Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-08-04 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Council Chambers August 4, 2014 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 August 4, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 6:00-7:00 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Lalo Perez, Melissa Tronquet, Joe Saccio, Molly Stump, Walter Rossman, Nancy Nagel, Dennis Burns, Mark Gregerson, Kathryn Shen, Dania Torres Wong) Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) 2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Nancy Nagel, Sandra Blanch, Kathy Shen, Melissa Tronquet, Brenna Rowe, Khashayar Alaee) Unrepresented Employee Group: Limited Hourly Employees Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) 2 August 4, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:00-7:10 PM Oral Communications 7:10-7:25 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 7:25-7:30 PM May 12, 2014 May 19, 2014 June 2, 2014 June 4, 2014 June 9, 2014 Consent Calendar 7:30-7:35 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3. Acceptance of the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2014 4. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Audit of the Solid Waste Program 5. Approval of Carshare Lease Agreement with Zipcar for Ten Parking Spaces Within the Downtown Parking Assessment District 6. Adoption of a Resolution Directing Staff to Utilize the Secretary of State's Randomized Alphabet Drawing for Council Candidates 7. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add Section 2.08.250 Creating a New Department of Development Services (First Reading: June 16, 2014 PASSED: 9-0) 8. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Adopting Section 16.14.380 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Adopting the Local 3 August 4, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code Requiring that all New Multi-family Residential and Non-Residential Construction Provide for the Current and Future Installation of Electric Vehicle Chargers (First Reading: June 16, 2014, PASSED: 8-0 Schmid Absent ) 9. Adoption of a Resolution in Support of Sustainable Groundwater Management in the San Francisquito Creek Area 10. Approval of a Contract with Avogadro Group, LLC for a Period of Three Years for Incinerator Emission Testing at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant with Funding for the First Year Approved Not to Exceed Amount of $85,350 and a Total Contract Amount of $261,201 11. Approval of a Three Year Contract with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. in The Amount of $379,500 for the First Year for Household Hazardous Waste Management and Emergency Response Services Including $345,000 for Basic Services and $34,500 for Additional Services 12. Affirm Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Individual Review Approval of a New Two-Story Home located at 808 Richardson Court (4 Votes Needed to Remove from Consent and Schedule for Hearing on Appeal). 13. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency to Initiate, Defend and Settle Arbitration Related to the Water Supply Agreement to Protect Palo Alto’s Financial Interests 14. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $250,000 (To Be Offset by Insurance Proceeds) for Rehabilitation of Property Located at 2257 Bryant Street 15. Approval of the Public-Private Partnership Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and TheatreWorks for the Use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre 16. Approval of Contracts with Baker & Taylor for Up to Six Years for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $3 Million for the Purchase of Library Materials and Services, with Ingram for Up to Six Years for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $550,000 for Print Materials and Services, and 4 August 4, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. with Midwest Tape for Up to Six Years for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $450,000 for Media and Digital Materials and Services 17.Approval of a Purchase Order with National Auto Fleet Group in a Not to Exceed Amount of $432,003 for the Purchase of Twelve Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vans (Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Capital Improvement Program VR-14000) 18.Adoption of Resolution Establishing Fiscal Year 2014-15 Secured and Unsecured Property Tax Levy for the City of Palo Alto’s General Obligation Bond Indebtedness (Measure N) Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:35-7:45 PM 19.PUBLIC HEARING: TEFRA Hearing Regarding Conduit Financing for the Stanford Affordable Apartments Project Located at 2450, 2470 and 2500 El Camino Real Palo Alto, and Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Purpose of Financing the Acquisition, Construction and Development of a Multi- family Rental Housing Facility 7:45-8:00 PM 20.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the Respective Properties Described Therein (Continued from June 16, 2014) 8:00-10:00 PM 21.PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Update – Discussion of Alternative Futures & Issues for Consideration in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR “Scoping” Meeting). The City will Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Update of its Comprehensive Plan. Staff will Summarize Input Received at Recent Public Meetings and Invite Comments and Suggestions from the Public and the City Council Regarding the Alternatives and Issues that Should be Included for Analysis in the EIR. (Note: After an initial presentation, comments, and discussion, this public hearing will be proposed for continuance to 7:00 PM on Wednesday, August 6, 2014) 10:00-10:30 PM 22.Adoption of a Resolution Implementing Outdoor Water Use Restrictions in Compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board's July 15, 2014 Emergency Drought Regulations Item No. 21 Attachment 5 August 4, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 10:30-10:45 PM 23. Designation of Voting Delegate for the League of California Cities Annual 2014 Conference Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 6 August 4, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Council/Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Agenda Packet 8/5/14 Special Council Meeting 8/6/14 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report City of Palo Alto Investment Activity Report for the Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2014 Transmittal of the Fiscal Year 2015 Adopted Operating and Capital Budget and Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule Informational Report on City of Palo Alto Utilities Demand Side Management Achievements for Fiscal Year 2013 2014 Election Measure Information Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element Public Letters to Council June 30, 2014 Set 1 Set 2 July 7, 2014 Set 1 July 14, 2014 Set 1 July 21, 2014 Set 1 July 28, 2014 Set 1 August 4, 2014 Set 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR August 4, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Acceptance of the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2014 The Office of the City Auditor recommends acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2014, which the Policy and Services Committee reviewed at its meeting on May 13, 2014. The Policy and Services Committee minutes are included in this packet. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (May 13, 2014) (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR May 13, 2014 The Honorable City Council Attention: Policy & Services Committee Palo Alto, California Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2014 RECOMMENDATION The City Auditor’s Office recommends the Policy and Services Committee review and recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2014. SUMMARY OF RESULTS In accordance with the Municipal Code, the City Auditor prepares an annual work plan and issues quarterly reports to the City Council describing the status and progress towards completion of the work plan. This report provides the City Council with an update on the third quarter for FY 2014. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2014 (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Attachment A Page 2 Attachment A “Promoting honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable city government." Attachment A 2 Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Third Quarter Update (January – March 2014) Overview The audit function is essential to the City of Palo Alto’s public accountability. As mandated by the City Charter and Municipal Code, the mission of the Office of the City Auditor (OCA) is to promote honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable city government. We conduct performance audits and reviews to provide the City Council and City management with information and evaluations regarding the effectiveness and efficiency with which resources are employed, the adequacy of the system of internal controls, and compliance with policies and procedures and regulatory requirements. Taking appropriate action on our audit recommendations will help the City to reduce risks and protect its good reputation. The Association of Local Government Auditors (ALGA) awarded the City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor the 2013 Silver Knighton Award in the small audit shop category for the Inventory Management Audit issued in December 2013. The Knighton Award recognizes the best performance audit reports each year. The City Council appointed Harriet Richardson as City Auditor on April 7, 2014. Her start date was April 15, 2014. Audits Below is a summary of our audit work for the third quarter of FY 2014 (as of March 31, 2014): Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments Performance Report (formerly the Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report) / Citizen Centric Report To provide consistent, reliable information on the performance of City services to assist users in assessing whether the City is achieving its goals and objectives in an efficient and effective manner and to assist the City in meeting its responsibilities to be publicly accountable in the stewardship over public resources. 8/2013 3/2014 Complete These reports provide comprehensive and historical data and analysis for FY 2013 that is not available in any other single report in the City. The reports are available online and in hardcopy. The FY 2013 Performance Report continues with last year’s redesigned format to provide an additional focus on performance management. Attachment A 3 Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments Solid Waste Program Audit To evaluate whether the Public Works Department effectively manages the City’s Solid Waste Program to ensure accurate refuse billings, ensure sufficient revenue to recover the cost of services, and provide reliable and useful financial and operational data in support of management’s strategic and operational decisions. 5/2013 6/2014 In Process To be determined (TBD) Franchise Fee Audit To determine if the franchisees have accurately calculated and remitted franchise fees in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and whether the City has adequate controls to discharge its responsibilities to administer and enforce state franchises. 2/2014 10/2014 In Process To be determined (TBD) Audit of Meters: Procurement, Inventory, and Retirement To determine if proper procedures were followed with the procurement, inventory, and retirement of utility meters 3/2014 8/2014 In Process To be determined (TBD) Other Monitoring and Administrative Assignments Below is a summary of other assignments as of the third quarter of FY 2014 (as of March 31, 2014): Title Objective(s) Status Results/Comments Sales and Use Tax Allocation Reviews The OCA conducts sales and use tax monitoring in-house and also contracts with an outside vendor. Ongoing The OCA continues to submit inquiries to the State Board of Equalization. As of the end of the third quarter, the City received $150,450 in total sales and use tax recoveries. Due to processing lags at the State Board of Equalization, there are 44 potential misallocations waiting to be researched and processed (21 from OCA and 23 from the vendor). Total Sales and Use Tax Recoveries: FY 2014 ($85,951 from OCA inquiries and $64,499 from vendor inquiries). Attachment A 4 Title Objective(s) Status Results/Comments Quarterly Reporting Each quarter, the OCA provides Quarterly Status Updates and Sales Tax Digest Summaries for Council review. Ongoing Quarterly reports are published on the OCA website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/default.asp. City Auditor Advisory Roles Provide guidance and advice to key governance committees within the City. Ongoing The City Auditor is an advisor to the following: Utilities Risk Oversight Committee, the Library Bond Oversight Committee, the Information Technology Governance Review Board, and the Information Security Steering Committee. Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration On August 16, 2012, we launched the City’s Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline. As of March 31, 2014, we have received a total of ten complaints. Nine have been closed and the one open complaint is under investigation. The chart below summarizes the status of complaints received in each fiscal year. Source: City of Palo Alto hotline case management system as of March 31, 2014 The hotline review committee (composed of the City Auditor, the City Attorney, and the City Manager or their designees) meets as needed to review all activity related to the hotline. During the third quarter of FY 2014, there was one new complaint (complaint number 10) submitted, which is currently being investigated. Below is a summary of hotline activity during the third quarter of FY 2014 (as of March 31, 2014):1 Complaint Number Category Date Opened Status Action Taken 10 Policy Violation/Theft of Time 2/2014 Open Currently under investigation Source: City of Palo Alto hotline case management system activity (January 1, 2014 through March 31, 2014) 1 This table includes cases opened, closed, or ongoing during the quarter. Cases closed in prior periods are not included. 1 7 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FY 2013 FY 2014 Status of Complaints Received in Fiscal Year Closed Complaints Open Complaints Attachment A POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE EXCERPT MINUTES Special Meeting May 13, 2014 Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Klein, Price (Chair), Schmid, Scharff Absent: 3. Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2014. Harriet Richardson, City Auditor, advised that the Quarterly Report provided the status of audit work completed during the quarter as well as audits in progress. In the past quarter, the City Auditor's Office received the Silver Knighton Award in the small shop category for the Inventory Management Audit. Staff provided the Performance Report, formerly known as the Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Report, annually to give a historical trend analysis of five years of data for each City Department. The end date was the actual date reports were presented to committees. Within the Solid Waste Program Audit, the objective was clarified from the previous report. The audit focused on the accuracy of service data and billing data. That report was scheduled to be presented to the Finance Committee on June 3, 2014. The Franchise Fee Audit would determine if franchisees accurately calculated and remitted fees to the City and whether the City had adequate controls in place to discharge its responsibilities for administering franchise contracts. The Audit of Meters, Procurement Inventory, and Retirement was a result of the previous Inventory Management Audit. The audit would address the efficiency and effectiveness with which the Utilities Department tracked procurement, inventory, and retirement of meters. That audit was in progress and could be presented in August 2014. An ongoing responsibility for the City Auditor was the sales and use tax allocation reviews. Staff contracted with a vendor who supplemented the City Auditor's work. Year to date, the City had received a total $150,000 in reallocation of sales tax and use tax. Auditor Staff identified approximately $86,000 of that amount and the vendor identified approximately $64,000. Staff performed a quarterly reporting of sales tax updates and posted those on the City Auditor's web site. The City Auditor participated as an advisor to the Utilities Risk Oversight Committee, the Library Bond Oversight Committee, the Information Technology (IT) Governance Review Board, and the Information Security Steering Committee. She focused on being an advisor rather than a voting member. In August 2012 the City launched the Attachment B hotline for reporting fraud, waste, and abuse. To date ten complaints had been received. Three complaints occurred in fiscal year 2014. One of the three remained under investigation. Chair Price requested comments regarding efforts to market the hotline. Ms. Richardson indicated other offices advertised and provided posters and business cards for hotlines. Those were inexpensive ways to encourage people to report anything that might be fraud, waste, or abuse. Chair Price requested an explanation of the process that determined whether audit reports were presented to the Finance Committee or the Policy and Services Committee. Ms. Richardson had mentioned a discrepancy between the Ordinance and guidelines. Ms. Richardson reported the Municipal Code stated that the Finance Committee would receive audits, but was silent regarding the Policy and Services Committee receiving audits. A previous City Auditor split reports between the Policy and Services Committee and the Finance Committee depending on the topic. Enterprise Fund audits were presented to the Finance Committee. Anything else was presented to the Policy and Services Committee. If there was a strong financial implication for something that was not an Enterprise Fund Audit, then the previous City Auditor would present it to the Finance Committee. The section of the Municipal Code pertaining to the City Auditor was inconsistent. She planned to update the City Auditor Section of the Municipal Code to reflect current auditing standards and could clarify that point as well. Council Member Scharff suggested the City Auditor present it to the Policy and Services Committee as an agendized item. The Policy and Services Committee should recommend changes to the Municipal Code to the Council. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to bring this Item back to Policy and Services Committee for further discussion and recommendation to Council on alignment of the Municipal Code and current government auditing standards. Ms. Richardson asked if she should include revisions regarding auditing standards. Council Member Scharff answered yes. Chair Price asked if the item could return as soon as possible. Ms. Richardson would present information after the Council break. Attachment B MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Council Member Schmid felt the Solid Waste Audit was significant, but did not believe other audits had an impact. There were no audits of topics that were critical problems for the Council. An independent audit would be good, yet there never seemed to be an audit for those types of topics. Ms. Richardson reported the City Auditor in the past conducted a risk assessment based primarily on demographic information. She wanted to conduct audits that involved questions for management regarding processes, issues, areas of concern. From the questions and responses, she could glean information that management might not specifically address. The audit plan for the next fiscal year would be based on input from Council Members and the City Manager. In future years, she would implement a robust risk assessment-based process. Council Member Scharff asked if she would seek approval of the audit plan. Ms. Richardson answered yes, because approval was required in the Municipal Code. Attachment B CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR August 4, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Audit of the Solid Waste Program The Office of the City Auditor recommends acceptance of the Audit of the Solid Waste Program. At its meeting on June 3, 2014, the Finance Committee approved and unanimously recommended the City Council accept the report. The Finance Committee minutes are included in this packet. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Audit of the Solid Waste Program (PDF)  Attachment B: Finance Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (June 3, 2014) (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR June 3, 2014 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Audit of the Solid Waste Program In accordance with the Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Audit Work Plan, the Office of the City Auditor has completed the Audit of the Solid Waste Program. The audit report presents three findings with a total of sixteen recommendations. The Office of the City Auditor recommends the Finance Committee review and recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Audit of the Solid Waste Program. We would like to thank the staff of the Public Works Department, Administrative Services Department, Utilities Department, Information Technology Department, GreenWaste of Palo Alto, and GreenWaste Recovery, Inc., for their time, information, and cooperation during the audit process. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Audit of the Solid Waste Program (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Attachment A Page 2 Attachment A                                                           Harriet Richardson, City Auditor  Yuki Matsuura, Senior Performance Auditor  Houman Boussina, Senior Performance Auditor  Final Report  May 2014       Office of the City Auditor  AUDIT OF THE SOLID WASTE PROGRAM:  MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLE AND ORGANIC MATERIALS, AND  YARD TRIMMINGS COLLECTION AND PROCESSING SERVICES   Attachment A            Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS  Finding 1: The Public Works Department should improve  the accuracy of refuse billing. (Page 12)   Refuse services for 685 (3.5 percent) of the 19,681 refuse  customers in the City’s SAP system did not match the  services recorded in the GreenWaste of Palo Alto’s  (GWOPA) Route Accounts Management System (RAMS). As  of March 20, 2014, staff have reviewed 192 (28 percent) of  the 685 accounts and have retroactively adjusted City  customer billings by $175,581 ($50,596 in back billings and  $124,985 in refunds). Causes of these inconsistencies  include:   The interface between the SAP system and RAMS was  not designed and implemented effectively.   Refuse customer types are not accurately and  completely maintained in either the SAP system or  RAMS.   123 accounts in RAMS were either duplicates or not  needed.   Multiple quantities of the same service are not  maintained in one record in RAMS.   A specific price code is not set up for all refuse services  in the SAP system.  Finding 1 Recommendations to the Public Works Department: 1.1. Continue to review and verify the data discrepancies  identified during the audit and take corrective action.  1.2. Develop methodology and tools to compare the SAP data  with RAMS data to detect and correct any discrepancies in  an efficient and timely manner.  1.3. Perform a cost‐benefit analysis and determine an optimal  course of action to maintain the accuracy and integrity of  refuse customer data.   1.4. Complete the review of all Multi‐Family Dwellings (MFDs)  to ensure the accuracy of the customer type classification  in RAMS.  1.5. Work with the Utilities Department and GWOPA to clarify  the roles and responsibilities over obtaining information  required for determining customer type, recording data,  and maintaining the accuracy and completeness of the  refuse customer type data.  1.6. Establish procedures to ensure that necessary data, system  capability, and related administrative tasks are identified,  assessed, and communicated to stakeholders before refuse  rates or exemptions with high complexity are adopted.  1.7. Establish procedures to ensure that a service code is  defined and added to both systems before a new service  fee is implemented.  Finding 2: The Public Works Department should  strengthen its oversight of GWOPA to maintain accurate  refuse service data. (Page 18)  The service recorded did not match the actual service  provided for 30 of the 298 utilities accounts we reviewed  from the GWOPA RAMS data. Our analysis prompted  GWOPA to work with City staff to retroactively adjust  refuse billing for 10 residential and commercial customers,  or three percent of the reviewed accounts, by $40,724  ($1,599 in back billings and $39,125 in refunds).  Finding 2 Recommendations to the Public Works Department: 2. Assess the potential impact of incorrect service records  that may remain in RAMS, and provide additional direction  as needed to enhance GWOPA’s monitoring activities, such  as a route audit, over the accuracy of the refuse customer  service records.  The City’s Solid Waste Program made significant progress over the last few years, including implementation of numerous  zero waste programs and enhancement of its contract management process. However, the audit findings indicate that the  Public Works Department should further improve its management of the City’s Solid Waste Program to ensure accurate  refuse billings, ensure sufficient revenue to recover the cost of services, and provide reliable and useful financial and  operational data in support of management’s strategic and operational decisions. The Office of the City Auditor provides 16  recommendations to improve the City’s Solid Waste Program management processes.    REPORT HIGHLIGHTS  Office of the City Auditor EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – AUDIT OF THE SOLID WASTE PROGRAM  Audit Objective: To evaluate whether the Public Works Department effectively manages the City’s Solid  Waste Program to ensure accurate refuse billings, ensure sufficient revenue to recover the cost of services,  and to provide reliable and useful financial and operational data in support of management’s strategic and  operational decisions.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 2 Finding 3: The Public Works Department should ensure  reliable and useful data are provided to stakeholders for  informed decision making. (Page 19)  We identified the following opportunities to improve the  reliability and usefulness of the data provided to  stakeholders for effective analysis, evaluation, and  informed decision making:   Key financial data should be defined and reported  consistently.    The Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve guideline  should be updated to ensure its adequacy.    Actual refuse revenues and expenses should be tracked  at a level of detail required to effectively support Solid  Waste operations.  o Actual revenues by customer type or by service are  not accurately tracked in SAP.  o Actual expenses by sector are not tracked.  o Appropriate amount of the Commercial Sector  Reserve cannot be determined without the ability to  track actual revenues and expenses.   Key operational data should be defined and tracked to  effectively measure program outcomes.  o The accuracy and reliability of service level data  should be improved.  o Financial incentives should be tied to Solid Waste’s  key performance measures to improve their  effectiveness.  o Specific performance measures should be tied to  public education and outreach efforts to allow cost  benefit analyses of related activities and expenses.  Finding 3 Recommendations to the Public Works Department: 3.1. Work with Administrative Services Department staff to  identify key financial data, clarify the methodology to  obtain the data, and develop common terminology to be  applied throughout budget, accounting, and staff reports  to ensure that data is verifiable, understandable, timely,  consistent, and useful for decision making processes.  3.2. Update and clarify the Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization  Reserve guideline to ensure that the minimum and  maximum reserve balance is set at an adequate level  required to support the reserve’s intended purpose.  3.3. Work with Utilities, Information Technology, and  Administrative Services Department staff to explore  opportunities for improvement to ensure that actual refuse  revenues by sector are accurately captured and tracked.    3.4. Work with GWOPA to ensure that data required for  accurate tracking of actual expenses are identified and  reported by GWOPA on a regular basis. Establish  procedures to periodically review GWOPA financial records  to monitor the accuracy of the data provided by GWOPA.   3.5. Consult with the City Attorney’s Office and reevaluate the  need for establishing the Commercial Sector Reserve. If  applicable, work with Administrative Services Department  staff to establish the Commercial Sector Reserve and  related procedures.  3.6. Identify key operational data required for informed  decision making to ensure efforts required to monitor  program performance and progress are effective and  reasonable.  3.7. Establish baseline data and a methodology to evaluate the  effectiveness of program activities and related expenses in  achieving Solid Waste goals.  3.8. Establish a process to ensure that financial incentives and  output requirements provided in a new or renegotiated  contract are aligned with Solid Waste’s key performance  measures to effectively support its goals.                        This document represents a limited summary of the audit report and does not include all of the information available in the full report. The full  report can be found on the Office of the City Auditor website at:  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/performance.asp. Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 3 Table of Contents  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 1  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 5  AUDIT OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5  BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................................................. 5  AUDIT SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9  AUDIT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................................ 10  CITY AUDITOR’S CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 11  FINDING 1: THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SHOULD IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF REFUSE BILLING ........................... 12  FINDING 2: THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SHOULD STRENGTHEN ITS OVERSIGHT OF GWOPA TO MAINTAIN  ACCURATE REFUSE SERVICE DATA .................................................................................................................................. 18  FINDING 3: THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SHOULD ENSURE RELIABLE AND USEFUL DATA ARE PROVIDED TO  STAKEHOLDERS FOR INFORMED DECISION MAKING ....................................................................................................... 19  GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 29  ATTACHMENT 1: CALRECYCLE PER RESIDENT AND PER EMPLOYEE DISPOSAL RATES ....................................................... 31  ATTACHMENT 2: CITY MANAGER’S ACTION SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 33  ATTACHMENT 3: CITY MANAGER’S RESPONSE ................................................................................................................ 37       In accordance with the Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Audit Work Plan, the Office of the City Auditor has completed this Audit of the Solid Waste Program. We conducted this performance audit in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require  that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.  We would like to thank the staff of the Public Works Department, Administrative Services  Department, Utilities Department, Information Technology Department, GreenWaste of Palo  Alto, and GreenWaste Recovery, Inc., for their time, information, and cooperation during the audit process.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 4                             Page intentionally left blank     Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 5 INTRODUCTION    Audit Objective    The objective of this audit was to evaluate whether the Public Works Department effectively manages the City’s  Solid Waste Program to ensure accurate refuse billings, ensure sufficient revenue to recover the cost of services,  and provide reliable and useful financial and operational data in support of management’s strategic and  operational decisions.      Background    The Public Works Department (Public Works) is responsible for the City’s refuse collection, source reduction,  recycling, and long‐term resource recovery and disposal activities. The Solid Waste Program (Solid Waste) in the  Public Works’ Environmental Services Division is responsible for planning, organizing, and directing refuse and  recycling related activities. Solid Waste’s goals include minimizing waste generation, maximizing recycling and  reuse programs, and effectively managing its programs while ensuring sufficient revenue and equitable rates to  cover the cost of services. All financial transactions relating to the City’s refuse service are accounted for in the  Refuse Fund.     Refuse services are provided on a user‐charge basis to residents and business owners located in the City. In FY  2013, the City received $26.4 million, or 86 percent of the total Refuse Fund operating revenues from its refuse  customers. As shown in Exhibit 1, these revenues have not been enough to cover the operating expenses in the  recent past, and the Fund’s Rate Stabilization Reserve balance has remained negative. Refuse Fund operating  income became positive in FY 2013 mainly due to lower expenses resulting from closing the Palo Alto Landfill.  The Rate Stabilization Reserve balance also increased from ‐$4.1 million in FY 2012 to ‐$2.8 million in FY 2013.     Exhibit 1: Refuse Fund Financial Status from FY 2009 through FY 2013    Source: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR)    Refuse Fund Rate Studies  In August 2010, the City retained R3 Consulting Group, Inc., (R3) to conduct a Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study  to evaluate the refuse rate structure, develop potential adjustments to the rate structure, and develop a Cost of  Service Model to project revenues and expenses. R3 used the City’s FY 2012 budget data to develop the initial  cost of services data for three lines of business, or three service sectors: Residential, Commercial, and Roll Off.  The study was not completed until May 2012. City staff reported that the delay was due to two fundamental  reasons:  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 6  Due to the complexity of the billing system, the model predictions did not agree with past data nor other  methods of predicting revenues and expenses, thus requiring more work before the model could be relied  on to make policy decisions.   The model was too coarse to fully address the issue of parity among ratepayers. Hauling costs, for  example, must be more finely divided to determine the appropriate cost allocation between large and  small customers.    While the May 2012 study resulted in rate restructuring, City staff concluded that it has not resolved two main  challenges impacting the Refuse Fund:   Risk of a revenue shortfall – The existing rate structure is largely predicated on refuse volume, and the  revenues would decline as the City continues moving toward zero waste.    Legal requirements of California’s Proposition 218 – Proposition 218 requires that property‐related fees,  including refuse rates, be no greater than the cost to provide the service.    In October 2013, the City entered into an agreement with HF&H Consultants, LLC, to create a simple, easy‐to‐ update, and sustainable refuse rate model, and to identify a new rate structure.     Zero Waste Plans  In October 2005, the City Council approved the Zero Waste Strategic Plan and adopted the goal of zero waste by  2021. The Strategic Plan identified the key objectives and strategies needed to reach zero waste, including both  reducing the creation of waste through policies and incentives designed to eliminate waste at the source and  maximizing recycling through expanded collection programs, processing facilities, education, outreach, and  technical assistance.    In September 2007, the City Council approved the Zero Waste Operational Plan, which identified a number of  policies, programs, and facilities that will be needed to achieve the goal and to guide the City’s short and long‐ term Zero Waste efforts. The Zero Waste Operational Plan also recommended that the City keep abreast of the  latest technology developments and policy innovations for future consideration and implementation. One of the  programs recommended in the Zero Waste Operational Plan was a collection program for residential  compostables that are currently disposed at a landfill. In April 2013, the City implemented a new 12‐month pilot  program for residential food scrap collection in one City neighborhood.    GreenWaste of Palo Alto (GWOPA) Contract   In October 2008, the City entered into an agreement with GreenWaste of Palo Alto1 (GWOPA) for solid waste,  recyclable materials, organic materials and yard trimmings collection and processing services. The term of the  agreement is November 24, 2008, through June 30, 2017, with an option to extend up to a maximum of four  years on the same terms and conditions. One of the City’s considerations in soliciting and awarding the contract  was the contractor’s ability to implement the Zero Waste Operational Plan in an aggressive, cost‐effective, and                                                                 1  GWOPA is a joint venture between GreenWaste Recovery, Inc., and Zanker Road Resource Management, Ltd., (Zanker) formed for the  purpose of holding and servicing the contract with the City.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 7 flexible manner. A number of recommended programs have been implemented under this new contract. Exhibit  2 lists facilities where the materials collected by GWOPA are processed.    Exhibit 2: GWOPA Contract Refuse Processing Facilities  Processing Facility Location Materials Processed  Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transport  Station (SMaRT Station)  Sunnyvale  Solid Waste  GreenWaste Material Recovery Facility  (GreenWaste MRF)  San Jose  Recyclables  Z‐Best Composting Facility   (Z‐Best)  Gilroy  Organic materials (transported first to GreenWaste MRF)   Yard trimmings (transported first to SMaRT Station)  Zanker Road Materials Processing Facility or  Zanker Road Resource Recovery Operation  and Landfill  San Jose  Construction and demolition (C&D) debris  Source: GWOPA Contract            In FY 2013, GWOPA contract expense exceeded $13 million, representing about 48 percent of the total Refuse  Fund operating expenses, as shown in Exhibit 3. SMaRT Station was the next highest expense, representing 16  percent of the total expense, followed by Facilities Rent paid on the portion of the Palo Alto Landfill that no  longer accepts waste but cannot be readily converted to the land’s highest and best use.     Exhibit 3: Refuse Fund Operating Expenses for FY 2013 (in thousands)      Source: City of Palo Alto financial recordsand staff Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 8 The City’s Refuse Billing and Rate Categories  City customers receive a single utilities bill, which includes refuse in addition to electricity, gas, water, and sewer  charges. The City’s refuse charges fund a variety of services, including the annual clean‐up day, street sweeping,  household hazardous waste, and waste diversion services, in addition to collection and processing of garbage,  recyclable and organic materials, and yard trimmings. There are three refuse rate schedules2 that correspond  with the refuse rate categories, as shown in Exhibit 4.     Exhibit 4: Refuse Rate Categories  Refuse Rate  Category and Schedule Services and Customers  R‐1 Residential services provided to each occupied domestic dwelling,* including:   Separate single‐family dwelling (SFD)   Multi‐family dwellings (MFD) with 4 units or less  R‐2 Commercial can/cart services provided to all occupied establishments other than domestic  dwellings  R‐3 Commercial bin, compactor, and debris box services *  An occupied dwelling unit is defined as any home, apartment unit, cottage, flat or duplex unit, having kitchen, bath, and sleeping  facilities, and to which gas or electric service is being rendered.      The City’s SAP System and GWOPA’s Route Accounts Management System (RAMS)   The City uses its SAP system to maintain refuse customer billing data and to process refuse billing. GWOPA uses  the Route Accounts Management System (RAMS) to maintain customer data. When a customer opens a new  utilities account with the City’s Utilities Customer Service Center, a customer profile is recorded in the SAP  system and transmitted to RAMS through automated hourly outgoing interface files. Refuse service is set at  default (i.e., a standard service set forth in each respective refuse rate schedule: one 32‐gallon can or cart for  residential customers; and two 32‐gallon cans or one 64‐gallon cart for commercial customers) at this point. The  customer is instructed to call GWOPA to request the desired refuse services. The refuse service data updated in  RAMS by GWOPA staff is transmitted to the SAP system through daily incoming interface files. Exhibit 5 provides  an overview of the customer data flow between the SAP system and RAMS.    The City’s refuse billing data is based on the refuse service data maintained by GWOPA in RAMS, requiring an  effective interface between the systems to ensure the accuracy of the City’s refuse billing. Refuse billing requires  coordination with Utilities Department staff because there are standard business processes and procedures that  are shared with other utilities services (e.g., the “Move‐In” process involving a customer moving into a premise  and requesting a new account).                                                                    2 The Refuse Rate Schedules are posted on the City’s Utilities website at:   Residential Rates (R‐1): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/rates.asp   Business Rates Overview (R‐2 and R‐3): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/rates.asp    Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 9 Exhibit 5: Flow of Customer Data between the City’s SAP System and GWOPA RAMS       The City’s contract with GWOPA requires the following customer data, among others, to be synchronized and  maintained accurately in both the SAP system and RAMS:   Customer profile (standard information – billing address, email address, service address, collection route,  contact telephone numbers & complete names, account numbers, account history)   Specific customer services describing customer types such as Single‐Family Dwelling (SFD), Multi‐Family  Dwellings (MFD), Commercial (COM), Roll‐Off (ROL), and material types (solid waste, backyard service,  one‐time charges, recycling, yard trimmings, organics, construction and demolition debris)   Container information (number of containers at each location, type of containers, size of containers, and  frequency of container collection)    Audit Scope     The audit covered the City’s Solid Waste Program operations from July 2009 to September 2013 with a focus on  management of the City’s 2008 contract with GWOPA and related collection and processing services. We did not  review other Refuse Fund operations such as the SMaRT Station, Street Sweeping, Landfill, and Hazardous  Waste.    Our review of the City’s refuse billing focused on 19,681 utilities accounts with permanent refuse services that  are maintained in the City’s SAP system. These accounts represent about $2.2 million in monthly refuse billings  (FY 2013 revenue of $26 million). Our review excluded services provided on an ad‐hoc basis (FY 2013 revenue of  $1.2 million) and refuse services provided to customers who do not have a utilities account with the City (FY  2013 revenue of $2.1 million).     To avoid duplicating work in the ongoing rate study, we kept our review of the existing rate model to a  minimum. We did not audit the City’s compliance with California’s Proposition 218.       Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 10 Audit Methodology     We performed the following:   Interviewed selected staff from the Public Works Department, GWOPA, Administrative Services  Department, Utilities Department and Information Technology Department to obtain an understanding of  the Solid Waste management and accounting processes.    Reviewed applicable sections of Palo Alto Municipal Code, California state laws and regulations, City  Council resolutions and ordinances, and City policies and procedures to understand the Solid Waste  regulatory environment and requirements.   Consulted with the City Attorney’s Office regarding relevant legal and regulatory issues and criteria for  compliance.   Reviewed the GWOPA contract, the City’s Zero Waste Plans and related studies, and applicable City  Manager Reports to understand the Solid Waste business environment, requirements, and challenges.    Reviewed the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR), Operating Budget documents, and  SAP system records to understand Solid Waste’s financial status.     Performed a risk assessment independently and in coordination with Public Works staff to identify key  risks to achieving the program goals and objectives.   Identified and mapped key processes and reviewed the process maps with Public Works staff to identify  existing and expected key controls to mitigate the key risks.   Obtained and reviewed GWOPA financial and operational records.   Obtained and performed a detailed review of refuse customer billing data in the City’s SAP system and  customer service data in GWOPA RAMS as of September 16, 2013. We maintained frequent  communication with City and GWOPA staff to obtain additional information and address issues as we  discovered them. Our analyses included:  o To evaluate the accuracy of the City’s refuse billing, we compared the SAP and RAMS data by using  data analysis software (ACL) and identified discrepancies as addressed in our audit findings. We  excluded services that are currently provided free of charge (e.g., recycling services) from our  analysis since a majority of these free services are only tracked in RAMS and are not recorded in the  SAP system. We only compared the services (e.g., 32 gallon garbage cart, 4 cubic yard compostables  bin), and did not compare the quantity of services (e.g., number of containers).  o To evaluate the accuracy of refuse service data maintained by GWOPA, we selected a sample of 298  utilities accounts from RAMS by using a combination of random sampling and judgmental sampling  based on input from GWOPA staff, and compared the charged services recorded with the refuse  containers located at customer sites. We excluded free services from our analysis. We conducted a  majority of the site visits with GWOPA staff who subsequently verified discrepancies through  research, additional site visits, and/or direct contact with the customer. We did not project the  resulting billing adjustments to the population to prevent double counting of billing adjustments  made based on the comparison of SAP and RAMS data described above.   Developed a glossary of terms, which is attached at the end of this report.     Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 11 City Auditor’s Conclusion    The City’s Solid Waste Program made significant progress over the last few years, including implementation of  numerous zero waste programs and enhancement of its contract management process. However, the audit  findings indicate that the Public Works Department should further improve its management of the City’s Solid  Waste Program to ensure accurate refuse billings, ensure sufficient revenue to recover the cost of services, and  provide reliable and useful financial and operational data in support of management’s strategic and operational  decisions.    The Office of the City Auditor provides 16 recommendations to improve the City’s Solid Waste Program  management processes.     Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 12 Finding 1: The Public Works Department should improve the accuracy of refuse billing     We identified 685 City utilities accounts in the SAP system, or 3.5 percent of the 19,681 refuse customers, with  services that were not consistent with services recorded in RAMS. Our analysis included an additional 64  accounts that were recorded in GWOPA RAMS but not in the City’s SAP system, for a total of 19,745 utilities  accounts. As of March 20, 2014, staff has reviewed 192 (28 percent) of the 685 accounts and has retroactively  adjusted City customer billings by $175,581, which included a mix of both undercharges and overcharges. Public  Works has had ongoing concerns regarding the integrity of its refuse customer billing data since the inception of  the City’s GWOPA contract; however, it has not effectively and conclusively addressed these concerns. Our  comparison was limited by various data accuracy and integrity issues as described in the following sections.     City staff followed up on the 685 accounts with refuse service discrepancies in close collaboration with GWOPA  since it required a detailed review of the customer data in both systems and often a site visit by GWOPA staff to  determine the actual service being provided. Once a billing discrepancy was confirmed, City and GWOPA staff  calculated a total retroactive billing adjustment (back billing or refund) by reviewing the past billing up to three  years.3 See Exhibit 6 for the follow‐up status as of March 20, 2014. The actual billing adjustments had not been  processed pending management review.    Exhibit 6: Customer Data Discrepancy Follow‐up Status as of March 20, 2014  Number of utilities accounts Estimated customer billing adjustment  (retroactive, not to exceed three years) Total with  discrepancies  Verified  by staff No action required  Customer data updated  in the SAP system or in RAMS  Already  addressed*  Not true  discrepancies** No changes in  customer billing Customer  billing adjusted  Total  Back billings  Total  refunds  Total  adjustments 685 192 47 26 48 71 $50,596 $124,985 $175,581  *  These accounts had already been reviewed as part of the audit and City and GWOPA staff made necessary adjustments.   **  A majority of these accounts had discrepancies due to a time lag between updates in the two systems. Changes in customer data may  not be recorded on the same day depending on when manual processes required to synchronize the two systems are performed.     The customer records in the SAP system and RAMS are structurally different, with different customer account  numbers, customer types, and service codes (see Exhibit 7). To ensure the City accurately bills customers for the  actual refuse services provided, the GWOPA contract requires GWOPA to maintain accurate data and work with  the City to develop a two‐way data synchronization interface. Exhibit 5 on page 9 provides an overview of the  customer data flow between the SAP system and RAMS.                                                                      3 Utilities Rule and Regulation 11 issued by the City Council effective 7/1/12 limits the retroactive billing adjustment to three years.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 13 Exhibit 7: Customer Data Structures in SAP system and RAMS    Source: OCA analysis of customer data in the City’s SAP system and GWOPA RAMS    The interface between the City’s SAP system and GWOPA RAMS was not designed and implemented effectively.  Both the City and GWOPA staff have been aware of the interface flaws since the initial RAMS implementation in  2009 and have made various efforts to address them, including:    Initial clean‐up of incorrect data transferred from the City’s former contractor, PASCO – According to  City and GWOPA staff, the data transferred from PASCO contained a significant amount of inaccurate  customer data, which required initial and ongoing efforts to clean up. According to City staff, 89 (75  percent) of 119 accounts for which customer data had to be updated in the SAP system or in RAMS during  the audit were associated with either incorrect PASCO data transferred to RAMS or discrepancies between  the SAP system and PASCO data that predated the RAMS implementation.     Daily manual maintenance to detect and correct errors on both ends of the interface – Currently, both  City and GWOPA staff review outgoing and incoming interface log files on a daily basis to detect interface  failures and errors and make manual corrections as needed. Program staff's review focuses on service  changes associated with commercial customers that are more prone to interface errors and usually  excludes the service changes associated with residential customers.   Identification and prioritization of interface issues – In August 2012, City staff identified and prioritized  23 SAP‐RAMS interface issues along with preliminary steps to address them; however, the only staff  member with the required expertise to address these issues transitioned to another Public Works division  beginning FY 2013 and his availability became significantly limited. The City’s FY 2013 budget authorized  funding of $250,000 as part of a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project to address the interface  issues. The project status remained on hold as of February 2014. According to staff, the project is  dependent upon the outcome of their ongoing analysis of how new developments with the SAP system  and RAMS may affect the project’s nature and scope.   October 2011 Service Level Study conducted to assess the accuracy of the RAMS customer data –  Cascadia Consulting Group (Cascadia) sampled 123 refuse customer accounts from RAMS and compared  the services recorded with the refuse containers located at customer sites. Cascadia reported that it  verified 282 (72%) of 393 services included in the sample and that 49 services (17% of 282 verified) did not  match RAMS data. Cascadia recommended that a more comprehensive study be performed to identify  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 14 discrepancies. GWOPA staff stated that some discrepancies were due to a timing difference in recording  or the consultant not being able to accurately locate the cart or bin at the customer site.    Comparison of customer data between the SAP system and RAMS to detect and correct discrepancies –  City and GWOPA staff completed a comparison of refuse customer data in the SAP system and RAMS in  October 2011 and again in February 2013. According to City staff, the October 2011 comparison identified  discrepancies that resulted in retroactive billing adjustments of $389,989 for commercial accounts and  $11,107 for residential accounts as summarized in Exhibit 8.     Exhibit 8: Billing Adjustment Processed Resulting From the October 2011 Customer Data Comparison  Customer type  Number of utilities accounts with  customer billing adjustments  Customer billing adjustment processed  (retroactive not to exceed three years)  Total  Back billings  Total  refunds  Total  adjustments  Commercial 41 $294,535 $95,454 $389,989  Residential 39 $0* $11,107 $11,107  * Public Works management made a decision not to back bill residential customers for the undercharges found at the time and  did not calculate the total retroactive billing adjustment that would have been made.     Customer data discrepancies not only cause billing inaccuracies but also limit the City’s ability to effectively use  its cost of service model, which requires accurate and reliable customer data. The May 2012 Cost of Service  Study noted customer data discrepancies between the two systems as one of the limitations in developing the  cost of service model. To prevent future errors, we worked with City and GWOPA staff to identify and analyze  root causes of the discrepancies found during the audit.    City staff indicated that the option of  outsourcing the billing function is being  considered in lieu of making additional  changes in SAP to address the interface  issues. GreenWaste Recovery, a GWOPA  business partner, provides residential  recycling and hauling services for various  areas4 throughout Northern California and  also provides billing services to all but two of  them (City of San Jose and City of Palo Alto).  The decision requires a cost‐benefit analysis  which may involve the assessment of:   Cost of the existing daily manual  maintenance and periodic customer data comparisons   Data discrepancies resulting from the interface issues                                                                  4  These areas include Burbank Sanitary District, City of Capitola, Town of Los Altos Hills, Town of Portola Valley, unincorporated Santa  Cruz County, City of Scotts Valley, and the Town of Woodside, among others.   Finding 1 Recommendation to the Public Works Department:  1.1. Continue to review and verify the data discrepancies  identified during the audit and take corrective action.  1.2. Develop methodology and tools to compare the SAP data  with RAMS data to detect and correct any discrepancies  in an efficient and timely manner.  1.3. Perform a cost‐benefit analysis and determine an optimal  course of action to maintain the accuracy and integrity of  refuse customer data.   Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 15  Cost of making functional changes in SAP to address the interface issues   A future system upgrade by GWOPA and/or the City   Ability to handle a new service and/or rate structure   Customer service including clarity and itemization of invoiced services   Additional cost of monitoring GWOPA billing data and activities (if outsourced)     We did not perform such a cost‐benefit analysis because it is beyond the scope of this audit, and we were  unable to separate out the discrepancies caused by the interface issues from the discrepancies caused by other  data accuracy and integrity issues described below.     Refuse customer types are not accurately and completely maintained in either the City’s SAP system or  GWOPA RAMS. We identified 64 service records in RAMS for commercial customers with a residential service  rate (R‐1) in SAP system, and 97 RAMS service records for residential customers with a commercial service rate  (R‐2 or R‐3) in the SAP system. The City’s refuse rates are set separately for residential customers (Rate Category  R‐1) and commercial customers (Rate Categories R‐2 and R‐3). Assigning a correct refuse customer type to each  customer is important to ensure accurate billing. Effective October 1, 2010, the following changes were made to  the rate schedules, making the customer type designation even more critical to accurate billing (see Exhibit 9):   Garbage collection rates were increased by 6 percent for residential customers and 9 percent for  commercial customers, making the rates for the same service different depending on the customer type  designation.   A concept of multi‐family dwellings (MFD) was introduced, and it was defined that a MFD with a shared  account of four units or less is included in R‐1 and other MFDs are included in R‐2.   The collection of commercial compostable materials, which was previously free, became a charged  service. The City Council set an exemption for MFDs with five to ten units to receive up to one 96‐gallon  compostables cart collected once a week at no charge. If a MFD has four units or less, its green cart is  labeled as yard trimming with no charge for up to three carts. The MFDs with 10 units or more are charged  a monthly fee of $94.18 for a 96‐gallon compostables cart.    Exhibit 9: Refuse Rates for Garbage Collection Since July 2009    Residential Rates for  One Collection  per Week (R‐1)  July 2009 October 2010 October 2011 July 2012  Total  Total   (6% increase)  Variable  Rate  Fixed  Rate Total  Variable  Rate  Fixed  Rate Total  Mini‐can/20‐gallon cart $15.00  $15.90 $15.90 $4.62 $20.52  $13.79  $9.90 $23.69  1 32‐gal. can or 32‐gal. cart $31.00 $32.86 $32.86 $4.62 $37.48 $31.64 $9.90 $41.54  2 32‐gal. cans or 1 64‐gal. cart $64.00  $67.84 $67.84 $4.62 $72.46  $67.84  $9.90 $77.74  3 32‐gal. cans or 1 96‐gal. cart $96.00  $101.76 $101.76 $4.62 $106.38  $101.76  $9.90 $111.66  4 32‐gal. cans or 2 64‐gal. carts $128.00  $135.68 $135.68 $4.62 $140.30  $135.68  $9.90 $145.58  5 32‐gal. cans or 1 64 + 1 96‐gal. carts $160.00  $169.60 $169.60 $4.62 $174.22  $169.60  $9.90 $179.50  6 32‐gal. cans or 2 96‐gal. carts $192.00  $203.52 $203.52 $4.62 $208.14  $203.52  $9.90 $213.42  Commercial Rates for  One  Collection per Week (R‐2)  July 2009 October 2010 October 2011 July 2012  Total  Total  (9% increase) Total Total  1 32‐gal. can or 32‐gal. cart $31.00  $33.79  No Changes No Changes  2 32‐gal. cans or 1 64‐gal. cart $64.00  $69.76  3 32‐gal. cans or 1 96‐gal. cart $96.00  $104.64  4 32‐gal. cans or 2 64‐gal. carts $128.00  $139.52  5 32‐gal. cans or 1 64 + 1 96‐gal. carts $160.00  $174.40  6 32‐gal. cans or 2 96‐gal. carts $192.00  $209.28  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 16 These changes required the City to maintain a  record of the number of units for each MFD;  however, neither the City nor GWOPA had an  accurate and complete record at the time of  implementation. Customer type information is  entered by Utilities Customer Service  representatives in the SAP system when a new  account is created. This information is not sent  to RAMS, requiring GWOPA staff to review the  new customer information and/or visit the  customer site to determine and record the  customer type in RAMS for refuse billing  purposes. There has been an ongoing effort by  City and GWOPA staff to collect and record the  number of units for existing MFD customers,  reclassifying the customer in RAMS as needed.  The customer type information updated in  RAMS is not interfaced back to the SAP system.  Without refuse customer type information maintained in the SAP system, it is difficult to build an automated  system control to prevent customers from getting billed using an incorrect rate category.    Customer type information in the SAP system is applicable to other utilities services provided (e.g., electricity)  and does not always accurately reflect the customer type for refuse billing purposes. For example, Utilities  Customer Service does not record the number of units for each MFD in the SAP system. For other utility services,  a different rate schedule may apply based primarily on whether a MFD is serviced through individual meters or a  master meter, and the number of units is not a determining factor. In addition, a MFD with individual meters  could have a shared refuse service and be considered a commercial customer for refuse billing purposes, and  vice versa.     123 accounts in GWOPA RAMS were either duplicates or not needed. RAMS has its own set of account  numbers, and not all RAMS accounts have a one to one relationship with the utilities accounts. We identified  130 utilities accounts that are associated with two or more RAMS accounts (295 RAMS accounts in total).  GWOPA reviewed these accounts and subsequently closed 123 RAMS accounts that were duplicates and/or not  needed. These accounts were billing correctly in the SAP system and no billing adjustments were necessary.     According to GWOPA and City staff, a majority of the duplicate accounts appear to have resulted from data  transferred from PASCO during RAMS implementation in 2009. As of November 2013, 26 utilities accounts  remained associated with two or more RAMS accounts. According to GWOPA staff, it is necessary to maintain  multiple RAMS accounts for some commercial customers to work around one of the interface design flaws. The  lack of a one to one relationship between utilities accounts and RAMS accounts makes it difficult to compare the  two data sets in a systematic manner, requiring an additional manual process to detect discrepancies.     Multiple quantities of the same service are not maintained in one record in RAMS. RAMS sometimes maintains  two or more records for the same service for the same customer. For example, if a customer has two recycling  carts of the same size, it could have two records with 1 unit each, instead of having one record with 2 units.  There were 9,220 RAMS records that could be combined into 4,066 records.     For charged services, having two separate records for one service may increase the possibility of an interface  error, overwriting the corresponding SAP record with the incorrect quantity. Additionally, since a specific rate is  Finding 1 Recommendation to City Management:  1.4. Complete the review of all MFDs to ensure the  accuracy of the customer type classification in RAMS.  1.5. Work with the Utilities Department and GWOPA to  clarify the roles and responsibilities over obtaining  information required for determining customer type,  recording data, and maintaining the accuracy and  completeness of the refuse customer type data.  1.6. Establish procedures to ensure that necessary data,  system capability, and related administrative tasks are  identified, assessed, and communicated to  stakeholders before refuse rates or exemptions with  high complexity are adopted.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 17 set for the exact number or a combination of cans/carts each customer has (see Exhibit 9 on page 15), a  corresponding specific code has to be used to record the service rather than increasing the quantity for the  service. For example, there is a specific code for three 32‐gallon carts, which should not be recorded as a 32‐ gallon cart service with a quantity of three because it will result in a monthly undercharge of $6.84 [$101.76 –  ($31.64 x 3)] for a residential customer and $3.27 [$104.64 – ($33.79 x 3)] for a commercial customer. GWOPA  staff confirmed that they subsequently cleaned up all 58 records (0.6 percent) that were for charged services.      For free services such as yard trimming or commercial recycling collection, cart rental fees may begin to apply  based on the number of cans/carts. Maintaining the same service under one record will make it easier to  systematically monitor the unit of service and ensure the accuracy of such fees. As of January 2014, GWOPA  established data entry procedures to improve data integrity by requiring GWOPA staff to maintain the same  service under one record.    A specific price code is not set up for all refuse services in the SAP system. As shown in Exhibit 7 on page 13,  the SAP system and RAMS use different service codes, bridged by a crosswalk to translate one code set to  another. We found several services that are included in the refuse rate schedules and added to RAMS, but a  specific price code was not set up in the SAP system. The City uses the generic code "RFZ" to manually capture  these services, including compactor/drop box wash, compacted compostables, and compacted recyclables.  Since the interface functions cannot be used, any changes involving RFZ records are communicated by phone or  email, making them more susceptible to  errors. As of September 16, 2013, 16  records, for a total monthly charge of about  $60,000, were billed under RFZ. City staff  subsequently replaced RFZ with a specific  code for all but five records (a total monthly  charge of $13,611) for which there is no  price code available in the SAP system.     Finding 1 Recommendation to City Management:  1.7. Establish procedures to ensure that a service code is  defined and added to both systems before a new service  fee is implemented.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 18 Finding 2: The Public Works Department should strengthen its oversight of GWOPA to  maintain accurate refuse service data    The service recorded (e.g., the size, type, and/or number of refuse containers) did not match the actual service  provided for 30 of the 298 utilities accounts we reviewed from the GWOPA RAMS data. Our analysis prompted  GWOPA to work with City staff to retroactively adjust refuse billing for 10 residential and commercial customers,  or three percent of the reviewed accounts, by $40,724 (see Exhibit 10). The City was correctly billing the other  20 customers.    Exhibit 10: Summary of Service Review Results  Number of utilities accounts  Customer billing adjustment  (retroactive not to exceed three years)  Total  sampled  Services  matched  Customer data updated in the SAP system or in RAMS Total  Back billings  Total  refunds  Total  adjustmentsNo changes in customer billing Customer billing adjusted 298 268 20 10 $1,599 $39,125 $40,724    Although the City is responsible for billing City residents for refuse services, GWOPA is contractually required to  maintain accurate service level records for City customers. These records are the basis for the City’s refuse  billing. The GWOPA contract also provides  the City with the right to perform route  audits and have GWOPA correct all errors  found within two work days. Except for this  audit, the City has not compared the  GWOPA service data to the actual services  provided to City refuse customers since the  October 2011 Service Level Study  described on page 13.                 Finding 2 Recommendation to the Public Works Department:  2.  Assess the potential impact of incorrect service records  that may remain in RAMS, and provide additional direction  as needed to enhance GWOPA’s monitoring activities, such  as a route audit, over the accuracy of the refuse customer  service records.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 19 Finding 3: The Public Works Department should ensure reliable and useful data are  provided to stakeholders for informed decision making        The audit raised concerns regarding the reliability and usefulness of some financial and operational data used by  the City in making strategic and operational decisions. The City is facing a rapidly changing environment in  pursuit of zero waste goals, which requires timely decisions regarding related policies, programs, and facilities.  City resources are allocated based on these decisions that, in turn, rely on staff analyses of available data and  information. While City staff currently collect and monitor a significant amount of data, we identified the  following opportunities to improve the reliability and usefulness of the data provided to stakeholders for  effective analysis, evaluation, and informed decision making:   Key financial data should be defined and reported consistently.   The Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve guideline should be updated to ensure its adequacy.   Actual refuse revenues and expenses should be tracked at a level of detail required to effectively support  Solid Waste operations.   Key operational data should be defined and tracked to effectively measure program outcomes.    The City also uses consultants to perform related studies that rely on the data provided by City staff. If the  required data are not available or reliable, the consultants could be forced to make assumptions or otherwise  limit their scope to complete their work.     Key financial data should be defined and reported consistently. Key Refuse Fund financial data presented in  staff reports were not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Operating  Budget documents. This may result in confusion and negatively impact the stakeholders’ ability to assess the  financial status of the Refuse Fund. We reviewed staff reports, the CAFR, and the Operating Budget documents  and noted the following sources of potential confusion:  a) Refuse Fund actual revenues, expenses, and the change in net assets for FY 2011 presented in the March  6, 2012, Public Works’ report to the Finance Committee on refuse rate restructuring were based on staff’s  analysis of SAP reports and did not match the figures stated in the CAFR financial statements or in the  City’s Operating Budget document, as shown in Exhibit 11. The staff report did not indicate the data  source or explain the variances. The Operating Budget is developed using a different basis of accounting  from the one used in the CAFR to present the Refuse Fund financial figures.     Exhibit 11: Comparison of FY 2011 Refuse Fund Actual Revenues, Expenses, and Change in Net Assets  (in thousands)      b) The Refuse Fund operating reserve balance in the March 6, 2012, staff report did not match the balance  we calculated using the FY 2011 CAFR figures. The “Operating Reserve” is defined as Rate Stabilization  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 20 Reserve plus Post Closure Liability in Public Works’ April 5, 2011, report to the Finance Committee on Cost  of Service Study Initial Findings. Exhibit 12 shows the variance.  Exhibit 12: Comparison of FY 2011 Actual Operating Reserves (in thousands)      c) Refuse Fund Reserves presented in the City’s Operating Budget documents do not include the prior year  actuals as the General Fund Reserves do (see Exhibit 13).  The prior year actual figures could provide a  baseline for projected figures, allowing questions to be raised if there are significant variances between  the actual and projected figures. Exhibit 14 shows the variances between the actual and projected  reserve balances for the last five  fiscal years, demonstrating how  significant such variances can be. In  response to our inquiry, the City’s  Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) stated that the actual  figures will be included in the  presentation of all Enterprise Fund  Reserves beginning with the FY  2016 Proposed Operating Budget  document.  Exhibit 13: Comparison of Reserve Presentation between Refuse Fund and General Fund  Refuse Fund Reserves (in thousands)     General Fund Reserves (in thousands)    Source: City’s FY 2014 Adopted Operating Budget  Finding 3 Recommendation to the Public Works Department:  3.1.  Work with Administrative Services Department staff to  identify key financial data, clarify the methodology to  obtain the data, and develop common terminology to be  applied throughout budget, accounting, and staff reports  to ensure that data is verifiable, understandable, timely,  consistent, and useful for decision making processes.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 21 Exhibit 14: Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve Balances  Actual vs. Projected, FY 2009 through FY 2013      The Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve guideline should be updated to ensure its adequacy. The Refuse  Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve guideline has not been updated since its establishment in 1993. The guideline  serves as the basis for determining refuse rates charged to the City’s refuse customers; however, Public Works  had not reviewed it to ensure that the reserve guideline is adequate to support the Refuse Fund operations.    The Rate Stabilization Reserve was established by a City Council Resolution in 1993, “in order that the City may  anticipate both contingent events, where operational and capital improvement costs of the utilities may be  impacted, and current circumstances, where operating costs exceed operating revenues.” The staff report that  accompanied the 1993 resolution recommended the reserve balance minimum guideline to be 10 percent of  "sales revenue for that year" and the maximum guideline to be twice the minimum. “Sales revenue” was not  clearly defined. According to staff, this is the only documentation of the guideline.     The City’s OMB calculates the reserve guideline range presented in the Operating Budget documents, as shown  in Exhibit 13 on page 20. According to OMB,  the budget line item "Sale of Utilities"   represented "sales revenue" for the  corresponding fiscal year for the purpose of  calculating the minimum balance. Our  review of the guideline ranges identified the  following inconsistencies that should be  addressed in a well formed guideline:    According to OMB, the adopted budget figure for “Sale of Utilities” should be used to calculate the reserve  guideline range; however, a different figure was used for FY 2012 and FY 2013. OMB used the same  reserve guideline range in FY 2014 as in FY 2013, although the sales amount increased. This resulted in  overstating the minimum guideline range for each of these fiscal years, as shown in Exhibit 15.    Exhibit 15: Overstatement of Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve Minimum Guidelines (in thousands)  Description FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Sale of Utilities (Adopted Budget) $23,947 $26,794 $26,961 Correct Minimum Guideline (10% of Sales of Utilities)$2,395 $2,679 $2,696 Reserve Minimum Guideline (Adopted Budget)$2,462 $2,746 $2,746 Overstatement of Minimum Guideline $67 $67 $50 Finding 3 Recommendation to the Public Works Department:  3.2.  Update and clarify the Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization  Reserve guideline to ensure that the minimum and  maximum reserve balance is set at an adequate level  required to support the reserve’s intended purpose.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 22  The City’s Operating Budget documents do not report “Sale of Utilities” in a manner consistent with the  City’s CAFR financial statements. "Sale of Utilities" reported in the CAFR includes sales revenues from non‐ utility customers and City departments. "Sale of Utilities" in the Operating Budget does not include sales  revenues from non‐utility customers, and did not include sales revenues from City departments until FY  2011.      City staff stated that they have started a process of reviewing and updating the reserve guideline.    Actual refuse revenues and expenses should be tracked at a level of detail required to effectively support  Solid Waste operations. The City has not tracked actual refuse revenues and expenses by customer type or  service, and, therefore, must use estimates or an allocation method to obtain information necessary to make  program decisions, including refuse rate revisions. Such estimates or allocated figures may not provide  information needed to ensure effective decisions are made, whereas actuals could have provided more accurate  information. City staff currently tracks total actual refuse revenues and expenses.    Exhibit 16 shows the projected refuse revenues and expenses by sector, as presented in the May 2012 Cost of  Service Study. The study showed that the residential refuse revenues do not recover the full cost of residential  services, while commercial customers pay in excess of the commercial service expenses. The study’s conclusion  resulted in the City increasing the residential rates to address the sector imbalance.     Exhibit 16: May 2012 Cost of Service Study Projected Revenues and Expenses for FY 2013      Source: Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study, May 2012     Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 23 Our review of the financial data and methodology used in the study identified opportunities for improvement:    a) Actual revenues by customer type or by service are not accurately tracked in SAP. Actual refuse  revenues by customer type are not available because the refuse revenues are automatically recorded in  the SAP system according to the utilities customer type. As explained in Finding 1, customer type  information entered by Utilities Customer Service representatives is applicable to other utilities services  provided (e.g., electricity, gas, etc.) and does not always accurately reflect the refuse customer types.  Exhibit 17 shows the number of SAP refuse billing records by Utilities customer type and rate category. As  of September 16, 2013, there were 237 residential services recorded as commercial sector revenue and  112 commercial services recorded as residential sector revenue in SAP. The data also demonstrates that  the distinction between “Commercial” and “Industrial” is different from the distinction between R‐2 and  R‐3.    Exhibit 17: Number of SAP Refuse Billing Records by Utilities Customer Type and Rate Category  As of September 2013  Utilities  Customer Type Total Rate Category  R‐1 (Residential) R‐2 (Commercial Can/Cart) R‐3 (Commercial Bin/Debris Box)  Residential 18,374 18,262 78 34  Commercial 4,357 237 1,779 2,341  Industrial 229 0 50 179  City 167 1 76 90       City staff maintains monthly revenue projections that can be broken down into each rate category and  price code, but are slightly off the actual revenues. For example, staff records show that the total FY 2013  revenue was off by about $135,000, or 0.5 percent because the amount is based on an SAP report as of  the end of each month, and does not reflect the changes in accounts and/or services made during the  month.    In response to our inquiry, IT and  Utilities staff identified a utilities  sales report in the SAP system that  required minimal configuration to  provide actual revenues by rate  category. They also stated that with  additional configuration, the same sales report could provide actual revenues by individual service.     b) Actual expenses by sector are not tracked. The GWOPA contract expenses are invoiced and recorded in a  lump‐sum amount in SAP. As a result, the Cost of Service Study allocated the Collection, hauling, and  disposal administration and GWOPA contract expenses to the three sectors and to the individual services  according to the proportions derived from the proposed costs included in the contract attachment titled  Cost Details by Service. Exhibit 18 shows the differences between the allocation of costs to each sector  based on our analysis of GWOPA Financial Records and the estimates in the Cost of Service Study.    Exhibit 18: Percentage of Expenses by Line of Business  Line of Business  (Sector)  Cost of Service Study  Allocation  GWOPA Financial Records Actual  FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013  Residential 45%49% 49% 48% Commercial 38%31% 32% 32% Roll Off 17%20% 19% 20% Finding 3 Recommendation to the Public Works Department:  3.3.  Work with Utilities, Information Technology, and  Administrative Services Department staff to explore  opportunities for improvement to ensure that actual refuse  revenues by sector are accurately captured and tracked.    Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 24 City staff has not reviewed the  GWOPA’s financial data, but this data  may serve as simpler, more reliable  and accurate input for determining the  actual expenses by sector. Since  GWOPA uses its own assumptions to  allocate its expenses, City staff need to  review those assumptions and  methodology before using the data.      c) Appropriate amount of the Commercial Sector Reserve cannot be determined without the ability to  track actual revenues and expenses. The Cost of Service Study recommended that the City "consider  using excess revenues to start rebuilding the RSR instead of reducing commercial rates" and designate  these reserve contributions for commercial sector uses.  Accordingly, staff recommended at the March 6,  2012, Finance Committee that "A special rate stabilization and commercial outreach reserve dedicated to  the commercial sector be established and the Refuse Fund’s expected revenues over expenses for FY 2013  be directed into this commercial reserve, with no change in commercial refuse rates in FY 2013."     As of December 2013, the commercial sector reserve had not been established. According to staff, $1.3  million was added to the Refuse Rate Stabilization Reserve in FY 2013, and it represents the commercial  reserve balance as of June 30, 2013.     We could not verify that this amount  was attributable solely to the  commercial sector surplus because the  actual revenues and expenses by  sector are not currently available. City  staff stated that the commercial sector  reserve and related procedures will be  established as part of the ongoing rate study initiated in October 2013.     Key operational data should be defined and tracked to effectively measure program outcomes. City staff  currently collects various operational data from many sources including monthly, quarterly, and annual reports  submitted by GWOPA, the City’s SAP system, and data collected and maintained by the California Department of  Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). For example, CalRecycle’s per resident and per employee  disposal rates provide useful information for analysis of landfill diversion performance over time and for  comparison with other jurisdictions, as shown in Attachment 1. We reviewed performance measures that City  staff selected as key, and identified opportunities for improvement:    a) The accuracy and reliability of service level data should be improved. As described in Finding 1, there  were discrepancies in customer data in the SAP system and RAMS. As a result, there were also  discrepancies between GWOPA’s service level data and data maintained by City staff, as highlighted in  Exhibit 19.       Finding 3 Recommendation to the Public Works Department:  3.4.  Work with GWOPA to ensure that data required for  accurate tracking of actual expenses are identified and  reported by GWOPA on a regular basis. Establish  procedures to periodically review GWOPA financial records  to monitor the accuracy of the data provided by GWOPA.   Finding 3 Recommendation to the Public Works Department:  3.5. Consult with the City Attorney’s Office and reevaluate the  need for establishing the Commercial Sector Reserve. If  applicable, work with Administrative Services Department  staff to establish the Commercial Sector Reserve and  related procedures.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 25 Exhibit 19: Comparison of FY 2013 Service Level Data in the SAP system and RAMS      City staff stated that operational decisions are made based on SAP data without reference to the GWOPA  service level data. Such comparison, however, may serve as a check to determine the reliability of the SAP  data. As staff addresses Finding 1, the discrepancies between the two data sources are expected to  narrow.    b) Financial incentives should be tied to Solid Waste’s key performance measures to improve their  effectiveness. The GWOPA contract provides two financial incentives for GWOPA to “exert its full efforts  in implementing zero waste programs”:  1) Mixed Recycling – Sets minimum tonnage to be collected, processed, and recycled. If the minimum  tonnage is not met, GWOPA is required to pay a required amount per ton for the shortage.    2) Commercial Organics – Sets minimum tonnage to be collected and processed into compost. If the  minimum tonnage is not met, GWOPA must pay a required amount per ton for the shortage. If more  than the minimum tonnage is collected and processed, the City is required to pay the same amount  per ton for the overage up to the maximum amount set forth in the contract.    These tonnage requirements, however, do not take into account a presumed decrease in tonnage  attributable to waste prevention and reduction through public education and outreach programs. The  total tonnage is also affected by factors such as demographic and economic changes and materials  collected by other haulers that are transported outside the City.5 As a result, tonnage alone may not be an  effective measure to evaluate the progress toward Solid Waste’s goals to maximize diversion and  minimize waste generation.    In addition, a definition of “mixed recyclable materials” and baseline tonnage was not included in the  financial incentive section of the contract. This subsequently resulted in disagreements between the City  and GWOPA as to whether the mixed recyclable materials include cardboard, metal, wood, etc. According  to staff records, the City owes GWOPA a total of $287,158 for the commercial organics incentive from FY  2010 through FY 2013, and GWOPA owes $278,939 to the City for mixed recycling incentives for the same  period. The net amount of $8,219 the City owes GWOPA could increase to $59,697 if metal is included in  the incentive tonnage, for example.                                                                    5  GWOPA’s contractual right for collection of commercial recyclable and organic materials is nonexclusive. The Palo Alto Municipal Code  allows commercial customers to donate or sell source‐separated recyclable materials, and a recycler, junk dealer, or other enterprise  to remove and transport such materials to a destination for sale, but does not require them to report the tonnage transported outside  the City.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 26 As of January 2014, payments related to zero waste incentives are pending further negotiation, including  clarification of what materials are included in the tonnage (e.g., metal) and consideration of a residential  compostables pilot program and changes in residential collection services.    c) Specific performance measures should be tied to public education and outreach efforts to allow cost  benefit analyses of related activities and expenses. One of Solid Waste’s objectives is to minimize waste  generation and maximize recycling, composting, and reuse programs through educational programs and  outreach. City staff currently monitors GWOPA’s public education and outreach activities by tracking  output measures (e.g., number of presentations and outreach events, number of brochures produced and  distributed) and reviewing a summary list and detailed log of GWOPA interactions with customers  prepared by GWOPA on a monthly basis. Staff also works with GWOPA to develop annual outreach plans  and discuss strategies and related issues during monthly meetings with GWOPA staff. However, these  efforts are not currently tied to specific outcome measures to evaluate their effectiveness. Currently, the  City has two full‐time zero waste coordinators and GWOPA has four full‐time staff to administer public  education and outreach efforts for the City. Additionally, the contract sets the annual minimum spending  requirement for public education and outreach ($57,165 for FY 2013).     According to staff, there are two existing performance measures that could be tied to education and  outreach programs, but other correlating factors need to be taken into consideration when interpreting  these measures as program outcomes:   Number of Commercial Customers with Compostables Service – According to GWOPA staff, the  refuse rates for commercial compostables services are currently only 10 percent less than the  garbage service rates, making it difficult to convince customers who are concerned about additional  training and administration costs to switch services. The 2007 Zero Waste Operational Plan  suggested “a substantial (such as 50 percent) differential” and a mandatory participation ordinance  requiring customers to place compostable materials in the appropriate collection containers and to  ban these materials from disposal. According to staff, there is no plan to recommend such an  ordinance to City Council at this time. Certain commercial customers (e.g., restaurants, retailers)  also have high employee turnover, requiring repeated efforts by customers and GWOPA to keep the  responsible employees trained on proper composting practices. City staff also noted that the  residue rate6 from the City’s compostable materials processed at Z‐Best increased as the number of  customers with compostables service went up, as shown in Exhibit 20. This indicates that additional  education and outreach efforts may be needed to prevent noncompostable materials from being  disposed in the compostables containers.                                                                           