Emergency Services was distributed in the same manner. Mr. Keene did not want Staff to migrate the allocations into the Office of Sustainability. For the purpose of the Budget document, it was the most effective way to show that. Chair Burt asked if the City employed fewer Administrative Assistants. MINUTES Page 20 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Mr. Keene reported administrative support staff was also reduced. Chair Burt indicated the City created new positions without creating a net increase in the cost. Mr. Keene concurred. With rising costs and the community growth, the City did not increase the permanent workforce. Staff needed flexibility to create new positions to offset those positions with reductions in other areas. Chair Burt inquired about the percentage of decrease in General Fund employees over the past few years. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services Department (ASD) reported the number of General Fund employees decreased 12 percent since 2007. Chair Burt noted during the same time Palo Alto's population increased. Mr. Keene reported performance measures were increasing. With fewer staff and increasing performance levels, there needed to be improved performance. Chair Burt indicated significantly fewer employees served a moderately larger population with higher performance evaluations. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend to the City Council the approval the Office of Sustainability Budget. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Ms. Paras reported the FTE’s for the Office of Emergency Services were not distributed across departments. The three full-time benefited FTE’s in the Office of Emergency Services were budgeted within that department. Chair Burt inquired whether the FTE’s were included in Police and Fire Budget. Ms. Paras answered no. The FTE’s were budgeted solely for the Office of Emergency Services. 8. Human Resources Department Budget. Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst noted the proposal of a new name for the Human Resources Department Budget was People Strategy and MINUTES Page 21 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Operations. Staff proposed an amendment to the Budget of $50,000 for consultant costs and preliminary planning for the selection of a Human Resources Information System (HRIS). The Budget included an additional $34,000 related to the Cities Wellness Program and the new Employee Orientation Program. The department proposed eliminating one Human Resources (HR) Representative position and adding a Benefits Manager position, for a net impact of $51,000. The Proposed Budget included a midyear reclassification of one position for $42,000. Kathy Shen, Chief People Officer indicated Staff wanted to effectively provide healthcare to employees and said she needed an employee with different skills. Vice Mayor Shepherd recalled a discussion of a more complex method of providing healthcare, and inquired whether the new position worked on that. Ms. Shen stated that was one of the main considerations. Staff wanted to move some transactional work to a vendor so that Staff was able to focus on value-added work. Council Member Schmid noted the performance measures covered a wide territory, and inquired whether they captured the issues. Ms. Shen worked with the City Auditor to determine meaningful metrics in this regard. Talent and succession planning were key components. The recruiting metric was a basic HR metric. Council Member Schmid inquired whether a distinction between recruiting for a specialized position and recruiting young people had different meanings with regard to the day’s recruitment was held. Ms. Shen agreed and said measuring the well-being, including those special cases, allowed Staff to improve. The average position included special and typical recruitments. Council Member Schmid asked why the turnover performance measure focused on first year. Ms. Shen explained the probation period was now one year, and Staff wanted to ensure they were hiring people with the right skills, including helping managers mentor newly hired employees. Council Member Schmid inquired whether an important issue was the loss of employees with three or four years of service. MINUTES Page 22 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Ms. Shen said she would track turnover in general. Council Member Berman observed that the department had one more performance measure than other departments; it contained the least amount of historical data and had ambitious goals for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. Ms. Shen reported performance measures were new, except for the first year turnover. She thought those were the right topics to focus on. Chair Burt asked if Staff had a sense of whether they were reaching the FY 2013 goal for first-year turnover. Ms. Shen did not know the current percentage. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Chair Burt to recommend that the City Council approve the People Strategy and that the Operations Budget include the inclusion of $50,000 for the HRIS Planning Consultant. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 9. Employee Benefits Fund. Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst reported the Employees Benefit Fund included the Workers Compensation Fund, the General Benefits Fund, and the Retiree Medical Fund. Regarding the Workers Compensation Fund, the expense increase totaled $0.3 million, the majority of which was due to an eight percent increase in premiums recommended by a third-party administrator. For the General Benefits Fund, the expense increase totaled $3.1 million, comprised of the net pension increase of $0.7 million and a net Citywide healthcare increase of $2.4 million. The Citywide annual required contribution (ARC) was said to increase by $0.2 million; employee contributions towards the ARC totaled $1.5 million. The next update for the annual ARC was scheduled for June 30, 2013. Council Member Schmid requested an explanation for the decrease in the amount of claims, while the number of claims did not decrease. Sandra Blanch, Assistant Director People Strategy and Operations explained the number of workers' compensation claims decreased; however, the severity of claims and associated costs continued to increase. Council Member Schmid noted the decrease in claim amounts was 50 percent. MINUTES Page 23 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Ms. Blanch reported claims in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 were not fully developed. Older claims with more medical treatment were differentiated from newer claims with less medical treatment. Council Member Schmid asked if the claim amount was attributed to the year of injury or incident. Ms. Blanch answered yes. Costs were associated with the date on which the injury occurred. Council Member Schmid inquired whether Staff expected the amounts to increase as time passed. Ms. Blanch replied yes. Chair Burt asked if the paid amount were actual payments in the fiscal year. Ms. Blanch responded yes. Chair Burt inquired whether the decline in workers' compensation costs paid was real. Ms. Blanch reported those amounts were actual costs; she said the estimated claims that were paid increased. The third-party administrator recommended an increase because of a legislative change that became effective January 1, 2013. Chair Burt inquired whether the information was presented in this format in prior years. Ms. Blanch noted in prior years Staff provided a graph. Chair Burt asked if there was a broader context for how the improvement was achieved. Ms. Blanch explained more claims costs were associated with older employees, and as employees retired costs decreased. Another factor was utilization of contract workers. Chair Burt believed the cost decreased even after considering those factors. He wanted to know what caused the success so it could continue. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services Department (ASD) indicated Staff would follow up. MINUTES Page 24 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Council Member Schmid inquired whether the net increase of $3.2 million for FY 2013 in the General Benefits Fund was correct. Mr. Perez answered yes. Council Member Schmid indicated that without the employees paying their share, that number would have increased by 22 percent. Mr. Perez stated it would have increased by the $2.9 million. The majority of the increase was with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) rate. Chair Burt suggested Staff clarify that the share paid by the City decreased because employees increased their contribution. Mr. Perez said he would include that as a footnote. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend the City Council approve the Employee Benefits Fund Budget. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Mr. Perez reported the Council Contingency Fund had $250,000 available for recommendations. Chair Burt recalled in FY 2013, funds were spent for automated external defibrillators. Mr. Perez remembered funds were also spent for another item, but he did not remember the specific item. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the process for using the Council Contingency Fund. Mr. Perez reported a Committee could make a recommendation to the Council to expend funds. The Council had the option to replenish the Council Contingency Fund from the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) Fund. Chair Burt added that Council could initiate a motion to expend funds. Mr. Perez added the item had to be agendized. Staff also could recommend expenditure of funds. MINUTES Page 25 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Vice Mayor Shepherd asked which method was used for the automated external defibrillators expenditure. Mr. Perez explained the discussion occurred as part of the midyear review when the entire Budget was open for discussion. He said the Council could accept, decline, or change Staff recommendations during the midyear review. Chair Burt believed the Finance Committee (Committee) normally did not budget the Council Contingency Fund in advance. Mr. Perez indicated that Staff had recommended the dollar amount, and the Committee recommended it to the Council. Chair Burt suggested the Committee not recommend use of Contingency Funds to pay for an item the Committee wished to add to the budget. Mr. Perez reported the Committee could add funds for a program from surplus funds, from reserves, and from Contingency Funds. Chair Burt felt it was technically permissible for the Committee to use Contingency Funds during the initial budgeting process; however, he did not remember that occurring. Mr. Perez indicated it occurred for augmentation of the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP). 10. General Liability Fund. Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst reported the expense increase totaled $125,000, primarily due to premium increases for umbrella excess liability and increases for property loss and special liability. Council Member Schmid inquired about the source of revenues. Ms. Paras asked if Council Member Schmid meant the $125,000 revenue amount. Council Member Schmid answered no. Ms. Paras indicated the allocation methodology was based on a ten year claim expense. Staff used the claim liability to review the claim expense trend for the prior ten years. Some expenditures were directly allocated to other funds. MINUTES Page 26 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Chair Burt asked Council Member Schmid if he wanted to know whether the source of other revenue was payouts from insurers. Council Member Schmid explained that on the expenditure side there were provisions for claims, and he assumed that was calculated each year by departments. The general expense item varied dramatically year over year, and he assumed that was based on claims. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services (ASD) reported other revenue was the allocation to departments and funds. The general expense was an expense for claims. Council Member Schmid inquired whether there was a reserve fund for claims. Mr. Perez explained a significant incident could increase the expense. A second factor was the funding ratio, or the confidence level for funding the actuarial valuation of expected liability. He seemed to recall a significant incident resulted in the large increase for claims. Council Member Schmid indicated Staff did not seem to anticipate any unusual claims for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. Mr. Perez indicated Staff returned to the 90 percent confidence level funding. Staff was more confident that funding was available should something significant occur. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Chair Burt to recommend the City Council approve the General Liability Fund Budget. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 11. IT Department Budget (Capital and Operating). Jonathan Reichental, Chief Information Officer reported on the three-year strategy for the Information Technology (IT) Department. The first element of the strategy was to embrace civic innovation and to relate to technologies. A second element was related to IT governance, or ensuring that Staff was working on the right technology for departments at the right time. The third element was in regard to enhancing service delivery. Two components of the third element were training and implementing employees through a new operating model. The fourth element was significant infrastructure upgrades for technology. For the first time the department had a dedicated employee to focus on information security. The external MINUTES Page 27 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 audit identified ten areas as problematic and made ten recommendations. Staff agreed with all recommendations, and completed six of the ten recommendations. The remaining four recommendations were to be completed prior to the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. Some of the security recommendations required significant work. The department's posture with regard to disaster recovery was to protect the City from earthquakes, power outages, fires, cyber attacks, water, and other risks. Investing in measures to protect against water damage alone was a poor use of taxpayer money. The cost for conversion from a water-based suppression system to a gas- based suppression system was in excess of $200,000. Ultimately the footprint of the data center was reduced to the point that there was nothing to protect. Recommended modifications to the sprinkler system were completed. Staff was working on a comprehensive disaster recovery plan. The external audit recommended a comprehensive IT risk assessment; Staff was expected to complete that project by the end of FY 2014. Chair Burt felt the transformation of the IT Department was significant. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services (ASD) recalled the Finance Committee (Committee) requested an update from the IT Department regarding audit recommendations. Christine Paras, Senior Financial Analyst reported the net revenue decrease was primarily due to the loan repayment to the General Fund. Staff proposed an amendment to include a $50,000 increase for Police Department scheduling software. Capital project transfers decreased by $1.3 million. Staff proposed an increase of $0.4 million for the technology fee. Interest earnings were the interest pool earnings for cash balances. The net expenditure decrease was $1.3 million. The department proposed eliminating 3.38 hourly positions, resulting in a decrease of $0.2 million. The department requested the addition of one Full Time Employee (FTE). Staff reallocated 0.35 FTEs from the IT Department to the ASD. The department proposed reallocating a Senior Technologist from the Utilities and Public Works Departments. Technology projects included acquisition of new computers, a virtual library branch, radio infrastructure replacement, and improvements to the Utility customer billing system. Mr. Perez noted changes to the layout of the capital portion of the Budget. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked Staff if cloud computing required additional security measures. MINUTES Page 28 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Mr. Reichental reported vendors were designing solutions to accommodate government needs and incorporated additional security measures consistent with Federal and State requirements. Vice Mayor Shepherd assumed computer operations were moving to a cloud; however, the community was concerned about security. Mr. Reichental said he needed to evaluate proposed solutions to understand whether it was appropriate. He mentioned that some Public Safety technologies would not be moved to a cloud in the near to medium term. Many government agencies were already utilizing cloud technology. Council Member Schmid stated security and functionality of the system in all situations were keystones for all activities. The strategic plan needed to include productivity elements of IT infrastructure and methods for engaging the public and sharing information with the public. He requested Staff review performance measures in order to track and monitor achievements. Council Member Berman indicated immense amounts of information were now available to the public, and the availability of that information needed to be communicated to the public. Chair Burt felt the IT plan and program was good. Staff needed to provide the story to the public. There was a lag between improvements and the community understanding the improvements. The Council needed to invest in communication to the public. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to recommend the City Council approve IT Department Budget (Capital and Operating). Council Member Berman felt the public needed to be made aware of the City's efforts regarding transparent governance. Chair Burt reported public opinion reflected in City surveys was not the same as public opinion expressed in online comments. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 12. Administrative Services Department Budget. Christine Paras, Senior Financial Analyst reported that Staff proposed a revenue increase of $38,000 for easement fees, sale of salvage, and miscellaneous revenue. A $25,000 increase in bank card charges and a MINUTES Page 29 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 decrease of $24,000 for supplies resulted in a $1,000 net increase for expenses. Full Time Employee (FTE) changes resulted in a net increase of $25,000, which was offset by the reallocation of 1.66 FTE’s, totaling $0.2 million. For the printing and mailing component of the Administrative Services Department (ASD), Staff proposed one FTE reallocate 0.05 of the General Fund, resulting in a decrease of $7,000. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked why ASD budgeted for the full amount of bank card charges. Lalo Perez, Director of ASD was working with the Legal Department regarding options, and wanted to provide potential recommendations on fee increases. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the bills being paid in order for the charge to be allocated to ASD. Mr. Perez explained it was an administrative fee charged by Visa and MasterCard to the merchant. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked what City bills or services the public was paying for that caused the credit card fee to be charged to ASD. Mr. Perez indicated residents were paying with credit cards at the revenue collections office. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked why the bank card fees were not charged to the revenue being collected. Mr. Perez reported bank card charges for payments on utility bills were allocated to the Utilities Department. Administratively, the charges were not worth the time required to allocate those costs to the various departments. The Utilities portion was significant enough to warrant allocating those charges. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff considered outsourcing some ASD services. Mr. Perez was using temporary salaries to staff two open payroll positions while he analyzed outsourcing options. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend the City Council approve the Administrative Services Department Budget. MINUTES Page 30 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 MOTION PASSED: 4-0 MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to include the increase of $50k to IT Department Budget. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 13. Printing and Mailing Fund Budget. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services (ASD) reported Staff maintained the status quo for the Budget. The Printing and Mailing Fund was maintained because of the need to print the Council packet. Staffing was reduced from five Full Time Employees (FTE) to 2.5 FTE’s, which included a 0.5 FTE for a temporary employee. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend the City Council approve the Printing and Mailing Fund Budget. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Future Meetings and Agendas Chair Burt announced the next meeting was scheduled for May 9, 2013 at 6:00 P.M. Budgets to be reviewed on May 9 were Planning and Community Environment, Community Services, Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP), and Library. Budgets scheduled for review on May 14 included Police and Fire, Utilities, and Municipal Fees. On May 16, the budgets for review were Public Works, Special Revenue, and General Fund Capital. Wrap up and Management Compensation Study were scheduled for May 23, 2013. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services (ASD) requested rescheduling the May 14, 2013 meeting. James Keene, City Manager needed to attend the Policy and Services Committee meeting scheduled at the same time the Finance Committee meeting was scheduled for on May 14. He suggested rescheduling the meeting to 10:00 A.M. on May 14 or May 15. Council Member Schmid favored meeting Tuesday morning. Council Member Berman was available Tuesday morning. MINUTES Page 31 of 31 Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes: 5/7/2013 Chair Burt was not available Tuesday morning, and suggested Wednesday. Vice Mayor Shepherd was unavailable on Wednesday. Mr. Keene suggested meeting at noon on Tuesday. Chair Burt suggested a longer meeting on Thursday, May 16, 2013. Mr. Perez noted the Capital Budget was scheduled for May 16, and suggested the meeting begin earlier on May 16. Chair Burt indicated the meeting could begin at 4:00 P.M. and include a dinner break. Mr. Perez felt the only concern was the availability of department directors. Council Member Schmid thought the meeting could last as long as six hours. Mr. Perez indicated Budgets not reviewed could be moved to the wrap-up night. The May 14, 2013 meeting was canceled, and the May 16, 2013 meeting was scheduled to begin at 6:00 P.M. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 P.M. APPENDIX 4 FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 1 of 29 Special Meeting Thursday, May 9, 2013 Chairperson Burt called the Finance Committee meeting to order at 6:17 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Berman, Burt (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd Absent: Agenda Items 1. Review of Human Services Resource Allocation Funding Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2014 Minka Van Der Zwaag, Office of Human Services Manager reported the Human Relations Commission (HRC) reviewed Priority of Needs when compiling Human Services Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP) recommendations. The recommendations were informed by many surveys, focus groups, interviews, and research. Based on research, the HRC added dental health and elder abuse prevention to the Priority of Needs. Staff invited 12 new agencies, in addition to current providers to respond to the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the HSRAP process. The funding recommendation was $300,737 for 14 agencies, with an option to renew for the next fiscal year. Palo Alto Community Child Care and Avenidas were the two largest recipients of funds. Staff received funding requests in excess of available funding. Two agencies did not receive awards because of the static funding of HSRAP, plus, their needs were not as great as other agencies' needs. Through the Human Resource Needs Assessment, Staff identified tutoring for low income children as a need. Palo Alto Housing Corporation and Dream Catchers submitted proposals and received funding for tutoring programs. The two programs provided different but complementary services. The HRC Allocations Committee felt food for the homeless was a basic need, and they wished to increase funding for a program to meet that need. InnVision/Shelter Network, the community's only major provider of MINUTES Page 2 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 food for the homeless received a $3,000 increase. The only method to add new agencies was to reduce funding to current agencies by five percent. After the RFP closed, Staff discovered an application was not received from one long-term applicant and recipient: Abilities United, because of an incorrect email address. The City Attorney advised it was permissible to allow Abilities United two weeks to submit an application. Staff proposed recommendations to 1) approve funding for agencies and include funds in the Budget; 2) to waive the timeliness requirement for the RFP submission by Abilities United; and 3) to authorize the City Manager or his designee to authorize the execution of contracts. Council Member Berman inquired about the decision not to fund Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Ms. Van Der Zwaag reported Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired requested funds to work with seniors experiencing vision loss. The program did not receive funds due to the lack of funds. The program fit a Priority of Needs, but the only method for providing funds was through reducing funds in other programs. The HRC Allocations Committee and the HRC felt stronger about making new funding available for the tutoring agencies. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the contracts would automatically renew in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. Ms. Van Der Zwaag answered yes. As a courtesy, Staff provided the Finance Committee (Committee) an update on HSRAP. Council Member Schmid asked if the HRC Allocations Committee followed an assessment process in determining the amount of funds each program received. Ms. Van Der Zwaag reported the HRC and HRC Allocations Committee discussed reducing funds for certain agencies to make money available for other agencies, but decided to reduce funds across the board. Council Member Schmid recalled the newest element was food for the homeless, and asked if there were programs other than InnVision, such as La Comida that were able to help. Ms. Van Der Zwaag noted La Comida provided meals for seniors and was a current grantee. InnVision/Shelter Network was the largest provider of food, specifically for the homeless. MINUTES Page 3 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Council Member Schmid inquired about churches providing food on a regular basis. Ms. Van Der Zwaag explained InnVision/Shelter Network managed the program for churches to provide food. Council Member Schmid noted various applicants counted the homeless population at 600, 400, and 300. The Housing Element counted 170 homeless individuals. He asked if Staff could reconcile those counts. Ms. Van Der Zwaag responded not at the current time. The last homeless census was taken a few years ago, and that number was closer to 275. She said information from a recent census had not been released yet. One possibility was that agencies could be using larger numbers because they felt the homeless population was significantly undercounted in the last homeless census. The homeless counts from the agencies were probably based on the agencies' experiences. Council Member Schmid noted there was not a request for increased funding. Ms. Van Der Zwaag did not want to request additional funding as part of the HSRAP process. If the Committee was willing to increase funding, then perhaps they needed to consider an increase as part of the Community Services Department Budget, separate from HSRAP recommendations. Jim Keene, City Manager recalled previous discussion around holding the Stanford Funds discussion before making a policy decision on different methodologies for funding. Council Member Schmid stated any discussion regarding increased funding needed to be part of Agenda Item Two. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if Staff was requesting that the Committee accept the grantees. Ms. Van Der Zwaag answered yes. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted funding for HSRAP remained stagnant, while the cost of living increased. MINUTES Page 4 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Ms. Van Der Zwaag requested the Committee recommend the indicated grant amounts. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked why Palo Alto Housing Corporation did not receive funding in the past. Ms. Van Der Zwaag explained the Palo Alto Housing Corporation and Dream Catchers were the new recommended grantees for the afterschool tutoring program and some summer enrichment programs. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the Committee considered increased funding for HSRAP under Agenda Item Number One. Ms. Van Der Zwaag relayed that was the purview of the City Manager and City Finance Director. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services (ASD) mentioned that the Committee considered increased funding in the current discussion and asked if it should be part of Agenda Item Number Two. Chair Burt suggested discussion regarding amount and methodology be held under Agenda Item Number Two. If the Committee addressed Staff recommendations in the current discussion, then they could consider the methodology under Agenda Item Number Two. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted Agenda Item Number One was to accept approved funding. Chair Burt felt the Committee could discuss the total amount of funding under Agenda Item Number Two. He inquired whether a discussion concerning methodology should be held under Agenda Item Number Two or Agenda Item Number One. Mr. Perez believed it was best to discuss that component now. Chair Burt thought the Committee could discuss the methodology for the $300,000 funding of HSRAP under Agenda Item Number One, and the total amount of funding under Agenda Item Number Two. Vice Mayor Shepherd wished to discuss the HRC's proposal to expand funding, and increased funding for HSRAP together. MINUTES Page 5 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Chair Burt felt increased funding needed to be discussed under Agenda Item Number Two. The method for allocating $300,000 was part of the current discussion. Staff indicated supplementing the Budget needed to be discussed as part of Agenda Item Number Two. Council Member Berman noted the first half of Vice Mayor Shepherd's comments applied to the current conversation. Chair Burt agreed. Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to ensure her vote conveyed her intentions and intended to discuss the ability to increase the methodology for FY 2014. Chair Burt stated if Vice Mayor Shepherd wished to increase the dollar amount budgeted, that was part of Agenda Item Number Two. Mr. Perez clarified that if the Committee wished to provide additional funding and wished Staff to work with the HRC, that discussion was part of Agenda Item Number Two. If the Committee wanted to give direction on particular contracts, they needed to do so now. Chair Burt reiterated that the Committee was discussing division of the $300,000 under Agenda Item Number One. If the Committee wanted to increase the pool of funds above $300,000, they needed to discuss that under Agenda Item Number Two. Mr. Perez felt that if the Committee did not have a specific agency in mind and wanted Staff to work with the HRC, then that made sense. If the Committee had specific direction for Staff, then it needed to be discussed now. Chair Burt clarified that if the Committee considered the possibility of increasing funds under Agenda Item Number Two, then they needed to discuss the method now for determining which agency received additional funds. Mr. Keene thought the Committee was interested in discussing a different pool. The only reason to discuss funding under Agenda Item Number Two was to reallocate funds within the Community Services Department Budget to some increased allocation for HSRAP. MINUTES Page 6 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Chair Burt noted the Committee could allocate additional funds to the Community Services Department Budget. If Council Members wished to discuss reallocating funds from any of the Staff and HRC proposed agencies to a different agency, then they needed to discuss it at this time. If the Committee wanted to explore additional funds and methods for allocating those funds, then the discussion needed to be held under Agenda Item Number Two. If a Committee Member intended to propose funds be reallocated from some agency to others, he should do so now. Vice Mayor Shepherd said she had no intention of doing that. Council Member Schmid believed there were discrepancies between the amounts agencies received, and suggested the HRC consider criteria to make grants more equal in size, or that they reflect on the value to the community. Chair Burt reported the distributions were the result of numerous years of discussion around various issues. Allocations were based on extensive community and HRC discussions over a number of years. Ms. Van Der Zwaag stated distributions were based on service levels that agencies provided and priorities set in the past. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to recommend the City Council: 1) approve funding for Fiscal Year 2014 to be included in the Fiscal Year 2014 Office of Human Services contract budget; 2) waive the timeliness requirement for the Request for Proposal submission by Abilities United; and 3) to allow the City Manager or his designee to authorize him to execute year one contracts, and for a renewal up to one additional year (Fiscal Year 2015). The City Manager or his designee was authorized to execute the Human Services Contract and any other necessary documents concerning the contracts. Jill O’Nan, Chair of Human Relations Commission explained the City's relationship with the different HSRAP recipients differed from agency to agency. For example, Adolescent Counseling Services was founded in Palo Alto and was funded entirely by the City. Other agencies received funding from other governmental bodies and private donations. With Adolescent Counseling Services, the HRC wondered whether the City needed to partner with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) to find funding elsewhere; that freed HSRAP funds to support other programs. The City did not abandon agencies with which it had longstanding relationships. MINUTES Page 7 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Vice Mayor Shepherd was impressed that the HRC found new agencies because HSRAP funding did not meet the need. She was proud that the City provided funds to community nonprofit agencies that served the most vulnerable residents. Bill Blodgett, La Comida served approximately 38,000 meals to seniors annually. La Comida was primarily funded by Santa Clara County with a stipulation that La Comida obtain a 10 percent match from another source. Palo Alto was the 10 percent funding source for La Comida. Any reduction of funds from the City of Palo Alto had a tenfold effect. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 2. Community Services Department Budget Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst for Administrative Services Department (ASD) noted review of the Police, Fire, and Office of Emergency Services Budgets. The Municipal Fee Schedule was rescheduled to May 16, 2013. Attachment One to the at-places memorandum indicated changes to the Proposed Operating Budget. The revenue line item for driving range in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Proposed Budget column changed to $253,750. Under the contract services line item for miscellaneous, the revised FY 2014 Proposed Budget column needed to read $22,003. For range fees, the total changed to $110,173. The bottom line total for net income changed to negative $503,905. The second Item in the memorandum concerned the Planning and Community Environment, University Avenue Parking Permit Fund and California Avenue Parking Permit Fund. Planning and Community Environment Department and the Public Works Department had the salary portion of those positions moved to the Parking Permit Funds because Staff reallocated a number of Staff positions from ASD; however, Staff needed to transfer the benefits for those positions. In prior years, the activity and costs for the Parking Permit Funds were captured in different departments. Staff consolidated costs into the special revenue funds to show the total net cost of the entire program. Lalo Perez, Director of ASD noted Staff agreed with the recommendation from the University Parking Committee. Ms. Paras stated another correction was moving Parking District utility costs of $139,905 from the General Fund Public Works Department to the Parking District. The last correction was a transfer of $152,822 from the General Fund to the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund to reimburse the Parking MINUTES Page 8 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 District for the City's share of parking spaces at City Hall. The overall result of corrections to the General Fund was an additional $126,643. The Utilities Fund had a net increase in costs of $27,093. The Technology Fund had increased costs of $13,546. These increased costs resulted from the transfer of funds for parking spaces at City Hall. Attachment Two was a memorandum from the Storm Drain Oversight Committee (SDOC) regarding its review of the FY 2014 SDOC Budget. Attachment Four was the Staff Report reviewing and recommending the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) report to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). Attachment Five was the verbatim minutes of the April 24, 2013 PTC meeting. In the FY 2014 Proposed Budget, Staff changed the presentation of employee benefits to increase transparency for the reader and to review employee benefits in detail. In prior years, Staff included the largest employee benefits for pension and healthcare in the benefits allocation. In the FY 2014 Proposed Budget, Staff separated the largest items, pension and healthcare, into separate line items so that the reader could see the actual change. The second table demonstrated the breakdown of pension, healthcare, and miscellaneous benefits. Chair Burt indicated the change was found in the third and eighth rows of the table on page 86. Council Member Berman noted the word ”Miscellaneous” was excluded from the Proposed Budget. Mr. Perez said he would revise the Proposed Budget prior to the adoption to show Miscellaneous Benefit Allocation. Chair Burt believed deleting Miscellaneous was the correct method to revise the Budget. The Proposed Budget needed to indicate the prior designation of aggregated benefits; now it was broken into subsections. Mr. Perez reported the Miscellaneous Benefits Allocation was now comprised of administrative costs for third-party administrators. Chair Burt clarified that the Miscellaneous Benefits Allocation should not be deleted. Council Member Berman thought Staff should add the word ”Miscellaneous”. Vice Mayor Shepherd explained that Staff would add the word ”Miscellaneous” before ”Benefits Allocation”. MINUTES Page 9 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Mr. Perez indicated Staff did not answer Council Member Schmid's question on May 7, 2013 because he wanted to provide an illustration. Ms. Paras reported the net revenue decrease for the Community Services Department (CSD) Budget was $1.4 million, the majority of which was related to reconfiguration of the Golf Course. The increase in recreation program’s needed to be $119,500. The decrease of $0.2 million reflected historical trends of decreasing class revenue. The overall expense increase was $0.3 million. The Golf Course Reconfiguration Project had a decrease of $0.6 million. An additional $50,000 was budgeted for market outreach. The Art Center Foundation was provided an additional $56,000. Recreation programs were increased by $92,000. She mentioned that Staff budgeted a $0.5 million increase for staffing changes. Overall, CSD increased Full Time Employee (FTE) by 10.41. The majority of the FTEs resulted from an increase in hourly Staff to meet CSD's operational needs. The increase in temporary staffing shown on was 6.84 FTEs. The subtotal net change to the Budget for overall FTEs in CSD showed an increase of 10.41 FTEs. Staff projected a FY 2013 net loss of $0.3 million, due to the Golf Course Reconfiguration Project. Mr. Perez added Staff provided projections of future revenue and expenses for the Golf Course because of prior discussions about the Golf Course Reconfiguration Project. Ms. Paras stated the net impact through FY 2016 and the scheduled completion date of the Golf Course Reconfiguration Project was an overall General Fund decrease of $1.9 million. Mr. Perez noted the surplus balance carried over from the May 7, 2013 meeting was $120,000. The Finance Committee (Committee) approved $100,000 in changes for a consultant for Human Resources data analysis and for Public Safety scheduling software. Council Member Schmid requested to complete the discussion of Human Services Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP) funding. He said grants in CSD totaled $1.1 million; this amount declined over time and only held steady over the prior few years. With an improved General Fund outlook, the goal was one percent of the Budget for members of the community who needed services the most. He proposed adding five percent, or $55,000, to the Budget for CSD. He thought this was a relatively small amount and funds were leveraged for delivery of services. MINUTES Page 10 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd to recommend the City Council add five percent of the budget of $1.1 million to the Community Services Department Budget. Chair Burt originally understood Council Member Schmid was talking about five percent of $1.1 million, but now understood Council Member Schmid was talking about five percent of the HSRAP funds of $300,000. Council Member Schmid wanted to include five percent of all spending. Chair Burt added funding would be increased for all HSRAP contracts. Jim Keene, City Manager asked if the five percent recommendation was limited to FY 2014. Council Member Schmid answered yes. Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to integrate the Human Relations Commission's (HRC) thinking with regard to increasing funds because the HRC wanted to find a methodology for making HSRAP grants one percent of the Budget. She suggested reviewing the HRC's report yearly to determine whether HSRAP funding increased to one percent of the Budget. Council Member Berman noted expenses of $289,141 and asked where that was located in the Proposed Operating Budget. He found expenses of $400,101 in the Proposed Operating Budget. Ms. Paras explained the information only accounted for changes proposed by CSD; the $400,101 amount included Citywide changes. Mr. Perez inquired whether Council Member Berman was referencing revenue. Council Member Berman responded no, expenses. He said the expenses for increasing 0.5 FTE, increasing temporary staffing, and increasing overtime for special events were not transferred to the net cost column, leading to an incorrect net change to the Budget. Mr. Perez said he would verify the information and suggested Staff provide the departmental request changes. MINUTES Page 11 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Council Member Berman asked if the net reduction of $126,643 to the General Fund related to the Parking Funds would offset the surplus of $120,000. Mr. Perez indicated the $126,643 was a net reduction in expense. In reviewing the Public Works Department Budget, the Committee needed to add $126,643 to the surplus. Council Member Berman supported an increase for HSRAP funding. Chair Burt inquired whether Budget changes addressed the additional $50,000 for marketing outreach. He questioned the need to counteract growing competition among programs. Greg Betts, Community Services Director explained a minimum number and maximum number for enrollment in classes were needed in order to cover the cost of a class. Staff wanted to optimize the use of facilities and eliminate underutilized programs. Chair Burt requested further clarification. Mr. Betts reported Staff reviewed the skill building classes essential to the CSD mission, and they eliminated many programs that were available through other organizations. Rhyena Halpern, CSD Assistant Director indicated the purpose of increased funding for marketing efforts concerned visibility and presence of City programs. Staff wished to create basic marketing materials in print, and on the internet that described CSD's programs. Chair Burt inquired whether the increase in funding was explained. Ms. Halpern responded yes. Chair Burt said funding was used for marketing research, as opposed to implementing a marketing plan. Ms. Halpern reported that approximately three years were required to develop a marketing strategy with measureable impact. Customer service was included in marketing. Staff needed to understand the market better in order to serve it better; Staff was considering analysis, design, and MINUTES Page 12 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 implementation of an evaluation system, as well as customer service software as a result. Chair Burt believed identifying needs and desires in the community and understanding how to provide better services were sound investments. He requested Staff ensure the marketing effort focus on the second note, not the first note. Council Member Berman suggested a marketing strategy complement the Cubberley Advisory Committee's recommendation of a community needs assessment. Ms. Halpern stated part of the proposal was to provide basic information regarding programs. The community was not fully aware of the services and programs offered by CSD. Council Member Berman agreed more materials were needed. Chair Burt suggested Staff consider signage and kiosks at the community centers, in addition to collateral materials. Ms. Halpern agreed with the suggestion. Chair Burt inquired about the hours pools remained open after school began in mid-August. Robert De Geus, Division Manager for Recreation and Golf indicated pools remained open after school began and later into September. The increase for temporary salaries and new revenues were related to extended pool hours. Chair Burt recommended that Staff better utilize the City's website for more dynamic interactive communications. Ms. Halpern agreed that was another reason for Staff to focus on marketing. Mr. de Geus reported the City had a Facebook page and a Twitter account for City pools. Chair Burt understood the discussion in Agenda Item Number One was to restore the five percent reduction to the agencies that were reduced in order MINUTES Page 13 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 to provide funding for the two new agencies. The Motion was to add five percent to Avenidas and Palo Alto Community Childcare funding above the FY 2013 Budget. He requested an explanation for the need to increase funding for the two agencies that did not have a reduction in funds. Mr. Keene suggested the Motion was to provide a marginal increase to the total category, but said it did not necessarily predetermine how the five percent was distributed among contracts. Chair Burt requested a clarification from the maker of the Motion. His priority was to restore funding to those agencies whose funds were reduced. Council Member Schmid explained that over the last five years funding for the most vulnerable programs in the community were reduced several times. During the earlier discussion, he suggested a review of allocating funds; Staff indicated they reviewed the allocation process over many years and funding was appropriate. Senior services through Avenidas and childcare services for low-income families needed to be part of the increase, which he recommended in order to attempt to offset the loss of funds over the last five years. Chair Burt expressed concerns about sustaining increased funding. Funds from the Stanford Medical Center Development Fund were a possible ongoing funding source for some portion of the increase. He thought Staff and colleagues should consider whether funding could be sustained, and whether Stanford Development funds should be considered as a source for ongoing funding. Vice Mayor Shepherd recalled funds were reduced by five percent in 2009. Minka Van Der Zwaag, Office of Human Services Manager reported HSRAP funding was reduced by five percent in 2005 and again in 2009. Vice Mayor Shepherd believed the five percent increase was only a slight restoration of funds, and less than past reductions. The question was not sustainability, but whether HSRAP funding as one percent of the Budget needed to be a policy. She wanted the HRC to consider that and for them to determine whether the Council needed to make that a policy. She had no comment on the use of Stanford funds. Council Member Berman supported a five percent increase with the Budget outlook improving. Everyone understood funding was reduced when MINUTES Page 14 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 revenues declined. He inquired whether funding sources required a smaller funding source as a usual practice. Ms. Halpern reported that often public dollars were considered first monies, and nonprofit agencies leveraged those fund commitments to other funding sources. Vice Mayor Shepherd explained if a nonprofit agency qualified for funds through the City's rigorous process, then other sources did not vet it as closely. Council Member Berman felt the City had flexibility regarding use of Stanford funds. Mr. Keene respectfully suggested the Committee not consider a policy establishing a percentage of the Budget for HSRAP funding. However, it was appropriate for the HRC to make such a recommendation. The Council was charged with making the trade-off decisions each year. He thought it would be simplistic to assume other portions of the City's budget were not also directed to a wide range of populations in the community. The idea of a five percent adjustment was logical. With regard to sustainability, the Committee made the same decision in FY 2015 and 2016 based on projections for those years. Beyond FY 2016, there were too many other factors to consider. Council Member Berman clarified that he was referring to the $55,000. Chair Burt wanted to be thoughtful and prudent regarding the change in funding, and was concerned about sustaining Council actions. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt the City made bold moves in previous years to restore funding to important parts of the community. This was a small portion of the budget that benefited those most at risk in the community. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Chair Burt requested Staff comment on the process to allocate the additional funds. Mr. Perez reported the HRC attempted to call a special meeting in order to reallocate funds prior to the Committee's meeting on June 17, 2013. At the MINUTES Page 15 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 June 17 meeting, the Committee needed to go through the usual process of reviewing HRC recommendations. If possible, Staff needed to provide HRC recommendations to the Council on June 10, 2013 when they adopted the Budget. The total amount of the funding increase was $55,523, to be taken from the surplus of $120,000. Council Member Schmid noted an expense increase of $400,000, a revenue decrease of $1.3 million, and the net cost of $1.3 million. He asked if the net cost should be $1.9 million. Mr. Perez indicated Ms. Paras would clarify that amount. Council Member Schmid inquired about the need for additional staffing when the Golf Course closed and other services were staffed by contractors. Ms. Halpern reported CSD had 75 regular full-time employees, part-time workers equaled 50 FTEs, and 70 percent of part-time employees worked less than 0.1 FTE. She mentioned that the part-time salary budget decreased by $770,000 over the past seven years; CSD was working with a large staffing gap. The proposed increase in staffing would close approximately two-thirds of the gap. Staffing was reduced while programs and services were not. Council Member Schmid asked if increased staffing maintained services, rather than the growth of services. Ms. Halpern replied yes. Council Member Schmid inquired whether staffing increased from 123 FTEs in 2011 to 134 FTEs in 2013. Ms. Halpern stated most of the additional FTEs allowed CSD to meet capacity. New revenue was tied to some of the staffing increase. Council Member Schmid assumed increase in the number of classes offered and the number of part-time employees resulted from increased demand; however, the number of people enrolled in classes declined over the past four years. Ms. Halpern indicated enrollment declined in the recreation division. The number of people enrolled in Arts and Sciences increased. MINUTES Page 16 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Council Member Schmid believed the increase in Staff reflected a growth in outreach and participation. When the Golf Course reopened, staffing was expected increase again with a burst of new activity. Ms. Halpern mentioned that the opening of the Mitchell Park Community Center was an important project, and Staff anticipated $140,000 in new revenues in the first 12 months. Vice Mayor Shepherd understood the Golf Course was expected to have a loss, but there was a much greater overall loss in revenue. She asked for the reason behind the loss. Mr. de Geus anticipated construction on the Golf Course beginning in April 2014; therefore, losses were expected to occur in the last quarter of FY 2014. Chair Burt clarified that Vice Mayor Shepherd asked about sources of revenue loss other than the Golf Course. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted a change in revenue of $1.3 million and said she understood $0.5 million of the change resulted from the Golf Course. Mr. de Geus explained part of the change related to tracking the actual revenues from a variety of programs. Some programs did not achieve the expected revenues. The $1.3 million included a correction for the expected revenues for several programs. Chair Burt inquired whether the over budgeting of revenue resulted in a deficit for those programs. Mr. de Geus answered yes. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the programs were identified. Lam Do, Senior Management Analyst identified underperforming programs and said Staff worked with the Office of Management and Budget to reduce revenue targets for areas that did not perform well. Council Member Berman asked how much revenue was lost because of closure of the Golf Course. MINUTES Page 17 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Mr. Do replied $1.3 million in revenue in FY 2014. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted a request for additional funds of $20,000 related to the Enjoy! catalog, and asked if that request was related to the request for $50,000 in marketing expenses. Ms. Halpern indicated the two requests were not connected. The Enjoy! catalog was underfunded, and the additional funds covered actual costs. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the shortfall in previous years was included in the actual figures. Ms. Halpern responded yes. Staff was rightsizing the Budget. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the job responsibilities of the Volunteer Coordinator for the Palo Alto Art Center. Ms. Halpern reported the Volunteer Coordinator was responsible for overseeing and training 881 volunteers, the person was coordinating programs, and they were developing a manual for volunteers. Mr. Betts asked if Vice Mayor Shepherd was interested in volunteer activities. Vice Mayor Shepherd replied yes. Mr. Betts indicated docent volunteers led programs, performed jobs in the gallery, and staffed special events and activities in the park. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the Chili Cook-Off was part of the Art Center. Mr. Betts stated the Chili Cook-Off had an art component for children. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if World Music Day was simply omitted from a part of the Staff Report and wondered about the effect of not having employees for special events. Ms. Halpern reported that Ms. Van Der Zwaag coordinated special events. If Staff contracted services to remove the overtime expense, they could MINUTES Page 18 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 continue to provide events and have Ms. Van Der Zwaag devote more time to the Human Services Program. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether those activities continued with funding of $50,000. Ms. Halpern remarked that $50,000 was a start to reaching capacity. The proposed CSD Budget was an attempt to fill the gaps. $50,000 could fund the City's five major events. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt it was important to integrate funding for special events because the community loved special events. Mr. Betts mentioned that World Music Day was a program of the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation, and Staff helped with logistics. The Recreation Foundation coordinated specific projects. Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to ensure Staff accounted for special events. Ms. Halpern continued to analyze the situation in preparation for the FY 2015 Budget. Chair Burt recalled recent cutbacks reduced the number of concerts in the summer concert series and moved performances to Saturday, which resulted in lower attendance. He inquired whether concerts would continue on Saturday. Ms. Halpern reported six shows were planned for the summer on Saturdays in three different locations. If the Air Force Concert Band was subject to sequestration, the number of concerts was reduced to five. Chair Burt inquired about the number of concerts in the past. Ms. Halpern understood six concerts were held in past years. Mr. de Geus believed the number was eight. Ms. Halpern reported attendance in 2010 was 2,500, in 2011 4,000, and in 2012 5,500. MINUTES Page 19 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Chair Burt asked if it was too late in the year to increase the number of concerts to eight. Ms. Halpern said she would report back on that possibility. Chair Burt requested to put the concert discussion on the parking list. Vice Mayor Shepherd agreed. Mr. Perez said he would note that. Chair Burt asked how Staff managed to increase staffing without a net increase in Citywide staffing. Mr. Perez reported the summary provided on opening night referred to fully benefited positions. Chair Burt inquired whether part-time employees were a different category. Mr. Perez indicated 9.84 of the 10.41 FTEs were hourly, non-benefited positions. Chair Burt asked if half of a regular employee was being added. Mr. Perez answered yes. Council Member Berman inquired about Golf Course revenue. Mr. Perez explained $503,905 was the projected amount, while $1.3 million compared the FY 2013 Adopted Budget to the FY 2014 Proposed Budget. Council Member Berman was looking at FY 2013 projected numbers, not adopted numbers. The adopted amount was less than $2.3 million. Mr. Perez indicated the adopted figures projected a surplus. Council Member Berman stated the actual amount was $2.9 million. Mr. Perez reported there were two different views. Staff provided the projected amounts to prepare the Committee for a loss. MINUTES Page 20 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Ms. Paras referenced the apparent discrepancy between the total expense increase of $289,141 and the total expense increase of $400,101. The changes that were included reflected what the department and Staff included in the Proposed Budget, but did not include Citywide changes. Citywide changes were decreased by $102,633, $262,120, and $66,527. She mentioned $179,000 was included, whereas $18,179 was not. The $18,179 in other change increase resulted from the reallocation of $1,000 for management professional development benefits from salaries and benefits to general expense. On May 14, 2013, Staff provided a corrected table regarding formulas not carrying forward to the net cost column. Council Member Berman indicated changes to the net cost column would change the net change for the Budget. He inquired whether that change had broader ramifications. Mr. Perez related that Staff needed to clarify the descriptors that caused change. The descriptors were not in the right category. Staff needed to restate the net change; however, the Budget itself was not going to change. Council Member Berman was concerned that changes would result in a deficit. Mr. Perez wanted to provide explanations in the correct order. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Chair Burt to recommend to Council the approval of the tentative Budget for the Community Services Department as amended. MOTION PASSES: 4-0 Council took a 10-minute break from 8:25-8:34 P.M. 3. Library Department Budget Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst for Administrative Services Department (ASD) reported revenue increases totaled $443,250, approximately $0.5 million of which was the result of a Library Foundation donation. Fines, fees, and sales revenues decreased by $56,650, primarily due to the closure of the Main Library and Mitchell Park Library. Full Time Employee (FTE) changes resulted in a $0.3 million increase in salaries and benefits because of unfreezing three positions that were frozen in Fiscal Year MINUTES Page 21 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 (FY) 2013. Temporary salaries decreased by $0.2 million due to a one-time increase in the FY 2013 Adopted Budget. A reduction in overtime resulted from the removal of a one-time increase in FY 2013 for overtime. Other expense changes totaled an increase of $0.7 million, resulting primarily from increasing funds for library collections by $550,000. The department proposed increasing the non-salary budget by $57,000 for the first segment of the Library Strategic Plan. The department expected additional funding to support the Strategic Plan in FY 2015. The department was expanding its Link Plus Program, and needed $50,000 to fund the expansion. In addition, the department was digitizing its collection, and that cost was approximately $30,000. Chair Burt asked how the department would digitize its collection at a cost of $30,000. Monique LeConge, Director of Library Services explained the entire collection would not be digitized. Staff proposed to begin digitization of microfilm while the Main Library was closed. Chair Burt asked if the Proposed Budget accounted for the revised opening date of the Mitchell Park Library. Ms. LeConge indicated planning for staffing and materials was based on half a year because the Mitchell Park Library was not anticipated to open until late 2013. Council Member Schmid inquired whether Staff intended to hire employees for the full-time positions. Ms. LeConge said she would not hire them immediately, but would hire them during the year. The request for temporary staff in FY 2013 was in anticipation of the opening of Mitchell Park Library before the closure of the Main Library. Council Member Schmid asked if the request to unfreeze positions was in anticipation of the Main Library and Mitchell Park Library being open. Ms. LeConge said the request was made because both libraries were open and some people were planning to retire in FY 2014. As a result, two of positions were going to be open for replacements. Staff proposed unfreezing the Assistant Director position in anticipation of Mitchell Park Library opening. MINUTES Page 22 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Council Member Schmid believed no career positions would be filled from within current Library Staff. Ms. LeConge believed the positions would not be filled from within Library Staff. Council Member Schmid wanted to bring out changes that were going on with the Library and asked how that affected the Budget. Ms. LeConge indicated existing Staff worked on the library virtual branch while the Main Library was closed. Staff considered community needs, the direction set by facilities, and available technologies to help bridge the gap. Council Member Schmid inquired whether success of the virtual library reduced the number of patrons physically in the Library. Ms. LeConge did not expect the number of patrons to decrease. While patrons continued to access online resources, the number of people in the library did not change but Patrons' use of the library did change. Council Member Schmid asked if changes in use of the library led to changes for the Mitchell Park Library. Ms. LeConge incorporated changes specific to collections and programs. Council Member Berman felt Performance Measure Two showed a higher growth than anticipated in FY 2012, and inquired whether the growth resulted from a new program. Ms. LeConge suggested growth was based on having a community room available at the Downtown Library. While the Main Library was closed, the number of programs offered was reduced. Council Member Berman asked what Performance Measure Two entailed. Ms. LeConge reported teen reading was extensive if online content was included. She said statistics were measured through self-reporting. Chair Burt indicated Performance Measure Two showed an increase from FY 2011 to FY 2012 in actual figures, and a decline in the FY 2013 adopted MINUTES Page 23 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 figure. If the projected FY 2013 number was revised to the actual number, then it could be higher based on feedback. Ms. LeConge agreed. Chair Burt asked if the same explanation applied to Performance Measure Three. Ms. LeConge responded yes. Chair Burt suggested the numbers reflect those trend changes. If that information was not available, then it needed to be noted. Ms. LeConge stated Staff reported semi-annual statistics and made a projection. Mr. Perez suggested Staff consider incorporating adjusted numbers. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to recommend to Council the approval the tentative Budget for the Library Department. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 4. Planning and Community Environment Department Budget Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst for Administrative Services Department (ASD) reported the overall revenue change was an increase of $4 million. One component of the increase was a projection of an additional $2.3 million related to historical trends and upcoming large projects. A second component was restructuring the department deposit accounts, which accounted for $1.5 million. Another revenue change was a $0.2 million increase in construction and demolition permit fees. Personnel changes resulted in a net 1.8 Full Time Employee (FTE) increase. Non- salary expense increases totaled $2.1 million. There was a separation between the Development Services component and the Planning component; however, revenue was aggregated for the two components. The Development Services FTE changes resulted in a net decrease of two FTEs and a savings of $465,000. The Development Services component of Planning eliminated five vacant positions, resulting in a savings of $0.8 million. Development Services added two FTEs totaling $130,000. An MINUTES Page 24 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Associate Planner was transferred from the Public Works Department, and the Development Center was reclassifying various positions. FTE changes for the Planning component resulted in a net increase of four FTEs and an expense increase of $0.7 million. The Planning Department added five FTEs, they eliminated one Engineering Technician, and they reclassified an Administrator to a Senior Management Analyst. Restructuring deposit accounts led to an increase of non-salary expense by $1.4 million. The department increased scanning service contracts to a total of $145,000. Those two changes, along with other adjustments resulted in a net increase of $10,000. A one-time expense for the 27 University Avenue community engagement process totaled $250,000. Funding for the Downtown Parking Study totaled $250,000. In addition, the department planned to update its Comprehensive Plan and Climate Protection Plan. Council Member Berman inquired about the 27 University Avenue community engagement process. James Keene, City Manager recalled the City Council directed Staff to draft a community engagement process, and specifically requested two community meetings. Staff felt community engagement needed to be more extensive. The funds needed to come from the General Fund because additional Stanford Funds were reserved for actual improvements. Staff continued to account for design and other expenditures. Council Member Berman believed the title indicated the City was paying for items associated with a proposed Planned Community project. Earlier expenditures related to design of the Intermodal Transit Center. Mr. Keene agreed more needed to be added to the description. Previous work was initiated by a potential development project. There was the sense that work was performed in response to a particular proposal. The Council wanted to begin a community process in which Staff would independently develop concepts for the site and also accept feedback through the community process. Chair Burt stated that if the title remained the same, then the purpose needed to be clearer. Historically, the development concerned the Intermodal Transit Center; therefore, he suggested the title be the Intermodal Transit Center area specific plan. The current title appeared to concern the private development. MINUTES Page 25 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Council Member Berman felt the title implied that the City paid for community engagement to support the private development. Mr. Keene said he would work on revising the title. Staff needed to articulate the title to indicate the activities in the area. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment noted Staff also used the title Arts and Innovation District. Chair Burt felt the Intermodal Transit Center area’s specific plan was more descriptive, less threatening, and described the City's historic intentions. Council Member Berman agreed. The Arts and Innovation District title was part of the development plan. Intermodal Transit Center area specific plan did not carry preconceived ideas. Mr. Keene felt the discussion was more appropriate in a different forum. Existing City policies were disingenuous if the Council was not already considering development or redevelopment around the site. Chair Burt stated describing the project as a specific plan returned to the starting point of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Schmid inquired whether Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 activities were projected to increase even more than in FY 2013. Peter Pirnejad, Development Services Director was hesitant to project increases for FY 2014; he adopted a conservative approach. The Planning Department's projections confirmed assumptions that activities were increasing. Council Member Schmid requested the projected activity level for FY 2013. Mr. Pirnejad reported the projection for Development Services in FY 2013 was $13.5 million, with a current actual amount of $12.7 million. Specific to building fees, the actual amount was slightly more than $9 million, and the projected amount was more than $10 million. Council Member Schmid requested an explanation of deposit accounts. MINUTES Page 26 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Mr. Pirnejad stated deposit accounts were used to accommodate large clients that wanted a dedicated building inspector on site. Those inspectors approved processes as they occurred. Council Member Schmid inquired whether deposit accounts were included in the previous item. Mr. Pirnejad indicated deposit accounts were included in Budget projections for FY 2015. Mr. Williams added Planning had some deposit accounts. They represented a kind of pass-through cost. The deposit accounts were primarily an accounting issue. Lalo Perez, Director of ASD reported the process allowed Staff to track and compare revenues and expenses. Council Member Schmid asked if there was a loss of several building inspectors. Mr. Pirnejad indicated some of the vacant positions had been vacant for some time, and some positions were being converted to contract Staff. Council Member Schmid expected more building inspectors, given the increased in activity. Chair Burt stated the important distinction was that these were not existing employees. Council Member Schmid believed retaining vacant positions provided flexibility to hire Staff. Mr. Pirnejad reported Staff increased contract funds in order to hire contractors as building inspectors and plan checkers as needed. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff planned to hire a Senior Project Engineer to monitor parking. Mr. Williams noted the increased concern regarding parking, and wanted to hire a senior level person to assist with parking issues. The person in the MINUTES Page 27 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 position was expected to spend time primarily on parking issues, not counting parking spaces. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the position would be ongoing and attentive to the parking situation Downtown and along California Avenue. Mr. Williams indicated the person in the position would address Citywide parking issues. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the person in the position handled the Newell Street Bridge parking problems. Mr. Williams answered yes. Council Member Berman inquired whether Staff was currently meeting or exceeding the FY 2013 projected amount for Performance Measure One, and whether a more ambitious goal for FY 2014 was appropriate. Mr. Williams did not know because the measurements were taken from results of the National Citizens Survey. Staff wanted to develop specific performance measures for the department. Mr. Pirnejad reported the current average wait time was approximately 15 minutes. The average response time to receive first plan check comments decreased from more than 100 days to approximately 45 days. Chair Burt wished to include Development Center performance measures in the FY 2014 Proposed Budget. He inquired about the measure discussed at the previous Council meeting. Mr. Pirnejad indicated the time between submitting an application and receiving a permit decreased more than 60 percent. Mr. Keene planned to add some of those measures to the Adopted Budget. The key was to establish a wide range of standards for which Staff could measure themselves. Chair Burt requested the status of updating impact fees. Mr. Perez reported Staff retained a consultant to assist with the process. Staff had to consider potential projects and find the nexus, and then the MINUTES Page 28 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 consultant determined impacts and provided fee recommendations. Some of the fees probably reached the 80 percent ratio of fee setting. Chair Burt expressed concern about the pace of the update. By the time the Council was ready to adjust fees, the economy would enter a downturn and the Council would not adjust fees. Council Member Schmid mentioned that making comparisons with other communities might not be the most effective method to determining comparable benefits because of the high cost of land in Palo Alto. Mr. Perez indicated the Council at the time that decision was made viewed the situation differently. They purposely left some fees at the 80 percent level. The Council had the ability to make policy decisions. He said he could commit to making impact fees a priority in the work plan. Chair Burt inquired about the possibility of outsourcing activities, such as plan checks in the Development Services Center. Mr. Pirnejad utilized the model of having a core Staff perform the main functions relative to permits, plan checks, and inspections. As trends occurred Staff was able to either increase or decrease to meet demand. In the last few months, Staff experienced increased efficiencies through use of advanced technologies. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to recommend to Council the approval of the tentative budget for Planning and Community Environment. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Future Meetings and Agendas Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services Department (ASD) reported the surplus was $64,000, not including the additional funds to be considered at a meeting the following week. The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at 5:00 P.M. Agenda items were the Utilities Department Budget and a Power Purchase Agreement for three photovoltaic facilities. The following meeting on Thursday, May 16, 2013, included a review of the Public Safety and Capital Improvement Program Budgets. MINUTES Page 29 of 29 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 5/9/13 Council Member Schmid inquired about the time of the meetings. Mr. Perez indicated the May 14, 2013 meeting would begin at 5:00 P.M. and the May 16, 2013 meeting at 4:00 P.M. Adjournment: This meeting was adjourned at 9:36 P.M. APPENDIX 4 FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 1 of 20 Special Meeting Tuesday, May 14, 2013 Roll Call Vice Mayor Shepherd called the meeting to order at 5:10 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Berman, Burt (Chair) arrived at 5:25 P.M., Schmid, Shepherd Absent: Oral Communications None Agenda Items 1. Utilities Department Operating and Capital Budget (Operating pp. 273- 316; Capital pp. 201-330). Greg Kerber believed the utility discount provided to low-income disabled and senior residents was insufficient to alleviate hardships. He would like the Council to increase the discount from 25 percent to 50 percent on utilities. From personal experience, utility bills were a severe hardship. Christine Paras, Principal Analyst for Administrative Services Department (ASD), reported the first item in the at-places packet concerned the Community Services Department (CSD) Budget. The first attachment corrected pages 140-142. The second page of the attachment corrected the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) changes for the increase in temporary staffing. Page 141 of the Proposed Operating Budget was revised to 6.84 FTEs, resulting in a subtotal of 10.41 FTEs and a net change increase to the Budget of 10.41 FTEs. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the corrected information correlated MINUTES Page 2 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 to the Staff presentation for the CSD Budget. Ms. Paras answered yes. On page 141, Staff corrected the net cost column to reflect a cost of $48,000 for the addition of the Management Specialist; a $360,800 increase for temporary staffing; and a $10,000 increase for overtime. The grand total net cost was $1,763,690. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the net cost column should contain an amount if amounts were in the other columns. Ms. Paras replied yes. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff had changes to notes on page 141. Ms. Paras indicated in note 11 Staff changed the number of active volunteers from 300 to 575. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if Staff made any changes to page 142. Ms. Paras responded no. Chair Shepherd inquired about changes for page 56. Ms. Paras reported Staff's correction replaced page 56 of the Proposed Operating Budget. The gas service line for the current Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 bill was revised to $39.07, resulting in an increase of $0.20 rather than a decrease of $10.40. In Attachment 2 of the at-places memorandum, the total for the current FY 2013 bill was corrected to $234.28, and the net dollar difference between the proposed FY 2014 bill and the current FY 2013 bill was an increase of $5.41. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted changes made at prior Finance Committee (Committee) Budget hearings did not necessarily change the overall Proposed Budget. Ms. Paras reported Staff requested an amendment to the Utilities Department Proposed Budget to delete the 0.5 FTE Program Assistant position and include 1.0 FTE for a Utilities Project Coordinator position. This change increased gross salary and benefits to $94,686. Because the Proposed Budget included $52,284 for the Program Assistant position, the net increase was $42,399. The second amendment to the Proposed Budget was for allocated charges to the Water Fund from the Wastewater Treatment Fund. Staff decreased allocated charges from $51,000 to $44,000 to align MINUTES Page 3 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 the Budget with expected FY 2013 actual numbers. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the page in the Proposed Operating Budget for the change to allocated charges. Ms. Paras replied page 316. The expense was included as an allocated charge in the Water Fund; therefore, $51,000 decreased to $44,000. The change was not stated in the budget adjustment table on pages 314-315. Council Member Berman clarified that the expense should be added to the table. Ms. Paras explained the amount was embedded in the total. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked which line of the table. Ms. Paras clarified that the amount was embedded in the total allocated charge line on page 316 as an expense. Vice Mayor Shepherd requested further clarification. Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer, explained the line item for allocated charges on page 316 should be decreased. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the amount should be decreased by $7,000. Mr. Perez responded yes. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the total expenditures would change as well. Mr. Perez indicated Staff would provide a revised page at the wrap-up. James Cook, Chair of Utilities Advisory Commission, reported the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) Budget Subcommittee thoroughly reviewed the Proposed Budget with Staff. They reviewed data that was provided publicly at meetings, but did not compare staffing with other utilities. Overall, the Proposed Budgets were good. The UAC continued to be concerned about the defunding of construction. The funding decrease for construction did not reduce the effectiveness of the utility or create future problems for operations. The UAC was pleased that utility rates were stable, with the exception of water. Ms. Paras indicated rate increases were proposed for the Fiber Optics Fund MINUTES Page 4 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 of 2.2 percent based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and for the Water Fund of 7 percent. Overall the Utilities Department had a net 1.5 FTE increase comprised of adding a Credit Collection Specialist position and eliminating an hourly Administrative Specialist position. The net impact increased the salary and benefits expense by $60,335. Staff's proposed amendment resulted in a net impact of $42,399. Council Member Schmid asked if the Utilities Department contributed to the 5 percent increase in benefits costs. Mr. Perez responded no. Pensions and healthcare costs were the main drivers for increased benefits costs. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the 5 percent increase was caused by Public Safety Department benefits. Mr. Perez believed one of the factors for the increase was Public Safety Department benefits; however, he could not state it was the only factor. Council Member Schmid asked if there was a difference in the Utilities Department that would account for a portion of the increase. Mr. Perez indicated there was not a different benefit or calculation for the Utilities Department. Council Member Schmid noted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) spending decreased by approximately $13 million. Dave Yuan, Senior Management Analyst, explained the deferral for many CIP projects was due to a large backlog of current projects, resource constraints, and a few high priority projects. Council Member Schmid believed the FY 2014 numbers showed a dramatic decline for CIP, but not a decline in work or spending. Mr. Yuan stated the department was carrying approximately $15-$20 million for CIP projects. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the stable rate amounts, with the exception of water, was caused by the decline in spending for CIP projects. Mr. Yuan indicated that was partially correct. Council Member Schmid asked if rates would increase substantially in FY MINUTES Page 5 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 2015 when spending levels for CIP returned. Mr. Yuan reported Staff forecasted the CIP projects for the next five years, and there were no dramatic rate increases with the exceptions of possibly water and wastewater. Council Member Schmid asked how Staff planned to increase revenues to cover the return of $13 million for CIP. Mr. Yuan stated the Funds were within the medium to high Reserve Guidelines. Council Member Schmid clarified that the Proposed Budget was balanced because of the decrease of $13 million in CIP, and inquired whether substantial rate increases in FY 2015 would fund the return of CIP spending. Valerie Fong, Utilities Director, asked where Council Member Schmid found the $13 million amount. She believed the difference was closer to $6 million. Council Member Schmid stated the change from FY 2013 to FY 2014 was $!2.7 million. Decreased CIP spending was consistent throughout all the Funds. Ms. Fong explained that the rate structures would sustain CIP spending without dramatic rate increases over time. CIP spending could return with nominal or modest rate increases. Mr. Yuan reported the rate increases projected for FY 2015 were 7 percent for water, none for electric, 9 percent for wastewater, and none for gas. Mr. Perez indicated Staff would draw down Reserve levels to the midpoint and lower in order to fund capital projects in the outer years. Council Member Schmid remarked that CIP funding declined approximately $13 million on a total budget of approximately $30 million. Mr. Perez stated the CIP document included a summary by Fund that showed the return of funding in outer years. Council Member Berman noted Utilities would have a $5 million surplus in FY 2014; consequently, $8 million in Reserves would be needed for the return of CIP spending in FY 2015. He inquired about the discrepancy of $25,000 between the total expenditures line under department summary and the MINUTES Page 6 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 total expenditures line under Enterprise Funds on page 279. Mr. Perez would review it. Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated Staff calculated healthcare benefits per employee per department, and hoped that did not become an issue for defining employee compensation. She requested Staff consider whether that was a good technique for managing department expenses and overhead as opposed to a per capita calculation. Mr. Perez noted Staff also provided the average cost per employee. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked when the Council would review the utility discount for senior and disabled citizens. Ms. Fong stated under Proposition 218 the City could not provide discounts; however, Staff proposed changes for the current rate assistance program, particularly for gas and electric customers. The City implemented the Project Pledge voluntary program, and Staff dispensed those funds over the course of the year. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the process for donating through Project Pledge. Ms. Fong reported donations could be made through the utility bill. Staff included reminders about the program as a bill insert. Debra Katz, Manager, Communications noted bill inserts and a City website page provided information about Project Pledge. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if there was an option on the utility bill. Ms. Fong did not recall a standing option on the bill. Vice Mayor Shepherd requested Staff present information about Project Pledge when rate changes were presented to the Council. Ms. Fong suggested Staff present information as a standalone program rather than in the rate context. Chair Burt inquired about rate increases for FY 2013. Ms. Fong believed rates increased for wastewater and water, but not gas and electric, in FY 2013. MINUTES Page 7 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 Chair Burt felt the community was not aware of the lack of electric rate increases, and asked how that could be better communicated. Electric rates for residential were approximately 20 percent below PG&E rates. Ms. Paras reported the Proposed Budget for the Electric Fund had a minimal overall net revenue change. A decrease in customer sales of $1.1 million resulted from lower projected customer demand. This revenue decrease was offset by an increase in revenue of $1.7 million for the cap-and-trade program. The Utilities Department sold allocated emission allowances at auctions, and proceeds benefited taxpayers in the form of purchases of renewable resources and supply-funded energy efficient programs. Expenses decreased by $1.1 million. There was a $1.5 million increase in commodity costs due to increases in renewables and Western Area Power Administration power purchases. The equity transfer to the General Fund decreased because of the lower PG&E rate of return on equity. The percentage decreased from 11.35 percent to 10.4 percent. Capital programs decreased by $2.3 million. Total fund expenditures for the Capital Budget were $8.6 million. The Fund Reserves were within Reserve Guideline ranges. Palo Alto had lower electric rates than four neighbors, and was lower than the average benchmark. Council Member Berman inquired about the increased duration of power outages in Performance Measure 1. Ms. Fong explained the Utilities Department experienced competition for certain highly qualified electric line workers over the past few years. The industry had a shortage of experienced workers. Staff was also aware that a number of Staff in electric operations was interviewing with other agencies, and anticipated more vacancies. Council Member Berman asked if Staff identified measures to mitigate Staff losses. Ms. Fong augmented Staff resources with contract resources, and was working with the Human Resource Department to develop other measures. Residents were experiencing longer response times because of fewer Staff. Chair Burt inquired about enhanced training programs for line workers. Ms. Fong noted Staff was moving to PG&E and other municipal agencies. The City could hire inexperienced workers and train them. Staff was considering hiring more workers from training schools. MINUTES Page 8 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 Chair Burt asked if training schools increased the output of graduates in response to demand. Ms. Fong believed that was the case. Training schools were more popular, and more people were enrolling. Local community colleges were developing programs for foundational training. Chair Burt inquired about the salary range for a lineman. Ms. Fong did not have that information; however, Palo Alto compensation packages were not as attractive as in the past. The City utilized Service Employee International Union workers, and the typical electric line worker was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). Mr. Yuan reported salaries ranged from $80,000 for apprentice to $100,000 for lead. Chair Burt suggested Staff participate more actively in training programs. Ms. Fong indicated the department did not decrease its training budget, and aggressively provided training opportunities. Council Member Berman asked if Staff was concerned about training workers, and then the workers moving to other agencies. Ms. Fong answered yes, and noted that did happen. Council Member Berman suggested the Proposed Budget indicate Fund Reserves were stated in thousands, not millions. He inquired about the streetlight system conversion project pilot program. Ms. Fong reported Staff conducted the pilot program. Tomm Marshall, Utilities Engineering Assistant Director, believed the description was outdated, because the pilot program occurred and high pressure sodium lights were replaced with LED lights throughout the City. Ms. Fong stated Staff learned from the pilot program, and incorporated that knowledge into purchases of different fixtures. Mr. Marshall indicated LED lighting technology matured, and many more vendors were available. Staff continued to evaluate technology in order to obtain the most efficient and least costly fixtures. MINUTES Page 9 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 Chair Burt asked if the pilot program was complete. Mr. Marshall replied yes. Chair Burt recommended the description be changed to reflect a successful pilot program and implementation of the change throughout the City. Mr. Marshall added that Staff was in the bid process for the second large installation of LED streetlights. Chair Burt inquired whether the cost benefit of programs was included in CIP descriptions. Mr. Marshall reported Staff typically did not include cost benefits; however, they could do so. Ms. Fong felt that could be a useful piece of information for this type of project, because typically CIP projects involved aging infrastructure. Vice Mayor Shepherd agreed with Council Member Burt's comments regarding the community's awareness of electric rates. She inquired about the length of time until undergrounding projects were no longer approved. Mr. Marshall reported projects were planned for the next three to four years, and Staff continued to look for areas to coordinate with AT&T. In the next five to seven years, joint projects would be difficult to find. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff would request a new policy for undergrounding. Mr. Marshall replied yes. Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to prepare the community for discontinuation of undergrounding. Ms. Fong recalled Staff proposed formation of a committee with the intent of providing recommendations regarding the undergrounding program for Council consideration. The City collected 2 percent per year from electric sales for the undergrounding program. Funding became an issue when partner funds ceased. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the UAC could have that discussion and provide recommendations. MINUTES Page 10 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 Ms. Fong reported the UAC agreed there should be more involvement from the community, and agreed to participate in a committee. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the redundancy line. Ms. Fong explained the project was a second electric transmission feed to the City of Palo Alto. Staff continued to actively discuss the project with other parties, and was reviewing costs and route from an engineering perspective. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the Smart Grid Technology program began in the winter of 2012. Ms. Fong indicated a few pilot programs were implemented. Staff would begin a number of pilot programs, and set aside funds to implement the various pilot programs. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff considered using fiber optics. Ms. Fong believed some of that could probably be satisfied with a municipal Wi-Fi system. Staff hoped to utilize the Electric Special Projects Reserve to fund the second transmission line. Chair Burt asked why Staff hoped to use the Reserve. Ms. Fong believed there were other ideas for use of those monies. The Utilities Department would recommend use of the Electric Special Projects Reserve to benefit electric ratepayers with respect to reliability. Chair Burt requested Staff reconsider comparing Palo Alto to Mountain View, Redwood City, and Menlo Park, because PG&E supplied all three cities. Santa Clara was the only utility in the region with slightly lower rates than Palo Alto. Palo Alto's rates were favorable when compared to other municipalities. He felt Palo Alto's electric rates were cheap in comparison to other cities, and rates did not increase for three consecutive years. Ms. Fong suggested rates had not increased for five consecutive years. Chair Burt believed the community assumed rates increased annually. Staff needed to make the community aware of the City's low electric rates. Ms. Fong could substitute different benchmarks for Mountain View, Redwood City, and Menlo Park. MINUTES Page 11 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 Vice Mayor Shepherd preferred using the three cities, because she did not know which cities PG&E supplied. Ms. Fong could add other agencies and note that Mountain View, Redwood City, and Menlo Park were PG&E customers. Council Member Schmid inquired about the discrepancy between the $1.5 million increase in commodity purchases on slide 7, and the $2.5 million increase in commodity purchases on page 289. Mr. Yuan explained page 290 compared $74.5 million to $73 million. Council Member Schmid clarified that he meant page 289, note 7. Mr. Yuan indicated the $2.5 million was offset by the $1 million decrease in Central Valley project loan advances. Ms. Fong added $1.5 million was a net of the $2.5 million and $1 million. Council Member Schmid asked if commodity purchases totaled $2.5 million. Mr. Yuan answered yes. Commodity purchases included the carbon neutral plan. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the PG&E base rate change was caused partially by gas line problems. Ms. Fong did not believe so. PG&E accounted for its two businesses differently. Council Member Schmid inquired about the basis of PG&E's reassessment. Ms. Fong reported it was the return on equity, because the cost of money decreased. Council Member Schmid believed that basis was not unique to PG&E. Ms. Fong explained the PG&E return on equity was decreased to reflect reduced financing costs for capital projects. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the underground rebuilds in the CIP projects were being performed early to make them watertight. MINUTES Page 12 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 Mr. Marshall reported Staff attempted to move as much equipment above ground as possible in order to remove it from standing water. When that was not feasible, Staff rebuilt in the underground vault and assumed a shorter lifespan for the equipment. Council Member Schmid noted complaints of erratic service because of that. Mr. Marshall explained Staff found a number of items in underground vaults that caused corrosion or deterioration of equipment in the vaults. Council Member Schmid asked if Staff utilized the same technology and materials as in the past. Mr. Marshall stated no new materials were available. Council Member Schmid inquired whether chemicals would affect fiber optic lines. Mr. Marshall answered probably not. The plastic covering for fiber optic lines was more resistant to chemicals than rubber. Council Member Schmid inquired whether plastic could be substituted for the rubber used in underground vaults. Mr. Marshall indicated plastic could not be utilized, because the flexibility of rubber was needed. Council Member Schmid inquired whether it was fair for residents to continue paying 2 percent annually for undergrounding with no prospect of benefiting from undergrounding. Ms. Fong stated the Council would have to answer that question. Chair Burt suggested discussion of the Budget was not an appropriate forum for discussion of a policy question. Council Member Schmid felt approving the Budget implied a policy decision. Chair Burt stated the Budget reflected a prior policy decision. Council Member Schmid indicated the policy decision was made through the Committee's vote. Chair Burt reiterated that the Council previously provided policy guidance. MINUTES Page 13 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 Council Member Schmid understood the Council decided not to form a committee. Ms. Fong explained Staff operated under prior policy and guidance to collect the 2 percent. The Council had not overridden that policy; therefore, Staff continued to collect the funds. Council Member Schmid felt the Committee was receiving a five-year perspective on collecting the 2 percent. Ms. Fong indicated Staff projected five years ahead, but requested approval of the Budget for the upcoming fiscal year. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd to recommend the City Council approve the Utilities Department Operating and Capital Electric Fund. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Ms. Paras reported revenue increases for the Fiber Optics Fund totaled $0.3 million. The revenue increase resulted from a 2.2 percent CPI adjustment, and a $0.2 million increase in revenue for fiber network to serve all schools in the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Expense increases included $0.1 million for salaries and benefits. The total FY 2014 expenditures for the Capital Fund were $0.4 million. Overall there was no change in capital dollar amount between FY 2013 and FY 2014. The Reserve balances exceeded the Reserve Guideline range. Council Member Berman asked if PAUSD reimbursed the City for building the fiber network to schools. Ms. Fong explained PAUSD agreed to pay 50 percent to shorten the time for expansion of fiber optics to schools. Council Member Schmid requested an updated map of the fiber optic ring. Ms. Fong stated an updated map was available on the City's website. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend the City Council approve the Utilities Department Operating and Capital Fiber Optics Fund. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 MINUTES Page 14 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 Ms. Paras reported the Wastewater Collection Fund had a revenue increase of $0.1 million, and no rate increases. The $0.1 million resulted from increases in connection charges. There was an expense decrease of $3.4 million, primarily due to the CIP program decreasing from $3.8 million to $1 million. Total FY 2014 expenditures for the Capital Program were $1 million. The Reserve Fund balance was within Reserve Guidelines. In comparison to neighbors, Palo Alto was below the average benchmark. Council Member Berman inquired whether the goal of 30 months in Performance Measure 1 should be 3 months. Mr. Yuan stated 30 months was correct. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked about the appropriate time to discuss cross bore drilling. Ms. Fong suggested waiting for discussion of the Gas Fund, because the program was funded by the gas utility. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend the City Council approve the Utilities Department Operating and Capital Wastewater Collection Fund. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Ms. Paras reported revenue decreases for the Gas Fund totaled $0.7 million, the majority of which were due to market-based pricing for natural gas, the change in pricing methodology, and lower demand. Expense decreases totaled $7.7 million, most of which resulted from deferral of the gas main project to FY 2015. The cross bore inspection program was expected to be completed in December 2013. Total FY 2014 expenditures for the Capital Program was $1.6 million, primarily due to gas system extensions, gas meter regulators, and gas system improvement projects. The Reserve Balances were within Reserve Guideline ranges. Monthly residential bills averaged approximately $39.27. Council Member Berman inquired about the frequency of Grade 1 gas leaks. Ms. Fong indicated leaks did not occur often. Because of the aggressive infrastructure replacement program, the number of leaks declined. Council Member Berman asked if Staff had a sense of the actual FY 2013 percentage for Performance Measure 3. MINUTES Page 15 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 Mr. Yuan explained that the decrease in FY 2012 resulted from a few large, one-time expansion projects. Council Member Berman inquired whether Staff felt the FY 2013 actual would be closer to 0.5 percent. Mr. Yuan answered yes. Vice Mayor Shepherd requested Staff comment on the cross bore concept as a policy and the methodology of customer payment for repair of sewer lines from the property line to the center of the street. Mr. Marshall stated the payment methodology varied among cities. As part of the cross bore, Staff determined the condition of lateral lines and repaired them to allow visual inspections. Staff could present information regarding lateral lines between the curb and the main sewer line for a policy decision. Repairing lateral lines was a considerable expense, and a number of repairs were backlogged. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the Council should hold the policy discussion after completion of the cross bore program. Ms. Fong answered yes. The system would be in better shape, and a policy discussion would be reasonable. Council Member Schmid assumed Reserves would be used in FY 2015 for CIP spending. Mr. Yuan indicated three gas main replacement projects were underway with a contract value of $14 million. Staff anticipated the projects would be completed in 2015. Council Member Schmid asked if Reserves would be used for the next project. Mr. Yuan replied yes. Chair Burt inquired whether the Distribution Rate Stabilization Fund should be outside the range in order to accommodate upcoming projects. Mr. Yuan responded yes. Reducing rates in FY 2014 would lead to substantial rate increases over the next few years. MINUTES Page 16 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 Chair Burt suggested Staff note the reasons for being outside the range. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd to recommend the City Council approve the Utilities Department Operating and Capital Gas Fund. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Ms. Paras reported the Water Fund included a $0.8 million revenue increase as a result of the 7 percent rate increase effective July 1, 2013. The main driver for the rate increase was the increase of wholesale water costs. There was a $1.2 million expense increase due to decreases in the CIP program. Costs for capital increased from $1.6 million in the FY 2013 Adopted Budget to $5.2 million in FY 2014. Operating transfers to other funds decreased by $1.3 million due to a one-time payment in FY 2013 to the Capital Project Fund for the El Camino Park playing fields and amenities project. Staff proposed one amendment to decrease allocated charges from the Wastewater Treatment Fund to align allocated costs with historical actual amounts. Total FY 2014 expenditures for the Water Fund Capital Projects was $5.2 million. The largest project was the water main replacement project. Reserve balances were healthy. The Rate Stabilization Reserve was slightly above the Reserve Guideline range. The average residential monthly bill as of February 1, 2013 was slightly higher according to benchmark studies, primarily due to replacement of aging infrastructure. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the cost of Hetch Hetchy purchases were included in utility purchases. Mr. Yuan answered yes. Council Member Schmid noted Palo Alto rates were twice as high as other cities, yet Palo Alto residents were the heaviest users of water per capita. Higher rates did not seem to impact consumption. Ms. Fong stated higher costs were a combination of a number of things, including the water source, rents, and leases. Chair Burt clarified that the question was whether Staff could explain why Palo Alto consumed more water per capita despite high rates. Ms. Fong believed a fair amount of potable water was used for irrigation. Council Member Schmid felt price elasticity did not apply in Palo Alto. MINUTES Page 17 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 Ms. Fong explained if consumption decreased, the rates could increase because the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) had to recover a set amount of dollars. Chair Burt inquired whether colleagues were interested in requesting Staff to return with a review of factors for water costs. Ms. Fong indicated Staff could present an analysis of cost drivers versus other agencies from the cost of service study. A water cost of service study was not planned for the immediately future. Chair Burt asked if colleagues were interested in a discussion or if the UAC should hold the discussion first. Council Member Schmid was interested, and suggested the UAC hold a discussion first. Vice Mayor Shepherd was more interested in the status of Hetch Hetchy improvements, and whether the improvements were on budget. MOTION: Chair Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to request Staff to return at a date uncertain with additional discussion on water rate costs and consumption. MOTION PASSED: 3-1 Shepherd no MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Chair Burt to recommend the City Council approve the Utilities Department Operating and Capital Water Fund. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 MOTION : Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to include the changes brought forward in the at-places memo, under the Utilities Department, paragraph two. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 2. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Adopt Three Resolutions Approving Power Purchase Agreements for the Acquisition of Project Output over 30 Years from Three Solar Photovoltaic Facilities for a Total Not to Exceed an Amount of $350 Million. James Stack, Senior Resource Planner, reported Staff issued a Request for MINUTES Page 18 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 Proposal (RFP) for new contracts in September 2012, and received 92 proposals. Most projects were solar and of significantly lower cost. Criteria for evaluating the proposals included price using the green premium concept and project viability. The three projects recommended by Staff had the lowest cost proposals with green premiums of less than zero, and scored high on project viability. If the three projects were approved, then Palo Alto would be very close to achieving a fully carbon neutral portfolio beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. In 2021 earlier contracts would begin to expire; therefore, Palo Alto would need to acquire new renewable resources in order to maintain the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and carbon neutral goals. In FY 2017 under average conditions, the portfolio would be roughly balanced with long-term resources. In dry years, Palo Alto would have to compensate for significant deficits through market purchases. All contracted projects provided a total green premium of approximately $1.9 million per year, which was a rate impact of approximately $0.27 per kilowatt hour (kWh). The three contracts all contained negative green premiums; consequently, they provided a green premium of approximately –$850,000 per year. Adding those to other projects provided a total green premium of .11¢ per kWh. Chair Burt requested an explanation of green premium. Mr. Stack explained Staff compared the price of the proposed project to a forecast of the brown market price, and adjusted for the variables of the project. Chair Burt inquired about the comparison of these projects to brown power. Mr. Stack forecasted the three projects to be lower cost than brown power over the lifetime of the project. The three projects were the Elevation Solar C project, the Western Antelope Blue Sky Ranch B project, and the Frontier Solar project. They were fairly large solar project contracts beginning at the end of 2016, and were priced at approximately $69 per Megawatt hour (MWh). The first two proposals were presented by the developer Silverado Power. The Frontier proposal was presented by Ridgeline Energy. The two companies were below investment grade, which was fairly common for companies in the industry. The City had the option of the projects coming online at the end of 2015 or 2016. A slightly lower price was associated with the later start date. Given the significant cost increase for the earlier start date, Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommended the later start date. With the two Silverado projects, a slightly lower price was associated with selecting both projects. Some risks were associated with a 30-year contract and locking in fixed prices. To address the risk, the City would not pay for energy until it was delivered. To mitigate the MINUTES Page 19 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 development or completion risk, the developer pledged cash in the form of a letter of credit. The City could retain some or all funds if the project was late or not completed. Because the three projects were in advanced stages of development, Staff was confident they would be completed. If project output fell below a certain threshold, the City could collect damages. The City could not mitigate the risk of finding more attractive proposals at a later time. The City should begin making significant energy purchases in order to meet the carbon neutral and RPS goals. The prices were extremely low. Reasons for acting at the current time included tax incentives, lower solar panel costs, and a potential increase in the State's RPS requirement to 40 percent. Staff recommended and the UAC unanimously supported approval of the three Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) for 30 years with the three companies, the later start date option, and a waiver of the investment grade credit rating requirement. Chair Burt felt the prices were phenomenal. A convergence of factors resulted in almost artificially low prices. The City had a window of opportunity for low prices before other factors adjusted the prices upward. MOTION: Chair Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to direct Staff to agendize a discussion regarding taking advantage of any other solar opportunities at this price range. Vice Mayor Shepherd expressed concern about the competition between agriculture and energy. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to include in the discussion competition between wind and solar energy with agriculture. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to recommend the City Council adopt three resolutions approving Power Purchase Agreements for the acquisition of Project Output over 30 years from three Solar Photovoltaic Facilities for a total not to exceed amount of $350 Million. Council Member Schmid supported the PPAs while acknowledging the uncertainty of costs and pricing. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 MINUTES Page 20 of 20 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 05/14/2013 Future Meetings and Agendas Lalo Perez announced the next meeting was scheduled for May 16, 2013 at 4:00 P.M. Council Member Schmid requested an estimate of the length of the meeting. Mr. Perez a noted the Agenda was considerable. Any topic not completed on May 16 could be agendized for the May 23 wrap-up meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 7:12 P.M. APPENDIX 4 FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 1 of 39 Special Meeting Tuesday, May 16, 2013 Roll Call Chairperson Burt called the meeting to order at 4:02 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Berman, Burt (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd Absent: Oral Communications None Agenda Items 1. Police Department Budget (Operating pp. 222-233). Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer, recalled two items resulted in changes to the Budget. The surplus of $220,000 decreased by $100,000 for Police Department scheduling software and a Human Resources Department consultant. The Finance Committee (Committee) added $56,000 to the Human Services Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP), leaving a surplus balance of $64,000. Review of key performance measures and the possibility of additional summer concerts were placed in the parking lot for discussion at the wrap-up meeting. Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst, reviewed the May 16, 2013 at- places memorandum. Staff proposed amendments to development impact fees, housing impact fees, traffic impact fees, and parkland dedication fees in the Municipal Fee Schedule to include adjustments for the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and construction costs. The revenue impact for the fee changes was minimal; therefore, the Planning and Community Environment Budget would not increase. Staff proposed an 8.5 percent increase to the University Avenue Parking Permits, and a 15 percent increase to the California Avenue Parking Permits. The fee increase for University Avenue would generate MINUTES Page 2 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 $118,915 in additional revenue in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. The fee increase for California Avenue would generate additional revenue totaling $25,000 annually, which would be offset by lower than anticipated revenue for parking permits and day passes. Therefore, Staff did not propose a change to overall budgeted revenue in the California Avenue Parking Permit Fund. For the Public Works Department, Staff proposed adjustments totaling $194,141 for benefits associated with positions moved from the Public Works General Fund to the Parking District Funds. Staff also recommended a $15,000 decrease in the Public Works General Fund Budget, because the department proposed using funds in the FY 2013 Budget to finance an infrastructure measure for the November 2014 ballot. Staff proposed a $70,000 increase related to tree trimming due to higher than expected bids. The Vehicle Replacement Fund would increase by $0.3 million for the purchase of an aerial ladder truck and a new vehicle. Funds for the Baylands Interpretive Center Improvement Project were being removed, because costs were included in the Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements and Boardwalk Repair Project. The Building Systems Improvement Project was updated to reflect planned expenditures of $100,000 in FY 2018. The final changes were establishing the University Avenue Parking District Improvements Capital Project and the California Avenue Parking District Improvement Capital Project. Chair Burt asked when the Committee could inquire about the changes. Mr. Perez suggested the Committee ask questions when the Agenda Items were being discussed. Chair Burt inquired about the Agenda Items affected by the proposed changes. Mr. Perez indicated changes on page 1 of the at-places memorandum were part of Agenda Item Number 5; changes on page 2 were part of Agenda Item Numbers 6a and 7; changes to the Vehicle Replacement Fund were part of Agenda Item Number 6f; and changes to the Capital Project Funds were part of Agenda Item Number 4. Ms. Paras reported overall revenue changes for the Police Department totaled $0.3 million. Increased parking citations led to $0.1 million of the increase. A new Municipal Fee required by the Massage Ordinance would increase revenue by $3,500. The department's expenses increased by $0.5 million. Seven sworn positions within the department would be unfrozen. The Budget increased by $0.5 million for overtime to align with historical trends. Staff included a decrease in salaries and benefits due to negotiated benefit savings. Overall the department had a decrease of 1.22 Full Time MINUTES Page 3 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Equivalents (FTE). Staff included savings and FTE reductions for Animal Services of 2.6 FTEs. Animal Services projected costs in FY 2013 were approximately $0.4 million to the General Fund. This included an offset for one-time donations to Animal Services. In FY 2014, the net cost for Animal Services was estimated to be $587,000 to the General Fund. The initial target was $0.5 million. Included in the net cost estimate was the full impact of losing Mountain View as a partner, various fee increases, and Staff reductions. The projected estimated cost to the General Fund included fee increases for cat surgeries; although, Animal Services experienced a decrease in volume for cat and small dog surgeries. Scottie Zimmerman, Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter, was searching for local corporate sponsors. The Animal Shelter would participate in pet adoptions through Maddie's Fund. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the frequency of complaints measured in Performance Measure Number 2. Ron Watson, Police Captain, reported in calendar year 2012 the department had three formal citizen complaints, 149 commendations, and 16 use-of- force incidents. Of the 16 use-of-force incidents, one was a canine deployment. Those figures were typical for a 12-month period. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the 149 commendations. Mr. Watson explained a citizen either called or wrote the department with compliments about its work in some area of service. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked how traffic services expenses increased by 32 percent while the number of FTEs decreased. Ms. Paras reported 3 FTEs were added to traffic services. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the increased number of FTEs represented the increased expenses for traffic services. Mr. Watson answered yes. Vice Mayor Shepherd requested Staff comment on the responsibilities of the traffic team. Mr. Watson recalled in FY 2013 the Council froze seven positions. Because the department did not have enough Staff to support a traffic team, it was disbanded. Dayshift officers supported schools and traffic. As part of the MINUTES Page 4 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 new fiscal year, he hoped to reinstitute the standalone traffic team with three officers and have it operational around the opening of school. As hiring and training continued, additional officers could be assigned to the traffic team. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the full traffic team would be operational before the end of the calendar year. Mr. Watson indicated the team would begin with three officers. Assigning more officers to the traffic team depended on hiring across all areas of the Police Department. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the number of vacant positions within the Police Department. Mr. Watson stated the department had three vacancies, which were part of the FY 2013 Budget. Two lateral officers were scheduled to begin work on May 20, 2013. A conditional offer of employment was made to a third officer. He anticipated the third officer would begin work in June 2013. Staff released some of the frozen positions in order to provide conditional offers of employment to two additional lateral officers; however, they would not begin work until late June or early July 2013. Staff wished to place an additional four or five entry-level officers in the summer academy to fill most if not all of the frozen positions. Vice Mayor Shepherd requested an explanation of a lateral officer. Mr. Watson explained a lateral officer could be a fully trained police officer who worked for another agency for a number of years. Lateral also meant an academy graduate who paid his own way through the academy. The officer needed significant on-the-job training. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about budgeting for resource officers at the high schools. Mr. Watson reported in the past Palo Alto had two resource officers, one at each high school. One resource officer was included in the Budget, and the position was filled. The officer split his time between the two high schools, with very little time at the middle schools. In addition, ancillary duties for the position allowed less time at the high schools. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the resource officer salary was divided between the City and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). MINUTES Page 5 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Mr. Watson understood the salary for one resource officer was divided half to Palo Alto and half to PAUSD. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the amount of funds needed to hire a second resource officer. Mr. Watson indicated one position with benefits would cost approximately $165,000. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about grants to fund a second resource officer. Mr. Watson understood grants were a possibility; however, grants typically had requirements for matching funds, and were geared toward communities that needed financial assistance. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if Staff discussed funding a second resource officer with PAUSD. Mr. Watson believed Chief Burns discussed the matter preliminarily with the PAUSD Superintendant. If the Council was interested, Staff could discuss the matter further with PAUSD. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if colleagues were interested in funding a second resource officer. Resource officers embedded themselves in the school community in a useful manner. Mr. Watson agreed with adding a second resource officer at the appropriate time. Resource officers' actions at the schools directly impacted the dayshift patrol division. When officers were well known within the school, the police department received more information and solved more crimes. James Keene, City Manager, had not approached the PAUSD Superintendant regarding funding for a second resource officer. He wished to see some data regarding return on investment for the position. The Council's approach was to maintain staffing at existing levels. Information regarding encounters and impacts on drug and alcohol use would be helpful. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the type of information needed. Mr. Keene suggested review of historical data to determine the impacts of one resource officer versus two resources officers. The Council should have a sense of the improvements resulting from additional resource officers. MINUTES Page 6 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Council Member Berman inquired about the reason for comparing key accomplishment metrics to FY 2007 as opposed to the previous year. Ian Hagerman, Senior Management Analyst, reported the data was taken from the Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report. Staff used 2007 to provide an indication of trends. Council Member Berman asked why a higher time figure was adopted in FY 2013 and proposed for FY 2014 in Performance Measure 4. Mr. Hagerman explained that police departments did not have a standard for response time. Staff compared Palo Alto to the median response time for the United States. The national average decreased from 5 1/2 minutes the previous year to 5 minutes. Council Member Berman encouraged all departments to continue to lower their performance measure scores. Mr. Hagerman suggested the ability to decrease response times stabilized without additional resources. Council Member Berman was disappointed that the resource officer focused on high schools, because the officer's interaction in middle school had greater impacts. He would like to see metrics on potential gains from having a second resource officer. Mr. Watson cautioned that data presented only side of the equation in law enforcement. The deterrent effect of a police presence in the community could not be quantified. Council Member Schmid felt the community relied on the Police Department to solve problems, and held officers to a high standard. The response time of 4:28 minutes provided a sense of security to citizens. He hoped the response time would be lower in the case of a school emergency. He inquired whether the decline in Police Department staffing occurred in FY 2010 and FY 2012. Mr. Watson felt declines in staffing occurred over decades. When the seven positions were unfrozen, the department would have 91 sworn positions. In 1974, the department had 110 sworn positions. Council Member Schmid asked if Staff expected to fill the unfrozen positions in FY 2014. MINUTES Page 7 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Mr. Watson reported the department made two conditional offers that would be taken from the seven frozen positions. The two positions could be filled in late June or early July 2013. Council Member Schmid asked if the 1 FTE decline occurred through loss of personnel. Mr. Watson answered no. Staff worked through the seven vacancies it had in FY 2012. Council Member Schmid noted the actual FTEs in FY 2012 were 161, and the adjusted FTEs in FY 2013 were 157. Mr. Perez explained that frozen positions did not decrease the total number of FTEs; however, the dollar amounts were defunded from the Budget. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the salary increase of 9 percent reflected the addition of frozen positions. Mr. Watson answered yes. Council Member Schmid asked if the staffing table included filled and paid positions. Mr. Perez stated it counted all positions including frozen positions. Council Member Schmid asked if it included the positions in the process of being filled. Mr. Perez explained it was the total of approved positions Citywide. Some of those positions could be vacant or frozen. Council Member Schmid felt it was difficult to determine the number of positions that would be filled and paid in the FY 2014 Proposed Budget. Mr. Perez asked if Council Member Schmid was trying to figure out the total number of positions the Committee was approving in the FY 2014 Budget. Council Member Schmid was attempting to determine how many paid people were in the Police Department in FY 2013 and how many would be in the FY 2014 Budget. Mr. Perez would review the Budget for that information. MINUTES Page 8 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Chair Burt inquired whether funds were allocated for traffic functions even though the traffic team was not a dedicated group. Mr. Watson reported officers focused their time on schools and traffic in the time between responding to calls once the traffic team was disbanded. Chair Burt asked if 3 of the 7 FTEs would be dedicated to traffic and schools. Mr. Watson explained the three dedicated positions would not be responsible for responding to calls for service; their efforts would focus on traffic and schools. Chair Burt suggested the three positions' primary functions were schools and traffic barring unusual events. Mr. Watson agreed. Chair Burt felt Performance Measures 2 was not a core function of the department. Two of the accomplishments were important performance measures, and both were quite favorable. The average emergency response time was a more important metric than the number of days to respond to certain forms of investigations. He encouraged the department to move to more meaningful metrics, while recognizing that external factors affected performance. Mr. Watson reported that timely resolution of officer-involved incidents was important to the organization, officers and community. Perhaps it was more important internally. Chair Burt suggested two potential metrics regarding Part 1 crimes were the amount of crime that occurred in the community and the percentage of resolved cases. He wanted the department to move toward meaningful performance measures while acknowledging uncontrollable external factors. Council Member Berman inquired whether Chair Burt was referring to performance measures on page 228. Chair Burt stated the percentage of resolved crimes was included in the performance measures. He asked how the average response time for emergencies decreased significantly when the department had fewer officers and worse traffic. Mr. Watson explained that some of the reduction resulted from better deployment of officers. Staff worked to ensure beats were uniformly MINUTES Page 9 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 deployed. Chair Burt believed that the amount of overtime would decrease with additional officers being hired. Historically, Police Department vacancies were filled through overtime. Mr. Perez noted the department included a line item for a study of police services that would analyze the utilization of officers and overtime. The unfrozen positions would create some savings. Chair Burt wanted to be realistic regarding overtime. A savings in overtime expense could cover a 50 percent expense for a resource officer. Mr. Watson explained that approximately one-third of overtime resulted from backfilling vacant or training positions in the dispatch center. Another one-third resulted from field operations, including writing reports after a shift ended, critical incidents extending beyond the shift, and court appearances. In this third, the number of Staff could impact overtime. The final one-third of overtime was spent on special events, investigations, and miscellaneous areas. The number of Staff in the first and last thirds would have virtually no impact overtime. The staffing number impacted the department's ability to adjust to events in the community. Most of the events requiring overtime were not directly related to the number of people on patrol. Chair Burt felt adding seven positions should have some anticipated impact on overtime. If a potential resource officer was placed in the parking lot, he wanted to couple the discussion with a consideration of impact on overtime. Mr. Perez suggested Staff track overtime, and the Committee could review it at the mid-year Budget review. Vice Mayor Shepherd stated the real costs of special events were not being calculated and budgeted. She inquired about the percentage of overtime that resulted from special events. Mr. Watson indicated special events were approximately 25 percent of overtime, because most special events occurred on weekends. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if 25 percent of the budgeted overtime amount was due to special events. Mr. Watson stated 25 percent of the total amount of overtime, and probably 25 percent of the amount budgeted for overtime. The department could not MINUTES Page 10 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 control special events, such as the number of Stanford football games. Chair Burt believed unfreezing the seven positions was a result of benefits savings. He was interested in placing discussion of a resource officer in the parking lot and requesting Staff return with impacts of a second resource officer. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff could communicate with PAUSD before the parking lot discussion. Chair Burt felt the Committee's discussion regarding a second resource office would be influenced by PAUSD's willingness to share the expense, and by identified impacts of a second resource officer. Mr. Perez suggested Staff return with information at the Council level if they could not return to the Committee. Chair Burt stated the Committee could defer the discussion to the Council if Staff could not provide information by May 23, 2013. He asked if there was Committee support to request Staff to evaluate overtime. Vice Mayor Shepherd supported an evaluation of overtime. Council Member Schmid requested Staff explain the number of positions being increased in the Police Department. Mr. Perez asked if Council Member Schmid wished Staff to focus on the number of police officers. Chair Burt inquired whether Council Member Schmid wanted to understand the staffed and expended amount in FY 2013 versus FY 2014. Council Member Schmid answered yes. Mr. Perez reported Staff would provide the actual and proposed amounts. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the target amount of $500,000 and budgeted amount of $587,000 for Animal Services. Mr. Perez reported Animal Services fell short of its goal by $87,000. Given the better financial outlook, Staff decided to include $587,000 in the Proposed Budget. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if Staff continued to decrease expenses in order MINUTES Page 11 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 to reach the goal of $500,000. Mr. Hagerman indicated Animal Services reduced Staff, and worked hard to reach revenue goals. Licensing revenue doubled over the prior year, and Staff exceeded the prior year's revenue targets. The number of spay and neuter surgeries decreased by 15 percent; however, revenue increases for non-residents offset that decrease. The Animal Services Superintendant had some flexibility to adjust fees for spay and neuter surgeries as the market changed. Staffing reductions could not continue without severe service impacts. The current revenue targets could not be increased; therefore, the $587,000 amount was realistic for FY 2014. Vice Mayor Shepherd requested the information be included in notes for Animal Services. Mr. Hagerman stated the net cost for FY 2013 included approximately $160,000 from Mountain View for four months of service. The net cost for FY 2014, excluding the donation, was closer to $700,000. The FY 2014 Proposed Budget provided the full impact of Staff reductions and revenue increases. Chair Burt asked if Staff continued to work on obtaining long-term partners for Animal Services. Mr. Hagerman reported potential partners in San Mateo County had contractual obligations through 2015. A focus on public-private partnerships would be most fruitful. Chair Burt encouraged Staff to continue communicating with other municipalities. Mr. Hagerman indicated one problem with obtaining new partners was the size of the facility. The shelter could work with an additional municipality the same size as Mountain View, but not two additional municipalities. Chair Burt stated two partners were not needed. Mr. Hagerman reported Staff would communicate with potential municipal partners. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff discussed a higher contribution from Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. Mr. Hagerman answered no. Los Altos Hills indicated they could not afford a MINUTES Page 12 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 higher contribution. Vice Mayor Shepherd requested Staff provide additional strategies to reach the target amounts. Chair Burt recalled in the prior year the City was in jeopardy of losing municipal partners if it raised contribution amounts. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd to recommend the City Council approve the Police Department Budget. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 2. Fire Department Budget (Operating pp. 203-214). Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst, reported department revenue increases totaled $0.8 million, primarily as a result of a $0.5 million increase in plan check revenue. A revenue increase of $0.3 million was proposed for Emergency Medical Services (EMS), resulting from increased calls for paramedics and an improved billing process. The net increase in expenses was $15,637. The department proposed a $0.2 million reduction in overtime. As a result of the Fire Utilization Study recommendations, $6,050 was included for Lexipol. An increase of $47,577 for net staffing changes was also included in the Budget. Overall Full Time Equivalents (FTE) increased by 0.94, driven by a 1.44 FTE increase in temporary staff and reallocation of a GIS Specialist. Fred Balin stated the Proposed Budget showed no changed in vehicle personnel over last year, and increased emergency medical services. He concluded that plans were to remove two units from service as more personnel were shifted to EMS. Rescue 2 was the only vehicle in the department with specialized equipment for hazardous materials incidents, vehicle extrication, air tank refilling, and night time lighting. Pressure continued to reduce traditional Palo Alto Fire Department services. Council Member Schmid noted 38 percent more Staff in the Police Department than the Fire Department, yet Fire Department salaries were 16 percent higher. The Police response time was 4:28 minutes; Fire response time was approximately 8 minutes. He inquired about the discrepancy in response time and in number of firefighters and salary. James Keene, City Manager, asked if Council Member Schmid was referring MINUTES Page 13 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 to a higher number of police officers than firefighters, but higher salaries for firefighters. Council Member Schmid was stating the numbers in the table. Mr. Keene believed the number of firefighters was closer to 120. Council Member Schmid indicated 113 plus 5 FTEs in the Fire Department, and 154 in the Police Department. Mr. Keene stated the number of sworn officers in the Police Department would be 91 once the full complement was achieved. Ian Hagerman, Senior Management Analyst, reported much of staffing was shared across both departments, but shown in the Police Department Budget. The dispatch center, records unit, and other administrative Staff were included in the Police Department Budget; however, the services were shared by both the Police Department and Fire Department. Mr. Keene explained typically salaries and costs for sworn officers and for firefighters were higher than support staff. Firefighters totaled approximately 100 FTEs, police officers approximately 91 FTEs. Council Member Schmid inquired about the difference in response times. Eric Nichols, Fire Chief, reported response time was comprised of subcategories: call processing with a standard of 60 seconds or less; get- out time with a standard of 1 minute during the day and 1:30 minutes for night; and drive time. Staff achieved the response time goal for emergency medical calls of 12 minutes or less 90 percent of the time. For fire calls, Staff did not meet the goal of 12 minutes or less 90 percent of the time. EMS calls were the majority of emergency calls to the department, and resulted in a lack of ambulances on a daily basis. Rural Metro ambulances responded to calls in Palo Alto on average 60 times each month, while Palo Alto fire ambulances responded to no calls in Santa Clara County. Consequently, a third ambulance was cross-staffed to respond to medical calls. Council Member Schmid suggested deployment for medical calls could be improved. Mr. Nichols stated the next three to five years would radically change the method of delivering services. As the aging population increased, the opportunities for service would also increase. MINUTES Page 14 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Chair Burt inquired about the status of cross-staffing a third ambulance. Mr. Nichols reported the ambulance went into service on May 10, 2013. Since then, Rural Metro did not respond to a call in Palo Alto. As of May 13 or 14, the Fire Department handled five additional calls that would have been handled by Rural Metro. Chair Burt asked if those changes were included in the mid-year FY 2013 Budget review. Mr. Perez noted one ambulance scheduled to be replaced was kept; therefore, there was no capital cost per se. Chair Burt inquired about efforts to implement mobile deployment. Mr. Nichols indicated the department did not have a formal program for mobile deployment. When in transit to or from training exercises or inspections, fire crews took calls that were near their location, but not in their primary zone. That was the department's mobile deployment. Chair Burt inquired about advanced technology and trends regarding mobile communications. Mr. Nichols understood the next version of the computer-aided dispatch system would allow text messaging and that type of communication. The challenge with advanced technologies was cost. Staff was attempting to use data analytics to predict the pockets of risk and the potential location of calls. Predicting future calls would aid flexible deployment. Chair Burt asked if a future trend for paramedics would be more mobile diagnostics and mobile treatments. Mr. Nichols wanted to position the Fire Department to be a relevant pre- hospital healthcare provider in order to provide the highest level of service to the community. Chair Burt felt the 62 percent increase in fire inspections was a good accomplishment, and requested comments. Mr. Nichols stated the prevention bureau did a solid job, and wanted to perform more inspections. Chair Burt inquired whether the department was achieving the FY 2013 MINUTES Page 15 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 adopted goal of 90 percent of responses to fire emergencies within 8 minutes, and inquired about possible reasons for achieving the goal. Mr. Hagerman indicated the FY 2010 percentage was higher than normal. Consistently over the prior five years, the Fire Department achieved 70-80 percent success for the measure. Mr. Nichols stated implementing preventive measures was less expensive than building a large response force. As the number of inspections increased, the number of fires decreased. Prevention was the best and most cost effective method to reduce risk. Chair Burt requested comments regarding the Hanover Station and Rescue Unit 2. Mr. Nichols reported that was another operational redeployment scheduled to occur on or about the end of June 2013, and removing Engine 2 from service was included in the FY 2013 Budget. Command Staff decided to retain Engine 2 in service, because it responded to the majority of calls and had a pump and water. As a firefighter, he was uncomfortable with not having an apparatus capable of carrying and pumping water. The decision was made to redeploy resources from Rescue 2 to Engine 2. In the next month, Staff would present a request to the Council to purchase a new ladder truck to replace the aging one. The decision was made to make the ladder truck the primary technical, rescue, hazardous material, search and rescue, ventilation piece of equipment for the community. Personnel would not change. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if services would remain the same for the neighborhood served by Engine 2. Mr. Nichols believed redeploying resources to a station further away would degrade services to some degree. Because the majority of hazardous materials incidents in 2012 were very small, low-level incidents, the degradation of services would be small. A regional approach for hazardous materials incidents would be less expensive with the same results. The trade-off was a potentially small increase in community risk. Having a third ambulance reduced risk, which outweighed a slight risk increase for hazardous materials incidents. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted the environmental safety management component of the Budget increased significantly, and inquired about causes for the increase. MINUTES Page 16 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Mr. Hagerman explained the FTE increase resulted from additional hourly plan checkers. Staff added temporary FTEs to accommodate workload. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if hazardous materials response was included in environmental safety management. Mr. Nichols reported that environmental safety management included the fire prevention bureau, the hazardous materials inspectors, and the plan checkers; everything related to fire prevention and community risk reduction. Hazardous materials were a small portion of environmental safety management. The increase was related to growth in the Development Center and increased construction. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about status of the fire efficiency study recommendation to merge two stations at a different location. Mr. Nichols indicated that was a low priority from an economic perspective. He recommended the Council not pursue that recommendation. Merging Stations 5 and 2 into one facility would be an expensive proposition, and would require 5-10 years to complete. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted Mr. Nichols did not mention the cost of savings of the recommendation. Mr. Nichols stated cost savings would occur when the rescue crews were redeployed. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt one of the purposes of the recommendation was increased efficiencies for the neighborhoods. She wished to see key accomplishments across time to better understand trends. Mr. Hagerman reported Staff was attempting to report outcomes and provide more meaningful performance measures. Mr. Nichols indicated from 2007 to 2012 EMS calls increased 16 percent and transports increased 27 percent. The EMS percentage would continue to increase, particularly as the community aged into a higher risk demographic. With Federal healthcare reform, many emergency calls could be screened out of the system before reaching firefighters. He wanted to ensure the community continued to receive quality services. Council Member Berman encouraged the Fire Department to continue striving for high percentages with regard to performance measures. MINUTES Page 17 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend the City Council approve the Fire Department Budget. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Mr. Keene reported Stanford University was interested in renegotiating its contract with the Fire Department; however, Staff did not have a target date for completing negotiations. 3. Office of Emergency Services Budget (Operating pp. 215-221). Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst, reported previously the Office of Emergency Services (OES) Budget was embedded in the Fire Department Budget. The total OES Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 included a total expense of $0.89 million. The one significant change for the OES was unfreezing a Program Assistant position. There were no other revenue or Full Time Equivalent (FTE) changes for the department. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the difficulty of filling the Program Assistant position. Ken Dueker, Director of OES, believed the position could be filled expeditiously. He had a number of internal candidates in mind; however, the position would be open to external candidates as well. Chair Burt requested Staff comment on the differences between the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC). Mr. Dueker explained that the MEOC was a mitigation measure to correct a number of known deficiencies. City Hall, which contained the existing EOC and the 911 Dispatch Center, was seismically unsound. The MEOC was a field command post, not a substitute for a public safety building. Chair Burt asked if the MEOC could accommodate the emergency team. Mr. Dueker answered no, nor could the existing EOC accommodate the emergency team. Staff worked around that deficit by utilizing wireless teleconferencing. In addition to the MEOC, the City deployed command post tents; however, neither the MEOC nor tents substituted for a hard structure. Chair Burt noted the MEOC had many technical capabilities, and asked if it could accommodate one-third of the team needed in an emergency. MINUTES Page 18 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Mr. Dueker reported the MEOC had one-tenth the seating capacity of the EOC. Chair Burt inquired whether the MEOC could be considered a satellite and the public safety building a command post. Mr. Dueker responded yes. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend the City Council approve the Office of Emergency Services Budget. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 The Finance Committee took a break from 6:28-6:57 P.M. 4. General Fund Capital Budget (Capital pp. 65-188). Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer, referenced the proposed amendments contained in the at-places memorandum, and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) letter regarding the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014- 2018 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Staff added designations, labels, and graphics to the Budget. The Finance Committee (Committee) requested Staff distribute salaries from the central CIP; therefore, Staff allocated salaries to major projects only. The CIP Budget for FY 2014 was $60 million. Chair Burt inquired about the relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Perez noted that the PTC requested Staff add a focus on the relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff wanted to initiate the planning process for the Capital Budget earlier in the year with regard to infrastructure. The prioritization criteria were not used heavily for FY 2014, because the majority of projects were approved. As funding increased, Staff wanted to ensure the projects could be completed, and made recommendations to add Staff. The majority of $33.4 million would fund parks and open space. Approximately $2 million of the $4.3 million was not allocated to salaries. Reserve amounts included the mid-year changes presented earlier. At the mid-year review, Staff anticipated a $2 million surplus; however, a $5 million surplus was likely. Staff recommended amounts over the 18.5 percent target of the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) be transferred to Capital. Chair Burt inquired whether the document reflected the mid-year changes. MINUTES Page 19 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Mr. Perez answered yes. If the surplus reached $5 million, then the Reserve balance at the end of the five years would be approximately $11.5 million, which included $7.6 million transferred at the end of FY 2012. For FY 2014, Staff recommended retaining the balances. Staff projected transfers from the General Fund would increase from $13.2 million in FY 2014 to approximately $15 million, not including a surplus. Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works, reported accomplishments included renovation of the Art Center, improvements to San Antonio Road, and improvements to Cogswell Plaza. The Budget for street maintenance doubled in FY 2011. In the intervening three years, Staff completed work using approximately $2.6 million in grant funds. Street conditions were rated using the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Along with increasing street funding, Palo Alto set a goal of raising its average street PCI score to 85 over ten years with no street having a PCI score below 60. With the proposed addition of $1 million annually to the base funding for the street maintenance program, Staff estimated that the goal of an 85 average PCI score could be met in 2019, two years earlier. With respect to sidewalk repairs, Staff proposed increased funding of $1 million annually. Additional funding for sidewalk repairs would address the backlog of $3.7 million identified by the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC). The $3.7 million represented funding needed to complete the original 23 sidewalk district program within 30 years. The Golf Course Reconfiguration Project was scheduled to begin construction in April 2014. Staff requested $8 million in funding in the CIP Budget; $3 million from the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Board and $5 million funded through Certificates of Participation (COP). With respect to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Staff recommended a Budget of $1.2 million in FY 2014, with funds coming from the Stanford University Medical Center Mitigation Funds. Given the ongoing discussions with the Council regarding use of Stanford University funds, the Council could fund the project at a different level or from a different source. Staff proposed funding the Highway 101 Bike Bridge in FY 2014 with $1.4 million from the $4 million grant awarded by Santa Clara County (County). Four projects for the Lucie Stern Building were combined into one new project for mechanical and electrical upgrades. Two important IBRC recommendations were keep-up and catch-up programs. Funds in the amount of $2.2 million were transferred annually from the General Fund to the Infrastructure Reserve for keep-up. Catch-up needs were approximately $4.2 million annually; however, Staff had not identified a mechanism to fully fund catch-up needs. The new Infrastructure Committee was working on a potential infrastructure revenue ballot measure to fund other projects identified by IBRC. A key IBRC recommendation was the Infrastructure Management System (IMS). MINUTES Page 20 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Staff was working on implementing the IMS, and expected it would be available for planning the FY 2016 Capital Budget. One of the Baylands Interpretive Center Projects was removed, because it was included in another project. Staff failed to include funding for the final fiscal year for one of the CIP projects. Staff worked with the California Avenue and University Avenue Parking Districts to find ways to fund maintenance and improvements to parking facilities. Eric Nordman felt the City had fallen behind other cities with regard to bicycle transportation, and asked the Committee to fund the $1.2 million proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Andrew Boone noted the objectives of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the Climate Protection Plan. The goals of those two Plans were realistic. The City needed an integrated system to continue progress. He supported the proposed investment in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and suggested the Committee increase funding. Adina Levin supported investments in the bicycle and pedestrian network. Parking issues could be addressed through increased use of bikes and transit. Continued improvements for biking and public transit could forestall expensive parking investments. Kevin Anderson stated the bike network in Palo Alto was excellent, and allowed him and his wife to become utility bikers. He urged the Committee to continue funding the bike network and, if possible, increase funding. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt the Budget was more user-friendly. She inquired about the reasons for decreased funding of curb and gutter repair in FY 2016 and 2017. Mr. Eggleston explained the CIP was originally created to address a backlog of repairs to curbs and sidewalks. Once the backlog was completed, $100,000 would be sufficient to meet new needs. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked why the amount returned to $200,000 in FY 2018. Mr. Eggleston felt the increase could be a mistake. Vice Mayor Shepherd stated the Budget did not indicate that remaining funds for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan would be taken from Stanford University funds. She asked if Staff was asking the MINUTES Page 21 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Committee to recommend the use of Stanford University funds, and which category of Stanford University funds would supply the funds. James Keene, City Manager, reported Staff anticipated using the sustainability component in the Development Agreement for bike and pedestrian activities. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether funds would be capped at $6 million for the five-year plan. Mr. Perez explained the five-year plan was a yearly commitment which the Council reaffirmed. For FY 2015, the Committee could decide to reduce or eliminate funding or change the source of funding. In order to accelerate programs which were important to the community, Staff recommended use of sustainability funds. Mr. Keene stated it was important to include dedicated funding for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan throughout the term of the CIP. Because Staff identified the funding source as Stanford University funds, $1.2 million would be a reasonable allocation over five years. Estimates for the full implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan totaled $35 million. Ultimately the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan could be funded from Stanford University funds or the Infrastructure Reserve. It was important for the Council to adopt a Budget which included a funding stream for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to include in the Budget a few major capital projects that did not require Stanford University funds. She inquired about the survey regarding transportation modes. Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Officer, reported the survey received almost 3,600 responses. The survey focused on the modes of transportation used in Palo Alto and the time of day people traveled in the community. Results of the survey would be used in the future to measure changes in behavior resulting from projects built today. Vice Mayor Shepherd would not support a designation of Stanford University funds. She inquired about Staff's vision for the Matadero Creek Trail. Mr. Rodriguez indicated the Matadero Creek Trail was a specific element of the Stanford-Palo Alto Trail Program, which required completion of a feasibility study and approval by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the City Council. Staff had not started the design process; therefore, the vision was unknown. The vision would be determined through the MINUTES Page 22 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 community outreach process. Mr. Perez referenced the supplemental information for the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project, which indicated the local match of $1 million from the Stanford University Medical Center Mitigation Funds was approved in concept by the Council. Council Member Berman was pleased Staff raised the issue of capacity to implement and complete infrastructure projects. He was encouraged that the IMS was being developed; however, he was surprised it was not further along. Mike Sartor, Public Works Director, explained that Staff worked with consultants and talked with other cities to understand the IMS. Staff was working with the Information Technology Department to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) that would be compatible with existing systems. Council Member Berman inquired whether funding would be needed for possible renovation of the Junior Museum and Zoo. Greg Betts, Community Services Director, reported if the Friends' project for renovation of the Junior Museum and Zoo proceeded, then the budgeted project would not be necessary. Council Member Berman requested the status of the Municipal Services Center (MSC) study. Mr. Sartor stated Staff was preparing to issue an RFP for an expert to review operations at the MSC. The study would review potential opportunities for moving operations from the site and for revenue-generating businesses at the site. Council Member Berman asked for the costs contained in the category labeled other for tennis and basketball court resurfacing expenditures. Mr. Eggleston understood the other category was comprised of contractor construction costs. That amount should be in the construction category. Council Member Berman asked if Staff was considering use of parking technology. Mr. Rodriguez stated Staff identified the development and implementation of parking guidance systems as a near-term improvement. As part of the proposed fee schedule for the parking program, Staff set aside funding for MINUTES Page 23 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 that type of preliminary improvement. Council Member Berman inquired whether Staff would provide information to the Council. Mr. Rodriguez indicated the Council directed Staff to focus those types of improvements through the PTC. If the Council was interested, Staff would be happy to discuss improvements. Council Member Berman was happy to see bridge assessment in the Budget. He asked if the photograph was of the Chaucer Street bridge. Mr. Sartor replied yes. Council Member Berman suggested using a photograph of a bridge that was not slated for reconstruction. Mr. Sartor reported the Chaucer Street Bridge was included in the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Board project; therefore, the City would not assess the bridge. Council Member Berman felt there was no barrier between the Matadero Creek Trail path and nearby homes, which could upset the homeowners. Mr. Rodriguez stated Staff would identify the appropriate barriers and types of mitigations in response to community concerns or environmental impacts. Council Member Berman suggested using a different photograph or stating the photograph was a simulation to allay community concerns. Council Member Schmid believed a great deal of information was available that could be shared with the community regarding the Matadero Creek Trail. With respect to the Budget coinciding with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan used broad statements such that any investment would fulfill the need. He asked why the Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor Project was omitted from the list of projects. Mr. Rodriguez noted the Council authorized Staff to advanced funding for the design phase of the Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor Project. Public Works was preparing to hire a consultant to build the Project. Since adoption of the current CIP in FY 2013, Staff secured outside funding of $1,450,000. The first step was to complete the design. Previously funded projects were not shown in the proposed CIP. MINUTES Page 24 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Council Member Schmid indicated some of the future CIPs were funded elsewhere, were already funded, or had identified funding. The Charleston- Arastradero Road Corridor had identified funding, but it was not in the CIP. Mr. Sartor explained that the FY 2013 Adopted Capital Budget contained funding for design of the Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor Project. Construction funding for the Project was not contained in the FY 2014-2018 Budget. Council Member Schmid stated $4 million for the Project was contained in the Budget just a few years ago. Mr. Perez reported if the Project was not identified on the list of projects for funding, then it needed to be reprioritized in future budgets. The Project was part of the polling to determine whether the community wanted it to be part of the ballot measure. Council Member Schmid was concerned that the Project was omitted from the list of projects. The PTC was supposed to connect projects to the strategic vision and plans; however, removing the Project from the list removed the ability to relate the Project to the strategic vision and plans. Mr. Keene recognized that the CIP was an evolving document, and it was getting better. Current year funding was not included in the CIP. The first year of the Proposed Budget was the Capital Budget; the remaining four years was the program. Staff could retain in the document a project for which no potential funding was identified. That approach raised the question of funding for projects. Council Member Schmid indicated Committee comments concerned FY 2015 and FY 2016 for items listed. To get an item that was not listed into the conversation was not easy. Vice Mayor Shepherd suggested Council Member Schmid put the issue in the parking lot. Mr. Keene worked with councils on other CIPs where part of the oversight role was allocating future funding. That was a complicated conversation, because the projects had stages and sequences each year. Council Member Schmid requested the issue be placed in the parking lot. Chair Burt felt the issue was not appropriate for the parking lot. MINUTES Page 25 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Council Member Schmid suggested the CIP be revised to list the Charleston- Arastradero Road Corridor Project, because it had funding in FY 2013 and a promise of future funding. Mr. Keene agreed it was not a parking lot issue. He recommended the Committee direct Staff to add the Project when the adopted CIP was published. Mr. Perez noted page 385 contained a list of prior approved CIPs, including Project PE13011 Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor Project. Page 386 contained another budget for the Project, PL05002. This was Staff's first attempt to provide readers with a list of active projects. Chair Burt inquired whether the Budget indicated that funds were for design only. Mr. Perez answered yes. Staff was searching for another budgeting system, which could be the IMS. Chair Burt asked if the Budget could include a notation that a project was complete and a summary of the circumstances of projects. Mr. Perez explained that new projects were indicated by shading in the current system. It would be appropriate to add a section within the narratives of which projects were removed. Chair Burt suggested a supplemental section noting projects that benefited Palo Alto, were located in Palo Alto, and involved the City, but were not funded by Palo Alto. He inquired whether the Santa Clara Valley Water District would participate in funding the Matadero Creek Trail Project. Mr. Rodriguez reported the Santa Clara Valley Water District was not participating in implementation of the Matadero Creek Trail Phase 1 Midtown, because the County grant fully funded estimated construction costs of the Project. If mitigations increased costs above the estimated amount, then it would be appropriate to request funding from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Santa Clara Valley Water District usually would not fund a project until feasibility studies were completed. Chair Burt believed Staff should approach the Santa Clara Valley Water District as soon as Staff determined additional funds would be needed to allow the Water District to plan for expenditures. He inquired whether Staff planned to use COPs only for the Golf Course Renovation Project. MINUTES Page 26 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Mr. Perez responded yes. Chair Burt asked if it would be less expensive to borrow from the Stanford University funds than to issue COPs. Mr. Perez felt that could be an option. Staff considered it from a short-term perspective to bridge the Project. That would tie up the principle for a few years. Chair Burt inquired whether the term of the COPs would be 20 years. Mr. Perez reported the term could be 20 or 25 years. Chair Burt asked if COPs could be issued five years after a project was completed. Joe Saccio, Assistant Director of ASD, stated COPs could be used to reimburse a past project; however, he was not sure of a time constraint. Staff would inquire with bond counsel about time constraints. Chair Burt suggested the slide regarding PCI scores should note the scores were a three-year rolling average. Mr. Eggleston indicated the scores on the slide were scores determined by Palo Alto, not a three-year average. Chair Burt wanted to communicate the improvements in streets to the community. He suggested Staff utilize a tool to show streets scheduled to be paved under the old Budget versus streets paved under the increased Budget. The community was not aware of the many repaved streets. Mr. Sartor reported Staff placed more information on the website, and were preparing a software application for the community to report pavement condition. Chair Burt inquired whether Staff could provide the impact of increased bike mode share in terms of money saved by eliminating the need for additional parking spaces. Mr. Rodriguez did not have that information. The transportation survey would provide the baseline data for transportation mode shift. One of the near-term parking improvements for the Downtown core was development of transportation demand management. Staff needed to develop a comprehensive program. MINUTES Page 27 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Chair Burt was interested in the avoided cost of constructing structured parking through increased bike mode share. The community needed to understand the cost benefit provided by increased biking for the whole community. One additional biker meant one additional open parking space. Concerning the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, he asked which projects would proceed if the $1.2 million remained in the CIP Budget and which projects would not proceed if the $1.2 million was removed. Mr. Rodriguez noted Staff committed to presenting the Council with an update report regarding implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Staff would provide that update in late summer or early fall. Staff needed to know whether funds were available before committing to projects. Part of the upcoming CIP would target bicycle boulevard deployments. Signage for the bike boulevard was in; however, Staff was waiting for the Green Street Project to install the signs. The community stressed the safety needs for bike boulevards and lanes. Chair Burt asked what would be the result of removing the $1.2 million from the Capital Budget. Mr. Rodriguez reported projects contained in the CIP would proceed. The planning for all other projects would stop. Planning for community outreach and for larger projects would cease without those funds. Chair Burt asked if the $1.2 million was budgeted for construction. Mr. Rodriguez indicated it was budgeted for planning and design. Chair Burt wanted to understand the impact of removing the $1.2 million from the Budget. Mr. Perez suggested Chair Burt review the summary of all traffic and transportation projects on page 41. Chair Burt inquired about the impact on projects for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan if PL04010 was not funded. Mr. Rodriguez stated Staff could develop a list of projects they wanted to fund with the $1.2 million. Chair Burt explained that in FY 2014 some projects were being constructed and some projects were being designed. If the $1.2 million was removed from the Budget, then design in FY 2014 would cease and construction in MINUTES Page 28 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 future years would cease. If the issue was placed in the parking lot, then he requested Staff explain which projects would not be constructed in FY 2014 and in following years. Council Member Berman questioned whether the discussion was funding or funding source. If the Committee decided to fund the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, then the question was the funding source. Chair Burt had not heard about another funding source. Council Member Berman proposed that as part of the conversation. Mr. Perez recalled the City Manager suggested use of the Infrastructure Reserve as an option. Mr. Keene hoped the Committee was not moving away from funding for FY 2014 and subsequent years. Chair Burt wanted to understand the impact of not funding the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Mr. Perez asked if the Committee had an assignment for Staff on the issue. Council Member Berman suggested placing the source of funds issue in the parking lot. Chair Burt agreed to place in the parking lot the issue of source of funds for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. He inquired if there were additional changes or amendments for the Capital Budget. Council Member Berman clarified that the Committee could approve the $1.2 million allocation without indicating the funding source for the allocation. Mr. Perez requested that the Motion include the proposed amendments contained in the at-places memorandum. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend the City Council approve the General Fund Capital Budget, include the CIP changes listed in at places memo on page 3. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 5. Adoption of Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule MINUTES Page 29 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst, referenced the proposed changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule found in the at-places memorandum. Proposition 26 stated user fees must reflect costs incurred directly or indirectly to provide the service or activity for which the fee was charged. In addition, fees could not exceed estimated costs, but could be set below full cost recovery levels. The 2014 Municipal Fee Schedule did not contain a revenue adjustment. Actual revenues could be based on changes in utilization or volume. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the statement on packet page 16 regarding fees not including 9 percent sales tax meant sales tax was not charged or not shown. Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer, indicated the statement noted sales tax was in addition to the fee. Council Member Schmid asked if sales tax was charged on services. Mr. Perez responded no. Sales tax was not charged for services. Council Member Schmid referenced the range of fees for open space activities, and asked what $757 was charged for. Lam Do, Community Services Department Senior Management Analyst, reported some fees within the Community Services Department (CSD) had a range of fees whether for classes or special use permits. The $757 amount was charged for a special use permit. The amount of the fee assessed was based on the type of permit. Council Member Schmid asked if the $1,100 emergency response fee on pages 48 and 52 was charged for a fire truck responding to a call. Chair Burt indicated that particular emergency response fee was charged for a hazardous materials incident. Mr. Perez would provide a response the following week. Chair Burt stated the fee was labeled as a hazardous materials fee. Mr. Perez reported the City did not charge for a fire engine to respond to a fire incident. The City charged for transporting people in an ambulance to a hospital. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the parking fees found on page 78 MINUTES Page 30 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 were included the proposed revisions. Mr. Perez answered yes. Staff collaborated with the Downtown and California Avenue working groups regarding improvements for both areas. Council Member Schmid asked if the City was performing a study on development impact fees to determine whether the correct amounts were assessed. Mr. Perez replied yes. On June 18, 2013, Staff would present the Council with a list of projects, and the consultant would explain the method for calculating fees. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the Council would have time to make revisions to the fees prior to adoption of the Budget. Mr. Perez indicated Staff could revise fees after adoption of the Budget if the Council directed Staff to do so. Council Member Schmid stated the development impact fees listed were not revised to include recommendations from the study. Mr. Perez noted that timing issues could affect notification. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the Alma Plaza Community Room was being used. Greg Betts, Director of Community Services Department, reported that CSD Staff used the room once, and the public used it twice. Staff was not allowed to use the space until after the holidays so as not to impact Miki's Market. Other restrictions concerned setting up the room and providing keys; however, Staff hoped to proceed with use of the room in the next few months. Chair Burt asked if Staff planned to notify non-profit agencies that the space was available for use on a routine basis. Mr. Betts responded yes. The main challenge for the space was the limited number of parking spaces. Staff encouraged carpooling for those using the room. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked how many parking spaces were available. Mr. Betts did not know the exact number, but believed 10-12 spaces were MINUTES Page 31 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 available including underground spaces. The development did not have adequate parking for the Community Room and commercial businesses. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the changed amount of –$3,000 on page 98. Mr. Perez reported the amount was a typographical error. Chair Burt asked about the purpose of additional capital funds for the Parking Districts. He related a story of a business that bought parking permits, but had not received them after two years. Mr. Perez indicated pages 3 and 5 of the at-places memorandum provided a description of the project in terms of the planning of the work. Mr. Perez requested the Finance Committee include in its Motion the proposed revisions from the at-places memorandum. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to recommend the City Council approve the 2014 Municipal Fee Schedule to include the changes on the at places memo, page one and page two. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 6. Public Works Department Budget a. General Fund (Operating pp. 233-244) b. Storm Drain (Operating pp. 252-258; Capital pp. 349-360) c. Refuse (Operating pp. 245-251) d. Wastewater Treatment (Operating pp. 259-264; pp. 333-345) e. Airport (Operating pp. 265-267) F. Vehicle Replacement (Operating pp. 268-272; Capital pp. 367-371) Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst, reported a net total increase of 2 Full Time Equivalents (FTE); 1 FTE for a Project Engineer allocated to the Capital Projects Fund, and 1 FTE for a Project Manager allocated to the General Fund, Capital Project Fund, Refuse Fund, and Storm Drain Fund. The subtotal for Non-Capital Funds for the Public Works Department decreased by 3.82 FTEs. The Capital Fund increased by 1.46 FTEs, resulting in a net decrease of 2.36 FTEs. Staffing changes resulted in reallocation of 5.26 FTEs to the Parking District Funds. Within the General Fund Budget, revenue increased by $143,824, and net expenses decreased by $82,291. She reviewed proposed amendments contained in the at-places MINUTES Page 32 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 memorandum. Nancy Clark, Storm Drain Oversight Committee Chair, stated the Storm Drain Oversight Committee reviewed the Budget for the Storm Drain Fund, and determined it met the mandate of the voters. Council Member Berman inquired about the $17,000 discrepancy between total expenditures in the department summary and the total expenditures in the General Fund table. Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer, would review the amounts and follow-up. Ms. Paras reported the Storm Drain Fund revenue increased $147,512, due to increased plan check fees and increased residential sales. Expenses decreased $0.3 million, due to the increase in utility charges. The total of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 was $3.3 million. Council Member Schmid was pleased the Storm Drain Fund overcame the expenses of the first few years and completed projects. Council Member Berman noted five projects were indicated under the Proposed FY 2014 column of Performance Measure 3, while the discussion indicated four projects. Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer, stated at the end of FY 2014 five projects would be complete. Ms. Paras reported Refuse Fund revenue decreased $0.9 million due to decreased transfers from the Parking Fund. Expenses increased $143,449 due to decreased transfers. Council Member Berman asked if Staff reduced the goal for Performance Measure 2 in FY 2014, because the goal for FY 2013 was not attained. Mike Sartor, Director of Public Works, answered yes. Council Member Berman inquired about the use of an average amount rather than actual amounts for surrounding cities in the discussion of Performance Measure 2. Mr. Sartor believed the point of the discussion was that the disposal rate for other cities was greater on average than Palo Alto's disposal rate. MINUTES Page 33 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Council Member Berman questioned whether one city had a much higher average disposal rate, such that it increased the average for all cities. Mr. Sartor did not have that information. Revenue changes exceeded expense changes for FY 2014. Overall, expenditures were $1 million less than planned revenues; therefore, Staff did not anticipate increasing revenue rates during FY 2014. Chair Burt asked why the goal for Performance Measure 2 in FY 2014 was raised. Mr. Sartor suggested residents were buying more and placing more into garbage as the economy improved. The diversion rate for FY 2011 was approximately 80 percent, and the diversion rate decreased to approximately 78 percent in FY 2012. Chair Burt inquired whether the disposal rate was calculated on garbage placed in the black bin or the black bin plus residuals from the recycling bin. Ron Arp, Solid Waste Manager, reported the disposal rate was calculated based on the amount sent to disposal. From the black bin, 17 percent of waste was removed as recyclable. Chair Burt reiterated that a portion of black bin waste was removed as recyclable, and asked if a portion of the recyclable bin was actually sent to disposal. Mr. Arp responded yes. Chair Burt inquired whether sorting procedures or reporting methodology changed to account for the increased amount of waste. Mr. Arp confirmed the same trend in other communities. Council Member Schmid congratulated the Refuse Fund for reducing the number of employees and transitioning the landfill to parkland. He inquired whether the increase in GreenWaste fees reflected the increased amount of garbage. Mr. Arp reported the amount of the increase was based partially on four indices, all of which supported an increase in fees. The remaining portion of the increased fees was based on the increase in economic activity. Council Member Schmid suggested residents were more aware of services MINUTES Page 34 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 being offered. Ms. Paras reported the Wastewater Treatment Fund revenue increase totaled $255,696, primarily due to revenue from partners. Wastewater treatment sales increased because of the 2.2 percent Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase. Expenses increased by $519,000 as a result of the increase for CIP. Total FY 2014 expenditures for Capital Projects were $2.9 million. Council Member Schmid inquired about the necessity for smaller capital improvements when the water treatment plant was undergoing major renovations. Mr. Sartor indicated the updating of the water treatment plant was a 20-year plan, and the Capital Budget reflected the first five years of renovations. James Allen, WQC Plant Manager, explained $2.9 million of ongoing CIP expense was needed for regular capital replacement of smaller cost items. Smaller replacement projects would always be needed. Council Member Schmid stated the smaller projects would fit into the new water treatment plant. Mr. Allen reported partners agreed to ongoing minor CIP projects, and approved major capital improvement projects. Staff envisioned obtaining a state loan or a water revenue bond to pay for replacement of incinerators and major structures. Council Member Schmid asked if partners annually bought into capital expenditures. Mr. Allen responded yes. Andrew Swanson, Airport Manager, looked forward to working with the Council. Ms. Paras reported the Airport Fund revenues increased $15,000, reflecting the General Fund loan. Expenses increased $78,074, primarily due to the one-time transition support cost of $75,000. Council Member Schmid recalled a Santa Clara County (County) Commissioner did not want to invest long-term in the Airport, because the ground was unstable. He asked if Staff considered that as the transition proceeded. MINUTES Page 35 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Mr. Sartor replied yes. In a tour of the facility, he noticed many deferred maintenance items, and would discuss those items with the County. The Business Plan and Study clearly showed that the Airport could be a functional, revenue-generating operation. Council Member Schmid expressed concern about the amount of capital investments for the Airport. Mr. Sartor reported once the City officially took possession of the Airport, the City would be in line for annual entitlement grant funding for improvements. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) offered grants for major infrastructure work. Chair Burt requested the anticipated date for the City taking possession of the Airport. Mr. Sartor hoped to take possession by the end of the calendar year, but realistically approval of legal documents would require a year. Ms. Paras reported the Vehicle Replacement Fund revenue decreased $135,000, primarily due to a decrease in replacement allocated charges. Staff reviewed the inventory of equipment and vehicles, and adjusted the allocated charge to reflect inventory. The department conducted an operational and organizational study in FY 2013. Expenses increased approximately $2 million. Capital improvement projects increased $1.8 million. Total expenditures for the Capital Fund were $3 million. Council Member Schmid recalled that the City Auditor performed an audit of the vehicle fleet, and inquired whether the City Auditor reviewed the Budget and determined it was in compliance. Mr. Sartor stated the City Auditor recommended establishing a fleet review committee, which reviewed the proposed expenditures for FY 2014 in accordance with the vehicle replacement audit. Mr. Perez explained that the City Auditor reported through the Policy and Services Committee. As Staff implemented audit recommendations, the Council would see them through the Policy and Services Committee. Council Member Schmid asked when the City Auditor would update the Policy and Services Committee. Mr. Perez was unsure of the exact timeframe, but thought the City Auditor reported in the fall. MINUTES Page 36 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Council Member Schmid felt the City Auditor should have some comment. Mr. Perez noted that the Public Works Department reviewed the fleet, and issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) regarding leasing vehicles. Staff was making progress towards the recommendations. Once the process was complete, Staff anticipated returning to a Budget for purchasing equipment rather than seeking Council approval for each purchase. Council Member Schmid inquired about the results of the RFP regarding leasing vehicles. Mr. Sartor reported Staff continued to review leasing of vehicles as part of the operational study. The pieces of equipment budgeted in the Capital Program included six Police patrol vehicles and a Fire ladder truck. Staff would present results of the operational study, leasing options, and a potential increase of the alternative fuel portfolio to the Council. Council Member Schmid requested a possible date for presentation of the operational study results. Mr. Sartor anticipated presenting recommendations to the Committee after July 2013. Chair Burt inquired whether any of the vehicles proposed for purchase utilized natural gas. Mr. Sartor indicated the Police vehicles and Fire ladder truck did not utilize natural gas. Staff recently replaced 17 Honda Civics. The study would compare electric vehicles with natural gas vehicles. Chair Burt asked if Police cars operated on natural gas. Mr. Sartor explained that natural gas tanks occupied half the trunk space in a Police patrol car. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend the City Council approve the Public Works Department budget, including the changes listed on pages 2-3 of the at places memo. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 MINUTES Page 37 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Mr. Perez requested discussion of the Stanford Development Agreement Fund relative to CIP funding be moved to May 23, 2013. Chair Burt agreed to reschedule the discussion. He noted Staff requested discussion of the Non-Departmental Budget be postponed to May 23, 2013 as well. 7. Special Revenue Funds, including Parking District and Stanford Development Agreement Fund (Operating pp. 63-72). Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst, referenced the proposed amendments to the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund. The Proposed Budget included a decrease of $91,000 for resurfacing and an increase of $175,000 for Cowper-Webster improvements. Staff projected the Fund balance to be $471,000 at the end of the fiscal year. Staff planned to implement parking guidance system technology over the life of the project. A proposed fee increase would fund improvements in the California Avenue Capital Improvement Program (CIP). In the Stanford University Medical Center Fund, Staff projected the amount of interest earned in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 would be $679,000. The fund included $1.2 million for bicycle and pedestrian transportation plans, and an increase of $260,000 for Project Safety Net. Additional funding would be carried forward from FY 2013. Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer, requested the Finance Committee (Committee) focus on funding for Project Safety Net. The total Budget for Project Safety Net was $260,000, an increase of approximately $32,000 over funding in FY 2013. The Budget included funding for one administrative support position. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if there was a method for determining the impact of Project Safety Net on youth. Lam Do, Community Services Department Senior Management Analyst, would provide information on or before May 23, 2013. Council Member Schmid inquired about the Staff positions being transferred from the Refuse Fund to the Parking Funds. Mr. Perez indicated on page 69 under the category expenditures, positions totaled 1.57 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) for administration and 4.53 FTEs for maintenance. Council Member Schmid stated those amounts were smaller than in FY 2013; yet, four Staff transferred from the Refuse Fund. MINUTES Page 38 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 Mike Sartor, Director of Public Works, reported two street maintenance assistants and a street sweeper operator transferred from the Public Works Department's General Fund. Council Member Schmid asked if those positions transferred to the Parking Funds. Chair Burt stated the Budget did not show that the positions were added. Mr. Perez explained that the Parking Fund reflected the FTEs, even though the FTEs were not allocated to the Parking Fund. Staff would include a footnote explanation. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the 4.74 FTEs shown under FY 2013 were actually just positions used by the Parking Fund but not actually employees, and now they were employees. Mr. Perez answered yes. Council Member Schmid asked if Parking Fund revenues paid for the FTEs in the past and would pay for them in the future. Mr. Perez replied yes. The Parking Fund paid through a transfer. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd to recommend the City Council approve Special Revenue Funds and Parking District Funds. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 8. Non-Departmental Budget (Operating pp. 318-320). Chair Burt reported this Agenda Item was continued to May 23, 2013. Future Meetings and Agendas Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer, announced the next meeting regarding the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Proposed Budget was scheduled for May 23, 2013, beginning at 6:00 P.M. Agenda Items included the Non-Departmental Budget, the Capital Improvement Program related to the Stanford Development Agreement Fund, any outstanding informational items, and the Management Compensation Study. The Budget surplus reached $177,000 MINUTES Page 39 of 39 Finance Committee Regular/Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/16/2013 after changes approved during the meeting. Staff anticipated a few minor changes for discussion on May 23, 2013. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:51 P.M. APPENDIX 4 FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 1 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Working Minutes 5/23/13 Special Meeting May 23, 2013 The Finance Committee met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:07 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd Absent: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None AGENDA ITEMS 1. Stanford Development Agreement Fund (Operating pp 63-72) Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services Department, announced a Budget surplus of $177,000. Staff provided recommendations for further action. Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst, reported the wrap-up memorandum discussed outstanding issues from prior Budget meetings. The first item contained in the memorandum was tentative approval of the Non-Departmental Budget, Agenda Item Number 2. The second item was an amendment to the Proposed Budget for Debt Service Funds. Staff was working on a sale of the second series of Measure N General Obligation (GO) Bonds, which would occur in June 2013. The City would have an annual debt service totaling $563,703 offset by assessed property tax. The third item was discussion of whether use of Stanford Development Agreement Funds or other funds should fund the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (Plan). For the Internal Service Funds, Staff presented the Employee Benefit Funds on May 7, 2013, which included the retiree medical internal service fund. The memorandum contained additional information requested by the Finance Committee (Committee), a list of parking lot items, a discussion of proposed adjustments, current balances of the General Fund, and proposed Motions. Attachment A to the memorandum was Staff's MINUTES Page 2 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 response and additional information regarding the City Council meal expense. Attachment B provided updated Library Department key performance measures. During the Utility Department Budget and Water Fund discussions, the Committee noted clerical errors in the summary. Staff provided corrected pages in Attachment C. In addition, the Committee requested the change for the $7,000 proposed increase to allocated charges in the Water Fund. Also at places was additional information pertaining to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Budget. For the Community Services Department (CSD), Staff proposed reclassifying CSD Manager to Senior Program Manager and Division Manager Recreation and Golf to Assistant Director of CSD. These reclassifications aligned current job duties with updated job descriptions. The Committee requested information regarding measures and metrics to determine the effectiveness and impacts of Project Safety Net on the community. CSD provided its response in Attachment A. The Police Department provided a response for the School Resource Officer (SRO) and Police Department overtime in Attachment B. The Committee inquired whether Stanford Development Agreement funds could be used to fund the Golf Course Reconfiguration Project. Staff outlined their research results in the memorandum. The Committee requested additional information regarding hotel stays and occupancy, and that information was contained on page 2 of the memorandum. Staff provided an update on One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) proposals. Vice Mayor Shepherd understood the Committee discussion was to include OBAG proposals in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget. The Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor Project was not included in the Proposed Budget. James Keene, City Manager, indicated all grant requests were included; however, they were not programmed in the CIP Budget. Vice Mayor Shepherd suggested a page for each project be included in the CIP Budget so that the public would know the Council was attempting to find funding for the projects. The funding could be categorized as other revenue rather than CIP revenue. Mr. Perez reported Staff could create a page for each project describing the project and indicating that funding was not secure and grant opportunities were available. A second option would be to create a new section outlining projects for which the City applied for grants and describing the projects. He was concerned that including a complete program page would give the impression that the City would potentially proceed with the project. Having a separate section would give the clear impression that the City would only proceed with a project once funds were available. MINUTES Page 3 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Vice Mayor Shepherd wished to be consistent with the Council direction to Staff to apply for grants, and to make the public aware of projects for which the City was seeking funding even though there was not a plan to proceed. Mr. Keene stated Staff could prepare a project area for grants in the Budget. If the City received funds for a project, then Staff could advance the project to the CIP Budget. Including a project area would demonstrate the Council's intention to invest in important projects. Chair Burt recalled that the second area of capital projects for inclusion in the Budget were capital projects that benefitted Palo Alto but were funded through other agencies. Mr. Keene believed the concept was to demonstrate the Council's capital investment strategy in all things that benefitted the City. Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to demonstrate the bundle of projects the Council identified. Council Member Schmid believed the CIP Budget should indicate the projects in which the community was interested, even if funding was provided by outside sources. Often external funding sources were more interested in projects if the City prepared the design work or leveraged funds. Mr. Perez noted Staff sometimes did not have information or knowledge of projects, but they would do the best they could with the information they had. Staff also committed to detail any projects that were defunded. The Committee placed in the parking lot discussion of whether Stanford Development Agreement funds could be used to fund the Plan CIP starting in FY 2014 for five years for a total of $6 million. The Infrastructure Reserve Fund had sufficient funds to accommodate $1.2 million for FY 2014, pending a Council resolution of use of Stanford Development Agreement funds. Mr. Keene believed the Committee should fund the Plan and show the multi- year aspect of the Plan. Having a plan and setting aside funds allowed momentum to build. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Berman that the Finance Committee recommend the City Council to postpone applying Stanford dollars until the full Council had concluded how to utilize the Stanford Development Agreement Funds and to fund the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and Implementation Project with Infrastructure Reserve Funds (IR). MINUTES Page 4 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Vice Mayor Shepherd expressed concerns about using Stanford Development Agreement funds without having a full Council discussion. Council Member Berman preferred to wait for a Council resolution regarding use of Stanford Development Agreement funds, especially since the Council determined a process for allocating those funds. Chair Burt inquired about a possible date for the Policy and Services Committee to review use of Stanford Development Agreement funds. Mr. Perez reported the item was included on the tentative Agenda for June 24, 2013. Chair Burt presumed the topic would be presented to the Council after the break. Mr. Perez assumed the Policy and Services Committee would make a recommendation to the Council. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 2. Non–Departmental Budget (Operating pp.318-320) Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst, reported revenue decreased by $0.9 million as a result of removing Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 placeholders for Development Center revenue and Cost of Service Study estimated revenues. Both placeholders totaled approximately $0.4 million. Expenses increased by $2.2 million, primarily due to an increase in salaries and benefits of $2.1 million. Other items contained in the Non-Departmental Budget were the Cubberley lease payment, the Golf Course lease-purchase agreement payment, the Palo Alto Animal Services placeholder, and $40,000 in consultant costs for grant applications. Transfers from the General Fund decreased $0.8 million because of refunding the Golf Course debt and a decrease in transfers to the Technology Fund for technology projects. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services Department, noted that the first line item in the amount of $310,000 concerned the Management Compensation Study. The anticipated impact amount was carried over from FY 2013 to FY 2014, assuming the Finance Committee (Committee) approved the Study. If the Committee did not approve the Study, then the $310,000 would be removed from the Budget. Performance based increases beyond the midpoint in the new compensation process for management had a budget of $225,000. As a result of changing the budgeting process to MINUTES Page 5 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 actual pay, Staff set aside the funds for step increases in pay. Movement through the step process for employees was represented by the $571,000 amount. Included in the $571,000 were pay increases as a management employee moved toward the midpoint, if he was hired below the midpoint and if he performed satisfactorily. A 2 percent increase for miscellaneous laborers in management and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was a placeholder pending funding approval. Funding the contingency did not obligate the City to provide the increase. If the Committee did not approve any increases, then the funds would return to the Reserve Fund. If the Committee approved the increases, then the funding was available in the FY 2014 Budget. Staff strongly urged the Committee not to accept the two- year phase-in for the last 1/4 percent decrease of the rate of return assumption provided by the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). Given the improved financial position, the City could absorb the non-smoothing amount. The General Fund share was approximately $1 million, and the other Funds would cover their respective shares. Placeholders in the FY 2013 Budget for Public Safety concessions, attrition savings, and allocation of benefits resulted in a net decrease of $180,000. When proposing the FY 2013 Budget, Staff placed additional funds for benefits in the Non-Departmental Budget, because they did not have time to spread the amounts to the various departments. After accounting for the attrition savings, the net impact was approximately $300,000. James Keene, City Manager, reported the decision not to smooth would cost the City money in FY 2014. The 2 percent was a placeholder. Everything else was identified in the Budget. The City always included those amounts in its Budget. Because Staff budgeted actual salaries, they wanted to express the amount of money that could pay for other expenditures. None of this was a departure from standard practice; simply a different method for reporting it. Chair Burt inquired whether the total impact of the 1/4 percent discount rate decrease was $2 million. Mr. Perez responded no. The total impact was $1 million; roughly $400,000 was in other Funds, primarily in Utilities. Chair Burt asked if half the amount was attributable to the election not to smooth, because the City would have to pay half in FY 2014 if it did smooth. Mr. Perez stated embedded in the City's rate was one year, because it was smoothed over two years. Staff added the additional $1 million for the second year. MINUTES Page 6 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Chair Burt inquired whether the total impact of the discount rate change was $2 million. Mr. Perez answered yes. Council Member Schmid requested an explanation of attrition. Mr. Perez explained that attrition meant vacant positions. The number of vacant positions varied from year to year. The City would continue to have vacant positions because that was normal. Staff offset costs by the non- expenditure for those vacancies. Council Member Schmid suggested the word attrition was not accurate. Mr. Keene believed salary savings or salary lapse would be more accurate. Once employees left the City, four to five months were often required to replace them. Because of that process, the $2 million amount included four to five months of salary. Chair Burt inquired if it was salary savings from vacancies. Mr. Keene replied yes. Council Member Schmid referenced the Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Report regarding the number of vacant positions totaling approximately 10 percent of Staff. He inquired whether staffing positions were up to 10 percent higher than the number of people actually working for the City at any point in time. Mr. Perez reported 10 percent was probably accurate for one year, because the percentage typically varied. Over the prior three years, Staff deliberately carried vacancies in order to balance the Budget. Council Member Schmid asked if there was a public document that accurately reported the number of people working for the City. Mr. Perez was unsure if Staff reported the actual number of employees outside the SEA Report. Staff could provide that information and add it to the Proposed Budget. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the dollar amount for salaries and benefits was based upon staffing reported in the Operating Budget or based upon the actual number of people working. MINUTES Page 7 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Mr. Perez indicated it was based on the number of positions approved. If the Committee approved 1,018 positions, then Staff calculated the salary amount for 118 positions. Council Member Schmid asked if the Committee's approval of the Budget also approved a maximum number of Staff. Mr. Keene answered yes. Council Member Schmid believed that provided the City Manager and operating officers the flexibility to fill positions. Mr. Keene reported Staff budgeted salaries based on the number of filled positions and the associated salaries. He asked which step Staff used to calculate salaries for vacant positions. Mr. Perez stated the top step. Mr. Keene indicated the $2 million in vacancy savings was designed to partially cover the four to five months required to fill a vacant position. The vacancy savings was an attempt to reduce salary appropriations so that the Budget was not overfunded. Council Member Schmid noted the City Auditor stated 10 percent of positions were vacant. He asked if the Committee's approval of the Budget indicated an expectation of a 5-10 percent difference between the amount budgeted for salary and benefits and the amount actually spent for salary and benefits. Mr. Perez explained that Staff did not budget 100 percent of Full Time Equivalents (FTE) for benefits. Using demographics and trends, Staff budgeted benefits closer to the actual number of positions filled. Staff also budgeted for the exact medical plan that employees chose. While the money was included in the Budget, it was not extra money. Most of the time a vacant position was filled with a temporary position. Council Member Schmid stated flexibility was an important element. Page 26 of the Operating Budget contained a table indicating the costs and average salary and benefits by class of employee; however, the number was based upon the maximum number of employees. If some vacant positions were filled with temporary employees, then the temporary employees did not fit into the table very well. MINUTES Page 8 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Mr. Perez reported actual expense versus budgeted expense was always the discussion in labor negotiations. Staff attempted to represent the full expense for a position while acknowledging some vacancies would occur. Council Member Schmid felt the 5-10 percent variation was essential for flexibility; however, it created an incentive to spend the funds on a variety of items that did not show up in the detailed budget. Mr. Perez reported budget controls removed the incentive. An internal committee reviewed requests to transfer funds from regular to temporary salaries. Mr. Keene stated departments were not allowed to transfer money from salary savings into operations. Council Member Schmid inquired whether a vacancy rate of 5-10 percent at the end of the year would result in a net surplus of 5-10 percent in salaries. Mr. Keene explained that was one of the reasons Staff usually increased the surplus at the end of the year. Mr. Perez agreed that end of year savings typically resulted from salary. All of that money at the end of the year netted back to Reserves. Mr. Keene did not want to report a deficit at the end of the year. Ms. Paras reported Staff proposed a decrease in the City Attorney Contingency Account of $50,000 based on trends in usage. An Innovation Contingency Account was used to fund the Virtual Library Project in FY 2014. While the line item decreased, Staff actually transferred that decrease to fund the Project. Chair Burt asked if the amount of the Contingency Account decrease was transferred to a line item in the Budget. Ms. Paras replied yes. Mr. Keene expected a balance would remain in the Innovation Contingency Account at the end of FY 2013, and would potentially carry forward to FY 2014. Chair Burt did not believe the City had a consistent policy regarding unspent amounts in contingency accounts. MINUTES Page 9 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Mr. Perez reported Staff's practice was not to rollover unspent amounts unless there was a specific Staff or Council request. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Berman that the Finance Committee recommend the City Council tentatively approve the Non-Departmental Budget, and to include Staff's proposed amendment to transfer $152,882 to the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund. Council Member Schmid noted four different levels of pay increase that any single individual could receive. He inquired whether the 7 percent increase for salaries and benefits was a correct aggregation. Mr. Perez asked if Council Member Schmid was adding the dollars or referring to the total budget. Council Member Schmid wanted to determine the percentage of increase for salary and benefits including all forms of compensation. Mr. Perez reported salaries and benefits increased 6 percent, as shown in the summary table on page 37. Two changes were the 2 percent increase and the $602,000 amount for non-smoothing. The other numbers were a representation of the new methodology of compensation. Council Member Schmid indicated expenses including salaries and benefits were growing at 6 percent and total funding sources were growing at 5 percent. Mr. Perez agreed. That included the operating transfers in, with total revenues increasing by 7 percent. Council Member Schmid inquired whether revenues were a better measure of available funds. Mr. Perez explained that it was better not to use the total source of funds, because Staff moved expenses for the University Avenue Parking District and the California Avenue Parking District. The transfer of expenses distorted the numbers in FY 2014. The equity transfer decreased significantly as well. Council Member Schmid asked if the items on page 5 were all recurring. MINUTES Page 10 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Mr. Perez reported the $602,000 amount would help the budget in the long run by some factor, because the City was prepaying some of its obligation earlier. Otherwise, he agreed with Council Member Schmid's comment. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the merit increases were built into the salary base. Mr. Perez responded yes. Chair Burt recalled that 75 percent of revenue from the commercial part of the Bryant Street Garage would be used to fund special teen events, and requested Staff comment. Joe Saccio, Assistant Director of Administrative Services, reported that it had taken some time for the rent to pay the debt service. He understood that when the garage turned a profit, then 75 percent of the profit would be used for teen activities. Perhaps a year had passed since the rent exceeded the actual debt service payment. Chair Burt was not sure it was written that way. Mr. Saccio would review the issue. Chair Burt believed 75 percent of the gross of the rent amount was to be used for teen activities. Mr. Saccio explained that taking 75 percent of the gross would not leave sufficient funds to pay the debt service. He suggested the amount was meant to be the net amount after debt service to construct the building was paid. Mr. Perez noted the City had to meet the bond covenants, because the bond covenants or debt service had first priority. Staff would review it and provide more information. Chair Burt inquired whether those funds, if available, could be included in the FY 2014 Proposed Budget. Mr. Perez stated if the policy was unchanged, then the funds could be included in the Budget. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 MINUTES Page 11 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 3. Wrap Up Discussion of Outstanding Issues from Prior Budget Hearing Meetings Christine Paras, Principal Financial Analyst, reported that Staff proposed an additional $76,610 for the Community Services Department (CSD) Budget for contract costs for the Baylands-California Land Management Contract; and an additional $0.5 million for the Debt Service Funds for the second series of the General Obligation (GO) Bonds. Information regarding Police Department overtime and staffing data and Council meal expense was included in the at-places memorandum. Staff proposed a decrease in the amount for Council meals in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. Hotel weekend occupancy rates and School Resource Officer (SRO) information were included in the at-places memorandum. Staff would provide a new title for the 27 University Avenue Project. The original amount of the Budget surplus was $220,000. Over the course of the Budget hearings, the Finance Committee (Committee) made changes, resulting in a surplus of $176,000. If the Committee adopted the tentative changes in the at-places memorandum, the surplus would be $114,000. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, reviewed options for funding a second SRO. The City Manager held preliminary discussions with the Superintendant of the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) regarding funding 50 percent of the costs of a second SRO position; however, no decision was reached. The Committee could add a placeholder for half of the costs, assuming PAUSD funded the remaining half. The surplus of $114,000 was sufficient to fund half the costs of a second SRO position. Staff could place funds in the Non-Departmental Budget and add the position as a placeholder. The Committee could reduce Police overtime, and use those funds to pay for the SRO position. Staff did not recommend that option. Assuming PAUSD funded half the costs, the Committee could move one unfrozen Police position to an SRO. The Committee could add the position with PAUSD funding, and draw from Reserves or Stanford Development Agreement funds. Staff was reappraising City real property and reassessing rents, which could provide additional revenue to the General Fund. Those funds were a potential source for funding a second SRO position. James Keene, City Manager, recommended adding a second SRO position with PAUSD paying 50 percent of the added costs. If the Committee did not want to fund a second SRO position, then at least half of an existing Police position could be used for an SRO. He did recommend a 50 percent funding mechanism. Chair Burt inquired about the possibility of adding summer concerts. MINUTES Page 12 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Rhyena Halpern, Assistant Director of Community Services, explained that every weekend was booked with activities; therefore, Staff could not add concerts in 2013. Chair Burt asked if additional concerts could be planned for 2014. Ms. Halpern answered yes. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt a second SRO position was critical for both high school campuses. Fred Balin questioned whether the new ladder truck in the Fire Department Budget would provide the same services as the rescue vehicle, and whether it would be cross-staffed. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was being expanded with a third, older vehicle. Cross-staffing Fire trucks reduced the number of inspections the Fire Department could perform. The proposed changes should be reviewed carefully. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved that the Finance Committee recommend the City Council include the School Resource Office (SRO) by one position into the budget wrap-up adjustment into the General Fund with the Staff requesting the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) fund half. Mr. Keene agreed with adding an additional SRO, as long as PAUSD paid half the costs. Vice Mayor Shepherd requested Staff return to the Council if PAUSD did not agree to fund half the costs. She hoped PAUSD would prioritize a second SRO. Mr. Keene would ensure PAUSD understood the need. Vice Mayor Shepherd also wanted the position to be stable over time with reliable funding. Council Member Berman inquired whether the Motion concerned only the SRO. Vice Mayor Shepherd reiterated that the Motion was to include half the costs of an additional SRO position into the Budget wrap-up adjustments to the General Fund. Chair Burt felt Vice Mayor Shepherd's comments conflicted with her stated Motion. MINUTES Page 13 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Vice Mayor Shepherd clarified that the Motion was to include half the cost of an SRO in the Budget wrap-up adjustments. Mr. Perez suggested the intent was to add a full SRO position with the net costs being half a position. Vice Mayor Shepherd agreed. Mr. Perez inquired whether the funding source for the SRO position was the General Fund surplus. Vice Mayor Shepherd replied yes. Mr. Keene asked if Staff should pursue half the funding for the position from PAUSD. Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated that was part of her Motion. If PAUSD did not agreed to fund half the position, then Staff was to return to the Council for further action. Council Member Berman inquired about the process for Staff presenting information to the Council on the issue if the Committee decided not to take action at the current time. Mr. Keene reported Staff could present information to the Council at any point in time. If the Committee directed Staff to proceed expeditiously, then Staff would obtain information as quickly as possible. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND Chair Burt expressed concern regarding the Motion's implication that the Council would fund the full costs of a second SRO if PAUSD did not agree to do so. He would support a Motion to add a second SRO position contingent upon PAUSD funding half the costs. Vice Mayor Shepherd did not want the discussion to end without further Council consideration, should PAUSD not agree to fund half the costs. Chair Burt would support a Motion that did not require the City to fund all costs of a second SRO position. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Chair Burt that the Finance Committee recommend the City Council increase the General Fund MINUTES Page 14 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 budget wrap-up by one School Resource Office (SRO) position contingent upon the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) funding half of the position. Vice Mayor Shepherd hoped funding would remain consistent. Chair Burt felt an additional SRO position was important as the school population increased, but PAUSD had to fund half the costs of the position. Council Member Berman supported the Motion. He preferred to know PAUSD's position before acting on the Motion, but that was not possible. Council Member Schmid was impressed with the Police Department response regarding overtime. He suggested an officer at the middle schools could have an impact on children at an impressionable age. He would like an ongoing discussion with the Police Department regarding placement of an extra officer in the community for maximum impact. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Chair Burt requested Staff respond to concerns raised by Mr. Balin. Mr. Keene indicated the Fire Department was funded from the General Fund; therefore, Fire Department revenues were used to fund the Fire Department. Catherine Capriles, Deputy Fire Chief, reported the Command Staff decided to remove the rescue unit from service in order to provide flexibility in operational deployment. The response level of the rescue unit was far less than most equipment, and most of the capabilities of the rescue unit could be taken over by an engine company or truck or other personnel. The rescue unit was removed from service, but the function remained in service. Personnel with certifications in hazardous materials response remained available. First due engine companies continued to carry small first responder hazardous materials kits in order to take immediate action. Chair Burt inquired whether the existing rescue vehicle would remain in service until the new ladder truck was put in service. Ms. Capriles stated the Fire Department's intention was to take the rescue unit out of service in July 2013. Chair Burt asked how services would be provided between removal of the rescue unit and implementation of the new ladder truck. MINUTES Page 15 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Ms. Capriles explained that the existing ladder truck would respond. In addition, a trailer containing hazardous materials equipment could be transported to a scene. Ms. Paras reminded the Committee that Staff proposed an additional $76,610 for the Non-Departmental Budget; an additional $76,610 for the Baylands-California Land Management Contract; a decrease of $15,000 for the City Council Budget; an additional $563,703 in annual debt service; and reclassification of two positions in CSD. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Berman that the Finance Committee accept Staff's recommended amendments to the proposed budget which included the following four amendments: 1) a debt service expense increase totaling $563,703 in the Measure N Debt Service Fund for the second series of the Measure N General Obligation (GO) bonds and an offsetting increase in assessed property tax revenue in this fund; 2) a $76,610 expense increase for the Baylands California Land Management Contract cost in the Community Services Department (CSD); 3) a $15,000 expense decrease in the City Council proposed budget standing committee and board and commission meeting meal expense; and 4) the reclassification of 1 Full Time Employee (FTE) Community Services Manager to Community Services Senior Program Manager and reclassification of 1 FTE Division Manager Recreation and Golf to Assistant Director Community Services in CSD. Council Member Schmid was pleased to have a surplus in the Budget. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Mr. Perez reported a net surplus of $31,000 for FY 2014. The Committee took a 15-minute break. 4. Request Finance Committee Recommendation to Council to Adopt a Resolution Amending the 2013 Management and Professional Compensation Plan and Resolution Amending the Merit Rules. James Keene, City Manager, reported the City had a long overdue obligation to readjust the salary schedule based upon accurate data to align with the market. Staff requested the Council amend a portion of the annual Management and Professional Compensation Plan and the Merit Rules to adopt the new salary schedule. If the Finance Committee (Committee) wished to fund the 2 percent increase, the increase would have to be MINUTES Page 16 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 presented to the Council separately as an amendment to the Compensation Plan. Kay Koneco, Cauff and Associates, explained that the first decision before beginning a compensation study concerned comparator agencies. She reviewed agencies the City used in the past as a comparator group, and scouted the state for municipalities that provided services similar to Palo Alto. She considered the size of the city, the population served, the Full Time Equivalents (FTE), and cost of living issues. Usually 10-12 comparators provided a sufficient sample of the labor market. Because the Bay area was a unique labor market and one of the most competitive in compensation, she attempted to use as many municipalities as possible in the Bay area labor market. The City was unique in that it operated its own utilities; therefore, she considered municipalities that also provided utility services, particularly electric service. The 14 recommended agencies were presented to the Council before the study process began. Next, she determined the benchmark classifications, and surveyed 82 classifications. The classifications were intended to represent the levels within each job family in order to provide a strong foundation of the amount the labor market paid for comparable work. The top monthly salary data included the cost to the employer for an array of benefits, costs the employer paid on behalf of the employee, and the cost of enhancements to each of the agencies. She utilized the average actuarial costs of benefits as provided by the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). The best method to determine retiree health costs for current employees was to take the normal cost divided by the amount of payroll. In surveying the 82 classifications, she reviewed class descriptions, typical duties, minimum qualifications, experience, education, certifications, and licensing so that matching classifications were at least 70 percent similar to work being performed within Palo Alto classifications. The matches for the top monthly salary data were shared with all directors and employees to obtain feedback. In some cases, matches were changed if employee concerns were appropriate. In other cases, matches were not changed. Next she compiled a recommendation for adjustments to the salary range, and provided the City with three data spreadsheets. One summarized the top monthly salary data; a second summarized the benefits detail; and a third summarized total compensation. She found that the benefits offered by the City of Palo Alto brought it closer to market competitiveness. Considering base salaries only, Palo Alto was below market. Recommendations for future salary increases were based on total compensation. The percentage difference between the comparator group and the City's salary was applied to the current salary to create a range structure. She placed each classification within that range structure based on the closest range that the classification would fit into. MINUTES Page 17 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 The control point, representing the market, became the midpoint. Ranges were 20 percent above and below the midpoint. Mr. Keene noted the data from the study was also applicable to the analysis taking place for utilities managers and the police management association in relation to the market. However, the Committee was not acting on adjustments to their compensation. With respect to salary only, Palo Alto fell below the median market in general. With respect to salary plus benefits but not including retiree medical care, Palo Alto's position improved. When retiree medical benefits were added, Palo Alto improved even more. That seemed to be a distinguishing characteristic in comparison to the market. Classifications of some positions were going down in relation to the market. Not a large number of classifications moved up or significantly out of the market. Kathryn Shen, Chief People Officer, indicated recommendations for some classifications would have no change, the range for many classifications would be lowered, and the range for some classifications would be raised. The purpose of the study was not to provide raises to employees. Council Member Berman inquired about the reasons for so many classifications being out of sync with the market. Mr. Keene explained this was not unusual, because agencies did not perform full benchmark studies each year. Early in 2009 Staff made reductions that were not being made in some of the comparator cities, or froze cost of living adjustments. In addition, adjustments were made based on specific recruitment issues. Ms. Shen added the City's prior overall salary study occurred at least ten years ago. Ms. Koneco recommended that some sort of market survey be conducted every five years. Council Member Berman inquired whether an increased salary range would result in a higher caliber of applicants, and whether higher salaries would be given to the person or the position. Ms. Shen reported the salary ranges were not person specific. The City needed to meet the median of the market in order to recruit skilled employees. Anecdotal evidence suggested higher salaries were necessary for hard-to-fill jobs. MINUTES Page 18 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Council Member Berman clarified that he was interested in whether some employees would receive increased salaries for which they might not be qualified. Ms. Shen stated any increases for the individual employee in those ranges would be based on merit. Council Member Berman asked if employee salaries below the midpoint would increase 10 percent if the salary range increased 10 percent. Mr. Keene indicated a performance validation would apply in that situation. Council Member Berman inquired whether employees would receive an automatic raise. Ms. Shen answered no. Mr. Keene explained the City could have hired higher in the range in the past in order to fill positions. Salaries for new hires were partially based on the prior salary earned by the new hire. By improving the salary ranges, the City could hire the same person but lower in the range. Council Member Berman referenced page 5 of the May 6, 2013 report regarding adjustment of individual employees' salaries at or below the midpoint of the current range to the same relative place at or below midpoint of the new range provided the employees are meeting or exceeding performance expectations. This statement seemed to address only a too low range when the employee was at or below the midpoint. He asked if an employee's salary would be increased if he was above midpoint and the range was low. Mr. Keene responded yes. Ms. Shen indicated employees would most likely move to the same relative place. Staff would review individual circumstances when making decisions. Council Member Berman believed not many employees were above midpoint in general. Mr. Keene explained that if the value of a job was out of place with the market and an employee had a certain experience level in the market, then the employee would move to the same place on that line going forward. The one difference was that some employees were above the midpoint, and their MINUTES Page 19 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 salaries were adjusted. In that situation, the employee received the salary increase early and would not receive a commensurate move forward. Council Member Berman asked if an employee, who was 15 percent over the midpoint in the new salary range, would move back to 10 percent over the new midpoint over time. Ms. Shen reported the range was a reflection of where a job was in the market. She did not want to take money away from Staff in implementing the study. She met with departments and small groups of management and professional Staff to assure them that they would not lose salary, and that salary increases would remain available as the market increased and the ranges moved. For example, if the Proposed Budget was adopted and a 2 percent increase implemented, then the whole salary range would move. An employee at the top of the range would still receive the 2 percent increase because the range moved. Council Member Berman assumed there was a reason for an employee to be 10 percent above midpoint in an inflated range. Mr. Keene stated no employee's salary would be decreased. Council Member Berman inquired whether there would be an attempt over time to move salaries back to midpoint. Mr. Keene replied yes, on a case-by-case basis. Merit adjustments would vary based on performance. Ms. Shen expected a long service employee would be towards the top of the range. By implementing the compensation plan, employees would not be held just to the control point, which was really only the halfway point. Opening up the whole range would acknowledge the City's wish for employees to spend their careers at Palo Alto. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the final salary range was set as a market median taking the percentage difference from salaries. Ms. Koneco used the total compensation market median as the percentage difference between the City of Palo Alto salary and the market median total compensation, and the percentage was then applied to current salary ranges to adjust the salary ranges for a final recommendation. Council Member Schmid asked if benefits only were used for the adjustment, not for setting the range. MINUTES Page 20 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Ms. Koneco responded yes. Council Member Schmid inquired about the CalPERS average costs. Ms. Koneco explained that CalPERS determined average costs for each of the specific benefits throughout the State of California. She applied that percentage to the City of Palo Alto's benefits as well as to all the comparators, so that the same formula percentages were used. Council Member Schmid asked if the CalPERS average costs were taken in 2010-2011. Ms. Koneco answered yes. Council Member Schmid noted CalPERS was increasing costs drastically due to past mistakes, and inquired whether the City was missing some of the real valuations due to CalPERS' mistakes. Ms. Koneco stated any compensation study was a snapshot in time to reflect the state of each comparator agency. After using the 2010-2011 numbers, the CalPERS average costs were adjusted. Council Member Schmid asked how the City could determine the true value of costs. Mr. Keene indicated the study had at least three parts: 1) aligning jobs vertically within the organization; 2) choosing the benchmark cities and the positions to benchmark; and 3) collecting the actual salary data. Another salary study would be performed in a year using the same classifications and same benchmarks to obtain updated comparison data. Council Member Schmid inquired whether it would be another salary benefit comparison. Mr. Keene replied yes. When the comparison was made previously, the Management Professional Group employee paid 2 percent; the employee now paid 8 percent. Council Member Schmid noted Palo Alto invested heavily in future compensation; however, recruitment involved salaries. He suggested Staff study ways to market benefits more effectively or to shift compensation into salaries rather than benefits. MINUTES Page 21 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Ms. Shen reported the high cost of living and high cost of housing made recruiting difficult unless the cash salary was high enough to justify the expense. Staff needed to have a good marketing message concerning long- term benefits, and to review the mix of benefits. Salary was becoming more important for the younger generation of workers. Mr. Keene reported CalPERS and bargaining groups imposed restrictions on the City's flexibility regarding compensation. Staff wanted to tailor compensation packages to individual employees as part of recruitment; however, they were restricted from doing that. Council Member Schmid believed the City's benefit package was attractive to employees later in their careers, and suggested recruitment should be oriented to attracting younger people. Mr. Keene added that a long-term employee could move to another agency that paid a higher salary; yet, the City was still obligated for the portion of the employee's retirement resulting from working at Palo Alto. Council Member Schmid asked what happened to the retiree health benefits. Mr. Keene indicated health benefits could vary depending on where the employee went. A long-term employee could increase his pension benefit, and yet Palo Alto retained the bulk of the responsibility for paying the employee benefit even at a higher cost. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, reported an employee had to retire from the City and be 50 years of age or disabled to eliminate the City's obligation for an employee who moved to another agency. Chair Burt indicated state reforms led to the same medical benefits for employees, but not the same pension benefits. In fact, pension benefits within the workforce were radically different. Under this program, employees would be adjusted according to salary, not total compensation. He asked if the City had the ability to set the new salary ranges based not entirely on salary but on total compensation within the organization. Ms. Shen explained that using an individual's total compensation would result in a salary schedule with individual ranges for each employee. Chair Burt recalled that Staff calculated the total compensation for various employee levels, and asked if anything prevented the use of set points based on total compensation. MINUTES Page 22 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Mr. Keene stated the study compared an average position in Palo Alto with an average position in the marketplace. Council Member Burt's point was that Staff would establish the benchmark in the same way, but where an employee would be placed within the range or the size of the range might be different. He believed the City might have to pay a higher salary to a number of employees, because the total benefit was less. Chair Burt understood Mr. Keene's point to be that total compensation was only half the equation. Mr. Keene indicated over time total compensation would change. He guessed that most of the study data compared 2.7 percent at 55 years of age to 2 percent at 60 years of age. Chair Burt noted that since the 2010-2011 study, employees began paying the entire CalPERS contribution. The City would have an easier time hiring if it offered more salary and less benefits. The problem was hiring new employees within a salary structure equivalent to carryover employees who had higher pensions. New employees were stuck under a salary structure that reflected salary rather than total compensation. If the salary structure was based on total compensation, some time would be needed to realize the benefits of the cost savings from new employees being in a lower salary structure. Without the cost savings, offering a higher salary would be difficult even though new hires would receive less pension benefit. Ms. Shen felt there were creative ways to attract younger professionals and employees to the City. Companies were having the same sort of issues with recruiting. Chair Burt believed updating the study would reveal greater disparity. If the City's total compensation on average was roughly equivalent to benchmark cities' total compensation, then employees covered by the old pension structure would be above the benchmark cities on average, and the new employees covered by the lower pension structure would be below the benchmark cities. The salary ranges should be based on total compensation or a hybrid. The study benchmarked Palo Alto against other cities based on total compensation, but within Palo Alto the benchmark was based on salary. Mr. Keene indicated his point was the internal issue. Chair Burt suggested the salary structure should include some merit review for salary adjustments. MINUTES Page 23 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Mr. Perez reported the CalPERS system contained an adjustment within the employee's contribution, even if employees made the same salary. Chair Burt did not assume that the City could reach full equity for existing employees using a system based on total compensation. Mr. Keene understood Council Member Burt's point to be internal equity, rather than the City's position in relation to the market. In 2010-2011 there was more flux in the marketplace than there would be in 2014 when benefits would be more equitable for all cities. In 2014 it would be easier for the Council to discuss specific guidelines regarding recruiting or incentivizing employees whose total compensation was less of a package. Chair Burt was interested in receiving information for the next adjustment that attempted to consider total compensation and the differences among employees, and to provide parity for a given position based on total compensation. Mr. Keene felt that aligned with Council policy positions concerning generational equity within the workforce. Chair Burt asked if colleagues were interested in that issue. Ms. Shen reminded the Committee that the City had to remain competitive with neighboring cities. Chair Burt reported the City would be more competitive because new employees would receive higher salaries. Mr. Keene noted higher salaries meant higher costs during the transition period. Over time, costs would not be higher. Chair Burt did not assume use of total compensation would result in an increase of total expenditure. There would be an adjustment period. Mr. Keene agreed additional information would be good. The City would have to remain competitive for a while with legacy employees. Chair Burt noted total compensation for employees would be competitive. He inquired whether total compensation included the prorated share of the unfunded liability. Ms. Koneco explained that total compensation was the normal cost for current employees. MINUTES Page 24 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Chair Burt requested an explanation of normal cost. Ms. Koneco stated it was the amount the City contributed currently. Chair Burt asked if the normal cost included employees' proportionate share of unfunded liability. Ms. Koneco replied no. Chair Burt explained that an existing employee's compensation was comprised of the normal cost plus his share of the unfunded liability. The liability was unfunded because the employee would receive pension benefits exceeding the amount contributed by the employee and the City in the past. Mr. Keene stated the unfunded liability would vary from one city to the next. Chair Burt indicated the City's total compensation was proportionately higher for benefits. If the unfunded liability was contained within benefits, then Palo Alto had a higher proportion of unfunded liability than another city with lower benefits and higher salary. Ms. Koneco reported the study captured the actual costs related to current employees for that future benefit. They could separate any unfunded liability related to past workforce. Chair Burt inquired whether the study separated the unfunded liability. Ms. Koneco captured the normal costs related to the current workforce. Chair Burt noted Palo Alto was comparable to other benchmark cities when benefits were included. For salary alone, Palo Alto was below the benchmark. That meant Palo Alto's amount of unfunded liability per employee was higher than other benchmark cities. Mr. Keene stated the retiree medical was a larger component than the pension. Many other factors would affect each jurisdiction's calculations of unfunded liability. Chair Burt explained that the $30-$40 million amount set aside for unfunded liability would accrue to both retirees and current employees, because Palo Alto funded more of the unfunded liability than most other cities. MINUTES Page 25 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Mr. Keene suggested the issue was part of a larger compensation, placement, and equity conversation. Chair Burt requested additional information on those issues for future policy decisions. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Burt that the Finance Committee Adopt a Resolution Amending the 2013 Management and Professional Compensation Plan and Adopt a Resolution Amending the Merit Rules. Vice Mayor Shepherd did not disagree with comments. The primary consideration was disposable income. She wanted good people to work for the City; therefore, the Council should review benefits. She was uncertain whether employees could live off future benefits. Chair Burt explained that these adjustments would provide employees with more disposable income. Those coming into the workforce would have more salary as a result of the adjustments made in pension. Vice Mayor Shepherd understood that point, and wanted to take care of workers today and tomorrow. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT FROM THE MAKER AND SECONDER for Staff to return in 2014 with information on how the City might incorporate total compensation into the salary structure across the organization as a whole. Council Member Berman supported the Motion. He agreed with bringing salaries up to market level, because the City was having difficulty filling positions. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to update the comparisons within 18 months. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt the language was redundant, but would accept it. Chair Burt wanted to provide clarity and direction to Staff. Mr. Keene reported Staff would perform another benchmark of the salary structure and comparison with the market within 18 months. Council Member Schmid asked if the study would include salary and benefits. MINUTES Page 26 of 26 Finance Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 5/23/13 Ms. Shen indicated the study would include total compensation. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Mr. Keene understood the Committee recommended that Staff make an adjustment based on data for the City and comparable organizations from 2010-2011. The study placed the City's pay plan for employees at the median of the market. The City aspired to excellence, not the middle of the market. While working for the City was not easy, it was rewarding. The City offered interesting work in a great community and the chance to be on the leading edge of many issues. Staff expected to hire and retain top people for the City. FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, announced the June 4, 2013 meeting was cancelled. The one Agenda Item, third quarter financial reports, was moved to the June 18, 2013 meeting. Staff was considering a formal adjustment to revenues in order to align actual amounts with the Adopted Budget. Staff would present a draft report of the Cost of Service Study to the Committee. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 3872) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/10/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Housing Element Resolution-Continuation Memo Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the 2007-2014 Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan and Approving a Negative Declaration (continued from May 20, 2013) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Staff requests that this item be continued to the June 17, 2013 City Council meeting, given the evening’s heavy agenda.