6  A residue rate is determined by taking the total tons disposed (residue) and dividing it by the total inbound tons of compostable  materials delivered.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 27 Exhibit 20: Number of Commercial Customers with Compostables Service  Performance Measures  Monthly Average FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Number of commercial customers with compostables service 296 245 273 Total number of commercial customers served 2,124 1,978 1,787 Percentage of commercial customers with compostables service 14.0% 12.4% 15.3% Residue Rate at Z‐Best, the processing facility 22.9% 9.7% 12.1% Source: City staff records     Waste Characterization Study Results – The City conducted studies in 2005 and 2012 to determine  the composition and recoverability of the City’s waste stream and to:  o Identify materials with potential diversion opportunities.  o Provide a baseline for evaluating the future success of current diversion programs.  o Create a foundation for planning for future programs to support the City’s Zero Waste goals.  Specific study findings, such as percentage of compostable paper found in commercial waste,7 can  be used as a baseline to measure progress made in reducing this percentage through education and  outreach.    There is an opportunity for strengthening program evaluations by taking a more holistic approach  and  reviewing multiple interrelated measures when analyzing the progress or effectiveness of specific program  activities in achieving diversion goals. For  example, City staff is already in the  process of conducting a commercial  customer survey to understand  customers’ existing diversion activities  and to identify any barriers to starting  compostables services. The qualitative  information collected could then be  analyzed along with other quantitative  data to design and plan their program  activities. Staff also added “Percent of  households with mini‐can garbage  service” to the FY 2013 Performance  Report, which increased from 21 percent  in FY 2010 to 32 percent in FY 2013.  A  mini‐can is the smallest garbage  container offered to the City’s residential customers, and holds only 20 gallons of garbage. An increase in mini‐ can subscriptions indicates that customers are diverting more waste from landfills through recycling,  composting, and reuse.                                                                 7  The January 2013 Waste Characterization Report stated that in 2012, compostable paper represented 12.8 percent (1,261 tons) of the  City’s commercial front‐load waste and 14.6 percent (892 tons) of commercial compactor waste.     Finding 3 Recommendations to the Public Works Department:  3.6. Identify key operational data required for informed decision  making to ensure efforts required to monitor program  performance and progress are effective and reasonable.  3.7. Establish baseline data and a methodology to evaluate the  effectiveness of program activities and related expenses in  achieving Solid Waste goals.  3.8. Establish a process to ensure that financial incentives and  output requirements provided in a new or renegotiated  contract are aligned with Solid Waste’s key performance  measures to effectively support its goals.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 28                                     Page intentionally left blank     Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 29 Glossary     Adopted Budget The budget that is approved and enacted by the City Council annually on or before June 30th.  CAFR The City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that includes the City’s audited financial statements.  Capital Improvement  Plan (CIP)  The City’s plan for current and future projects related to the acquisition, expansion, or rehabilitation of  buildings, equipment, parks, streets, and other public infrastructure.  Compactor A mechanical apparatus that compresses materials and/or the container that holds the compressed materials.  Compactors include bin compactors of any size serviced by front‐loading collection vehicles and drop box  compactors of any size serviced by drop box collection vehicles.  Construction and  Demolition Debris (C&D)  Materials resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair or demolition of a building, structure, pavement or  other improvement, including building components, packaging, and rubble but excluding liquid waste and  hazardous waste.  Container Any receptacle used for storage of solid waste, recyclable materials, organic materials, yard trimmings, C&D, and  other materials collected pursuant to the GWOPA contract including metal or plastic cans, carts, bins,  compactors and drop boxes.  Diversion Program Any activity implemented by a jurisdiction to divert solid waste from disposal, including source reduction (waste  prevention), reuse, recycling, and composting. Diversion activities must be in accordance with all applicable  federal, State and local requirements.  Enterprise Funds Funds used to account for services that are provided to the public on a user charge basis, similar to the  operation of a commercial business. The City’s enterprise funds include the gas, electric, water, fiber optics,  wastewater collection, wastewater treatment,  storm drainage, airport, and refuse funds.  General Fund The primary fund used to account for the City’s general purpose revenues such as sales, property, utility users  and transient occupancy taxes. General Fund revenues typically pay for citywide services such as public safety,  community development, recreation, libraries and parks.  GreenWaste MRF GreenWaste Material Recovery Facility located in San Jose where the City’s recyclable materials are processed.  GreenWaste of Palo Alto  (GWOPA)  A joint venture between GreenWaste Recovery, Inc., and Zanker Road Resource Management, Ltd., (Zanker)  formed for the purpose of holding and servicing the contract with the City (see GWOPA contract below).  GWOPA Contract The City’s agreement with GWOPA for solid waste, recyclable materials, organic materials and yard trimmings  collection and processing services. The term of the agreement is November 24, 2008, through June 30, 2017,  with an option to extend up to a maximum of four years on the same terms and conditions.   Multi‐Family or Multi‐ Unit Dwellings (MFD)  Building(s) containing five or more individual residential dwelling units that have centralized Solid Waste and  Recyclable Materials Collection service for all units in the building(s) and are billed to one address (typically the  owner or property manager). Defined in the GWOPA contract as “Multiple‐Family Residential Premises.”  Organic Materials Compostables, including yard trimmings, food scraps, and compostable paper and plastics. Currently, organic  materials collected from commercial/industrial premises are transported first to the Greenwaste MRF, then to  the Z‐Best for processing.  Palo Alto Waste  Composition Study  (2006)  A study completed by Cascadia Consulting Group in May 2006 based on waste sampling conducted in November  and December 2005 to provide detailed waste composition and quantity information and to identify key  opportunities for diversion, recovery, or reuse of specific types of material categories. The study’s final report  was included in the Zero Waste Operational Plan.  RAMS Route Accounts Management System used by GWOPA to maintain the City’s refuse customer data.  Refuse Fund The City’s enterprise fund that accounts for all financial transactions relating to the City’s refuse service. Services  are on a user‐charge basis to residents and business owners located in the City.  Refuse Fund Cost of  Service Study (2012)  A rate study conducted by R3 Consulting Group, Inc., to evaluate the refuse rate structure, develop potential  adjustments to the rate structure, and develop a cost of service model to project revenues and expenses. It was  initiated in August 2010 and completed in May 2012.  Reserve Represents the portion of a fund balance set aside for financing future financing needs and addressing one‐time  emergency or unanticipated events.  Reuse The recovery or reapplication of a package or product for uses similar or identical to its originally intended  application, without manufacturing or preparation processes that significantly alter the original package or  product.  Roll‐Off (ROL) One of the three lines of business, or three sectors, developed by the Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study. It  includes compactor and drop box services for containers with capacities ranging from 7 to 40 cubic yards that  are serviced by drop box collection vehicles. It is also one of the RAMS customer types used by GWOPA.  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 30 Single‐Family Dwelling  (SFD)  A residential dwelling, including each unit of a duplex, triplex, fourplex, or townhouse condominium at which  there are no more than four dwelling units and where individual solid waste, recyclable materials, and yard  trimmings collection is provided separately to each dwelling unit and each dwelling unit is billed separately.  Defined in the GWOPA contract as “Single‐Family Residential Premises.”  SMaRT Station Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transport Station where the City’s solid waste is processed.  Solid Waste Program A program in the Public Works’ Environmental Services Division responsible for planning, organizing, and  directing refuse and recycling related activities.  Source Reduction Any action that causes a net reduction in the generation of solid waste. Source reduction includes, but is not  limited to, reducing the use of nonrecyclable materials, replacing disposable materials and products with  reusable materials and products, reducing packaging, reducing the amount of yard waste generated,  establishing garbage rate structures with incentives to reduce waste tonnage generated, and increasing the  efficiency of the use of paper, cardboard, glass, metal, plastic, and other materials.  Waste Characterization  Study (2013)  A study completed in January 2013 based on waste sampling conducted in October 2012 to determine the  composition and recoverability of the City of Palo Alto's waste stream and to identify materials with potential  diversion opportunities.  Z‐Best Z‐Best Composting Facility located in Gilroy where the City’s organic materials and yard trimmings are  processed.  Zero Waste Operational  Plan (2007)  A plan adopted by the City Council in September 2007, which identified a number of policies, programs, and  facilities that will be needed to achieve the City’s zero waste goals and to guide the City’s short and long‐term  zero waste efforts. The report includes the Palo Alto Waste Composition Study dated May 2006.  Zero Waste Strategic  Plan (2005)  A plan adopted by the City Council in October 2005, which identified the key objectives and strategies needed to  reach zero waste by 2021, including both reducing the creation of waste through policies and incentives  designed to eliminate waste at the source and maximizing recycling through expanded collection programs,  processing facilities, education, outreach, and technical assistance.    Refuse Containers     Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 31 ATTACHMENT 1: CalRecycle Per Resident and Per Employee Disposal Rates            Source: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 32       Source: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 33  ATTACHMENT 2: City Manager’s Action Summary  In response to the Audit Recommendations in this report, the City Manager has agreed to take the following actions. We will review and report progress on  implementation of these recommendations during our audit recommendation follow‐up process. The transmittal letter from the City Manager is included in  Attachment 3.    Finding # Recommendation City Manager’s Action Plan Target Date  1 1.1. Continue to review and verify the data  discrepancies identified during the audit and  take corrective action.    Agree. There are 19,681 Refuse accounts. 685 account discrepancies  (3.5% of the total accounts) were identified. Staff has already verified  192 out of these discrepancies, which represent the largest dollar  amounts.  Out of the 192 accounts verified, only 71 accounts needed  billing adjustments and have been corrected as of March 14, 2014.  The remaining 493 discrepancies will be analyzed and adjusted as  appropriate and staff will continue to verify the accounts. When an  account discrepancy is identified, staff reviews the account history for  a period not to exceed 3 years and either generates a credit or a  charge to the customer by following the current Rule and Regulations  No. 11.  Residential or small commercial/non‐profit accounts that  have been undercharged may be back billed for a shorter time period  as appropriate, or not back billed if the customer is not at fault.  September 30,  2014  1 1.2. Develop methodology and tools to compare the  SAP data with RAMS data to detect and correct  any discrepancies in an efficient and timely  manner.    Agree. Staff will implement the comparative method developed by  the Auditor comparing SAP data with RAMS data. This method  involves the creation of a unique record number for the comparison.  Additionally, staff has been meeting with GWOPA regularly and are  working collaboratively to correct any new discrepancies found in  either system. Staff has committed to compare the data semi‐ annually with GWOPA moving forward and taking immediate actions  to correct any errors found.  Finalize  methodology by  September 30,  2014  1 1.3. Perform a cost‐benefit analysis and determine  an optimal course of action to maintain the  accuracy and integrity of refuse customer data.     Agree. Staff has reviewed the preliminary cost‐benefit analysis and  will continue to evaluate options to address future discrepancies to  limit the inaccuracies and potential billing errors resulting from the  maintenance of two distinct customer databases however staff  recommends adding one FTE Business Analyst position to focus on  billing issues on a daily basis. This option would also need to invest  budget to modify SAP to provide more accuracy for the system  integrity. The salary (including benefits) for a Business Analyst is  Complete the  cost‐benefit  analysis and  formalize  recommendation    October 31, 2014     Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 34  Finding # Recommendation City Manager’s Action Plan Target Date  approximately $170,000 and the costs of modifications to SAP are  unknown at this time. Contracting directly with GWOPA to perform  the Refuse billing functions would have an additional net annual cost  impact of approximately $200,000 and would result in residents  receiving separate billings for their utilities. Due to the inconvenience  to the residents, cost and the need to continue to review GWOPA  billing, staff does not recommend this option.  1 1.4. Complete the review of all Multi‐Family  Dwellings (MFDs) to ensure the accuracy of the  customer type classification in RAMS.    Agree. For various reasons some MFD customers have been classified  as single‐family dwelling (SFD), MFD, or Commercial. Staff has already  begun reviewing and correcting any MFD classification inaccuracies.  Staff will continue to work with GWOPA and consult with Utilities to  clarify the guidelines categorizing MFDs in both SAP and RAMS  systems, which includes: improving the guidelines and definitions of  customer types to ensure that they are further clarified, identifying  the number of units for existing MFD customers and reclassifying  customers in RAMS, and establishing appropriate collection services  as needed.   September 30,  2014  1 1.5. Work with the Utilities Department and  GWOPA to clarify the roles and responsibilities  over obtaining information required for  determining customer type, recording data, and  maintaining the accuracy and completeness of  the refuse customer type data.  Agree. New Utilities customers, including Refuse accounts, are  initially set up through Utilities Customer Service. The move‐in  /move‐out data file is transferred every hour to GWOPA. Staff will  work with Utilities Customer Service and GWOPA to clarify the roles  and responsibilities by creating clear guidelines for the single‐family,  multi‐family, and commercial categories used by both Utilities  Customer service and GWOPA.   September 30,  2014  1 1.6. Establish procedures to ensure that necessary  data, system capability, and related  administrative tasks are identified, assessed,  and communicated to stakeholders before  refuse rates or exemptions with high  complexity are adopted.  Agree. Staff will identify business requirements and consult with  GWOPA, Utilities and IT on required system changes/capabilities and  procedures to ensure sufficient data is obtained, and that  consequences are considered and communicated to stakeholders,  when identifying or before adopting new rates or service exemptions.    November 30,  2014  1 1.7. Establish procedures to ensure that a service  code is defined and added to both systems  before a new service fee is implemented.  Agree. Staff and GWOPA have worked to eliminate the RFZ (a generic  billing category) category as documented in this report. Staff will  work with the SAP team to establish procedures and ensure that any  new charged service code will be added to SAP prior to any billing.   September 30,  2014  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 35  Finding # Recommendation City Manager’s Action Plan Target Date  2 2. Assess the potential impact of incorrect service  records that may remain in RAMS, and provide  additional direction as needed to enhance  GWOPA’s monitoring activities, such as a route  audit, over the accuracy of the refuse customer  service records.    Agree. Staff will strengthen oversight and work with GWOPA to  improve the accuracy of customer service records in RAMS. Staff will  direct GWOPA to perform regular route audits based on a staff  developed process, sampling size, and methodology for more  frequent route and service record reviews. Subsequently, staff will  continue to work with GWOPA to correct any new errors in a timely  method. Until all routes have been subject to an audit, GWOPA will  perform quarterly route audits. Once the data is cleaned up, the  route audits will be performed annually.  All routes audits  complete by June  30, 2015  3 3.1.  Work with Administrative Services Department  staff to identify key financial data, clarify the  methodology to obtain the data, and develop  common terminology to be applied throughout  budget, accounting, and staff reports to ensure  that data is verifiable, understandable, timely,  consistent, and useful for decision making  processes.  Agree. Due to various reporting needs, timing, the type of  information being communicated and to whom, current budget and  reserve numbers can fluctuate. Staff will work with ASD Staff to  define the common financial data that will be used or referenced  throughout the budget, accounting and staff reports. When available,  Staff will use CAFR numbers and projections based on SAP or budget,  and ensure figures will be labeled and referenced.  September 30,  2014  3 3.2. Update and clarify the Refuse Fund Rate  Stabilization Reserve guideline to ensure that  the minimum and maximum reserve balance is  set at an adequate level required to support the  reserve’s intended purpose.  Agree. Staff will revise and clarify the Refuse Reserve guidelines.     November 30,  2014  3 3.3. Work with Utilities, Information Technology,  and Administrative Services Department staff to  explore opportunities for improvement to  ensure that actual refuse revenues by sector  are accurately captured and tracked.    Agree. The customer data and refuse service type need to match. The  current service types: R‐1 (residential), R‐2 (commercial cart), and R‐3  (commercial bin and roll off), do not match the revenue categories of  residential, commercial, and industrial. The Auditor has identified an  additional reporting code that will allow for more accurate revenue  reporting. Staff is working with IT on the SAP modification.    September 30,  2014  3 3.4. Work with GWOPA to ensure that data required  for accurate tracking of actual expenses are  identified and reported by GWOPA on a regular  basis. Establish procedures to periodically  review GWOPA financial records to monitor the  accuracy of the data provided by GWOPA.  Agree. Staff will request updated financial statements and expense  records from GWOPA annually and will review the assumptions and  methodology used by GWOPA in establishing their expense by sector.  Staff will also consider using any revised GWOPA percentages of  expenses by sector and operations into the rate model.      September 30,  2014  Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 36  Finding # Recommendation City Manager’s Action Plan Target Date  3 3.5. Consult with the City Attorney’s Office and  reevaluate the need for establishing the  Commercial Sector Reserve. If applicable, work  with Administrative Services Department staff  to establish the Commercial Sector Reserve and  related procedures.  Agree. Staff plans to develop and recommend a sustainable rate  model for implementation in FY 2016 that will provide a roadmap for  eliminating sector imbalances and working with the City Attorney will  reevaluate the need for a separate commercial sector reserve and  related procedures.  November 30,  2014  3 3.6. Identify key operational data required for  informed decision making to ensure efforts  required to monitor program performance and  progress are effective and reasonable.  Agree. Staff will continue to identify and monitor key operational  data and measures required for informed decision making by the City  as well as for the purposes of monitoring GWOPA’s performance.   September 30,  2014  3 3.7. Establish baseline data and a methodology to  evaluate the effectiveness of program activities  and related expenses in achieving Solid Waste  goals.    Agree. Existing measures have been in place to evaluate the program  effectiveness, which include, but are not limited to, percent of  residential customers with mini‐cans, pounds per person, and  commercial customers with compost service. Staff is working on  additional measures to quantify the benefits of outreach activities.   September 30,  2014  3 3.8. Establish a process to ensure that financial  incentives and output requirements provided in  a new or renegotiated contract are aligned with  Solid Waste’s key performance measures to  effectively support its goals.  Agree. Staff will establish a process that will review and identify key  information that could ensure that financial incentives and output  requirements of a new or renegotiated contract are aligned with the  program’s performance measures. Key information may include, but  not be limited to tonnages, successes in other jurisdictions, customer  surveys or waste characterization studies.  September 30,  2014             Attachment A   City of Palo Alto | Office of the City Auditor | Audit of the Solid Waste Program 37 ATTACHMENT 3: City Manager’s Response    Attachment A FINANCE COMMITTEE WORKING MINUTES   Page 1 of 10  Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 3, 2014 Chairperson Berman called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Berman (Chair), Burt, Holman, Kniss (Arrived at 7:05 PM) Absent: Oral Communications None Agenda Items 2. Audit of the Solid Waste Program. Harriet Richardson, City Auditor, said the audit had three objectives in determining whether the City effectively managed the Solid Waste Program: determining whether the Public Works Department’s processes 1) ensured accurate refuse billing; 2) sufficient revenue was available to cover the cost of services; and 3) reliable and useful financial and operational data to support management’s strategic and operational decisions were provided. The audit covered solid waste operations from July 2009 to September 2013, with a focus on management of the City’s contract with GreenWaste of Palo Alto and related waste collection and processing services. The billing for solid waste services came out of the Systems and Applications and Data Processing System (SAP), which was based on each customer’s refuse service data, which was recorded in GreenWaste’s Route Account Management System (RAMS). The service data were transferred from the RAMS to SAP through a daily incoming interface. Audit staff reviewed all 19,681 utility accounts in SAP for customers that had permanent refuse services. The billings resulted in $2.2 million monthly and approximately $26 million annually. Audit staff found that the Public Works Department made significant progress with the Solid Waste Program, including implementing zero waste programs, and enhancing their contract management processes. The audit also showed that the Public Works Attachment B WORKING MINUTES    Page 2 of 10  Finance Committee Regular Meeting  Working Minutes 6/3/2014  Department needed to improve management of their processes for accurate refuse billing, to ensure sufficient revenue was collected to recover the cost of services, and that they provided reliable and useful operational and financial data to support management’s strategic and operational decisions. Audit staff addressed their 16 recommendations with the Public Works Department. Yuki Matsuura, Senior Performance Auditor, relayed that the first finding was to improve the accuracy of refuse billing. Audit staff compared the SAP data with the RAMS data and found 685 accounts that did not match. As of March 2014, Public Works staff had reviewed 192 accounts and confirmed customer billing adjustments for 71 accounts. There were several causes for discrepancies: 1) the interface between RAMS and SAP was not effectively synchronized; 2) when GreenWaste took over the hauling operation, they inherited a significant amount of incorrect data; 3) the refuse customer types were not accurately maintained, especially with regard to the multi- family dwelling classifications; 4) multiple quantities of the same service were not always maintained in one record in RAMS; for example, there may be two records for two waste bins, when there should be one record; and 5) no specific price code was set up for each refuse service; 6) there were over 100 duplicate accounts that were not needed. Audit staff recommended development of methodologies to address the discrepancies, and to conduct a cost benefit to determine interface issues. There was $250,000 available to address these issues. Before using the funds, determination of what was happening with the GreenWaste and the SAP upgrade needed to be identified. There was a possibility of new rate structure that could come from the rate study at this time. Audit staff recommended review of customer classifications and consultation with the Utilities Department and GreenWaste to clarify their roles and responsibilities for recording and maintaining accurate customer data and identifying necessary system capability and related tasks before complex rates and exemptions were adopted by the Council. The second finding included audit staff selecting 298 accounts from RAMS, visiting customer sites, and comparing the services recorded in the system to the actual refuse containers located at the customer site. Audit staff found 30 accounts that did not match, and 10 of those accounts required billing adjustment. Audit staff recommended assessment of incorrect service records that remained in the system and additional direction to enhance GreenWaste monitoring activities. In Finding Three, ensure reliable and useful data are provided to stakeholder’s, audit staff gathered a lot of data, conducted interviews, and reviewed various reports and found more questions than answers because it took time to understand what the data meant; many decisions relied on zero waste programs and the rate setting process. There were eight recommendations. Attachment B WORKING MINUTES    Page 3 of 10  Finance Committee Regular Meeting  Working Minutes 6/3/2014  Financial data was not consistent with the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report or Operating Budget documents; the audit recommended that Public Works staff work with the Administrative Services Department (ASD) to identify key financial data, clarify the methodology, and apply common terminology throughout budget accounts and staff reports so data was verifiable, understandable, timely, consistent, and useful. The Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve Guideline, which determine the refuse rates, had not been updated since 1993; the audit recommended the guidelines be updated to serve their original purpose. The actual refuse revenues and expenses by customer type or by service were not available; the audit recommended that Public Works staff work with the Utilities Department, Information Technology, and ASD to identify ways to ensure actual refuse revenues by sector are accurately captured and tracked. Regarding expenses, certain details were not available to City staff because of language in the contract and because the invoice did not show the breakdown; the audit recommended that Public Works staff obtain the necessary data from GreenWaste and periodically review GreenWaste’s records for accuracy. In 2012, the Finance Committee recognized the need for the Commercial Sector Reserve; the audit recommended that Public Works staff consult with the City Attorney to reevaluate the need for a reserve. Finally, audit staff looked at selected performance measures and found that service level data was not consistent with GreenWaste reports and City records; some numbers were off by 100 or more. Financial incentives were not effectively designed to measure the contractor’s performance. For example, the contract required GreenWaste to collect certain amounts of recyclables, but the total content was affected by external factors, such as demographic or economic activities. This possibly went against public outreach programs that promoted reuse and waste prevention to reduce recyclables. No performance measures were tied to public outreach, which made it difficult to monitor which activities were working. The audit recommended that the Public Works Department track key operational data, establish a baseline, align contractual requirements with key performance measures, and monitor program progress and outcome. Mike Sartor, Director of Public Works, acknowledged the work of the City Auditor and had submitted a summary of responses in the Staff Report. The Public Works Department agreed with the recommendations. Herb Borock said two years ago there were Solid Waste and Refuse Fund Cost of Service Utility studies recommending rate changes. Limitations about customer billing census data provided by the contractor and SAP were listed, which later related to system coding limitations. This was known to staff but was not part of the Council Agenda packet. Street sweeping Attachment B WORKING MINUTES    Page 4 of 10  Finance Committee Regular Meeting  Working Minutes 6/3/2014  expenditures were $1.4 million then, and facilities rent changed in recent years. Jim Keene, City Manager, thought a better understanding on the hierarchy of concern and risk was good because accuracy in billing was more important than process improvement. Having a clear sense of a technological issue, versus input accuracy was important because there were items he put in the realm of process improvement, like accurate statistics in civic engagement, which were not necessarily as important as accurate billing. It was important to work in terms of a level of importance. Vice Mayor Kniss noted no disagreement from the Public Works Department and said the technological products not communicating with each other was a fixable problem. She requested more information about not releasing certain information in contracts, how Palo Alto compared with other jurisdictions, and customer service during the collection of refuse. She wanted to know if the Auditor felt concerned with the audit. Ms. Richardson agreed with Mr. Keene that billing accuracy was most important because service to the customer was important and it was good to have a good reputation. Concerning the amount of discrepancies, they were noteworthy, but not dramatic. She performed a similar audit for another jurisdiction, which was considerably worse. To achieve zero waste goals, it was important to have accurate data. Vice Mayor Kniss thought a zero waste goal was good, but the billing was necessary to achieve the goal. Ms. Richardson remarked that the data was needed in order to know how much waste was being sent to the landfill, versus how much was being recycled. Vice Mayor Kniss questioned the contract issue of the audit. Ms. Matsuura explained that GreenWaste was implementing the Zero Waste Program but the City did not have good data on how much was spent in the commercial sector, versus the residential sector. GreenWaste had the data, but the City needed to obtain these records; the contract did not require GreenWaste to obtain that kind of data but the City had the right to request that data. Attachment B WORKING MINUTES    Page 5 of 10  Finance Committee Regular Meeting  Working Minutes 6/3/2014  Vice Mayor Kniss added that the audit identified the problem and relayed a solution. Ms. Matsuura agreed. Council Member Holman wanted to know if data was not being accurately entered into SAP; she suggested providing instructions on data entry. Correct billing was important, but good data entry was needed. She wanted to know who updated the incorrect data sent to GreenWaste. Ms. Matsuura indicated that the City and GreenWaste worked together because some data was held in SAP and some in RAMS. Council Member Holman questioned: 1) why there were frequent issues with multi-family residential billing and inaccurate assignments; 2) why the Commercial Sector Reserve was not updated and whether there was an issue with the Residential Reserve; was it subsidizing the Commercial Reserve because they were not separate; 3) she wondered why the Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve was last updated was 1993; and 4) she noted that outreach efforts and how they were measured were important because they took up staff resources. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services and Chief Financial Officer, relayed that data entry needed to have a low error rate . It was helpful to identify where Palo Alto was in comparison with the industry standard and suggested providing this information to the Committee at a later time. When Palo Alto went live with the Utility Billing System, there were many errors. One reason was that the City had several commodities within the billing system. Configuring one system with many requirements caused a cross interference because one commodity may have rate tables set that did not allow a different commodity to be set in a different way. Council Member Holman questioned why the commodities could not be set up the same way. Mr. Perez said there were different rate tables for water than for electric, and the different structures and different rates were conflicting for centralized billing. Council Member Holman illustrated the grocery store had different costs for different items. Attachment B WORKING MINUTES    Page 6 of 10  Finance Committee Regular Meeting  Working Minutes 6/3/2014  Mr. Perez remembered that a complication dealt with different structures. There were not a high number of projects at this time that related to the Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve but recalled that the reserve level revenues were set at a minimum of 15 percent, and a maximum of 30 percent. Staff discussed reviewing the structure of the Rate Stabilization Reserve and separating the different reserves; he proposed implementing this in the Public Works Funds and presenting that to the Committee at a later time. The biggest change was when the State of California called for an accounting of the landfill closure and post closure reserves; he noted that a major expense dealt with the hauling of refuse and recyclables. Mr. Keene clarified that the audit found 20,000 entries that did not match, but those were not necessarily billing discrepancies. For example, there was one review of 192 entries that did not match, out of which only 71 had billing discrepancies. A billing discrepancy was either a digital error, which related to a wrong entry, or an analog interface error, which was when a service was changed but the change was not updated or entered into the system. He wanted 100 percent billing accuracy but thought that needed to be put into context. Regarding the performance audit, there were always suggestions for improvement, but cost and what it took to make the changes needed to be considered. Financial or billing issues were of high importance to him, and other measurement issues required a determination of importance. Lastly, he was reviewing SAP and questioned whether a conversion made sense and whether it was cost effective. SAP is a completely integrated, high performance system; the more complex a system, the better it is, but the more room there is for error. If he designed a system that was going to have multiple users, he voted for simplicity. SAP was the opposite of simplicity; it took a lot of training and was going to have more glitches. Ms. Matsuura was most concerned with the manual processes. GreenWaste and Public Works had to review the system daily to check for errors. She noted the difference between old bad data that needed correcting and new interface errors because the audit focused on correcting old data and reducing manual processes so staff could focus on performing their functions. Council Member Holman agreed that the error rate was low. Mr. Keene reiterated the error rate only included the amount of entries that did not match. Attachment B WORKING MINUTES    Page 7 of 10  Finance Committee Regular Meeting  Working Minutes 6/3/2014  Council Member Holman thought SAP was a systemic type of issue. Council Member Burt wanted to know how cooperative GreenWaste was in providing data. Mr. Sartor understood they were cooperative. Ron Arp, Solid Waste Manager, confirmed that GreenWaste was very cooperative and responded to all requests. This was the first request for detailed financial data, and they responded. Council Member Burt inquired about manual effort made on a daily basis, what fixes have been done, and what was on the horizon. Matthew Krupp, Environmental Control Manager, noted that daily fixes needed to be verified with GreenWaste to ensure a service was not put in an inappropriate account. Council Member Burt clarified that this was when a change occurred. Mr. Krupp said there were two sets of verifications: 1) when customers start/end service; and 2) when a change was made. GreenWaste had a limited ability to define the change, so the City managed the change to ensure the customer was billed properly. Council Member Burt inquired about which changes streamlined the process and which reduced errors. Mr. Krupp said there were a few fixes already implemented and added that there were two ways to bill in SAP, by quantity, or whether the service was on or off, which was called a “flag factor”. The Refuse Fund had both of those services, making the process complicated. The “flag-factor” was fixed, but the other questions regarding the different types of services were not yet fixed. Public Works was looking to hire a consultant to help with these fixes. Council Member Burt indicated the errors would be reduced on the front end, given the amount of billing errors. Ms. Matsuura relayed there was about a one to two percent billing error. Attachment B WORKING MINUTES    Page 8 of 10  Finance Committee Regular Meeting  Working Minutes 6/3/2014  Council Member Burt wanted to know if there was a value in a cross-check on each route to verify what the customer has. Mr. Krupp confirmed this was a recommendation that Public Works staff planned on instituting; a semi-annual check of the data in RAMS to SAP. There was a recommendation for GreenWaste to make site audits to confirm the service on the street with what was being billed. Public Works staff planned on making these implementations within one year. Council Member Burt questioned what the error rate was before GreenWaste and how the reduction occurred. Mr. Arp remarked that there was no audit with the previous contractor but there were many errors with the previous system. Council Member Burt inquired whether it was known how many errors were fixed. Mr. Arp was unsure. Council Member Burt remarked that all systems had error rates. He inquired what a realistic error rate was or what a goal was. Mr. Arp was unable to find a standard error rate for refuse billing. He did not know of anyone that had to maintain two databases, which was an unusual situation. Council Member Burt said the industry standard was unknown, but wanted the closest to best practices. Mr. Keene remarked that the two systems were used because customers liked an integrated utility bill that included everything and to view all their costs. Council Member Burt reiterated that part of the problem was there were two systems. He wanted confirmation that the system the Utilities Department used was different than the one the Public Works Department used and whether the system was prone to errors. Attachment B WORKING MINUTES    Page 9 of 10  Finance Committee Regular Meeting  Working Minutes 6/3/2014  Mr. Perez explained that the key difference was that there was no interface and there was no other vendor involved. He knew there were corrections and the Utilities staff had a system for detecting abnormal readings. Council Member Burt heard periodic concerns from rate payers about their skewed billing regarding Utilities; he wanted understanding so he could be informed about what was happening on the Utilities side. Ms. Richardson planned on performing a Utilities Billing Audit and could add some kind of comparison. Mr. Krupp added that a difference between the Refuse Fund and other Utilities Funds was the Refuse Fund offered nearly 350 different products, which could be changed as often as every day. This was different from a metered utility service. Vice Mayor Kniss liked the idea of getting everything on one bill. Ms. Richardson noted that Tacoma, Washington, had problems with SAP too. Chair Berman remarked that in recognizing the integration problem, the error rate was relatively low. He appreciated knowing that people liked everything on one bill. Scott Scholz, Environmental Outreach Manager, GreenWaste of Palo Alto, thought the audit was collaborative and there was no unreasonableness. Vice Mayor Kniss noted that drivers were the first people the customer saw; she wanted to know what they were told. Chris Siebenthall, General Manager, GreenWaste, replied that the customer knew and understood the audit was happening. Vice Mayor Kniss noted that drivers were a good source for outreach because they were contact point with the customer. Mr. Siebenthall did not think this was the case with commercial customers, but there were a lot of residential customers; staff needed a way to share data with the City. Attachment B WORKING MINUTES    Page 10 of 10  Finance Committee Regular Meeting  Working Minutes 6/3/2014  Council Member Burt thought the audit was a three-way effort with GreenWaste, which showed a good partnership. He said the customer was less likely to complain about under billing than overbilling. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Chair Berman to recommend the City Council acceptance of the Audit of the Solid Waste Program. MOTION PASSED: 4-0   Attachment B City of Palo Alto (ID # 4887) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Carshare Services Award Title: Approval of Carshare Lease Agreement with Zipcar for TEN Parking Spaces Within the Downtown Parking Assessment District From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to execute an agreement with Zipcar to have access to parking spaces in City-owned parking lots and provide carsharing services in Downtown Palo Alto. Executive Summary City staff received a proposal from Zipcar in response to a request for proposals (RFP) related to carshare services and is now seeking authorization from the City Council to enter into a 3 year agreement with the company. Under the terms of the proposed agreement, Zipcar would have the rights to access a minimum of 10 parking spaces in City-owned parking lots downtown, and would use those parking spaces to station Zipcars, or carshare vehicles. Members of Zipcar could reserve and use the vehicles instead of having to rely on their own car. If the program is successful, Zipcar could be provided access up to an additional 10 spaces over time. Background On February 24, 2014, Council directed staff to move forward with several initiatives related to TDM (Transportation Demand Management). Figure 1 provides a summary of the initiatives and an update on their respective statuses. Figure 1: Update on Transportation Demand Management Initiatives Measure Status Solicit Proposals to Establish a Non-Profit Transportation Management Authority (TMA) TMA Interviews took place on 6/3; staff is asking two teams to provide a combined revised proposal for award in August City of Palo Alto Page 2 Solicit Proposals For An Expanded Palo Alto Shuttle Program A phase one shuttle contract will be awarded to MV Transportation on 6/23; a phase two will be recommended to Council in August Solicit Proposals to Provide Car Share Services Within City-Owned Parking Lots Update provided in this staff report: award on 6/23 Evaluate Rideshare Tools, Including a Trial of the Twogo Rideshare App, for Coordination and Marketing By The TMA City has marketed the TwoGo application to City employees and external (Downtown) employees These initiatives are part of a suite of measures which the City is implementing to reduce parking demand and the reliance on single occupancy vehicles. Discussion Carsharing, a service where members can rent conveniently located cars for short periods of time and only pay for hours that they use the vehicle, is designed for local users in support of community transit and environmental goals. Carsharing aims to reduce vehicle distance travelled, improve urban land use and development and provide affordable access to vehicles for all constituencies. For residents, carsharing can even provide an alternative to vehicle ownership. The provision of carshare vehicles in Downtown will provide an additional mode option for commuters and residents and potentially help reduce the number of cars driven downtown. The City put forth an RFP for carshare services on March 27, 2014 (see Attachment A). As part of the RFP development, staff reviewed potential parking spaces for carshare designation with several providers, and proposed the following 20 locations in Palo Alto for carshare designation:  Civic Center Garage: 5 non-reserved spaces on Level A  Lot H (at the corner of Cowper and Hamilton): 5 spaces  Lot K (At the intersection of Lytton and Waverley): 5 spaces  Lot N (On Emerson between University and Hamilton): 5 spaces All of the proposed spots are hourly parking spots within the parking assessment district (see Attachment B for the boundaries of the Downtown Parking Assessment district with the lot locations highlighted). These locations have a high level of visibility from the street to promote the program. The City outlined a requirement in the RFP for the provider to pay, at a minimum, a $466 annual permit fee for each designated spot, which is the equivalent of the revenue that would be generated if an annual parking permit was sold for each space. The RFP also included City of Palo Alto Page 3 requirements for marketing efforts by the chosen vendor to help advance the carsharing cause, as well as reporting requirements. Although several carshare providers expressed interest in the RFP when it was being developed, including BMW’s Drive Now program and the non-profit City Carshare, Zipcar was the only organization who responded to the RFP, and staff is recommending their proposal for implementation. Zipcar is one of the most successful and well-established carshare organizations, offering robust customer service support, regular car maintenance and online and app-based reservations. Zipcars can currently be rented in many communities within the Bay Area, including San Francisco, South San Francisco, Belmont, Millbrae, Berkeley, Oakland, Concord, Burlingame, Mountain View, Redwood City, Menlo Park and others. Stanford has 66 Zipcars available on their campus, and Zipcar also currently has two spots allocated at the Sheraton – Lot X -- via a joint agreement with the City of Palo Alto and the hotel. Zipcar’s proposal for the City included the designation of 10 of the hourly spots in the Assessment District locations listed, with a provision to monitor the usage and provide more cars if the program proves successful. The fleet of cars provided to the City will have a fuel efficiency of at least 32 mpg. Members of Zipcar gain access to the vehicles by reserving the cars online or through an app on their smartphone, and then using a card which activates the lock on the car. The members are charged an hourly fee for usage of any vehicle, starting at $8.50 per hour, which includes insurance, gas and maintenance of the vehicle. The members must return the car to the same pod location (lot) from where they retrieved the vehicle. Zipcar will provide the City with quarterly reports on usage, including the following information: a. Current and new membership enrollment into Zipcar by Palo Alto businesses and residents. Number of business accounts new, existing business accounts, existing number of members on business accounts, total new members, and unique trips. b. Average daily reservation requests c. Average vehicle rental period and distance traveled d. Number of business accounts e. Number of personal membership accounts The parking spaces used by Zipcar would be signed and designated for Zipcar Carshare Use Only. The Zipcar contract is provided in Attachment C. Policy Implications Engaging in carsharing services is consistent with the following comp plan goals: Goal T-1, Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles:  Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling and public transit City of Palo Alto Page 4 use.  Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. Goal T-2, Policy T-4: Provide local transit in Palo Alto. Resource Impact Zipcar outlined the following cost proposal as part of their program:  Payment to the City of $466/space per year, and: After a three month start-up period, if average monthly utilization of a space is above 15%, Zipcar will provide the following monthly payments:  Location at or below 15% monthly utilization: No Parking Payment to City  Location at or below 20% monthly utilization: $50/month per space  Location between 21%-40% monthly utilization: $75/month per space  Location above 40% utilization: $100/month per space All of the revenue associated with the program would go into the Parking Permit Fund, which is used to manage and maintain parking lots and garages within the Assessment District. Timeline Upon contract award, Zipcar will implement a 6-week launch plan to bring the vehicles to the designated locations. The period of the agreement will be 3 years, at which point it may be extended or expanded based on utilization. Environmental Review This project is exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act regulations. Attachments:  Attachment A: Request for Proposal for Carshare Services (PDF)  Attachment B: Parking Assessment District with Zipcar Locations in Downtown/University Ave Location Map (PDF)  Attachment C: Zipcar Parking Agreement (PDF) Planning & Community Environment Transportation Division Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 153624 for Professional Services CARSHARE SERVICES FOR DOWNTOWN PALO ALTO Pre-proposal Meeting 2:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 2, 2014 RFP submittal deadline: 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Contract Administrator: Chris Anastole (Email address) chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org CITY OF PALO ALTO PURCHASING/CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 250 HAMILTON AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 (650) 329-2271 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 153624 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TITLE: CARSHARE SERVICES FOR DOWNTOWN PALO ALTO 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto is seeking proposals from qualified firms to provide carsharing services for designated parking spaces in public parking lots and garages in Downtown Palo Alto. The City will make available competitive lease public parking lots for Carshare Organizations to reserve spaces for their fleet. Proposals for the use of on- street parking spaces will be considered as part of this RFP, but Carshare Organizations must outreach to business and private property owners at proposed on- street locations prior to submitting their proposal. Carshare Organizations will be required to submit letters of support from those business and property owners as part of their proposals if on-street locations are proposed. The City may select up to three Carshare Organizations to provide services. The required services and performance conditions are described in the Scope of Work (or Services). 2. ATTACHMENTS The attachments below are included with this Request for Proposals (RFP) for your review and submittal (see asterisk): Attachment A – Proposer’s Information Form* Attachment B – Scope of Work/Services Attachment C – Sample Agreement for Professional Services Attachment D – Sample Table, Qualifications of Firm Relative to City’s Needs Attachment F – Insurance Requirement EXHIBIT A – Carshare Locations: Lots H, N, K & Civic Center The items identified with an asterisk (*) shall be filled out, signed by the appropriate representative of the company and returned with submittal. 3. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS 3.1 Pre-proposal Teleconference A pre-proposal teleconference will be held Wednesday, April 2, 2014. 2:30 p.m. The call-in number is (605) 475-4800, access code 707751. All prospective Proposers are strongly encouraged to attend. 3.2 Examination of Proposal Documents 2 The submission of a proposal shall be deemed a representation and certification by the Proposer that they: 3.2.1 Have carefully read and fully understand the information that was provided by the City to serve as the basis for submission of this proposal. 3.2.2 Have the capability to successfully undertake and complete the responsibilities and obligations of the proposal being submitted. 3.2.3 Represent that all information contained in the proposal is true and correct. 3.2.4 Did not, in any way, collude, conspire to agree, directly or indirectly, with any person, firm, corporation or other Proposer in regard to the amount, terms or conditions of this proposal. 3.2.5 Acknowledge that the City has the right to make any inquiry it deems appropriate to substantiate or supplement information supplied by Proposer, and Proposer hereby grants the City permission to make these inquiries, and to provide any and all related documentation in a timely manner. No request for modification of the proposal shall be considered after its submission on grounds that Proposer was not fully informed to any fact or condition. 3.3 Addenda/Clarifications Should discrepancies or omissions be found in this RFP or should there be a need to clarify this RFP, questions or comments regarding this RFP must be put in writing and received by the City no later than 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 15, 2014. Correspondence shall be e-mailed to Chris Anastole, Contract Administrator at chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org. Responses from the City will be communicated in writing to all recipients of this RFP. Inquiries received after the date and time stated will not be accepted and will not be responded to. All addenda shall become a part of this RFP and shall be acknowledged on the Proposer’s Form. The City shall not be responsible for nor be bound by any oral instructions, interpretations or explanations issued by the City or its representatives. 3.4 Submission of Proposals All proposals shall be submitted to: City of Palo Alto Purchasing and Contract Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue, Mail Stop MB 3 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Proposals must be delivered no later than 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6, 2014. All proposals received after that time will be returned to the Proposer unopened. The Proposer shall submit one (1) hard copy of its proposal in a sealed envelope, labeled “Original”, addressed as noted above, bearing the Proposer’s name and address clearly marked, “RFP NO. 153624 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CARSHARE SERVICES FOR DOWNTOWN PALO ALTO.” Also submit 1 proposal in soft copy via CD or Flash Drive. [The use of double-sided paper with a minimum 50% post- consumer recycled content is strongly encouraged. Please do not submit proposals in binders]. 3.5 Withdrawal of Proposals A Proposer may withdraw its proposal at any time before the expiration of the time for submission of proposals as provided in the RFP by delivering a written request for withdrawal signed by, or on behalf of, the Proposer. 3.6 Rights of the City of Palo Alto This RFP does not commit the City to enter into a contract, nor does it obligate the City to pay for any costs incurred in preparation and submission of proposals or in anticipation of a contract. The City reserves the right to:  Make the selection based on its sole discretion;  Reject any and all proposals;  Issue subsequent Requests for Proposals;  Postpone opening for its own convenience;  Remedy technical errors in the Request for Proposals process;  Approve or disapprove the use of particular subconsultants;  Negotiate with any, all or none of the Proposers;  Accept other than the lowest offer;  Waive informalities and irregularities in the Proposals and/or  Enter into an agreement with another Proposer in the event the originally selected Proposer defaults or fails to execute an agreement with the City. An agreement shall not be binding or valid with the City unless and until it is executed by authorized representatives of the City and of the Proposer. 4 4. PROPOSED TENTATIVE TIMELINE The tentative RFP timeline is as follows: RFP Issued March 27, 2014 Pre-Proposal Meeting 2:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 2, 2014 Deadline for questions, clarifications 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 15, 2015 Proposals Due 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Finalist Identified Week of May 5, 2014 Consultant Interviews Week of May 12, 2014 Consultant selection and contract preparation Week of June 9, 2014 Contract awarded Week of June 16, 2014 Work commences July, 2014 5. INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED (to be submitted in this order only) These instructions outline the guidelines governing the format and content of the proposal and the approach to be used in its development and presentation. The intent of the RFP is to encourage responses that clearly communicate the Proposer’s understanding of the City’s requirements and its approach to successfully provide the products and/or services on time and within budget. Only that information which is essential to an understanding and evaluation of the proposal should be submitted. Items not specifically and explicitly related to the RFP and proposal, e.g. brochures, marketing material, etc. will not be considered in the evaluation. All proposals shall address the following items in the order listed below and shall be numbered 1 through 8 in the proposal document. 5.1 Chapter 1 – Proposal Summary This Chapter shall discuss the highlights, key features and distinguishing points of the Proposal. A separate sheet shall include a list of individuals and contacts for this Proposal and how to communicate with them. Limit this Chapter to a total of three (3) pages including the separate sheet. 5.2 Chapter 2 – Profile on the Proposing Firm(s) This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Prime Proposer’s firm size as well as the proposed local organization structure. Include a discussion of the Prime Proposer firm’s financial stability, capacity and resources. Include all other firms participating in the Proposal, including similar information about the firms. Additionally, this section shall include a listing of any lawsuit or litigation and the result of that action resulting form (a) any public project undertaken by 5 the Proposer or by its subcontractors where litigation is still pending or has occurred within the last five years or (b) any type of project where claims or settlements were paid by the consultant or its insurers within the last five years. 5.3 Chapter 3 – Qualifications of the Firm This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Proposer’s and sub- Proposer’s qualifications and previous experience on similar or related projects. Provide in a table format (see Sample Table, Attachment D) descriptions of pertinent project experience with other public municipalities and private sector that includes a summary of the work performed, the total project cost, the percentage of work the firm was responsible for, the period over which the work was completed, and the name, title, and phone number of client’s to be contacted for references. Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project. This chapter shall include information regarding any relationships with firms and/or individuals who may submit proposals in response to the RFPs being developed. 5.4 Chapter 4 – Work Plan or Proposal This Chapter shall present a well-conceived service plan. Include a full description of major tasks and subtasks. This section of the proposal shall establish that the Proposer understands the City’s objectives and work requirements and Proposer’s ability to satisfy those objectives and requirements. Succinctly describe the proposed approach for addressing the required services and the firm’s ability to meet the City’s schedule, outlining the approach that would be undertaken in providing the requested services. 5.5 Chapter 5 – Proposed Innovations (Optional) The Proposer may also suggest technical or procedural innovations that have been used successfully on other engagements and which may provide the City with better service delivery. In this Chapter discuss any ideas, innovative approaches, or specific new concepts included in the Proposal that would provide benefit to the City. 5.6 Chapter 6 – Project Staffing This Chapter shall discuss how the Proposer would propose to staff this project. Key project team members shall be identified by name, title and specific responsibilities on the project. An organizational chart for the project team and resumes for key Proposer personnel shall be included. Key 6 personnel will be an important factor considered by the review committee. Changes in key personnel may be cause for rejection of the proposal. 5.7 Chapter 7 – Proposal Exceptions This Chapter shall discuss any exceptions or requested changes that Proposer has to the City’s RFP conditions, requirements and sample contract. If there are no exceptions noted, it is assumed the Proposer will accept all conditions and requirements identified in the Attachment C – “Sample Agreement for Services.” Items not excepted will not be open to later negotiation. 6. CONTRACT Proposers shall be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including Insurance Requirements in Attachment F. If a Proposer desires to take exception to the Agreement, Proposer shall provide the following information in Chapter 7 of their submittal package. Please include the following:  Proposer shall clearly identify each proposed change to the Agreement, including all relevant Attachments.  Proposer shall furnish the reasons for, as well as specific recommendations, for alternative language. The above factors will be taken into account in evaluating proposals. Proposals that take substantial exceptions to the proposed Agreement may be determined by the City, at its sole discretion, to be unacceptable and no longer considered for award. Insurance Requirements The selected Proposer(s), at Proposer’s sole cost and expense and for the full term of the Agreement or any extension thereof, shall obtain and maintain, at a minimum, all of the insurance requirements outlined in Attachment F. All policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders shall be subject to the approval of the Risk Manager of the City of Palo Alto as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver if so approved in writing by the Risk Manager. The selected Proposer agrees to provide the City with a copy of said policies, certificates and/or endorsement upon award of contract. 7. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS City staff will evaluate the proposals provided based on the following criteria: 7.1 Financial proposal to the city; 7 7.2 Metrics, evaluation and reporting plan; 7.3 Composition of fleet and maintenance plan; 7.4 Signage plan; 7.5 Experience and professionalism of team assigned; The selection committee will make a recommendation to the awarding authority. The acceptance of the proposal will be evidenced by written Notice of Award from the City’s Purchasing/Contract Administration Division to the successful Proposer. 8. ORAL INTERVIEWS Proposers may be required to participate in an oral interview. The oral interview will be a panel comprised of members of the selection committee. Proposers may only ask questions that are intended to clarify the questions that they are being asked to respond. Each Proposer’s time slot for oral interviews will be determined randomly. Proposers who are selected shall make every effort to attend. If representatives of the City experience difficulty on the part of any Proposer in scheduling a time for the oral interview, it may result in disqualification from further consideration. 9. PUBLIC NATURE OF MATERIALS Responses to this RFP become the exclusive property of the City of Palo Alto. At such time as the Administrative Services Department recommends to form to the City Manager or to the City Council, as applicable, all proposals received in response to this RFP becomes a matter of public record and shall be regarded as public records, with the exception of those elements in each proposal which are defined by the Proposer as business or trade secrets and plainly marked as “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary”. The City shall not in any way be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any such proposal or portions thereof, if they are not plainly marked as “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary” or if disclosure is required under the Public Records Act. Any proposal which contains language purporting to render all or significant portions of the proposal “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary” shall be regarded as non-responsive. Although the California Public Records Act recognizes that certain confidential trade secret information may be protected from disclosure, the City of Palo Alto may not accept or approve that the information that a Proposer submits is a trade secret. If a request is made for information marked “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary,” the City shall provide the Proposer who submitted the information with reasonable notice to allow the Proposer to seek protection from disclosure by a court of competent jurisdiction. 8 10. COLLUSION By submitting a proposal, each Proposer represents and warrants that its proposal is genuine and not a sham or collusive or made in the interest of or on behalf of any person not named therein; that the Proposer has not directly induced or solicited any other person to submit a sham proposal or any other person to refrain from submitting a proposal; and that the Proposer has not in any manner sought collusion to secure any improper advantage over any other person submitting a proposal. 11. DISQUALIFICATION Factors such as, but not limited to, any of the following may be considered just cause to disqualify a proposal without further consideration: 11.1 Evidence of collusion, directly or indirectly, among Proposers in regard to the amount, terms or conditions of this proposal; 11.2 Any attempt to improperly influence any member of the evaluation team; 11.3 Existence of any lawsuit, unresolved contractual claim or dispute between Proposer and the City; 11.4 Evidence of incorrect information submitted as part of the proposal; 11.5 Evidence of Proposer’s inability to successfully complete the responsibilities and obligation of the proposal; and 11.6 Proposer’s default under any previous agreement with the City, which results in termination of the Agreement. 12. NON-CONFORMING PROPOSAL A proposal shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the provisions of these RFP instructions and specifications. Any alteration, omission, addition, variance, or limitation of, from or to a proposal may be sufficient grounds for non- acceptance of the proposal, at the sole discretion of the City. 13. GRATUITIES No person shall offer, give or agree to give any City employee any gratuity, discount or offer of employment in connection with the award of contract by the city. No city employee shall solicit, demand, accept or agree to accept from any other person a gratuity, discount or offer of employment in connection with a city contract. 14. FIRMS OR PERSONS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL 9 In order to avoid any conflict of interest or perception of a conflict or interest, Proposer(s) selected to provide professional services under this RFP will be subject to the following requirements: 14.1 The Proposer(s) who works on the procurement will be precluded from submitting proposals or bids as a prime contractor or subcontractor in the ultimate procurement. 14.2 The Proposer(s) may not have interest in any potential Proposer for the ultimate procurement. ~ End of Section ~ City of Palo Alto – RFP 153624 1 Attachment A Proposer’s Information Form PROPOSER (please print): Name: __________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Telephone: _______________________ Email: ______________________________ Contact person, title, email, and telephone: __________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Proposer, if selected, intends to carry on the business as (check one):  Individual  Joint Venture  Partnership  Corporation When incorporated? ______________ In what state? _______________ When authorized to do business in California? _______  Other (explain):____________________________________________________ ADDENDA To assure that all Proposers have received each addendum, check the appropriate box(es) below. Failure to acknowledge receipt of an addendum/addenda may be considered an irregularity in the Proposal: Addendum number(s) received: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; Or, _____ _____No Addendum/Addenda Were Received (check and initial). PROPOSER’S SIGNATURE No proposal shall be accepted which has not been signed in ink in the appropriate space below: By signing below, the submission of a proposal shall be deemed a representation and certification by the Proposer that they have investigated all aspects of the RFP, that they are aware of the applicable facts pertaining to the RFP process, its procedures and requirements, and they have read and understand the RFP. No request for modification of the proposal shall be considered after its submission on the grounds that the Proposer was not fully informed as to any fact or condition. City of Palo Alto – RFP 153624 2 Attachment A – Proposer Information continued… 1. If Proposer is INDIVIDUAL, sign here Date:______________ _____________________________________ Proposer’s Signature _____________________________________ Proposer’s typed name and title 2. If Proposer is PARTNERSHIP or JOINT VENTURE; at least two (2) Partners shall sign here: ________________________________________________ Partnership or Joint Venture Name (type or print) Date:______________ _____________________________________ Member of the Partnership or Joint Venture signature Date:______________ _____________________________________ Member of the Partnership or Joint Venture signature 3. If Proposer is a CORPORATION, the duly authorized officer shall sign as follows: The undersigned certify that he/she is respectively: _________________________________ and ___________________________ Signature Title Of the corporation named below; that they are designated to sign the Proposal Cost Form by resolution (attach a certified copy, with corporate seal, if applicable, notarized as to its authenticity or Secretary’s certificate of authorization) for and on behalf of the below named CORPORATION, and that they are authorized to execute same for and on behalf of said CORPORATION. ______________________________________ Corporation Name (type or print) By:______________________________________ Date: _________________ Title:__________________________________________ Attachment B – Scope Project Background: The City of Palo Alto finds that carsharing provides numerous transportation and environmental benefits to the community. Carsharing may reduce the number of vehicles driven into and around the city, which helps ease the burden on existing road infrastructure and also reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Carsharing may incentivize use of public transportation for commuters who would otherwise be driving, and in some cases it can even provide an alternative to car ownership. For these reasons, and to further supplement the alternative commute options available to residents and employees, the City of Palo Alto requests proposals for a Carshare Organization (CSO) to provide carsharing services for Downtown Palo Alto. Description of Project: The City of Palo Alto wishes to engage with up to three (3) CSOs to provide carsharing services for the designated parking spaces in public parking lots and garages in Downtown Palo Alto. The City will make available for competitive lease public parking lots for CSOs to reserve spaces for their fleet. Proposals for the use of on-street parking spaces will be considered as part of this RFP, but CSOs must outreach to business and private property owners at proposed on-street locations prior to submitting their proposal. CSOs are required to submit letters of support from those business and property owners as part of their proposals if on-street locations are proposed. As part of the carshare program, the City will be responsible for the following: a. Parking Spot Designation: Provide an exclusive, time-limited right-of-use to up to 20 of its off-street parking spaces. The location and number of spaces have been outlined in Exhibit A. b. Period of Engagement: The period of the agreement will be three (3) years. c. Parking Enforcement: Enforce designated carshare spaces as tow-away zones. d. Site Selection: Although the City has identified the lots which would be designated for carshare vehicles, the City is open to re-evaluating individual site selections after 6 months if both the City and selected CSO agree the initial site selection is not meeting the overall program goals/expectations, despite a concerted community outreach/marketing effort. The City also reserves the right to re-visit site selection (i.e. work with the selected CSO to re-examine lots or garages that may not have initially experienced successful deployment). e. Marketing: Assist in marketing for the Carshare service by identifying carshare “pod” zones (e.g. areas where cars will be parked) on City website and parking related documents. The successful CSOs will be responsible for the following : 1. Signage: Installation and maintenance of City-approved signage at designated parking spaces 2. Markings: Installation and maintenance of City-approved stencils to help further designated parking spaces for exclusive carshare use. 3. Quarterly Reporting: Proposals should include the metrics that CSOs will collect data on and report to the City on a quarterly basis to help provide the public with information regarding the use of the program. The City requests, at a minimum, metrics on the following: a. Current and new membership enrollment b. Recurring member use versus new member use c. Average daily reservation requests d. Average vehicle rental period and distance traveled e. Most popular destinations during vehicle rental f. Number of business accounts g. Number of personal membership accounts Customer service reports will be required at least once per year. 4. Vehicle Permits: Carshare fleet vehicles shall be clearly marked on the exterior of the vehicles are carshare vehicles to avoid errant citation by the City. Depending on the fleet structure, city permits should be installed on vehicles if permanently reserved to the City. 5. Electric Vehicles: CSOs will be responsible for signage and marking of the spaces and if electric vehicles are proposed for use. The CSO will also be responsible for the installation and operations & maintenance of electric vehicle chargers. To help ensure a successful carshare program in the City, the City requires CSOs to include the following minimum elements as part of this program. Each of the elements should be described in detail as part of the CSO proposals:  Web-Based and Mobile App-Based Membership Reservation: Provide web-based reservations for members and business-account administrators with the following: o Complete on-line help system and reservation service. o Member approval process. o Management of fleet, members, maintenance, rates and locations. o Up-to-date reporting capabilities such as membership, revenue, vehicle utilization and reports to enable the monitoring of the service in real time. o Any other information as deemed needed by both parties.  Vehicle Maintenance Program: Provide an operations & maintenance program to ensure the safe operation and cleanliness of vehicle fleets including: o Service frequency o Emergency Roadside Program o Online and Live Vehicle Support o Refueling Monitoring Program  Vehicle Tracking: To help members track anticipated delivery of vehicles from prior users and to gather information on vehicles prior to acceptance, users should have access to the following type of information: o Real-Time GPS vehicle tracking o Fuel or Charge level information  Vehicle Insurance: Provide the equivalent of full-coverage automobile insurance including uninsured motorist coverage for physical damage and liability insurance. Proposed insurance coverage limits that satisfy State of California legal requirements should be clearly defined in CSO proposals. CSOs shall also accept minimum insurance requirements further discussed in the proposal for partnership programs including indemnification requirements.  Fleet Composition: The proposed CSO fleet shall be comprised of vehicles that meet the following minimum standards: Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission (AT-PZEV) and or ZEV with a fleet-wide range average of at least 32 MPH City and Highway, combined. CARSHARE COST PROPOSALS CSO proposals will be evaluated based on the requirements discussed above including the most attractive lease proposals to the City. CSOs are encouraged to provide creative cost proposals that include the following types of partnership elements:  Monthly Lease Rate per Parking Space: Proposals should include the CSO monthly lease rate per parking space. Proposals should also include a minimum annual parking permit fee, currently $466 per year per permit.  Profit-Sharing: Proposals may offer profit-sharing to the City per vehicle use and include projections on annual income to the city.  City Business Account: Reduced initiation and/or monthly fee, No Charge, or Non-Peak No Charge Accounts for use by City officials. Electric Vehicle Carshare: Proposals that include electric vehicles will be required to provide minimum Level 2 electric vehicle chargers to each parking space that are secured for use by program participants. Proposals should include the proposed electric vehicle charger manufacturer and qualifications for the proposed electrical contractor that will be responsible for the charger installations. Any permit fees for work within the public right-of-way and on-going electrical fee will be the responsibility of the CSO. Proposals should include a qualifications statement for the CSO and highlight a minimum of two (2) years of experience providing carsharing services to business entities and cities. Staffing proposals and proposed account representatives to the City should be included in the proposal. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND TERM Provide a project plan and schedule outlining the timeline and scale of your organization's carshare deployment within the City of Palo Alto from year 1 through 3 on an annual basis. Please include the fleet composition and a detailed plan for program implementation during the first year of operation. As part of this project plan, identify the following: 1. Potential Challenges 2. Technology and Software support (if any) 3. Any additional considerations ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS CSOs which do not require designated parking spaces are also invited to respond to the RFP. The City asks that these responders detail what allowances would need to be made by the City for these programs, provide a detailed financial proposal and clearly state any exceptions to the guidelines outlined in this RFP. Attachment C – Sample Agreement City of Palo Alto RFP 153624 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this day of , , (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and , a , located at ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to 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. Attachment C – Sample Agreement City of Palo Alto RFP 153624 SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. OR 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. 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 Dollars ($ ). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Dollars ($ ). 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 Attachment C – Sample Agreement City of Palo Alto RFP 153624 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 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. Attachment C – Sample Agreement City of Palo Alto RFP 153624 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. Option 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: 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 as the to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and as the project 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 , Department, Division, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: . 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 Attachment C – Sample Agreement City of Palo Alto RFP 153624 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 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. [Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 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. Attachment C – Sample Agreement City of Palo Alto RFP 153624 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 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 Attachment C – Sample Agreement City of Palo Alto RFP 153624 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. 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 Attachment C – Sample Agreement City of Palo Alto RFP 153624 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 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. Attachment C – Sample Agreement City of Palo Alto RFP 153624  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 Attachment C – Sample Agreement City of Palo Alto RFP 153624 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. 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. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement City of Palo Alto – RFP 153624 Attachment D SAMPLE TABLE FORMAT QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRM RELATIVE TO CITY’S NEEDS Project Name Client Description of work performed Total Project Cost Percentage of work firm as responsible for Period work was completed Client contact information* Did your firm meet the project schedule (Circle one) : Yes No Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project: Did your firm meet the project schedule (Circle one) : Yes No Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project: Did your firm meet the project schedule (Circle one) : Yes No Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project: Did your firm meet the project schedule (Circle one) : Yes No Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project: *Include name, title and phone number. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Rev. 11/07 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. PLEASE EMAIL CERTIFICATES TO: insurancecerts@cityofpaloalto.org 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 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 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 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Rev. 11/07 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. EXHIBIT A: CARSHARE LOCATIONS Lot H  Location: Cowper and Hamilton  1 2 3 4 5   Lot N Location: Emerson and University                    1 2 3 4 5  Lot K Location: Florence and Lytton Ave                2  3  4 5 Civic Center Lot: Between Ramona and Bryant, Hamilton and Forest: Entrances on both Bryant and  Ramona      5 spots on first level  120-31-009 120-14-016 120-26-095 120-26-099 120-16-099 RamonaDistrict D ow ntow n P arking A ssess me nt D istrict Senior C enter Fire Sta. N o.1 D o w nto w n Library Lytton Plaza Cogswell Plaza Joh nson P ark W illia m s Park C ity H all 469 475 74 4 459 80 1 A P T 1 - 5 427-453 46 803 800 567-569 559563 539541543 515-517 136 610 116-122 150 53 5529525 54 2 516140 102 116124 163 145 56 6 55 6 167 528 64 3 63 5 63 5 645- 685 660- 666 620 180 164 158156 624 628 632 636 640 644 617621 151-165 171-195 203 642 640 636 200 151 115 125 135 514 101 440 444 436432 427 425 117119 630 616 208 228220 240 575 530- 534 536540 552 177 156 201209215225 595 229231 611-623 180 508500 625-631 170 172-174 542 544 538- 542 552 548 546 541- 547 230-238 734 723 721 702- 730220-244 744 701 731 755 757 771 160 728-732 762- 776740-746 250 275 270 255741 265 724 730 651 221-225 227 229 707 205 201203451449 209 219 221 233235450 460 470 442 444 400 420 430 411 425 429 185 165 181 412 250 420 245 171-169 441- 445 435- 439 346 344 333 335 342 344 431 460 450 235530 220220 B 222 240 278 270 250 545 540 251485255 271 281 300310301 581 259-267 533 535 537 261267 518-526 532- 536 520-526 530-536 271 281 252 270 240-248202- 216 228 226 234 238 244 242 210- 216 228- 234 223- 229 209 215 247-259 240 232 230 311-317 251 344 326 340 337339 323 317 400 420 332330 314 353 355 367 305 347 265272-278 418 319 321- 341 328 330 300- 310 431401 366 436 426 #1-7 369 335 319 390 301 315 375 307- 311 325330 332 1&2330 1-3 324 326316 318 373- 377 416- 424 361 338 340 560 345 321325 315 529 285 555 650636 628 1-12 628 A-E 385 365 375380 345 664 325650-654 661 635300 690 675 555541-549533 535- 539 318-324 326 352 425 439-441 435429425 415-419 405403453 461 383460 502 510 526 520 540 499 467 459 439 425555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374376380-382 384-396 550-552 364360 431 440-444 423 499 475 421-423 431-433 432428 460-476 450 635 446 430 400 745 720 706 385744 734 724-730 720 712 704 360 351 315737 332 653 -681 683 685 512 501619 609605 518 482486496 610 630 455 400 651-687 543-545 532534 542544 550 552 554556 558560562564 635-637 643-645 601-619 470 313 334 333 325326 342 303301 229 336 308 310 312 316 318 311 331 315 319 317 321 335 427-431 359 343 228220 356-360 347-367 351357 369-379360 258- 296 193173 449Units 1-4 419 350 210 204176 365 375 381 181- 187 302- 316 379310 320 328 332 340 437 412 311 A-B 404 313 325 327 333 407401385 411 452 378-390 360 - 1A - 1C360 - 2A - 2C360 - 3A - 3C360 - 4A - 4C360 - 5A - 5C360 - 6A 344-348 418420 482 328 456 321 325 330204 218 236 240 250- 252 477 475 467 457 453249235 225 221 201 460 275505-509 239- 243 209- 213 210- 214 513-519 460 474472228- 230 453 176 471-479 483-485 465-467 459-461 565 555 535531174170 525 507505 189185179 160164 535 558 201 516512 520 209 215 223 231 521 580 239-245 530-540 544-554 212- 216 218-222 14 621 611 175167 149 168 181177 190 194 192 577575 333 335- 337 351 457451 465463 489-499360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451443 437411 405 419 405 401 441 480-498 347 351 355 359 525 430 473 332- 342 425 415 400 570568 556 550 543 327 321 315305 343 515 525 551 555 328 309-311 518-528 536-540 552-554 558-562 573 A-E 591-599 557-571 330-332 318-320 406-418 417 542 548568 524 550 500-528 578 564 550 546 540 530 531-535 541 505 525 537 555 565 571 530 619-623 520 440-446 401 579 567 625 523 51 610 600 616 624 555 581 420-438 437 566 224 228 A-F 244 579 575 565 559 24 25 26 251 355 A-J 335 329 3332 33 604 626 576 566 614 345-347 623-643 243 245 257 259 209 219 227 235 2322 602 2221 505 610-616 727 678 676 674672 642 636-638 567 555 711 701705 725 525 759 730 718 734 738-740 760 746-750 701-717 721-725 6 609 759 751 753 617-619749 628 737-739 627 611 601 608600 620 623 137 145 700 780 790 744 111150 753100 49 799 703 100 101 139654 735 707 23 800 801 791153 718 774 761 795745 201 209 217 222 148 171 421 130 312 318 324 317 301 186 192 323 329 151 325 329 334 131 129 101 301 235 258 212 163 115 291247 145 210 201 207 164 202 158 180 165 147 125 149 170 172 165167169171 129A - 129E 139A - 139E 235 251 249 252 247 244 250 177220 261 251-257 205245 231 225 213 205 170 172 206 234 240 183 251 270 241-247 215- 237 210- 216 21-43 171 219 219 235 262 202 245 254252250 151 159 203 215 221 313-317318 220- 224 238 319-3231-7 33927-35 197 187- 197 309 542-550 531-539 759 223-239 188190 251- 293 202 206 208 210 212 216220 621-631 275 539 201 27 168 95 408 412 440 483A - F 435 751 735 745 727 733 335 328 330 345 350 409419 230302 306 308 312 316 301 303 305 307 309 251 801 4 424 4 423425 457-467 469-471473-481 454 729 A-D 733-743 734-740 724-732 715 95 445 324 328 545 590 425447 565 585595 315 507 561 706 536 200 280-290 150 162164 276 516 698 161 159 157777 132 127 180 528 120 247 372 524 548550 152 207 345 336 515 658 227 539 115 135 321 558 #200-202 558 #C & D 140 461 435433 421 727 A-C 218 255 167 739 650 642 351 451 551 375 530 643 415 700 802 99 89 87 548 423 668 305 -313 423 405 611 320322 346 323 470 471 484 115 264 430 508 756 - 760 544 546 515 745 211 213 151 160 257 433-457 482 330 349 401 539 440 312 202 651 443445 447 716 218 398 262 335 218 640-646506 119121 327 469 254 401 91 725 595 705 363 541 321 600 146 411 - 419 668 355 365 111121 548 597 EMERSON STREET HOMER AVENUE HA W T H O R N E A V E N U E RAMONA STREET EMERSON STREET HA W T H O R N E A V E N U E HIGH STREET EVERETT AVENUE EVERETT A VENUE HIGH STREET T ALMA STREET ALMA STREET LYTTON A VENUE ALMA STREET EMERSON STREET RAMONA STREET LYTTON A VENUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE RAMONA STREET BRYANT STREET HIGH STREET EMERSON STREET ALMA STREET EMERSON STREET HIGH STREET HIGH STREET HAMILTON A VENUE HAMILTON A VENUE EMERSON STREET HAMILTON A VENUE GILMAN STREET WAVERLEY STREET BRYANT STREET FOREST A VENUE FOREST A VENUE BRYANT STREET RAMONA STREET RAMONA STREET BRYANT STREET FLORENCE STREET KIPLING STREET LYTTON A VENUE WAVERLEY STREETWAVERLEY STREET EVERETT A VENUE EVERETT A VENUE BRYANT STREET WAVERLEY STREET HAWTHORNE A VENUE RAMONA STREET BRYANT STREET LYTTON A VENUE UNIVERSITY A VENUE COWPER STREET KIPLING STREET UNIVERSITY A VENUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE COWPER STREET WAVERLEY STREET HAMILTON AVENUE REET EET HAWTHORNE STREET COWPER STREET HAWTHORNE A VENUE HAWTHORNE AVENUE KIPLING STREET EVERETT A VENUE COWPER STREET WEBSTER STREET EVERETT AV WEBSTER STREET WEBSTER STREET LYTTON AVENUE TASSO STREET HAMILTON A VENUE COWPER STREET FOREST AVENUE FOREST A VENUE WAVERLEY STREET HOMER A VENUE W WEBSTER STREET WEBSTER STREET COWPER STREET HOMER A VENUE HOMER A VENUE UNIV LYTTON A V WEBSTER STREET HAMIL FORE HOME N I VER S I T Y C I R C L EVERETT COURT LANE 39 LANE 7 EASTLANE 5 EAST LANE 6 EAST LANE 20 EAST LANE 30 LANE 20 WEST LANE 2 1 MITCHELL LANE LANE 15 EAST BRYANT COURT PAULSEN LANE LANE 12 WEST LANE 11 WEST CENTENNIAL WALK DOWNING LANE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARDOWERS BOARD HIGH STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET FOREST AVENUE HOMER AVENUE URBAN LANE LANE 7 WEST Senior C enter Fire Sta. N o.1 D o w nto w n Library Lytton Plaza Cogswell Plaza Joh nson P ark W illia m s Park C ity H all This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Parking District 0'400' Downtown/University AveParking Assessment DistrictArea Map CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2014 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2014-04-21 17:06:45 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Confidential – Zipcar, Inc. Page 1 PARKING AGREEMENT Effective Date: This Agreement consists of this signature page and the following schedules, which are incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement: Schedule A: Parking Terms and Conditions Schedule B: General Terms and Conditions Schedule C: Scope of Work: Carsharing Services for the City of Palo Alto - Zipcar Schedule D: Insurance Requirements Notices: All notices, requests and demands, and other communications required or permitted under this Agreement will be in writing and sent to the addresses set forth below. A notice will be deemed effective: (a) upon delivery, if delivered personally to a party; (b) 1 business day after deposit, if delivered to a nationally recognized courier service offering guaranteed overnight delivery; or (c) 3 business days after having been deposited in the United States mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original and which together will constitute one and the same instrument. The signature of any of the parties may be evidenced by a facsimile copy of this Agreement bearing such signature and such signature will be valid and binding as if an original executed copy of the Agreement has been delivered. A duly authorized representative of each party has executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. Zipcar, Inc. (“Zipcar”) ____________________ (“Company”) By: _________________________ By: _________________________ Name: Dan Grossman Name: _________________________ Title: Regional Vice President, West Title: _________________________ Address: 191 2nd St Address: _________________________ San Francisco, CA 94105 ATTACHMENT C Confidential – Zipcar, Inc. Page 2 Schedule A Parking Terms and Conditions 1. Number of Parking Spaces; Monthly Fee. Company will make available to Zipcar the following number of parking spaces at Company’s parking facility indicated below. On or about the first day of each calendar month, Zipcar will pay Company a monthly fee for each parking space to be used by Zipcar in that month. If Zipcar is not entitled to use the space for the entire month (or was notified Company of a reduction in parking spaces pursuant to Section 3 below), the monthly fee will be prorated for the number of days that Zipcar will not have use of the space. The monthly fee per parking space is as set forth in the table below. Number of Parking Spaces Facility Name and Address Monthly Fee Per Parking Space 3 Civic Center Garage $466 + any additional fee based on utilization per the fee proposal 3 Lot H $466 + any additional fee based on utilization per the fee proposal 2 Lot K $466 + any additional fee based on utilization per the fee proposal 2 Lot N $466 + any additional fee based on utilization per the fee proposal 2. Parking Space Availability and Use. The location of the parking spaces assigned to Zipcar shall be mutually agreed by the parties. The parking spaces made available to Zipcar will be used by Zipcar for the purpose of providing car sharing services to Zipcar members, and Zipcar and its members shall have right to use the parking spaces, including without limitation the right to park, operate, clean, and otherwise use the Zipcar vehicles. Company shall provide Zipcar, its members, and its third party personnel with 24x7x365 unrestricted access to the parking spaces and shall otherwise provide the same amenities and services it affords to other parking tenants. Zipcar shall have the right to decrease the number of parking spaces at any time and for any reason, including without limitation for seasonal fleet management purposes, without penalty by providing thirty (30) days prior notice to Company, after which Zipcar shall not be required to pay the Monthly Fee Per Parking Space for such spaces. 3. Signage. Zipcar shall have the right to place Zipcar signage advertising the Zipcar services in such locations at the Company’s parking facilities as Zipcar and Company may mutually agree from time to time. At a minimum, Company agrees that Zipcar may (i) install a drop box at the entrance to each facility, in high traffic areas, and at each parking space, and (ii) mark off reserved parking spaces assigned to Zipcar by displaying one 12’’ by 18’’ “Tow Zone” sign, and one 2’by 2’ “Zipcars Live Here” sign at each space. Zipcar agrees that all signage shall conform to the Palo Alto Municipal Code and that Zipcar will ensure all required approvals, if any, are obtained. Confidential – Zipcar, Inc. Page 3 Schedule B General Terms and Conditions 1. Obligations of the Parties; Relationship of the Parties. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, each party will perform the obligations set forth in Schedule A. The relationship of the parties to this Agreement is solely that of independent contractors. Neither party will have any authority to contract with third parties on behalf of the other party or to expressly or impliedly represent that it has any such authority, to any person. 2. Term; Termination. Term of Agreement. The initial term of this Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and, unless terminated earlier in accordance herewith, will continue for a period of three (3) years. This Agreement can be renewed by mutual written agreement of the parties unless either party gives the other written notice of termination at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the then current term. If either party breaches this Agreement and fails to cure such breach within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice of that breach from the other party then the other party, then the other party may terminate this Agreement effective as of the end of such thirty (30) day period. Either party may terminate this Agreement immediately if the other party (i) ceases to do business in the ordinary course or (ii) commits an act of bankruptcy (such as a giving general assignment for the benefit of creditors) or files a bankruptcy petition which is not vacated within thirty (30) days of filing. No termination for cause will be deemed a waiver of any claim for damages by the terminating party. Sections 5 and 7 of this Agreement shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement. 3. Representations and Warranties. Each party represents and warrants to the other that (i) it has the authority to enter into this Agreement and is not under any obligation to any third party that would conflict with this Agreement and (ii) it will comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws. Zipcar agrees to maintain the following insurance: (a) Commercial General Liability in the amount of $1,000,000 each occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate; and (b) Commercial Excess Insurance in an amount of $1,000,000 each occurrence and annual aggregate; and Zicpar agrees to name Company as an additional insured on Zipcar’s Commercial General Liability Policy. Company represents, warrants and covenants that (i) there is no other tenant or occupant that has or will have any right to use or occupy the parking spaces assigned to Zipcar on a permanent basis hereunder, once said spaces are mutually agreed to; provided, however, that if the vehicles are valet parked, this warranty shall be deemed to have been met provided Company has at least the agreed upon number of spaces available for Zipcar vehicles; (ii) it shall deliver the parking spaces in broom clean condition maintain the parking spaces in good condition; and (iii) it shall keep and maintain the portion of the facilities in which the parking spaces are located in good condition and repair and remove all snow, ice and other debris therefrom. 4. Publicity. Neither party will use the other party’s name, logos, trademarks or service marks in any manner without the other party’s prior written approval which will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES; LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. ZIPCAR MAKES NO WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICES OR THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS AGREEMENT AND HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. EXCEPT FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS, NEITHER PARTY WILL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER PARTY FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSS. EXCEPT FOR ZIPCAR’S INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS, NEITHER PARTY’S LIABILITY HEREUNDER WILL EXCEED THE FEES PAID FOR THE SERVICES THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE CLAIM. EACH PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION REPRESENT A REASONABLE ALLOCATION OF RISK THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE FEES PAYABLE BY ZIPCAR HEREUNDER. THE FOREGOING LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NOT INTENDED TO LIMIT EITHER PARTY’S LIABILITY FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT. 6. Indemnification. Zipcar (the “Indemnifying Party”) shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Company (the “Indemnified Party”) its successors, subsidiaries, affiliates, employees, officers, trustees, agents and assigns from and against any and all third party claims brought against the Indemnified Party by any person or entity for personal injury or property damage arising out of the Indemnifying Party’s negligence or willful misconduct. The Indemnifying Party will pay all damages agreed to in settlement or awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction; provided, however, that no settlement shall be effective without consent of the Indemnified Party. This indemnification obligation shall be effective only if the Indemnified Party has given prompt written notice of the claim to the Indemnifying Party, permitted the Indemnifying Party an opportunity to defend, and reasonably cooperated in the defense of the claim at the Indemnifying Party’s expense. 7. Miscellaneous. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties with resepct to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all other prior and contempoaneous agreements and understandings, oral and written, between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Additional or different terms in any purchase order or similar document will not modify or add to the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only by a written agreement between the parties. If one party fails to enforce any provision of this Agreement, such party will not be precluded from enforcing the same provision at another time. This Agreement and the rights granted under it may not be assigned or transferred by either party without the written consent of the other party; provided, however, either party will have the right to assign this Agreement to its successor in the event of a merger, acquisition or other consolidation, including without limitation the sale of all or substantially all of its assets or stock or business to which this Agreement relates. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held by a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, such provision will be deemed modified to the minimum extent necessary to render the provision enforceable in a manner that most closely represents the original intent of the parties and the remaining terms and conditions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with law of the the State of California without regard to conflicts of laws provisions thereof. The parties agree that the sole jurisdiction and venue for actions related to the subject matter hereof shall be the state and federal courts located in Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, California. , and consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts. In the event of any adjudication of any dispute under this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action will be entitled to reimbursement of its attorneys’ fees and related costs by the other party. Neither party will be responsible for delays or failures in performance resulting from acts beyond its control. Such acts include but are not be limited to acts of God, labor conflicts, acts of war or civil disruption, governmental regulations imposed after the fact, public utility out failures, industry wide shortages of labor or material, or natural disasters. Confidential – Zipcar, Inc. Page 4 Schedule C: Scope of Work: Carsharing Services for the City of Palo Alto – Zipcar Scope of Work Company hereby grants a license to Zipcar to use ten designated parking spaces within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The parking spaces are located as follows:  Civic Center Garage: 3 spaces o First 3 Non-Reserved Spaces in the middle row after entering from Bryant St  Lot H: 3 spaces o First 3 Spaces after the ADA space on the right side of the lot  Lot K: 2 spaces o First 2 spaces after the ADA spaces on the right side of the lot (entering from Lytton Ave)  Lot N: 2 spaces o First 2 spaces on the left in the most westward portion of the lot Zipcar will be responsible for the following services and reporting in support of the Carshare program. Within 30- days of contract execution Zipcar shall provide proofs for review and approval by the sign for all signage and marking proposed for use as part of the downtown car share program. Signage & Markings  Installation and maintenance of City-approved signage at the designated parking spaces.  Installation and maintenance of City-approved stencils to help further designated parking spaces for exclusive carshare use Quarterly and Annual Reporting Requirements  Quarterly reports shall be used to report to the City of Palo Alto on carshare usage to help estimate the use of alternative transportation modes. The reports shall also be used to establish revenue-sharing (revenue sharing is based on the utilization terms stated in the Cost Proposal Section) allocations to the City of Palo Alto for the use of city resources for private sector use. The reports shall include the following minimum information: a. Current and new membership enrollment into Zipcar by Palo Alto businesses and residents. Number of business accounts new, existing business accounts, existing number of members on business accounts, total new members, and unique trips. b. Average daily reservation c. Average vehicle rental period and distance traveled d. Number of personal membership accounts City revenue-sharing shall be based on the terms noted in the Cost Proposal section.  Annual reports shall summarize total activity on membership and vehicle usage. Customer Service Tools To help ensure the success of the Zipcar program that is taking advantage of city resources for private sector uses, Zipcar shall make available the following tools to help promote the use of the car share network.  Web-based Reservations for members and business-account administrators with the following: o Complete on-line help system and reservation service. o Member approval process. o Management of fleet, members, maintenance, rates and locations. o Up-to-date reporting capabilities such as membership, vehicle utilization and reports to enable the monitoring of the service in real time.  Operations & Maintenance Program to ensure the safe operation and cleanliness of vehicle fleets including: Confidential – Zipcar, Inc. Page 5 o Service frequency o Emergency Roadside Program o Online and Live Vehicle Support o Refueling Monitoring Program  Real Time Vehicle Location and Fuel Reserve tools to help car share uses both track the location of existing and incoming vehicles as well as fuel or charge level of vehicles to help them plan their trips. o Real-Time GPS vehicle tracking Pertains to electric vehicles only.  Vehicle Maintenance: Zipcar will provide oil change and car washing services for all vehicles provided to the City. For services that are provided within the lots or garages, Zipcar shall comply with the following: 1. Civic Center: No additional drainage requirements. 2. Lot H: Provide an “ultra-filter sock” at the storm drain to catch any potential runoff from car washing activities. 3. Lot N: No additional requirements. 4. Lot H: Provide an “ultra-filter sock” at the storm drain to catch any potential runoff from car washing activities. 5. Zipcar is authorized to use a 32 fl. oz. spray bottle to incorporate the spray and wipe method to clean the Car Share Vehicle(s) that prevents water or other liquid to collect on the ground or run into the storm drain system.  Gas-Saver or Alternative Fuel Vehicle Fleets. All vehicles made available within the downtown car share program by Zipcar shall meets the following minimum standards: Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission (AT-PZEV) and or ZEB with a fleet-wide range average of at least 32 MPH City and Highway, combined. ZipCar shall notify the City of proposed fleet changes. If fleet changes introduce electric vehicles, Zipcar shall be solely responsible for the installation and maintenance of any equipment required to charge or maintains the vehicles. Zipcar shall follow city standard permitting processes for equipment installations and upgrades.  Implementation Plan: Zipcar will manage the implementation strategy of the carsharing program within six weeks of contract award: a. Zipcar will coordinate a launch call with City project team and other stakeholders to establish the strategy for the implementation plan. b. Zipcar will conduct weekly calls to provide updates on the launch process. c. Zipcar will create a marketing plan, with input from the City. d. Zipcar will provide an overview of technology and fleet operations with City Staff. e. Zipcar will provide City-approved signage and striping for each designated zipcar parking location, and work with the City to ensure appropriate installation. f. Zipcar will build a City of Palo Alto-specific website to support the program. g. Zipcar will coordinate and host the Launch event. Zipcar will use multiple means to promote the carshare program, including but not limited to the following: strategically placed brochures, ads in neighborhood newspapers, booths at community events, transit ad shelters and benches, community centers, restaurant tabletop ads, and postcard mailings. Provide a variety of marketing and outreach materials (brochures, posters, postcards, email messages, etc.) for placement on city/county owned property, and to business organizations and neighborhood residents for distribution. Zipcar will: Confidential – Zipcar, Inc. Page 6  Work closely with the City to finalize the marketing and outreach plan and promote the program.  Place the City’s logo as well as any other affiliated organization’s logo on the website – with a brief overview of the relationship.  Provide a variety of marketing and outreach materials (brochures, posters, postcards, email messages, etc.) for placement on city/county owned property, and to business organizations and neighborhood residents for distribution.  Zipcar will not post City logo on website without consent from the City. Insurance Zipcar shall provide the following insurance coverage: $1 million limit and $2 million aggregate for both general and auto liability. Cost Proposal Rates for use of each space shall including both an annual per space fee and a revenue sharing on overall carshare use based on the following:  $466/fiscal year starting July 1 through June 30  Revenue sharing based on Quarterly Reports information to be prepared by Zipcar In addition, after a three month start-up period, if average monthly utilization of a space is above 15%, Zipcar will provide the following monthly payments:  Location at or below 15% monthly utilization: No Parking Payment to City  Location at or below 20% monthly utilization: $50/month per space  Location between 21%-40% monthly utilization: $75/month per space  Location above 40% utilization: $100/month per space Zipcar will also offer a special promo code upon launch that provides the initial membership fee for $25 and offers a $25 driving credit for all residents and businesses in Palo Alto. City employees would be offered the same driving credit and would have the initiation fee waived. Confidential – Zipcar, Inc. Page 7 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: REQUIRE D 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 NO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (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. Confidential – Zipcar, Inc. Page 8 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 CONSULTANT 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 CONSULTANT 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 August 4, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Adoption of a Resolution Directing Staff to Utilize the Secretary of State's Randomized Alphabet Drawing for Council Candidates RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Resolution directing staff to utilize the Secretary of State’s randomized alphabet drawing for listing of Council candidates in the November 2014 ballot. BACKGROUND On June 16, 2014 the Council gave direction regarding the order of Council candidate names on the ballot for the upcoming November 2014 election. The consensus of the Council was for staff to return on August 4, 2014 with a Resolution directing the City Clerk to inform the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters that Palo Alto will utilize the Secretary of State’s randomized alphabet drawing. The City has used the Secretary of State’s drawing to determine the order of candidate names for the past few elections. DISCUSSION On the 82nd day before a statewide election, the Secretary of State conducts a random drawing of letters of the alphabet pursuant to California Elections Code section 13112. For the November 4, 2014 election, the random drawing will take place on August 14. This drawing is used to determine the order in which candidates’ names appear on statewide ballots. Article 3, Section 3 of the Palo Alto City Charter states: “The order of listing of candidates' names on the ballot shall be determined by lot.” Consistent with this charter requirement, for the past few elections, the City has used the Secretary of State’s drawing to provide a randomized order for the listing of candidates’ names. RESOURCE IMPACT Adoption of this resolution will have no impact on City resources POLICY IMPLICATIONS Adoption of this resolution is consistent with the City’s recent practice and the City Charter. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not a project for the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act. Page 2 ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Reolution to Use Secretary of State Draw for Election 2014 (DOC) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 3 NOT YET APPROVED 1 0160081 Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Directing Staff to Utilize the Secretary of State’s Randomized Alphabet Drawing for Council Candidates R E C I T A L S A. Article III, Section 3, of the Palo Alto City Charter requires that a general municipal election of council members be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even-numbered year, that is, November 4, 2014. B. The City Council on June 2, 2014 approved Resolution No. 9421 calling a general municipal election of five Council Members, requesting the services of the Registrar of Voters, and ordering the consolidation of the election. C. Article VII, Section 3, of the Palo Alto City Charter stipulates that the order of listing of candidates’ names on the ballot shall be determined by lot. D. The Secretary of State on August 14, 2014 will conduct a drawing of letters of the alphabet to determine the order in which candidates appear on the November 4, 2014 ballot. E. For the past several years the City Council has followed the ballot order as determined by the Secretary of State. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The listing of candidate names on the November 4, 2014 ballot shall be determined by the Secretary of State’s randomized drawing of letters of the alphabet. The City Clerk shall inform the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters that the City of Palo Alto will use the Secretary of State’s drawing. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 4, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add Section 2.08.250 Creating a New Department of Development Services (First Reading: June 16, 2014 PASSED: 9-0) This was first heard on June 16, 2014, there were no changes by Council to the Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A - Development Services Department Ordinance (DOCX) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add Section 2.08.250 Creating a New Department of Development Services The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 2.08 (Officers and Departments) of Title 2 (Administrative Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Section 2.08.250 as follows: 2.08.250 Department of Development Services. (a) The department of development services shall be organized and administered under the direction of a director of development services who shall be accountable to the city manager. The duties of the director of development services shall be as follows: (1) To oversee the implementation of the Blueprint transition plan and timetable to improve and simplify the development review system; (2) To support and direct the Development Center Manager in his/her role to take actions necessary to carry out the changes in day-to-day operations; (3) To direct public information and customer service efforts and policies for matters pertaining to Development Center Operations; (4) To assure that State and County ordinances applicable to City of Palo Alto area are properly enforced; (5) To develop general policies in consultation with the City Manager and other department directors for the operation or expansion of various programs; (6) To develop staff with a high degree of professionalism, competence and sound judgment to ensure effective and efficient processing of development and construction proposals; (7) To implement and monitor the Performance Measurement Program in concert with the City Manager and other department directors to ensure there is accountability for performance of departmental functions and activities; (8) To oversee the Development Customer Advisory Group (DCAG), a multi-disciplinary customer board charged with recommending service levels changes through ongoing special revenue funds, department budgets, and fee review and recommended changes; (9) To provide advice to and cooperates with City officials, developers, and community organizations in connection with new or contemplated development projects; Not Yet Approved (10) To direct the Development Center Manager and other staff to better advise citizens on building and development matters and supplies information and reports to help residents better understand City policy; (11) To confer with the City Manager and appropriate department directors on issues relating to various code interpretations, and timely plan review, permit issuance, inspections, and administrative matters such as fee collections; (12) To respond to Palo Alto City Council regarding major development projects and the application of procedures, codes and policies; (13) To review plans, reports, budget requests and estimates, and proposed resolutions and regulations submitted by direct reporting staff or referred by the City Manager; (14) To demonstrate continuous effort to improve operations, decrease turn-around times, streamline work processes, and work cooperatively and jointly to provide quality seamless customer service; (15) To represent the department at City Council, boards and commissions, and at professional and public meetings as required; (16) To perform such other duties as may be required. SECTION 2. The City Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Not Yet Approved SECTION 3. 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 Human Resources ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 4, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California SECOND READING Ordinance to Adopt Section 16.14.380 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Adopting the Local Amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code Requiring that all New Multi-family Residential and Non-Residential Construction Provide for the Current and Future Installation of Electric Vehicle Chargers (First Reading: June 16, 2014, PASSED: 8-0 Schmid Absent ) ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Proposed Ordinance (PDF) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 ATTACHMENTA NOTYETADOPTED 140423dm0160077 1 OrdinanceNo.______ OrdinanceoftheCounciloftheCityofPaloAltoAdoptingSection16.14.380ofthePalo AltoMunicipalCodetoAdoptLocalAmendmentstotheCaliforniaGreenBuilding StandardsCodeandRelatedFindings  TheCounciloftheCityofPaloAltodoesORDAINasfollows:  SECTION1.FindingsandDeclarations.  TheadoptionandamendmentofSectionA4.106.8oftheCaliforniaGreenBuilding StandardsCodeisjustifiedonthebasisoflocaltopographicalandgeographicalconditions. Failuretoaddressandsignificantlyreducegreenhousegasemissionscouldresultinrisestosea level,includinginSanFranciscoBay,thatcouldputatriskPaloAltohomesandbusinesses, publicfacilities,andHighway101(BayshoreFreeway),particularlythemappedFloodHazard areasoftheCity.Theaforementionedconditionscreatehazardousconditionsforwhich departurefromCaliforniaGreenBuildingStandardsCodeisrequired.  SECTION2.Section16.14.370ofthePaloAltoMunicipalCodeisamendedtoread asfollows:  16.14.370SectionA4.106.8ElectricVehicle(EV)Charging.  SectionA4.106.8oftheCaliforniaGreenBuildingStandardsCodeisaddedand amendedtoread:  A4.106.8ElectricVehicle(EV)ChargingforResidentialStructures.Newly constructedsinglefamilyandmultifamilyresidentialstructures,includingresidentialstructures constructedaspartofamixedusedevelopment,shallcomplywiththefollowingrequirements forelectricvehiclesupplyequipment(EVSE).Allparkingspacecalculationsunderthissection shallberoundeduptothenextfullspace.NewdetachedsingleͲfamilydwellingsshallcomply withthefollowingrequirementsforelectricvehiclesupplyequipment(EVSE):  A4.106.8.1Definitions.Forthepurposesofthissection,thefollowing definitionsshallapply:  (a) Level2EVSE.“Level2EVSE”shallmeananEVSEcapableofchargingat30 amperesorhigherat208or240VAC.AnEVSEcapableofsimultaneously chargingat30amperesforeachoftwovehiclesshallbecountedastwo Level2EVSE.  (b) ConduitOnly.“ConduitOnly”shallmean,atminimum:(1)apanelcapableto accommodateadedicatedbranchcircuitandservicecapacitytoinstalla 208/240V,50amperesgroundedACoutlet;and(2)racewayorwiringwith capacitytoaccommodatea100amperecircuit;terminatingin(3)alisted ATTACHMENTA NOTYETADOPTED 2  cabinet,box,enclosure,orNEMAreceptacle.Theracewayshallbeinstalled sothatminimalremovalofmaterialsisnecessarytocompletethefinal installation.  (c) EVSEͲReadyOutlet.“EVSEͲReadyOutlet”shallmean,atminimum:(1)apanel capabletoaccommodateadedicatedbranchcircuitandservicecapacityto installa208/240V,50amperesgroundedACoutlet;(2)atwoͲpolecircuit breaker;(3)racewaywithcapacitytoaccommodate100Ͳamperecircuit;(4) 50amperewiring;terminatingin(5)a50ampereNEMAreceptacleina coveredoutletbox.  (d) EVSEInstalled.“EVSEInstalled”shallmeananinstalledLevel2EVSE.  A4.106.8.2SingleFamilyResidences.Thefollowingstandardsapplytonewly constructeddetachedandattachedsinglefamilyresidences.  (a) Ingeneral.ThepropertyownershallprovideConduitOnly,EVSEͲReady Outlet,orEVSEInstalledforeachresidence.asminimumapanelcapableto accommodateadedicatedbranchcircuitandservicecapacitytoinstallat leasta208/240V,50amperesgroundedACoutlet.Theracewayshall terminateincloseproximitytotheproposedlocationofthecharging systemintoalistedcabinet,box,enclosure,orNEMAreceptacle.The racewayshallbeinstalledsothatminimalremovalofmaterialsisnecessary tocompletethefinalinstallation.Theracewayshallhavecapacityto accommodatea100Ͳamperecircuit.  (b) Location.Design.Theproposedlocationofachargingstationmaybe internalorexternaltothedwelling,andshallbeincloseproximitytoanonͲ siteparkingspaceconsistentwithCityguidelines,rules,andregulations.The proposeddesignmustcomplywithallapplicabledesignguidelines,setbacks andothercoderequirements.  A4.106.8.3MultiͲFamilyResidentialStructures.Thefollowingstandardsapply tonewlyconstructedresidencesinamultiͲfamilyresidentialstructure,exceptas providedinsectionA4.106.8.4.  (a) Residentparking.ThepropertyownershallprovideatleastoneEVSEͲReady OutletorEVSEInstalledforeachresidentialunitinthestructure.  (b) Guestparking.ThepropertyownershallprovideConduitOnly,EVSEͲReady Outlet,orEVSEInstalled,foratleast25%ofguestparkingspaces,among whichatleast5%(andnofewerthanone)shallbeEVSEInstalled.  ATTACHMENTA NOTYETADOPTED 3  (c) Accessiblespaces.Thepercentagecalculationsandsubstantive requirementsimposedbythissectionshallbeappliedseparatelyto accessibleparkingspaces.ParkingataccessiblespaceswhereanEVSEis installedshallnotbelimitedtoelectricvehicles.  (d) Minimumtotalcircuitcapacity.Thepropertyownershallensuresufficient circuitcapacity,asdeterminedbytheChiefBuildingOfficial,tosupporta Level2EVSEineverylocationwhereCircuitOnly,EVSEͲReadyOutletor EVSEInstalledisrequired.  (e) Location.TheEVSE,receptacles,and/orracewayrequiredbythissection shallbeplacedinlocationsallowingconvenientinstallationofandaccessto EVSE.Inaddition,ifparkingisdeedͲrestrictedtoindividualresidentialunits, theEVSEorreceptaclesrequiredbysubsection(a)shallbelocatedsuchthat eachunithasaccesstoitsownEVSEorreceptacle.LocationofEVSEor receptaclesshallbeconsistentwithallCityguidelines,rules,and regulations.  A4.106.8.4Exception–MultiͲFamilyResidentialStructureswithIndividual, AttachedParking.ThepropertyownershallprovideConduitOnly,EVSEͲReady Outlet,orEVSEInstalledforeachnewlyconstructedresidenceinamultiͲfamily residentialstructurefeaturing:(1)aparkingspaceattachedtotheresidence;and (2)asharedelectricalpanelbetweentheresidenceandparkingspace(e.g.,a multiͲfamilystructurewithtuckͲundergarages).  SECTION3.Section16.14.380ofthePaloAltoMunicipalCodeisamendedtoread asfollows:  16.14.380SectionA5.106.5.3ElectricVehicle(EV)ChargingforNonͲResidentialStructures.  SectionA5.106.5.3oftheCaliforniaGreenBuildingStandardsCodeisaddedand amendedtoread:  A5.106.5.3ElectricVehicle(EV)ChargingforNonͲResidentialStructures.New nonͲresidentialstructuresshallcomplywiththefollowingrequirementsforelectricvehicle supplyequipment(EVSE).Allparkingspacecalculationsunderthissectionshallberoundedup tothenextfullspace.  A5.106.5.3.1Definitions.Forthepurposesofthissection,thefollowing definitionsshallapply:  (a) Level2EVSE.“Level2EVSE”shallmeananEVSEcapableofchargingat30 amperesorhigherat208or240VAC.AnEVSEcapableofsimultaneously ATTACHMENTA NOTYETADOPTED 4  chargingat30amperesforeachoftwovehiclesshallbecountedastwo Level2EVSE.  (b) ConduitOnly.“ConduitOnly”shallmean,atminimum:(1)apanelcapableto accommodateadedicatedbranchcircuitandservicecapacitytoinstallat leasta208/240V,50amperesgroundedACoutlet;and(2)racewayorwiring withcapacitytoaccommodatea100amperecircuit;terminatingin(3)a listedcabinet,box,enclosure,orNEMAreceptacle.Theracewayshallbe installedsothatminimalremovalofmaterialsisnecessarytocompletethe finalinstallation.  (c) EVSEͲReadyOutlet.“EVSEͲReadyOutlet”shallmean,atminimum:(1)apanel capabletoaccommodateadedicatedbranchcircuitandservicecapacityto installatleasta208/240V,50amperesgroundedACoutlet;(2)atwoͲpole circuitbreaker;(3)racewaywithcapacitytoaccommodatea100Ͳampere circuit;(4)50amperewiring;terminatingin(5)a50ampereNEMA receptacleinacoveredoutletbox.  (d) EVSEInstalled.“EVSEInstalled”shallmeananinstalledLevel2EVSE.  A5.106.5.3.2NonͲResidentialStructuresOtherthanHotels.Thefollowing standardsapplynewlyconstructednonͲresidentialstructuresotherthanhotels.  (a) Ingeneral.ThepropertyownershallprovideConduitOnly,EVSEͲReady Outlet,orEVSEInstalledforatleast25%ofparkingspaces,amongwhichat least5%(andnofewerthanone)shallbeEVSEInstalled.  (b) Accessiblespaces.Thepercentagecalculationsandsubstantive requirementsimposedbythissectionshallbeappliedseparatelyto accessibleparkingspaces.ParkingataccessiblespaceswhereanEVSEis installedshallnotbelimitedtoelectricvehicles.  (c) Minimumtotalcircuitcapacity.Thepropertyownershallensuresufficient circuitcapacity,asdeterminedbytheChiefBuildingOfficial,tosupporta Level2EVSEineverylocationwhereCircuitOnly,EVSEͲReadyOutletor EVSEInstalledisrequired.  (d) Location.TheEVSE,receptacles,and/orracewayrequiredbythissection shallbeplacedinlocationsallowingconvenientinstallationofandaccessto EVSE.LocationofEVSEorreceptaclesshallbeconsistentwithallCity guidelines,rules,andregulations.  A5.106.5.3.3Hotels.Thefollowingstandardsapplynewlyconstructedhotels.  ATTACHMENTA NOTYETADOPTED 5  (a) Ingeneral.ThepropertyownershallprovideConduitOnly,EVSEͲReady Outlet,orEVSEInstalledforatleast30%ofparkingspaces,amongwhichat least10%(andnofewerthanone)shallbeEVSEInstalled.  (b) Accessiblespaces.Thepercentagecalculationsandsubstantive requirementsimposedbythissectionshallbeappliedseparatelyto accessibleparkingspaces.ParkingataccessiblespaceswhereanEVSEis installedshallnotbelimitedtoelectricvehicles.  (c) Minimumtotalcircuitcapacity.Thepropertyownershallensuresufficient circuitcapacity,asdeterminedbytheChiefBuildingOfficial,tosupporta Level2EVSEineverylocationwhereCircuitOnly,EVSEͲReadyOutletor EVSEInstalledisrequired.  (d) Location.TheEVSE,receptacles,and/orracewayrequiredbythissection shallbeplacedinlocationsallowingconvenientinstallationofandaccessto EVSE.LocationofEVSEorreceptaclesshallbeconsistentwithallCity guidelines,rules,andregulations.   SECTION4.Ifanysection,subsection,clauseorphraseofthisOrdinanceisforany reasonheldtobeinvalid,suchdecisionshallnotaffectthevalidityoftheremainingportionor sectionsoftheOrdinance.TheCouncilherebydeclaresthatitshouldhaveadoptedthe Ordinanceandeachsection,subsection,sentence,clauseorphrasethereofirrespectiveofthe factthatanyoneormoresections,subsections,sentences,clausesorphrasesbedeclared invalid.  SECTION5.TheCouncilfindsthatthisprojectisexemptfromtheprovisionsofthe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(“CEQA”),pursuanttoSection15061oftheCEQA Guidelines,becauseitcanbeseenwithcertaintythatthereisnopossibilitythattheordinance willhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment.  //  //  //  //  //  // ATTACHMENTA NOTYETADOPTED 6  SECTION6.ThisordinanceshallbeeffectiveonthethirtyͲfirstdayafterthedateof itsadoption.  INTRODUCED:  PASSED:  AYES:  NOES:  ABSENT:  ABSTENTIONS:  ATTEST:  ____________________________ ____________________________ CityClerkMayor  APPROVEDASTOFORM:APPROVED:  ____________________________ ____________________________ CityAttorneyCityManager   ____________________________  DirectorofDevelopmentServices   ____________________________  DirectorofAdministrativeServices City of Palo Alto (ID # 4915) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Groundwater Management Resolution Title: Adoption of a Resolution in Support of Sustainable Groundwater Management in the San Francisquito Creek Area From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council consider the following motion: To adopt a resolution in support of sustainable groundwater management in the San Francisquito Creek area. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution in support of sustainable groundwater management in the San Francisquito Creek area. Executive Summary Groundwater is an important water supply resource in California, particularly in periods of drought. A lack of coordinated groundwater resource management has led to dire situations in some parts of the state including irreversible land subsidence and salt water intrusion. In order to decrease the probability of such an undesirable outcome locally, a number of agencies in the region have agreed to adopt a resolution regarding sustainable groundwater management, with the goal that this action will raise awareness of issues related to this important water resource. Discussion Recognizing that groundwater plays a critical water supply role during droughts, representatives from the Cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park, Stanford University, San Mateo County, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and several other agencies and non-governmental organizations convened earlier this year to generate an inter- jurisdictional dialogue about long-term sustainable management of our shared groundwater basin. Consensus was reached that, as demand for groundwater increases, all affected jurisdictions would benefit from a coordinated approach to groundwater management. To that end, staff representatives of the agencies involved in this process have agreed to recommend that their governing boards adopt a resolution regarding sustainable groundwater management City of Palo Alto Page 2 with the goal that this action will raise public awareness of the factors potentially impacting the quality and availability of this important resource. The City has a vested interest in maintaining the quality and availability of groundwater. As part of the City’s emergency water supply and storage project, the City recently refurbished its five existing wells and completed three new wells. These wells, along with a newly constructed water storage facility, stand ready to provide water supply to Palo Alto retail water customers in times of water supply emergencies or drought. It is, therefore, critical that the groundwater is safe, of high quality, and available. Adoption of this resolution will reinforce Palo Alto’s commitment to sustainable management of groundwater as a source of supply. In fact, the City already regularly communicates with the SCVWD and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority regarding groundwater issues. Palo Alto also works with neighboring agencies to prevent groundwater contamination. In addition, a representative from Palo Alto serves on the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority board. Resource Impact There is no resource impact related to the adoption of this resolution. Policy Implications This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Comprehensive Plan, specifically: 1. Policy N-51: Minimize exposure to geologic hazards, including slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and to seismic hazards including ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and land sliding. 2. Policy N-18: Protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. a. Program N-22: Work with Santa Clara Valley Water District to identify and map key groundwater recharge area for use in land use planning and permitting and the protection of groundwater resources. 3. Policy N-19: Secure a reliable, long-term supply of water for Palo Alto. Environmental Review Council’s adoption of the proposed resolution does not meet the definition of a project, under Public Resources Code Section 21065, therefore California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is not required. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution in Support of Sustainable Groundwater Management (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. ________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto In Support of Sustainable Groundwater Management in the San Francisquito Creek Area R E C I T A L S A. The San Francisquito Creek area of the Midpeninsula overlies the Santa Clara and San Mateo Plain Groundwater Subbasins. B. Groundwater is a critical natural resource that is vital for emergency water supplies on the Midpeninsula, and therefore needs to be protected. C. Most of the water consumed on the Midpeninsula is purchased from a single source – the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) – with 85% coming from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir on the Tuolumne River, making our primary water supply vulnerable to the impacts of climate change as well as major catastrophes. D. Interest in local groundwater extraction is growing as a result of rising SFPUC water prices, limits on current availability of SFPUC water, population growth and likely reductions in water supply due to climate change and droughts. E. Unsustainable groundwater extraction will result in declining groundwater levels, which may lead to saltwater intrusion, land subsidence and degradation of water quality. F. Contingency plans of many water providers for droughts and emergencies likely will rely on the same shared groundwater resources, making strong support and cooperation from well owners, water agencies, land use planning agencies and all water users vital to protecting and maintaining our groundwater resources. G. Groundwater resources can be enhanced through conjunctive water management, including aggressive water conservation and efficiency, use of alternative supplies such as recycled water, and storm water infiltration, and all forms of groundwater recharge. H. Groundwater and surface water in the San Francisquito Creek area are interconnected resources that cross political boundaries and support multiple beneficial uses. I. More information on the hydrology and geology of the San Francisquito Creek area is needed to better design and implement sustainable groundwater management practices. J. The City of Palo Alto currently collaborates with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority regarding groundwater issues and works with neighboring agencies to prevent groundwater contamination. 140715 jb 6053084 ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED K. The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan contains policies to minimize exposure to geologic hazards, including slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and to seismic hazards including ground shaking, liquefaction and land sliding, to protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from adverse impacts of urban uses, and to secure a reliable, long-term supply of water for Palo Alto. L. The City of Palo Alto provides environmentally safe and convenient hazardous waste disposal for residents and small businesses. M. The City of Palo Alto implements conservation efforts in accordance with the Urban Water Management Plan. N. The City of Palo Alto maintains a newly-constructed water storage facility in Palo Alto, including five recently refurbished wells and three new wells as a source of emergency water supply. O. The City of Palo Alto has the right to use local groundwater in accordance with its permit from the California Department of Public Health. P. Individual property owners have the right to install wells and pump groundwater within the service territory of the City of Palo Alto. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The City of Palo Alto remains committed to collaborating, as appropriate, with other agencies and organizations to better understand the hydrology and geology of the San Francisquito Creek area; and SECTION 2. The City of Palo Alto remains committed to the sustainable management of local groundwater, including conjunctive water management and responsible conservation, to protect its quality and ensure its availability during droughts and emergency situations / / / / / / / / / / / / 140715 jb 6053084 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The Council’s adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code 21065, therefore California Environmental Quality Act review is not required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Utilities _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services 140715 jb 6053084 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4894) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Emissions Testing of Sewage Sludge Incinerators Contract Approval Title: Approval of a Contract with Avogadro Group, LLC for a Period of Three Years for Incinerator Emission Testing at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant with Funding for the First Year Approved Not to Exceed Amount of $85,350 and a Total Contract Amount of $261,201 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council consider the following motion: 1. Approve, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute, the attached contract with The Avogadro Group, LLC (Avogadro) for a period of three years with funding in the amount not to exceed $85,350 in the first year, not to exceed amount of $87,055 in the second year, and $88,796 in the third year for provision of services to conduct Annual Incinerator Emissions Testing at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (Attachment A). Background The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) operates two sewage sludge incinerators and both have been in service since 1972. The RWQCP is required to annually measure air emissions from its incinerators. Results from these tests are reported to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The test results have historically been in compliance with the air permit and federal regulations, and demonstrate to regulators and interested parties that the City is in compliance with applicable regulations. City of Palo Alto Page 2 On March 21, 2011, the EPA finalized new regulations for sewage sludge incinerators (Staff Report #1297, dated February 14, 2011 and Staff Report #1625, dated May 16, 2011). The new EPA rule requires a formal incinerator training program, expanded emissions testing, an extensive permit application, a new Title V Permit, additional recordkeeping, and minor equipment modifications. The new EPA rule required that the RWQCP submit a Title V Air permit application in 2014. RWQCP anticipates that the new Title V permit will require a greater level of emissions testing and reporting requirements and the RWQCP anticipates being able to comply with the new rules. The RWQCP is currently negotiating a new Title V Air Permit with the BAAQMD. The attached contract will help the RWQCP ensure compliance with the new EPA requirements, which require monitoring for a variety of parameters including but not limited to metals, greenhouse gases, dioxins, furans, and aldehydes. Discussion The work to be performed under this contract includes annual compliance testing and report preparation, as well as the collection of additional emission data that will be required in the new Title V permit. Summary of Proposal Process Proposal Name/Number Emissions Testing of Sewage Sludge Incinerators/RFP# 153803 Proposed Length of Contract 3 years Number of Proposals Mailed to Contractors 3 Total Days to Respond to Proposal 15 Pre-Proposal Meeting No Number of Proposals Received 2 Proposal Price Range (3 year total) $199,650 - $261,201 Staff has reviewed the two proposals submitted on April 15, 2014. Additional proposals were not received due to the highly specialized nature of the work. The City carefully reviewed each firm’s qualifications and submittal in response to the criteria identified in the RFP. The proposal evaluations resulted in the selection of The Avogadro Group, LLC. The Avogadro Group, LLC’s record of performance with City of Palo Alto Page 3 Palo Alto and its experience in testing biosolids incinerators were key factors in the decision to select The Avogadro Group, LLC. Timeline The 2014 testing will take place before September 10, 2014 and annually thereafter. Resource Impact Funds for the first year of the contract have been appropriated in the FY 2015 Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund. Funds for contract years two and three are contingent upon Council approval of the budget for each subsequent year. 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: Avogadro Contract for Incinerator Emissions Testing (PDF) CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C15153803 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE AVOGADRO GROUP, LLC FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 25th day of July, 2014, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and THE AVOGADRO GROUP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, located at 2825 Verne Roberts Circle, Antioch, CA 94509 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to analyze incinerator emissions (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to conduct annual incinerator emissions testing 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 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC 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. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution, and shall expire three years from the commencement date, 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 be pursuant to the schedule for Exhibit “C” Compensation and shall not exceed Two Hundred Sixty-One Thousand Two Hundred and One Dollars ($261,201.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expense shall be pursuant to Exhibit “C” and shall not exceed Two Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty-One Dollars ($287,321.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in “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. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC 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 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. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC 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. Option 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: Curtis & Tompkins, Ltd. Air Toxics, Ltd. AAC Laboratory, Inc. Vista Analytical Laboratory 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 John Pascale as the client account manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Erick Mirabella as the project 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 Patrick Carter, Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division, 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:650-329-2518. 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, Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC 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 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. [Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 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 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC 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 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 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC 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. 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. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC 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 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 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC 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 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. Feb. 2014 9 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC 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. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: Director Public Works THE AVOGADRO GROUP, LLC By: Name: Title: Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “A-1” ON CALL TASK ORDER (Optional) EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 10 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC Chief Operations Officer Craig Thiry EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Summary of Work a. This contract involves 3 years of annual emission testing of sludge incinerators at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) to show compliance with the emission limits of Condition No. 16107, Item Number 11 of Application No. 6797 and Condition No. 24496, Item Number 2 of Application 20506 issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Compliance tests will be performed in 2014, 2015, and 2016. b. In conjunction with the annual compliance tests in 2014, 2015 and 2016, this contract involves annual testing and reporting (under separate cover) for metals, dioxins, carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrous oxide (N20). All work will proceed after issuance of a task order. 2. Quality Control a. The contractor must maintain their listing as an approved independent contractor listed with the California Air Resources Board as qualified to perform those tests required by the work herein. b. Contractor shall comply with federal, state, and local safety laws. c. The contractor assigned project manager must provide proof of QSTI certification. In addition, the Group 4 (metals) certification is desired but not required. d. Prior experience for each of the listed test methods in Section 5 is required and references may be requested. e. All testing, analysis and reporting shall comply with current permit, potential new Title V permit and 129 regulations. 3. Background Data a. Source Owner/Location: Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 b. Project Manager: Patrick Carter c. Sources: S-1 Sludge Incinerator #1 S-2 Sludge Incinerator #2 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 11 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC d. Abatement Devices: A-20 Afterburner #1 & A-22 Scrubber #1 A-21 Afterburner #2 & A-23 Scrubber #2 e. Plant Number: 617 f. Application Number: 6797 g. Condition Number: A0617 h. Sampling Locations: 1. At the outlet of the two abatement devices, there are two sampling ports accessible on the outlet stack at the incinerator building rooftop. 4. Task 1: Annual Compliance Test a. A compliance test is to be performed on one incinerator per year. A compliance test will be performed on S-2 Incinerator No. 2 prior to August 31, 2014. Thereafter, an annual compliance test shall be performed no sooner than 9 months and no later than 12 months after the previous test on the incinerator that is in operation at the time of the test. b. Per the permit conditions, the emission testing firm shall be responsible for submitting an approved testing protocol to the BAAQMD Source Test Section as well as providing the BAAQMD Source Test Section the required advanced notification of the date of the compliance test. c. The emission testing firm shall conduct tests on the following emission parameters: i. Concentration (dry basis) of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) in the landfill gas; ii. Exhaust gas flow rate from each afterburner (dry basis); iii. Concentrations (dry basis) of NMOC, NOx and O2 in the flare stack gas; and iv. The NMOC destruction efficiency achieved by each afterburner. d. The plant shall provide the following parameters: i. Landfill gas flow rate to each afterburner (dry basis); and ii. The average combustion temperature in each afterburner during the test period. e. Within 25 days of the compliance test, the emission testing firm shall prepare, for owner review, two copies of a draft report. Within five days of receipt of any comments, the emission testing firm shall prepare five copies of the final report. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 12 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC f. The report shall include a summary of emission results, source location information, test conditions, test procedures, standard measurement procedures, quality assurance, detailed results for individual test runs, and supporting data including CEMS data, calibrations, field data sheets, calculations, and spreadsheets. g. The final report will be under separate cover from any other report required in this specification. The owner will submit a copy of the final report to the BAAQMD. h. Under certain circumstances when an incinerator malfunction occurs and steady state operations have not been reached, the City may need to postpone the emissions testing. In its cost estimate for this task, the Firm shall provide a separate daily standby rate that shall be applicable in the event that testing must be postponed. 5. Task 2: 2014, 2015, and 2016 emission data collection a. Upon request by the City of Palo Alto, in 2014, 2015, and 2016 the emission testing firm shall conduct tests on the following emission parameters or a subset requested by the City for the following timed test runs: i. Perform triplicate 1-hour test runs using test method EPA 320 Fourier Transform Infared Spectroscopy (FTIR), for N2O, CH4, and TNMHC ii. Perform triplicate 6-hour test runs, using test method EPA 29 and analytical method ICP/MS, for the following metals: antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), phosphorous (P), selenium (Se) and zinc (Zn). iii. Perform triplicate 1-hour test runs using test method EPA 30B, for mercury (Hg). iv. Perform triplicate 6-hour test runs, using test method CARB 425, for hexavalent chromium. v. Perform triplicate 3-hour test runs, using test method CARB 430, for aldehydes: formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein. vi. Perform triplicate 1-hour test runs, using test method TO-15, for BTEX. vii. Perform triplicate 1-hour test runs, using test method EPA 10, for carbon monoxide (CO) viii. Perform triplicate 4-hour test runs, using test CARB 429, for speciated PAH compounds ix. Perform triplicate 1-hour test runs, using test method EPA 3A, for O2/CO2 x. Perform triplicate 4-hour test runs, using test method EPA 23, for dioxins and furans (PCDD/ PCDF) xi. Perform triplicate 2-hour test runs, using test method EPA 26A, for hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) xii. Perform triplicate 1-hour test runs, using test method EPA 6C, for sulfur dioxide (SO2) xiii. Perform triplicate 6 minute averages using test method EPA 9, for opacity Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 13 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC xiv. Perform triplicate test runs, 4-hour test runs using test method EPA OTM-27 (may need to be modified by heating cyclone) and OTM-28, for PM2.5, and PM (condensable) and test method EPA 5 for filterable PM. xv. Perform triplicate test runs, 2-hour test runs using test method EPA 5 for filterable PM. b. The plant shall provide the following data: i. The average combustion temperature in each afterburner during the test period. c. Within 35 days of the test, the emission testing firm shall prepare, for owner review, an electronic version of a draft report. Within five days of receipt of any comments, the emission testing firm shall prepare one (1) hard copy of the final report and one (1) electronic copy of the final report. d. The report shall include a summary of emission results, source location information, test conditions, test procedures, standard measurement procedures, quality assurance, detailed results for individual test runs, and supporting data including CEMS data, calibrations, field data sheets, calculations, and spreadsheets. e. The final report will be under separate cover from any other report required in this specification. f. Under certain circumstances when an incinerator malfunction occurs and steady state operations have not been reached, the City may need to postpone the emissions testing. In its cost estimate for this task, the Firm shall provide a separate daily standby rate that shall be applicable in the event that testing must be postponed. 9. Authorized Subconsultants a. Labs shall be qualified to perform the tests required. b. Subcontracting labs must be approved in advance by the City of Palo Alto project manager. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 14 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 15 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC C BAY AREA AIR QUALITY ,"'~. MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 93g UllS STREET ~~ A SAN fRANCISCO, CAu rOl'lNIA $<11011 I"S) 71 '-6000 Plant# Page: A0617 PERMIT TO OPERATE E~plres: MAY 1, 2014 This document does not permit the holder to vlolale any District regulation or other law. James Allen Palo Al to Regional Water Quality Control 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94)0) Location: 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 A :'""'~IVEO APi/ 2 9 lQI3 WQCP DESCRI PTION [Schedule] PAID 1 Incinerator -Multiple Hearth, 529MM BTU/hr ma x, Multifuel 1878 SLUDeE INCINERATOR 111 [a:;z] Abated by: 10.20 Di rect Flame Afterburner 10.22 Venturi Sc rubber Emissions at: P10 St ack 2 I nci nerator -Multiple Hearth, 525MM BTU/hr max, Multifuel 1818 6 , .. SLUOOE INCINERATOR /12 [G2] Abated by: 10.21 Direct Flame Afterburner 10.23 Venturi Scrubber Emissions at: PI1 Stack Misc CHEM, Lime, Storage Tanks {2 Abated by: Emissions at: .17 tons/hr max Units), Lime/Incinerator 10.6 Baghousc, pulse Jet A7 Baghouse , Pulse Jet P6 Stack P7 Stack Aoh MI se> Abrasives blasting, Aluminum oxide abrasive Triaoo Dry_B1aGt Cl eaning Cabinet Abated by: A34 Dry Filter (F] [,,"x,,"mpt I CHEM> Sewage, Wastewater treatment plant, Municipal sewage Municipal Waetewater Treatment plant [F] 299 • 329 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 16 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC A0617 C BAY AREA AIR QUALITY ,:P "'\ MANAGEMENT DISTRICT " ~ m EllIS STACU PERMIT Iro............... S.o.N fAANCISCO.CAlIf'OAN",a<ll09 (~lSI11H5000 TO OPERATE Plant~ Page: 2 Expires: MAY 1, 2014 ThiS document does not permit the holder 10 vlolal e any District regulalion or olher law. " OESCRIPTION (Schedule) PAID CHEM> Sewage, Preliminary treatment, Municipal sewage Preliminary Treatment 120 130 Abated by: All Unclassified Abatement Device CHEM> Sewage, Primary treatment, Municipal sewage Primary Treatment CH£M> Sewage, Secondary treatment, Municipal sewage Secondary Treatment Abated by: AS 8aghouse, Pulso Jet A13 Unclassified Abatement Device AI4 Unclassified Abatement Device AIS Unclassified Abatement Device A19 Uncloesifiod A~tomont Device Emissions at: P8 Stack P3 Stack P4 Stack P5 Stack P9 Stack 140 CHEM> Sewage, Secondary clarifiers, Municipal sewage Secondary Clarifiers 150 CHEM> Sewage, Tertiary treat~ent, Municipal sewage Tertiary Treatment 160 CHEM> Sewage, Disinfection, Municipal sewage Disinfection, Ultraviolet and Hypochlorite 110 CHEM> Sewage, Sludge handling processes, Municipal Sludge Handling Processes sewage (131] [131] IFI IFI IFI IF) (131] 4G14 Dtandby Dieeol engine, 761 hp, IC Engine Generator EPAN 2CPXL15.8BRK, Caterpillar 1'1 46 21 Emissions at: P12 Stack Standby Diesel engine, 140 hp, Diesel IC Engine Generator Emissions at : PI3 Stack Detroit Diesel SIN I2VF001783 1'1 1292 1292 299 '" '" '" 1292 ,,, Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 17 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC A0617 C BAY AREA AIR QUALITY J ..... ~ MANAGEMENT DISTRICT \ .J m ELlIS STREET PERMIT ......... ,.. SAN f RANClSCO.CoIIl1FOIUII"t4109 TO OPERATE 1'1~) nHIOOO PlantJl Page: Explres: MAY 1, 2014 This document does not permit tho hotder to violate any District regulation or other law. " 4622 4638 4639 4640 4641 DESCRI PTIQN [Schedule] 1'1'110 Standby Diesel engine, 740 hp, Dett:oit Diesel, 934 cu in Diesel IC Engine Generatot: [" Emissions at: PH Stack Standby Diesel engine, 740 hp, Detroit Di esel SIN 12VF05334. Diesel Ie Engine Genet:ator [., Emiasions at: PIS Stack Standby Diesel engine, 140 hp, Detroit Diesel SIN 12VFOO1158 Diesel IC Engine Generator Emission!:! at: PI6 Stack Standby Diesel engine, 1103 hp, Catet:pillar SIN 24Z08918 01 ..... .,,1 IC E''9ine Oener .. tor Emission!:! at: 1'17 Stack [.[ [" Standby Diesel engine, 1141 hp, EPA~ 9CPXL27.0BSW, Caterpillar Emergency Standby Diesel Generator Set IB) Emissions at: P4 6~1 Stack 18 ~rmit Sources, 1 Exempt Source •• * See attached Permit Conditions ••• 2>< 2>< n. n. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 18 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC C BAY AREA AIR QUALITY /' .. -~ MANAGEMENT DISTRICT . 939HlIS$lAEH ~~ ~ SA~ FIlANCISCO. CAl,IFORNIAII"09 (4!5)71!-0000 Page: A06 17 PERMIT TO OPERATE • E~plres: MAY I, 2014 This document does not permit the holder 10 violate any District regulation or other law . ••• P~RMIT CONDITIONS ••• • _______ w _______ • _______ • ___ ••• __ •••••••••••••••••• __ ••••••• Sour ce II I aubject t o Co ndition IO' 16107 Sour ce I! 2 IO' 16101 Sour cel! " subject t o Cond i t ion IO' 6690 Sourcel! 100 eubject to Co ndition I D' 991 Sourcel! 4614 subject to Co ndi t ion ID< 22850 Sourcel! 4 621 subject to Co nditi on IO' 22830 Sou rcel! 4 622 IO' 22830 Sourcel! 4638 IO' 22830 Sourcel! 4639 IO' 22830 Sourcel! 4640 eubject to Co ndition ID' 22850 Sourcel! 4641 lDO 22850 and 24496 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC A0617 C BAY AREA AIR QUALITY I"-~ MANAQEMENTDISTRICT \. ~ m EUIS SIII~H PERMIT ~ ,,__ SAN FRANCISCO. CM.lFORN"" f4 1011 (415)17'-6000 TO OPERATE Plant" Page: 5 Expires: MAY 1, 2014 This document does not permit the holder to vlotate any District regulation or other taw . ••• PERM IT COND I TIONS ••• COND" 991 applies to SN 100 If District received mo~e than five (5) confirmed odor complaints in one week, the vastewate~ t~eatment plant ahall take immedi ate action to abate the sour ce of odor. COND" 6690 applies to SN 34 1. S -34 ahall be abated by A-34 at all times during operat ion. CONDW 16107 applies t o SN's 1 , 2 The Palo Al t o Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) District Plant #617 Sources S-l and S-2 Sludge I ncinerators 1. The combined sludge t hroughput at S-1 and S-2 shall not exceed 32 dtpd (dry ton per day) averaged over any rolling 30 day period. [baSiS : cumulative incr ease} 2. The combined sludge throughput at S-1 and S-2 shall not exceed 55 dtpd (dry ton per day) averaged over any rolling 24 hour period. [basis : cumulative increase! 3. The combined incineration of controlled Bubstance waste at S-1 or S-2 shall not exceed 57 kg per hour and shall be limited to the following materia ls: [OOsis: toxico[ a. confiscated drugs and controlled substances, i ncluding containers h. drug paraphernalia c. storage bags made of non-chlor inated plastic d. paper and cardboard 4.. Emissions from S-l Incinerator shall be abated by A-20 Afterburner and 11.-22 Scrubber during all periods of operation. [basis: cumulative increaae and toxical S. Emlsaions from S-2 Incinerator shall be abated by 11.-21 Afterburner and A-23 Scrubber dur ing all periods of Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 20 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC C. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY , ..... "'\. MANAGEMENT DISTRICT \. ; t3IIElllSSTRHT .......... ".. SAN fR,.\NClSCO, CAUfOllNIA"'lot l41~lnl.e:1OO Plant' Page: A0617 PERMIT TO OPERATE , Expires: M1\.y 1, 2014 This document does not permit tho hotder to vlotate any District regutaUol'I or other law . ••• PERMIT CONDITIONS ••• .............. _-........................................... . operation. [bas is: cumulative inc rease and toxics l 6. The destructio n efficiency of 11.-20 and 11.-21 After burners s ha ll not be leBB than the following perc entage by weight or o utlet concentration shall not be greater than the f o llo will9: [baa is, cumulative increase and t oxics[ vue Dioxin Formaldehyde Furana Pe rcentage '" 30' '" '" Concentration 20 ppmvd (3\ 02) 90 pg/m3 (7\ 02) 1.2 ppmvd (3\ 02) 373 pg/m3 (1\ O?) 7. The capture effic iency of 11.-22 and 11.-2 3 Scrubbers ahall not be l ess than the following percentage by weight or outlet concentration shall not be greater than the following: [baets : cumulati ve increase and toxica ) Hel Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Le.d Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Zinc Percentage ,0\ '" 94.5\ '" '" OS, '" '" '" '" '" Concentration 0.5 ppmvd (3 \ 02) 17 ugl m3 (7\ 02) 0.03 ugl m3 (7\ 02) 59 ugl m3 (7 \ 02) 0.65 ugl m3 (7\ 02) 265 ugl m3 (7\ 02) 35 ugl m3 (7\ 02) 140 ugl m3 (7\ 02) 15 ugl m3 (7\ 02) 32 ugl m3 (7\ 02) 2513 ugl m1 (7\ 02) 8. The Afterburnere 11.-20 and 11.-21 are permitted to fire natural gaa, landfil l 98s, or a combination thereof. When landfill gas is fired, the non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) in the gaa shall be reduced by at least 98\ (wt) or have an emiasion less than 120 ppm by volume at the outlet (dry baeie, expressed aa meth~oe, correc ted to 3\ oxygen) .The minimum combustion zone temper~ture for 11.-20 and 11.-21 ehall be equ~l to the a verage ccmbustion zone temperature determined during the IlOst recent complying source t e st minus 50 degreea F, provided that the minimum cOiflbustion zooe tempe rature ia not less than 1300 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 21 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC AD617 C BAY AREA AIR QUALITY I'~"'\ MANAGEMENT DISTRICT \. ~ t3SI nus STREET .......... ,,~ SAN FRANCISCO. CAlIFOANl.\i4\(W (4\~)m«lOO PERMIT TO OPERATE Plant# Pags: , Expires: MAY 1, 2014 ThiS document does not permU the holder to violate sny District regulation or other law. *** PERMIT CONDITIONS .H degrees F. (basis: Toxic RisK Management Policy and Regul ation 8-34 -301.3) 9. To determine compliance .... ith above Part 8, each A-20 and A-21 Af terburner shall be equi pped .... ith continuous temperature measuring and recording instrumentation consist ing of at least 1 temperature probe and at least one recording device, which wi l l continuously record temperature . (basis, Regulation 8-34-509, cumulative increase and toxics] 10. The temperature measuring and recording inotrument~tion t o be inetalled and thA A~cific placement within the afterburner of each of the temperature probes specified in Part 9 shall be subject to the prior approval of the Source Te st Section of the District'S Technical Division. [basis: cumulative i ncrease and toxics] 11. In order, to demonstrate compliance with Regulation 8, Rule 34, Sections 301.3 and 412, the Permit Holder shall ensure that a Discrict approved source test is conducted annually on t he Afterburners A-20 and A-21 while firing landfill gss. As a minimum, che annual sour ce test shall determine the follo .... ing: a. landfill gss flow rate to each afterbur ner (dry basis); b . concentration (dry basis) of t otal non -methane organic compounds (~OC) in the landfill gas; c. exhaus t gas flow rate from each afterburner (dry basis) I d. conc .. ntJ;'~tione (dry b>l"iA) of NMOC, and 02 in the flare s t ack gas; e. the NMOC destruction efficiency achieved by each a fterburner; and f. the average combustion temperature i n each afterburner during the test period. The first source test shall be conducted no later than 90 days a fter l andfill gas firing comme nces . Subsequent source tests shall be conducted no sooner t han 9 months and no later t han 12 months after t he previous source test. The Source Test Section of t he District shall be contact ed to obtain a ppr oval of t he source test procedures at l east 14 days in advance of each source test . The Source Test Section shal l be Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC C BAY AREA AIR QUALITY ,"'-"" MANAGEMENT DISTRICT -i3S ElLIS SIRE£! ~~ A SAN FRANCISCO. CA.UFOIINIA. 9<109 (415) 711-6000 1\0617 PERMIT TO OPERATE Plant~ 617 Page: 8 Expires: MAY 1, 2014 This document does not pormlt the holder to vlolato any Di strict regulation or other law, ••• PERMIT CONDITIONS ••• ~~~ ..... ~~~~ ...... -.------... -.... ~ .. ~~.~~--------... -..... . notified of the scheduled test date at least 7 daye in advance of each source test. The source test report shall be submitted to t he Compliance and Enforcement Division and to the Source Test Section within 45 days of the test date. (basis: Regulations 8-34-301 .3 and 8-34-412) 12. 1\-22 and 1\-23 Scrubbers shall be properly maintained and kept in good working condition at all times. Each 1\-22 and A-23 Scrubber shall be equipped with a flowmeter which will continuously record in units of gpm and a pressure gauge which will continuously record in unit", of p",i. Th .. flow rllte ann (' .... ,,"u ..... "t each sc rubber shall be naintained within t he acceptable ranges established by the manufacturer. [baais: cumulative increase and to:llics] 13. The operator of S-1 and S-2 shall maintain the following records for each day of operation: a. The hours and time of oper ation, b. The throughput of sludge at each S-1 and S-2, c. Date, time, and duration of each controlled substance incineration and the type and amount (kg) of each material incinerated d. The temperature data collected from the temperature recorder at 1\-20 and 1\-21. e. The flowrate and pressure data collected at A-22 and A-23, f. Bach emiesion teat or analysis result logged in for the day of operation they were taken. These records shall be ~etained for at least two five years from the date of entry and be made available to the SAAQMO upon request. [basis: Regulation 8-34-509, cumulative increase, and toxics] CONDII-22830 applies to S#'s 4621, 4622, 4638, 4639 1. The owner/operator shall not exceed 30 hours per year per engine for reliability-related testing. [Sasis: "Regulation 2-51 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 23 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC A0617 C BAY AREA AIR QUALITY ,'" ~ MANAGEMENT DISTRICT mUUSSlllU T ~ A SAN FI'IANCISCO. CAlIFOFINIA \l41oe 14'5)711.600(1 PERMIT TO OPERATE Plant# 617 Page: 9 e~plres: MAY 1. 2014 This document does not permit the holder to violate any Distric t regulation or other law . ••• PERMIT CONDITIONS ••• • __ ._. ____________ • ______________________ •• _._. __________ MM. ~. The owner/operator shall operate each emergency etandby engine only for the follo .... ing purposes, to mitigate emergency conditions, for emission testing t o demonstrate compliance .... ith a District, State or Federal emission l i mit, or for reliability-related activities (maintenance and other testing, but excluding emission testing). Operating wh ile mitigating eme~ency conditions or while e mission testing t o show compliance .... ith District. State or Federal emission limits is not limited. [Basis: Title 17, Ca lifornia Code of R",yuldl.lvna, section 9)11~, ATCM f or Gt<)tion;1.ry Cl Engines] 3. The owner/operator shall cperate each emergency standby engine only when a non-resettable totalizing meter ( .... i th a minimum d i splay capability of 9,999 hours) that measures the hours of operation for the engine is install ed, operated and pr operly maintained . [Basis: Title 17, California Code of Regulations, section 9)115, ATCM for Stationary CI Engines) ~. Records: The owner/operator shall maintain the f ollowing monthly records in a District- approved log for at least )6 months from the date of entry (60 months if the fac ility has been issued a Title v Ma jor Facility Review Permit or a Synthetic Minor Ope rating Permit) . Log entries shall be r e tnincd on-oite, either at a central locati on or at the engine's l ocati on. and made immediately avai lable t o the District staff upon request . a. Hour e of operat ion for reliability-related activities (maintenance and testing>. b. lIours of operation for emission testing to ehow compliance with emi ssion limits. c. Hours of operation (emergency). d. Fo r each emergency, the nature of the emergency condit ion. e. Fuel usage for each engine(s). (Basis: Title 17, California Code of Regulations, section 9)115, ATCM for Stationary Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 24 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC A0611 C BAY AREA AIR QUALITY /' ~ MANAGEMENT DISTRICT \. ~ 939EWSSTRru PERMIT 10. ........ "'" S.o.N f RANCISCO.CALlrOONIA H I09 1'151111·15000 TO OPERATE PlanU Page: 10 E~plres: MAY 1, 2014 This document does not permit the holder to violate any District regulation or other law . • ~. PERMIT CONDITIONS ••• ............................................................ CI Engines) 5. At School and Near-School Operation: If the emergency standby engine is located on school grounds or within 500 feet of any school grounds, the following requirements shall apply: The owner/operator shall not operate each stationary emergency standby diesel-fueled engine for non-emergency ues, including maintenance and testing, during the following pcriodo, a. Whenever there is a school sponsored activity (if the engine is located on school grounds) b. Between 1:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on days when school is in session. "School" or 'School Grounds" meane any public or private school used for tho purposes of the education of more than 12 children in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, but does not include any private school in which education is primarily conducted in a private home(s). "School" or "School Grounds" includes any buil ding or structure, pl ayground, athletic field, or other areas of school proper ty but does not include unimproved school property. (Basis: Title 11, Cal i f ornia Code of R~gul .. tiona, aact ion 9)115. ATCM t .... T ::lr:I!or.iona ry CI Bngines] CONDl! 22850 appl ies to S/I's 4614, 4640, 4641 1 . The owner/operator shal l not e:Kceed 50 hours per year per engine for reliabil ity-related teating. (Baais: Title 17 , California Code of Regulations, sect ion 93115, ATCM for Stationary CI Bngines] 2. The o .... ner/operator shall operate each emergency Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC A0617 C BAY AREA AIR QUALITY 1 .... -'" MANAGEMENT DISTRICT t39 elliS STREET ~.m ~ SAN FRANCISCO, C~ltrOAN1A D410!1 (4\~)11 \·eooo PERMIT TO OPERATE Plantll Pags: u Expires: MAY 1, 2014 ThiS document does not permit Ihe holder to violate any DIstrict regulation or other law. *** PERMIT CONDITIONS ••• • ___ a ••• _ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• standby engine only for t he following purposes: to mitigate emergency conditions, for emission testing to demonstrate conpl iance with a District, State or Federal emission limit, or for reliability-related activities (maintenance and other testing, but excluding emission testing). Operating while mitigating emergency conditions or while emission testing to show compliance with District, State or Federal emiss ion limits is not li~ited. [Basis: Title 17, California Code of Regulations, section 93115, ATCM for Stationary CI Enginc oJ 3. The owner/operator shall operate each emergency standby engine only when a non -resettable totalizing meter (wi t h a minimum display capability of 9,999 hours) that measures the hours of operation for the engine is installed, operated and properly maintained. [Basis: Title 17, California Code of Regulations, section 93115, ATCM for Stationary CI Engines) 4.. Records: The owner/operator shall maintain the following monthly records in a District- approved log for at l east 36 months from the date of entry (60 mont hs if the facility has been issued a Title V Major Facility Review Permit or a Synthetic Minor Operating Permit). Log entries shall be retained on-site, either at a centr~l location or at the engln~'A location, and made i mmediatel y availabl e to the District staff upon r equest. a . Hours of operat ion for reliability-related activities (maintenance and testing). b. Hours of operation for emission testing to show compliance wi th emission l imits. c. Houra of operation (errergency). d. For each emergency, the nature of the emergency condition . e. Fuel usage for each eogine(s). (Basis: Title 17, California Code of Regul ations, secti on 93115, ATCM for Stationar y CI Engines) Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 26 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC C BAY AREA AIR QUALITY I"'-~ MANAGEMENT DISTRICT \. ~ i39HlISSlAHT l .. ·,~....:. SAN FAANCISCO, CAlIFOI\NIAP<llOli (.15) 111·eooo A0617 PERMIT TO OPERATE Plantij 617 Page: 12 Expires: MAY 1, 2014 This document dOGS not pormlt tho holder 10 violate any District rogulatlon or other law . ••• PERMIT CONDITIONS ••• .......•.... _. __ ...................................... _ .... . S. At School and Near-School Operation: If the emergency standby engine is located on school grounds or within 500 feet of any school grounds, the following requirements s hall apply: The owner/oper ator shall not operate each stationary emergency standby diesel-fueled engine for non-emergency use, including maintenance and testing, during the following periods: a. whenever there is a school sponsored activity (if the engine ig located nn Arhnnl grounds ) b. Between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on days when school is in session. ·School" or ·School Grounds" means any public or private school used for the purposes of the education of more than 12 children in kindergarten or any of gradee 1 to 12, inclusive, but does not include any private school in which education is primarily conducted in a private hOlle (a). "School" or ·School Grounds" includes any building or structure, athletic field, or other areaa of school prope rty but does not include unimproved school property. (Basis: Titl e 17, Califor~ia COde of Regulations, section 93 11 5, ATCM for Stationary CI Engines) COND. 2 ... 96 applies to 811 4641 1. The owner/operator of Plant 11617 shall not emi t more than 35 tona of NOx in any consecutive 12- month period. (basis: Offsets Trigger) 2. At least once every 12 months, the owner/ope rator shall perform a source test to measure the NOx emissions from the incinerators (S -l and S-2) and the afterburners (A -20 and A- 21). These NOx emissions shall be added with the NOx emissions from the plant's other NOx Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 27 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC C BAY AREA AIR QUALITY 1"-"" MANAGEMENT DISTRICT \. ~ 93g EWS STREff It................ SAN fRANCISCO, C"'lIFORNI"'~4\0II 14151711 -15000 A0617 PERMIT TO OPERATE Plant' 617 Page: 13 Expires: MAY 1 . 2014 This document does nol permit the holder to violate any District regulation or other law. **. PERMIT CONDI TIONS ••• ............................................................ emi t ting sour ces. I f the NOx emi ssions exceeds 35 tpy, the owner/operat or shall noti fy the District 's Permit Servi ces Divi si on and provide NOx o ff eets accord ing to Regulation 2-2-302 . The NOx emi s sions from the backup diesol e ngine s shall use t he following emi ssi on fac t o r s and eng ines ' last 12-month ' e hours of ope r ation data: 10.44 l b/hr for 5 -4 61 4 27.47 lb/hr for 5 -4621, 4622, 4638 , 4639 33.65 lb/hr for S-464 0 8.92 I b /hr for S -1611 (ba a i a : Offs ets Tr igger) ---------------------------END OF CONDITI ONS --------------------------- Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 28 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC Bay Area Air Quality Management District •• SOURCE HMISSIONS •• PLANT II Apr 23 , ,,, 201) > 2 , ,. >00 no >20 DO >40 >50 >" no 4 614 4621 4622 4638 4639 4 640 4641 A2> .20 Source Description SLUDGE INCINERATOR 111 SLUOOE INCINERATOR 112 Storage Tanks (2 Units), Lime/I ncinerator Triaco Dry-Blast Cleaning Cabinet Municipal Wa stewater Treatment Plant Pl:"eiiminary Treatment Primary Tr eatment Secondary Treatment Secondary Clarifiers Tertiary Treatment Disinfection, Ultraviolet and Hypochlorite Sludge Handling Processes IC Engine Generator Diesel IC Engine Generator Diesel I C Engine Generator Diesel IC Engine Generator Diesel IC Engine Generator Diesel IC Engine Generator ~~~ency St.ndby DieB~l Gen~T~~nr ~p.t Sl ud3e Incinerator Afterburner 12 S lud3e Incinerator Afterburner H: TOTALS Annual Average PART ORG NOx 25.8 o . > o o o .23 26.5 >02 " o > > o > > o Ibe/day 502 CO 18.3 ,., 3.19 1. 46 .0> .D .>6 .05 .H .U .05 21 5.31 .. PLANT TOTALS POR EACH EMITTED TOXIC POLLUTANT" pollutant Name Perchloroethylene Toluene I, I, I -tric hloroethane (with dioxane) Tric hloroethylene Xylene Chloroform Me t hylene chl oride Oi...,h 1 nrn ...... n7.p.np. Diesel 8ngine Exhaust Particulate Matter Hydrogen Sulfide (H2Sj Ammonia (NH3) pollutant Page 14 Emissions Ibs/day . ., 1. 58 .23 l. 58 . ., l. 36 4 .07 .23 .20 .20 2.67 EXHIBIT “A-1” PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER Consultant hereby agrees to perform the work detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are incorporated into the Agreement by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below. CONTRACT NO. ISSUE DATE Purchase Requisition No. 1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NUMBER 1B. TASK ORDER NO. 2. CONSULTANT 3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION: 4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $__________________ BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT $__________________________________ 5. BUDGET CODE: _______________ COST CENTER_________________ COST ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP___ _______PHASE___ 6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME/DEPARTMENT_________________________________________ 7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES MUST INCLUDE:  WORK TO BE PERFORMED  SCHEDULE OF WORK  BASIS FOR PAYMENT & FEE SCHEDULE  DELIVERABLES  REIMBURSABLES (with “not to exceed” cost) 8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Scope of Services B: __________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hereby authorize the performance of I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance the work described above in this Task Order. of this Task Order and warrant that I have authority to sign on behalf of Consultant. APPROVED: APPROVED: CITY OF PALO ALTO COMPANY NAME: ______________________ BY:__________________________________ BY:____________________________________ Name ________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title_________________________________ Title___________________________________ Date _________________________________ Date ___________________________________ Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC 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 1. Completion of Onsite Work Associated with 2014-Task 1 September 10, 2014 2. Completion of 2014-Task 1 November 15, 2014 3. Completion of 2014-Task 2 TBD 4. Completion of 2015-Task1 September 1, 2015 5. Completion of 2015-Task 2 TBD 6. Completion of 2016-Task 1 September 1, 2016 7. Completion of 2016-Task 2 TBD Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 12 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $261,201.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $287,321.00. 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. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $261,201 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $26,120.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $7,350 (2014 – Task 1) Task 2 $78,000 (2014 – Task 2) Task 3 $7,497 (2015 – Task 1) Task 4 $79,558 (2015 – Task 2) Task 5 $7,646 (2016 – Task1) Task 6 $81,150 (2016 – Task2) Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 18 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC Sub-total Basic Services $261,201 Reimbursable Expenses $0 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $261,201 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $26,120 Maximum Total Compensation $287,321 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: preparation (i.e. equipment, glassware, labware), equipment fees (i.e., rental and calibration gas usage), and travel/perdiem. 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 $5,000 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s project manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be considered as additional services: N/A Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 19 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE (See Attached Rate Schedule) Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 20 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 21 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC City of Palo Alto RFP No. 153803 Annual lncinCl1l!or Emission Testing April 15, 2014 Page 36 8.0 PROPOSAL COSTS Since this proposal is based on a "not to exceed" lump sum fonnat, the example table in Attachment E of the RFP should only be used for direct. comParison with other potential bids. As such, the total lump sum quotations to perfonn !he testing as presented in this proposal are presented in the C.()st breakdowns below. A minimal increase was added to the test programs for years 2015 and 201 6. 2014 TASK 1 • COST BREAKDOWN AN NUAL COMPLIANCE (14080.0) Test Protocol I Notification (deliverable) ....................................................... . Preparation (i.e. equipment, glu5ware,labware) ........................................... . Equipment Fees (i.e., renu.l and calibration gas usage) .................................. . Travel and Perdiem (i.e. travel time. perdiem exptnses) ............................... . Testing (i.e. sd·up, on.site testing, teardown, supplies) ............................... . Analytiealln.house (sample shipping, supplies) ........................................... .. Analytical Outside (fuel analysis)..................... . ................. .. Tcst Report (deliverable) .............................................................. . TASK I TOTAL $1 45 $680 SI,230 $1,041 $2,418 $376 $4 1' lli!il ~ 2014 TASK 2 · COST BREAKDOWN EMISSION DATA COy.EcrION (14080.1) Project Management (i.e. miUlaging equipment, personnel, iUld labonltories) SI,I6O Preparation (i.e. equipment, glassware, labware) ............................................ $1,720 F.quipmenl Fee!: (i.e., rental and cali bration gas usage)..... S3,36O Travel and Perdicm (i.e. travel time, pcrdiem expenses)................................. $7,422 Tcsting (i.e. ScI-Up, on-site testing, teardown, supplies)................... S39,269 An31yticai In-bouse (sample analysis, sampling prcparation) ......................... $3,265 Analytical Outside (sample analysis, sample shipping, supplies) .................... $16,853 Test Report (deliverable) ........................................................... ..................... D.2ll TASK 2TOIAL S78.!!QQ 2014 NOI To EXgEDTASKS I. &2 585.350 2015 TASK I • COST BREAKDOWN Al'Io'NUAL COMPLiANCE (lSOHO.O) Test Protocol I Notification (deliverable) .......................................... . Preparation (i.e. equipmCtlI, glassware, labware) ........................................... . Equipment Fees (i.e_. rental and calibration gas usage) ............................ _ ..... . Travel and Perdiem {i.e. travel time, pcrdiem expenses) ................................ . Testing (I.e. set·up, on-site testing. teardown, supplies) ............................... .. Analytical In-house (sample shipping, supplies) ................... . Analytical Outside (fuel analysis) .................................................................. . Test Report (deliverable) ................................................................ . TASK I TOUI. $147 $'94 $1 ,255 $1,062 $2,466 Sl84 $422 ll.M1 W2Z The informalion conraiMd in this prcprual Is proprietary and eoma/m conjidrnlia/ informalion which i3 of significant economic vain/a T/IEAI'OOADROGROUI', Uc. Ir Is Inttndtd 10 be Wied only for evalualion of OUr qualifieDtiom 10 prrwide 5erviets. /1 Jhould not m, duplictlltd. II$td, or disclosed /n whole or in par! q: lor any pl/rpos. (Nher than /0 evall/ole Ihis pr-opo.raJ. U f;., Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC City of Palo Alto RFP No. 153803 Annual incinemtor Emission Testing April IS, 2014 Page 37 2015 TASK 2· C OST BREAKDOWN E~flS"ION DATA COLLEC110N (15080.1) Project Management (i.e. managing equipment, personne l, and laboratories) $1,183 Preparation (i.~. equipment, glassware, Jabwnrc) ............................................ $2,774 Equipment Fees (i.e., rental and calibrol.tion gas usage) ...................... $3,427 Travel and Perdiem (i.e. travel timo, perdiem expenses)......................... $7,570 Testing (i.e. set·up, on-site testing, teardown, supplies) .................................. $40,054 Analytical In-house ($IUIlple analysis, $IUIlpling prepantlion) ... $3,330 Analytical Outside (sample analysis, sample &hipping. supplies). ................... $17,190 Test Report (delivelllble) ................ ..................................... ......................... $.!.2l.Q T AS K2 TOTAL 579,558 20J5 Nor To ExcuuTASKS I, &2 $87.055 2016TASK 1 · COST BREAKDOWN ANNUAL COMPLlANCE1l6080,O) Test Protocol f Notification (deliverable) ................................................... . Preparation (i.e. equipment, ghmware, labware) ........................................... . Equipment Fees (Le., rental and calibration gas usage) .................................. . Travel and Pcrdiem (i.e. trlIvel time, perdiem upenses) ................................ . Testing (i.e. set-up, on-si te tcsting, teardown, supplics) ................................. . Analytical In-house (sample shipping. supplies).. . ............... . Analytical Outside (fuel analysis) ..................................... . Test Report (deliverable) .............................................................................. . T ASK I TOTAL $150 $708 $1,280 $1 ,083 $2,515 $392 $4)0 IJ.2ll ~ 2016 T ASK 2 -COST BREAKDOWN EMISSION DATA COLl,tCTION (16080,1) Project Management (i.e. managing equiplllent, personnel, and laboratories) $1,207 Preparation (i.e. equipment, glassware, iabware) .... $2,g29 Equipment Fees (i.e., rental and calibration gas usage)................................... SJ,496 Travel.1Id Perdiem (i.e. trlvel time, perdiem expenses)................................. $7,721 Testing (i.e. set-up, on-site testing, teardown, supplies) .................................. $40,855 Analytical In-house (sample analysis, sampling preparation) ......................... $3,397 Analytical Outside (sample analysis, sample shipping, supplies) .................... $17,534 Test Report (deliverable) ...... .................................................................... Kill TASK 2 TOTAl , $81.1;';0 2016 NOI TO EXCEEP T ASKS I. & 2 $88.796 Progress invoices will be issued incrementally upon completion of the line items listed above, generally in the form of three bills: (I) delivery of the test plan, (2) preparation, The lniwmalim. "QII/ained in this propWlul I.J propritlury and contai", "onjJdenllal Informafl"QII which u of significant economic ~alllilio TH£AVOGADRO GROUP, Uc. II/I intended /0 be I/S~d only jw IIWlflllllion of our qIlQ/iji"ations 10 pr~/<h iei'll/CU. /Is/rqu/d nal be duplicated, U£~d. or disclwlld in .... lwIt 01" /" part q: j Of" <>IIy Pll1"p(Ut Ofhttr thai! 10 eJlQiualt th13 proposal. U "t:fII Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 23 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC [!tld Tnllog P£DOPps! trHE AVOGADRO GROUP, LLC FEE SCHEDULE FOR SOURCE TEsTING EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,2014 Hourly Rife (S) Conlultant ............................. _ ................. H ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• _ •••• _ •••••••• _ •••••• _ •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 225 Senior Projcd Manager .............................. _ ... _ .... _ •.• _ .•••• _ .................. _ ... _ ........ __ ..................... ___ •....•.. 1 as Project Manager .......................................................................................................................................... J 45 Test Tellm Leader........ . ............................................................................................ 125 Senior Tecltnician..... .................................................................... . ....... 125 Field Teochnician............ ........................ ........................................................... .. ........... 15 Supoort rf~nnd Senior O(fz<:e Worker Office Worlc:er H!)!!rly Ill" (S) ........................................................................... _ ...................................... I2j ............................................................................ , ................ 83 (h·trSirns Ra', ror IIoMely Employm IIourty Ri le (11 Ovtr' /lOIn petd.y or befween 40 and 60 hours per week ._ ..... __ ...... _ ......... _ .. _ ........ Standard Rate x IJ Ova-12 houn per day or over 60 hours per wed!: . ..................... . SWldard Rat" X 2.0 NYIo' AoogadroaUo"""",,,lfor_...-.. "_tlq,1to "ams<t:llllotdco'" ndt ... Omhrad DjM CMq Unit Iblt (S) Per Diem ............................................... _ .. _ .... _ ... _ ... _ ..... _ ...... _ ... _ .... _._ .......................................... 143/dlll)' Mobile Lab Vehicle Mileage ........................................................................... , ............. , ... , ................ I.SOlmil. Other Overhead Direct Cosbl, indudins analytical CO$lS .......... , .............................. COst Plus IS~ InUer Equipment fm !hil! RI !t ($) Mobile Labond.,ry. 00 CEMS -(mileage not included) ........................................................ _._ ..... _ .. _ .. _.35Q Chase vehi~e · (mile'¥" charged scpemely) ......................................... _ .................................................. 120 Portable Samplin, Synem ........................................ . ................................................ , .............. 200 Data Acquisition SyJtem .............. ............................................. .................................................... ._ ....... 100 Strip Chart Recorders. . ......................................................................... "............. . ............. 100 0, Analy:r.er (calibrMioo p.scs dwged separauly tOr all an.ly~) ................ _ ... _ .................................. 12S ~ Anlly= .............................................................................................................................. _ ... _ .. _ .• _.125 CO Analyzer, .... , ..... ,......... ..................... ........................................... . .............. 175 NOx Ao~!y= .............. ,................................................................................. .................. . ................ 1" SO:! Analyzer_ ................................................................. ,......... . .............................................. 200 THC Analyzer ............................. , .... , ................................................................................... _ ....... _ ............ 300 FTIR Analyzer (on $ite) ....................................... _ ........... _ ................. __ •.. _ ... _ ... _ .. _ .................. _._ ..... 750 Gu CbrornalO&flpll (on Iile) .... _ ... , .................................. _ ..... _ ................... _ ............................................ 7SO Heated ,ample line, 50 or 100 Fl.............. ..................... . .................................................................. 100 lriinetic Sampling System " Complete........ .. .............................................................................. 250 Non·[sokinetic Pump &; Meter ...................................... . ....................... _ ..................................... 173 VOSTMcccr Box .................................................................................................................. , ..................... 225 201 A f OTM"027 ~Ione f Castade lmplCtOr ................. __ ........... _ ... __ •.. _ ........ _ .. _ ........... _ ...... _ ......... 12S ImpinieT Sci ............................................................................................................................................ 100 Midi" Impinge. Auembly .... ....................... .. ......................................................... ] SO l.unS Sampler ....................... ....................................................... . ......................................... 100 Tcdlar BIgS (each) ...... " ............................... ,.......................... . ......................................................... , ... H 1213112013 • This fee aehedu1e s rsedes all vlovs ree ""beduIn 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: REQUIRE D 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 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 Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 24 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: 365626A9-B1AF-4ADE-9C87-9C99423353BC City of Palo Alto (ID # 4692) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract Approval for Household Hazardous Waste Title: Approval of a Three Year Contract with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. In The Amount of $379,500 for the First Year for Household Hazardous Waste Management and Emergency Response Services Including $345,000 for Basic Services and $34,500 for Additional Services 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 contract with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. (Attachment A) in a not to exceed amount of $379,500.00 for the first year for household hazardous waste (HHW) and 24-hour emergency response services including $345,000 for basic services and $34,500 for additional services and 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to approve fee increases to the contract for the second and third years, provided the proposed increased cost of the fees do not exceed the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA). Background Program History Palo Alto’s HHW program began in 1983, when Palo Alto became the second jurisdiction in the state to provide residential collection of household hazardous wastes in response to community concerns about toxic wastes in the environment. The HHW program objectives provided a point of contact for public City of Palo Alto Page 2 education about the safe use, storage, disposal and alternatives to HHW products and helped reduce the release of HHW to storm drains, landfill, and the sanitary sewer. In 1986, the Tanner Bill (AB 2948) was enacted, requiring counties to establish hazardous waste management plans (Health & Safety Code 25135- 25135.9). In 1987, the Greene Bill (SB 477) was enacted, requiring each city to either adopt a city hazardous waste management plan or incorporate the county’s plan into the city’s plan. HHW Element In 1989, AB 939 was enacted, mandating that cities adopt and submit an HHW Element (HHWE), a document that sets policies, objectives and programs for collection of HHW in compliance with state mandates. Palo Alto’s HHWE (June 1991) evaluated HHW alternatives and selected the development of a permanent HHW facility to phase out the monthly collection events that were taking place during that time. At that time, Palo Alto decided to continue its own program instead of joining the Santa Clara County HHW Program, because Palo Alto had a mature well-run HHW program predating the Santa Clara County program. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) In the early 1990’s, the RWQCP became a permitted permanent HHW collection facility, focusing on the collection and proper disposal of target wastes that directly affected the waste water effluent such as photo chemicals, mercury wastes, certain types of pesticides, and more recently pharmaceutical wastes. In 2008, the RWQCP upgraded its hazardous wastes’ storage structures by adding a new hazardous waste storage locker (and related improvements) at the entrance to the RWQCP. This new storage locker allows the RWQCP to store both plant generated hazardous wastes as well as HHW collected through the permanent facility permit. In 2013, additional structures were added to further increase the storage capacity. Expanded Program In 2013, the HHW Program received a grant from CalRecycle in the amount of $150,000 and made many key improvements to the HHW Programs. In January of 2013, the City began renovations to the storage area at the entrance to the RWQCP, creating the new HHW Station. Added improvements included a permanent “drive-thru” station with secondary containment, a security fence, additional storage sheds, and a ‘flammables’ shed with a dry fire suppression City of Palo Alto Page 3 system, ventilation system, and explosion-proof bulbs. Additionally, two Reuse Cabinets were installed at the station, where residents are able to pick up usable household products for free. Products are collected through the drop-off program and screened by the City before being placed in the cabinets. In September 2013, the program hours were expanded and household hazardous waste drop-offs events were shifted from being held on a monthly to weekly frequency. Current HHW Program Components Currently, Palo Alto provides a comprehensive program for HHW management that includes:  Weekly Drop-off (Every Saturday and 1st Friday of the Month) – This is the most popular HHW program. Weekly collection events are conducted at the Household Hazardous Waste Station (HHWS) every Saturday and the 1st Friday of each month and operate under a Permanent HHW Collection Facility Permit. Waste collected during these events and during the week at the RWQCP (see below) is properly segregated and stored at the station; wastes are manifested and transported offsite for disposal or recycling on a monthly basis. Two reuse cabinets house pre-screened household items such as paint, cleaners, etc. which residents can pick-up for free;  RWQCP Permanent Facility Drop-off – This program involves a Monday through Friday collection of selected HHW that pose a problem in sewage effluent (i.e., photo chemicals, mercury wastes, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals). The RWQCP’s HHW collection program operates under a Permanent HHW Collection Facility Permit. All HHW collected at the RWQCP is properly segregated and stored at the HHW Station;  Curbside Pickup – The City’s Waste Collector (Greenwaste of Palo Alto) collects used motor oil, oil filters, and household batteries at the curb from residents during their routes. Also, Greenwaste of Palo Alto accepts certain electronic wastes from residents and commercial customers in the recycling carts; and  Door-to-door HHW Pickup – Qualified residents that are physically limited and cannot bring their HHW to the monthly events can schedule their pickups at their homes. The City’s HHW contractor will dispatch personnel City of Palo Alto Page 4 to the homes to collect and transport the HHW to the monthly events for manifesting and transportation. Discussion The work to be performed under this contract includes the operation the City’s ongoing weekly HHW program, a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG) Program, a door-to-door HHW pickup for physically limited residents program, and the HHW Station Reuse Program. Part of this scope of work also requires the contractor to provide for 24-hour hazardous waste emergency spill response services if needed. Selection Process A notice inviting formal proposals/request for proposal (RFP) for the work was posted at City Hall and sent to four pre-qualified contractors on June 3, 2014, the bidding period was twenty-one days. Proposals were received from two qualified contractors on June 10, 2014. Summary of Solicitation Process Proposal Description/Number Household Hazardous Waste and Emergency Response Services/RFP #153461 Proposed Length of Project 36 months Number of Proposals Mailed Six Total Days to Respond to Proposal Twenty-One Pre-proposal Meeting Date N/A Number of Proposals Received: Two An evaluation committee consisting of three staff members from the Public Works Department’s Environmental Services’ Zero Waste Group reviewed the proposals to ensure that the firm was responsive to the criteria identified in the RFP. The criteria used to select the recommended firm included:  Quality and completeness of proposal;  Quality, performance and effectiveness of the solution and services to be provided by the Proposer;  Proposers experience, including the experience of staff to be assigned to City of Palo Alto Page 5 the project, the engagements of similar scope and complexity;  Cost to the City;  Proposer’s financial stability;  Proposer’s ability to perform the work within the time specified;  Proposer’s prior record of performance with City or others; and  Proposer’s compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies (including City Council policies), guidelines and orders governing prior or existing contracts performed by the contractor. The evaluation committee unanimously rated Clean Harbors as the number one bidder based on:  quality and completeness of the proposal,  quality, performance, and effectiveness of the services proposed,  cost to the City,  ability to perform the work within the time specified, and  prior work performance with the City. Staff has also confirmed that Clean Harbors has all of the State and local permits required for this work. The three-year term, scope of work, and procurement process used for this contract follow the same approach as HHW contracts issued by the City in previous years. Resource Impact Funding for this contract is available in the Refuse Fund’s FY 2015 operating budget with subsequent years subject to Council’s approval of each fiscal year’s budget. Policy Implications This project does not represent any change to existing City policies. Environmental Review The HHW program was reviewed in the negative declaration issued for the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element approved by Council on June 6, 1991 (Negative Declaration No. 91-EIA-12). The CESQG program was reviewed in the negative declaration for the implementation of the program, which was approved by Council on June 24, 1993 (Negative Declaration No. 93-EIA-22). Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 6  Attachment A - Contract No. S14153461 Clean Harbors HHW Management and Emergency Response Services (PDF) CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C15153461 GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 15th day of AUGUST, 2014, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California Chartered Municipal Corporation (“CITY”), and CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., a Massachusetts Corporation, located at 1010 Commercial Street, San Jose, California 95112, Telephone Number: 408-431-5000 (“CONTRACTOR”). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1.SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services (“Services”) described in the Scope of Services, attached as Exhibit A. 2.EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: “A” - Scope of Services “B” - Schedule of Performance “C” - Compensation “D” - Insurance Requirements “E” - Performance and/or Payment Bond “F” - Liquidated Damages CONTRACT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED. 3.TERM. The term of this Agreement is from August 15, 2014 to August 14, 2017 inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections Q and V of the General Terms and Conditions. 4.SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Schedule of Performance, attached as Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 5.COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not to exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any: The total maximum lump sum compensation of dollars ($ ); OR The sum of dollars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of dollars ($ ); OR A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of Three Hundred Forty-Five Thousand dollars ($345,000.00) per contract year. CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY. The City has set aside the sum of Thirty-Four Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($34,500.00) for Additional Services. CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from the City Manager or designee. CONTRACTOR, at the CITY’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONTRACTOR’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable 1 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 expense, for such services. Compensation shall be based on the hourly rates set forth above or in Exhibit C (whichever is applicable), or if such rates are not applicable, a negotiated lump sum. CITY shall not authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not perform any Additional Services for which payment would exceed the amount set forth above for Additional Services. Payment for Additional Services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. 6.COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS. CONTRACTOR’S compensation rates for each additional term shall be the same as the original term; OR CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be adjusted effective on the commencement of each additional contract year. The lump sum compensation amount, hourly rates, or fees, whichever is applicable as set forth in section 5 above, shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose area, published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics (CPI) which is published most immediately preceding the commencement of the applicable Additional Term, which shall be compared with the CPI published most immediately preceding the commencement date of the then expiring term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates be increased by an amount exceeding five percent of the rates effective during the immediately preceding term. Any adjustment to CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be reflected in a written amendment to this Agreement. 7.INVOICING. Send all invoices to the CITY, Attention: Project Manager. The Project Manager is: Chuck Muir, Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division, at 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: 650-496-6979. Invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed. Invoices shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to verification by CITY. CITY shall pay the undisputed amount of invoices within 30 days of receipt. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and conditions set forth in sections 1 through 6 above, these general terms and conditions and the attached exhibits. B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and qualifications to complete the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement, entitled “SERVICES,” and that every individual charged with the performance of the services under this Agreement has sufficient skill and experience and is duly licensed or certified, to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law, to perform the Services. CITY expressly relies on CONTRACTOR’s representations regarding its skills, knowledge, and certifications. CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry, including all federal, state, and local operation and safety regulations. C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent or employee of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to complete the work required under this Agreement. D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perform any Services under this Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior written consent of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the work of approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CONTRACTOR’s business. 2 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall in the performance of the Services comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders. G. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole expense, repair in kind, or as the City Manager or designee shall direct, any damage to public or private property that occurs in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY may decline to approve and may withhold payment in whole or in part to such extent as may be necessary to protect CITY from loss because of defective work not remedied or other damage to the CITY occurring in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY shall submit written documentation in support of such withholding upon CONTRACTOR’s request. When the grounds described above are removed, payment shall be made for amounts withheld because of them. H. WARRANTIES. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry and the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all materials, goods and equipment provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall be fit for the particular purpose intended, shall be free from defects, and shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly replace or correct any material or service not in compliance with these warranties, including incomplete, inaccurate, or defective material or service, at no further cost to CITY. The warranties set forth in this section shall be in effect for a period of one year from completion of the Services and shall survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement. I. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor the Services performed under this Agreement to determine whether CONTRACTOR’s work is completed in a satisfactory manner and complies with the provisions of this Agreement. J. CITY’S PROPERTY. Any reports, information, data or other material (including copyright interests) developed, collected, assembled, prepared, or caused to be prepared under this Agreement will become the property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use and will not be made available to any individual or organization by CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without the prior written approval of the City Manager. K. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the date of final payment, CONTRACTOR’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least three (3) following the terms of this Agreement. L. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY shall operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. M. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in full force during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit D. Insurance must be provided by companies with a Best’s Key rating of A-:VII or higher and which are otherwise acceptable to the City’s Risk Manager. The City’s Risk Manager must approve deductibles and self-insured retentions. In addition, all policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders are subject to approval by the Risk Manager as to form and content. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a policy endorsement naming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy. CONTRACTOR shall obtain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage . If the insurance is cancelled or materially reduced in coverage or limits by the insurer, Contractor shall provide 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) day notice, CONTRACTOR shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of CONTRACTOR’S receipt of such notice. CONTRACTOR shall provide certificates of such policies or other evidence of coverage satisfactory to CITY’s Risk Manager, together with the required endorsements and evidence of payment of premiums, to CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and shall throughout the term of this Agreement provide current certificates evidencing the required insurance coverages and endorsements to the CITY’s Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors 3 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 as insured under its policies or shall obtain and provide to CITY separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor that meet all the requirements of this section. The procuring of such required policies of insurance shall not operate to limit CONTRACTOR’s liability or obligation to indemnify CITY under this Agreement. N. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent permitted by law and without limitation by the provisions of section M relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all demands, claims, injuries, losses, or liabilities of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss and including without limitation all damages, penalties, fines and judgments, associated investigation and administrative expenses and defense costs, including, but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees, courts costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution), arising out of, or resulting in any way from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR’s obligations under this Section apply regardless of whether or not a liability is caused or contributed to by any negligent (passive or active) act or omission of CITY, except that CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify for liability arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY. The acceptance of the Services by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Contract. RESPONDER IMMUNITY: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, it is understood and agreed by the parties that CONTRACTOR WILL AT ALL TIMES UNDER THIS Agreement retain any exemption or limitation from liability (“Responder Immunity”) pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Act, as amended (FWPCA) 33 U.S.C.A. 1251 et seq., the Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990, as amended (OPA-90) 33 U.S.C.A. 2701 et seq., and any other applicable Federal, state or local law, regulation or ordinance which provides such responder immunity. Operation of such immunity shall be suspended if CONTRACTOR is grossly negligent or engages in willful misconduct. For purposes of this indemnity, “gross negligence” shall not be deemed to include (a) CONTRACTOR’S lack of available equipment or personnel, (b) failure of CONTRACTOR’S equipment, (c) acts performed by CONTRACTOR at the direction of the U.S. Coast Guard or other governmental authority, or (d) acts performed by CONTRACTOR at the direction of the CITY or CITY’S other contractors.” O. NON-DISCRIMINATION. 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 agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. P. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and during the performance of the Services. Q. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving ten (10) days’ prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt of such notice of termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue performance. CITY, CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of termination. If the termination if for cause, CITY may deduct from such payment the amount of actual damage, if any, sustained by CITY due to Contractor’s failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement. Upon termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver to the City Manager any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other material or products, whether or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR or given to CONTRACTOR, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials shall become the property of CITY. CONTRACTOR MAY TERMINATE THIS Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to CITY.” 4 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 R. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written consent of the CITY. No amendments, changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written consent of the CITY. S. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR 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 this Contract. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Contract, it will not employ any person having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no City Officer, employee, or authorized representative has any financial interest in the business of CONTRACTOR and that no person associated with contractor has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR agrees to advise CITY if any conflict arises. T. GOVERNING LAW. This contract shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of California. U. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all exhibits, represents the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the services that may be the subject of this Agreement. Any variance in the exhibits does not affect the validity of the Agreement and the Agreement itself controls over any conflicting provisions in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written. V. 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 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 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 Contract. W. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department which are incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONTRACTOR 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, Contractor shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: •All printed materials provided by Contractor 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 Contractor 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 Contractor, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Contractor shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. X. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. Y. CONTRACT TERMS: All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Contract. 5 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. City Manager or Designee By: Approved as to form: Name: Senior Asst. City Attorney Title: Approved: Director Public Works 6 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Ronald Meeks Vice President, Technical Services EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Household Hazardous Waste Management and Emergency Response Services Scope of Services A. HISTORY, OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE 1) Program History Palo Alto’s Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) program began in 1983 when Palo Alto became the second jurisdiction in the state to provide collection of household hazardous wastes to its residents in response to community concerns about toxic wastes in the environment. The objectives of the HHW program were to provide a point of contact for educating the public about the safe use, storage, disposal and alternatives to HHW products, and to help reduce the release of HHW to storm drains, landfill and the sanitary sewer. In 1986, the Tanner Bill (AB 2948) was passed requiring counties to establish hazardous waste management plans (Health & Safety Code 25135-25135.9). In 1987, the Greene Bill (SB 477) was passed requiring each City to either adopt a city hazardous waste management plan or incorporate the County’s plan into the City’s plan. Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) - In 1989, AB 939 was passed mandating that cities adopt and submit a HHW Element, a document that sets policies, objectives and programs for collection of HHW in compliance with state mandates. Palo Alto’s HHWE (June, 1991) evaluated HHW alternatives and selected the development of a permanent HHW facility to phase out the monthly collection events that were taking place during that time. At the time, since Palo Alto’s program predated the Santa Clara County program, and since Palo Alto had a mature well-run HHW program, Palo Alto decided to continue its own program instead of joining the Santa Clara County HHW Program. 2) Overview of City’s HHW Program Components Palo Alto currently provides a comprehensive program for HHW management. The various programs operate out of the newly renovated Household Hazardous Waste Station (HHWS) which is located at the entrance to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The HHW Station consists of specially designed HHW storage sheds, reuse cabinets, supply storage sheds, a drive through area for unloading, and equipment for packaging and transporting HHW. Contract staff help manage the HHW Station during collection events. Collection events occur at least once per week. When the HHW storage sheds reach capacity Contractor shall ensure proper transportation and disposal of the waste. A description of the various HHW Programs is listed below. a)Residential HHW Collection Program 7 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Residents can bring in their HHW to the permanent facility every Saturday of the month from 9 am until 11 am. No appointments are required and residents are serviced on a first-come, first-serve basis until closing time. In addition to the Saturday time slots, residents can also drop off their HHW on the First Friday of the month from 3pm to 5pm. b)Small Businesses/Non-Profit Organizations (Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators [CESQGs]) Collection Program Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators, small businesses and non-profit organizations, which generate less than 220 pounds of HW per month, can dispose of their wastes by calling ahead and making an appointment with the City’s HHW Contractor. The CESQG program operates generally on the first Saturday of the month (or as directed by the City) after the HHW Residential Program event, from 11 am until 12 noon. CESQGs contract directly with the HHW Contractor and are responsible for any processing, disposal, or service fees. CESQG’s can call the HHW Contractor directly to make an appointment. The HHW Contractor shall supply a phone number for this service. c)Door-to-door HHW pickup – Residents that demonstrate proof of a physical limitation are eligible for the Door-to-Door service. This service occurs on the First Saturday of the month. On the First Saturday of the month, the City’s HHW Contractor shall dispatch personnel to the residence home(s) to collect and transport the HHW to the permanent collection facility for storage. (A doctor’s certification of physical limitation is required for eligibility of this program and the database is maintained by City staff.) d)Paint Collection at Hardware Store – With the advent of the Green Business Program, a Hardware Store in Palo Alto has been collecting waste and surplus paint at their store. The City of Palo Alto supports the efforts of private industry to take on stewardship for the paint they sell and therefore, on the date of the first Saturday collection event only, the City’s HHW Contractor picks up the waste paint from the Hardware Store and transports the waste paint to the permanent collection facility. This pickup will continue for the immediate future but will eventually be phased out. The Hardware Store is located at 875 Alma Street, Palo Alto. e)RWQCP HHW Collection - In the early 1990’s, the City’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) became a permitted permanent HHW collection facility, focusing on the collection and proper disposal of target wastes that directly affected the waste water effluent such as photo chemicals, mercury wastes, certain types of pesticides and more recently pharmaceutical wastes. With the renovation of the permanent HHW facility, the improvements allow the RWQCP to store the HHW collected at the site and operate and dispose of waste under its permanent facility permit. This program involves a Monday through Friday collection of selected HHW related to problem chemicals for sewage effluent (photo chemicals, mercury wastes, pesticides and pharmaceuticals) during RWQCP operating hours by the 8 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 City RWQCP staff and is also collected during HHW collection by Contractor. All HHW collected at the RWQCP is properly segregated and stored onsite at the permanent HHW facility and transported and shipped offsite with the other accumulated HHW when necessary. f)Reuse Cabinets – The reuse program began in 2013 to promote the reuse of household products while reducing disposal costs for the City. Residents can pick up usable household products brought to the HHW Station for disposal by other residents. The City’s contractor identifies useable household products, screens the material according to the City’s Quality Assurance Plan for the Reuse of Hazardous Materials, and inventories the material before placing in the cabinets. Reuse cabinets are located inside the HHW Station and are open during station hours. 3) Purpose of This RFP: The City is seeking the services of an experienced and qualified Hazardous Waste Contractor to operate and manage the HHW Station collection events, the CESQG program, the Door-to-Door HHW pickup for physically limited residents, the Reuse program, and provide transport of waste paint from the Hardware Store in Palo Alto to the permanent facility (until phased out). Services shall include providing staff, equipment, traffic cones and signage (City will provide additional signage), consolidation, packaging, segregating, storing, transporting, disposing and/or recycling the HHW. HW shall be stored onsite and disposed on the First Saturday event. In addition, this scope of work also requires Contractor to provide for 24-hour hazardous waste emergency spill response services on an as-needed basis. B. SCOPE OF WORK 1) General Requirements: As stated above, Contractor shall operate and manage the HHW from the City’s permanent collection events, CESQG program, door-to-door HHW pickups, transportation of Hardware Store pickups (until phased out), provide equipment and materials for event setup, provide staff and materials to place signage and cones, collect, segregate, pack, and store HHW at the permanent facility. Contractor shall also provide 24-hour hazardous waste emergency spill response services on as as-needed- basis. Contractor shall collect and package all HHW (and universal wastes) for transportation to state and federal approved Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs). Contractor shall perform all services related to this scope of work in compliance with all applicable laws, permits and regulations including but not limited to: Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Palo Alto’s Permanent Facility Permit and Permit by Rule conditions, applicable California Health and Safety Code requirements, CCR Title 8 (Cal OSHA) and Code of Federal Regulations Title 49 (DOT) sections as well as any other federal, state or local regulations relating to HHW collection, transportation and disposal activities. Contractor shall designate a Project Coordinator to act as a contact for the coordination 9 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 and execution of Contractor's activities. Contractor's Project Coordinator shall be authorized to act on behalf of Contractor in all matters pertaining to the contract and shall have sufficient knowledge of all aspects of Contractor's business and the requirements of this contract. Contractor, under this contract, shall act as the transporter of waste, shall collect and manage HHW for the various HHW programs, and shall manage the disposal of HHW. Upon Contractor's acceptance of wastes identified for removal, transportation, management and disposal under this contract, Contractor shall undertake title to, and ownership of, including risk of loss and all other incidents of ownership of such wastes except where the generator is responsible by law. Contractor shall be responsible for preparing and maintaining any and all necessary plans, licenses or other mandatory documents as required by federal, state or local laws, regulations, and ordinances, including but not limited to, health and safety plans, contingency plans and site operations plans. The City shall provide such reasonable assistance to Contractor as it may request. Contractor shall provide to the City copies of all plans, licenses or other mandatory documents prepared for the operation of the City’s HHW Programs prior to beginning any work. For each scheduled event, the City will provide the following: •HHW program advertisement; •additional signage; •survey forms; •literature for survey takers to distribute to event participants; and •debris bins for disposal of recyclables and non-hazardous wastes. Contractor shall recycle as much as possible and place into the recycling bin. The City’s Zero Waste Staff will provide training to the Site Supervisor on what materials can be recycled. The Site Supervisor shall be responsible for training their staff on what materials can be recycled. 2) Documentation to be Provided: Contractor shall provide appropriate documentation, certificates and records as required by applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations and the City. All documentation shall be filled out clearly, correctly and legibly and copies of any manifest attachments shall be provided to the Program Manager at the time of transport. Documentation submittals for all work shall include but not be limited to: •bills of lading or non-hazardous waste manifests •hazardous waste manifests and continuation sheets •labpack inventory sheets •land disposal restriction notifications •hazardous waste profiles •certificates of destruction, decontamination, disposal and/or recycling •monthly and annual 303 forms 10 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 •inventory of items moved to reuse cabinets •event summary reports. Appropriate copies of the documentation listed above as well as any other documents required by the City's Program Manager shall be furnished to the City's Program Manager at the time of waste shipment or at a time as agreed by the City. Closed originals of all uniform hazardous (and non-hazardous) waste manifests signed by a duly authorized representative of the receiving TSDF shall be furnished to the City's Program Manager within thirty (30) calendar days of waste shipment. Contractor shall, at all times during the transportation, storage, and disposal of wastes to be managed under this contract, know the location, condition and status of each item being managed. Contractor shall make such information available in written progress reports to the City's Program Manager upon request. The progress reports shall include a listing of items removed, referenced by an appropriate identification number and uniform hazardous waste manifest number and a description of the location and status of wastes on date of the written progress report. Any transportation or disposal in connection with hazardous waste emergency response services for incidents occurring within the jurisdictional borders of the City shall indicate “Emergency Response” on all relevant documents, including manifests. Contractor shall provide the following summary reports within two weeks of the end of the month listing and sorted by hazardous waste manifest number and by DOT hazard class, and will include the following information for each drum collected: •name of HHW (e.g. Flammable Liquids); •unique drum ID number; •container type/size, quantity; •estimated actual quantity of wastes (in pounds exclusive of container and absorbent for solids and gallons for liquids); and •TSDF profile number (if applicable); •subtotals of the number of drums and weight/volume of wastes for each manifest; •DOT hazard class and the total number of drums; and •weight/volume of wastes for all hazard classes. If required by the City’s Program Manager, reconciliation of manifests including a letter of explanation for any shipping or manifest discrepancies. The City will prepare and submit regulatory notifications such as local agency and state Permit by Rule notifications and the CalRecycle 303 forms. Contractor shall provide City Staff with the Form 303 (waste quantities with management methods used) collected for each of the HHW programs (residential permanent facility events, CESQG program, door to door collection program, and RWQCP collection program) for the fiscal years the contract is in effect. Contractor shall provide the completed Form 303 covering the previous FY (July 1through June 30) to the City no later than 45 days prior to the due 11 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 date of Form 303 to the State. 3) Spill Prevention and Clean Up: Contractor shall use appropriate methods, equipment and practices required by all federal, state and local laws and regulations as well as industry recommended and approved methods, equipment and practices to ensure that no discharges, releases, spills or leakage occurs during the packaging, loading, transportation, storage and disposal of wastes to be managed under this contract. In the event of an accidental spill (from a resident, City staff, or Contractor) Contractor is responsible for having supplies (brushes, absorbent, cleaners, etc.,) on site to properly clean up the spill. In the event of a discharge, release, spill or leakage of hazardous wastes during packaging, loading, transportation, storage or disposal of wastes to be managed under this contract, Contractor shall take appropriate and immediate action to protect human health and the environment. Contractor shall, at no expense to the City, be fully responsible for, and take appropriate and immediate action to remediate and clean-up any such discharge, release, spill or leakage in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. For small spills Contractor is responsible for having supplies (brushes, absorbent, cleaners, etc.,) on site to remediate and clean-up any such discharge, release, spill, or leakage. If during loading and transportation on City property, there is a discharge, release, spill, or leak of hazardous waste the City will direct the actions taken. Contractor shall compensate the City for any costs incurred for response to any discharge, release, spill or leakage of hazardous wastes occurring on City property during loading, packaging and/or transportation activities caused by Contractor negligence. Contractor shall immediately notify the City's Program Manager in person or by telephone should any accident or incident occur which results in any discharge, release, spill or leakage which involves any wastes to be managed under this contract. Contractor shall make all notifications and reporting to the appropriate regulatory or emergency response agencies as required under federal, state and local laws and regulations in the event of a discharge, release, spill or leakage of hazardous wastes during transportation, storage or disposal of wastes to be managed under this contract. If requested by the City, Contractor shall furnish the City's Program Manager with a detailed written report describing any discharge, release, spill or leakage of hazardous wastes during transportation, storage or disposal of wastes to be managed under this contract that required notification to the City or any federal, state and local regulatory or emergency response agency. The HHW drop-off events take place outdoors. Contractor is required to protect the collection area from any runoff of residual materials from garbage bins, collection area, or spills. Contractor shall develop a plan to use for inclement weather to protect against any runoff of HHW materials from garbage bins, the collection area, or accidental spills. 4) Permanent Facility Collection Events: The City’s permanent HHW collection events are permitted under a Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility 12 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Permit (PHHWFP). The events are always located within the RWQCP permanent HHW facility located at 2501 Embarcadero Way. Collection events are held every Saturday and are open to the public from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. In addition, an HHW collection event at the permanent facility is also held from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. on the first Friday of the month. CESQG collection occurs only on the first Saturday from 11:00 a.m. to 12 noon. Under these HHW programs, all HHW and universal wastes shall be collected by Contractor from City residents, with the exception of: •Electronic waste •Large gas cylinders •All other gas cylinders (not listed as acceptable*) •Radioactive wastes •Infectious waste and bio-hazardous wastes (containing body tissues or fluids) •Controlled substances •Explosive wastes •Marine flares •Fireworks •Ammunition *Acceptable gas cylinders include propane (small, BBQ size), MAPP, isobutane/propane, butane, and helium. The following HHW (and universal wastes) shall be packaged, consolidated, stored, and transported off-site by Contractor when accumulation limits have been reached or when necessary: HHW collected by Contractor during the permanent facility events for residential program; HHW from CESQGs collected by Contractor HHW collected by Contractor from the door to door program; Waste and surplus paint collected at the Hardware Store in Palo Alto; and HHW from RWQCP programs collected by City staff. Contractor shall staff and operate the temporary collection events and shall provide a mobile collection service for residents with physical limitations. Set up shall include event preparation, tear down and clean-up in accordance with Title 22 regulations, as amended, in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Contractor shall provide all staff, labor, materials, tools and equipment for handling, identification, profiling, packaging, labeling, marking, placarding, manifesting, loading, transportation, and final disposal of collected hazardous wastes. Unit prices shall include all costs associated with packaging, loading, transporting, and disposal of the HHW. Contractor shall conduct all activities and operate collection events in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, and the health and safety, contingency and operation plans prepared by Contractor and approved by the Program Manager. All personnel handling hazardous waste shall be trained in hazardous waste management and have the training as specified in 22 CCR 66264.16, including the use of personal 13 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 protective safety equipment, and emergency response equipment and procedures as required under applicable state and federal laws and regulations. Contractor shall staff the collection events with personnel in sufficient numbers and expertise. At the regular Saturday collection events and the First Friday event, Contractor staff shall include at a minimum 4 fully trained personnel consisting of: 1 supervisor who has sufficient knowledge of Palo Alto’s Zero Waste programs (including Hazardous Waste disposal options and universal waste disposal options) and can act as a Public Relations person and surveyor, 1 chemist, and two fully trained technicians. The First Saturday collection events typically have a higher participation and includes service for the other HHW Programs, therefore Contractor shall provide at least 12 personnel consisting of: 1 supervisor, 2 chemists, 1 surveyor, and 8 fully trained technicians. The City reserves the right to increase, decrease or modify the number of staff as may be deemed necessary or expedient by the Program Manager. Please see Table 1 below that lists the Event Dates and Households/Vehicles attendance for the last five months at the Saturday and first Friday HHW collection events at the permanent facility. Table 2 (attached at the end of this document) details the annual Form 303 HHW quantities for the 2012-2013 year period, the sum total of all HHW disposed under all City HHW programs. Table 1 Event Date 2013- 14 Households Vehicles Sept 21-Sep 22 22 28-Sep 22 22 Oct 4-Oct 29 29 5-Oct 247 232 12-Oct 57 57 19-Oct 58 41 26-Oct 68 68 Nov 1-Nov 48 44 2-Nov 235 217 9-Nov 39 36 16-Nov 45 44 23-Nov 54 44 Dec 6-Dec 23 23 7-Dec 162 159 14-Dec 51 46 21-Dec 50 49 Jan 3-Jan 47 35 4-Jan 185 154 11-Jan 53 53 18-Jan 80 75 25-Jan 65 63 14 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Feb 1-Feb 172 161 7-Feb 26 26 8-Feb 34 33 15-Feb 45 45 22-Feb 54 48 Mar 1-Mar 120 111 Table 1 - Projected Vehicle Counts and Contractor Staffing Levels based on 2013-14 Expected number of vehicles to be serviced (from 2013-14 data-includes Friday events). Contractor shall also supply up to 100 traffic cones to identify traffic lanes within and outside of the immediate drop-off area. Contractor shall use cones to cordon off the Reuse Shed Parking Area from the rest of the Waste Water Treatment Plant. City will show Contractor staff where to place the cones. Contractor shall set out all temporary signage inside and outside the HHW Station. The number of signs to set out is approximately 7 – 10 signs. Signage will be provided by the City. 5) PaintCare Program. Contractor shall collect, segregate, store, and dispose of approved paints and paint-related products through PaintCare at no cost to the City. Contractor shall arrange with PaintCare to collect, store, manage, and have disposed of approved paint related items. Contractor shall provide at least a 30 cubic yard roll off bin or other bin approved by the City to store approved PaintCare related paint. Prior to the bin reaching capacity Contractor shall arrange for the bin to be emptied or replaced with a new empty bin. The cost of managing, transporting, and recycling PaintCare related products shall not be charged to the City. Contractor shall seek reimbursement from PaintCare directly. However, in order to receive reimbursement, Contractor shall have an agreement with PaintCare and be an approved PaintCare transporter. 6) Call2Recycle (Battery Take Back Program). Contractor shall use Call2Recycle to dispose of rechargeable batteries. Batteries accepted by Call2Recycle include nickel cadmium, lithium ion, small sealed lead acid, nickel metal hydride, and nickel zinc. Contractor shall follow the requirements of Call2Recycle for sorting, packaging, and sending batteries to Call2Recycle. Contractor shall setup an account with Call2Recycle or use an existing City account to recycle batteries. Contractor shall not charge the City for shipping costs for approved Call2Recycle batteries. 7) CESQG Program: The CESQG scope and fee item description are listed below under Section D. 8) Door-To-Door Collection for Residents with physical limitations and Paint Pick- up at Hardware Store in Palo Alto: Contractor shall operate the City’s door to door collection program for residents with physical limitations. The service operates on the First Saturday collection event days only and targets those individuals such as seniors and physically limited residents who may have difficulty attending the HHW collection events due to medical reasons. City staff will make arrangements with residents to use 15 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 this program and will route to Contractor contact information. Contractor shall contact the residents that have been approved by the City and schedule an appointment to collect the waste during a First Saturday event. All HHW collected from the physically limited residents shall be combined with and stored at the permanent facility. Contractor shall track and account for these waste quantities separately. During the First Saturday event, Contractor shall also transport waste Paint from the Hardware Store collection point to the permanent facility for storage (until phased out). The waste paint shall be disposed of and paid for by the PaintCare Program. It shall be the responsibility of Contractor to arrange for any cost reimbursement from PaintCare as described in section 5) PaintCare Program above. 9) 24-Hour Emergency Response Services: In the event of a hazardous materials or waste incident (abandoned waste, spill, leak, etc.) that requires services beyond those that the City is capable of providing internally, Contractor shall be listed as a potential service provider for emergency response. Contractor shall provide the following services: •furnishing of vacuum tanker services or a mini-guzzler vacuum service for pumping of underground tanks and utility vaults (may involve PCB contaminated wastes); •furnishing personnel and materials and/or equipment for waste containment; •spill clean-up and site decontamination; •Hazcat identification of unknowns; and •waste packaging, transportation, and disposal. Contractor shall furnish 24-hour emergency contact telephone numbers and notification procedures for requesting emergency response services. Upon notification by the Program Manager or his designee, Contractor shall mobilize appropriate personnel, materials and equipment to respond to incidents to provide emergency response services. Waste collected during the emergency response shall be immediately disposed by Contractor. C. FEE SCHEDULE DESCRIPTIONS 1) General: Contractor shall invoice the City in accordance with the attached fee schedule to indicate the charge for services included in this RFP. No additional fees will be invoiced to the City. The fees listed on the attached bid schedule (as well as in the rate sheet to be submitted for the emergency response services) shall include all charges payable by the City including but not limited to disposal facility state fees, registrations, licenses, overhead, profit, taxes, violation penalties, etc. The emergency spill responses shall be paid on a time and materials basis, based on the submitted rate sheet. However, unit costs for waste disposal generated by these services shall be in accordance with the bid schedule, Items #36a-#36d. 2) Fee Item 1 - Mobilization Set-up and Demobilization for Regular Saturday and 16 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 First Friday Events: Contractor shall mobilize appropriately qualified personnel and equipment to the site as needed for each scheduled regular Saturday and First Friday household hazardous waste event. Residential waste shall be collected from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m (First Friday event from 3 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.). Activities and services shall include, but not limited to, vehicle unloading and hazardous wastes handling, segregating, packaging, labeling, marking, placarding, and manifesting as necessary. Contractor shall provide all personnel, materials, tools and equipment necessary for the acceptance, handling, packaging, and transportation of the wastes. Typical tasks may include lab-packing, loose packing, bulking of wastes. All packaging, manifesting, labeling, marking and placarding shall be performed in full accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. Contractor shall provide to the City documentation supporting the qualification of those assigned to this program upon request by the City's Program Manager. Contractor shall be compensated for mobilization, packaging and demobilization in accordance with the attached fee schedule. Contractor shall mobilize crews and equipment to the site as needed for each HHW collection event. This task shall include providing all staff, labor, materials, tools and equipment for operating each event. This task includes, but is not limited to: •providing materials handling and containment equipment; •emergency response equipment; •safety equipment; •signage; •personnel protective gear; •portable shelters for the events; •performing mobilization; •site preparation; •demobilization; •clean-up; and •report preparation; and •preparation of all required plans. The lump sum fee for Mobilization and Implementation shall include: •Full compensation for providing appropriate numbers and types of vehicles and equipment for each event, vehicle mileage costs, and travel time for Contractor personnel; •Full compensation for disposal of contaminated equipment (plastic sheeting, PPE, etc.) that is too contaminated and cannot be placed into the garbage bin generated during the event; and, •All staffing and labor costs associated with the personnel requirements for all tasks as outlined below, (i.e. set up, collection, tear down, clean-up, paperwork, etc.). 17 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Contractor shall provide qualified personnel to staff the standard work crew as outlined below: Staffing for Regular Saturday and First Friday Events: One (1) Project Manager with appropriate credentials and experience to oversee all activities and safety during each event. The Project Manager shall have the same expertise and functional responsibilities as required by the Project Manager for the first Saturday event, but shall also serve as a public liaison and survey taker if required. Public liaison roll includes being knowledgeable of local solid waste recycling and disposal options for City of Palo Alto residents. City staff will provide relevant information to the Project Manager. Unless approved by the Program Manager, Contractor shall provide one (1) chemist with credentials and certifications to satisfy all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. The chemist shall have credentials and certifications to satisfy all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations governing training for handling, identification, profiling, segregating, packaging, labeling, marking, placarding, manifesting, and transporting of hazardous wastes. These individuals shall have as a minimum, the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in chemistry and three years of experience in hazardous wastes. The chemists will be on site for the duration of the events. Unless approved by the Program Manager, Contractor shall provide two (2) technicians for performing the duties under the direction of the Project Manager and the Chemist. The technicians shall have expertise in the following activities, including, but not limited to, vehicle unloading and hazardous wastes handling, segregating, packaging, labeling, marking, placarding, and manifesting. Technicians shall have the appropriate level of training, for the duties they are to perform, as required by applicable federal, state and local laws.. 3) Fee Item 2 – Mobilization Set-up and Demobilization for First Saturday Events: Contractor shall provide the same mobilization, set-up, and demobilization services and activities as described in Fee Item #1. Contractor shall provide staff to operate the First Saturday event. At a maximum, unless modified by the City, Contractor shall provide one (1) Project Manager, two (2) chemists, eight (8) technicians and one (1) survey taker during these events. Activities and services will include, but not limited to, vehicle unloading and hazardous wastes handling, segregating, packaging, labeling, marking, placarding, and manifesting. Residential waste shall be collected from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and CESQG waste shall be collected from 11:00 a.m. to noon. Collection of CESQG waste shall occur if necessary on the first Saturday. At home pickups shall also occur if necessary on the First Saturday. Pickup of waste paint from the Hardware Store shall also occur on the First Saturday, if necessary. The City may request a reduction or increase in staff depending on expected or historical staffing levels on a given month. 18 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Staffing for First Saturday Event: One (1) Project Manager with appropriate credentials and experience to oversee all activities and safety during each monthly event (including Friday events). The Project Manager shall be directly responsible for Contractor's activities at each event. The Project Manager shall be on site for the duration of the event. If during the course of the term of the contract, Contractor decides to change or replace the Project Manager, Contractor shall notify the Program Manager in writing and the new Project manager shall meet with City staff in person before the next scheduled HHW event. Unless approved by the Program Manager, Contractor shall provide two (2) chemists with credentials and certifications to satisfy all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations governing training for handling, identification, profiling, segregating, packaging, labeling, marking, placarding, manifesting, and transporting of hazardous wastes. These individuals shall have as a minimum, the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in chemistry and three years experience in hazardous wastes. The chemists shall be on site for the duration of the events. Unless approved by the Program Manager, Contractor shall provide eight (8) technicians for each standard 12 person crew for performing the duties under the direction of the Project Manager and site chemists, including, but not limited to, vehicle unloading and hazardous wastes handling, segregating, packaging, labeling, marking, placarding, and manifesting. Technicians shall have the appropriate level of training, for the duties they are to perform, as required by applicable federal, state and local laws. If approved by the Program Manager, additional or less than the standard 12 person crew shall be billed or deducted in accordance with the attached bid schedule. Unless approved by the Program Manager, Contractor shall provide one (1) survey taker for each standard 12 person crew on each First Saturday event for performing the following duties, including, but not limited to: •verifying participants' residence status; •gathering survey information (forms provided by the City); •answering questions and distributing educational City provided literature; •providing traffic control; and •preventing walk-in access to the event. Survey takers shall wear appropriate safety equipment including safety vests while working and shall be on site for the public drop-off hours for each event. 4) Fee Item 3 –Mobile “Door to door” Collection and Hardware Store Waste Paint Collection: Contractor shall coordinate, collect, package, load, and transport HHW from residents’ homes. Door-to-door collection of HHW, if necessary, shall take place on the day of the First Saturday event. Contractor shall only take and transport acceptable 19 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 HHW to the permanent facility to be consolidated with the other HHW wastes. Contractor is responsible for following and managing the waste, or as directed by the Program Manager, in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. Contractor shall coordinate and contact eligible residents and schedule an appointment on the Saturday of the HHW collection event. Contractor shall travel to the resident’s home, assist them with gathering the wastes, package, load and transport to the HHW event to be consolidated with the other wastes and shipped off-site to the appropriate waste facility. This service shall occur on as as-needed-basis on the First Saturday. The fee for the collection of used paint from the Hardware Store located in Palo Alto shall be the same as the Door-to-Door fee. Contractor shall transport waste paint from the Hardware Store collection point in Palo Alto to the permanent facility for storage. This pick up, like the door-to-door collection shall only be conducted on the First Saturday. 6) Fee Schedule Items 4 through 35 - Packaging, Transportation and Disposal: Contractor shall identify, categorize, profile, segregate, package, label, mark, manifest, transport, and dispose of all collected wastes as directed by the Program Manager and in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. Fees provided under Packaging, Transportation and Disposal shall incorporate all costs related to packaging, transportation, and disposal, including, but not limited to, identification, profiling, bulking, loose-packing, lab-packing, waste compaction (e.g., empty container crushing), marking, manifesting, and loading, transportation and disposal of all collected wastes. It is the City's preference to utilize non-landfill management methods, where feasible. Recycling, fuel substitution, incineration, treatment and other incineration/destruction alternatives will be considered for use as management methods for the program, where practical. If waste management methods other than those listed in the Fee Schedule are proposed, the Proposer shall specify the alternate disposal method on the Fee Schedule. 7) Fee Item #36 Emergency Response Services: Oily Water (Non PCB) From Utility Vaults: Contractor shall provide a vacuum tanker when transformer failures in utility vaults produce mineral oil releases that must be evacuated. Contractor shall also provide a steam cleaner or a pressure washer in conjunction with the tanker. Contractor shall not be required to enter a vault under any circumstances. City electrical crews shall perform the washout using Contractor’s equipment. The City shall confirm if PCBs are present using lab samples or equipment data prior to Contractor evacuating the vaults. These types of emergency response events occur typically twice per year. Oily Water (PCB Contaminated) From Utility Vaults: In rare occasions, an older PCB contaminated transformer will fail producing PCB contaminated oily water. The City will always confirm the PCB concentration of the oil prior to Contractor evacuating the vault. In the event of a hazardous materials or waste incident (abandoned waste, spill, leak, etc.) 20 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 that requires services beyond those that the City is capable of providing internally, Contractor shall be listed as a potential service provider for emergency response. Typical services to be provided under this task may include, but not be limited to: •furnishing of vacuum tanker services for pumping of underground tanks and utility vaults (may involve PCB contaminated wastes); •furnishing personnel and materials and/or equipment for waste containment; •spill clean-up and site decontamination; •Hazcat identification of unknowns; and •waste packaging, transportation, and disposal. Contractor shall furnish 24-hour emergency contact telephone numbers and notification procedures for requesting emergency response services. Upon notification by the Program Manager or his designee, Contractor shall mobilize appropriate personnel, materials and equipment to respond to incidents to provide emergency response services. For these and other emergency response services rendered under this task, Contractor will be compensated for on a time and materials basis for waste disposal and in accordance with Contractor's standard schedule of fees (rate sheet to be attached). D. CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR PROGRAM 1) General: Since November, 1993, a CESQG Program has been made available for the collection and management of hazardous wastes generated by businesses that qualify as CESQGs located in the service area for the PARWQCP (the communities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, and Stanford). The CESQG Program shall be operated by Contractor in conjunction with but separate from the HHW program. Contractor shall operate the CESQG Program in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations and ordinances, including but not limited to 22 CCR 67450.4, as amended, and California Health and Safety Code Sections 25218-25218.12. The CESQG Program shall only provide hazardous waste collection, transportation, treatment and disposal services for those businesses within the PARWQCP service area that meet the definition of a "conditionally exempt small quantity generator" as specified under California Health and Safety Code Section 25218.1(a) (HSC 25158.1(a)) and Section 261.5 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Contractor shall operate the CESQG Program collection event on the First Saturday collection event between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. Contractor shall permit participating and qualified businesses (typically 1 to 5 CESQGs use the City’s program every month) to deliver wastes by appointment with Contractor to the PARWQCP on the designated event days and time. The appointment system shall provide information to Contractor which shall aid in Contractor's arrangements for the management of wastes, verification of business status, verification of CESQG status, verification of waste quantities generated, and payment for services provided by Contractor to participating businesses. Contractor shall provide a toll free telephone number dedicated to the Palo Alto CESQG appointments. Contractor shall return all calls 21 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 from CESQGs within two business days and shall be responsible to the CESQG using the program. Contractor shall operate and be responsible for the CESQG Program, under which it shall provide for the appropriate handling, packaging, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes generated by CESQGs in the PARWQCP service area. CESQG waste shall be combined with the permanent HHW facility program’s waste to minimize the number of containers transported for disposal. Contractor is authorized to collect fees on a cost-recovery basis for services rendered at the time of delivery of the wastes to the WQCP. It shall be Contractor's sole responsibility to ensure that the rates established for the CESQG Program cover all costs including, but not limited to, packaging, transportation, disposal, maintenance of required records, staffing for the CESQG Program, operation of the appointment system, and billing management. However, the fees charged to the program participants shall be in line with the costs associated with HHW drop off program. Any taxes which are assessable upon the rendering of such services may be passed on to the participating business as part of the CESQG Program costs. The City expressly disclaims any responsibility or liability for payment of such taxes which Contractor may be required by law to collect. 2) Record Keeping: Contractor shall be solely responsible to maintain all records required by local, state, and federal laws, ordinances, and regulations, including but not limited to: Contractor shall be solely responsible for recovering all CESQG Program fees and costs from the Program participants. The City expressly disclaims any responsibility or liability for tracking of participating businesses, including waste quantities and types; •verification of CESQG status; •Separate Form 303 for CESQG program for the fiscal years the contract is in effect; •business hazardous waste generator identification numbers and permits (as applicable); •business name, address, and phone number; •fees charged and collected including copies of proof of payment (i.e. checks, visa, cash); •uniform hazardous waste manifests; •state and federal land disposal restriction notification forms for hazardous waste subject to land disposal restrictions; •hazardous waste profiles required by TSDFs and other waste/recycling facilities; and •bills of lading for non-hazardous wastes collected and managed through the CESQG Program. All records shall be retained and made available for inspection, review, and audit by representatives of the PARWQCP jurisdiction during normal business hours throughout 22 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 the term of the Agreement for a period of three (3) years following the expiration or termination of the Agreement for any reason. A monthly event summary report shall be prepared and submitted by Contractor to the Program Manager within one (1) week after each CESQG Program collection event. Each report shall include, at a minimum, the following: Contractor shall be responsible for preparing and maintaining any and all necessary plans, licenses or other mandatory documents required for the CESQG Program by regulatory agencies, federal, state or local laws, ordinances or regulations, including but not limited to, health and safety plans, contingency plans and site operations plans. The City shall provide such reasonable assistance to Contractor as it may request. Contractor shall provide to the Program Manager copies of all plans, licenses or other mandatory documents prepared for the operation of the CESQG Program. The City will prepare and submit any regulatory notifications such as local agency and state Permit by Rule notifications, as necessary. Contractor shall provide such reasonable assistance to the City as it may request. As required by the DTSC, the EPA Generator Identification Number for the HHW Program shall be used for the manifesting of wastes collected under CESQG Program. Contractor shall solely assume: •Responsibility for transporting of, including arranging for transportation of all wastes managed under the CESQG Program hereunder; •Arranger status for the disposal of all wastes collected and managed under the CESQG Program hereunder; and •Operator status for all wastes collected and managed through the CESQG Program hereunder. •To the extent permitted by law, the City disclaims any responsibility, liability, or status in connection with the CESQG Program under the Agreement. The City assumes no title to nor ownership of the wastes collected, transported, recycled or disposed of through the CESQG Program. The City will not be deemed a transporter, disposer, operator or generator for, such wastes collected and managed under the CESQG Program except as may be established by law. In addition, the City disclaims any responsibility or liability for arrangement of delivery, collection, transportation, recycling or disposal of such wastes collected and managed under the CESQG Program hereunder. E. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 23 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 1. A description of the Proposer's arrangements for transportation of hazardous wastes to be managed under this project including: 1.a A copy of the State of California DTSC Certificate of Registration as a hazardous waste transporter for Proposer (if Proposer provides transportation) and for any subcontracted transporters to be utilized; 1.b A list of transporter hazardous waste hauler registrations for other states through which hazardous wastes to be managed under this project may be transported. 2.A Waste Management Plan describing the TSDFs and other waste/recycling facilities to be utilized to manage wastes collected under this project including the facility name, address, telephone number, EPA ID number, specific waste streams to be managed at each TSDF listed, and a description of the waste management processes to be utilized. If available, a copy of the TSDF's Acknowledgement of Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity shall be included. A detailed description of auditing procedures used by the Proposer for selecting TSDFs and other waste/recycling facilities and a brief discussion of audit results for those facilities proposed for utilization in this program shall be included in the Proposal. The City may request more detailed facility audit information at a later date. 3.General HHW Program and CESQG Program Operation Plan(s) which shall include, at a minimum, detailed descriptions of the following: 3.a Organization of staffing and a description of duties of each staff member; 3.b Employee safety and procedural training; 3.c Safety procedures, supplies, materials and equipment to be furnished for operations, safety, and contingencies; 3.d Site setup procedures; 3.e Waste acceptance and handling procedures including screening, unloading, identification, classification, and segregation; 3.f Procedures for packaging and consolidation of collected wastes; 3.g Documentation and inventory control procedures including procedures for drum inventory and content control, labeling, manifesting and associated paperwork. 3.h Procedures for identification of unknowns; 3.i Procedures for management of unacceptable or unusually hazardous 24 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 wastes; and 3.j Procedures for site clean-up and restoration. 4.General HHW Program and CESQG Program Contingency Plan(s) that shall include, at a minimum, detailed descriptions of the following: 4.a Organization of staffing and a description of duties of each staff member; 4.b Contingency Plan training including first aid, implementation procedures, use of safety, containment and clean-up equipment; 4.c Supplies, materials and equipment to be furnished for Contingency Plan implementation; 4.d Procedures for emergencies including spills, fire, explosions, injuries, natural disasters, etc.; 4.e Procedures for notifying outside emergency response agencies and regulatory agencies including identification of agencies that may potentially be notified; 4.f Procedures for dealing with inclement weather; and 4.g Communication procedures. NOTE: The general HHW Program and CESQG Program Contingency Plan(s) being requested for submittal with the proposal need not be tailored specifically to the Palo Alto programs. The Plans to be submitted with the proposal must provide sufficient information and detail to demonstrate capabilities for the operation of the HHW and CESQG Programs. The successful Contractor shall be required to prepare site specific HHW Program and CESQG Program Contingency Plan(s) tailored to the Palo Alto Programs upon notification of selection. 5.A discussion of the regulatory compliance record of the Proposer and any subcontractors. This discussion will include a description of any accidents or violations issued to the Proposer and any subcontracted transporter by the EPA, Department of Transportation, DTSC, local regulatory agency and California Highway Patrol during the past year from the date of proposal submittal. 6.Detailed and specific information on Proposer's capabilities for emergency response services including location(s) of emergency response groups and equipment, a listing of locally available emergency response equipment, emergency response capabilities and experience, etc. END OF SCOPE 25 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CHOOSE ONE OF THESE ALTERNATIVES TO DESCRIBE SCHEDULE: Alternative 1. X CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services according to the following schedule: as needed by the City of Palo Alto 365 days during the contract year in accordance with the Scope of Services set forth in Exhibit A as agreed with by the City’s Project Manager. Alternative 2. CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services so as to complete each task within the time period specified below. The time to complete each task may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONTRACTOR and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. Upon request CONTRACTOR shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below. Task Complete ___ Days or (Describe task) ___ Weeks From NTP 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 26 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OF FEES (SEE ATTACHED FOR COMPENSATION – COPIES OF THE PROPOSAL FEE SCHEDULE) 27 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Program Fee Schedule HHW GENERATED HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FEE SCHEDULE Labor Setup and Mobilization/Demobilization Prices FEE DESCRIPTION PRICE ITEM 1 MOBILIZATION, SET-UP, DEMOBILIZATION FOR REGULAR SATURDAY AND FIRST FRIDAY COLLECTION EVENTS STANDARD 4 PERSON CREW - LUMP SUM FOR STAFF & MATERIALS -PER EVENT $ DISCOUNT OR ADDITION PER CHEMIST ADDED OR SUBTRACTED $ DISCOUNT OR ADDITION PER TECHNICIAN ADDED OR SUBTRACTED $ DISCOUNT OR ADDITION PER SURVEYOR ADDED OR SUBTRACTED $ 2 MOBILIZATION, SET-UP, DEMOBILIZATION FOR FIRST SATURDAY COLLECTION EVENTS 12 PERSON CREW - LUMP SUM FOR STAFF & MATERIALS -PER EVENT $ DISCOUNT OR ADDITION PER CHEMIST ADDED OR SUBTRACTED $ DISCOUNT OR ADDITION PER TECHNICIAN ADDED OR SUBTRACTED $ DISCOUNT OR ADDITION PER SURVEYOR ADDED OR SUBTRACTED $ 3 DOOR TO DOOR PROGRAM (AND HARDWARE WASTE PAINT) - PRICE PER PICKUP $ EXHIBIT C 29 28 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 3,924.50 368.00 280.00 180.00 25.00 996.00 276.00 210.00 210.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Waste Unit Prices FEE WASTE DESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT UNIT PRICES FOR PACKAGING TRANSPORTING AND DISPOSAL ITEM METHOD 5 GALLON 20 GALLON 30 GALLON 55 GALLON CY BOX 4 LATEX PAINT RECYCLE ---------------------------------PAINTCARE NO COST TO CITY----------------------------------------- 5 OIL BASED PAINT FUEL SUBSTITUTION ---------------------------------PAINTCARE NO COST TO CITY----------------------------------------- RECYCLE ---------------------------------PAINTCARE NO COST TO CITY----------------------------------------- INCINERATION ---------------------------------PAINTCARE NO COST TO CITY----------------------------------------- 6 FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS (BULK)FUEL SUBSTITUTION INCINERATION 7 FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS - POISONS INCINERATION OR TOXIC 8 FLAMMABLE SOLIDS INCINERATION 9 EMPTY CONTAINERS RECYCLE LANDFILL 10 AEROSOL CANS (PARTIALLY FULL)RECYCLE CORROSIVE, FLAMMABLE OR POISONS INCINERATION 11 CONTAMINATED DEBRIS INCINERATION (ABSORBENTS/SOLIDS WITH HYDROCARBONS)LANDFILL 12 LIGHT BALLASTS INCINERATION RECYCLE LANDFILL 13 POISON/TOXIC SOLIDS INCINERATION 3029 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 89.64 132.84 166.32 221.40 N/A LCCRD 89.64 132.84 166.32 221.40 779.76 LCCRC 105.84 210.60 263.52 351.00 N/A CHBL 234.36 467.64 585.36 779.76 N/A CHBD 234.36 467.64 585.36 779.76 N/A CHBI CBP66.96 113.40 142.56 189.00 N/A 144.72 267.84 334.80 446.04 N/A CCRK 90.00 126.00 157.50 210.00 595 LCCRQ CBP D23 LPTN 12.96 22.68 27.00 35.64 n/a 12.96 22.68 27.00 35.64 n/a 123.12 146.88 183.60 245.16 557.28 Clean Harbors WCC FB1n/a90.72 120.9672.3638.88 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 FEE WASTE DESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT UNIT PRICES FOR PACKAGING TRANSPORTING AND DISPOSAL ITEM METHOD 5 GALLON 20 GALLON 30 GALLON 55 GALLON CY BOX 14 FLUORESCENT LIGHT TUBES RECYCLE PRICE PER LINEAR FOOT: 15 COMPACT FLUORESCENT LIGHTS RECYCLE PRICE PER POUND: 16 PAINT RELATED MATERIAL INCINERATION ---------------------------------PAINTCARE NO COST TO CITY----------------------------------------- RECYCLE ---------------------------------PAINTCARE NO COST TO CITY----------------------------------------- 17 INORGANIC ACIDS OR BASES TREATMENT INCINERATION 18 ORGANIC ACIDS OR BASES TREATMENT INCINERATION 19 OXIDIZERS SOLID INCINERATION 20 OXIDIZER LIQUID INCINERATION 21 PROPANE CYLINDERS RECYCLE 22 BARBEQUE SIZED TANKS RECYCLE PRICE PER TANK *Acceptable gas cylinders include propane (small, BBQ size), MAPP, isobutane/propane, butane, and helium. 23 UNIVERSAL WASTE BATTERIES 23a.ZINC CARBON/ALKALINE RECYCLE 23b.NICKEL CADMIUM RECYCLE 23c.LEAD ACID (BROKEN & LEAKING)RECYCLE 23d.SEALED LEAD-ACID (GELCELL)RECYCLE 23e.LITHIUM INCINERATION LITHIUM -RECHARGEABLE RECYCLE 3130 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 135.00 N/A N/A N/A LBBGB 361.80 724.68 905.04 N/A LBR 123.12 244.08 305.64 407.16 LBLA 123.12 244.08 305.64 407.16 LBLA3 0.65/ per pound for all sizes LBD2 Above battery rates are for batteries that must be managed outside of the City Calll2Recycle account. 167.40 334.80 417.96 557.28 LBD1 11.15 LCY1 5.57 each cylinder 5.57 ea cylinder 217.08 289.44 N/A LCY1 133.92 160.92 200.88 267.84 LCCRO 133.92 160.92 200.88 267.84 LCCRO 75.00 114.00 142.50 190.00 LCCRA/B 75.00 114.00 142.50 190.00 LCCRA/B CFL8 CFL1 4.46 0.16 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 FEE WASTE DESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT UNIT PRICES FOR PACKAGING TRANSPORTING AND DISPOSAL ITEM METHOD 5 GALLON 20 GALLON 30 GALLON 55 GALLON CY BOX 24 ASBESTOS LANDFILL 25 MERCURY RECYCLE 26 WATER REACTIVE WASTES INCINERATE TREATMENT 27 PHOTO DEVELOPER RECYCLE FOR SILVER RECOVERY 28 PHOTO FIXER FUEL SUBSTITUTION OTHER METHOD (SPECIFY) 29 CYANIDE INCINERATION 30 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS INCINERATION 31 FLARES / FUSEE INCINERATION 32 AMMONIA SOLUTIONS INCINERATION 33 NON-SPECIFIED FLAMMABLE OR FUEL SUBSTITUTION COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS INCINERATION 34 NON-SPECIFIED FLAMMABLE OR FUEL SUBSTITUTION COMBUSTIBLE SOLIDS INCINERATION 35 NON-SPECIFIED CORROSIVE TREATMENT/ LIQUIDS NEUTRALIZATION 32 31 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 89.64 132.84 166.32 221.40 LAT A/B 123.12 146.88 183.60 245.16 557.28 LPTN 89.64 150.12 187.92 250.56 878.04 FB5 89.64 150.12 187.92 250.56 LFB1 89.64 132.84 166.32 221.40 LCCRD 75.00 114.00 142.50 190.00 LCCRB 167.40 N/A N/A N/A CAXI 250.56 501.12 627.48 835.92 LCHSI 172.80 N/A N/A N/A LRCTB 89.64 132.84 166.32 221.40 LCCRC N/A N/A N/A N/A 89.64 132.84 166.32 221.40 LCCRC ------------------------------------------------------------INCINERATION N/A N/A N/A 172.80 N/A N/A LRCT 250.56 486.00 N/A N/A LCHG2 49.68 100.44 123.36 167.40 585.36 CNIA DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 EMERGENCY RESPONSES TANKER TRUCK BULK LIQUIDS SPECIFY METHOD 36 36a.OILY WATER (NON-PCB)DISPOSAL PRICE PER GALLON: 36b.OILY WATER (PCB CONTAMINATED)DISPOSAL PRICE PER GALLON: SURCHARGES (IF APPLICABLE) 36c.SOLIDS PRICE PER EVERY PERCENT SOLIDS: 36d.TANKER CLEANOUT TANKER CLEANOUT PER EVENT PRICE: NOTE: LABOR AND EQUIPMENT FOR ALL EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES (INCLUDING TANKER) SHALL BE CHARGED AT TIME AND MATERIALS RATE PURSUANT TO CONTRACTOR'S SUBMITTED RATE SHEET. 33 32 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DHLI A32 Incineration Treatment A32 - Oily Water (Non-PCB) Solids Surcharges DHLI - Oily Water (PCB-Contaminated) Solids Surcharges 5.00% – 19.99% = additional $ 0.16/ gallon 5.00% – 10.00% = additional $0.17/ gallon 20.00% – 29.99% = additional $ 0.26/ gallon 10.10% – 15.00% = additional $0.33/ gallon >30.00% = case by case 15.10% – 20.00% = additional $0.49/ gallon > 20.00% = case by case 850.78 each PCB 262.65 each Non PCB see below 2.59 0.90 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 1 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Per Diem / Subsistence DAY $205.00 PER DIEM / SUBSISTENCE On Site Administration HR $69.00 Coordinator / Job Consultant HR $131.00 General Manager HR $170.00 ADMINISTRATIVE/MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL Senior Engineer/Scientist/Geologist HR $120.00 Professional Engineer/LSP HR $126.00 Associate Engineer HR $95.00 Mechanic HR $100.00 Field Inspector HR $82.00 Senior Mechanical Technician HR $91.00 Field Engineer/Scientist/Geologist HR $107.00 Wastewater Treatment Operator HR $108.00 Welder HR $100.00 Designer HR $105.00 TECHNICAL PERSONNEL Foreman HR $76.00 Chemist HR $96.00 Field Technician HR $59.00 Equipment Operator HR $74.00 Project Manager HR $126.00 Site Safety Officer HR $142.00 Supervisor HR $103.00 Lead Chemist HR $122.00 FIELD PERSONNEL Description UOM Price (USD) Region: US NORTHWEST Rate Category Type: Emergency Response Rates Currency Code: USD 33 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 2 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” 2500psi Pressure Washer DAY $118.00 3000psi Hot Water Pressure Washer DAY $376.00 2500psi Hot Water Pressure Washer DAY $341.00 1000psi Pressure Washer DAY $100.00 2000psi Pressure Washer DAY $109.00 Nozzle - 2D Automated HR $65.00 High Pressure Blaster - 40,000 PSI 200 HP (6 GPM)HR $195.00 High Pressure Blaster - 10,000 PSI 150 HP HR $71.00 High Pressure Blaster - 20,000 PSI 150 HP (12 GPM)HR $136.00 PRESSURE WASHING EQUIPMENT Spill Trailer DAY $195.00 Pickup/Van/Car/Crew Cab HR $21.00 Utility / Support Trailer DAY $195.00 Stake Body/Utility Truck HR $37.00 Emergency Response Van HR $79.00 LIGHT DUTY TRUCK/RESPONSE EQUIPMENT Skid Mounted Vacuum System HR $68.00 Tractor Only, No Trailer HR $60.00 Tractor w/Box Van HR $80.00 Rolloff Straightjob HR $82.00 Box Truck HR $64.00 Dump Truck, 10 Wheel HR $80.00 High Powered Vacuum Truck/Cusco HR $149.00 Tractor w/Vacuum Trailer HR $103.00 Vacuum Truck, Straight HR $84.00 Wet/Dry High Powered Vacuum Truck/Guzzler HR $149.00 Tractor w/Rolloff Trailer HR $82.00 Tractor w/Dump Trailer HR $85.00 Tractor w/Flatbed/Lowbed Trailer HR $82.00 Tractor w/Liquid Transporter HR $97.00 HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS Description UOM Price (USD) 34 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 3 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Brush Skimmer DAY $800.00 Containment Boom - 10" Per Foot Per Day FT $1.78 Containment Boom - 18" Per Foot Per Day FT $1.99 Airboat, Single Engine DAY $1200.00 Airboat, Twin Engine DAY $3500.00 Boat/Workskiff without Motor DAY $142.00 Containment Boom - 24" Per Foot Per Day FT $2.57 Containment Boom - 36" Per Foot Per Day FT $2.88 Drum Skimmer (24in-36in)DAY $627.00 MARINE RESPONSE EQUIPMENT Pump - Hydraulic Transfer, 4 in HR $35.00 Pump - Hand DAY $35.00 Pump - Hydraulic Transfer, 6 in HR $262.00 Pump - Trash, 4 in DAY $285.00 Pump - Mudhen / Single Diaphragm, 2 in DAY $65.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 1 in DAY $97.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 2 in DAY $137.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 2 in, Chemical DAY $182.00 Pump - Diesel Lister, 3 in DAY $154.00 Drum Loader DAY $172.00 Drum Vacuum, Pneumatic HR $32.00 Pump - Centrifugal, 2 in DAY $110.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 3 in DAY $154.00 Pump - Electric Submersible, 3 in DAY $109.00 Pump - Electric Submersible, 4 in DAY $159.00 Pump - Hale, 2 in DAY $109.00 Pump - Electric Submersible, 2 in DAY $86.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 3 in, Chemical DAY $201.00 Pump - Double Diaphragm, 4 in DAY $212.00 Pump - Electric Drum DAY $109.00 PUMPING/TRANSFERRING PUMPS Nozzle - 3D Automated HR $85.00 Description UOM Price (USD) 35 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 4 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Explosion/Oxygen Meter DAY $126.00 Geiger Counter Meter DAY $157.00 Draeger Air Monitoring Pump DAY $79.00 4 Gas/5 Gas Meter DAY $178.00 Bailer & Sampling Equipment DAY $60.00 Geoprobe DAY $228.00 Hydrogen Cyanide Meter DAY $130.00 FIELD ANALYTICAL Skimmer, Duck Bill DAY $28.00 Skimmer - C29H Hydraulically Powered Rope Mop Wringer DAY $875.00 Skimmer - C24H Hydraulically Powered Rope Mop Wringer DAY $650.00 Skimming Vessel (Marco/JBF or Equivalent) 28-30ft DAY $5475.00 Weir Skimmer Unit DAY $173.00 Underwater ROV DAY $1255.00 Skimming Vessel Belt Drive Replacement EA $1302.00 PFD Life Vest DAY $26.00 Landing Craft (LCM), 46ft-75ft DAY $4800.00 Power Barge Boat, 26ft-30ft DAY $1100.00 PFD Survival Suit / Cold Weather Survival Work Suits DAY $79.00 Landing Craft (LCM), 35ft-45ft DAY $1800.00 Hydraulic Power Pack for Skimmer DAY $220.00 Drum Skimmer, Double Barrel DAY $950.00 Landing Craft (LCM), 30ft-34ft DAY $1200.00 Landing Craft (LCM), 26ft-29ft DAY $950.00 Rigid Hull Inflatable (RIB) (18ft-22ft)DAY $785.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 27-36ft DAY $950.00 Skim Pack Skimmer DAY $162.00 Rotating Disc Skimmer Unit DAY $816.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 23-26ft DAY $750.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 12-14ft DAY $298.00 Power Barge Boat, 30ft-42ft DAY $2000.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 18-22ft DAY $596.00 Power Workboat, Fast Response, 15-17ft DAY $356.00 Description UOM Price (USD) 36 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 5 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Dozer, <100 HP DAY $680.00 Bobcat Loader/Mini Excavator HR $74.00 Backhoe Loader, 1 Yard Bucket HR $79.00 Excavator, 20-30 Ton HR $100.00 Sweeper Attachment for Bobcat Loader DAY $142.00 Loader, 2-3 Yard Bucket HR $77.00 Fork Attachment for Bobcat Loader DAY $58.00 EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT Hose - Suction, 3 in X 25 ft DAY $42.00 Hose - Suction, 2 in X 25 ft DAY $31.00 Hose - Suction, 4 in X 25 ft DAY $60.00 Wash Hose, 1/2in x 50ft DAY $5.00 Hose - Suction, 6 in X 25 ft DAY $87.00 Hose - Chemical, 4 in X 20 ft DAY $67.00 Hose - Chemical, 3 in X 20 ft DAY $51.00 Hose - Chemical, 2 in X 20 ft DAY $37.00 Hose - Flex, 4 in, per ft FT $2.75 Hose - Lay Flat, 6 in X 25 ft DAY $79.00 Hose - Lay Flat, 4 in X 25 ft DAY $60.00 Hose - Flex, 6 in, per ft FT $3.50 HOSES/PIPE Lumex RA915+ Mercury Vapor Analyzer DAY $513.00 Mercury Vapor Analyzer DAY $262.00 Hydrostatic Tester DAY $115.00 Interface Probe DAY $126.00 Particulate Meter, Mini Ram or equivalent DAY $126.00 PID Meter DAY $126.00 Well Purging/Sampling Pump DAY $60.00 Personal Air Pump Meter DAY $60.00 pH Meter DAY $60.00 Description UOM Price (USD) 37 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 6 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” 3,000 - 3,900 Gal Steel Storage Tank DAY $27.00 20,000 Gal Frac Tank DAY $162.00 4,000 - 6,000 Gal Poly Storage Tank DAY $96.00 300 - 500 Gal Poly Storage Tank DAY $42.00 150,000 BTU Portable Heater DAY $272.00 15 Gal HEPA Vacuum DAY $172.00 2,000 - 2,900 Gal Poly Storage Tank DAY $79.00 2 CU YD self dumping hopper DAY $4.30 Air Compressor 175-185 CFM DAY $262.00 Dewatering Box DAY $172.00 ATV, 4X4 or 4X6 DAY $366.00 Air Compressor 8-10 CFM DAY $121.00 Decontamination Trailer DAY $183.00 Carbon Filter System DAY $249.00 SITE SUPPORT Wet Vacuum (Shop Vac)DAY $43.00 Circular Saw, Electric DAY $60.00 1/2in Drill, Electric DAY $43.00 Reciprocating Saw (Sawzall), Electric DAY $79.00 Mercury Vacuum DAY $206.00 ELECTRIC POWER TOOLS Brush Cutter/Power Broom DAY $122.00 Cutoff Saw (Demo)DAY $131.00 GAS POWERED TOOLS Jackhammer, 60Lb DAY $82.00 Jackhammer, 40Lb DAY $65.00 3/4in Drill, Rotary Hammer DAY $91.00 Steel Nibbler, Pneumatic DAY $131.00 Pneumatic Chipping Gun DAY $105.00 Jackhammer, 90Lb DAY $98.00 PNEUMATIC POWER TOOLS Description UOM Price (USD) 38 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 7 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Cutting Torch/Acetylene Torch DAY $120.00 DBI/Rogliss Tripod DAY $65.00 Confined Space Entry Gear (Retrieval & Rescue Equip) DAY $364.00 Antiviral Disinfectant Fogger DAY $175.00 Auger, Manual DAY $65.00 Digital Camera DAY $86.00 Drum Crusher, Portable DAY $455.00 Drum Tilter, Mechanical DAY $172.00 SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT Tank Trailer/Transporter, No Tractor (For Storage Only) DAY $455.00 Skid Mounted Liquid Phase Carbon System (10GPM)DAY $68.00 Secondary Containment Unit DAY $41.00 Vacuum Box, Watertight DAY $109.00 Utility/Cross Terrain Vehicle (Mule/Gator)DAY $366.00 Traffic Cone/Barricade Unit DAY $1.50 Generator - 8,000 Watt DAY $183.00 Generator - 5,000 Watt DAY $157.00 Incident Command Unit DAY $1568.00 Halogen Spotlight DAY $105.00 Generator - 4,000 Watt DAY $139.00 Eyewash Station DAY $53.00 Dump Trailer (Trailer Only, Staged on Site)DAY $74.00 Generator - 12K Watt DAY $250.00 Frac Tank, Double Walled DAY $194.00 Portable Boiler DAY $910.00 Personnel Staging Tent, 20' x 30'DAY $150.00 Sea Container / Conex / Tool Crib, 20 ft.DAY $30.00 Rolloff Container with Tarp & Bows DAY $20.00 On-site Van Trailer (Tractor not included)DAY $201.00 Intrinsically Safe Drop Light DAY $105.00 Intermodal Container DAY $32.00 Light Tower w/Generator DAY $523.00 Light Stand DAY $105.00 Description UOM Price (USD) 39 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 8 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Level B w/CPF3 or Saranex Suit/Changeout EA $250.00 Level B w/CPF4 or Barricade Suit/Changeout EA $300.00 Level A w/ResponderPlus Suit/Changeout EA $950.00 Level B w/CPF2 or Polytyvec/Changeout EA $200.00 Level C w/CPF1,2 or Polytyvec/Changeout EA $60.00 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PER PERSON PER CHANGE OUT) Mercury Cartridges PAIR $54.00 MSA Chemical Cartridge EA $30.00 Breathing Air Hose, 100ft DAY $105.00 Chlorine Cartridges PAIR $29.00 Negative Air Machine (Blower w/ HEPA filter)DAY $262.00 Respirator, Full Face DAY $32.00 Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)DAY $262.00 Organic Vapor Cartridges (No Dust)PAIR $29.00 Organic Vapor/Dust Combination Cartridges PAIR $51.00 4 Man Breathing System DAY $366.00 2 Man Breathing System DAY $288.00 Asbestos Cartridges PAIR $30.00 Acid Cartridges PAIR $29.00 RESPIRATORY PROTECTION Fiber Optic Camera HR $58.00 Fiber Optic Camera Truck HR $149.00 Forklift, 2,000Lb Capacity DAY $418.00 Electric Auger DAY $74.00 Electric Blower DAY $87.00 Explosion Proof Pneumatic Fan Blower DAY $87.00 Sand Blaster and Hose HR $29.00 Transit Set DAY $125.00 Walk Behind Concrete Saw DAY $228.00 Forklift, 6,000Lb Capacity (High Reach / Lull)DAY $450.00 Plasma Cutting Torch DAY $237.00 Remote Drum Opener, Pnuematic DAY $1192.00 Description UOM Price (USD) 40 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 9 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Non Steel Toe Chest Waders - Purchased PAIR $225.00 Disposable Boot Covers (Chicken Boots)PAIR $12.50 Steel Toe Hip Boots - Purchase PAIR $160.00 FOOT PROTECTION Cut Resistant Gloves PAIR $29.00 Gloves - 12 in PVC PAIR $11.00 Cotton Winter Glove Liners PAIR $6.00 14in Neoprene Gloves PAIR $13.00 14in Nitrile Gloves PAIR $13.00 Puncture Resistant Gloves PAIR $34.00 Silver Shield Gloves PAIR $34.00 Latex Gloves PAIR $6.30 Gloves - 18 in PVC PAIR $12.10 Gloves - Leather PAIR $8.00 HAND PROTECTION Kappler CPF2 Suit w/Strapped Seams (Grey)EA $94.00 Kappler CPF3 Suit w/Hood & Boots (Tan)EA $127.00 Kappler CPF3 Suit w/Hood & Strapped Seams (Tan)EA $160.00 Chemrel Suit, Level C EA $80.00 Kappler CPF1 Suit (Blue)EA $34.00 Kappler CPF2 Suit (Grey)EA $56.00 Tyvec, Polycoat HD/BT EA $18.00 Tyvec, Saranex EA $57.00 Tyvec, White EA $22.00 Kappler CPF4 Suit w/Hood & Boots (Green)EA $132.00 Nomex Suit and Hood EA $55.00 Polycoated Rain Gear, 22mil EA $18.00 CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE GARMENTS Level C w/CPF3 or Saranex Suit/Changeout EA $75.00 Level C w/CPF4 or Barricade Suit/Changeout EA $120.00 Modified Level D (Tyvec, Gloves and Boots)EA $30.00 Description UOM Price (USD) 41 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 10 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” 30 Gal / 120 Litre Steel Drum, Reconditioned 1A2/Y1.2/100 EA $80.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Steel Drum, New 1A2/Y1.4/100 EA $111.00 5 Gal / 20 Litre Closed Poly Drum 1H1/Y1.8/170 EA $29.00 4ft Fluorescent Tube Box 4G/Y275 EA $25.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Poly Drum 1H2/Y142/S EA $84.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Closed Steel Drum, New 1A1/Y1.6/200 EA $94.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Closed Poly Drum 1H1/Y1.8/100 EA $78.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Fiber Drum 1G/X56/S EA $51.00 30 Gal / 120 Litre Closed Steel Drum, Reconed 1A1/Y1.4/100 EA $89.00 55 Gal / 205 L Stainless Steel Drum, Reconditioned EA $252.00 55 G / 205 L Steel Drum, Reconditioned 1A2/Y1.2/100 (17-H) EA $66.00 55 G / 205 L Closed Steel Drum, Recon 1A1/Y1.4/100 (17-E) EA $44.00 5 Gal / 20 Litre Poly Drum 1H2/Y1.5/60 EA $22.00 5 Gal / 20 Litre Closed Steel Drum 1A1/Y1.8/300 EA $34.00 5.5 Gal / 20 L Steel Drum 1A2/Y23/S EA $22.00 5 Gal / 20 Litre Steel Drum 1A2/Y1.8/100 EA $34.00 10 Gal / 40 Litre Fiber Drum EA $40.00 110 Gal Steel Drum, Reconditioned 1A2/Y400S EA $455.00 20 Gal / 80 Litre Poly Drum (1H2/Y56/S)EA $100.00 1 Cubic Yard Supersac 13H2/Y/06 EA $82.00 16 Gal / 70 L Closed Poly Drum EA $61.00 18x18x24in Nonhazardous Pathological Waste Box EA $10.00 20 Gal / 80 Litre Fiber Drum EA $34.00 16 Gal / 70 L Poly Drum 1H2/Y56/S EA $64.00 16 Gal Fiber Drum EA $29.00 DOT SHIPPING CONTAINERS 16oz Eyewash EA $22.00 First Aid Kit, 25 Person EA $83.00 Face/Splash Shield EA $22.00 Earplugs PAIR $1.92 HEAD / FACIAL PROTECTION Steel Toe Knee Boots PAIR $80.00 Description UOM Price (USD) 42 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 11 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Absorbent Boom, 8in x 10ft x 4/Bale BALE $247.00 Absorbent Boom, 5in x 10ft x 4/Bale BALE $154.00 Absorbent Boom, 3in x 4ft EA $8.00 Absorbent Pad (101 Grade) 100/bale BALE $127.00 ABSORBENT MATERIALS Labels - DOT EA $1.50 Pathological Waste Bag EA $6.10 Hazardous Waste Labels EA $1.30 Fluorescent Bulb Tubes, 4ft 100 bulb capacity BOX2 $61.00 Fluorescent Bulb Tubes, 8ft 100 bulb capacity BOX2 $88.00 Vacbox Liner/Bladder EA $770.00 Waste Wrangler EA $187.00 Rolloff Poly Liner EA $78.00 Poly Bags, 6mil, per Roll EA $170.00 Poly Sheet, 6mil 20ft x 100ft EA $115.00 85 Gal / 320 Litre Steel Drum, New 1A2/X400/S EA $230.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Steel Drum, New 1A2/Y1.5/100 EA $110.00 8ft Fluorescent Tube Box 4G/Y275 EA $27.00 85 Gal / 320 Litre Steel Drum, Recycled 1A2/X400/S EA $195.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Poly Drum 1H2/Y237/S EA $149.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Closed Poly Drum 1H1/Y1.8/150, Recycled EA $98.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Closed Poly Drum 1H1/Y1.8/150 EA $100.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Fiber Drum 1G/Y190/S EA $56.00 55 Gal / 205 Litre Closed Steel Drum, New 1A1/Y1.8/300 EA $97.00 Flexbin, 1 Cubic Yard Flexbin 11G/Y/2022/1122 EA $154.00 Filter/Liner for Filter Box EA $356.00 Flexbin/Cubic Yard Box Liner EA $29.00 Flexbin, Cubic Yard Box for Non-Haz Waste EA $100.00 Dump Trailer Poly Liner EA $96.00 Drum 15 Gal / 60 Litre Poly (1H2/Y1.8/100)EA $71.00 Asbestos Bag EA $1.60 Drum Rings/Bolts/Gaskets EA $29.00 Drum Liners EA $22.00 Description UOM Price (USD) 43 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 12 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Citrus Cleaner Degreaser GAL $61.00 Diesel Fuel for Off-Road Use GAL $6.00 Hydrated Lime, 50 lb / 23 kg BAG $8.00 Cirtic Acid Solution, 15%GAL $7.00 Antifreeze, Concentrate GAL $5.80 Antiviral Disinfectant Solution GAL $45.00 Capsur GAL $170.00 Hydrochloric Acid LBS $3.60 Soda Ash, 100 lb / 45 kg BAG $52.00 Sodium bisulfate 50 lb / 23 kg BAG $121.00 Sodium Hypochlorite, 15% (Bleach)GAL $9.00 Simple Green Degreaser GAL $34.00 Penetone Degreaser GAL $33.00 Pink Stuff Degreaser GAL $22.00 Sanimate Degreaser GAL $22.00 142 Solvent GAL $11.00 DEGREASERS & NEUTRALIZING AGENTS Corn Cob Absorbent 40lb / 18 kg bag BAG $17.00 HGX Absorbent (Mercury absorbent)LBS $20.00 Oil Snare, Loose in Bag BOX $66.00 Activated Carbon for Water treatment systems LBS $3.10 Absorbent Roll, 38in x 144ft EA $181.00 Absorbent Rug, 36in x 300ft EA $300.00 Absorbent Sweep, 17in x 100ft BALE $159.00 Oil Snare, on a Line, 50ft EA $97.00 SPI Solidification Particulate (Oil Bond)LBS $19.00 SPI Waterbond LBS $16.00 Vermiculite 4 cuft / 3 cubic meter BAG $47.00 Speedi Dry BAG $12.00 Poly Absorbent, 20 lb / 23 kg BAG $105.00 Rags, 50 lb / 23 kg BOX $61.00 Saw Dust, 20 lb / 9 kg BAG $10.00 Description UOM Price (USD) 44 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 13 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” 3in Long Handle Scraper EA $23.00 3/8in Manilla Rope Coil, 600ft EA $165.00 Caution Tape/Roll EA $56.00 3in Scraper EA $15.00 3/8in Manilla Rope FT $0.50 16in Street Broom EA $35.00 12in Metal Cutting Wheel Blade EA $21.00 3 Gal Pump Spray Bottle EA $54.00 24in Floor Broom EA $35.00 Fence Stakes EA $9.10 Extension Cord, 50ft EA $56.00 Deck/Scrub Brush EA $18.00 Chemical Tape/Roll EA $51.00 Duct Tape/Roll EA $12.00 Disposable Hand Pump/Syphon Pump EA $34.00 HAND TOOL/CONSTRUCTION ACCESSORIES 1/8in Poly Rope FT $0.40 1/2in Poly Rope FT $0.50 1/2in Nylon Rope FT $1.00 3/8in Unguarded Galvanized Chain FT $7.00 PFD Safety Light EA $29.00 PFD Deck Suit EA $676.00 Anchor, 18Lb EA $137.00 MARINE EQUIPMENT CHLOR-D-TECT 4000 Test Kit (Halogens)EA $29.00 CHLOR'N'OIL Test Kit 0-50ppm PCB EA $39.00 8oz Sample Jars EA $14.00 Sample Tube EA $17.00 pH Paper, 1-14/Roll EA $17.00 Draeger Tube EA $29.00 SAMPLING AND LAB SUPPLIES Description UOM Price (USD) 45 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 14 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” Collection Jar for Mercury Vacuum EA $44.00 Dump Truck Tarp EA $363.00 Filter Bags - 25 Micron Nominal EA $9.00 Acetylene Bottle EA $45.00 Breathing Air Bottle Refill EA $30.00 Chain Saw DAY $122.00 Nitrogen Cylinder DAY $63.00 Rolloff Bow EA $42.00 Rolloff Tarp EA $418.00 Filtration Bag for Mercury Vacuum EA $29.00 Hand Cleaner EA $33.00 Misc. Handtools DAY $34.00 MISCELLANEOUS Sample & Profile Approval Fee EA $109.00 Profile Approval Fee (No Sample)EA $75.00 WASTE MATERIAL APPROVAL Garden Rake EA $30.00 Pitch Fork EA $100.00 Plastic Shovel EA $55.00 Fence, Slit 100ft EA $143.00 Flat Shovel EA $32.00 Garden Hoe EA $30.00 Snow Fence/Safety Fence, 50ft EA $77.00 Spaded Shovel EA $35.00 Squeegee EA $37.00 Sawzall Blade EA $34.00 Shrink Wrap ROL $48.00 Small Sledge Hammer EA $40.00 Description UOM Price (USD) 46 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Regional Rate Sheet Executed on: 6/9/2014 4:37:09 PM Page 15 of 15 Customer Initials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ “Confidential | Proprietary Business Information - Do Not Disclose To Any Third-Party Without Written Consent of Clean Harbors.” NOTES: 11) Unless specifically notated, these rates do not apply to any projects with Prevailing Wage requirements. Any Prevailing Wage rates will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. 12) Equipment billed on an hourly basis will be billed a minimum of four hours upon activation. For equipment with only Daily Rates, a day will be charged up to 12 hours. No more than 2 Daily Rates will apply per calendar day. For boats and other marine equipment, Daily Rates will apply regardless of the hours used per day. 9) Charges for Safety Plans are assessed on all projects involving OSHA regulated substances or when required by the Customer or other Agency. In some instances a Site Safety Officer charge will apply per hour to create and administer the Safety Plan. 10) A variable Energy and Security Recovery Fee (that fluctuates with the DOE national average diesel price), will be applied to the total invoice, excluding sales tax. 15) Standby charges will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. 16) Clean Harbors guarantees to hold prices firm for 60 days. 13) Unless specifically notated in the equipment description, all equipment rates are un-operated. 14) All waste disposal from project and or response activities will be charged additionally to the rates lists herein. A Waste Document Preparation Fee of $125 per day will apply to any work generating waste. The fee includes labels, manifests/bills of lading and profiles. 3) At its sole discretion, Clean Harbors will determine the level of protection required for each project. Level A, B, C or D personal protection and safety packages will be invoiced at the rates shown in the Schedule of Rates. 4) Clean Harbors' personnel and equipment will be charged portal-to-portal (mobilization and demobilization included). Services provided prior, during and/or subsequent to actual project site activities will also be charged at the Hourly Rate. This includes, but is not limited to, time taken by personnel to decontaminate and re-don protective clothing and equipment that is billed as part of the project. 1) All labor, equipment, materials and services outlined in this Schedule of Rates will be invoiced at the rates listed, regardless of Clean Harbors' method of acquisition. Any items not described in this Schedule of Rates which are acquired by Clean Harbors shall be invoiced at Clean Harbors' cost plus a markup of thirty-five percent (35%). (Unless otherwise specified, these rates are not valid for response to Infectious Agents/Biologicals.) The Schedule of Rates includes the cost of Clean Harbors’ basic medical monitoring program. Any special medical monitoring required by the client or the nature of the work will be added to the project scope and the client will invoiced at cost plus a markup listed above. 2) Lodging and subsistence for Clean Harbors personnel and our subcontractors in the field are included in a per diem charge per person per day when working more than 30 miles from the employee's normal operations center and when overnight accommodations are required. The rate is outlined in the labor section of this document. When overnight accommodations are not required but work exceeds 12 hours, $40.00 per day per person may apply to cover meals and incidentals. 7) Sunday and Holidays are considered premium time and will be billed at 2.0 times the applicable straight time rate for all billable personnel. Holidays are the legally observed United States Federal Holidays plus the day after Thanksgiving. When local laws or regulations recognize additional holidays or when local laws or regulations define premium hours in excess of this definition, Clean Harbors will invoice in accordance with local laws or regulations. 8) All emergency call-outs (i.e., less than 24-hour notice) will be subject to a minimum four (4) hour response charge or $2000.00 minimum charge, whichever is greater. Minimum charges do not apply to Transportation and Disposal. 5) Clean Harbors' normal employee workday is 7:00 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday. Other work hours must be agreed to in writing in advance. No more than eight (8) hours of straight time will be billed for one person for one day. All time will be based upon a 24 hour day. 6) All hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in the normal workday, as described above, as well as all hours worked all day Saturday are considered overtime and will be billed at 1.5 times the applicable straight time rate for all billable personnel. 47 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 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 POLLUTION LIABILITY COVERAGE BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED MCS 90: ENDORSEMENT TO BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE POLICY FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WASTE TRANSPORTATION 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 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. 48 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 II.CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III.ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, CONTRACTOR 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, CONTRACTOR 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 49 of 49 Rev. July 11, 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 122D8A3D-30E0-4FA9-8D5A-BC5552D45B27 Certificate of Completion Envelope Number: 122D8A3D30E04FA98D5ABC5552D45B27 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign this document: C15153461_CleanHarbors HHW Management and Emergency Response Servi... Source Envelope: Document Pages: 49 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 4 Initials: 0 Michelle Nolen AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 michelle.nolen@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 7/17/2014 5:05:45 PM PT Holder: Michelle Nolen michelle.nolen@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Ronald Meeks meeksr@cleanharbors.com Vice President, Technical Services Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 12.15.160.6 Sent: 7/28/2014 10:44:23 AM PT Viewed: 7/28/2014 11:34:40 AM PT Signed: 7/28/2014 4:51:40 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 7/28/2014 4:48:39 PM PT ID: 759041a3-dbf3-4603-aae2-038279e26efe In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Chuck Muir chuck.muir@cityofpaloalto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 7/28/2014 4:51:41 PM PT Viewed: 7/29/2014 7:30:22 AM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered ID: Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 7/28/2014 4:51:41 PM PT Certified Delivered Security Checked 7/28/2014 4:51:41 PM PT Signing Complete Security Checked 7/28/2014 4:51:41 PM PT Completed Security Checked 7/28/2014 4:51:41 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure CONSUMER DISCLOSURE From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 3:33:53 PM Parties agreed to: Ronald Meeks How to contact City of Palo Alto: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.. In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign. To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP? Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0, NetScape 7.2 (or above) Email: Access to a valid email account Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum Enabled Security Settings: •Allow per session cookies •Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via proxy connection ** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will have the right to withdraw your consent. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below. By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that: • I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and • Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4932) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: IR Appeal for 808 Richardson Title: Affirm Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Individual Review Approval of a New Two-Story Home located at 808 Richardson Court (4 Votes Needed to Remove from Consent and Schedule for Hearing on Appeal). From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council adopt the following motion: Decline to hear the appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of an Individual Review (IR) application for a new two-story home at 808 Richardson Court, thereby upholding (affirming) the Director’s approval by adopting the findings and recommendation of the Director. Executive Summary This item involves an appeal of the Director’s approval of a Single Family Individual Review (IR) application for a new two-story home with an attached one-car garage at 808 Richardson Court. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.075(g), four or more Council Members’ votes would be needed to remove this item off the consent calendar to set the matter for a future hearing. The proposed home would have 2,298 square feet of floor area on a 7,075 square foot lot. The appellants are the owners of an adjacent, one-story Eichler home, located directly north of the proposed home. The proposed project was revised several times over the course of the City’s review process in an effort to address neighbor concerns and to ensure conformance with the City’s IR Guidelines. The appellants were mailed all decision and hearing notices regarding the project, and were emailed each time revised plans were submitted to request timely comments. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The Director’s initial decision was the subject of a Director’s hearing, at which time, the Manager of Advance Planning upheld the tentative approval. The Director’s approval letter (Attachment A) confirms that the project meets the IR guidelines and complies with R-1 Zone development standards. The applicant’s May 15, 2014 letter to the Hearing Officer (Attachment C) describes the plan revisions made during the process. The appeal letter (Attachment B) sets forth the appellants’ position that the design will not meet IR Guidelines 1, 2, 3 and 5, as summarized in the Discussion section of this report. Responses to the issues raised in the appeal are provided in the Discussion section, below. Background The City’s Individual Review (IR) procedure provides for City Council “call up” of appeals. When the Director approves an IR application after a Director’s Hearing and a directly affected property owner appeals the decision, the project is placed before Council on the consent calendar for final action. If four Council members vote to remove the project from the consent calendar, a hearing by City Council would need to be scheduled for a subsequent date. Otherwise, the item may be approved on consent calendar, so that the Director’s decision stands and no hearing is held. If the Council agrees to hear an appeal, a hearing is scheduled as soon as practical (PAMC 18.77.075). Project Review and Director’s Approval The applicant submitted the IR application for a two-story home with attached, single-car garage on September 20, 2013. The original design featured a taller home (at 26’7”) with a stucco exterior and clay tile roof (s-style tiles), and the second floor mass abutted the left side daylight plane limit on the side adjacent to the appellant’s home. The plans did not show adjacent property conditions, such as window locations, the position of the home to the rear, and the pool on the abutting property to the south. Staff reviewed the plans for compliance with the City’s R-1 Zone Development Standards and IR guidelines and provided comments in a status notice (a Notice of Incomplete) as to why the plans did not meet the IR guidelines to the applicant. Staff received comments on the proposal from residents of approximately fifteen properties during the 21-day comment period. Two comments expressed support for the proposal. The remaining comments expressed opposition to aspects of the proposal including:  The incompatibly of the proposed Mediterranean architectural style with that of the predominant Eichler style of the neighborhood in terms of floor area, materials, massing, bulk and height.  Privacy issues indicating the inherent problem of proposed second-floor windows next to Eichler homes with large expanses of glass and outdoor living areas.  Privacy concerns for the abutting (non-Eichler) two-story home to the right (3337 Ross Road), the rear yard of which is predominantly occupied by a pool and patio.  That the re-location of the garage and driveway from the right side of the property to the left, would disrupt the prevailing site planning patterns of Richardson Court. City of Palo Alto Page 3  That existing window locations and outdoor living areas of adjacent properties were not accurately shown. First Round Revision The applicant revised the plans and submitted them on December 9, 2013. The revised plans provided diagrams of the window locations and other conditions on the adjacent properties and reflected a more simplified design. The home’s roof extended to the same height as in the original plan set and stucco exterior was still proposed, but flat concrete roof tiles replaced the former rounded clay tiles, and the second floor was pulled back on the left side (opposite the appellants’ property), along with several other changes described in Attachment C. The revised plans included privacy mitigation, as second floor windowsills were shown five feet above the finished second floor, and opaque glazing was proposed on the bottom half of the larger egress windows, which had lower sill heights. The second floor massing was pulled a significant distance (approximately 17 feet) from the appellants’ home (to the left) and no longer abutted the left side daylight plane. On December 10, 2013, staff notified all interested parties who had provided comments during the initial comment period that revised plans were received and viewable on the City’s website and that comments were to be provided within 14 days of the communication. Staff received comments on the proposal from residents of five properties during the 14-day comment period. The concerns expressed at that time included:  That despite positive changes toward a simpler design, the height, mass and scale of the proposed home continues to be out of proportion to the neighborhood.  Significant privacy impacts from second floor windows and balcony remain for both side and rear adjacent properties.  Continued concern with parking and driveway configuration and location. Staff reviewed the plans for compliance with the City’s R-1 Zone Development Standards and IR guidelines and provided the applicant with a second Notice of Incomplete describing why the plans still did not meet the IR guidelines. Second Round Revision On February 10, 2012, the applicant submitted revised plans (with changes described in Attachment C) and staff reviewed them for compliance with the City’s R-1 Zone Development Standards and IR guidelines. The plans reflected:  Reduction of the overall height to 24’4”,  The use of horizontal wood siding on the second floor only,  Deletion of the second floor rear balcony,  Provision of eight perimeter screen trees, and  Provision of a greater setback to the garage front wall, to allow use of the nine foot wide side yard for landscaping rather than as a parking space for a second car. City of Palo Alto Page 4 On February 25, 2014, staff notified all interested parties that revised plans were received and viewable on the City’s website, and requested neighbor comments be provided by March 7th. Five comments were received. The concerns expressed at that time included:  A request for larger sized landscape screening vegetation.  Continued concern regarding the placement of driveway and garage on the left of the property, not the right.  A request that the horizontal wood siding proposed for the second floor also be utilized on the first floor.  A request that minimum sill heights of six-feet from finished floor be employed on second floor windows presenting potential privacy impacts.  Consider further options to lower the height of the house to reduce shadowing in the rear yard of 3337 Ross Road. On April 2, 2014, the plans were tentatively approved with conditions requiring larger perimeter trees (24” box size) and the use of horizontal siding on both floors of the home. The Chief Planning Official, acting as the Director’s designee, signed the letter, which alerted recipients about the 14-day hearing request period. On April 11, 2014, prior to the effective date of the approval (14 days after the mailing of the tentative approval), the appellants requested a Director’s Hearing. Director’s Hearing The Director’s Hearing on May 15, 2014 was properly noticed, and the applicant and appellants attended the hearing. The applicant submitted a letter to the Hearing Officer (Attachment C). As noted earlier, the applicant’s letter provides a narrative about the revisions made to the project. The appellants provided a power point presentation (Attachment D) with their analysis of the project with respect to IR guidelines and a summary of neighbors’ concerns. (The presentation analyzed opaque window or sill height at 5’6” above the finished floor; however, the plans indicated a five-foot sill height and window opacity level above finished floor.) Ten speakers presented comments at the hearing. The appeal included a brief summary of comments on the revised design that were presented orally at the Director’s Hearing (located on the third page of the letter attached to the appeal form). The summary noted that the neighbors requested six-foot sill heights for second floor windows. Following the Director’s Hearing, on June 3, 2014, the hearing officer (Advance Planning Manager acting as the Director’s Designee) approved the application without imposing additional conditions. Staff mailed notices of the approval and appeal period as required. Appeal City of Palo Alto Page 5 On June 17, 2014, the appellants submitted this appeal (Attachment B), which indicates that they believe the project does not meet IR Guidelines #1, #2, #3 and #5, as further described in the Discussion section of this report. Discussion The IR program applies to construction of two-story homes and second story additions, and is intended to mitigate effects on neighboring homes (Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.12.110(a)). Development applications subject to IR must be consistent with these guidelines (PAMC § 18.12.110(d)). The IR program is “intended only to mitigate the effects of second story construction” (PAMC § 18.12.110(a)). The IR program does not have a provision to deny second story additions or two-story homes because the neighborhood is developed with one-story homes. Only implementation of a single story overlay rezoning could prevent the construction of a two-story home. IR Guidelines and Appellant’s Position Two story homes are reviewed by staff to ensure they meet all five of the IR guidelines and comply with the R-1 Zone District regulations for development. The IR guidelines include criteria related to: basic site planning (Guideline #1); neighborhood compatibility for height, mass and scale (Guideline #2); resolution of architectural form, massing and rooflines (Guideline #3); visual character of street facing facades and entries (Guideline #4); and placement of second-story windows and decks for privacy (Guideline #5). Guideline 1: Basic Site Planning The appellants ask that the location of the trash, utilities, garage and parking space remain as the existing condition (at the right side of the subject property, where the left edge of the existing driveway is approximately 32 fee from the appellants’ side property line and over 40 feet from the appellants’ home), rather than the left side next to the appellants’ home as on proposed plans. The appellants assert that these components should be flipped to the other side of the new home, adjacent to 3337 Ross Road.  Staff and the IR program consultants had determined that keeping these features in the existing location was not essential for the project to meet the IR guidelines in that a clearly defined neighborhood pattern of garage/driveway placement had not been established. If the driveway was to remain where it currently exists on site, the right side of the driveway would be approximately eight feet from the side property line of 3337 Ross Road. Redesign of the project by flipping the garage and related components would be a significant revision requiring re-noticing and analysis of the revised project with zoning regulations and IR guidelines. Guideline 2: Neighborhood Compatibility The appellants believe the home at 3337 Ross Road, which faces Ross Road, “cannot be used as an argument in favor of adding the tall and massive new home,” which they feel will overwhelm their one-story home. City of Palo Alto Page 6  The IR program does not preclude two-story homes. Nor do the guidelines state that an adjacent corner lot home facing the side street should not be considered based on its orientation. In addition to the 3337 Ross Road two story home (not an Eichler), there are several Eichler homes on Richardson Court that have been modified by the construction of a second floor. At the Director’s Hearing and in previous comments, neighbors have voiced a preference for a second floor addition in the Eichler style, rather than a new two-story home in a different architectural style as proposed.  The applicant changed the plans twice after receiving the City’s correspondence and neighborhood comments, to create a less prominent second floor, with a corresponding reduction in height and increased second floor, left side setback (on the side of the appellants’ home). With the condition of approval for horizontal wood siding on both floors imposed in the April 2, 2014 tentative approval letter, along with the above changes, the home became more compatible, resulting in a staff determination of compliance with this guideline. Guideline 3: Resolution of architectural form The appellants note that the project represents a stark contrast in size and style from the neighbor’s home (their home).  The IR guidelines do not prescribe style choices, nor require a style of a new home to match the styles of adjacent homes. During the review process, the applicant improved upon the home’s horizontality in reference to Eichler horizontality (by eliminating a gable, lowering the overall height, and implementing stylistic changes). With the approval condition for horizontal wood siding, this horizontality is further improved. Guideline 5: Privacy The appellant has provided four comments with respect to potential privacy loss at their property and neighbors’ properties, paraphrased in the list below, and addressed by staff responses in bulleted format below the list. 1. The appellant believes the level of the second floor window sills and opaque glass, at five feet from finished floor, will not preclude “casual viewing” of their property. 2. The appellant states, “a suggested remedy for this invasion of privacy is tall trees along the lot line; however this will completely block the afternoon sun, and compromise the daylight plane.” 3. The appellant believes the pool and back yard privacy of 3337 Ross Road will be compromised. The solution to privacy impact, screening via existing trees plus three new evergreen trees along the common property line, will be “at the expense of a City of Palo Alto Page 7 frequent harvest of leaves in the pool and almost complete loss of morning sunshine which has made the pool inviting.” 4. The appellant requests that the City Council provide specific guidance to staff on how to interpret and apply the privacy guideline (as well as other IR guidelines).  Window privacy strategies: The applicant placed all second floor bedroom egress windows on the front and rear walls of the proposed home. Windows of second floor rooms facing side property lines have high sills (five feet above finished floor) and opacity on one of these windows to the five-foot level. These strategies have been employed over many years of the IR program to mitigate potential privacy impacts. o The second floor side setback on the side facing the appellants’ home is over 16 feet (16’6”) from the side property line. Four of the five windows on this side wall will have five foot sill heights; these four windows are to be located in one bedroom, a stairway landing, and a bathroom. The fifth illuminates a tub and features opaque glass in the bottom half of the window. o The second floor side setback on the side facing 2227 Ross Road is approximately 12 feet from the side property line, and four of the five windows on that side also incorporate high sills (five feet from the finished floor) and the fifth window features opaque glass on the lower half of the window. o The rear wall of the second floor is proposed at over 38 feet from the rear property line, with three egress windows in the three bedrooms.  Daylight Plane and Sun Blockage: The “daylight plane” development standard is an imaginary line, drawn at an angle from a height of 10 feet above side and rear property lines, under which the residential structure must fit. Along with setbacks and height, daylight plane helps to define the “buildable area” for the primary residential structure. Vegetation is allowed to pierce the daylight plane; it is not considered a structure. Daylight Plane is not a standard that relates to how much sun or sky can be accessed by a home.  Leaves in the pool vs. improved privacy: Three evergreen, 24” box sized trees are required by Approval Condition #5 to be planted along the property line in common with 3337 Ross Road, the property with the backyard pool. Evergreen trees do lose leaves, depending upon the selected species. The condition does not specify which species of evergreen tree is to be planted; it only specifies the box size (24” box) and the height of the tree at planting (ten feet tall) and maturity (15 to 20 feet tall). For the three trees near the pool, the typical choice would be a tree characterized by minimal leaf-drop. Staff has had a conversation with the applicant to suggest species having this characteristic. In regard to the concern of “almost complete loss of morning sunshine”: City of Palo Alto Page 8 two of the three trees are located due north of the pool and one is located northeasterly of the pool, so morning sunshine would still be present over a significant portion of the pool area.  Council direction on privacy guideline interpretation: The approval is consistent with past approvals, with respect to the privacy guidelines, issued since the inception of the IR program in 2001. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The appeal is based on concerns regarding incompatibility of a new two story home with a primarily one story Eichler neighborhood. Eichler neighborhoods in Palo Alto are typically one story neighborhoods and there are two Eichler neighborhoods having Single Story Combining District; this is the only effective way to prevent the introduction of two story homes in a neighborhood. The Director’s decision to approve the application is consistent with staff’s consistent implementation of the Individual Review Guidelines, and with the policies and intent of the Individual Review Process. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments:  Attachment A: Approval Letter, June 3, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment B: Appeal Letter, June 17, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment C: Applicant Summary (PDF)  Attachment D: Presentation Concerning Proposed Design (PDF) Attachment A) C ! TY 0 F 250 Hamilton .D.vEnue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.329.2441 June 3, 2014 Roger Kohler Kohler Associates Architects 721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 102 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Subject: 808 Richardson Court; Director's Hearing Decision; Single Family Individual Review; 13PLN-00383 On April 2, 2014, the Director of Planning and Community Environment's designee tentatively approved the Individual Review (IR) application for 808 Richardson Court. Prior to the approval becoming effective, a request for a Director's Hearing was made on April 11, 2014, by Frank Ingle, owner of 814 Richardson Court, the adjacent property to the left of the project site. The request was reviewed at the May 15, 2014 Director's Hearing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Individual Review (IR) by Kohler Associates Architects on behalf of property owner Guangwei Yuan, for a new two-story, single-family residence, as shown on the conditionally approved plans received on February 10, 2014. DIRECTOR'S HEARING The hearing was requested by the neighbors, who expressed their opinions that proposed residence is not compatible with the existing neighborhood character, that the driveway location is inconsistent with neighborhood site planning patterns, and tp.at the project would result in privacy impacts for the three immediately adjacent properties due to views from second-story windows on the proposed residence, negatively affecting the enjoyment of their properties. ANALYSIS The site is a 64-feet wide by 110.5-feet deep interior lot, one house in frohi the comer of Richardson Court and Ross Road. The lot is typical for interior lots along this street and presently occupied by a one-story house that is a mirror image in footprint to the house on the abutting lot at 814 Richardson Court. There is a large tree near the left-front comer of the house, a pair of large walnut trees near the left-rear comer of the lot, and two street trees at the front of the lot at each interior side lot line. Richardson Court and the connecting Murray Way create a small loop neighborhood of about 35 homes accessed from Ross Road.and Loma Verde Avenue. Nearly all the homes Printed \N1th soy-based 1r1ks on 100% recyc!e:::l paper processed 'N!thout ch:orinr:: 808 Richardson Court 13PLN-00383 Page 2of17 in the neighborhood appear to have been originally built as a tract in the Eichler Mid- Century Modem patio house style. The variant on the style used in this neighborhood is flat roof on a near square shaped footprint with a small interior courtyard and the garage facing the street several feet forward of the house. The roof does not exceed 10 feet above grade for the portion of the house facing the street and there is section in the back of the house with a flat roof that is about two-feet taller. This pattern is seen on the homes to the left of the subject lot and those directly across the street. These homes have the commonly used grooved plywood siding and post and beam construction that shows off large beams at the deeply overhanging eaves. One notable exception is the two-story house directly to the right of the subject lot, 3337 Ross Road, which occupies the corner of Richardson Court and Ross Road. Within the neighborhood it appears that all except two of the Eichler style homes remain intact as one·-story homes with the original design or with some one-story modifications that remain generally consistent with the original homes. Two homes along this side of Richardson Court have been remodeled to add a second story. One is three lots left of the subject property. This home retains much of the materials and detailing, but adds a second floor set back from the garage, which has been increased in height. The other home is located nine lots to the left at the Murray Way intersection. This house added new, moderately pitched gable roof lines with an upper story set behind the garage and re-clad the stucco walls. This house has more of a Ranch Style with an addition appearance. It interrupts the character of the streetscape, but is not completely out-of- place on the street. To the rear of the subject property are homes along Ames Avenue. These lots are similar in width to the lots on Richardson Court but only 100-feet deep. The homes are generally one-story and the most important feature relative to the application of the Individual Review Guidelines is that the rear walls of these homes are set close the rear lot line. DECISION AND FINDINGS The Director of Planning and Community Environment finds that the project (as submitted on February 10, 2014 and as conditioned here), is in compliance with the Municipal Code and consistent with the Individual Review Guidelines. The application requesting Individual Review was submitted on Septembrtr 20, 2013. Revised plans were submitted on December 9, 2013. In response to further comments from staff and the neighbors, plans were further revised and submitted on February Io, 2014, which received tentative approval. The project architect made the following revisions to the original plans: • The garage was pushed back so that the nine-foot side yard became a landscaped area rather than an uncovered parking space, with the required uncovered parking space located in front of the garage; '\ ,., 808 Richardson Court 13PLN-00383 Page 3of17 ) • Driveway paving has been reduced and is a rectilinear shape to better relate to the neighborhood. Concrete pavers for driveway and walkway are integrated; landscape has been added to front yard; • The upper floor has been setback and is clad in wood siding; • The height of the eave has been reduced at the upper floor at the front and right sides. Combined, these changes reduce the height at this side of the house relative to the one-story neighbor. • The maximum height of the house has been reduced to 24-feet, 4-inches; • The side-facing windows on both sides have sills height of five-feet above the finished floor. • The second-floor deck has been removed, and • Seven, 24-inch box screening trees have been added adjacent to the side and rear lot lines to fill in existing landscape gaps. Based on staffs review of the revised design, information received at the Director's Hearing from the applicant, the neighbors and staff, as well as site visit and information in the project file, the hearing officer, on behalf of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, has approved the project, subject to conditions of approval. The approval is granted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC) Chapter 18.12, Section 18.12.110 and Chapter 18.77, Section 18.77.075. The project meets all five of the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. The approval is subject to the following conditions: PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 2. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with development plans received on February 10, 2014 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton A venue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 3. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, fenestration and driveway area and location. 4. A copy of this approval shall be printed on the first or second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 5. In plans for building permit submittal, all new trees as indicated on the site plan shall be described as a minimum of 24-inch box. The trees shall be evergreen and 808 Richardson Court 13 PLN-003 83 Page 4of17 be a minimum of 10-feet in height at time of planting. The trees shall be maintained into the future so that a dense screen of 15-feet to 20-feet is kept in place. 6. Plans submitted for building permit shall reflect the following: a. Provide a note on the plans indicating all horizontal board siding. b. Indicate by dimensioning on the elevations the height of obscured glazing and sill heights as measured from finished floor. There shall be a minimum of 5-feet from the finished floor level to the top of the sill or top of the obscured glazing. 7. The siding on the first floor of the house shall be the same as on the second floor of the house, as shown on submitted plans. 8. Indemnity: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 9. GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM: Upon submittal of an application for a building permit, the project is required to comply with the City's Green Building Program (PAMC 16.14). The project is 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/sustainability green building/green buil ding/applications/default.asp PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY (PWUF) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 1. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REVIEW. 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. 1' ,,. 808 Richardson Court 13PLN-00383 Page 5 ofl7 ) ) 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. 2. 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, (M) 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 pl~ns, 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 Kevin Kielty, Project Site Arborist at 650-525- 1464; Note #3. 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." 3. 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 808 Richardson Court 13PLN-00383 Page 6 of17 ) ) 4. 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. 5. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the project site arborist with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the city for review. 6. CONDITIONS. All DPWUF conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 7. 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 P AMC 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. 8. 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 ariy publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo AUo Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 9. · 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 ~anopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING (PWE) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Public Works Engineering (PWE) approves this application with the following conditions. Additional comments may follow pending revised submittal. • · 808 Richardson Court 13PLN-00383 Page 7of17 ) The following comments are provided to assist the applicant prior to or during 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 A venue) or on Public Works' website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms_permits. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL: 1. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The public sidewalk along the project frontage shall be replaced. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public; Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is . in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened ( 6" thick instead of the standard 4" thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approach for abandoned driveway must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. This work must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan. 2. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide a Grading and Drainage Plan (separate from the Site Plan) prepared by a qualified licensed engineer, surveyor or architect and be wet-stamped and signed by the same. Plan shall shows drainage away from the building foundation [CBC Section 1804.3]. In no case shall the final grading increase the sheet flow onto adjacent properties [PAMC 16.28.270(c)]. Clearly label all roof downspouts and direct them splash blocks (minimum 2-feet long). No closed piping of this water is allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences on our website. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE 3. Plot and label the existing public utility easement located within the property on the Site Plan. 4. Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan: "Excavation activities associated with the installation of the driveway approach shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same". 808 Richardson Court BPLN-00383 Page 8of17 ) ) 5. Add the following note on the Demolition Plan. "Contractor shall contact Urban Forestry Division to schedule an inspection of tree protection fencing prior to building demolition." 6. Per CPA municipal code section 18.52.020 (b)(2) "Garages and carports for single- family and two-family development shall provide a minimum interior clearance of ten (10) feet wide by twenty (20) feet long for a single car ... " Revise the side yard garage door to swing out to provide the minimum dimensions. 7. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include a table providing the cubic yardage of dirt being cut and filled outside of the building footprint. If the to'tal is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 8. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: If the grading work extends between October 15 and April 15 an engineered winterization and soil stabilization plan for erosion control must be produced and submitted for approval and attachment to the issued Building Permit. This plan shall, at a minimum, conform to ABAG standards. The plan set must include the full size sheet: "Pollution Prevention-It's Part of the Plan". This sheet contains the "Best Management Practices" for this construction activity. A reproducible sheet is available free from Public Works-Engineering staff at the Development Center 9. IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Develqpment Center or on our website. 10. RESIDENTIAL STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project may trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board's revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Codr, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures: • Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. • Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. • Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. • Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. • Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. ""'° i_,, 808 Richardson Court 13PLN-00383 Page 9of17 \.: J ) • Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. This approval will become effective 14 calendar days from the postmark date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed, as provided by Chapter 18.77.075 of the PAMC. An appeal may be filed by filing a written request with the City Clerk before the date the Director's decision becomes final. The written request shall be accompa.nied by a fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to this approval. This approval expires in 12 months from the effective date. Should you have any questions regarding this approval, please feel free to contact Stephen O'Connell at stephen.oconnell@cityofpaloalto.org (650)-329-2552. Steven Turner Advance Planning Manager Project Manager: Stephen O'Connell cc: Frank Ingle 814 Richardson Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 Neighbor notification list Attachment A: Individual Review Approval Findings from Tentative Approval 808 Richardson Court 13PLN-00383 Page 10of17 Attachment A FINDINGS OF APPROVAL: 808 Richardson Court INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES-GENERAL INFORMATION: The Individual Review Guidelines are broadly intended to preserve the unique character of existing individual Palo Alto neighborhoods and maintain privacy between adjacent properties. Maintaining the scale and visual unity of streetscapes as well as locating and configuring the home's footprint, second floor, garage, and yard areas to respect neighborhood patterns as well as adjacent property conditions is essential to successfully meeting the guidelines. Neighborhood patterns refer to the site planning patterns within the block and the visual context as seen from the street in front of the property. This is typically the block or several homes to each side of the property as well as at the intersection at corner lots. There are five specific guidelines that set site planning and building design objectives related to neighborhood development patterns, building massing/streetscape appearance, and privacy. Each guideline must be met for a project to be approved. For additional information about the goals and requirements of the guidelines, the property owner and designer are directed to review the Palo Alto Single-Family Individual Review Guidelines booklet dated June 10, 2005. INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES-EVALUATION: Background The evaluation is based on the plans filed on February 10, 2014. The ~pplicant has revised the design from the plans filed on December 9, 2013 after receiving staff input based on the Individual Review Guidelines and neighbor comments. Revisions to the plans include: • Garage was pushed back so that the nine-foot side yard is now a )andscape zone rather than an open parking space with the required uncovered parking space located in front of the garage. • Driveway paving is reduced and more rectilinear in shape to relate to neighborhood. Concrete pavers for driveway and walkway are integrated and landscape added to front yard. • The front porch is deeper by a few feet. • The upper floor is pushed back and is clad in wood siding. 808 Richardson Court 13PLN-00383 Page 11of17 • The height of the eave has been reduced at the upper floor at the front and right side. Combined, these changes reduce the height at this side of the house relative to the one-story neighbor. • The maximum height of the house has been reduced to 24-feet, 4-inches. • The side facing windows on both sides have high sills to five-feet or obscure glazing to five-feet. • The 2nd floor deck has been removed from the rear side of the house. • Several screening trees have been added to the side and rear lot lines to fill in gaps in landscape. Site and Neighborhood Information (please see initial evaluation) Neighbor Comments on the Revised Design Plans Five neighbors provided written comments on the revised plans. Overall there was acknowledgement of design changes, but still concern that the design will not fit the neighborhood well and privacy impacts will still be problematic. The items listed here are not intended to replace to the full extent of the neighbor comments, but rather to briefly highlight main points. • High sills to five-feet or obscure glazing would not be sufficient for privacy. Six- foot sill heights are requested;' • Fifteen-gallon tree size for screening trees is too small. These trees would take many years to reach a size to provide privacy. Larger planting sizes are needed. Trees need to be evergreen; Prefer horizontal siding be used for whole house. Mixing stucco and wood siding materials seems awkward or makes style unclear; • Clarification requested on the look of the roofing tiles; • House is two feet-lower but still taller than any house in the neighborhood. Overall size (mass/bulk) has not changed significantly. Need to explore more options to bring the rooftop and volume in line with surrounding houses; • Garage should be on right side of the house, not the left; • Non-Eichler style disrupts neighborhood appearance, and • Revisions are only minor changes to same concept and do not sufficiently address concerns around mass, scale, and neighborhood compatibility. ·1 Evaluation: The following paragraphs contain analysis specific to the evaluation for the five Individual Review guidelines. Staffs evaluation indicates a few minor changes or clarifications that should be made and can be done as conditions of approval. Those items appear within the content of the evaluation. G 1 -Basic Site Planning: Placement of Driveway, Garage, and House 808 Richardson Court 13PLN-00383 Page 12of17 ) ) (Note: Site planning considers the location and configuration of the building footprint and second floor relative to neighborhood patterns, and the use of setbacks and yard areas relative to the orientation and rhythm of houses as seen along the street; retention of existing landscape, general design of yard areas and pedestrian entry and the subordinate location of garage and driveway to the house, landscaping and pedestrian entry are also considered.) Comments: Overall the site plan is not a strong fit with the patio house typology prevalent in the neighborhood, but it does takes cues from the context and benefits from being next to the 3337 Ross Road comer property which is not an Eichler home. If it were not next to the 3337 Ross Road property making'a finding that the house complies with the guidelines would be more difficult. It terms of cues taken from the neighborhood, the revised design creates an eight-foot planting area next to the driveway and 814 Richardson Court. The design of the front yard area's driveway and walkway is more geometric in layout and has ample landscape planting areas that can help the front yard blend with the neighborhood. The narrow driveway and one car garage may not be typical for the street, but clearly meets the guideline's goal for driveways and garages being subordinate elements on the streetscape. Also in regards to whether the garage and driveway should be flipped to the other side of the lot, the evaluation does not find that this is essential for approval. The footprint of the house is stepped back where the garage is now located to be near the comer of the 814 Richardson Court home, which is suggested by the guidelines as a cue for site planning. Lastly, in regards to site planning the location of the upper floor is considered. In this case the upper floor has been set well back from the lower floor and set towards the right side lot line so that the first floor roof lines wrap the left side of the house next to the lower home at 814 Richardson Court. The upper floor's front wall is about 40-feet back from the front lot line and 20-feet back from the front fa9ade. The sid@ wall on the upper floor varies from 17-feet to 20-feet from the left side lot line and is set back 7-feet to 10- feet from the first floor wall along the side elevation. This positioning is adequate to meet this guideline and helps significantly in meeting Guideline two. G2 -Neighborhood Compatibility for Height, Mass, and Scale .1 (Note: This guideline requires the perceived size, bulk, and vertical profile of visible portions of the house to be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern with special attention given to adapting to the height and mass of adjacent structures.) Comments: Changes to the previous design have reduced the height and mass and created a horizontal roof edge on the street that is more sympathetic to the setting. The first floor is also 15-inches above grade, which helps the house feel more tied to the ground. While the overall height of 24-feet, 4-inches is tall for the setting, the upper floor is set far \, 808 Richardson Court 13PLN-00383 Page 13of17 ) enough back that the impact is diminished from the street. The hip roof form on the upper floor also diminishes the impact. The other change that helps on the upper floor is that the wall plate height at the front-left comer of the upper floor from bath 2 across the front wall of the stair and to side wall of the stair and walk-in-closet at the master bedroom has been reduced to 7-feet, 1-inchwhich lowers the roof edge at the building comer and lessens the amount of visible wall above the ridge that runs across the first floor section of the house facing the street. · Along the front of the house the simple gable form with the eave running parallel with the street also diminishes the scale along the street and helps the house blend with the scale of the streetscape due to the simple horizontal eave that is about nine-feet, nine-inches from ground to top-of-gutter. This first floor volume also is low and horizontal enough that it provides a transition from the 3337 Ross Road residence to the 814 Richardson Court residence. Additionally, the roof pitch at 5:12 is more than the near flat adjacent roof lines, but not steep enough that the face of the roof becomes significant in visual mass as seen from the street. There are probably some adjustments to the materials and detailing that could help the home feel more horizontal and scaled to the neighborhood, and these are discussed under Guideline 4. Overall, however, the response to the street and the transitional massing response to the adjacent buildings is sufficient to meet this guideline. G3 -Resolution of Architectural Form, Massing, and Rooflines (Note: This guideline has two general components: a. architectural form: it should distinguish the homes ' architectural style or lines, and b. massing: it should be crafted to achieve mass reduction. It also specifically requires upper floor additions be balanced and integrated with the existing building.) Comments: The massing of the first floor section of the house is simple and horiz@ntal. The accent gable over the center bay of the front porch works well as it articulates the roof, but does not create a vertical form. The proportion of the gable on bedroom 2 also works well and being positioned next to the two-story house at 3337 Ross Road makes sense. The massing with hips and gable forms was a bit weak and disjointed, bl4t with the reduction in scale with the revisions, this is not that noticeable. The two small street facing gables (at the porch and bedroom above) are well related to their adjacent forms in scale and position as well as being well related to each other in size and offset position. This part of the design is well balanced and consistent with this guideline. Additionally, the overhangs are deep enough to help distinguish the roof as a plainer element and accentuate the use of horizontal line. It does not appear that much more can be done with this design to achieve mass reduction other than maybe lower the roof pitch slightly. This would help with the height at the gable at the left side elevation on the 808 Richardson Court 13PLN-00383 Page 14of17 sidewall of the porch and for the overall height. It would, however, lessen the ridge height of the lower floor, which would expose more of the upper floors wall face to view. While reducing the roof pitch from 5:12 to 4:12 could be studied, the net benefit does not seen substantial enough to warrant a change. G4 -Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries (Note: This guideline addresses the visual composition and character of front and visible side elevations, the supportive use of materials and detailing, and the appearance of garages and entry features. Entries are also considered relative to neighborhood patterns for typology and height.) Comments: The home's stronger horizontal lines, modestly sized feature gables, and open eave detail are revisions with this version of the design that strengthen the composition. The use of horizontal wood siding and deeper porch zone also help the visual characteristics of the house. Neighbors have expressed concern of the mass of the house and the use of roof tiles and stucco. Some of the concern with the mix of wall materials has to do with the house maybe looking disjointed and some has to do with the nature of the wall materials on neighboring homes that are wood siding. While the staff evaluation finds that changing the upper floor material to siding has been very effective in reducing the mass of the upper floor, changing the lower floor to siding would help, but not make as much of a difference as with the upper floor. It would probably be most helpful at the side gable on the left side of the porch. Given neighborhood conditions and neighbor concerns, staff believes that changing the siding on the lower floor to wood would be beneficial. For this reason the evaluation recommends this change. For these reasons the use of horizontal siding on is a condition of approval. Additionally, for the roof tile flat concrete tiles are proposed with a slate profile. Setting the edges of the roof tiles evenly, rather than staggering the edges is recommended, because this would reinforce the horizontal lines of the house and deemphasize the roof form as a volume. This can be accomplished on the drawings with a notr and with a elevation detail showing the non-staggered tile application. GS -Placement of Second-Story Windows and Decks for Privacy (Note: The privacy guideline regulates upper level window and deck views towards neighbors' upper or lower level windows and/or usable yard areas such as patios or decks.) Comments: ~ r' 808 Richardson Court 13PLN-00383 Page 15of17 ) Staff has visited the site with access to the side and rear yard areas to evaluate privacy conditions. Some additional information wa:s requested regarding privacy, but with the site visit the evaluation is fairly complete. The most significant potential privacy impacts are to the 811 Ames A venue property and the 3337 Ross Road property. Comments related to all three abutting property follow, but staff found the impacts on 817 Ames A venue limited due to existing vegetation and the location of windows on that house. Regarding privacy from windows on the left side elevation facing 814 Richardson Court, the window furthest to the right on the elevation is high over the stair landing and would have no impact. The windows in the shower and tub also have little impact due to the size of the shower window and use of obscure glazing at the tub. The sill height would be five-feet minimum at these windows or obscure glazing to five-feet from the floor level and are based on the revised elevation with this submittal. The windows at the master bedroom have five-foot sills and are along the bed wall so casual viewing seems limited. Additionally, the deep overhang on the roof of the 814 Richardson house may help screen views, and landscape has been added along the fence line that helps screen views. Overall, the impact on the 814 Richardson Court house is below the threshold of casual viewing. It would be helpful, however, the increase the planting size and height of evergreen screening trees along the sides and rear of the property that are shown on the site plan. A condition of approval has been included requiring a minimum planting size of 24-inch box trees and the minimum height at time of planting to be 10-feet. This would be for all sides of the property. Regarding privacy from windows on the right side elevation facing the 3337 Ross Road rear pool area and windows, the previous review stated the proposed window sills and obscure glazing need to be at least five-feet above finished floor, and closer to 5-feet, 6- inches is preferred given the close proximity of the neighbor's pool, along with the lack of landscape screening. The sills of those windows have been raised t@ five-feet, but the neighbor has requested six-feet or the use of skylights. Because the windows at the bedroom are small and along the bed wall, staff is not requesting that they be further reduced in size or raised in sill height. From the sidewall of bedroom 3 one could approach the window and see into the neighbor's pool area, but this would require intentional viewing instead of casual viewing. Given the added landscape and size and positioning of the windows the present proposal, with adequate sized screening trees, meets this guideline. Regarding impacts on 811 Ames A venue, the decks on the rear side of this upper floor have been removed and two additional screening trees along the rear lot line have been added. The rear lot to rear lot condition is the most difficult to maintain privacy as the main bedroom windows are encouraged to face the rear of the property rather than the sides in most situation. The guidelines anticipate there may be some loss of privacy along rear lot lines. The impact is lessened with landscape screening, both existing and 808 Richardson Court 13PLN-00383 Page 16of17 ) ) proposed, to mitigate the impact of direct site lines. Overall, the design is consistent with this objective. In summary, the revised design is viewed as maintaining privacy to the standard of this guideline with the increase planting size to 24-inch box for the evergreen screening trees. Also staff is recommending but not requiring the side facing windows at bedroom three have decorative/obscure glazing. Attachment B) CITY OF PALO ALTO . Office of the City Clerk · " APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF P1ffi~~ PALO ~LJ~\cit . AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT* 'crt'< CltRK·s Or .. For appeals of final decisions on Architectural Review Board and Home Improvement Exceptm aw:Wia\dlls (~lfti~~'~r public hearing), this appeal form shall be completed and submitted by appellant within fourteen dayd·'1o~"'d'ate 'of the Director's decision. Appeals of final decisions on Individual ReView applications (rendered after publlc hearing) must be submitted within ten days of the Director's decision. Complete form, the current fee and a letter stating reasons for the appeal shall be submitted to front desk staff of the Planning Division, 5t11 floor, CltY ·Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, except for 980 Fridays when City Hall ls closed, when these items shall be submitted to Planning staff at the Development Center, 265 Hamilton Avenue (glass storefront across from City Hall on the corner of Bryant and Hamilton). * Director of Planning Includes his designeesl .which are Planning Managers or the Chief Planning Official Appeal Application No. . Receipt No.-------- Name of l\pflllllant ~MA II<, lN lo~ fdi'~17 / IJQ/e. Phone (~Cl) :f<?q • B8'( 3 Address· ?]14 1S1eh1urJStJn c.1u.d= . l f="'A-w tHb tit 't'f-30~ Street City ZIP LOCATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO APPEA~: Street Address 8of( -:R,;dv.ucrj EQo <.!e;wf ~~~P~~~-~~mfuM~p~a~~-G~4~N~~~·~~·~i~~~u~~~~~--~-~~~~­ Property Owner's Address 0o fY J<..i ckuua! .Gt:> I\ Ce w+ Street The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated --------, 20 __ _ whereby the application----- (file number) (original project applicant) was , is hereby appealed for the reasons stated In the attached letter (in duplicate) (approved/denied) Oat~: ~/rf/:J0/4 Signature of Appellant 1----'--~~~~~:7+.~::::_~----.,_.-- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION T9 THE CITY COUNCIL (TO BE FIL~ Date ______ _ Approved Denied-....,.--- Remarks and/or Conditions: CITY COUNCIL DECISION (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF): Date _______ _ Approved Denied __ _ Remarks and/or Conditions: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: 1. Letter stating reasons for appeal Q Received by: \C""'" ~ .f-~ fr '!:t-~ 2. Fee(curren0y$406.00) ~ Receivedby: I.UM: Lc.M.+ ... C~ti( <! Frank and Sharon Ingle 814 Richardson Ct Palo Alto CA 94303 17 JUN 2014 Subject: Appeal of 808. Richardson Court; Director's Hearing Decision; Single Family Individual Review; l3PLNM00383 Below are excerpts taken from Director's Hearing Decision, with our commentary interspersed. We feel that_ the infonnation on which the decision is based does not support the conclusion that the proposed design for 808 Richardson Ct complies with the Palo Alto Single-Family Individual Review Guidelines. · We appeal this decision to the Palo Alto City Council and request a hearing at the City Council to present the details of our arguments in favor of' disapproving the proposed design. Further, we recommend that the City Council provide more specinc instructions to the Planning Department as to how the Guidelines are to be interpreted and applied. ~~~:~~=gngle ?r I. ~I -(j,, I~ Palo Alto 94303 ~~ . U, ~ 7J [Excerpts and Comments on the Director's \ earing decision are shown below, with key elements for discussion shown as bold italics with a larger typeface, and our comments underlined, indented and enclosed by brackets: shown as [ ] DIRECTOR'S HEARING The hearing was requested by the neighbors, who expressed their opinions that proposed residence is not compatible with the existing neighborhood cha_racter, that the driveway location Is Inconsistent with neighborh~od site planning patterns, and that the p.roject would result in privacy impacts for the three immediately adjacent properties ·due to views from second~story windows on the proposed residence, negatively affecting the enjoyment of their properties. The [Eichler] roof [of 814 Richardson Ct] does not exceed 10 feet ~bove grade for the portion of the house facing the street and there Is section in the back of the house with a flat roof that is about two-feet taller. This patt~rn is seen on the homes to the left of the subject lot and those directly across the street. One notable exception is the two-story house di~ectly to the right of the subject lot, 3337 Ross Road, which occupies the corner of Richardson Court and Ross Road .. Within the neighborhood it appears that all except two of the Eichler style homes remain intact as one-story homes with the original design or with some one-story modifications that remain generally consistent with the original homes. To the rear of the subject property are homes along Ames Avenue. These lots a~e similar in width to the lots on Richardson Court but only IOO-feet deep. The homes are generally one- ~tory and the most important feature relative to the application of the Individual Review Guidelines is that the rear walls of these homes are set close the rear lot line. DECISION AND FINDINGS The Director of Plann;ng and Community Environment finds that the project {as submitted on February 10, 2014 and as conditioned here), is in compliance with the Municipal Code and consistent with the Individual Review Guidelines. The project architect made the following revisions to the original plans: • The height of the eave has been reduced at the upper floor at the front and· right sides. Combined, these changes reduce the height at this side of the house relative to the _one-story neighbor. • The maximum height of the house has been reduced to 24-feet, 4-inches; • The side-facing windows on both sides have sills height of five-feet above the finished floor. There shall be a minimum of 5-feet from the finished floor level to the top of the sill or top of the obscured glazing. Based on staffs review of the revised design, information received at the Director1s Hearing from the applicant, the neighbors and staff, as well as site visit and information in the project file The project meets all five of the Palo Alto Single Family lnf}ividual Review Guidelines. · Attachment A FINDINGS .OF APPROVAL: 808 'Richardson Court INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES:-GENERAL INFORMATION: The Individual Review ~uldellnes are broadly /~tended to preserve the unique character of existing Individual Palo Alto neighborhoods and maintain privacy between adjacent properties. Maintaining the scale and visual unity of streetscapes as well as · locating and configuring the home's footprint, second floor, garage, and yard areas to respect neighborhood patterns as well as adjacent property conditions is essential to · ) successfully meeting the guidelines. Neighborhood patterns refer to the site planning patterns within the block and the visual context as seen from the street in frorit of the property. This is typically the block or several homes to each side of the property as well as at the intersection at corner lots. There are five specific guidelines that set site planning and building design objectives related to neighborhood development patterns, building massing/streetscape appearance, and priyacy. Each guideline must be met for a project to be ·approved. INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES MEVALUATION: · Neiehhor ComIDenfs op the Revised Design Plans Five neighbors provided written comments on the revised plans. Overall there was ackno.wledgement of design changes, but still concern that the design will not fit the neighborhood well and privacy impacts will still be problematic. The Items listed here ·are ·not intended to replace to the full extent of the neighbor comments, but rather to briefly highlight main points. • High sills to five-feet or obscure glazing would not be sufficient for privacy. Six foot sill heights are requested;' . · • House Is two feet-lower but still taller than any house In the neighborhood. Overall size (mass/bulk) has not changed significantly. Need to explore more options to bring the rooftop and volume· in line with surrounding houses; • · Garage should be on right side of the house, not the left; • Non-Eichler style disrupts neighborhood appearance, and • Revisions are only minor changes to spme concept and do not sufficiently address concerns around-mass, scale, and neighborhood compa_tiblllty. Evaluation: The following paragraphs contain analysis specific to the evaluation for the five Individual Review guide lines. Staffs evaluation indicates a few minor changes or clarifications that should be made and can be done as conditions of approval. Those items appear within the content of the evaluation. §! .. Basic Site Planning: Placement of Driveway. Garage. and House (Note: Site planning considers the location and configuration of the building footprint and secondjloor relative to neighborhood patterns, and the use of setbacks and yard areas relative to the orientation and rhythm of houses as seen along the street; retention of existing landscape, general design of yard areas and pedestrian entry and the subordinate location of garage and driveway to the house, landscaping and pedestrian entry are also considered.) Comments: \ y Overall the site plan is n~t a strong fit with the patio ~ouse typology prevalent in the neighborhood, but It does takes cues from the context and benefits from being next to the 3337 Ross Road· corner property which is not an Eichler home. If it were not next to the 3337 Ross Road property making o finding that the house complies with the guidelines would be more difficult. Th~ narrow driveway and one car garage may not be typical for the street, but clearly meets the guideline's goal for driveways and garages being subordinate elements on the streetscape. Also in regards to whether the garage and driveway should be flipped to . the o~her ~Ide of the lot, the evaluation does not find that this is essential /or OPP,fOVQ/. . . . [Note that the trash, utilities, garage. and parking· are aligned next to one another on the right between 808 and 3337. Note also that the middle front yards are aligned next to one another between 814 and 808. This ke·e·ps the noise and smell away froi:n the middle front yards, front bath, and front bedrooms. The proposed 808 design arbitrarily filps this alignment right to left, placing the trash. utilitie~ garage, and parking within 9 feet o.f the middle front yard. front . bedroom, and front bath of 814. This creates a problem wher·e there was not one before, for no good reason. With modern CAD design the flip from right to left of the 808 design is simple and s~ould be required.) Lastly, in regards to site planning the location of the upper floor is considered. In this case the upper floor has been .set well back from the lower floor and set towards the right side lot line so that the first floor roof lines wrap the left side of the house next to the lower home at 814 Richardson Court. The upper floor's front wall is about 40-feet back from the front lot line and 20-feet back from the front facade. The side wall on the upper floor varies from 17-feetto 20-feet from the left side lot line and is set back 7-feet to 10- feet from the first floor wall along the side elevation. This positioning Is adequate to meet this guideline and helps significantly In meeting Guideline two. §2..-Neigh_bgrhood Compatjbility for Height. Mass. and Scale (Note: This guideline requires the perceived size1 bulk, and vertical profile of visible portions of the house. to be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern with special attention given to adapting io the height and mass of adjacent structures.) Comments: Changes to the previous design have reduced the height and mass and created a horizontal roof edge on the street that Is more sympathetic to the setting. The first floor is also 15- inches above grad~, which helps the house feel mo~e tied to the ground. While the overall height of 24·/eet, 4-lnches is tall for the setting, the upper floor Is set far enough back that the Impact is diminished from the street. This first floor volume also is low and horizontal enough that it provides a transition from the 3337 Ross Road residence to the 814 Richardson Court residence. There are probably some adjustments to the materials and detailing that could help the · home feel more horizontal and scaled to the neighborhood, and these are discussed under Guideline 4. Overall, however, the response to th~ street and the transitional massing response to.the adjacent buildings is sufficient to meet this guideline. [The drawing above is .posted at 808 Richardson Ct. Note that the house at 3337 Ross Road faces Ross Road, and not Richardson Ct. It is the old farmhouse which predates the Eichler development by 30 years, Is not part of the Eichler development, was never related to the design of the neighborhood, and cannot be·used as an argument in favor of adding the tall and massive new house at 808 q Richardson Ct. The 808 design does not meet the first key point In Guideline 2.1. which states 11Avoid overwhelming adjacent one·story homes with large masse~ monumental forms, and sharp contrasts in height."] \ j 814 Richardson Ct 808 Richardson Ct New proposed design [The illustration above is a to scale composite drawing shows the true nature of the size of the proposed new 808 house. It is two and a half times as.tall as 814._J [Contrast the previous illustration with this Illustration from City Guideline 2C page 8: Ell example of a house which does not meet the guidelines for height. This design was marked "does not meet guideline". And yet. this house was only half again as tall as its neighbor. whereas the proposed 808 house is two and a half times as tall as its neighbor at 814. To us this ind_icates that the Guidelines ·are not being inte.rpreted correctly or consistently. J ~-Resolution of Architectural Form, Massing, and Rooflines (Note: This guideline has two general components: a. architecturalform: it should distinguish the homes' architectural style or lines, and b. massing: it should be crafted to achieve mass reduction. It also specifically requires upper floor additions be balanced and integrated with the existing building.) Comments:. The massing of the first floor section· of the house is simpl_e and horizontal. The accent gable over the center b~y of the front porch works well as it articulates the roof, but does no~ create a vertical form. The proportion of the gable on bedroom 2 also works wen and being positioned next to the two·story house at 3337 Ross Road makes sense. ·1 [The above photo shows the· 814 Richardson Ct house at left. present 808 Richardson Ct house at center. and the rear of the 3337 Ross Road house at right. Although not visible in this picture. the second story wall of 3337 facing 808 has no east facing window. But this statement by the Department leaves out the stark contrast.in size and style with the other neighbor .. Arguing that It satisfies Architectural Form, Massing, and Roofline requires.considering all neighboring houses. not just the 3337 Ross house. The Department's as·sertion that the Guideline is satisfied neglects the otner case in which is mo~t certainly is not. The massing with hips and gable forms was a blt weak and disjointed, but with the reduction iri scale with the revisions, this is not that noticeable. lt·~oes· not appear that much more can be ·done with this design to achieve mass reduction other than maybe lower the roof pitch slightly. [The Department cannot conclude that "nothing much more can be done with this design 11 is a iustlflcation for approving the design. The design could be changed to comply with the Guidelines. and should have been designed with the Guidelines in the first place. j §!-Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries (Note: This guideline addresses the visual composition and character of front and visible side elevations, the supportive· use of materials and detailing and the appearance of garages and entry features. Entries are also considered relative to neighborhood patterns for typology and height.) Comments: §i .. placement of Second-Story Windows and Decks for Privacy (Note: The privacy guideline regulates upper level window and deck views to-Wards neighbors' upper or lower level windows and/or usable yard areas such as patios or decks.) Comments: .1 Staff has visited the site with access to the side and rear yard areas to evaluate privacy conditions. Some additional information was requested regarding privacy, but with the site visit the evaluation is fairly complete. [I visited the City Planning Department and reviewed the complete plans for 808. They show a number of photographs aimed at demonstrating that privacy is preserved with the new design. However, these photos were taken from eye level of someone walking around the house. They do not explore the lnvasion_Qf \ y privacy from a second story window level view. The correct view could have been obtained from a ladder on the roof of the present 808 house, or at least simwlated by an engineering drawing as we have done. l . · The most significant potential privacy impacts are to the B:U Ames Avenue property and the 3337 Ross Ro~d property. Comments related to all three abutting property follow, but staff found the impacts on 817 Ames Avenue limited due to existing vegetation and the location of windows on that house. Regarding privacy from windows on the left side elevation facing 814 Richardson Court, the window furthest to the right on the elevation is high over the stair landing and would have no impact. The windows In the shower and tub als'? haye little impact due to the size of the shower window and use of obscure glazing at the tub. The sill height would be five-feet minimum at these windows or obscure glazing to five-feet from the floor level and are based on the revised elevation with this submittal. The windows at the master bedroom have five-foot sills and are along the bed wall so casual viewing seems limited. Additionally, the deep overhang on the roof of the 814 Richardson house may help screen views, and landscape has been added along the fence li,ne that helps screen views. Overall, the impact on the 8:1.4 Richardson Court house is below the threshold of casual-viewing. Graphical analysis showing that second story windows opaque to 51 6" in 808 .design provide no privacy to bedrooms and bath of 814. [In contradiction to the conclusion that privacy was not violated, this scale drawing shows the portion of the bedrooms which would be in full view from the I. J ) second storv windows of 808. The assertion that a five foot sill or opaque window to a five foot level does not make sense at all. Most adults could see perfectly well over this height.] [And the_ assertion that intentional viewing instead of casual viewing would not be possible from these windows is not rational. The picture above shows the location of the·master bedtoom on the second floor of 808. Note the two windows at the left and right side of the wall facing 814. It is typical to place the bed between these two windows. It is· also perfectly easy to stand at one side of the bed or the other and look out of the window as long as one wishes. A five foot sill or opaque coating would not insure privacy at all, and a person in one of the bedrooms in view below would be uncomfortable at any time of day. A suggested remedy for this invasion of privacy is tall trees along the lot line. ·However. this will completely block the afternoon sun and compromise the daylight plane. J Regarding privacy from wfndows on the right side elevation facing the 3337 Ross Road · rear pool area. and windows, the previous. review stated the proposed window sills and obscure glazing need to be at least five.feet above finished floor, and closer to 5pfeet, 6- inches is preferred given the close proximity of .the neighbor's pool, along with the lack of landscape screening. The sills of those windows have been raised to five-feet, but the neighbor has requestet;I six-feet or the use of skylights. Because the windows at the bedroom are small and along the bed wall, staff Is not requesting that they be further reduced in size or raised In sill height. From the sidewall of bedroom 3 one could approach the window and see into the neighbor's pool area, but this would require intentional viewing Instead of casual viewing. Given the added landscape and size and posltlonln_g of the windows the present proposal, with adequate sized screening trees, meets this ·guideline. / [We made engineering drawings of the view angles from the second story 808 window in the westerly direction toward 3337. The line of sight includes all of the 3337 pool and back yard and the first story bedroom and kitchen windows. While tall trees might block this line of sight. it is at the expense of a frequent harvest of leaves In the pool and almo~t complete loss of morning sunshine which has made the pool inviting.] Regardi.ng Impacts on 811 Ames Avenue, the decks on the rear side of this upper floor have b~en removed and two additional screening trees along the rear lot line have been added. The rear lot t9 rear lot condit,ion is the most difficult to maintain privacy as the main bedroom windows a~e encouraged to face the rear of the property rather than the sides in · most situation. The guidelines anticipate there may be some loss of privacy alpng rear lot lines. The Impact is· lessened with landscape screening, both existing and proposed, to mitigate the impact of direct site lines. Overall, the design is consistent with this objective. In summary, the revised design ls viewed as maintaining privacy to the standard of this guideline with the increase planting size to 24-Inch box for the evergreen screening trees. Also staff ls recommending. but not requiring the side facing windows at bedroom three· have decorative/obscure glazing. [We will present details of these and other issues and ask that the City Council ·overrule the· Director's approval of the proposed 808 design and also ask that the City Council provide more specific guidance to the Planning Departme.nt on how the Guidelines are to be interpreted and applied.] Attachment C May 15, 2014 RE: 808 Richardson Ct [13PLN-00383] Dear Hearing Officer: Received MAY 15 2014 Department of Planning & Community Environment As homeowners, we have legal right to build a two-story home on our property. We want to build a new home for ourselves to meet the long-term needs of our growing family. We gave neighbors a lot of time to review the plans and make comments. We listened to the neighbors' feedback and made significant amount of adjustments to address neighbors' requests. We worked with Staff and incorporated all Staffs suggestions to the plans. The process has taken over seven months. Attached includes a list of revisions we made to satisfy neighbors' requests. The appeal to the tentative approval is misleading with false information. First of all, it is based on a drawing that has nothing to do with the tentative approval. It ignored all the resources and efforts that we, as well as the planning department, spent over the past seven months to satisfy neighbors' preferences. Secondly, it is not true that the two-story home next to our property is away from Richardson Ct. As shown in the plans and the attached street view from Richardson Ct, the box-shaped non-Eichler two-story home is undoubtedly part of the streetscape. In fact, there are other non-Eichler two-story homes with comparable scale down the street (see attached photos). The building height of our plan is comparable to the two-story home next door and other two-story homes down the street. The second story of our plans is set back over 41 feet from front property line and 20 feet set back from the left property line. Its impact to the street and to the neighboring one-story home is diminished. As another example of false evidence in the appeal, it is not true that the garages of the neighboring houses on Richardson Ct are necessarily symmetric. Attached include pictures of several examples where the garages of neighboring homes are not symmetric, including the pair of houses right across the street. On page 3 of the guideline, it says "Attached garages could be a one-car garage". The garage of our plans is subordinated and set back. It creates over 9 feet wide side yard for landscaping. Regarding second-story window placement, all clear windows on both sides are small and high above floor. As an adult with average height, the window sills are above my eye-level. Besides elevated window sills, we also added a great amount of large screening trees. On page 14 of the guideline, it says "Complete privacy is not a realistic expectation. Designs should reduce opportunities for individuals to be casually observed ... ". Our plans comply with this guideline. The neighbor's request of completely blocking any possible intentional viewing is both unrealistic and unfair. A large number of two-story homes have been approved based on the individual review guidelines. Many of them are adjacent to an Eichler home. Nearly all of them have good-sized clear windows facing both sides and the back on the second story. Attached are several examples of recently constructed two-story homes adjacent to Eichler homes. We believe we have done a lot more than what is normally required to meet the guidelines and we have gone out of our ways to satisfy neighbors' requests. In closing, our plans comply with Palo Alto's zoning regulations and individual review guidelines. We do not tolerate false evidence and false claims. We do not accept unreasonable expectations that are unfair to our legal right. We request that the Director endorse the planning department's approval as soon as possible. Sincerely, Li Li 808 Richardson Ct 650-455-8876 Enclosed 1. List of changes during revisions to address neighbor's comments 2. Street view of adjacent two-story home from Richardson Ct and other two- story homes down the street 3. Street view of exemplar pairs of houses on Richardson Ct where the garages are not located symmetric to each other 4. Examples of recently constructed two-story homes adjacent to Eichler homes 5. Letters of support from neighbors who would like to voice their opinions but cannot physically make it to the hearing \ # I 808 Richardson Ct [13PLN-00383] First round revision 1. Exterior material selection - Revised roofing material from clay tiles to flat concrete tiles with slate profile. 2. Floor plan design - Revised second floor plan to reduce the width of the second floor. Increase the distance of the second floor from left property line. 3. Exterior elevation design -Simplified exterior look a. Replaced proposed Spanish style home with clay tiles roof design with simplified design with flat concrete roof tiles and square columns. b. Eliminated one gable roof at second floor from previous design. Eliminated gable roof at front first floor roof to create horizontal roof line to be more compatible with neighboring homes. c. Proposed new garage door with more horizontal element. d. Chimney has been removed. 4. Roof design - Simplified roof design on the upper roof. Eliminate large gable roof on the first floor. 5. Privacy concern - a. Relocated the balcony to the middle of the second floor and using room and high wall to provide screening. b. Provide landscape screening by planting two 15 gal. trees at rear right corner of property. 6. Driveway design - Increased width of the driveway and moved required outdoor parking space toward front property and further away from neighboring house. Second round revision • Garage was pushed back so that the nine-foot side yard is now a landscape zone rather than an open parking space, with the required uncovered parking space located in front of the garage. • Driveway paving is reduced and more rectilinear in shape to relate to neighborhood. Concrete pavers for driveway and walkway are integrated and landscape added to front yard. • The front porch is deeper by a few feet. • The upper floor is pushed back and is clad in wood siding. • The height of the eave has been reduced at the upper floor at the front and right side. Combined, these changes reduce the height at this side of the house relative to the one-story neighbor. • The maximum height of the house has been reduced to 24·-feet, 4-inches. ) • The side facing windows on both sides have high sills to five-feet or obscure glazing to five-feet. • The 2nd floor deck has been removed from the rear side of the house. • Several screening trees have been added to the side and rear lot lines to fill in gaps in landscape. Approval conditions Add wood siding to first floor as well. Increase screen tree size to 24" box trees. ) ) Rece\\Jed ~fl.'t 1 G 10\4 ~ ot p\ann\09 oepartme[, Env\ronment &commun1"1 ) Exam les of two-stor homes in the nei hborhood 3248 Murray way 823 Ames Ave: side windows 816 Ames Ave: side windows 862 Richardson Ct 826 Richardson Ct: side window 862 Richardson Ct: side windows Received MAY I 5 2014 Department of Planning & Community Environment ) ) ) 838-844 Richardson Ct 862-868 Richardson Ct ) MAY 16 2014 Department of Planning & Community Environment ) ) Received MAY 15 2014 Department of Planning & Community Environment ) ) 813 Sutter St (under construction) ) ) Steve Ross <steve.ross@gmail.com> to Stephen.OConne., me, Jennifer Hi Stephen, I'm writing to comment on plans for a new home at 808 Richardson Ct. My family moved to Richardson Ct 2 years ago, in part because we appreciate the architecture of the Eichler homes there. However, I don't feel that every home on the street needs to remain alike in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood. I have reviewed the updated plans shared by the new owner of 808 Richardson Ct, and feel that, with the adjustments that have been made (compared to the original plans), the plans make more than sufficient effort to preserve privacy and minimize the impact of the larger home's size by including ample space for landscaping along the property line. The project has my support. Steve Ross 833 Richardson Ct Received MAY 15 2014 & ~artment of Planning mmunity Envtronment ) -----Original Message----- From: Tong Zhang <tongzhang@aol.com> To: stephen.oconnell <stephen.oconnell@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Wed, May 14, 2014 11:06 am Subject: 808 Richardson Court Project Hearing Tomorrow Hi Stephen, ) Due to schedule conflict, we will not be able to attend tomorrow's hearing about 808 Richardson Court project in the city hall. However, we would like to express our opinion and hope the city planning and the neighbors have a chance to hear it. The existing houses along Richardson court and Murray Way are actually a mixture of different styles already. Some houses in Richardson court have shown deterioration. Without improvement such as major remodeling and new construction, it will only be getting worse. Therefore, for the benefit of the entire neighborhood, the city should encourage the home owners to take initiative to improve the house quality and appearance of the community. Since the city has already approved the revised architect plan after having Incorporated the inputs from the neighborhood during the individual review, it does not make any sense for not approving this project solely based on one neighbor's objection. Further more, The home owners and the city plan reviewers have already taken the privacy concerns into the revised plan, So the privacy augment from them does not stand any ground. When home owners decide to rebuild or remodel their homes, the outcomes not only benefit themselves but also benefit the community as well. They will bring in more jobs to the city, generate more taxes to the city, most importantly, they make the city more beautiful and more attractive. So we urge the city to support those home owner a little more so together we can make Palo Alto a better place! · Thank you for your attention and support and hope 808 Richardson Court new house will get final approval soon. Sincerely, Jing Xiong & Tong Zhang home owner of 3248 Murray Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Received MAY 1 5 2014 Department of Planning & community Environment Attachment D~ ~ -~ Presentation to the Director's Hearing concerning the proposed house design for 808 Richardson Ct, Palo Alto Frank Ingle 814 Richardson Ct May 15, 2014 Received MAY 15 2014 ~ent of Planning a COmmunity Environment ) G) ::::s (/) -0 CL -· 0 c ::::s -· <. co 0 CL CD -· CD )> CL I -· c: 11 ::::s 0 0 a CD en AJ 3 -· CD -< '-< c: ([) :;, ([) --' ~ _o IV 0 0 lll _,...-:;~"""-,, ,/"""""', Are the guidelines advisory, or controlling? Stephen O'Connell: "Yes, the guidelines have legal standing. A new two- story home must comply with both the Individual Review Guidelines and the Zoning Code. " "City staff may take up to 30 days from submission date to review application for completeness, zoning conformation, and compliance with Individual Review Guidelines and to provide comments" For discussion: how subjective is the definition of "compliant"? Some main concerns of the neighbors: Mismatch: Glaring mismatch of Mediterranean architectural design house imposed on the horizontal esthetics of a quiet Eichler street. /~ Bulk: Huge house with almost twice the area of the original Eichlers. Privacy: Loss of privacy on three sides created by 808 second story windows. Architectural flaw: Garage and parking pad 9 feet from 814 neighbor's house. /-.., Parking pad and garage swapped to 814 side, and are only 9 feet from neighbor's house. Only one car garage when all other houses have two. Alarming contrast in scale ,~ nrsi111.1.A 1'!11.M t-::s.bf llll llft:fnlrt. I I W1ni111111i1•i f ---;---1 ' ~ -·················-I I I 814 RICHARDSON COURT 8DB RlCHARDSON COURT 3337 ROSS ROAD 100 year old farm house on right faces Ross Road and has windowless wall on second floor facing left, and has overall horizontal visual esthetics like the Eichler houses. 814 Eichler at left is typical of Richardson Ct streetscape, but is dwarfed by proposed new house at 808, which is two and a half times as tall, bulky in form, and does not match the architectural style of the other houses on the street. \,..,'-tr' /~ ~ 814 RICHARDSON COURT TWO STORY HOUSES ON -··-·-··-~. ~-·-.-··-··-_, ....... "' l RICHARDSON colJRT A ND AMES AVE. ' ---------------·-·-· ~ .. -... -.. -.. Misleading graphic in application package. Other than the 90 year old farm house, Richardson Ct has only two houses which are two story, and they are renovated Eichlers which retain the Eichler appearance. -c Vl 0 m V> n m 0 QJ ::l a. -c (/) ., r-+ -· < 0 -0 QJ ., ., n < 0 < ~ 0- r-+ -· m ::r ::l 3 ., a. m 0 QJ ~ ~ r-+ • • r-+ (/) 0 0 00 I I ~ 00 ~ 0 • 00 /~, Latest 808 plan shows pictures of adjacent yards from ground level as an argument that privacy is not compromised. A view from 17 feet above ground ,_ level would demonstrate that there is significant privacy invasion. ) ) ~ ~ V1 -· ~ n ~ 0 < ~ --· 0 m -· 0 :J ~ " C1tl 0 a. V> m -h 0 n 00 ~ 0 0 ::J :J 00 -· c.. -h ::J V> -, ,-+ ,..... 0 0 0 3 00 -, -~ "'< m ~ ~ I I' ~ -· :J V> -· -· a. c.. ::J a. 0 m ~ 0 ~ (/) V> /'."'""'"' ,~ Layout of second floor of 808 showing that three windows look directly down into the windows of 814. /'~ '~ Graphical analysis showing that second story windows opaque to 5' 611 in 808 design provide no privacy to bedrooms and bath of 814. ~/'f .•. p .. rff t'tA.''' q,. ~ t;..i>T~t1·' "':..; •. ~:. -/ .·i- ~ ·: r'· ,, - Ji'. oc f' O V<i<llA~6-.; r , ''t r . ,~---~ I 0 ! : 't " l ' ' ~ 11 -~· ... _.. ___ _......;._1--_________ _::...:..;:L __ ~.~~ ·-·,r--=--i· ... :.:.;. ,,. Mri{.s I r~ Po 5c\> ~~: s tJ ? < .. " ~ C: CT SC A.LE FEET ~JY R -----cl '' , ... ff"° t-t :r ' f::! 11 01 I s I 10 Problem 2: Location of 808 garage and parking .~ pad were arbitrarily swapped right to '~ left from the original Eichler street design. They a re now only 9 feet from the 814 house. ) "'O ""'O QJ ., *o -· -0 :J 0 OQ V> -o m n OJ c.. 0 c.. 00 ..., ,..... 0 ~ 0 00 ..., -c.. m m ~ ....:.· V> V> -· 00 -· OQ ~ c.. :J ~ m V> ' =1"' 0 :E 0 ::J QJ c --0 V> --< V> !I> \.0 OQ _., QJ m ...., m ru ,...... OQ _., m ..., QJ 0 ::J 3 a. -~ Present house at 808 has garage, parking pad, trash collection and utility meters on right side of house, on the opposite side from the new 808 design. ,-~ View of street layout with houses paired 2x2 right to left, showing alignment of driveways, trash collection, and utility meters paired on adjoining sides. 808 on the left and 3337 on the right. ~ Alignment of adjoining private front yards paired 2x2 right to left, and separated from garages, driveways, trash collection, and utility meters. 814 on the left and 808 on the right. ./"",·-~ ~' Continuation of theme with garages, driveways, trash collection, and utility meters paired left to right . 820 at left and 814 at right. ~ .., /~ Conclusions: Proposed design for 808 fails to comply with guidelines in at least the following ways: 1. 808 design is in jarring contrast to existing architecture of the street in style and size. 2. Second story windows of 808 violate neighbors' privacy. 3. Arbitrary swap of location of garage, parking pad, trash ~ collection, and utility meters of 808 conflict with present layout, and create unnecessary noise, smell, and privacy invasion for residents of 814. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4946) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution Authorizing BAWSCA to Arbitrate Title: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency to Initiate, Defend and Settle Arbitration Related to the Water Supply Agreement to Protect Palo Alto’s Financial Interests From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council consider the following motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency to initiate, defend and settle arbitration related to the Water Supply Agreement between San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers to protect the City of Palo Alto’s financial interests. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) to initiate, defend and settle arbitration related to the Water Supply Agreement (WSA) to protect the City of Palo Alto’s financial interests. Executive Summary Delegating to the BAWSCA Board the authority to initiate, defend and settle arbitration related to the WSA will allow BAWSCA to protect the financial interests of the its member agencies by ensuring they pay no more than their fair share of regional water system costs. Delegation of this authority was specifically anticipated in the WSA, but must be authorized by the adoption of a resolution by a majority of BAWSCA members. Background The City of Palo Alto purchases water from the San Francisco Regional Water System and is one of the 26 members of BAWSCA, also known as the “Wholesale Customers”. In 2009, the City approved the WSA between San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers (CMR:252:09). In 2013, the City approved Amendment No. 1 to the WSA, which prohibited changes to Hetch Hetchy Reservoir unless there is an amendment to the WSA (Staff Report 3578). City of Palo Alto Page 2 Under the WSA, contract administration is delegated to BAWSCA. When the prior agreement, the 1984 Master Contract and Settlement Agreement (1984 Agreement) was negotiated, there was no durable, representative organization that could be delegated responsibility to act as agent for contract administration on behalf of the Wholesale Customers. BAWSCA’s predecessor, the Bay Area Water Users Association (BAWUA), was at that point simply an unincorporated association, governed entirely by city and water agency staff. For that reason, the 1984 Agreement provided for initiation of arbitration as well as a variety of administrative decisions to be made by five “Suburban Representatives”, agencies selected by all BAWUA members or, absent a selection, the five largest agencies. The WSA requires that disputes related to the calculation of the capital and operating costs owed by the Wholesale Customers to San Francisco (the Wholesale Revenue Requirement) be resolved through mandatory binding arbitration. This requirement includes disputes related to San Francisco's adherence to accounting and auditing practices, as well as the classification of new assets for the purposes of determining the Wholesale Revenue Requirement. These three cost allocation matters are the only disputes to which the delegation authorized by the proposed resolution would apply. Since 1984, almost every financial dispute with San Francisco has been settled before resorting to arbitration. The Wholesale Customers have only filed a demand for arbitration in the early 1990s on two related matters; both of which resulted in payments from San Francisco to the Wholesale Customers. The parties ultimately settled all issues, save one technical accounting issue, prior to the arbitrator imposing a final determination. Discussion With BAWSCA’s formation in 2002 and the adoption of the new WSA in 2009, the Wholesale Customers have had a superior alternative to attend to the many technical but important matters related to the contract’s administration, which continue to require oversight and decisions each year. The WSA specifically assigned a number of administrative tasks to BAWSCA, most of which were previously handled by the Suburban Representatives. However, at the time the WSA was adopted, it did not specifically delegate arbitration authority to BAWSCA, although it recognized that the Wholesale Customers may choose to do so. While the WSA permits any Wholesale Customer to commence arbitration on cost allocation matters, the BAWSCA Board believes that it is timely and appropriate to implement the delegation of arbitration authority that was provided for in the WSA. As a regional government agency in existence for more than a decade, whose Board of Directors largely comprises elected officials, and with a capable professional staff, BAWSCA is both durable and well prepared to assume the increased responsibility required to determine whether to initiate or settle arbitration required under the WSA. The scope of arbitration is limited to the cost allocation issues described above and covered by Section 8.01(A) of the WSA. All other questions or disputes related to the WSA, such as water supply, may be presented to a court and are excluded from this request for delegated authority. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Since 1984, BAWSCA staff and consultants have demonstrated success in contract administration, uncovering more than $27 million in credits owed to the Wholesale Customers. This delegated arbitration authority will not be exercised by BAWSCA in a vacuum. Like all Wholesale Customers, Palo Alto has representation on the BAWSCA Board of Directors. In addition, BAWSCA’s Chief Executive Officer is creating an advisory Wholesale Customer Committee, composed of senior staff from each member agency, to advise BAWSCA on these matters. Resource Impact While there is no resource impact associated with the adoption of a resolution delegating arbitration authority to BAWSCA, if arbitration is initiated, BAWSCA will finance the associated costs. Those costs would be paid by the BAWSCA members, including Palo Alto. Any award or expenses resulting from the arbitrator’s decision would also be shared by the BAWSCA members. Policy Implications This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan (Staff Report 1880) to manage commodity costs. Environmental Review Council’s adoption of the proposed resolution does not meet the definition of a project, under Public Resources Code section 21065, therefore California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is not required. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution Authorizing BAWSCA to Initiate, Defend and Settle Arbitration Related to the Water Supply Agreement to Protect Palo Alto’s Financial Interests (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. ________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency to Initiate, Defend and Settle Arbitration Related to the Water Supply Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco R E C I T A L S A. In April 2003, the City of Palo Alto (City) and other water suppliers in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties established the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) as authorized by Water Code Section 81300 et seq. pursuant to State legislation enacted in 2002 (AB 2058); and B. The City is represented on the BAWSCA Board of Directors; and C. The City Council has previously approved the Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County (Agreement); and D. The Agreement specifically delegates, pursuant to Section 8.04.A., Wholesale Revenue Requirement review to BAWSCA; and E. All questions and disputes related to the Agreement are subject to judicial determination, except for the following matters, specified in Section 8.01.A., which are subject to mandatory, binding arbitration: (1) the determination of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement, (2) San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's (SFPUC's) adherence to accounting practices and conduct of the Compliance Audit, and (3) the SFPUC's classification of new assets for the purposes of determining the Wholesale Revenue Requirement; and F. The Agreement, pursuant to Section 8.04.C., provides that the Wholesale Customers may, with the consent of BAWSCA, delegate the authority to initiate, defend and settle arbitration of the matters provided for in Section 8.01.A. set forth above; and G. The BAWSCA Board of Directors has requested that the City delegate this authority to initiate, defend and settle arbitration solely for those limited matters in the Agreement that must be resolved through binding arbitration in order to protect the financial interests of the Wholesale Customers by ensuring they pay no more than their fair share of regional water system costs; and H. BAWSCA has the capabilities required to serve in this capacity by virtue of the expertise and qualifications of BAWSCA staff and consultants in relevant disciplines including civil engineering, water supply planning, finance, economics, accounting, and law; and I. BAWSCA will also finance the costs associated with such binding arbitration. 1 ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council appoints BAWSCA, acting through its Board of Directors, or its authorized designee, as its authorized representative to initiate, defend and settle arbitration for the matters specified in Section 8.01.A of the Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County, which are that are subject to mandatory, binding arbitration. SECTION 2. This appointment shall continue through the term of the Agreement, as extended or renewed, or until revoked by the City Council. SECTION 3. The Council’s adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code 21065, therefore California Environmental Quality Act review is not required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Utilities _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4963) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Budget Amendment Ordinance for 2247 Bryant Street Rehabilitation Title: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $250,000 (To Be Offset by Insurance Proceeds) for Rehabilitation of Property Located at 2257 Bryant Street From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the Capital Improvement Fund in the amount of $250,000 for the reconstruction expenses of the partially City owned property at 2247 Bryant Street, Palo Alto (Attachment A.). All expenses will be offset by insurance payments from State Farm Insurance, resulting in a zero cost impact to the City. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto and Frank Benest (Previous City Manager from February 2000 – August 2008) are joint owners of the property located at 2257 Bryant Street in the City of Palo Alto. The property was purchased jointly on June 27, 2001 to be used as the primary residence of the City Manager. Presently, the equity ownership of the property consists of 56.8% by the City and 43.2% by Frank Benest and Pamela S. Grady, Co –Trustee of the Benest & Grady Family Trust Dated November 13, 1990. Mr. Benest had been living in the property until a house fire occurred on May 3, 2014 making the property uninhabitable. Since this incident, Mr. Benest has moved to a rental property in Palo Alto and City staff has been working with him, the insurance agent, contractors, architect, and structural engineer toward the clean-up and rehabilitation of the property. The insurance company, State Farm, will be paying for expenses such as clean-up and new structural and architectural plans, and construction costs. A City CIP is being established as a conduit for receiving insurance payments (revenue) and for paying expenses. Insurance checks will be issued to the joint owners of the property, the Benest & Grady Family Trust and the City of Palo Alto. These will be deposited in the CIP and then used to pay the contractors and architects for rehabilitation of the property. City of Palo Alto Page 2 BACKGROUND On May 30, 2001 the City Council approved an amendment to the housing assistance provision of the City Manager’s employment agreement. That amendment increased the City’s housing assistance funding amount from $1.2 million to $1.5 million. In accordance with the amendment, the City provided a $900,000 equity share and a $500,000 City loan with a 30-year term to purchase the property located at 2257 Bryant Avenue, Palo Alto, California. The former City Manager contributed $185,000 toward the down payment to acquire the property. The property was purchased jointly with title being held as Tenants-in-Common by the City and the Benest & Grady Family Trust at a total cost of $1.585 million. On May 3, 2014, the property was severely damaged by a fire and became uninhabitable forcing Mr. Benest and his family members to move to a rental property in Palo Alto. The property was insured and the insurance company has accepted the claim. City staff and Mr. Benest have been working together with State Farm Insurance representatives toward the clean-up and rehabilitation of the property. DISCUSSION Since the property is jointly owned, and the City is coinsured, the insurance company is issuing checks for clean-up and structural and architectural plans in both of the owners’ names. The approval of the BAO will allow the City, in the interim, to deposit the insurance checks and pay for the expenses that are incurred toward the rehabilitation of the home. The funds will pass through for payments and the City will not be financially obligated for any work that is being completed at the property at this point. According to the term of the initial employment contract between the City and M. Benest, sale of the home was to occur based on one of the following events: a. At the option of Frank Benest, subject to the terms of the employment agreement; b. The passing of 18 months following the involuntary termination of the employment; c. Upon mutual agreement of the parties; d. On December 31, 2017 or until the manager’s current children have graduated or left Palo Alto public schools, whichever comes first. The City and Mr. Benest will continue to meet to explore their options as how to move forward after the insurance adjuster’s final analysis and additional reports by the architect, general contractors, and structural engineers are provided. Staff will update the Council when more information is available. Presently, the amount of $250,000 is requested in spending authority based on estimated needs. More funding will be needed in the future for additional work. Again, insurance payments will cover all costs associated with this project. TIMELINE Staff will return to Council to provide updates and seek approval for the next steps. RESOURCE IMPACT City of Palo Alto Page 3 The attached BAO requests an appropriation of expenses in the amount of $250,000 in the Capital Improvement Fund to a newly established capital project, Emergency Facility Improvements (PF-15005). Invoices will only be paid once funds have been received from State Farm Insurance, resulting in no net impact to the Capital Improvement Fund or Infrastructure Reserve. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with the original loan agreement and in preserving the City’s partially owned asset. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW None required ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Budget Amendment Ordinance Attachments:  Attachment A: Budget Amendment Ordinance Emergency Facility Improvement 2257 Bryant Street (DOC)  Attachment B: PAFD 2257 Bryant Report (PDF) Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ______ ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, ESTABLISHING A NEW CAPITAL PROJECT, EMERGENCY FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS, PF-15005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000, OFFSET BY INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENTS, RESULTING IN NO NET IMPACT TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2015; and B. On May 30, 2001 the City Council approved an amendment to the housing assistance provision of the then current City Manager’s employment agreement, increasing the City’s housing assistance funding from $1.2 million to $1.5 million; and C. The property at 2257 Bryant Street in Palo Alto was jointly purchased, with title being held as Tenants-in-Common by the City of Palo Alto and the Benest & Grady Family Trust; and D. Presently, the equity ownership of the property consists of 56.8% by the City and 43.2% by Frank Benest and Pamela S. Grady, Co. – Trustee of the Benest and Grady Family Trust, dated November 13, 1990; and E. A house fire on May 3, 2014 made the property uninhabitable. Since that time, Mr. Benest has been living in a rental property in Palo Alto, and City staff has been working with him, the insurance agent, contractors, architects, and structural engineers toward the cleanup and rehabilitation of the property; and F. The insurance company, State Farm, is paying the needed expenses by issuing checks for cleanup and new structural plans. The approval of this budget amendment ordinance will allow the City to deposit checks to pay the contracts and architects for the necessary rehabilitation work. SECTION 2. The net sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars is hereby appropriated to the Emergency Facility Improvements Project (PF-15005) in the Capital Improvement Fund. The expenditures in this new project will be offset by payments from the insurance company, resulting in no net impact to the Capital Improvement Fund or Infrastructure Reserve. SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 4. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works Director of Administrative Services PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORT Incident No.: 1230010 Page 1 of 11 Date/Time/Day of Incident: May 3rd 2014 1155 Incident Address: 2257 Bryant Investigating Officer (I/O): Fire Investigator Scott Woodfin Enclosed is my written brief of my investigation into this fire loss at the above referenced address. This brief consists of the summary below and attached photographs. My opinions expressed in this report are based upon empirical data collected during the investigation process and utilizing the guidelines established in NFPA 921. My conclusions are based upon scientific method and deductive reasoning. SYNOPSIS In summary, this fire occurred inside the structure of the above address. The fire was first observed by Layla Benest and notified (Palo Alto Fire Department Communications via 9-1-1). Upon arrival, firefighters observed heavy smoke and flames coming from the Delta side of the structure. Suppression crews preformed an interior attack from the driveway to the main entrance. Suppression efforts were successful. Forcible entry was not needed. There is access to the backyard next to the garage. The house was occupied at the time of the fire. The occupant was inside at the time of the fire. The occupant was notified by a neighbor of the fire to the rear of the structure. Heavy fire, smoke, and smoke staining damage were observed throughout the structure. No injuries were reported as a result of this fire loss. My assessment of the origin and cause of this fire is based on the analysis of physical evidence, the assessment of reported information, and the evaluation of all possible causes. NOTIFICATION / ON-SCENE / DEPARTED SCENE On May 3rd, 2014 at approximately 1155, I was notified via cell phone by Capt. Dean. We discussed the investigation. It was decided we would do a Task-Force callout. Attachment B PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORT Incident No.: 1230010 Page 2 of 11 SCENE MANAGEMENT Investigation Personnel Scott Woodfin – Lead Investigator Capt. Rich Dean PAFD John Parks PAFD BC Dennis Johnsen Santa Clara County FD Matt Gundersen Mountain View FD Barbara Maxwell ATF Capt. Mark Shah PAFD Shelia Donovan PAFD Alexander Hermann PAFD Preliminary Fire Loss Estimate Unknown AREA OF FIRE ORIGIN Waiting on Supplemental report POINT OF FIRE ORIGIN Waiting on Supplemental report STATEMENT FROM (Layla Benest) Waiting on Supplemental report Attachment B PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORT Incident No.: 1230010 Page 3 of 11 Photo log Attachment B PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORT Incident No.: 1230010 Page 4 of 11 Attachment B PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORT Incident No.: 1230010 Page 5 of 11 Attachment B PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORT Incident No.: 1230010 Page 6 of 11 Attachment B PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORT Incident No.: 1230010 Page 7 of 11 Attachment B PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORT Incident No.: 1230010 Page 8 of 11 Attachment B PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORT Incident No.: 1230010 Page 9 of 11 Attachment B PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORT Incident No.: 1230010 Page 10 of 11 My assessment of this case is based on the analysis of physical evidence, the assessment of reported information, and the evaluation of all possible causes. My file will close pending further investigation/ research/ testing with this report. Please feel free to contact me on any points needing further clarification. CASE STATUS  Open  Closed Suspended ___________________________ Scott Woodfin Fire Investigator Attachment B City of Palo Alto (ID # 4964) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: TheatreWorks Partnership Agreement Title: Approval of the Public-Private Partnership Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and TheatreWorks for the Use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council approve the renewal of a public-private partnership agreement between the City of Palo Alto (City) and TheatreWorks for the use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre (Attachment A). Background The Lucie Stern Community Theatre is used by three local theatre companies, which produce approximately 15 productions annually. These three companies (TheatreWorks, the Palo Alto Players, and West Bay Opera) partner with the Community Services Department to produce these shows, which foster the cultural and artistic needs of Palo Alto residents and visitors. The City and these companies each benefit from continuing this relationship. TheatreWorks was founded by San Francisco Bay Area native Robert Kelley in 1970 as a theatre arts workshop for teenage and college students. Chartered by the City to produce work that would reflect the concerns of the community during an unsettled period in American life, the company produced thirteen wholly original works for the stage in its first three years. Although company actors initially performed in a variety of venues, a tradition was established of staging several shows each season at the Lucie Stern Theatre. When the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts opened in 1991, the company began producing five main stage productions there each season, along with three productions each season at the Lucie Stern Theatre in Palo Alto. This schedule continues today. Discussion TheatreWorks’ usage of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre is governed by a public-private partnership agreement. Production scheduling is done interdependently between the three groups, and, as the cost of relocating a theatre company is prohibitively high, there exists nearly City of Palo Alto Page 2 no opportunity for changing the companies that the Lucie Stern Community Theatre serves. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council approve the renewal of the existing public private partnership. The key terms of this agreement are discussed below: Term: The new agreement is for one year, effective FY 2015. Similar agreements are intended for subsequent years. Revenue: In accordance with the Municipal Fee Schedule and in exchange for providing facility usage, TheatreWorks shall continue to remit to the City a $2.00 surcharge for each ticket sold. This fee is effectively passed on to patrons and is applied to all subscription, group, individual, promotional, and other tickets sold. Complimentary tickets are excluded, and the sum of the surcharge revenue for each production is due to the City within 30 calendar days after the closing of the production. The City retains roughly $90,000 per year from this ticket surcharge in total from the three theater partnerships. Among other functions, the proposed agreement acts as a revenue contract which governs the application, collection, and accounting of associated revenue. Responsibilities of City: The contract outlines the responsibilities of the City, using the standard terms of public-private and joint-venture partnerships, including specifying goods delivery terms, notice requirements for contract termination, and affirming non-discrimination, insurance, and property guidelines. The City is also responsible for allowing and providing access to the Lucie Stern Community Theatre during designated hours, providing basic maintenance of capital equipment, monitoring production safety, and providing information regarding other scheduled facility uses (such as City-sponsored events or private rentals). Responsibilities of Company: Additionally, the agreement stipulates the responsibilities of the theatre company, including its duty to abide by City and department policies and procedures (specifically including and as related to, without limitation, conduct in community centers, injury and illness prevention, sale of alcoholic beverages, operations, building emergency procedures, zero waste, and facility use). Other responsibilities include timely remittance of fees and surcharges, requirements for sufficient building supervision/staffing, recordkeeping of ticket sales and surcharge remittance for compliance with audits, and adherence to standard practices for facility security. This agreement is substantially similar to the previous agreement and the $2.00 ticket surcharge is consistent with the FY 2015 Municipal Fee Schedule. Resource Impact No additional City resources are required as a result of the renewal of this agreement and it is anticipated that this partnership will lead to enhanced program and capital funding over the life of the agreement. Policy Implications City of Palo Alto Page 3 This partnership would be categorized as a Joint Venture partnership under the City’s Public- Private Partnership Policy (Policy 1-25; Public-Private Partnerships; Attachment B). The partnership with TheatreWorks furthers Policy C-7 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan: “Actively work with private, nonprofit, and public community service organization to avoid duplication and to coordinate the delivery of services like child care, senior services, and recreation” and Policy G-12 of the Governance element: “Continue and expand the opportunities for public and nonprofit organizations serving the City to provide information about themselves to the public.” Attachments:  Public Private Partnership Policy (PDF)  FY15TheatreWorks Community Theatre Agreement (PDF) POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-25/MGR REVISED: AUGUST 2007 1 PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS POLICY STATEMENT The City of Palo Alto encourages the formation of public/private partnerships for the benefits the community receives. For the purposes of this policy, “public/private” also encompasses “public/nonprofit” partnerships. Definitions Public/private partnership:A public/private partnership is an agreement between the City and a nonprofit or private organization to provide services or to assist in funding of public facilities and programs. Such partnerships may take various forms, including: Acceptance of or solicitation of service or facility proposals Facilitation of such proposals through the City's regulatory process Waiver of City General Fund fees to help reduce project costs. Contributions of City matching funds for construction of facilities to be owned and controlled or operated by the City. Provision of facilities to the private partner at no charge or at a subsidized rent. Public/private partnerships typically fall into one of three categories: co-sponsorship, alliances or joint ventures. Co-Sponsorships:This is the most common type of public/private partnership. An organization furthers the mission of the City by supporting a City activity or program in conjunction with pursuit of that organization’s own mission or program. Co-sponsorships can take the form of one-time events or annual agreements. Some examples of co-sponsorships include the Palo Alto Tennis Club use of City courts to provide a youth tennis program and American Youth Soccer Organization’s use of space in a City facility to train referees. Co- sponsorships are entered into by staff and normally have no or minimal financial impact. Alliances:This type of public/private partnership involves organizations that have been created for the sole purpose of supporting a City program or an array of City programs. The organization does not expect to receive any direct financial benefit or to alter City policy and/or operations, but undertakes to work closely and cooperatively with staff to implement City goals. Alliance organizations include the Recreation Foundation, the Art Center Foundation (Project Look or Cultural Kaleidoscope), the Friends of the Children’s Theatre (the Magic Castle), the Library Foundation and the Friends of the Palo Alto Library (financial assistance with the renovation and expansion of the Children’s Library). Alliances are approved by the Council if there are any staffing or budgetary implications to the partnership. POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-25/MGR REVISED: AUGUST 2007 2 Joint Ventures: This type of partnership involves organizations which have programs or missions independent of the City and involve the City entering into a contractual relationship with the public or nonprofit organization with both parties contributing to the partnership for their mutual benefit. Each joint venture is uniquely negotiated by the staff and approved by the City Council. Examples of Joint Ventures include TheatreWorks, Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera’s use of the Community Theatre and use of the former police station by older adult service provider, Avenidas. PROCEDURES Initiation of partnerships:Public/private partnerships may be initiated in one of three ways: By staff: Staff identifies an opportunity for such a partnership and undertakes an informal or formal request for proposal process to identify partners. By Council: The City Council directs staff to work with a private or nonprofit organization to develop such a partnership. By a private or nonprofit organization:An organization makes a partnership proposal to the staff or City. City Manager Review:If the partnership proposal involves more than one City department, the City Manager’s Office will appoint a team with representatives of all City departments who are stakeholders in the partnership proposal. The team will analyze the proposal and inform the City Manager of the resource implications of the proposal, including staffing and monetary commitments. This would include proposed fee waivers. If the proposal will require a re-ordering of department priorities that have already been approved by the Council in setting its annual priorities or in the budget process, Council approval will be required prior to commitment to the partnership. Council approval will also be required if the partnership requires a new or adjusted allocation of operating or capital funding. Note: Co-sponsorships usually only involve a single department and do not necessitate the formation of an interdepartmental committee, the involvement of the City Manager’s Office or the approval of the City Council. City-Initiated Partnerships:Such partnerships will be guided by existing policies and procedures governing purchasing and outsourcing, using “requests for proposals” and/or bid processes as the method of initiating a partnership. A City-initiated partnership may incorporate incentives including naming rights, waiver of non-enterprise fund building and planning fees, reduced lease rates, free use of space, subsidies, and staff resources. All incentives may be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-25/MGR REVISED: AUGUST 2007 3 Evaluation of Viability of Partnering Organization:Staff will provide the City Manager and/or City Council with its assessment of the viability of the proposed partnership, based on the partnering organization’s possession of sound organizational, administrative and fiscal management, and its demonstrated experience to achieve and sustain project tasks, such as fundraising and building community support. For proposed facility improvement or expansion initiatives, the nonprofit or private organization should have the ability and commitment to make a substantial pledge to the project’s cost. Facilities Proposals: If a City facility is to be renovated, expanded or otherwise be directly affected by the partnership, the Infrastructure Management Plan will have to be adjusted appropriately. Long-term staffing, operational and maintenance costs must be identified in the proposal.The project’s applicable costs and funding sources for furnishings, fixtures and equipment will be identified. The parties will negotiate the joint or separate financial responsibility for any project cost overruns on a project-by-project basis. Staff may recommend that any standard City processing or use fee authorized under the Municipal Fee Schedule, excluding fees and charges levied by City of Palo Alto Utilities or other City enterprise fund programs, should be waived as a condition of the City's participation. Waiver of fees may be granted by the Council and limited to those fees associated with a construction or capital improvement project which, upon its completion, results in a new or improved public facility, building or park, or some portion thereof, that will be solely owned or controlled by the City. In the event that only a portion of a construction or capital improvement project will result in a new or improved City facility, building or park, or portion thereof, then the Council may waive only that portion of any associated fee directly relating to the construction, improvement or enhancement of the City facility, building or park.As appropriate, the summary and recommendation in the report to the Council will include a staff recommendation on waiving fees which the Council can approve or reject. The City will determine whether the nonprofit or private organization shall use or may forego a formal or informal competitive selection process in the hiring of professionals who will perform the management, design and/or construction phases of the project. The City shall review and approve the requirements for and the performance of all phases of design, planning and construction work for the project. Page 1 AGREEMENT FOR PERFORMING ARTS SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT FOR PERFORMING ARTS SERVICES (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the 1st day of July, 2014 by and between THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipality chartered under the laws of the State of California (“City”) and THEATREWORKS, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, located at 350 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, California (telephone: 650-463-1950) (“Contractor”) (individually, a “Party” and, collectively, the “Parties”). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. SERVICES: During the Term of this Agreement, as defined in Section 5 below, Contractor shall present that portion of Contractor’s 2014-2015 theatrical performances (the “Services”) that are produced at City’s Lucie Stern Community Center. 2. FACILITY: For purposes of this Agreement, the defined term “Facility” is deemed to mean those portions of the Lucie Stern Community Center comprising the theatre, lobby, green room, dressing rooms, scene shop, paint shop, light and sound booth, flat storage, rehearsal hall and costume shop. 3. FEE: Pursuant to the Municipal Fee Schedule (Exhibit G), the services to be performed under this Agreement constitute a “Class I” use of the Facility. 4. EXHIBITS: The Exhibits listed below, Appendices A through L and Attachments 1 through 5 are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by this reference. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement shall have no force or effect unless all such Exhibits, Appendices and Attachments are attached hereto. Exhibit A: Responsibilities of Contractor Exhibit B: Responsibilities of City Exhibit C: General Conditions Exhibit D: TheatreWorks Addendum Exhibit E: Non-Discrimination Form Exhibit F: Proof of Liability Insurance Exhibit G: Municipal Fee Schedule Exhibit K: City of Palo Alto Non-discrimination Policy 5. TERM: The services under this Agreement shall commence as of July 1, 2014 and shall terminate on June 30, 2015 (the “Term”). 6. COMPENSATION: During the Term, Contractor shall pay City: (a) Two Dollars ($2.00) for each ticket sold and (b) compensation for the Facilities Attendant present at each performance, at prevailing rates as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit G. Contractor shall send payment in accordance with Exhibit C to City, Attn: Project Manager. 7. HOLD HARMLESS: Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its Page 2 Council Members, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all demands, claims or liability of any nature, including wrongful death, caused by or arising from the acts, errors, omissions, willful misconduct, or gross negligence during the Term by Contractor, its officers, directors, employees, subcontractors or agents, except to the extent such demands, claims or liability of any nature arise from the acts, errors, omissions, willful misconduct, or gross negligence of City, its Council Members, officers, employees, contractors or agents. 8. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement and the terms and conditions set forth in the attached Exhibits, Appendices and Attachments represent the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the Services. All prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written are superseded hereby. 9. QUIET ENJOYMENT: Contractor, upon payment of the consideration required hereunder and Contractor’s performance of all obligations of Contractor hereunder and Contractor’s observance of City’s policies referenced herein, shall and may peacefully and quietly have, hold and enjoy the Premises during the Term. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT THE DAY, MONTH, AND YEAR FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE THE City OF PALO ALTO, a municipality chartered under the laws of the State of California THEATREWORKS, a California non-profit public benefit corporation By: __________________________________ By: __________________________________ Judge Luckey Phil Santora Its: PROJECT MANAGER AND REPRESENTATIVE FOR City Managing Director I.R.S. Number: 94-2831245 Address: P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 329-2519 City OF PALO ALTO APPROVALS: (ROUTE FOR SIGNATURES ACCORDING TO NUMBERS IN APPROVAL BOXES BELOW) City DEPARTMENT  Funds Have Been Budgeted (1) PURCHASING & CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION INSURANCE REVIEW (2) APPROVAL OVER $25,000 (3) PURCHASING MANAGER APPROVAL OVER $25,000 APPROVAL OVER $85,000 City OF PALO ALTO BY:_____________________________________ City ATTORNEY ATTEST: BY:________________________ _______________________ MAYOR City CLERK Page 3 EXHIBIT A RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONTRACTOR During the Term, Contractor shall: (1) Abide by the policies/procedures established by City and City’s Arts and Sciences Division and the Department of Community Services for the use of City facilities, equipment, costumes, props, furniture, scenery and other production elements. These shall include, but are not limited to, Regulations of the City of Palo Alto Regarding Prohibited Conduct In Community Centers and Theaters (Appendix A), the City of Palo Alto Injury and Prevention program (Appendix B), Policy for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages (Appendix C), Operations Manual (Appendix D), Safety Procedures and Guidelines (Appendix E), Building Emergency Procedures (Appendix F), procedure for adjusting the Forestage height, including use of the Scissor lift (Appendix G), House Manager's Guide (Appendix H), Zero Waste Plan (Appendix I), Costume Room Guidelines (Appendix J), City Report of Accident/Property Damage (Appendix K), and City’s Danger Policy (Appendix L). Follow safety procedures for the use of power and hand tools, mechanical lifts, etc. including the use of safety goggles, ear protection, face shields, safety cables, outriggers, etc. (2) Obtain, supervise, and pay all necessary related fees for the services of all professional assistance needed to produce Contractor’s productions (the “Productions.”) Such assistance may include, but is not limited to the following: Production Directors, all Designers, Carpenters, Painters, Production Assistants, Music Directors, Choreographers, Musicians and other Front of House, Artistic or Administrative personnel. (3) Pay all fees and costs for materials, supplies, scripts, royalties, licenses and other fees and expenses connected with the Productions, including all make-up removal supplies. (4) Bear sole responsibility for the control and supervision of all production activities and personnel connected therewith, and notify all personnel of their obligations and responsibilities pertaining to their respective responsibilities, having primary responsibility for building security when Contractor is occupying City facilities. (5) Provide Project Manager or his/her designee with a list of all pyrotechnic effects (including the use of open flames), all hydro technical effects, all use of fog or haze, all loud noises (e.g., gunshots), and all use of strobe lights at least twenty-one (21) days prior to first use on stage. No flames shall be permitted on stage without the required fire permits from City. Smoking by any of the actors on stage as an integral part of the Production is deemed a pyrotechnic effect. Safety precautions approved by a City Fire Inspector and Project Manager or his/her designee will be taken when smoking is occurring on stage, and the audience shall be notified beforehand that smoking, loud noises (e.g., gunshots) or use of strobe lights will occur on the stage. All Fire Department fees for “Open Flame Permits” and “Candles and Open Flames in Assembly Areas Permits” shall be the responsibility of Contractor. (6) Provide Project Manager with the rehearsal schedule, performance schedule, shop Page 4 schedule and any requests for the use of City facilities (including but not limited to the Facility, as defined in Article 2, rooms located in the Lucie Stern complex and the Lucie Stern Courtyard and patio) for any purpose. Space reservations for the Facility are specified in Attachment 1. Space reservations for rooms other than the Facility should be made at least six (6) weeks in advance. No performance shall begin earlier than 9:00 a.m. nor end later than midnight. In no event shall Contractor conduct rehearsals or other activities, or otherwise occupy City facilities from 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m. unless prior written permission is obtained from Project Manager or a designated employee of City is on site. Contractor shall observe all facility security rules and regulations as established by City (Appendix A). (7) Designate as Project Director for the length of this Agreement an employee or sub- contractor to manage or supervise all areas, Contractor personnel and Contractor property in this Agreement, including production, technical, house personnel and any and all support groups and to be Contractor’s liaison with Project Manager or his/her designee in all matters relating to the City in any way. (8) Arrange for auditions and casting for the Productions and have sole responsibility for the supervision and control of all performers. With respect to casting, Contractor shall have sole discretion to choose and approve the qualifications and select the cast. In personnel decisions, Contractor shall agree to and comply with the provisions of the City’s non- discrimination policy (Exhibit K). (9) Engage the services and train crew members in appropriate areas of theatre production activity and utilize crew members in a safe and effective manner in the presentation of the Productions. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the control and supervision of such participants and shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City from and against any claims or liabilities arising from the acts or omissions of such personnel. All such personnel shall be deemed the sole agents and employees of Contractor and shall be notified by Contractor of this circumstance. (10) Exercise safe practices in the use of City facilities and equipment, maintain and clear work areas, and, within twenty-four (24) hours, report, on a form provided by City (Appendix K), information regarding accidents. Immediately report to Project Manager or his/her designee on a form provided by City any breakage, malfunction, deterioration or loss of any of the City’s resources (including musical instruments, tools, lights, sound equipment, props, curtains, etc.). Contractor shall not attempt repair of City equipment without prior consultation with the Project Manager. Contractor shall immediately discontinue any activity in which an unsafe or dangerous condition exists. Contractor shall train and supervise Contractor’s staff and volunteers on safe theatre practices and adhere to City’s safety procedures and guidelines. If, in the opinion of any City or Contractor employee, Contractor is conducting an activity in an unsafe manner, Contractor or its agents shall be informed and shall immediately discontinue such activity until such activity is able to be conducted in a safe manner approved by City staff. (11) In conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 guidelines and requirements, Contractor shall bear responsibility for providing appropriate auxiliary Page 5 aids, interpretive services and accommodations where they are necessary to achieve an equal opportunity for patrons to participate in and enjoy the benefits of public performances produced under the Agreement. Printed programs shall include the following statement required by the Americans with Disabilities Act: "Persons with disabilities who require information on auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like information on the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact: ADA Coordinator, City of Palo Alto, 650-463-4952 (Voice) or ada@Cityofpaloalto.org (Internet). (12) Maintain its existence as an independent, non-profit corporation under the laws of the State of California. (13) Submit all signs or displays to be located on or in the Facility to Project Manager or his/her designee for approval at the first production meeting. All displays may be put up at load-in and must be removed during strike. Inside the Facility, no display materials may be placed upon stucco walls. Lobby displays may be placed only on the lobby display boards, and all fasteners must be removed at the time display is taken down. Nothing may be posted on the exterior walls or doors of the Facility or in the Stern courtyard, except for items in the display case and an approved production name sign hung from the theatre balcony. Marquee signs must be constructed of light weight material, and shall be secured in such a way that the sign is unlikely to become dislodged by normal vibration or seismic activity. Signs shall be of a standard size no larger than ten feet in length and eight feet in height. All marquee signage must be attached to the theatre balcony with rigging so that the sign may be easily removed for limited periods during photography shoots, special events, or building maintenance. (14) Clean and clear the auditorium, stage, paint shop, scene shop, flat dock, and costume shop, green room, dressing rooms, rehearsal hall, hallways and outdoor areas adjacent to theatre and shop. Disassemble and store, to Project Manager’s or his/her designee’s reasonable satisfaction, scenery, properties, and other production elements, within six hours after the final performance or on such other time schedule mutually agreed upon between Contractor and Project Manager or his/her designee and the incoming authorized user of the facilities, if any. The stage shall always be returned to its basic set-up as established by Project Manager or his/her designee unless there is a mutual agreement with the incoming group that has been approved by Project Manager or his/her designee. All items on the STRIKE CHECKLIST are to be performed unless there is a mutual agreement with the incoming group that has been approved by the Project Manager or his/her designee. The Project Manager or his/her designee will sign a copy of the STRIKE CHECKLIST form at the completion of the strike to signify acceptance of clean and neat facilities. (15) Leave storage, paint, scene, and costume spaces clean and clear of Contractor’s materials other than those materials necessary for the ongoing maintenance and repair of the sets and costumes by the Monday following opening performance. (16) Leave all spaces clear, clean and orderly at the end of each use. Rehearsal Hall is to be cleared of all materials, except major set pieces and any rehearsal props, after each daily Page 6 use. Rehearsal Hall is to be completely cleared within twenty-four (24) hours of final use. Kitchen, restrooms and dressing rooms are to be cleaned and cleared after each daily use. Trash, recycling and compostable materials are to be removed from all areas daily. Recyclables and compostable materials are to be placed in the recycling and composting carts near the trash dumpster and garbage and trash are to be placed into the dumpster. Contractor is required to reduce waste, reuse and recycle per the City’s Zero Waste Plan (Appendix I). Office space and hallways are to be kept continually clear, clean and orderly and neither space shall be used for the purpose of set, prop, or costume storage. Materials may not be left or stored any place out-of-doors overnight or when unattended by Contractor’s personnel. (17) Enforce current regulations as established by City with regard to smoking, food and drink in City facilities (Appendix A). Contractor shall provide ushers at all previews and performances to enforce such regulations. Smoking is not permitted inside any City facility. No person shall bring any animal into the theatre. This regulation shall not apply to service animals assisting individuals with disabilities or to animals in training to become service animals. Use of animals on the stage is subject to approval by Project Manager or his/her designee. Food and drink are not permitted in the auditorium, light/sound booth or on stage, unless used as part of a production scene. Food and drink shall be permitted only in approved areas such as the green room and lobby. Contractor shall clean up all food and drink containers daily after use. (18) Contractor will be responsible for cleaning the Lucie Stern hallway restrooms for weekend performances. (19) Comply with City TB test requirement for employees and volunteers of Contractor at any time the City Risk Manager deems it necessary. If minors are involved in the Production, Contractor shall comply with all of the State of California’s rules and regulations regarding Child Labor. (20) Comply with City sound ordinance levels for any outdoor activities, including load-in, strike, dismantling, or disposal. Shop doors facing Hopkins and Harriet Streets shall be closed between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. (21) In addition to the Facilities Attendant referenced in Section 5 of the Agreement, pay any additional Attendant according to prevailing rates as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule attached as Exhibit G, pursuant to the following (a) For a period of one (1) hour prior to until at least one half (1/2) hour after the completion of each Performance listed in TheatreWorks Production and Exclusive Use Schedule, 2014 – 2015 (Attachment 1). (b) For any Performance not included in Attachment 1, Contractor may add additional performances of the Productions listed in Attachment 1 upon thirty (30) days’ advance notice to City. (c) When using other City facilities at the same time as a Performance listed in ATTACHMENT 1. Page 7 (22) Provide house manager and ushers for every Performance or event whenever the public is in attendance. Contractor shall only engage the services of ushers have been trained in theatre emergency, safety and use procedures usher. Contractor shall submit a list of its trained personnel to Project Manager prior to public performances for each Production. Ushers must be available to assist patrons under all circumstances and must be aware of and able to assist disabled persons. Contractor’s House Manager and ushers must also be available to assist in emergency situations throughout the entire Performance until the audience has left the theatre. Ushers must ensure that wheelchairs, walkers, etc. are not blocking any of the aisles or exits. Ushers shall return seats to the upright position and remove litter from the auditorium and restrooms at the conclusion of each performance. (23) Install and/or remove the removable auditorium seats in designated areas to accommodate wheelchair patrons and as required due to the needs of the Production. (24) Remove from the Facility, at the conclusion of each Production, costumes, properties and sets created by Contractor with Contractor-owned materials, which costumes, properties and sets will remain the property of Contractor. All office equipment, construction tools, special effects and lighting equipment purchased and owned by Contractor will remain the private property of Contractor and City assumes no responsibility or liability for the loss or maintenance of such materials. All equipment, instruments, costumes and any other materials rented, borrowed or owned by any subcontractor, agent or person for Contractor is the responsibility of Contractor and/or its subcontractors, and City assumes no responsibility or liability for their maintenance or loss. Contractor assumes all liability and responsibility for any default on Production expenses. (25) Replace or repair or cause to be replaced or repaired by factory authorized technicians City-owned equipment, instruments or materials identified by Project Manager or his/her designee as having been lost, damaged or destroyed by Contractor or its agents. A written report must be made on a City form whenever City equipment is lost, damaged, or destroyed by Contractor. (26) Upon written application to Project Manager or his/her designee and upon express approval and written authorization of Project Manager or his/her designee, use City- owned properties, sets, costumes, scenery, furniture and equipment for Productions not scheduled in the Agreement. Approval, if any, shall be given to Contractor in writing. In the event any of such items are damaged or destroyed, Contractor shall bear responsibility for the repair or replacement of such items to the reasonable satisfaction of Project Manager. (27) Upon written application to Project Manager or his/her designee at least sixty (60) days prior to the applicable date, request approval to use the Facility for classes, camps or workshops. No later than thirty (30) days prior to the applicable date, the Project Manager or his/her designee shall deliver to Contractor in writing his/her approval or disapproval. Failure to respond shall be deemed approval. In the event of disapproval, then he/she shall briefly explain the reasons therefor. No such activity will be advertised or promoted until it has been approved by the Project Manager or the time for review has passed, whichever occurs first. Page 8 (28) Comply with all State and City laws relating to the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Alcohol is permitted at the Facility if approved by Project Manager, whose approval will not be unreasonably withheld. Unless otherwise specifically permitted and pursuant to City policy, the only alcoholic beverages that may be sold or served at City facilities are wines, including champagne and sparkling wine. If alcoholic beverages are to be sold or distributed free of charge, Contractor must possess a valid On-Sale General Theatre License for the Facility. [TW COMMENT: This is the type of license that is required.] A copy of Contractor’s permit for the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages shall be provided to Project Manager. Proof of liquor liability insurance where City is named as co-insured with liability of at least One Million Dollars ($l,000,000.00) shall be required. Permits are to be displayed as required by law. It is the responsibility of Contractor to ensure that no alcoholic beverage is served to a minor. Identification must be checked if the person appears to be under thirty (30) years of age. After each performance, Contractor shall remove all items, including cups, glasses, bottles, napkins and food from the lobby and other areas within the Facility as well as the courtyard. Contractor is required to adhere to City’s Recycling and Zero Waste Program (Appendix I). (29) Shall cause to have present at the Facility at all times when Contractor or any of its employees, subcontractors or volunteers is in the Facility one of Contractor’s designated and City-approved key and/or proximity card holders. Any exceptions to the foregoing requirement must be approved, in writing, by Project Manager or his/her designee. Any exceptions must be approved by Project Manager or his/her designee in writing. (30) Prevent any modifications of a permanent or disfiguring nature of or to the Facility. Contractor may not install or attach anything in or on the Facility without having first submitted a written request to Project Manager and having received written permission from Project Manager or his/her designee. The approval of Project Manager does not relieve Contractor from any responsibility to obtain necessary City permits or Building Department approvals for the modification. Should Contractor violate the provisions of this Paragraph (30), Contractor shall be charged for all repairs necessary to restore the Facility to its original condition and for any additional costs arising from such violation. (31) Immediately report to the police any incidents of a criminal or suspicious nature occurring on City property, and notify Project Manager or his/her designee within twelve hours. If initial notification is verbal, Contractor must subsequently submit the information in writing to Project Manager or his/her designee on a form provided by City. (32) Ensure that the doors to the Scene Shop, Rehearsal Hall, and Costume Shop, as well as any other exterior access doors to any area of the Facility, are not left open, unlocked or left with the locking mechanism disabled, even if only briefly, at any time when the immediate area secured by the door is unoccupied by Contractor. Failure to do this may result in the imposition of greater restrictions imposed on Contractor for access to the Facility, including the possible forfeiture of keys/proximity cards by Contractor and/or restricted access times. Page 9 (33) Complete a City Report of Accident/Property Damage report (Appendix K) for any and all accidents, injuries or property damage if a City employee is not present to fill out the report. (34) Operate and conduct business in compliance with City’s Zero Waste Plan (Appendix I) for all activities including, but not limited to, set construction and strike, food and beverage service, and office activities. The City Recycling Program department can assist with resources for achieving this goal. The goal is to send as little waste to landfill as possible through waste reduction, reuse and recycling. To achieve this goal Contractor must first reduce waste whenever possible. (35) Avoid the use for food/beverage service of disposables, including, but not limited to, Styrofoam and other plastics. Reusable food/beverage service ware should be utilized to the maximum extent possible. Where a reusable food/beverage service option is not available, Contractor shall choose items that are recyclable. For concessions, choose product packaging that is recyclable. (36) Practice reuse before, during and after Production. City shall provide a list of reuse resources to avoid the disposal of construction materials, sets and props. Contractor must recycle construction debris from set materials (e.g. wood, metal). (37) Recycle all materials included in the City’s Recycling Program including paper (all types), plastic containers #1-#7, cardboard, glass bottles and jars, and metal cans. Compostable materials will be disposed of in designated compost waste receptacles. (38) Include on the title page of all production and event programs the following credit: “Use of this facility is made possible through support from The City of Palo Alto, Community Services Department, Division of Arts and Sciences,” and include the official City of Palo Alto logo on the title page or prominent placement within event programs; print in all publicity for the Productions, including, but not limited to, mailings, flyers, posters, brochures, and paid or public service advertising, the statement: “In cooperation with the City of Palo Alto Community Services Department, Division of Arts and Sciences.” The City of Palo Alto, Community Services Department, Division of Arts and Sciences shall also be credited in the Contractor’s list of funders as a “Civic Sponsor.” Page 10 EXHIBIT B RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY During the Term, City shall: (1) Allow Contractor the exclusive use of the Facility, as defined in Article 2, as scheduled in Attachment 1 for the preparation and presentation of Productions performed under this agreement provided that Contractor submits specific rehearsal schedules, performance schedules and shop use schedules. Any use of City facilities and equipment other than those listed in the Agreement and the Exhibits thereto, which facilities and/equipment are nonetheless required to allow Contractor to perform its Services hereunder are subject to a different contract between City and Contractor. (“Non-Facility Contracts”). (2) Allow the use of the auditorium and the stage for performances and brush-up rehearsals within the period described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 6. (3) Allow the use of the exclusive use of the stage and the auditorium prior to the opening night of the Productions , with the exception of necessary maintenance procedures that may require access to the stage and auditorium during this period, according to the production schedule set forth in Attachment 1. Allow the use of the rehearsal hall, box office, scene shop, paint shop and costume shop according to the schedule as set forth in Attachment 1. Additional facility use may be provided as specified in item (Exhibit B (1); Exhibit A (27)) above; however, priority use of the room will always be given to actual rehearsals of productions covered by a contract with City. City reserves the right to allow other uses of space within the Facility when not in actual, scheduled use by Contractor on a non-interference basis and with at least seventy-two (72) hours’ prior notice to Contractor. (4) Allow Contractor to use all operational production equipment in City’s inventory as requested by Contractor and approved in writing by City. Contractor shall take such equipment "as is" and is responsible for ensuring that such equipment is in a safe condition prior to use and is returned in working condition at the conclusion of its use or of the Production. (5) Monitor all aspects of production with respect to safety issues (Appendix E). If Project Manager or any designee(s) deem(s) that any procedure followed by Contractor is unsafe, he or she has the authority to require the immediate suspension of such procedure. City and Contractor will work together to prevent or quickly mitigate any fire hazards or any items identified by the Fire Department during facility inspections. (6) Provide persons designated by Contractor and approved by Project Manager or his/her designee with keys, proximity cards (up to a maximum of six), and alarm codes for access to the Facility for the sole purpose of carrying out the requirements of the Agreement. Keys, proximity cards, and alarm codes shall not be loaned or transferred and shall be used only by the designated persons. In the event that Contractor fails to properly open or lock and secure City facilities leading to a false alarm call-out or leaves areas of the facility unlocked and unattended, a Two Hundred Dollar ($200.00) penalty Page 11 shall be paid to City on each such occasion. In the event that a designated key holder loses any key or proximity card issued by City, Contractor shall be assessed a Seventy- Five Dollar ($75.00) replacement charge for each key or proximity card or pay for the cost of rekeying or reprogramming the locks of the facility if circumstances indicate it as determined in City’s reasonable judgment. Contractor will be responsible and held accountable for all personnel, properties and activities of Contractor. (7) Have the right, with no notice, to suspend the Agreement if the Facility should be declared uninhabitable for reasons of safety by the proper authorities (e.g., if the building should be damaged in an earthquake and be declared unsafe for occupancy). If there is an outbreak of pandemic flu or other medical emergency and places of public gatherings are closed, City will not assume any financial responsibility for loss of revenue by Contractor. If the Facility is not available due to earthquake, other disaster, or safety related issues, City will not assume any financial responsibility for loss of revenue by Contractor. (8) Have the right to borrow available Community Theatre-owned properties, sets, costumes and scenery for productions scheduled in this Agreement. Costumes, properties and sets created by Contractor with Contractor-owned materials will remain the property of Contractor, and shall be removed from the Facility at the conclusion of the production in which the materials are used. The Project Manager or his/her designee may, on a case- by-case basis, authorize exceptions. All office equipment, construction tools, special effects and lighting equipment purchased and owned by Contractor will remain the private property of Contractor and the City assumes no responsibility or liability for the loss or maintenance of such materials. All equipment, instruments, costumes and any other materials rented, borrowed or owned by any subcontractor, agent or person for the Contractor is the responsibility of the Contractor and/or its subcontractors, and the City assumes no responsibility or liability for its maintenance or loss. Page 12 EXHIBIT C GENERAL CONDITIONS (1) City. The Manager Arts-Children’s Theatre is hereby designated Project Manager for City, who shall render overall supervision of the progress and performance of this Agreement by City. All City services set forth in this Agreement shall be performed by City under the overall supervision of Project Manager or his/her designee. Contractor shall go through Project Manager or his/her designee in all matters dealing with City policies, funding, facilities, equipment and other City departments outside the Facility. (2) Contractor. Contractor shall assign a single Project Director who shall have overall responsibility for the compliance of Contractor with the Agreement. Should circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of this Agreement require a different Project Director, Contractor shall notify City immediately of same. The Project Director shall be responsible for all actions of Contractor. The Project Director shall also be responsible for disseminating to appropriate personnel all communication and information from City. (3) Access. Contractor shall not prevent Project Manager, facility maintenance personnel, and/or others specifically designated by Project Manager from access to the Facility; provided, however, that City shall use its best efforts not to disrupt the activities of Contractor as permitted by the Agreement. The Project Manager and others specifically designated by Project Manager shall attempt to coordinate such access if possible. Notwithstanding the foregoing, except in the case of emergency or if they are present on the premises as members of the audience or specifically invited into the backstage areas of the theatre, Project Manager, facility maintenance personnel and/or others specifically designated by the Project Manager shall not enter the auditorium or backstage areas during public performances of a production. (4) Days Defined. The term "days" shall mean calendar days. (5) Qualifications. Contractor represents that it is qualified to furnish the Services described under the Agreement. (10) Ticket Sales: (a) Contractor’s budget for the Term of the Agreement is attached hereto, marked “Attachment 2” and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. (b) Contractor shall be responsible for sale of season tickets and single tickets, depositing of revenue and reporting of revenue and expenditures, and shall place available tickets for each Production for sale at the theatre box office one hour prior to each performance. Until one (1) hour prior to the beginning of a Performance, Contractor shall not sell (a) seat numbers C1, C2, D1, D2, D3, and D4; (b) either (i) the block of seats T2, T4, T6, T8, T10, U2, U4, U6, U8 and U10 Page 13 or (ii) the block of seats T1, T3, T5, T7, T9, U1, U3, U5, U7 and U9 for the purpose of making such seats available for the disabled; provided, however, that this Section 10(b) shall not apply to the sale of tickets for such seats to persons who identify themselves as disabled when they purchase their ticket. (c) Contractor agrees the price of admission for the season shall be as set forth in Attachment 3. (d) Contractor shall remit to City a surcharge in the amount of Two Dollars ($2.00) for each and every ticket sold either through subscription, group, individual, promotional or any other means. The foregoing surcharge is due within thirty (30) calendar days the closing date of the Production. The word “sold” as used in this Paragraph (10)(d) is to include any tickets given in exchange for monetary consideration, including donations. City may, in its discretion, add a three percent (3%) surcharge levied for payments received between 31 days and 60 days after the closing date of the Production, a four percent (4%) surcharge levied for payments received between 61 days and 90 days after the closing date of the Production, and a five percent (5%) surcharge levied for payments received in excess of 90 days of the closing date of the Production. Payment must be accompanied by the production report specified in section C(13), “PRODUCTION REPORTS AND RECORDS,” item (a) before payment will be considered to have been made. (e) Contractor shall provide City, when requested by Project Manager or his/her designee, with at least six (6) complimentary tickets for each Production on the date(s) requested. Best available seating will be provided to City if any seats are available at the time of the request. (f) Contractor may operate an intermission snack concession during each Performance under this Agreement. Contractor shall conduct such operation in a safe, clean manner and shall hold City harmless from any claim or demand or liability of any nature whatsoever which may arise out of such operation. If alcoholic beverages are to be sold or distributed free of charge, Contractor shall have on display a California State A.B.C. Permit and provide Project Manager with proof of liquor liability where City is named as co-insured with liability of at least one million dollars ($l,000,000.00) (See Exhibit A (29) above). It is the responsibility of Contractor to ensure that no alcoholic beverage is served to a minor by checking I.D.’s if the person appears to be under thirty years of age. Food and drink may not be taken into the Auditorium or the Light/Sound Booth at any time. Contractor shall remove all cups, glasses, bottles, napkins and food from the lobby, green room, and any other affected areas, including the courtyard, after each performance. Contractor is required to adhere to City’s Zero Waste Plan (Appendix I). (11) Composition of Contractor. Throughout the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall remain an independent, non-profit public benefit corporation under the laws of California and be governed by a Board of Trustees. Any changes in Contractor’s Articles of Page 14 Incorporation, By-Laws, or tax-exempt status shall be reported by Contractor immediately to Project Manager. Not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the persons serving on the governing board of Contractor may be interested persons. "Interested persons" means any person currently being compensated by Contractor for services rendered to it, whether as a full or part-time employee, independent or otherwise, but excluding any reasonable compensation paid to a director as director. (12) Fiscal Responsibilities of Contractor. (a) Fiscal Agent. Contractor shall appoint a fiscal agent who shall be responsible for the financial and accounting activities of Contractor, including the receipt and disbursement of Contractor funds. Contractor shall provide City with the name of a fiscal agent (Attachment 4) and notify Project Manager within five (5) business days of any changes occurring during the Term. Contractor shall have sole responsibility for the safekeeping of Contractor tickets and monies. (b) System of Accounts. Contractor and its fiscal agent shall establish and maintain a system of accounts that shall be in conformance with generally accepted principles of accounting for budgeted funds. Such system of accounts shall be subject to the review and approval of City staff. (c) Financial Records. In support of its system of accounts, Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records of all financial transactions, including, but not limited to, contracts, invoices, time cards, cash receipts, vouchers, canceled checks, and bank statements. City may inspect these records at Contractor’s office upon reasonable advance notice and during normal business hours upon request. NOTE: Contractor’s cash receipts are not to be stored on the Premises between Productions. (d) Audit of surcharge payments. Contractor shall retain for a period of at least three (3) years bar-coded electronic records of tickets sold, sales records, and a verified report of sold and unsold tickets which must be made available to City of Palo Alto Auditor upon request. (13) PRODUCTION REPORTS AND RECORDS. (a) Reports. On reasonable notice and with reasons specified, Contractor shall grant Project Manager and/or City’s Auditor access to all Contractor records relating to this Agreement, including performance records, data, statements, and reports. (b) Tax Form 199. A copy of Contractor’s most recently filed California State Tax Form 199, "California Exempt Organizations Annual Information Return" must be filed with Project Manager or his/her designee within fifteen (15) days of when it is due to the State of California and shall also be attached to this agreement prior to its final approval (Attachment 5). (14) CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding the requirements of this Agreement, in the event City should determine from any source, including but not limited Page 15 to reports submitted by Contractor under this Agreement or any evaluation report from any source, that Contractor may not be in compliance with any provision of the Agreement, City may forward to Contractor written notice of same. Such notice shall specify with particularity the nature of the condition(s) or issue(s) that require(s) corrective action and may include a recommendation as to appropriate corrective action. Within fifteen (15) days of City’s request, Contractor shall submit its written response to the notice, which response shall set forth its view of the alleged violation and its proposed plan, if any, for corrective action. Upon request of either Party, the Parties shall meet within five (5) days thereafter to discuss the alleged violation and proposed corrective action. (15) CONTRACTS WITH OTHER AGENCIES. Contractor agrees not to enter into any contract or agreement with another person or agency that will materially interfere with or inhibit the full performance of the Services to be provided by Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor agrees to terminate as soon as legally possible any contract or agreement which will materially interfere with or inhibit the full performance of the services to be provided by Contractor to City under this Agreement. Nothing herein is intended to prohibit Contractor from applying for, and receiving, supplementary funding from other than City sources so long as any agreement required for such funding does not materially interfere with or inhibit the full performance of the services to be provided by Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor is specifically encouraged to seek such supplementary funding. Any agreement between Contractor and the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts or any other theatrical venue shall not be deemed to violate this Section (15). (16) INTEREST OF CONTRACTOR. Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of its Services hereunder. Contractor further covenants that, to the best of Contractor’s knowledge and belief, in the performance of its Services under the Agreement, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed by Contractor. It is expressly agreed that, in the performance of the Services hereunder, Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of City. (17) ASSIGNMENT. Both Parties shall give their personal attention to the faithful performance of this Agreement and shall not assign, transfer, or convey the Agreement or any right, title, or interest in or to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the other Party, and then only subject to such terms and conditions as the other Party may require. Consent to one assignment shall not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment without such approval shall be void and, at the option of the other Party, shall terminate this Agreement and any license or privilege granted herein. This Agreement and the Parties’ respective interests herein shall not be assignable by operation of law without the prior written consent of the other Party. (18) SUBCONTRACTORS. Contractor shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the Services of Contractor hereunder. All subcontractors are deemed to be employees of Contractor and Contractor agrees to be responsible for Page 16 their performance. Contractor shall give its personal attention to the fulfillment of the provisions of the Agreement by all of its employees, participants, volunteers, and subcontractors. (19) INDEMNITY. Except to the extent the same arise from the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, contractors, agents, employees, or persons brought onto the Premises by or through City, Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its officers, contractors, agents, and employees and the Premises from and against (a) any injury or death or property damage arising from the use or occupancy of the Premises by Tenant, its officers, agents, employees or any persons brought onto the Premises by or through Contractor, (b) any claims or demands made against City, its officers, agents or employees by reason of any infringement or alleged infringement of any copyright or trademark caused by or alleged to have been caused by Contractor or any subcontractor under this Agreement, (c) any penalties imposed on account of the violation of any law or regulation or of any term or condition of any permit in connection with this Agreement, or (d) any damage arising under this Agreement from any loss or damage to materials and equipment owned, rented or borrowed by Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, participants, volunteers, sponsors or any others engaged in connection with the Services rendered by Contractor under the Agreement. (20) INTOXICATION. Contractor agrees to be responsible for injuries or damage caused by any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or volunteers who are under the influence of alcohol, drugs, hallucinogens or narcotics, whether or not legally prescribed. Neither Contractor nor City shall permit any of Contractor’s employees or volunteers discovered to be under the influence of any of the foregoing substances from remaining in any facility used under the terms of this Agreement and City reserves the right of denying such persons further participation in the Productions. Consumption of alcoholic beverages or use of illegal drugs at the Facility is expressly forbidden by any person working for Contractor, paid or volunteer. This includes all staff, actors, crew and musicians. (21) WORKER'S COMPENSATION. Contractor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Code, and it certifies that it will comply with such provisions during the Term of the Agreement. (22) INSURANCE. Contractor, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect throughout the Term of the Agreement insurance coverage insuring not only Contractor and its subcontractors, if any, but also, with the exception of workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance, City, its officers, agents, and employees and each of them. City is to be named as Additional Insured with liability coverage of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00). A copy of the certificate(s) of insurance shall be attached to the Agreement and shall be filed with City concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. Said certificate shall be subject to the approval of City Attorney and shall contain an endorsement stating that Page 17 said insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or altered by the insurer except after filing with City Clerk thirty (30) days' written notice of such cancellation or alteration. Current certificates of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the Term of the Agreement. (23) WEAPONS. No firearms or other weapons, whether loaded or not, shall be allowed in the Facility or any other City property. Stage weapons and firearms designed solely for the use of blank cartridges will be allowed if they are being used as a prop in the current Production, but must be stored, when not being used, in a secure manner by Contractor’s stage manager or his/her designee. (Please reference City’s Danger Policy, Appendix L.) (24) LEGAL COMPLIANCE. Contractor and all its paid employees, subcontractors, and volunteer participants are required to abide by all applicable federal, state and local laws and ordinances. Page 18 EXHIBIT D THEATREWORKS ADDENDUM Contractor’s (THEATREWORKS’) personnel shall be permitted to manage, distribute and collect the hearing-impaired devices (“headsets”) that City owns for use by hearing-impaired persons at all Performances at the Facility, subject to the following restrictions: (a) Contractor shall verify that all headsets and batteries are present and functioning normally and shall report to Project Manager or his/her designee any missing or broken items before taking control of them for the run of the Production. (b) For any damage or loss of any headset while under Contractor’s control, Contractor shall promptly, upon request, pay City the fair market price for any necessary replacement or repair of any component of the headsets, as such replacement or repair is reasonably determined by Project Manager or his/her designee. (c) Contractor will diligently ensure the security of the headsets, in a manner approved by Project Manager or his/her designee, when the headsets are not in use. When the headsets are not so secured, Contractor will not leave the headsets unattended. (d) Contractor will provide at least one (1) person in the Facility lobby, whose sole responsibility will be to distribute and collect the headsets, as the case may be, pursuant to the following: (i) Beginning one-half (1/2) hour before each Performance until ten (10) minutes after the Performance begins; (ii) At all times during any and all intermissions; and (iii) From the end of the Performance until all of the headsets have been returned. (e) Contractor shall collect a Driver’s License or credit card as security for the loan of a headset, which Driver’s License or credit card will be returned to its owner upon return of the headset. Contractor will implement procedures for the safe handling of the Driver’s Licenses and credit cards and their return to their owners. (f) Contractor’s responsibility at the end of each performance will include the following: (i) Clean and otherwise sanitize all the earpieces by swabbing them with isopropyl alcohol swabs. (ii) Turn off the on/off/volume switches on all returned headsets and remove the batteries, placing the batteries into the battery charger. (iii) Return all headsets and batteries to their storage case. Page 19 (iv) Verify the presence of all twenty (20) headsets and batteries. (v) Return the headset storage case to its place in the rolling cart. (vi) Return the rolling cart to the House Manager’s Closet. (vii) Be sure the rolling cart is plugged into an electrical outlet. (viii) Make sure the battery charger is getting power, as indicated by the red light on the top of the case. (ix) Padlock the rolling cart’s doors shut, using either the padlock provided by City or a padlock supplied by Contractor, provided that Project Manager or his/her designee has been given a copy of the key or the combination. (x) Immediately report to City’s attendant at the Facility any missing headsets, and turn over to the attendant any malfunctioning headsets. The provisions of this Exhibit D may be terminated upon reasonable notice at any time by Project Manager or his/her designee, and may be terminated upon thirty (30) days’ prior written notice by Contractor. Page 20 EXHIBIT E NON-DISCRIMINATION FORM Certification of Nondiscrimination: As suppliers of goods or services to City of Palo Alto, the firm and individuals listed below certify that they do not discriminate in employment with regard to age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, disability, or sexual preference and that they are in compliance with all federal, state, and local directives and executive orders regarding nondiscrimination in employment. THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS CERTIFIED CORRECT BY SIGNATURE(S) BELOW. THEATREWORKS, a California non-profit public benefit corporation Signature: ____________________________________________________________ By: Phil Santora Managing Director Signature: ____________________________________________________________ By: Scott Devine General Manager Page 21 EXHIBIT F 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 AND 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 NO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE City OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTORAND 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 Page 22 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 CONTRACTOR 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 Page 23 EXHIBIT K CITY OF PALO ALTO NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY Page 24 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Regulations Of The City Of Palo Alto Regarding Prohibited Conduct in Community Centers and Theatres Appendix B The City of Palo Alto Injury and Prevention Program Appendix C Policy for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages Appendix D Operations Manual Appendix E Safety Procedures and Guidelines Appendix F Building Emergency Procedures Appendix G Procedure for Adjusting the Forestage Height Including Use of the Scissor Lift Appendix H House Manager’s Guide Appendix J Costume Room Guidelines Appendix K City Report of Accident/Property Damage Appendix L City’s Danger Policy Page 25 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 TheatreWorks Production and Exclusive Use Schedule, 2014 – 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 Contractor’s Budget for the Term ATTACHMENT 3 Contractor’s Pricing Policy ATTACHMENT 4 Name of Contractor’s Fiscal Agent ATTACHMENT 5 Contractor’s Most Recently Filed California State Tax Form 199 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4921) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contracts for Library Materials Acquisitions Title: Approval of Contracts with Baker & Taylor for Up to Six Years for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $3 Million for the Purchase of Library Materials and Services, with Ingram for Up to Six Years for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $550,000 for Print Materials and Services, and with Midwest Tape for Up to Six Years for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $450,000 for Media and Digital Materials and Services From: City Manager Lead Department: Library RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the following contracts for up to six years: 1. Contract (C15153095) with Baker & Taylor for library materials and services in an amount not to exceed $1 Million in fiscal year 2015, and an amount not to exceed $400,000 annually in fiscal years 2016 to 2020. The six-year total does not exceed $3 Million. 2. Contract (C15154864) with Ingram for print materials and services in an amount not to exceed $100,000 in fiscal year 2015, and an amount not to exceed $90,000 annually in fiscal years 2016 to 2020. The six-year total does not exceed $550,000. 3. Contract (C15154865) with Midwest for media and digital materials and services in the amount of $75,000 in fiscal years 2015-2020. The six year total does not exceed $450,000.00. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The contracts enable the Library to acquire materials and services. The Library will use Baker & Taylor as a primary supplier of materials and services related to the acquisition of materials. Ingram will be used as a secondary supplier for print materials and services as needed to best supply those materials in a particular format or quantity. Midwest Tape will be used as a secondary supplier for media materials and services in the as needed to best supply media in a particular format or quantity. City of Palo Alto Page 2 BACKGROUND The Library regularly purchases over 90% of new items for its collections from distributors who maintain large inventories of titles from many publishers and producers. Obtaining print, media and digital materials through these suppliers offers many advantages over purchasing from individual publishers: * Higher discounts off of the list, or retail, prices * Larger and more varied inventories * Efficiencies in placing orders and processing payments * Greater use of technologies needed to communicate with library databases and systems * The option to deliver the materials user-ready with services provided by the supplier * Tools for managing library collections Staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to wholesalers who provide these materials to public libraries. Some vendors specialize in providing different types of materials. Therefore, the RFP was structured so a vendor could propose to provide one or more major category of library materials such as adult books, children's books, audiovisual media, library continuation, digital content, along with a variety of services they are able to provide. Contracts are established with one or more of the vendors that best meet the selection criteria. DISCUSSION A Request for Proposal (RFP) for the provision of library materials with services was issued in March 2014. An evaluation team consisting of staff from the Palo Alto City Library and Sunnyvale City Library evaluated the five proposals. In evaluating proposals, the team used the following evaluation factors and weights: * Ability to provide tools compatible with the Library's current automated system to allow online selection, collection analysis, electronic ordering and invoicing 40% * Ability to provide types of materials as indicated by breadth and depth of warehouse inventories 20% * Ability to provide services as indicated by the Library's cataloging and processing specifications and by speed in delivering acquired titles 20% * The proposed fees relative to the materials and services provided 10% Since not all vendors provided a response to all parts of the RFP, the evaluation was broken into two principal types of materials - Books (Print, Audio and Digital) and Media . An evaluation summary of the major components of the RFP is provided in Attachment A. Books (Print, Audio and Digital) Of the five vendors who responded to the RFP, four submitted proposals to provide books: Baker& Taylor; Brodart; Ingram Library Services and Gale. On the basis of inventory, delivery time and level of services provided, the proposals from Baker & Taylor and Ingram Library City of Palo Alto Page 3 Services were judged to be superior to those of the other vendors. Baker & Taylor's online order database was more functional than Ingram's, specifically by offering a less-cluttered visual presentation, an easier-to-use system of search filters, and a search-by-review-source feature. These features resulted in greater staff efficiency in the selection and ordering of library materials. Additionally, Baker & Taylor's Customized Library Services provided collection development and shelf-ready services that the Library needs. Therefore, staff recommended selecting Baker & Taylor as the primary vendor for the provision of adult and children's materials. Ingram was recommended as secondary as it provided materials from certain publishers that Baker & Taylor either did not have or was unable to provide in the same discount rate. Media Three of the five vendors provided responses to the media section of the RFP: Baker & Taylor; Ingram; and Midwest Tape. Ingram does not have a comprehensive enough product line to meet Library's media needs. Baker & Taylor and Midwest Tape have the types of inventory for media materials Library needed. For the reasons noted above, Baker & Taylor's online order database is more functional than both Ingram's and Midwest Tape's. Baker & Taylor was recommended for the provision of media materials as primary vendor. Midwest Tape was recommended as secondary as it provides materials from certain production companies that Baker & Taylor does not. TIMELINE Staff will acquire materials from these vendors as soon as the contracts are executed. RESOURCE IMPACT Funds for the contracts have been budgeted for Fiscal Year 2015. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Approval of contracts to purchase library materials does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, no environmental assessment is needed. Attachments:  Attachment A: RFP 153094 Evaluations (PDF)  Attachment B: Contract with Baker & Taylor, Inc. - S15153094 (PDF)  Attachment C: Contract with IngramLibrary Services, Inc. - C15153864 (PDF)  Attachment D: Contract with Midwest Tape, LLC - C15153865 (PDF) Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C15153094 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BAKER & TAYLOR, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 1st day of July, 2014, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and BAKER & TAYLOR, INC., a Delaware corporation, located at 2550 West Tyvola Road, Suite 300, Charlotte, NC 28217 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to procure Library Books and Services (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide these books and 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, 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. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2020 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 1 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 Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for the additional services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Zero Dollars ($0). Annual Not to Exceed amounts are: a) $1,000,000 in year 1 (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015) b) $400,000 in year 2 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016) c) $400,000 in year 3 (July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017) d) $400,000 in year 4 (July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018) e) $400,000 in year 5 (July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019) f) $400,000 in year 6 (July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C”, entitled “COMPENSATION,” 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”). 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 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 Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 2 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. 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 Jeff McDaniel as the vice president to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Mark Blaisdell- Buck 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 Diane Lai, Library Department, 1213 Newell Road, Palo Alto, CA 9430. The project Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 3 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. 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 Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 4 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 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. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 5 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 6 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 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 Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 7 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 8 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. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney CONSULTANT BAKER & TAYLOR, INC. By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 9 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES Standard Services Inventory / Order Fulfillment As titles are received in Consultant’s service center, they are “scanned in” by barcode or UPC number. This creates a unique identifier for each title. This identifier will always be associated with the title, and helps to ensure accuracy at each point in the order fulfillment process. As a book is physically selected from Consultant’s inventory shelves, the title is scanned and compared against the barcode number associated with the Libraries ordered title. Multiple Checkpoints Library’s title order is checked and re-checked for accuracy as it flows through Consultant’s various departments. As titles are selected for Library orders, they are checked against Library’s original order. As these same titles move through Consultant’s sortation process, they are again checked against the original order. Processing Services Any orders requiring processing services are circulated through Consultant’s Processing Department. Here, the order is checked against processing specification sheets. These sheets detail the cataloging /processing requested for the titles ordered on an account, as well as any special instructions associated with the order. Processing sheets are developed only after the appropriate Library contact has reviewed and approved the specifications for the account. Packing / Shipping After titles have been properly processed to specifications, they move forward to be packaged. Items are boxed in new cartons, to protect against any damage during shipment. The destination address of the boxed order is now verified against Consultant’s shipping label. Consultant’s enhanced shipping label includes the pack date, freight carrier, account number, B&T pick list number, carton number and individual carton weight. Each carton in a shipment is numbered, and the final carton also indicates total carton count (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of 4). Customized Library Services Consultant will work with the Library and its staff to develop and determine the required service specifications at no additional cost. Consultant’s project management approach is described below. Project Management Approach The formation of Consultant’s Customized Library Services (CLS) brought with it the development of a project- oriented approach to Ongoing Collection Development, Opening Day Collections, and Ongoing Online Cataloging and Processing. This approach allows CLS management to schedule all facets of a project or ongoing service, including resources, and provides the foundation and framework for the entire project while creating a mutual understanding of the requirements of both the Library and CLS. The first step in the implementation of the CLS project management process is the establishment of a project team. All CLS project teams consist of a minimum of a project manager, collection development manager, an automation specialist/cataloging/processing manager, and an account coordinator. Team members are responsible for managing their assigned resources to complete the project. In turn, each team member works closely with the project manager to ensure compliance to all requirements. The development of the project team begins upon receipt of a completed Customer Needs Assessment or formal/informal proposal request. The project team immediately becomes part of the CLS response team and helps develop an approach that will successfully complete the project and meet the Library’s requirements. This process ensures that all management resources are in place prior to the submission of Consultant’s response. Consultant’s experience has shown that when the Library sets up a project team with similar project responsibilities and scope in Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 10 advance of the project or ongoing service startup, the documentation and implementation of services is more efficient, accurate, and thorough. Additionally, the Library’s internal project team, supported by a designated Library project manager, can provide a central point of contact for all issues and information. This will help foster communication and insure that all internal Library timelines and schedules are met. Upon successful award to CLS, the project manager immediately contacts the Library’s project manager to begin developing the partnership that will carry throughout CLS service to the Library or the projects’ completion. At this time, the project manager contacts the Library to review the next steps in the process and possible site visit dates and also requests samples of barcodes, genre labels, ownerships labels or other labels as applicable. The project manager will work with the Library to schedule a series of conference calls, including the appropriate CLS and Library project team members. The goals of these calls will be to establish connectivity to the Library’s catalog, review the cataloging and processing specifications supplied in the proposal process and further define them if needed, profile any collection development needs, and assist in the coordination of any electronic ordering/account set up. At the end of these conference calls, all CLS project team members will review their notes and provide a comprehensive requirements documentation package to the Library. Upon receipt of the Library’s approval of the requirements package, CLS will create cataloged and processed samples. Library’s project manager will deliver these samples to the Library, giving the Library another opportunity to confirm that CLS understands their requirements. At this time the project manager can walk the Library through placing their first orders and discuss a fulfillment schedule with the Library. Ultimately, the key to successful project management is communication. Internally, CLS emphasizes and focuses on team communication for facilitation and completion of all processes and tasks. Externally, this communication is no less important. Team to team communication between the Library and CLS builds a confidence and the environment that is needed for the successful completion of any project. In support of this “communications environment”, the project manager is responsible for establishing regular conference calls with the Library and all the CLS team members. These meetings can serve a number of purposes, such as the regular review of profiles, requirements, and project status updates. Consultant’s experience has also proven that these meetings and calls aid in the development of the relationship between CLS and the Library by promoting open lines of communication at all times and by helping to resolve any issues or questions to the mutual satisfaction of the Library and CLS. A final component of project management is consulting support. All CLS project managers have significant project and delivery experience that can provide ongoing support and aide to the Library. This additional knowledge base is free of charge and comes from working with seasoned project professionals. This support can be an invaluable and timely tool from collection development strategy all the way to the delivery implementation. As a current customer, Library has an established CLS Project Team as outlined below. CLS will work with the Library to review its account structure, cataloging profiles, and processing profiles. Based on this review, CLS will make any updates necessary. Library’s project manager will work with the Library, Consultant, and the CLS Regional Sales Manager to determine what steps the CLS project team needs to take. Mark Blaisdell-Buck Project Manager Penny Prince Account Coordinator Lori Gray CLS Western Regional Sales Manager Amy Glaza Sales Consultant Penny Ginn Cataloging Manager Consultant Service Cataloging services for the City of Palo Alto are available through Customized Library Services (CLS). Customized Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 11 Library Services' custom cataloging is Consultant’s premier service. CLS preferred method is to access the Library’s ILS using the Z39.50 protocol. Customized Library Services has partnered with The Library Corporation (TLC) to create a state of the art cataloging methodology that leverages Z39.50 protocol for accessing the Library's database and a resource pool of records from the Library of Congress and any Consultant created records. This technology allows Consultant’s CLS catalogers to have access to the most current version of the Library's cataloging records without the overhead of being directly online. Records obtained from the Library's database are saved to a Library specific work file located in our secure cataloging utility. The records in the work file are used in the creation of spine labels and as a vehicle for providing item-linking information. Original cataloging (described below as well) will be performed as needed. Major Features of the CLS Preferred Cataloging Methodology (Z39.50): Only authorized CLS catalogers have access to the Library's database and work file. The cataloger will process material first by searching for a matching record in the Library's database and work file simultaneously. A successful search occurs when Consultant’s cataloger matches the data elements found in the appropriate record tags. CLS considers the title, author, imprint/publisher, edition and date of publication when matching a record. During the CLS profiling, the project team will document the appropriate attributes for matching records. When a matching record is found, the appropriate item level information (examples: barcode number, list price, collection code, etc.) is keyed and the record is saved to the Library's work file. If a record is not found in the Library’s database or work file, the CLS Bibliographic Database is searched, followed by LC MARC and the resource databases of TLC. The CLS Bibliographic Database contains all CIP records upgraded to full MARC standards by CLS catalogers, as well as new records created by CLS original catalogers. If the record is not found in the above resources, the Library may also choose to have CLS search OCLC on their behalf for records not found in the Library’s catalog. Once a record is located in OCLC it is saved to the Library’s work file and the record is updated to the Library’s specifications. The option of utilizing OCLC will also help to minimize the Library’s need for original cataloging. Please note that the process of using OCLC is available upon CLS’ receipt of a signed third party agreement which grants permission to Consultant’s catalogers to access OCLC on the Library’s behalf. There are no additional charges from CLS for this service. However, it should be noted that all corresponding OCLC charges will be the responsibility of the Library. On a weekly basis, an electronic file is sent to OCLC to update the Library’s holdings for all contributed records. When a full matching record is found in one of the resource databases, it is upgraded to meet the Library's specifications and the appropriate item tag is keyed. The record is then saved to the Library's work file. If the matching record found is not a full level record, the record is upgraded to meet LC standards and is saved to the CLS Bibliographic Database. The record is then further edited to meet the Library’s specifications and the appropriate item record is keyed. The record is then saved to the Library’s work file. The exception to a full level record would be that some AV pre-pub records are not upgraded to full MARC standards. However, these records are upgradeable to the Library’s local standards. If a matching record cannot be found in the multi-database search string, a request is forwarded to an original cataloger in the CLS department. Consultant’s original catalogers will create a record according to AACR2 rules. LC authority files are used to validate author and subject headings. Once the record is created, it is saved into the CLS Bibliographic Review File. Once the record has been reviewed and approved, it is saved in the CLS Bibliographic Database. The Library’s assigned cataloger is notified and the record will be edited to meet the Library's specification and appropriate item tag is keyed. Every title sent to the Library will have a full MARC record with the appropriate item tags. The records will either Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 12 be new additions to the Library’s catalog, edited and modified to the Library’s standards, or existing records from the Library’s catalog. When the cataloger has completed the order, laser printed label sets consisting of spine, barcode, bibliographic, and other labels as required by the Library are printed. The barcode is provided in a standard format, with an eye readable number strip available. All other labels are customizable for font, pitch, boldness and italics. Options for label font include Courier, Times New Roman and Arial and pitches 12, 14, 16 and text can be left justified or centered. For thin books, Consultant can provide one line spine labels and for Picture Books we can provide a larger font author letter spine label. The Library will supply a unique barcode range, barcode prefix, and symbology information. Call number and bibliographic information is extracted directly from the MARC record to ensure accuracy. After the labels are printed, a file of MARC records corresponding to the titles in the order is created. Released records are flagged so they cannot be selected again. The file of records will be put on the B&T FTP server for the Library to retrieve and load. The records are maintained on the Library's work file for historical reference. Processing The CLS department has over 300 trained professionals staffed to handle the Library’s customized requirements. These staff members are dedicated to meeting the Library’s requirements and exceeding Libraries expectations. After cataloging is complete, the processing department completes the physical processing of each item. The processors review the processing instructions gathered at the site visit. Following these instructions, the processor attaches the spine label, barcode, and any special labels required by the Library. After the application of all physical components, the Library’s materials move to the jacket selection area. Experienced technicians size the books so the appropriate Mylar jacket can be applied to the dust cover of the book. After the material is fully processed, it is ready for the final and most important stage in our CLS process, back audit. Back Audit The back audit team is the final step in ensuring the material Consultant ships to the Library is of the highest quality and is in compliance with the Library’s profiled specifications. The CLS back auditors inspect each order by cross referencing the completed processing and the processing instructions gathered at the site visit. Once the Library’s material passes this stage, the order is ready to be staged for delivery to the Library. EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 13 The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the rate schedule below up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $3,000,000, with the following annual limits: a) $1,000,000 in year 1 (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015) b ) $400,000 in year 2 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016) c) $400,000 in year 3 (July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017) d) $400,000 in year 4 (July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018) e) $400,000 in year 5 (July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019) f) $400,000 in year 6 (July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation for the additional services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $0. 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. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $780,000 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $0. ONGOING SERVICES – PRINT MATERIAL………………...………………..………………$3.95/UNIT INCLUDES: 1. ADAPTIVE AND COPY CATALOGING WITH CIP UPGRADES WHERE NEEDED, UTILIZING Z39.50 PROTOCOL 2. ITEM LINKING 3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 4. MYLAR JACKET 5. SPINE LABEL 6. GENRE LABEL 7. BARCODE 8. PROPERTY STAMP 9. “NEW” LABEL 10. BOOK PLATES AS NEEDED 11. LABEL PROTECTORS ADDITIONAL SERVICES AT THE LIBRARY’S REQUEST: RFID (APPLY ONLY) ……………………………...………………………………………………..…………...$0.10/UNIT RFID (APPLY AND LINK) …………………………...………………………………...……………..…………….. .$0.25/UNIT SPOKEN WORD/JUVENILE KITS CATALOGING AND PROCESSING (ADDITIONAL) Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 14 ………………………………$2.25/UNIT VINABIND (ADDITIONAL) ………………………………………………………………….……………….……$4.75/UNIT LAMINATED COVERS (ADDITIONAL)………………………………………………………...……………….…$1.99/UNIT ORIGINAL CATALOGING …………………………………………………………………………..……………$10.00/TITLE  BAKER & TAYLOR’S PAYMENT TERMS ARE NET 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF INVOICE. OWNERSHIP TRANSFER AND INVOICING WILL OCCUR ON THE DATE CATALOGING AND PROCESSING IS COMPLETED AND THE MATERIALS ARE EITHER SHIPPED, OR PLACED IN STORAGE AT A BAKER & TAYLOR FACILITY. IF STORAGE IS REQUIRED, BAKER & TAYLOR WILL STORE THE MATERIALS IN A FULLY INSURED AND CLIMATE CONTROLLED FACILITY UNTIL THE DESIRED SHIPMENT DATES. INVOICES ARE MAILED TO THE LIBRARY AT THE TIME INVOICING OCCURS.  FOR THOSE RECORDS WHERE CATALOGING IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE LIBRARY’S DATABASE OR B&T’S CATALOGING UTILITY, CLS WILL PROVIDE AN ORIGINAL CATALOGING RECORD FOR $10.00/TITLE. TITLES REQUIRING ORIGINAL CATALOGING WILL BE PRICED SEPARATELY AT $10.00/TITLE FOR THE FIRST COPY OF EVERY TITLE ORDERED. IF MULTIPLE COPIES OF A TITLE ARE ORDERED, THE $10.00 CHARGE WILL ONLY APPLY ONCE, HOWEVER, THE COMPREHENSIVE CATALOGING AND PROCESSING CHARGE WILL APPLY TO EACH UNIT INCLUDING THE INITIAL UNIT THAT RECEIVES THE $10.00 CHARGE. A/V MATERIAL PRICING Pricing is subject to change based on specifications or case changes. If the library requires alternate processing or cataloging requirements, it is at the discretion of CLS to adjust pricing accordingly. DVD CATALOGING AND PROCESSING DVD……………………………………………………………………………………$5.25/UNIT* INCLUDES: 1. ADAPTIVE AND COPY CATALOGING UTILIZING Z39.50 PROTOCOL 2. ITEM LINKING 3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 4. REPACKAGE DVDS IN NON-STANDARD PACKAGING INTO STANDARD CASES 5. SPINE LABEL 6. PROPERTY LABEL 7. BARCODE 8. HUB LABEL DVD PROCESSING ONLY……………………………………………………………….$2.75/UNIT* INCLUDES: 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 2. REPACKAGE DVDS IN NON-STANDARD PACKAGING INTO STANDARD CASES 3. SPINE LABEL 4. PROPERTY LABEL 5. BARCODE 6. HUB LABEL Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 15 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AT THE LIBRARY’S REQUEST: DIGITAL MEDIA PROCESSING (ADDITIONAL) ……………………………………………………………..……$0.60/UNIT RFID (APPLY ONLY) …………………………………………………………………..………………….…… $0.10/UNIT RFID (APPLY AND LINK) …………………..………………………………………………………..……….… $0.25/UNIT STINGRAY (APPLY ONLY) ………………………………………………………………………..…..………… $0.45/UNIT STINGRAY (APPLY AND LINK) ……………………………………………………………………………….… $0.50/UNIT * TITLES REQUIRING ORIGINAL CATALOGING WILL BE PRICED SEPARATELY AT $10.00/TITLE. THE COMPREHENSIVE CATALOGING AND PROCESSING CHARGE WILL APPLY TO EACH UNIT, INCLUDING THE INITIAL UNIT THAT RECEIVES THE $10.00 CHARGE. * AV CATALOGING AND PROCESSING PRICES FOR CDS AND DVDS ARE FOR BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE DISC FORMAT.  BAKER & TAYLOR’S PAYMENT TERMS ARE NET 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF INVOICE. OWNERSHIP TRANSFER AND INVOICING WILL OCCUR ON THE DATE CATALOGING AND PROCESSING IS COMPLETED AND THE MATERIALS ARE EITHER SHIPPED, OR PLACED IN STORAGE AT A BAKER & TAYLOR FACILITY. INVOICES ARE MAILED TO THE LIBRARY AT THE TIME INVOICING OCCURS. MUSIC CD CATALOGING AND PROCESSING MUSIC CD…………………………………………………………………………………$5.25/UNIT* INCLUDES: 1. ADAPTIVE AND COPY CATALOGING UTILIZING Z39.50 PROTOCOL 2. ITEM LINKING 3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 4. REPACKAGE CDS IN NON-STANDARD PACKAGING INTO STANDARD CASES 5. SPINE LABEL 6. PROPERTY LABEL 7. BARCODE 8. HUB LABEL MUSIC CD PROCESSING ONLY…………………………………………………………….$2.75/UNIT* INCLUDES: 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 2. REPACKAGE CDS IN NON-STANDARD PACKAGING INTO STANDARD CASES 3. SPINE LABEL 4. PROPERTY LABEL 5. BARCODE 6. HUB LABEL ADDITIONAL SERVICES AT THE LIBRARY’S REQUEST: Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 16 DIGITAL MEDIA PROCESSING (ADDITIONAL) ……………………………………………………………..……$0.60/UNIT RFID (APPLY ONLY) …………………………………………………………………..………………….…… $0.10/UNIT RFID (APPLY AND LINK) …………………..…………………………………………..…………………….… $0.25/UNIT STINGRAY (APPLY ONLY) ……………………………………………………………………………………… $0.45/UNIT STINGRAY (APPLY AND LINK) ……………………………………………………………………………….… $0.50/UNIT * TITLES REQUIRING ORIGINAL CATALOGING WILL BE PRICED SEPARATELY AT $10.00/TITLE. THE COMPREHENSIVE CATALOGING AND PROCESSING CHARGE WILL APPLY TO EACH UNIT, INCLUDING THE INITIAL UNIT THAT RECEIVES THE $10.00 CHARGE. * AV CATALOGING AND PROCESSING PRICES FOR CDS AND DVDS ARE FOR BOTH SINGLE AND MULTIPLE DISC FORMAT.  BAKER & TAYLOR’S PAYMENT TERMS ARE NET 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF INVOICE. OWNERSHIP TRANSFER AND INVOICING WILL OCCUR ON THE DATE CATALOGING AND PROCESSING IS COMPLETED AND THE MATERIALS ARE EITHER SHIPPED, OR PLACED IN STORAGE AT A BAKER & TAYLOR FACILITY. INVOICES ARE MAILED TO THE LIBRARY AT THE TIME INVOICING OCCURS. DISCOUNT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE Palo Alto City Library (Firm Order Book/Spoken Word Audio) Baker & Taylor, Inc. is pleased to offer the discount terms and conditions listed below. The pricing grid below provides discounts for each product category offered by Baker & Taylor. Product Category Category Definition * Price Indicator Discount I. Adult Trade Hardcover Editions (Popular Fiction & Non-Fiction) 0 (zero) (Hardcover Trade Editions) C (Hardcover Computer Books) 47.1 % II. Juvenile Trade Hardcover Editions (POPULAR FICTION & NON-FICTION) J 47.1 % III. Adult Quality Paperback Editions (Popular Fiction & Non-Fiction) B (Paperback Trade Editions) C (Paperback Computer Books) 41.2 % IV. Juvenile Quality Paperback Editions (Popular Fiction & Non-Fiction)G 41.2 % V. Mass Market Paperback Editions P 41.2 % VI. Single Edition Reinforced (Juvenile) R 22.3 % VII. Publisher's Library Edition (Juvenile) Z 22.3 % VIII. University Press Trade Editions A 10.0 % Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 17 IX. Text, Technical, Reference, Small Press, and/or Titles of Limited Demand (May be of any binding and includes non-trade University Press titles and some spoken word audio) S/X/N (Text, Technical, or Reference Editions) L (Hardcover Editions from Small, Specialty Publishers and/or Titles of Limited Demand) M (Paperback Editions from Small, Specialty Publishers and/or Titles of Limited Demand) T/U/V/W/4/7/Letter O (Specialty Textbooks) 5/6/8 (Professional Medical Titles) S = 10.0 %X = 10.0 % N = 0.0% (2) L = 10.0 % (3) M = 10.0 % (3) T = 0.0% U = 0.0% V = 0.0% W = 0.0% 4 = 0.0 % 7 = 0.0 % Letter O= 0.0% 5= 0.0% 6= 0.0% 8= 0.0% X. Imported English and Non-English Language Editions F/K/1/3 F = 0.0 % K = 0.0 % 1 = 0.0 % 3 = 0.0 % XI. Enhanced Service Program Y / Q 0.0 % (4) XII. Spoken Word Audio H 45.4 % (5) XIII. Board Books I 22.3 % XIV. Novelty Items/Activity Books I 22.3 % XV. Special Programs, such as: - PawPrints Editions - Turtleback Editions - Playaway D E All Playaway Audio Editions D = 0.0 % E = 0.0 % Playaway = 25.0 % (1) Please see the attached category definitions, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Materials produced for TextStream print-on-demand services may fall into any category, depending upon the relationship established with the individual content suppliers. (2) Titles which receive minimal publisher discount will be invoiced at publisher’s list price. (3) Represents publishers with limited sales volume, based upon a semi-annual review and individual titles which qualify for preferred stock status, but have limited demand (calculated over a rolling 12 month period). Also represents individual titles which do not qualify for preferred stock status, based upon quarterly review. These titles may be of any binding type or publisher of origin. (4) Titles where Baker & Taylor receives no discount from the publisher or prepayment is required by the publisher or publishers whose titles have limited demand and/or non-commercial publishers will be invoiced at list price. (5) Category XII in Baker & Taylor’s Category Definitions. Approximately 92% of Spoken Word Audio Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 18 Materials purchased fall into Category XII. The remainder of Spoken Word Materials may be classified as Category I, VII, VIII, IX, or XI. Discounts are based on the categories as described in our proposal. DISCOUNT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE Palo Alto City Library (Continuations Materials) Baker & Taylor, Inc. is pleased to offer the discount terms and conditions listed below. The pricing grid below provides discounts for each product category offered by Baker & Taylor. Product Category Category Definition * Price Indicator Discount I. Adult Trade Hardcover Editions (Popular Fiction & Non-Fiction) 0 (zero) (Hardcover Trade Editions) C (Hardcover Computer Books) 1-3 copies/title 44.6% 4+ copies/title 45.0% II. Juvenile Trade Hardcover Editions (POPULAR FICTION & NON-FICTION) J 1-3 copies/title 44.6% 4+ copies/title 45.0% III. Adult Quality Paperback Editions (Popular Fiction & Non-Fiction) B (Paperback Trade Editions) C (Paperback Computer Books) 1-3 copies/title 43.3% 4+ copies/title 43.7% IV. Juvenile Quality Paperback Editions (Popular Fiction & Non-Fiction) G 1-3 copies/title 43.3% 4+ copies/title 43.7% V. Mass Market Paperback Editions P 1-3 copies/title 43.3% 4+ copies/title 43.7% VI. Single Edition Reinforced (Juvenile) R 11.1 % VII. Publisher's Library Edition (Juvenile) Z 11.1 % VIII. University Press Trade Editions A 11.1 % Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 19 IX. Text, Technical, Reference, Small Press, and/or Titles of Limited Demand (May be of any binding and includes non-trade University Press titles and some spoken word audio) S/X/N (Text, Technical, or Reference Editions) L (Hardcover Editions from Small, Specialty Publishers and/or Titles of Limited Demand) M (Paperback Editions from Small, Specialty Publishers and/or Titles of Limited Demand) T/U/V/W/4/7/Letter O (Specialty Textbooks) 5/6/8 (Professional Medical Titles) S = 11.1 % X = 11.1 % N = 7.5% (2) L = 1-3 copies/title 44.6% 4+ copies/title 45.0% (3) M = 1-3 copies/title 43.3% 4+ copies/title 43.7% (3) T = 0.0% U = 0.0% V = 0.0% W = 0.0% 4 = 11.1% 7 = 11.1% Letter O= 11.1% 5= 7.5% 6= 11.1%8= 11.1% X. Imported English and Non-English Language Editions F/K/1/3 F = 0.0 % K = 11.1 % 1 = 0.0 % 3 = 7.5 % XI. Enhanced Service Program Y / Q Q = 7.5 % Y = 0.0 % (4) XII. Spoken Word Audio H 0.0 % (5) XIII. Board Books I 1-3 copies/title 44.6% 4+ copies/title 45.0% XIV. Novelty Items/Activity Books I 1-3 copies/title 44.6% 4+ copies/title 45.0% XV. Special Programs, such as: - PawPrints Editions - Turtleback Editions - Playaway D E All Playaway Audio Editions D = 0.0 % E = 0.0 % Playaway = 25.0 % (1) Please see the attached category definitions, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Materials produced for TextStream print-on-demand services may fall into any category, depending upon the relationship established with the individual content suppliers. (2) Titles which receive minimal publisher discount will be invoiced at publisher’s list price. (3) Represents publishers with limited sales volume, based upon a semi-annual review and individual titles which qualify for preferred stock status, but have limited demand (calculated over a rolling 12 month period). Also represents individual titles which do not qualify for preferred stock status, based upon quarterly review. These titles may be of any binding type or publisher of origin. (4) Titles where Baker & Taylor receives no discount from the publisher or prepayment is required by the publisher or publishers whose titles have limited demand and/or non-commercial publishers will be invoiced Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 20 at list price. (5) Category XII in Baker & Taylor’s Category Definitions. Approximately 92% of Spoken Word Audio Materials purchased fall into Category XII. The remainder of Spoken Word Materials may be classified as Category I, VII, VIII, IX, or XI. Discounts are based on the categories as described in our proposal. Discount Terms and Conditions of Sale Also, please note that:  Publisher’s list price is subject to change without notice.  Except where otherwise noted, book discounts are applied to current publisher's list price at the time of shipment.  Baker & Taylor reserves the sole right to be the final determinant of product categories, category definitions and price indicators. The discounts vary based on this determination.  Titles are categorized by Baker & Taylor for pricing purposes by considering the binding, general marketing categories, demand for certain titles, preferred stock status, cost of acquisition, cost of distribution, and the size or type of publisher, as well as factors related to relationships with publishers such as shipping terms, payment terms, publisher’s discount, returnability to publishers and other factors.  Product categories, category definitions and price indicators are subject to change at Baker & Taylor’s sole discretion, without notice, based upon the above-described factors for categorizing titles.  For domestic titles where no publisher list price is assigned by the publisher, Baker & Taylor will assign such titles a price in its electronic catalog which is based upon Baker & Taylor’s estimate of market conditions.  For imported titles where no publisher list price is assigned by the publisher for the U.S. market, Baker & Taylor will assign such titles a U.S. dollar price in its electronic catalog which is based upon Baker & Taylor’s estimate of market conditions.  For PawPrints editions, Baker & Taylor will assign such titles a price in its electronic catalog which is based upon Baker & Taylor’s estimate of market conditions.  Titles of limited demand or from small or specialty publishers generally are included in Product Category IX or Product Category XI.  The discount terms and conditions listed do not apply to Baker & Taylor’s Approval Programs.  Baker & Taylor provides an invoice that identifies the publisher’s current list price, the discount offered, and the exact price charged for each title ordered. Discount Terms and Conditions of Sale (AUDIO VISUAL MATERIAL) Palo Alto City Library Please refer to the following Terms and Conditions of Sale for the discounts offered to the Palo Alto City Library for Audio Visual Material. Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 21 Media Type Price Range Discount off Current Producer’s List Price DVD/Blu-ray Any Price 29.0%* Music CD Any Price 27.0%* Playaway VIEW Any Price 0.0%* List prices used for calculating discounts are manufacturers' current, suggested list prices, where available. Where no list price is supplied by the manufacturer, a list price will be assigned by Baker & Taylor. *AV titles with minimal discount or supplier restrictions or titles from small, specialty vendors will be invoiced at Manufacturers’ Suggested Retail Price. Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $780,000 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $0 Maximum Total Compensation $780,000 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. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C. 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 22 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 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 Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 23 WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 24 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4863) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Purchase of twelve CNG vans Title: Approval of a Purchase Order with National Auto Fleet Group in a Not to Exceed Amount of $432,003 for the Purchase of Twelve Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vans (Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Capital Improvement Program VR-14000) From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, a purchase order with National Auto Fleet Group in the amount of $432,003 for the purchase of twelve compressed natural gas (CNG) service vans. Background Audit of Vehicle Utilization and Replacement This purchase is being conducted with full consideration for the Audit of Vehicle Utilization and Replacement. The vehicles being replaced through this purchase order have, on average, greatly exceeded the minimum mileage accumulation of 2,500 miles or 50 usage hours annually. The Fleet Review Committee has reviewed this request and has authorized the purchase of these vehicles. The approval was based on:  An examination of each vehicle’s current usage;  An analysis of each vehicle’s operating and replacement costs;  A comparison of the age, mileage, operating cost and performance of each vehicle with others in the class; and  An analysis of alternatives to ownership, such as mileage reimbursement; pooling/sharing; the reassignment of another underutilized vehicle, or renting; and City of Palo Alto Page 2  An assessment if a more cost effective type/style of vehicle can be utilized. Discussion The City’s CNG fleet currently includes 12 compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled vans with fuel tanks that will expire by the end of 2014. These vans are shared by multiple departments including Public Works, Utilities, and Administrative Services (ASD). Unlike gasoline fueled vehicles, CNG vehicles come with fuel tanks that are only certified for use for a limited amount of time. Once the expiration date on the fuel tanks is reached, the CNG vehicles can no longer be operated. The options at that point are to either have new fuel tanks installed (at a cost of approximately $8,000 per vehicle for these vans) or eliminate the vehicles from the fleet for a considerably low resale value. Staff recommends replacing the existing CNG vans now while the fuel tanks are still useable so that there is an opportunity to benefit from the resale value. There continues to be a strong demand for alternate fueled vehicles which is creating higher than normal resale values on CNG vehicles, as long as the vehicles’ fuel tanks are not yet expired. Because the cost to replace a tank of a vehicle is more than the estimated resale value, staff does not recommend replacing the tanks of the vehicles. The vans are currently assigned to Public Works for the Facilities maintenance staff, ASD/Stores for material delivery, Utilities/Wastewater-Gas-Water for inspection services, Public Works/Public Services-Trees for inspection services, and Water Quality Control Plant for the maintenance mechanics. Bidding and Selection Process The City’s Municipal code, PAMC section 2.30.360 (j) identifies the process that allows the use of Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing agreements. Bids for this purchase were obtained through the National Joint Purchasing Alliance (NJPA), Attachment A, which is an approved cooperative group. The NJPA purchase price for each of these vans is approximately $10,000 below the manufacturer’s suggested retail (sticker) price. Along with receiving a significantly reduced purchase price through NJPA, this process also allows the City to take advantage of clean air credit from the California Energy Commission (CEC) program PON-13-610. This CEC credit offers $6,000 towards the purchase of each van (to a maximum of 10 credits per customer) so Palo Alto can receive $60,000 City of Palo Alto Page 3 towards the purchase of these vans. Staff recommends that Council approve this agreement with National Auto Fleet Group for the purchase of these vans. Resource Impact Funding is available for this purchase in Vehicle Replacement Fund Capital Improvement Project VR-14000. Policy Implications Authorization of the contract does not represent any change to the existing policy. Purchase of these vehicles supports Comprehensive Plan by removing older, more polluting vehicles from the roadways and replacing them with newer more efficient ones. Environmental Review The vehicles being supplied are in conformance with all applicable emissions laws and regulations. Accordingly, this purchase is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under the CEQA guidelines (Section 15061). Attachments:  NJPA Bid Document (PDF) Page 1 of 47 National Joint Powers Alliance® (herein NJPA) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (herein RFP) for the procurement of PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES RFP Opening October 28, 2011 8:00 AM Central TIME At the offices of the National Joint Powers Alliance® 200 First Street Northeast, Staples, MN 56479 RFP #102811 The National Joint Powers Alliance® (NJPA) issues this request for proposal (RFP) to provide PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, Specifications and details of this RFP are available beginning September 6, 2011and continuing until October 4, 2011. Details and specifications may be obtained by letter of request to Gregg Meierhofer, NJPA, 200 First Street Northeast, Staples, MN 56479, or by e-mail at RFP@njpacoop.org. Proposals will be received until October 27, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. Central Time at the above address and opened October 28, 2011at 8:00AM Central Time. The text above is the Public Notice to Proposers to be used by NJPA. RFP Timeline September 6, 2011 and September 13, 2011 October 4, 2011 October 7, 2011 AM Central October 27, 2011 4:30 PM. Central October 28, 20118:00AM Central • Publication of RFP in the print and online Minneapolis Star Tribune, the NJPA website, and on the website of noticetobidders.com  Deadline for RFP requests  Pre-Proposal Conference (webcast – conference call)  Deadline for Submission of Proposals  Public Opening of Proposals Direct questions regarding this RFP to: Gregg Meierhofer at gregg.meierhofer@njpacoop.org or (218)894-1930 RFP Procedures offers the methods for submitting questions. RFP 081411 2 of 47 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION A. About NJPA B. Joint Exercise of Powers Laws C. Why Propose a National Cooperative Procurement Contract D. The Intent of this RFP E. Scope of this RFP F. Expectations for Products/Services being Proposed G. Certification – Firm offer to contract H. Pre-Proposal Conference 2. DEFINITIONS A. Proposer – Vendor B. Contract C. Time D. Proposer’s Response E. Currency F. FOB 3. INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARING YOUR PROPOSAL A. Pre-Proposal Conference B. Identification of key personnel C. Proposer’s exceptions to terms and conditions D. Formal instructions to Proposers E. Questions and answers about this RFP F. Modification or withdrawal of a submitted Proposal G. Value added attributes, products/services H. Certificate of Insurance I. Order Process and/or Funds Flow J. Administrative Fees 4. PRICING STRATEGIES A. Line-Item Pricing B. Mass Produced Production Vehicles C. All other Vehicles and accessories D. Hot List Pricing E. Ceiling Price F. Volume Price Discounts G. Sourced Goods H. Cost Plus a Percentage of Cost I. Total Cost of Acquisition J. Requesting Product and Service additions/deletions K. Requesting Pricing Changes L. Pricing and Products Changes Format M. Single Statement of Pricing – Historical Record of Pricing N. Payment Terms O. Sales Tax P. Shipping and Shipping Program Q. Normal Working Hours 5. MARKETING PLAN 6. PROPOSAL OPENING PROCEDURE 7. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS A. Proposal evaluation process B. Proposer Responsiveness C. Proposal evaluation criteria D. Cost Scoring Evaluation E. Product Testing F. Past performance information G. Waiver of formalities 8. POST AWARD OPERATING ISSUES A. Subsequent Agreements B. NJPA Member sign-up procedure C. Reporting of sale activity D. Audits E. Hub Partner F. Trade-Ins G. Out of Stock Notification H. Termination of a Contract resulting from this RFP 9. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDIITONS A. Advertisement of RFP B. Advertising a Contract Resulting From this RFP C. Applicable law D. Assignment of Contract E. Proposers List F. Captions, Headings, and Illustrations G. Confidential Information H. Data Privacy I. Entire Agreement J. Force Majeure K. Gratuities L. Hazardous Substances M. Legal Remedies N. Licenses O. Material Suppliers and Sub-Contractors P. Non-Wavier of Rights Q. Protests of Awards Made R. Provisions Required by Law S. Public Record T. Right to Assurance U. Suspension or Disbarment Status V. Human Rights Certificate W. Severability X. Relationship of Parties 10. FORMS A,B,C,D,E,G,H,I 11. PRE-SUBMISSION CHECKLSIT 12. ATTACHMENT 1 (I&M Price Sheet) RFP 081411 3 of 47 INTRODUCTION A. ABOUT NJPA 1.1 The National Joint Powers Alliance®- (NJPA)- is a public agency serving as a national municipal contracting agency established under the Service Cooperative statute by Minnesota Legislative Statute §123A.21 with the authority to develop and offer, among other services, cooperative procurement services to its membership. Eligible membership includes states, cities, counties, governmental agencies, both public and non-public educational agencies, colleges, universities and non-profit organizations. This Minnesota Statute also allows for service to NJPA Member agencies in Minnesota and all other states. 1.2 To this end, NJPA has established a series of procurement contracts with various Vendors of products/services which NJPA Members desire to procure. These procurement contracts are created in compliance with applicable Minnesota Municipal Contracting Laws. A complete listing of NJPA cooperative procurement contracts can be found at www.njpacoop.org. 1.3 NJPA’s publicly elected Board of Directors calls for all proposals, awards all Contracts, and hosts those resulting Contracts and offers them for the benefit of its Membership. 1.3.1 Subject to Approval of the Board: Any award of Contract made by an authorized NJPA Employee will be subject to such action by the NJPA Board of Directors. 1.4 NJPA currently serves over 30,000 member agencies. Both membership and utilization of NJPA Contracts continues to expand at exponential rates. The value of our Contracts driven to our Members is reflected in our growth. B. JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS LAWS 1.5 NJPA cooperatively shares those contracts with its Members nationwide through various “Joint Exercise of Powers Laws” established in Minnesota and most other States. The Minnesota “Joint Exercise of Powers Law” is Minnesota Statute §471.59 which states “Two or more governmental units…may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties…” Similar Joint Exercise of Powers Laws for each State of the United States can be found on our website at http://www.njpacoop.org/LEARN/About/Legal.html and clicking on that state at the bottom of the web- page. C. WHY RESPOND TO A NATIONAL COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT CONTRACT 1.6 National Cooperative Procurement Contracts create value for both Municipal buyers and their Vendors of products/services in two ways: 1.6.1 We save the time and effort of many municipal buyers bringing individual procurement proposals AND the time and effort of the Vendors in responding individually to those invitations. A single invitation for a cooperatively held contract can replace potentially thousands of invitations for the same items from individual NJPA Members. 1.6.2 We earn volume purchasing discounts which are passed on to our Members. A single awarded Proposal is likewise exposed to thousands of potential Municipal purchasing units nationwide creating efficiency and savings to the business community as they sell products and services to government and education agencies. 1.7 State laws that permit or encourage cooperative purchasing contracts do so with the belief that lower prices, better overall value and time savings will be the result. RFP 081411 4 of 47 1.8 The collective purchasing power of thousands of NJPA Members nationwide offers the opportunity for volume pricing discounts. Although no volume is guaranteed by a Contract resulting from this RFP, substantial volume is anticipated and volume pricing is requested and justified. 1.9 NJPA and its Members desire the best value for their procurement dollar as well as a competitive price. Pre-competed procurement contracts offer NJPA and its Members the ability to more directly compare non-price factors in their procurement analysis and it offers Vendors the opportunity to display those attributes without the timing and interpretation constraints of a typical individual proposal process. D. THE INTENT OF THIS RFP 1.10 The intent of this RFP is to award an Exclusive Single Award Contract to a qualifying manufacturer or distributor Proposer demonstrating a solution which meets and/or exceeds the requirements of NJPA and its Members within the scope of PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES. Qualifying Proposers must be able to demonstrate the knowledge of any and all applicable industry standards, laws and regulations; and the ability to both market to and service NJPA Members in all 50 states. All proposals received will be evaluated based on (among several other factors) their ability to provide the greatest utility to NJPA and NJPA Members and across the widest spectrum of products and services. 1.11 NJPA desires a relationship with a vendor providing a broad array of equipment, products, supplies, accessories and services anticipated and generally requested and desired by NJPA members from the PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES industry. Those products and services must include those most commonly used and desired by NJPA and its Members. NJPA is seeking a Prime and Exclusive Vendor relationship to best serve the overall needs of NJPA and NJPA Members nationally. 1.12 Non-Manufacturer Awards: NJPA reserves the right to make an award related to this invitation to a non-manufacturer such as a dealer/distributor if such action is in the best interests of NJPA and its Members. 1.13 Multiple Awards: Although it is NJPA’s intent to award a contract to a single Vendor, NJPA reserves the right to award a Contract to multiple Proposers where the responding Proposers are deemed to lack the ability to appropriately service a national contract or such action is deemed to be in the best interests of NJPA and its Members 1.14 Award by Board of Directors: An Award of Contract may be made by the NJPA Board of Directors based on the recommendation of the NJPA Proposal Review Committee and on the best interests of NJPA and its Members. NJPA is seeking a Prime, Exclusive Vendor relationship(s) to meet this need. The goal and intent of this RFP is to follow through with a proposal award and contract to be marketed nationally through a cooperative effort between the awarded vendor(s) and NJPA to its participating members. 1.15 Best Responsive – Responsible Proposer: It is the intent of NJPA to award a Contract to the best responsible and responsive Proposer(s) offering the best overall quality and selection of products/services and services meeting the commonly requested specifications of the NJPA and NJPA Members, provided the Proposer’s Response has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of this RFP. 1.16 Sealed Proposals: NJPA will receive sealed proposal responses to this RFP in accordance with accepted standards set forth in the Minnesota Procurement Code and Uniform Municipal Contracting Law. Awards may be made to responsible and responsive Proposers whose proposals are determined in writing to be the most advantageous to NJPA and its current or qualifying future NJPA Members. 1.17 Use of Contract: Any Contract resulting from this solicitation shall be awarded with the understanding that it is for the sole convenience of NJPA and its Members. NJPA and/or its members RFP 081411 5 of 47 reserve the right to obtain like goods and services solely from this Contract or from another contract source of their choice. 1.18 NJPA’s interest in a contract resulting from this RFP: Not withstanding its own use, to the extent NJPA issues this RFP and any resulting contract for the use of its Members, NJPA’s interests and liability for said use shall be limited to the competitive proposal process performed and terms and conditions relating to said contract and shall not extend to the products, services, or warranties of the Awarded Vendor or the intended or unintended effects of the goods and services procured there from. 1.19 Sole Source of Responsibility- NJPA desires a “Sole Source of Responsibility” Vendor meaning the Vendor will take sole responsibility for the performance of delivered products/services. NJPA also desires sole responsibility with regard to: 1.19.1 Scope of Products/Services: NJPA desires a single provider for the broadest possible scope of the goods and services being proposed over the largest possible geographic area and to the largest possible cross-section of NJPA Members. 1.19.2 Vendor use of sub-contractors in sourcing or delivering goods and services: NJPA desires a single source of responsibility for products/services proposed. Proposer’s are assumed to have sub-contractor relationships with all organizations and individuals whom are external to the Proposer and are involved in providing or delivering the goods and services being proposed. Vendor assumes all responsibility for the products/services and actions of any such Sub- Contractor. E. SCOPE OF THIS RFP 1.20 Additional Definition for the scope of this solicitation. 1.20.1 In addition to PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, this solicitation should be read to include: 1.20.1.1 OEM Production vehicles from the Manufacturer (OEM) 1.20.1.2 Alt Fuel Vehicles and Vehicles utilizing leading edge technologies. 1.20.1.3 Cab and Chassis Trucks 1.20.1.2 Dump Trucks, Service Bodies, Flat Beds. 1.20.1 NJPA reserves the right to limit the scope of this solicitation for market segments already being serviced by existing NJPA procurement contracts. 1.21 Solutions Based Invitation: 1.21.1 All potential Proposers are assumed to be professionals in their respective fields. As professionals you are deemed to be intimately familiar with the spectrum of NJPA and NJPA Member’s needs and requirements with respect to the scope of this RFP. 1.20.2 With this intimate knowledge of NJPA and NJPA Member’s needs, Proposers are instructed to provide their proposal response in a format describing their solutions to those current and future needs and requirements. Proposers should take care to be economical in their response to this RFP. RFP 081411 6 of 47 1.21.3 Multiple solutions to the needs of NJPA and NJPA Member’s are possible. Examples could include: 1.21.3.1 Materials Only Solution: A Materials Only Solution may be appropriate for situations where NJPA or NJPA Members possess the ability, either in-house or through local third party contractors, to properly install and bring to operation those materials being proposed. 1.21.3.2 Turn-Key Solutions: A Turn-Key Solution is combination of materials and services which provides a single price for materials, delivery, and installation to a properly operating status. Generally this is the most desirable solution as NJPA and NJPA Members may not possess, or desire to engage, personnel with the necessary expertise to complete these tasks internally or through other independent contractors 1.20.3.3 Good, Better, Best: Where appropriate and properly identified, Proposers are invited to offer the CHOICE of good – better – best multiple grade solutions to NJPA and NJPA Member’s needs. 1.21.3.4 Proven – Accepted – Leading Edge Technology: Where appropriate and properly identified, Proposers are invited to provide the CHOICE of an appropriately identified spectrum of technology solutions to NJPA and NJPA Member’s needs both now and into the future. 1.22 Geographic Area to be Proposed: This RFP invites proposals to provide PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES to NJPA and NJPA Members throughout the entire United States and possibly internationally. Proposers will be expected to express willingness to explore service to NJPA Members located abroad; however the lack of ability to serve Members outside of the United States will not be cause for non-award. The ability to serve Canada, for instance, will be viewed as a value-added attribute. 1.23 Manufacturer as a Proposer: If the Proposer is a Manufacturer or wholesale distributor, the response received will be evaluated on the basis of a response made in conjunction with that Manufacturer’s Dealer Network. Unless stated otherwise, a Manufacturer or wholesale distributor Proposer is assumed to have a documented relationship with their Dealer Network where that Dealer Network is informed of, and authorized to accept, purchase orders pursuant to any Contract resulting from this RFP on behalf of the Manufacturer or wholesale distributor Proposer. Any such dealer will be considered a sub-contractor of the Proposer/Vendor. The relationship between the Manufacturer and wholesale distributor Proposer and its Dealer Network may be proposed at the time of the proposed submission if that fact is properly identified. 1.24 Dealer/Re-seller as a Proposer: If the Proposer is a dealer or re-seller of the products and/or services being proposed, the response will be evaluated based on the Proposer’s authorization to provide those products and services from their manufacturer. Where appropriate, Proposers must document their authority to offer those products and/or services. 1.25 Contract Term: A contract resulting from this RFP will become effective the date established in the “Offering and Award” (Form D). NJPA is seeking a Contract base term of four years subject to annual renewals as allowed by Minnesota Contracting Law. Full term is expected, however will only occur through successful annual renewals. One additional one-year renewal-extension may be offered by NJPA to Vendor beyond the original four year term if NJPA deems such action to be in the best interests of NJPA and its Members. 1.26 Minimum Contract Value: NJPA anticipates considerable activity resulting from this RFP and subsequent award; however no commitment of any kind is made concerning actual quantities to be acquired. NJPA does not guarantee usage. Usage will depend on the actual needs of the NJPA Members RFP 081411 7 of 47 and the value of the awarded contract. 1.27 Estimated Contract Volume: Estimated quantities and sales volume are based on potential usage by NJPA and NJPA Members. 1.28 Largest Possible Solution: If applicable, Contracts will be awarded to Proposer(s) able to deliver a proposal meeting the entire needs of NJPA and its Members within the scope of this RFP. NJPA prefers Proposers submit their complete product line of products and services described in the scope of this RFP. NJPA reserves the right to reject individual, or groupings of specific products/services proposals as a part of the award. 1.29 Contract Availability: This Contract must be available to all current and potential NJPA Members who choose to utilize this NJPA Contract to include all governmental agencies, public and private primary and secondary education agencies, and all non-profit organizations nationally. 1.30 Proposer’s Commitment Period: In order to allow NJPA the opportunity to evaluate each proposal thoroughly, NJPA requires any response to this solicitation be valid and irrevocable for ninety (90) days after the date proposals were opened regarding this RFP. F. EXPECTATIONS FOR PRODUCTS/SERVICES BEING PROPOSED 1.31 Industry Standards: Except as contained herein, the specifications or solutions for this RFP shall be those accepted guidelines set forth by the PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES industry, as they are generally understood and accepted within that industry across the nation. Submitted products/services, related services, and their warranties and assurances are required to meet and/or exceed all current, traditional and anticipated needs and requirements of NJPA and its Members. 1.31.1 Deviations from industry standards must be identified by the Proposer and explained how, in their opinion, the products/services they propose will render equivalent functionality, coverage, performance, and/or service. Failure to detail all such deviations may comprise sufficient grounds for rejection of the entire proposal. 1.31.2 Technical Descriptions/Specifications. Bidder’s must supply sufficient information to:  Demonstrate the Bidder’s knowledge of industry standards, and  identify the products and services being bid, and  differentiate those products and services from others. Excessive technical descriptions and specifications which, in the opinion of NJPA, unduly enlarges the bid response may reduce evaluation points awarded on Form G. 1.32 Important note: NJPA does not typically offer specific product and service specifications; rather NJPA is requesting an industry standard or accepted specification for the requested products and services. Where specific line items are specified, those line items should be considered the minimum which can be expanded by the Proposer to deliver the Proposer’s “Solution” to NJPA and NJPA Member’s needs. 1.33 Commonly used Goods and Services: It is important that the products/services submitted are the products/services commonly used by public sector entities. 1.34 New Current Model Goods: Proposals submitted shall be for new, current model products and services with the exception of certain close-out products allowed to be offered on the Proposer’s “Hot List” described herein. RFP 081411 8 of 47 1.35 Compliance with laws and standards: All items supplied on this Contract shall comply with any current applicable safety or regulatory standards or codes. 1.36 Delivered and operational; Products offered herein are to be proposed based upon being delivered and operational at the NJPA Member’s site. Exceptions to “delivered and operational” must be explicitly disclosed in the “Total Cost of Acquisition” section of your proposal response. 1.37 Warranty: The Proposer/Vendor warrants that all products, equipment, supplies, and services delivered under this Contract shall be covered by the industry standard or better warranty. All products and equipment should carry a minimum industry standard manufacturer’s warranty that includes materials and labor. The Proposer has the primary responsibility to submit, as a part of Tab 7, product specific warranty as required and accepted by industry standards. Dealer/Distributors agree to assist the purchaser in reaching a solution in a dispute over warranty’s terms with the manufacturer. Any manufacturer’s warranty which is effective past the expiration of the warranty will be passed on to the NJPA member. Failure to submit a minimum warranty may result in the non-award. 1.38 Proposer’s Warrants: The Proposer warrants all goods and services furnished hereunder will be free from liens and encumbrances; and defects in design, materials, and workmanship; and will conform in all respects to the terms of this RFP including any specifications or standards. In addition, Proposer/Vendor warrants the goods and services are suitable for and will perform in accordance with the purposes for which they were intended. G. CERTIFICATION – FIRM OFFER TO CONTRACT 1.39 By execution and delivery of a proposal, Proposer certifies: 1. The submission of the offer did not involve collusion or any other anti- competitive practices; 2. The Proposer/Vendor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment in violation of Federal and State Laws (see Federal Executive Order 11246); 3. The Proposer has not given, offered to give, nor intends to give at any time hereafter any economic opportunity, future employment, gift, loan, gratuity, special discount, trip, favor or service to a public servant in connection with the submitted offer (see Gratuities); and, 4. The Proposer agrees to promote and offer to Members only those products/services and/or services as previously stated, allowed, and deemed a resultant of the contract(s) as NJPA contract items or services. This clause shall include any future product or service additions as allowed through Contract additions. 1.40 A response to this RFP is a firm offer to Contract with the NJPA based upon the goals, intent, terms, and conditions and scope of products/services contained in and referenced to in this invitation. 1.41 All stated terms and conditions, expectations to include the goals, intent and scope of this RFP as described as a part of this RFP, are to be considered binding under the signatures of authorized parties and are part of the Contract. H. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE 1.42 A Pre-Proposal Conference (Webcast – Conference Call) will be held at the date and time identified on the title page for this proposal. 1.43 An invitation with access instructions will be sent via e-mail to all inquirer’s the morning following the deadline for proposal inquiries (the day before the conference). 1.44 The purpose for the conference is to allow for questions from the Potential Bidders AND to allow for input from the Potential Bidders regarding perceived improvements to this RFP. 1. DEFINITIONS RFP 081411 9 of 47 A. PROPOSER - VENDOR 2.1 Exclusive Vendor- A sole Vendor awarded in a product category. NJPA reserves the right to award to an Exclusive Vendor in the event that such an award is in the best interests of NJPA Members. Such a Proposer must exhibit the ability to offer an outstanding overall program and demonstrate the ability and willingness to serve NJPA Members in all 50 states, and comply with all other requirements of this RFP. 2.2 Potential Proposer- A person or entity requesting a copy of this RFP. 2.3 Proposer- A company, person, or entity delivering a timely response to this RFP. 2.4 Vendor- One of a number of Proposers whose proposal has been awarded a contract pursuant to this RFP. 2.5 Request for Proposal- Herein referred to as RFP B. CONTRACT 2.6 “Contract” as used herein shall mean cumulative documentation consisting of this RFP, an entire Proposer’s response, and a fully executed “Acceptance and Award” pursuant to this RFP. C. TIME 2.7 Periods of time, stated as number of days, shall be in calendar days. D. PROPOSER’S RESPONSE 2.8 A Proposer’s Response is the entire collection of documents as they are received by NJPA from a Potential Proposer in response to this RFP. E. CURRENCY 2.9 All transactions are payable in U.S. dollars on U.S. sales. All administrative fees are to be paid in U.S. dollars. F. FOB 2.10 FOB stands for “Freight On Board” and defines the point at which responsibility for loss and damage of goods purchased are transferred from Seller to Buyer. “FOB Destination” defines the transfer of responsibility for loss are transferred from Seller to Buyer at the Buyer’s designated delivery point. 2.11 FOB does not identify whom is responsible for the costs of shipping. The responsibility for the costs of shipping is addressed elsewhere in this document. 2. INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARING YOUR PROPOSAL A. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE 3.1 A non-mandatory pre-proposal conference will be held at the date and time specified in the time line on page one of this RFP. Conference call and web connection information will be sent to all Potential Proposers through the same means employed in their inquiry. The purpose of this conference call is to allow Potential Proposers to ask questions regarding this RFP. Only answers issued in writing by NJPA RFP 081411 10 of 47 to questions asked before or during the Pre-proposal Conference shall be considered binding. B. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY PERSONNEL 3.2 Vendor will designate one senior staff individual who will represent the awarded Vendor to NJPA. This contact person will correspond with members for technical assistance, questions or problems that may arise including instructions regarding different contacts for different geographical areas as needed. 3.3 Individuals should also be identified (if applicable) as the primary contacts for the contents of this proposal, marketing, sales, and any other area deemed essential by the Proposer. C. PROPOSER’S EXCEPTIONS TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS 3.4 Any exceptions, deviations, or contingencies a Proposer may have to the terms and conditions contained herein must be documented on Form C. 3.5 Exceptions, Deviations or contingencies stipulated in Proposer’s Response, while possibly necessary in the view of the Proposer, may result in disqualification of a Proposal Response. D. FORMAL INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS 3.6 It is the responsibility of all Proposers to examine the entire RFP package, to seek clarification of any item or requirement that may not be clear and to check all responses for accuracy before submitting a Proposal. Negligence in preparing a Proposal confers no right of withdrawal after the deadline for submission of proposals. 3.7 All proposals must be sent to “The National Joint Powers Alliance®, 200 1st ST NE Staples, MN 56479.” 3.8 Format for bid response: All proposals must be physically delivered to NJPA® at the above address in the following format: 3.8.1 Hard copy Original signed, completed, and dated forms C,D, E, H, and I from this RFP, 3.8.2 Hard copies of all addenda issued for the RFP with original counter signed by the Proposer, 3.8.3 Certificate of insurance verifying the coverage identified in this RFP, 3.8.4 Two complete copies of your response on A CD (Compact Disc) or flash drive containing completed Forms A,B,C,D,E,H, and I, and your statement of products and pricing together with all appropriate attachments 3.9 All Proposal forms must be legible. All appropriate forms must be executed by an authorized signatory of the Proposer. Blue ink is preferred for signatures. 3.10 Proposal submissions should be submitted using the electronic forms provided. If a Proposer chooses to use alternative documents for their response, the proposer will be responsible for ensuring the content is effectively equal to the NJPA form and the document is in a format readable by NJPA. 3.11 It is the responsibility of the Proposer to be certain the proposal submittal is in the physical possession of NJPA on or prior to the deadline for submission of proposals. 3.11.1 Proposals must be submitted in a sealed envelope or box properly addressed to NJPA and prominently identifying the proposal number, proposal category name, the message “Hold for Proposal Opening”, and the deadline for proposal submission. NJPA cannot be responsible for late receipt of proposals. Proposals received by the correct deadline for proposal submission will be opened and the name of each Proposer and other appropriate information will be publicly read. 3.12 Corrections, erasures, and interlineations on a Proposer’s Response must be initialed by the RFP 081411 11 of 47 authorized signer in original ink on all copies to be considered. 3.13 Addendums to the RFP: The Proposer is responsible for ensuring receipt of all addendums to this RFP. 3.13.1 Proposer’s are responsible for checking directly with NJPA, or checking the NJPA website for addendums to this RFP. 3.13.2 Addendums to this RFP can change terms and conditions of the RFP including the deadline for submission of proposals. F. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THIS RFP 3.14 Upon examination of this RFP document, Proposer shall promptly notify the Manager of Bids and Contracts of any ambiguity, inconsistency, or error they may discover. Interpretations, corrections and changes to this RFP must be made by addendum. Interpretations, corrections, or changes made in any other manner will not be binding and Proposer shall not rely upon such. 3.15 Submit all questions about this RFP, in writing, referencing “PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES to Gregg Meierhofer, NJPA, 200 First Street NE, Staples, MN 56479 or RFP@njpacoop.org. Those not having access to the Internet may call Gregg Meierhofer at (218) 894-1930 to determine if addenda have been issued or to request copies of the RFP. Requests for additional information or interpretation of instructions to Proposers or technical specifications shall also be addressed to Gregg Meierhofer. NJPA urges Potential Proposers to communicate all concerns well in advance of the deadline to avoid misunderstandings. Questions received less than seven (7) days ending at 4:00 p.m. Central Time of the seventh (7th) calendar day prior to proposal due-date cannot be answered. 3.16 If the answer to a question is deemed by NJPA to have a material impact on other potential proposers or the RFP itself, the answer to the question will become an addendum to this RFP. 3.17 If the answer to a question is deemed by NJPA to be a clarification of existing terms and conditions and does not have a material impact on other potential proposers or the RFP itself, no further documentation of that question is required. 3.18 As used in this solicitation, clarification means communication with a Potential Proposer for the sole purpose of eliminating minor irregularities, informalities, or apparent clerical mistakes in the RFP. 3.19 Addenda are written instruments issued by NJPA that modify or interpret the RFP. All addenda issued by NJPA shall become a part of the RFP. Addenda will be delivered to all Potential Proposers using the same method of delivery of the original RFP material. NJPA accepts no liability in connection with the delivery of said materials. Copies of addenda will also be made available on the NJPA website at www.njpacoop.org by clicking on “Current Proposals” and from the NJPA offices. No addenda will be issued later than five (5) days prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals, except an addendum withdrawing the request for proposals or one that includes postponement of the date of receipt of proposals. Each Potential Proposer shall ascertain prior to submitting a Proposal that it has received all addenda issued, and the Proposer shall acknowledge their receipt in its Proposal Response. 3.20 An amendment to a submitted proposal must be in writing and delivered to NJPA no later than the time specified for opening of all proposals. G. MODIFICATION OR WITHDRAWAL OF A SUBMITTED PROPOSAL 3.21 A submitted proposal may not be modified, withdrawn from or cancelled by the Proposer for a period of ninety (90) days following the date proposals were opened regarding this RFP. Prior to the deadline for submission of proposals, any proposal submitted may be modified or withdrawn by notice to the NJPA Manager of Bids and Contracts. Such notice shall be submitted in writing and include the RFP 081411 12 of 47 signature of the Proposer and shall be delivered to NJPA prior to the deadline for submission of proposals and it shall be so worded as not to reveal the content of the original proposal. However, the original proposal shall not be physically returned to the Potential Proposer until after the official proposal opening. Withdrawn proposals may be resubmitted up to the time designated for the receipt of the proposals if they are then fully in conformance with the Instructions to Proposer. H. VALUE ADDED ATTRIBUTES, PRODUCTS/SERVICES 3.22 Examples of Value Added Attributes: Value-Added attributes, products and services are items offered in addition to the products and services being proposed which adds value to those items being proposed. The availability of a contract for maintenance or service after the initial sale, installation, and set-up may, for instance, be “Value Added Services” for products where a typical buyer may not have the ability to perform these functions. 3.23 Where to document Value Added Attributes: The opportunity to indicate value added dimensions and such advancements will be available in the Proposer’s Questionnaire and Proposer’s product and service submittal and must be tabbed under Tab 5. 3.24 Value added products/services and expanded services, as they relate to this RFP, will be given positive consideration in the award selection. Consideration will be given to an expanded selection of PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, and advances to provide products/services, supplies meeting and/or exceeding today’s industry standards and expectations. A value add would include a program or service that further serves the members needs above and possibly beyond standard expectation and complements the products/services and training. Value added could include areas of product and service, sales, ordering, delivery, performance, maintenance, technology, and service that furthers the functionality and effectiveness of the procurement process while remaining within the scope of this RFP. 3.25 Minority, Small Business, and Women Business Enterprise (WMBE) participation: It is the policy of some NJPA Members to involve Minority, Small Business, and WMBE contractors in the purchase of goods and services. Vendors should document WMBE status for their organization AND any such status of their affiliates (i.e. Supplier networks) involved in carrying out the activities invited. The ability of a Proposer to provide “Credits” to NJPA and NJPA Members in these subject areas, either individually or through related entities involved in the transaction, will be evaluated positively by NJPA. NJPA is committed to facilitating the realization of such “Credits” through certain structuring techniques for transactions resulting from this RFP. 3.26 Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Opportunities: There is a growing trend among NJPA Members to consider the environmental impact of the products/services they purchase. Please identify any “Green” characteristics of the goods and services in your proposal and identify the sanctioning body determining that characteristic. Where appropriate, please indicate which products have been certified as “green” and by which certifying agency. 3.27 On-Line Requisitioning systems: When applicable, on-line requisitioning systems will be viewed as a value-added characteristic. Proposer shall include documentation about user interfaces that make on- line ordering easy for NJPA Members as well as the ability to punch-out from mainstream eProcurement or Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems that NJPA Members may currently utilize. 3.28 Financing: The ability of the Proposer to provide financing options for the products and services being proposed will be viewed as a Value Added Attribute. I. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE 3.29 Proposer shall procure and maintain insurance which shall protect the Proposer and NJPA (as an additional insured) from any claims for bodily injury, property damage, or personal injury covered by the indemnification obligations set forth herein. The Proposer shall procure and maintain the insurance RFP 081411 13 of 47 policies described below at the Proposer’s own expense and shall furnish to NJPA an insurance certificate listing the NJPA as certificate holder and as an additional insured. The insurance certificate must document that the Commercial General Liability insurance coverage purchased by the Proposer includes contractual liability coverage applicable to this Contract. In addition, the insurance certificate must provide the following information: the name and address of the insured; name, address, telephone number and signature of the authorized agent; name of the insurance company (authorized to operate in all fifty United States); a description of coverage in detailed standard terminology (including policy period, policy number, limits of liability, exclusions and endorsements); and an acknowledgment of notice of cancellation to the NJPA. 3.30 Proposer is required to maintain the following insurance coverage’s during the term of the NJPA Contract: (1) Workers Compensation Insurance (Occurrence) with the following minimum coverage’s: Bodily injury by accident--per employee $100,000; Bodily injury by disease--per employee $100,000; Policy limits $500,000. In addition, Proposer shall require all subcontractors occupying the premises or performing work under the contract to obtain an insurance certificate showing proof of Workers Compensation Coverage with the following minimum coverage’s: Bodily injury by accident--per employee $100,000; Bodily injury by disease--per employee $100,000; Policy limits $500,000. (2) Commercial General Liability Policy per occurrence $1,000,000. (3) Business Auto Policy to include but not be limited to liability coverage on any owned, non- owned and hired vehicle used by Proposer or Proposer’s personnel in the performance of this Contract. The Business Automobile Policy shall have a per occurrence limit of $1,000,000. 3.31 The foregoing policies shall contain a provision that coverage afforded under the policies will not be canceled, or not renewed or allowed to lapse for any reason until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to NJPA. Certificates of Insurance showing such coverage to be in force shall be filed with NJPA prior to commencement of any work under the contract. The foregoing policies shall be obtained from insurance companies licensed to do business nationally and shall be with companies acceptable to NJPA, which must have a minimum AM Best rating of A-. All such coverage shall remain in full force and effect during the term and any renewal or extension thereof. 3.32 Within ten (10) days of contract award, the Proposer must provide NJPA with two (2) Certificates of Insurance. Certificates must reference NJPA RFP 102811 by number. J. ORDER PROCESS AND/OR FUNDS FLOW 3.33 Please propose an order process and funds flow in Tab 6 for your proposal. Please choose from one of the following: 3.33.1 B-TO-G: The Business-to-Government order process and/or funds flow model involves NJPA Members issuing Purchase Orders directly to a Vendor and pursuant to a Contract resulting from this RFP. 3.33.3 Other: Please fully identify. K. ADMINISTRATIVE FEES 3.34 Proposer agrees to authorize and/or allow for an administrative fee payable to NJPA by an Awarded Vendor in exchange for its facilitation and marketing of a Contract resulting from this RFP to current and potential NJPA Members. This Administration Fee shall be: 3.34.1 Calculated as a percentage of the dollar volume of all products/services provided to and purchased by NJPA Members or calculated as reasonable and acceptable method applicable to the contracted transaction, and 3.34.2 Included in, and not added to, the pricing included in Proposer’s Response to this RFP, and RFP 081411 14 of 47 3.34.3 Set based on the anticipated costs of NJPA’s involvement in facilitating the establishment, Vendor training, and the order/product/funds flow of the Contract resulting from this RFP. 3.34.3.1 Typical administrative fees for a B-TO-G order process and funds flow is 2.0%. 3.35 The opportunity to propose these factors and an appropriate administrative fee is available in the Proposer’s Questionnaire, and submitted in Tab 9 of your response. 4. PRICING STRATEGIES 4.1 NJPA requests Potential Proposers respond to this RFP only if they are able to offer a wide array of products/services and at prices lower and better value than what they would ordinarily offer to single government agency, larger school district, or regional cooperative. 4.2 RFP is an “Indefinite Quantity Product/Service Price Request” with potential national sales distribution and service. Proposers are agreeing to fulfill Contract obligations regarding each product/service to which you provide a description and a price. If Proposer’s solution requires additional supporting documentation, describe where it can be found in your submission. If Proposer offers the solution in an alternative fashion, describe your solution to be easily understood. All pricing must be tabbed and organized under Tab 9, and copied on a CD along with other requested information as a part of a Proposer’s Response. 4.3 Regardless of the payment method selected by NJPA or NJPA Member, a total cost associated with any purchase option of the products/services and being supplied must always be disclosed at the time of purchase. 4.4 Primary Pricing/Secondary Pricing Strategies- All Proposers will be required to submit “Primary Pricing” in the form of either “Line-Item Pricing,” or “Percentage Discount from Catalog Pricing,” or a combination of these pricing strategies. Proposers are also encouraged to offer OPTIONAL pricing strategies including “Hot List,” “Sourced Goods,” and “Volume Discounts,” as well as financing options such as leasing. 4.5 Government Price Assistance- It is understood that a component of the pricing to be offered to this solicitation is “Government Price Assistance” from the respective OEM manufacturers. Prices quoted on vehicles including “Government Price Assistance” are available only to NJPA Members qualifying for “Government Pricing Assistance”. 4.5.1 For NJPA Members not qualifying for “Governmental Price Assistance” (Non-Profits for example) all other manufacturer rebates applicable at the time of delivery. A. LINE-ITEM PRICING 4.6 Line-Item pricing- A pricing format where specific individual products and/or services are offered at specific individual Contract prices. Products and/or services are individually priced and described by characteristics such as manufacture name, stock or part number, size, or functionality. This method of pricing offers the least amount of confusion as products and prices are individually identified, however Proposers with a large number of products to propose may find this method cumbersome. In these situations, a percentage discount from catalog or category pricing model may make more sense. 4.7 Format: Line Item vehicle pricing for this RFP must be submitted using attached “Price Form P1”. The intent here is to describe and price a “Base” vehicle in each of eight classes AND also offer, on an ala carte basis, options (both Manufacturer Options and Dealer Options) to customize each vehicle offered. 4.8 All Line-Item Pricing items must be numbered, organized, sectioned, including SKU’s (when applicable) and easily understood by the Proposal Review Committee and members. RFP 081411 15 of 47 4.9 Line-Item Pricing items are to be submitted in an Excel spreadsheet format provided and are to include all appropriate identification information necessary to discern the line item from other line items in each Proposer’s proposal. 4.10 The purpose for the excel spreadsheet format for Line-Item Pricing is to be able to use the “Find” function to quickly find any particular item of interest. For that reason, Proposers are responsible for providing the appropriate product and service identification information along with the pricing information which is typically found on an invoice or price quote for such products and services. 4.11 All products and services typically appearing on an invoice or price quote must be individually priced and identified on the line-item price sheet, including any and all ancillary costs. 4.12 Proposers are asked to provide both a “List” price as well as a “Proposed Contract Price” in their pricing matrix. “List” price will be the standard “quantity of one” price currently available to government and educational customers excluding cooperative and volume discounts B. MASS PRODUCED PRODUCTION VEHICLES 4.13 Original Equipment from the Manufacturer (OEM) mass production vehicles will be priced using the pricing sheets attached as “Attachment P” and executed according to the instructions contained on the first tab of that attachment. C. ALL OTHER VEHICLES AND ACCESSORIES. 4.14 Please use the general descriptions for “Line Item Pricing”. A format is not specified for these items beyond those provided in “Line Item Pricing”. Please use a format which fully identifies and prices the goods and services being offered. D. TAX AND OTHER CREDITS. 4.15 Tax and other credits accruing to the vehicle being purchased which are not applicable to an NJPA Member will accrue to the benefit of the Awarded Contractor. E. HOT LIST PRICING 4.16 Where applicable, NJPA also invites the Vendor, at their option, to offer a specific selection of products/services, defined as a Hot List Pricing, at greater discounts than those listed in the standard Contract pricing. All product/service pricing, including the Hot List Pricing, must be submitted in hard copy as well as electronically provided in Excel format. Hot List pricing must be submitted in a Line- Item format. Providing a “Hot List” of products/services is optional. Products/services may be added or removed from the “Hot List” at any time provided that current “Hot List” prices are provided to NJPA at all times. 4.17 Hot List pricing when applicable may also be used to discount and liquidate close-out and discontinued products/services as long as those close-out and discontinued items are clearly labeled as such. Current ordering process and administrative fees apply. This option must be published and made available to all NJPA Members. 4.18 Hot List Pricing is allowed to change at the discretion of the Vendor within the definition of Hot List Pricing. The Vendor is responsible to maintain current Hot List product/service descriptions and Pricing with NJPA. RFP 081411 16 of 47 E. CEILING PRICE 4.19 Proposal pricing is to be established as a ceiling price. At no time may the proposed products/services be offered pursuant to this Contract at prices above this ceiling price without approval by NJPA. Prices may be reduced to allow for volume considerations and to meet the specific and unique needs of an NJPA Member. 4.20 Allowable specific needs may include certain purchase volume considerations or the creation of custom programs based on the individual needs of NJPA Members. F. VOLUME PRICE DISCOUNTS 4.21 Proposers are free to offer volume discounts from the quantity-of-one pricing documented in a Contract resulting from this RFP. Volume considerations shall be determined between the Vendor and individual NJPA Members on a case-by-case basis. 4.22 Nothing in this Contract establishes a favored member relationship between the NJPA or any NJPA Member and the Vendor. The Vendor will, upon request by NJPA Member, extend this same reduced price offered or delivered to another NJPA Member provided the same or similar volume commitment, specific needs, terms, and conditions, a similar time frame, seasonal considerations and provided the same manufacturer support is available to the Vendor. 4.23 All price adjustments are to be offered equally to all NJPA Members exhibiting the same or substantially similar characteristics such as purchase volume commitments, and timing including the availability of special pricing from the Vendor’s suppliers. G. SOURCED GOODS 4.24 NJPA and NJPA Members may, from time to time, request goods and/or products/services within the scope of this RFP which are not included in an awarded Vendor’s line-item product /service listing or “list or catalog” known as Sourced Goods. 4.25 An awarded Vendor resulting from this RFP may “Source” these products/services for NJPA or NJPA Member to the extent they: 4.25.1 Include in their bid response a cost-plus-percentage-of-cost pricing factor for such Sourced goods and services, and 4.25.2 Provide as many quotes for the Member’s “Total Cost of Acquisition” for the goods and services to be sourced as may reasonably be required by NJPA Member. 4.25.3 Provide “Sourced Goods” only to the extent that they are incidental to the total transaction being contemplated. H. COST PLUS A PERCENTAGE OF COST 4.26 Except as provided in “Sourced Goods” above, cost plus a percentage of cost as a primary pricing mechanism is not desirable. I. TOTAL COST OF ACQUISITION 4.27 The Total Cost of Acquisition for the products/services being proposed, including those payable by NJPA Members to either the Proposer or a third party, shall be disclosed in the Proposer’s Response including but not limited to:  The capitalized cost of the listed products/services being proposed,  The cost of accessories, alterations, and customizations typically incurred in the acquisition of the RFP 081411 17 of 47 products/services being proposed.  The cost of delivery, setup and installation (where applicable) of the products/services and any accessories being proposed.  Other costs, where applicable, typically associated with the purchase, delivery, set-up, and installation of the products/services being proposed and making it operational at the purchaser’s site. 4.28 The Total Cost of Acquisition is to be stated “As Proposed.” As an example, a materials only proposal, or portions of proposals, must include the total cost of acquisition for those materials delivered. In contrast, the Total Cost of Acquisition for a turn-key proposal must include the total costs to be incurred in the process of delivering that combination of products/services. J. REQUESTING PRODUCT AND SERVICE ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 4.29 Requests for product, service, and price additions, deletions, or changes must be made in written form and shall be subject to approval by NJPA. 4.30 New products/services may be added to a Contract resulting from this RFP at any time during that Contract to the extent those products/services are within the scope of this RFP. Those requests are subject to review and approval of NJPA. Allowable new products/services generally include new updated models of products/services and or enhanced services previously offered which could reflect new technology and improved functionality. 4.31 Proposers representing multiple manufacturers, or carrying multiple related product lines may also request the addition of new manufacturers or product lines to their Contract to the extent they remain within the scope of this RFP. 4.32 NJPA’s due diligence in analyzing any request for change is to determine if approval of the request is 1) within the scope of the original RFP, and 2) in the “Best Interests of NJPA and NJPA Members.” We are looking for consistent pricing and delivery mechanisms and an understanding of what value the proposal brings to NJPA and NJPA Members. 4.33 Documenting the “Best Interests of NJPA and NJPA Members” when out-dated equipment is being deleted is fairly straight forward since the product is no longer available and not relevant to the procurement Contract. 4.34 Requests must be in the form of 1) a cover letter to NJPA a) asking to add the product line, b) making a general statement identifying how the products to be added are within the scope of the original RFP, and c) making a general statement identifying that, if appropriate, the pricing is consistent with the existing Contract pricing and 2) the detail as to what is being added at what price will then be an attachment to that cover letter. 4.35 NJPA’s intent here is to encourage Proposers to provide and document NJPA’s due diligence in a clear and concise one page format on which we can stamp and sign our acknowledgment and acceptance. This information must ultimately come from Proposers, and NJPA is requiring it in this format. K. REQUESTING PRICING CHANGES 4.36 Price Decreases: Requests for standard Contract price decrease adjustments (percentage discount increases) are encouraged and will be allowed at any time based on market place efficiencies, market place competitiveness, improved technologies and/or improved methods of delivery or if Vendor engages in innovative procurement practices such as strategic sourcing, aggregate and volume purchasing. NJPA expects Vendors to propose their very best prices and anticipates price reductions due to the advancement of technologies and market place efficiencies. Documenting the “Best Interests of NJPA and NJPA Members” is pretty easy when we are documenting price reductions. RFP 081411 18 of 47 4.37 Price increases: Requests for standard contract price increases (or the inclusion of new generation products/services/services at higher prices) can be made at any time. These requests will again be evaluated by NJPA based on the best interests of NJPA and NJPA Members. As an example, typically acceptable requests for price increases for existing products/services may cite increases to the Vendor of input costs such as petroleum or other applicable commodities. Typically acceptable requests for price increases for new products/services enhance or improve on the current solutions currently offered as well as cite increases in utility of the new compared to the old. Vendors are requested to reasonably document the claims cited in their requests. Your written request for a price increase, therefore, is an exercise in describing what you need, and a justification for why you need it in sufficient detail for NJPA to deem such change to be in the best interests of our self and our Members. 4.37 Price Change Request Format: An awarded Proposer will use the format of a cover letter requesting price increases in general terms (a 5% increase in product line X) and stating their justification for that price increase (due to the recent increase in petroleum costs) by product category. Specific details for the requested price change must be attached to the request letter identifying product/services where appropriate, both current and proposed pricing. Attachments such as letters from suppliers announcing price increases are appropriate for documenting your requests here. L. PRICE AND PRODUCT CHANGES FORMAT 4.39 NJPA’s due diligence regarding product and price change requests is to consider the reasonableness of the request and document consideration on behalf of our members. We would appreciate it if you would send the following documentation to request a pricing change: 4.39.1 A cover letter: a. Please address the following subjects in your cover letter: i. What product/service prices are changing? ii. How much are the prices changing? iii. Why are the prices changing? iv. Any additions or deletions from the previous product list and the reason for the changes. b. The specifics of the product/services and price changes will be listed in the excel spreadsheets indentified below. Please take a more general “Disclosure” approach to identifying changes in the cover letter. i. If appropriate, for example, state, “All paper products/services increased 5 % in price due to transportation costs.” ii. If appropriate, for instance, state, “The 6400 series floor polisher added to the product list is the new model replacing the 5400 series. The 6400’s 3% price increase reflects the rate of inflation over the past year. The 5400 series is now included in the “Hot List” at a 20% discount from previous pricing until remaining inventory is liquidated.” 4.39.2 An excel spreadsheet identifying all products/services being offered and their pricing. Each subsequent pricing update will be saved using the naming convention of “[Vendor Name] pricing effective XX/XX/XXXX.” a. Include all products/services regardless of whether their prices have changed. By observing this convention we will: i. Reduce confusion by providing a single, easy to find, current pricing sheet for each Vendor. ii. Create a historical record of pricing. M. SINGLE STATEMENT OF PRICING/HISTORICAL RECORD OF PRICING 4.40 Initially; and with each request for product addition, deletion, and pricing change; all RFP 081411 19 of 47 products/services and services available, and the prices for those products/services and services will be stated in an Excel workbook. The request for price changes described above will serve as the documentation for those requested changes. Each complete pricing list will be identified by its “Effective Date.” Each successive price listing identified by its “Effective Date” will create a “Product and Price History” for the Contract. 4.41 Proposers may use the multiple tabs available in an Excel workbook to separately list logical product groupings or to separately list product and service pricing as they see fit. 4.42 All products/services together with their pricing, whether changed within the request or remaining unchanged, will be stated on each “Pricing” sheet created as a result of each request for product, service, or pricing change. 4.43 Each subsequent “Single Statement of Product and Pricing” will be archived by its effective date therefore creating a product and price history for any Contract resulting from this RFP. N. PAYMENT TERMS 4.44 Payment terms will be defined by the Proposer in the Proposer’s Response. Proposers are encouraged to offer payment terms through P Card services. 4.45 Leasing- If available, identify any leasing programs available to NJPA and NJPA Members as part of your proposed. Proposers should submit an example of the lease agreement to be used. Proposers should identify:  General leasing terms such as: o The percentage adjustment over/under an index rate used in calculating the internal rate of return for the lease; and o The index rate being adjusted; and o The “Purchase Option” at lease maturity ($1, or fair market value); and o The available term in months of lease(s) available.  Leasing company information such as: o The name and address of the leasing company; and o Any ownership, common ownership, or control between the Proposer and the Leasing Company O. SALES TAX 4.46 Sales and other taxes and all applicable title transfer fees, where applicable, shall not be included in the prices quoted. Vendor will charge state and local sales and other taxes on items for which a valid tax exemption certification has not been provided. Each NJPA Member is responsible for providing verification of tax exempt status to Vendor. When ordering, if applicable, NJPA Members must indicate that they are tax exempt entities. Except as set forth herein, no party shall be responsible for taxes imposed on another party as a result of or arising from the transactions contemplated by a Contract resulting from this RFP. P. SHIPPING AND SHIPPING PROGRAM 4.47 Shipping program for material only proposals, or sections of proposals, must be defined and tabbed under Tab 9 as a part of the cost of goods. If shipping is charged to NJPA or NJPA Member, only the actual cost of delivery may be added to an invoice. Shipping charges calculated as a percentage of the product price may not be used, unless such charges are lower than actual delivery charges. No COD orders will be accepted. It is desired that delivery be made within ninety-days (90) of receipt of the Purchase Order. RFP 081411 20 of 47 4.48 Any shipping cost charged to NJPA or NJPA Members will be considered to be part of “proposal pricing.” 4.49 Additional costs for expedited deliveries or additional goods or services required by the end-user will be at the expense to the NJPA Member/End User. 4.50 Selection of a carrier for shipment will be the option of the party paying for said shipping. Use of another carrier will be at the expense of the requester. 4.51 Proposers must define their shipping programs for Alaska and Hawaii and any location not served by conventional shipping services. Over-size and over-weight items and shipments may be subject to custom freight programs. 4.52 Proposals containing restocking fees are less advantageous than those not containing re-stocking fees. That being said, certain industries cannot avoid restocking fees. Certain industries providing made to order goods may not allow returns. With regard to returns and restocking fees, Proposers will be evaluated based on the relative flexibility extended to NJPA and NJPA Members relating to those subjects. Where used, restocking fees in excess of 15% will not be considered excessive. Restocking fees may be waived, at the option of the Proposer/Vendor. Indicate all shipping and re-stocking fees in price program under Tab 9. 4.53 Proposer agrees shipping errors will be at the expense of the Vendor. For example, if a Vendor ships a product that was not ordered by the member, it is the responsibility of the Vendor to pay for return mail or shipment at the convenience of the member. 4.54 Unless specifically stated otherwise in the “Shipping Program” of a Proposer’s Response, all prices quoted must be F.O.B. destination with the freight prepaid by the Vendor. Time is of the essence on this Contract. If completed deliveries are not made at the time agreed, NJPA or NJPA Member reserves the right to cancel and purchase elsewhere and hold Vendor accountable. If delivery dates cannot be met, Vendor agrees to advise NJPA or NJPA Member of the earliest possible shipping date for acceptance by NJPA or NJPA Member. 4.55 Goods and materials must be properly packaged. Damaged goods and materials will not be accepted, or if the damage is not readily apparent at the item of delivery, the goods shall be returned at no cost to NJPA or NJPA Member. NJPA and NJPA Members reserve the right to inspect the goods at a reasonable time subsequent to delivery where circumstances or conditions prevent effective inspection of the goods at the time of delivery. 4.56 Vendor shall deliver Contract conforming products in each shipment and may not substitute products without approval from NJPA Member. 4.57 NJPA reserves the right to declare a breach of Contract if the Vendor intentionally delivers substandard or inferior products which are not under Contract and described in its paper or electronic price lists or sourced upon request to any member under this Contract. In the event of the delivery of a non-conforming product, NJPA Member will immediately notify Vendor and Vendor will replace non- conforming product with conforming product. 4.58 Throughout the term of the Contract, Proposer agrees to pay for return shipment on goods that arrive in a defective or inoperable condition. Proposer must arrange for the return shipment of damaged goods. 4.59 Unless contrary to other parts of this solicitation, if the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to this Contract, the purchasing member may: 1) reject the whole, 2) accept the whole or 3) accept any commercial unit or units and reject the rest. Q. NORMAL WORKING HOURS RFP 081411 21 of 47 4.60 Prices quoted are for products/services delivered during normal business hours. Normal Business hours will be as specifically defined herein, defined through industry standards OR defined through statement contained in the purchase/work order issued pursuant to a Contract resulting from this RFP. 5. MARKETING PLAN 5.1 Internal Marketing Plan: An award of Contract resulting from this RFP is an opportunity for the awarded contractor to pursue commerce with, and deliver value to NJPA and NJPA Members nationwide. An award of Contract is not an opportunity to see how much business NJPA can drive to an awarded Vendor’s door. Your internal marketing plan should serve to: 5.1.1 Identify the appropriate levels of sales management whom will need to understand the value of, and the internal procedures necessary to deliver this Contract opportunity to NJPA and NJPA Members through your sales force. 5.1.2 Identify, in general, your national foot print and dedicated feet-on-the-street sales force that will be carrying this Contract message and opportunity in the field to NJPA Members. Outline the sale force in terms of numbers and geographic distribution. 5.1.2.1 Identify whether your sales force are employees or independent contractors. 5.1.3 Identify your plan for delivering training to these individuals. 5.1.3.1 Will you have your sales force gathered at national or regional events in the near future? Does you sales force have the ability to participate in webinar or webcast events? 5.1.3.2 NJPA is prepared to provide our personnel in your location for sales training and/or on a webinar or webcast where sufficient efficiencies can be shown in reaching the appropriate groups within your employee base, and sufficient numbers of personnel trained. 5.1.4 Identify your personnel involved in training. 5.1.4.1 NJPA can provide personnel to deliver training regarding the Contract itself, the authority of NJPA to offer the Contract vehicle to its Members, the value the Contract vehicle delivers to NJPA and NJPA Members, the scope of NJPA Membership, and the authority of NJPA Members to utilize our procurement contracts. 5.1.4.2 Your personnel will be needed to provide training regarding employee compensation and internal procedures when delivering the Contract opportunity, and how this Contract purchasing opportunity relates with other such opportunities available. 5.2 Success in marketing is dependent upon 1) the delivery of value as defined in section 1.4, 2) the delivery of knowledge of the program and its proper use and utility, and 3) the delivery of opportunity and reward which creates a personal commitment to the program. NJPA desires a marketing plan that: 5.2.1 identifies the value delivered in a competitively proposed national cooperative procurement contract by relieving both the NJPA Member and the Vendor/Vendor’s sales staff of the responsibility for bringing and answering many similar and individual RFP’s; and 5.2.2 identifies the appropriate Vendor personnel from both management and sales staff’s who will be trained on the use and utility of such a contract and a general schedule of when and how those individuals will be trained; and 5.2.3 identifies in general how the reward system for the marketing, delivery, and service chain of RFP 081411 22 of 47 the Vendor will be affected by the implementation of the proposed Contract and how that will be proposed to those individuals in terms of the value created for them and their departments in 5.1.1 above. 5.3 External Marketing Plan: NJPA is seeking the ability to serve all our current and potential members nationwide. The Proposer must demonstrate the ability to both market and service their products/services/services nationwide. Please demonstrate your sales and service force contains sufficient people in sufficient proximities, to receive the knowledge, opportunity, and reward in order to make a personal commitment to serving NJPA and NJPA Members nationwide. 5.4 The Proposer must exhibit the willingness and ability to develop marketing materials and participate in marketing venues such as: 5.4.1 Printed Marketing Materials. Proposer will initially produce and thereafter maintain full color print advertisements in camera ready electronic format including company logos, identifying the Vendor, the Vendor’s general utility for NJPA and NJPA Members, and contact information to be used by NJPA and NJPA Members in a full page, half page, and quarter page formats. These advertisements will be used in the NJPA Catalog and publications. 5.4.2 Press releases and advertisements. Proposer will identify a marketing plan identifying their anticipated press releases, contract announcements, advertisements in industry periodicals, or other direct or indirect marketing activities. 5.4.3 Proposer’s Website. Proposer will identify how an Awarded Contract will be displayed on the Proposer’s website. An on-line shopping experience for NJPA and NJPA Members is desired when applicable and will be viewed as a value-added attribute to a Proposer’s Response. 5.4.4 Trade Shows. Proposer will outline their proposed involvement in the promotion of a Contract resulting from this RFP through trade shows. Vendors are encouraged to identify trade- show, and other appropriate venues, for the promotion of any such Contract. Vendors are strongly encouraged to participate in cooperation with NJPA at the following NJPA embraced trade shows: NAEP National Association of Education Procurement I-ASBO International Association of School Business Officials NIGP National Institute of Government Purchasing 5.5 Proposer must also work in cooperation with NJPA to develop a marketing strategy and provide avenues to equally market and drive sales through the Contract and program to all NJPA Members nationally. Awarded Vendor agrees to actively market in cooperation with NJPA all available products/services to current and potential NJPA Members. NJPA reserves the right to deem a proposer non-responsive or to waive an award based on an unacceptable marketing plan. 5.6 As a part of this response, submit a complete Marketing Plan on how you would help NJPA rollout this program to current and potential NJPA Members. NJPA requires the Vendor actively promote the Contract in cooperation with the NJPA. Vendors are advised to consider marketing efforts in the areas of 1) Website Link from Vendors website to NJPA’s website, 2) Attendance and participation with a display booth at national trade shows as agreed upon/required by NJPA, and 3) Sales team and sales training programs involving both Vendor sales management and NJPA staff. NJPA requires awarded Vendors to offer the NJPA Contract opportunity to all current and qualified NJPA Members. 5.7 Facilitating NJPA Membership: Proposer should express their commitment to determine the membership status of their customers whom are eligible for NJPA Membership, AND their commitment RFP 081411 23 of 47 to establishing that membership. 5.7.1 Membership information: Proposer should further express their commitment to capturing sufficient member information as is deemed necessary by NJPA to appropriately facilitate membership and certain marketing activities as agreed to by NJPA and an Awarded contractor. 6. PROPOSAL OPENING PROCEDURE 6.1 Sealed and properly identified Proposer’s Responses for this RFP entitled “PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES” will be received by Gregg Meierhofer, Manager of Bids and Contracts, at NJPA Offices, 200 First Street NE, Staples, MN 56479 until the deadline for receipt of, and bid opening identified on page one of this RFP. The NJPA Director of Contracts and Marketing, or Representative from the NJPA Proposal Review Committee, will then read the Proposer’s names aloud. A summary of the responses to this RFP will be made available for public inspection in the NJPA office in Staples, MN. A letter or e-mail request is required to receive a complete RFP package. Send or communicate all requests to the attention of Gregg Meierhofer 200 1st Street Northeast Staples, MN 56479 or RFP@njpacoop.org to receive a complete copy of this RFP. Method of delivery needs to be indicated in the request; an email address is required for electronic transmission. Oral, facsimile, telephone or telegraphic Proposal Submissions or requests for this RFP are invalid and will not receive consideration. All Proposal Responses must be submitted in a sealed package. The outside of the package shall plainly identify “PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES” To avoid premature opening, it is the responsibility of the Proposer to label the Proposal Response properly. 7. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS A. PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS 7.1 NJPA will use a 1,000 Point Evaluation System to help determine the best overall Proposer(s) selection. Bonus points may be available for specific proposal characteristics identified such as “Green Product Certifications.” 7.2 NJPA reserves the right to use a “Cost Scoring Evaluation” through a product comparison process of like products/services. This process will establish points for submitted price levels. See Cost Scoring Evaluation. 7.3 NJPA shall use a final overall scoring system to include consideration for best price and cost evaluation. The total possible score is 1,000 points. NJPA reserves the right to assign any number of point awards or penalties it considers warranted if a Proposer stipulates exceptions, exclusions, or limitations of liabilities. 7.4 To qualify for the final evaluation, a Proposer must have been deemed responsive as a result of the criteria set forth under “Proposer Responsiveness.” 7.5 Responses will be evaluated first for responsiveness and thereafter for content. The NJPA Board of Directors will make awards to the selected Proposer(s) based on the recommendations of the Proposal Review Committee. 7.6 The procurement activities of the NJPA Proposal Review Committee are limited to document preparation, answering Proposer questions, advertising the solicitation, distribution of this RFP upon request, conducting an evaluation and making recommendation for possible approval to NJPA Board of Directors. RFP 081411 24 of 47 B. PROPOSER RESPONSIVENESS 7.7 Proposer’s Responses received after the deadline for submission will be invalid and returned to the Potential Proposer unopened. 7.8 An essential part of the proposal evaluation process is an evaluation to qualify the Proposer being considered. All proposals must contain answers or responses to the information requested in the proposal forms. Any Proposer failing to provide the required documentation may be considered non-responsive. 7.9 Deviations or exceptions stipulated in Proposer’s Response may result in the proposal being classified as non responsive. 7.10 To qualify for evaluation, a proposal must have been submitted on time and materially satisfy all mandatory requirements identified in this document. A proposal must reasonably and substantially conform to all the terms and conditions in the solicitation to be considered responsive. 7.11 The Proposal Review Committee shall utilize the following criteria to evaluate all proposals received. Items 1-4 constitute the test for “Level One Responsiveness” and are determined on the proposal opening date. “Level 2” responsiveness is determined through the evaluation of the remaining items listed below. These items are not arranged in order of importance and each item may encompass multiple areas of information requested. 1. The proposal response is received prior to the deadline for submission. 2. The proposal package was properly addressed and identified as a sealed bid with a specific opening date and time. 3. The proposal response contains the required certificate of liability insurance. 4. The proposal response contains original signatures on all documents requiring such. 5. Response’s conformance to terms and conditions as described in the solicitation, including documentation. 6. Possesses qualifications as a responding Proposer that meets or exceeds those set within the solicitation. 7. Information from references and past performance information including past member approval. 8. Demonstrates that they offer the most current industry standard products/services and/or services. 9. Demonstrates financial stability and a favorable banking line of credit. 10. Demonstrates their products/services and/or services proposed meet and/or exceed industry standards accepted by educational or governmental institutions. 11. Has demonstrated market place success and their past performance exhibit an acceptable reputation. 12. Demonstrates the company possesses the background, knowledge, capacity, and ability to sell, deliver, and support products/services offered to Members. 13. Has provided documentation defining, outlining, and describing their concept of a national marketing program they will be implementing to facilitate and coordinate the cooperative activities required by an awarded Contract. 14. Has provided all of the required and applicable documentation required i.e. insurance certificates, licenses, and/or registration certificates required to do business nationally. 15. Line-Item Pricing, in approved excel format, listing of all of the proposed products/services and warranty provisions with their associated units of costs. 16. Core List selection of products/services in Line-Item Pricing format 17. Hot List Pricing products/services in a Line-Item Pricing format (where applicable). 18. Contract Pricing submitted as requested to include core list or products/services, Line-Item Pricing and/or Percentage Discount from published gov/ed price list or Catalog. C. PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP 081411 25 of 47 7.12 If a manufacturer or supplier chooses not to produce or supply goods and services to meet the scope of this RFP, such action will be considered sufficient cause to reduce evaluation points. 7.13 Consideration will be given in the award based on the completion and degree of information provided regarding available products, equipment, and accessories, as well as, applicable parts of the Proposer Information and Questionnaire. 7.14 The fact a manufacturer or supplier chooses not to produce or provide equipment products or services to meet the intent and scope of this RFP will not be considered sufficient cause to adjudge this RFP as restrictive. 7.15 The Proposer is required to have extensive knowledge and at least three (3) years experience with the related activities surrounding the selling of the equipment, service or related products offered. 7.16 NJPA reserves the right to accept or reject newly formed companies solely based on information provided in the proposal and/or its own investigation of the company. 7.17 Consideration will be given in the proposal evaluation based upon the selection, variety, technological advances, and demonstrated quality of products submitted, technological advances, and pricing. The ability of the Proposer to communicate the value of these factors and to demonstrate how the depth and breadth of their product and service offerings provide NJPA and NJPA Members with a sole source of responsibility within the scope of this RFP will be positively reviewed. 7.18 Consideration will also be given to proposals demonstrating technological advances, provide increased efficiencies, expanded service and other related improvements beyond today’s NJPA member’s needs and applicable standards. 7.19 Strong consideration will be given to a Proposer’s past performance, distribution model, and the demonstration their ability to effectively market and service NJPA Membership nationally. 7.20 Strong consideration will be given to the best price as it relates to the quality of the product and service. However, price is ultimately one of the factors taken into consideration in evaluation and award. 7.21 Evaluation of a Proposer’s Responses will take into consideration as a minimum response but not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Adherence to all requirements of this RFP as defined by industry standards. 2. Prior knowledge of and experience with a Proposer in terms of past performance and market place success. 3. Capability of meeting or exceeding current and future needs or requirements of NJPA and NJPA Members. 4. Evaluation of Proposer’s ability to market to and provide service to all NJPA Members nationally. 5. Financial condition of the Proposer. 6. Nature and extent of company data furnished in Proposer’s Response. 7. Quality of products, equipment, and services offered including value added related services. 8. History of member service to NJPA type customers. 9. Overall ability to perform sales, solutions and contract support as submitted. 10. Ability to meet service and warranty needs. 11. History of meeting shipping and delivery expectations of contracted products/ services. 12. Technology advancements and related provisions. 13. Ability to market and promote the Contract within current business practices. 14. Willingness to develop and enter into NJPA Contract and business relations. 15. Favorable bond rating and applicable industry standard licensing ability. RFP 081411 26 of 47 16. Past market place successes and brand recognition. 17. Demonstrated warranty and product/service responsibility. 7.22 The Proposer’s ability to follow the proposal preparation instructions set forth in this solicitation will also be considered to be an indicator of the Proposer’s ability to follow other future instructions should they receive an award as a result of this solicitation. Any Contract between NJPA and a Proposer requires the delivery of information and data. The quality of organization and writing reflected in the proposal will be considered an indication of the quality of organization and writing which would be prevalent if a Contract was awarded. As a result, the proposal will be evaluated as a sample of data submission. 7.23 Proposer’s Financial Statements- The Proposer’s financial statements are requested and reviewed to get a general feel for the size, strength, and probable scope of the Proposer. 7.24 NJPA reserves the right to reject the Proposer’s Response of the apparent successful Proposer where the available evidence or information does not exhibit the ability or intent to satisfy NJPA that the potential Vendor is unable to properly carry out the terms of this RFP and potential Contract. 7.25 NJPA shall reserve the right to reject any or all proposals. NJPA also reserves the right to reject a proposal not accompanied by required certificate of insurance, other data required by this RFP, or if a Proposer’s Response is incomplete or irregular. The NJPA shall reject all proposals where there has been collusion among the Proposers. 7.26 Overall Evaluation (FORM G) - The NJPA Proposal Review Committee will evaluate proposal received based on a 1,000 point evaluation system. The Committee will establish both the evaluation criteria and designate the relative importance of those criteria by assigning possible scores for each category. 7.27 Bonus Evaluation Points- Bonus evaluation points may be awarded by the NJPA Proposal Review Committee based on criteria identified as being both “optional” and “having additional value” D. COST SCORING EVALUATION 7.28 NJPA reserves the right to use this process in the event the evaluation committee feels it is necessary to make a final determination. 7.29 This process will be based on a point system with points being awarded for being low to high Proposer for each cost evaluation item selected. A “Market Basket” of identical (or substantially similar) products/services may be selected by the NJPA proposal Review Committee and the unit cost will be used as a basis for determining the point value. The “Market Basket:” will be selected by NJPA from all product categories as determined appropriate by NJPA. The low priced Proposer will receive the full point value and all other Proposers will receive points as follows: Lowest price Proposal = 5 (where there are five proposers), and inferior proposals = 4, 3, 2, 1 points each. The Total Score for each proposer will be the sum of all points earned. The result of this process shall not be the sole determination for award. E. PRODUCT TESTING 7.30 NJPA reserves the right to request and test products/services and/or services from the apparent successful Proposer. Prior to the award of the Contract, the apparent successful Proposer, if requested by NJPA, shall furnish current information and data regarding the Proposer’s resources, personnel, and organization within three (3) days. F. PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 7.31 Past performance information is relevant information regarding a Proposer’s actions under RFP 081411 27 of 47 previously awarded contracts to schools, local, state, and governmental agencies and non-profit agencies. It includes the Proposer’s record of conforming to specifications and standards of good workmanship. The Proposer’s history for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to member satisfaction shall be under evaluation. Ultimately, Past Performance Information can be defined as the Proposer’s businesslike concern for the interests of the NJPA Member. G. WAIVER OF FORMALITIES 7.32 NJPA reserves the right to waive any minor formalities or irregularities in any proposal and to accept proposals, which, in its discretion and according to the law, may be in the best interest of its members. 8. POST AWARD OPERATING ISSUES A. SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS 8.1 Purchase Order- Purchase Orders for goods and services may be executed between NJPA or NJPA Members (Purchaser) and awarded Vendor(s) or Vendor’s sub-contractors pursuant to this invitation and any resulting Contract. NJPA Members are instructed to identify on the face of such Purchase orders that “This purchase order is issued pursuant to NJPA procurement contract #XXXXXX.” A Purchase Order is an offer to purchase goods and services at specified prices by NJPA or NJPA Members pursuant to a Contract resulting from this RFP. Purchase Order flow and procedure will be developed jointly between NJPA and an Awarded Vendor after an award is made. 8.2 Governing Law- Purchase Orders, as identified above, shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of a competent jurisdiction with respect to the purchaser. Each and every provision of law and clause required by law to be included in the Purchase Order shall be read and enforced as though it were included. If through mistake or otherwise any such provision is not included, or is not currently included, then upon application of either part the Contract shall be physically amended to make such inclusion or correction. The venue for any litigation arising out of disputes related to Purchase Order(s) shall be a court of competent jurisdiction to the Purchaser. 8.3 Additional Terms and Conditions- Additional terms and conditions to a Purchase Order may be proposed by NJPA, NJPA Members, or Vendors. Acceptance of these additional terms and conditions is OPTIONAL to all parties to the Purchase Order. The purpose of these additional terms and conditions is to, among other things; formerly introduce job or industry specific requirements of law such as prevailing wage legislation. Additional terms and conditions can include specific local policy requirements and standard business practices of the issuing Member. Said additional terms and conditions shall not interfere with the general purpose and intent of this RFP. 8.4 Asset Management Contracts: Asset Management type contracts can be initiated pursuant to a Contract resulting from this RFP at any time during the term of said Contract. The establishment of such Asset Management Contracts cannot exceed the authorized term of a Contract resulting from this RFP; however the Asset Management Contract term may extend beyond the maturity date of a Contract resulting from this RFP. 8.5 Specialized Service Requirements- In the event service requirements or specialized performance requirements such as e-commerce specifications, specialized delivery requirements, or other specifications and requirements not addressed in the Contract resulting from this RFP, NJPA Member and Vendor may enter into a separate, stand alone agreement, apart from a Contract resulting from this RFP. Any proposed service requirements or specialized performance requirements require pre-approval by Vendor. Any separate agreement developed to address these specialized service or performance requirements is exclusively between the NJPA Member and Vendor. NJPA, its agents, Members and employees shall not be made party to any claim for breach of such agreement. Product sourcing is not considered a service. NJPA Members will need to conduct procurements for any specialized services not identified in this Contract. RFP 081411 28 of 47 8.6 Performance Bond- At the request of the member, a Vendor will provide all performance bonds typically and customarily required in their industry. These bonds will be issued pursuant to the requirements of Purchase Orders for goods and services. If a purchase order is cancelled for lack of a required performance bond, it shall be the recommendation of NJPA that pending Purchase Orders with all NJPA Members be considered for cancellation. Each member has the final decision on Purchase Order continuation. ANY PERFORMANCE BONDING REQUIRED BY THE MEMBER OR CUSTOMER STATE LAWS OR LOCAL POLICY IS TO BE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON AND SECURED BETWEEN THE VENDOR AND THE CUSTOMER/MEMBER. B. NJPA MEMBER SIGN-UP PROCEDURE 8.7 Awarded Vendors will be responsible for familiarizing their sales and service forces with the various forms of NJPA Membership documentation and shall encourage and assist potential Members in establishing Membership C. REPORTING OF SALE ACTIVITY 8.8 A report of the total gross dollar volume of all products/services purchased by NJPA Members as it applies to this RFP and Contract will be provided quarterly to NJPA. The form and content of this reporting will be developed by NJPA in cooperation with the Vendor to include, but not limited to, name and address of purchasing agency, amount of purchase, and a description of the items purchased. D. AUDITS 8.9 During the Term, Vendor will, upon not less than fourteen (14) business days’ prior written request, make available to NJPA no more than once per calendar year, at Vendor’s corporate offices, during normal business hours, the invoice reports and/or invoice documents from Vendor pertaining to all invoices sent by Vendor and payments made by NJPA members for all products/services purchased under this Contract. NJPA may employ an independent auditor or NJPA may choose to conduct such audit on its own behalf. Vendor shall have the right to approve the independent auditor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Upon approval and after the auditor has executed an appropriate confidentiality agreement, Vendor will permit the auditor to review the relevant Vendor documents. NJPA shall be responsible for paying the auditor’s fees. The parties will make every reasonable effort to fairly and equitably resolve discrepancies to the satisfaction of both parties. Vendor agrees that the NJPA may audit their records with a reasonable notice to establish total compliance and to verify prices charged hereunder of the Contract are being met. Vendor agrees to provide verifiable documentation and tracking in a timely manner. E. HUB PARTNER 8.10 Hub Partner: Where Applicable, NJPA Members may, from time to time, request to be served in some way through a “Hub Partner” for the purposes of complying with a Law, Regulation, or Rule to which that individual NJPA Member deems to be applicable in their jurisdiction. Hub Partners may bring value to the proposed transactions through consultancy, Disadvantaged Business Entity Credits, or other considerations. 8.11 Hub Partner Fees: Fees, costs, or expenses from this Hub Partner levied upon a transaction resulting from this contract, shall be payable by the NJPA Member provide that: 8.11.1 The fees, costs, or expenses levied by the Hub Vendor must be clearly itemized in the transaction. and 8.11.2 To the extent that the he Vendor stands in the chain of title during a transaction resulting from this RFP, the documentation shall be documented to show it is “Executed for the Benefit of [NJPA Member Name]”. RFP 081411 29 of 47 F. TRADE-INS 8.12 Where Appropriate, the value in US Dollars, of Trade-ins will be negotiated between NJPA or an NJPA Member, and an Awarded Vendor. That identified “Trade-In” value shall be credited in full against the NJPA purchase price identified in a purchase order issued pursuant to any Awarded NJPA procurement contract. The full value of the trade-in will be consideration to that purchase order. G. OUT OF STOCK NOTIFICATION 8.13 Vendor shall immediately notify NJPA members upon receipt of order(s) when an out-of -stock occurs. Vendor shall inform the NJPA member regarding the anticipated date of availability for the out- of- stock item(s), and may suggest equivalent substitute(s). • The ordering organization shall have the option of accepting the suggested equivalent substitute, or canceling the item from the order. • Under no circumstance is Proposer permitted to make unauthorized substitutions. • Unfilled or substituted item(s) shall be indicated on the packing list. H. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT RESULTING FROM THIS RFP 8.14 NJPA reserves the right to cancel the whole or any part of a resulting Contract due to failure by the Vendor to carry out any obligation, term or condition as described in the below procedure. Prior to any termination for cause, the NJPA will provide written notice to the Vendor, opportunity to respond and opportunity to cure according to the steps in the procedure in this Cancellation Section. Some examples of material breach are the following:  The Vendor provides material that does not meet reasonable quality standards and is not remedied under the warranty;  The Vendor fails to ship the products or provide the services within a reasonable amount of time;  NJPA has reason to believe the Vendor will not or cannot perform to the requirements of the Contract and issues a request for assurance as described herein and Vendor fails to respond;  The Vendor fails to observe any of the material terms and conditions of the Contract; and/or,  The Vendor fails to follow the established procedure for purchase orders, invoices and/or receipt of funds as established by the NJPA and the Vendor in the Contract.  The Vendor fails to report quarterly sales volume;  The Vendor fails to actively market this Contract within the guidelines provided in this RFP and the expectations of NJPA. 8.15 Each party shall follow the below procedure if the Contract is to be terminated for violations or non-performance issues: Step 1: Issue a warning letter outlining the violations and/or non-performance and state the length of time (10 days) to provide a response and correct the problem(s) if reasonably possible in such time frame. Step 2: Issue a letter of intent to cancel Contract, if the problem(s) is not resolved within fifty (50) days. Step 3: Issue letter to cancel Contract for cause. 8.16 Upon receipt of the written notice of concern, the Vendor shall have ten (10) business days to provide a satisfactory response to the NJPA. Failure on the part of the Vendor to reasonably address all issues of concern may result in Contract cancellation pursuant to this Section. 8.17 Any termination shall have no effect on purchases that are in progress at the time the cancellation is received by the NJPA. The NJPA reserves the right to cancel the Contract immediately for convenience, RFP 081411 30 of 47 without penalty or recourse, in the event the Vendor is not responsive concerning the remedy, the performance, or the violation issue within the time frame, completely or in part. 8.18 NJPA reserves the right to cancel or suspend the use of any Contract resulting from this RFP if the Vendor files for bankruptcy protection or is acquired by an independent third party. Prior to commencing services under this Contract, the Proposer/Vendor must furnish NJPA certification from insurer(s) proving level of coverage usual and customary to the specific industry. The coverage is to be maintained in full effect during the Contract period. Vendor must be willing to provide, upon request, certification of insurance to any NJPA member or member using this Contract. 8.19 Either party may execute Contract termination without cause with a required 60-day written notice of termination. Termination of Contract shall not relieve either party of financial, product or service obligations incurred or accrued prior to termination. 8.20 NJPA may cancel any Contract resulting from this solicitation without any further obligation if any NJPA employee significantly involved in initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting or creating the Contract on behalf of the NJPA is found to be in collusion with any Proposer to this RFP for their personal gain. Such cancellation shall be effective upon written notice from the NJPA or a later date if so designated in the notice given. A terminated Contract shall not relieve either party of financial, product or service obligations due to participating member or NJPA. 8.21 Events of Automatic termination to include:  Vendor’s or NJPA’s voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy or insolvency;  Vendor’s failure to remedy a material breach of a Contract resulting from this RFP within sixty (60) days of receipt of notice from NJPA specifying in reasonable detail the nature of such breach; and/or,  Receipt of written information from any authorized agency finding activities of Vendors engaged in pursuant to a Contract resulting from this RFP to be in violation of the law. 9. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. ADVERTISEMENT OF RFP 9.1 As a policy, NJPA shall advertise this solicitation 1) for two consecutive weeks in both the print and on-line editions of the MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE, 2) it shall be placed on a national wire service by the MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE, 3) it shall be posted on NJPA’s website, 4) it shall be posted to the website of “Noticetobidders.com,” and 5) it shall be posted to other third-party websites deemed appropriate by NJPA. Other third party advertisers may include Onvia and Bidsync, B. ADVERTISING OF A CONTRACT RESULTING FROM THIS RFP 9.2 Proposer/Vendor shall not advertise or publish information concerning this Contract prior to the award being announced by the NJPA. Once the award is made, a Vendor is expected to advertise the awarded Contract to both current and potential NJPA Members. C. APPLICABLE LAW 9.3 NJPA Compliance with Minnesota Procurement Law: Contracts awarded through NJPA are intended to meet the procurement laws of all states and NJPA will exhaust all avenues to comply with as many state laws as possible. It is the responsibility of each participating NJPA member to insure to their satisfaction that these laws are satisfied. An individual NJPA member using these contracts is deemed by their own accord to be in compliance with proposal regulations. NJPA encourages the awarded Vendor to assist NJPA and the NJPA member in this research to the benefit of all involved. RFP 081411 31 of 47 9.4 Governing Law: All applicable portions of the Minnesota Uniform Commercial Code and all other applicable Minnesota laws shall govern contracts with the National Joint Powers Alliance®. Any claims pertaining to this RFP and any resulting Contract that develop between NJPA and any other party must be brought forth only in courts in Todd County in the State of Minnesota. 9.5 Vendor Compliance with applicable law: Vendor(s) shall comply with all federal, state, or local laws applicable to or pertaining to the sale of the products/services resulting from this RFP. All such laws, whether or not herein contained, shall be included by this reference. It shall be Proposer’s/Vendor’s responsibility to determine the applicability and requirements of any such laws and to abide by them. 9.6 Indemnity: Each party agrees it will be responsible for its own acts and the result thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. NJPA’s liability shall be governed by the provisions of the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section §3.736, and other applicable law. 9.7 Prevailing Wage: It shall be the responsibility of the Vendor to comply, when applicable, with prevailing wage legislation in effect in the jurisdiction of the purchaser (NJPA or NJPA Member). It shall be the responsibility of the Vendor to monitor the prevailing wage rates as established by the appropriate department of labor for any increase in rates during the term of this Contract and adjust wage rates accordingly. 9.8 Patent and Copyright infringement: If an article sold and delivered to NJPA or NJPA Members hereunder shall be protected by any applicable patent or copyright, the Vendor agrees to indemnify and save harmless NJPA and NJPA Members against any and all suits, claims, judgments, and costs instituted or recovered against it by any person whosoever on account of the use or sale of such articles by NJPA or NJPA Members in violation or right under such patent or copyright. D. ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT 9.9 No right or interest in this Contract shall be assigned or transferred by the Proposer/Vendor without prior written permission by the NJPA. No delegation of any duty of the Proposer/Vendor shall be made without prior written permission of the NJPA. The NJPA shall notify the members within fifteen (15) days of receipt of written notice by the Vender. After issuance the awarded Contract may be reassigned to a comparable Vendor at the discretion of NJPA. 9.10 If the original Vendor sells or transfers all assets or the entire portion of the assets used to perform this Contract, a successor in interest must guarantee to perform all obligations under this Contract. NJPA reserves the right to reject the acquiring person or entity as a Vendor. A simple change of name agreement will not change the contractual obligations of the Vendor. E. PROPOSERS LIST 9.11 NJPA will not maintain or communicate to a proposers list. All interested proposers must respond to the solicitation as a result of one of the methods of proposal advertisements listed above. Because of the scope of the potential Members and national Vendors, NJPA has determined this to be the best method of fairly soliciting proposals. F. CAPTIONS, HEADINGS, AND ILLUSTRATIONS 9.12 The captions, illustrations, headings, and subheadings in this solicitation are for convenience and ease of understanding and in no way define or limit the scope or intent of this request. RFP 081411 32 of 47 G. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 9.13 If a Proposer wishes to withhold any part of its proposal from public inspection, then a statement advising the NJPA of this fact shall accompany the submission. NJPA shall review the statement to determine whether the information shall be withheld. If NJPA determines to disclose the information, the Executive Director of NJPA shall inform the Proposer, in writing, of such determination prior to award of Contract to Proposer. H. DATA PRIVACY 9.14 Proposer agrees to abide by all applicable STATE and FEDERAL laws and regulations including HIPPA concerning the handling and disclosure of private and confidential information regarding individuals. Proposer agrees to hold NJPA harmless from its unlawful disclosure and/or use of private/confidential information. I. ENTIRE AGREEMENT 9.15 The Contract, as defined herein, shall constitute the entire understanding between the parties to that Contract. 9.16 A Contract resulting from this RFP is formed when the NJPA Board of Directors approves and signs the applicable Acceptance and Award Form document (see Form D). J. FORCE MAJEURE 9.17 Except for payments of sums due, neither party shall be liable to the other nor deemed in default under this Contract if and to the extent that such party’s performance of this Contract is prevented due to force majeure. The term “force majeure” means an occurrence that is beyond the control of the party affected and occurs without its fault or negligence including, but not limited to, the following: acts of God, acts of the public enemy, war, riots, strikes, mobilization, labor disputes, civil disorders, fire, flood, snow, earthquakes, tornadoes or violent wind, tsunamis, wind shears, squalls, Chinooks, blizzards, hail storms, volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, famine, sink holes, avalanches, lockouts, injunctions- intervention-acts, terrorist events or failures or refusals to act by government authority and/or other similar occurrences where such party is unable to prevent by exercising reasonable diligence. The force majeure shall be deemed to commence when the party declaring force majeure notifies the other party of the existence of the force majeure and shall be deemed to continue as long as the results or effects of the force majeure prevent the party from resuming performance in accordance with a Contract resulting from this RFP. Force majeure shall not include late deliveries of products/services caused by congestion at a manufacturer’s plant or elsewhere, an oversold condition of the market, inefficiencies, or other similar occurrences. If either party is delayed at any time by force majeure, then the delayed party shall notify the other party of such delay within forty-eight (48) hours. K. GRATUITIES 9.18 NJPA may cancel this Contract by written notice if it is found that gratuities, in the form of entertainment, gifts or otherwise, were offered or given by the Proposer/Vendor or any agent or representative of the Proposer/Vendor, to any employee of the NJPA are deemed to be excessive with a view toward securing a contract or with respect to the performance of this Contract. L. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 9.19 Proper Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), in compliance with OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard, must be provided by the Vendor to NJPA or NJPA Member at the time of purchase. RFP 081411 33 of 47 M. LEGAL REMEDIES 9.20 All claims and controversies between NJPA and Vendor shall be subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and are to be resolved in Todd County, Minnesota, the county in which NJPA is domiciled. N. LICENSES 9.21 Proposer/Vendor shall maintain a current status on all required federal, state, and local licenses, bonds and permits required for the operation of the business conducted by the Proposer/Vendor. 9.22 All responding Proposers must be licensed (where required) and have the authority to sell and distribute offered products/services to NJPA and NJPA Members in all states. Documentation of said licenses and authorities, if applicable, is requested. O. MATERIAL SUPPLIERS AND SUB-CONTRACTORS 9.23 The apparent successful Vendor shall be required to supply the names and addresses of sourcing suppliers and sub-contractors when requested. 9.24 Awarded Vendors under this RFP will be the sole source of responsibility for transactions originating that award. The Awarded Vendor is solely responsible for products/services and services provided by third party sourcing or service providers. P. NON-WAIVER OF RIGHTS 9.25 No failure of either party to exercise any power given to it hereunder, nor to insistence upon strict compliance by the other party with its obligations hereunder, and no custom or practice of the parties at variance with the terms hereof, nor any payment under a Contract resulting from this RFP shall constitute a waiver of either party’s right to demand exact compliance with the terms hereof. Failure by NJPA to take action or assert any right hereunder shall not be deemed as waiver of such right. Q. PROTESTS OF AWARDS MADE 9.26 Protests shall be filed with the NJPA’s Executive Director and shall be resolved in accordance with appropriate state statutes of Minnesota. Protests will only be accepted from Proposers. A protest must be in writing and filed with NJPA. A protest of an award or proposed award must be filed within ten (10) days after the public notice or announcement of the award. No protest shall lie for a claim that the selected Proposer is not a responsible Proposer. A protest must include: 1. The name, address and telephone number of the protester; 2. The original signature of the protester or its representative; 3. Identification of the solicitation by RFP number; 4. Identification f the statute or procedure that is alleged to have been violated; 5. A precise statement of the relevant facts; 6. Identification of the issues to be resolved; 7. The aggrieved party’s argument and supporting documentation. R. PROVISIONS REQUIRED BY LAW 9.27 Proposer/Vendor agrees in the performance of a Contract resulting from this RFP, it has complied with or will comply with all applicable statutes, laws, regulations, and orders of the United States and any State thereof. RFP 081411 34 of 47 S. PUBLIC RECORD 9.28 All proposals submitted to this invitation shall become the property of the NJPA and will become a matter of public record and available for review subsequent to the award notification. Proposals may be viewed by appointment at the NJPA offices Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. T. RIGHT TO ASSURANCE 9.29 Whenever one party to this Contract has reason to question the other party’s intent to perform, he/she may demand a written assurance of this intent. In the event a demand is made and no written assurance is given, the demanding party may treat this failure as an anticipatory repudiation of the Contract provided, however, in order to be effective, any such demand shall be addressed to the authorized signer for the party from whom the assurance is being sought, and sent via U.S. Postal Service, certified mail, return receipt requested or national overnight delivery service with proof of delivery. U. SUSPENSION OR DISBARMENT STATUS 9.30 If within the past five (5) years, any firm, business, person or Proposer submitting a proposal has been lawfully precluded from participating in any public procurement activity with a federal, state or local government, the Proposer must include a letter with its response setting forth the name and address of the public procurement unit, the effective date of the suspension or debarment, the duration of the suspension or debarment and the relevant circumstances relating to the suspension or debarment. Any failure to supply such a letter or to disclose pertinent information may result in the cancellation of any Contract. By signing the proposal affidavit, the Proposer certifies that no current suspension or debarment exists. V. HUMAN RIGHTS CERTIFICATE 9.31 If Proposer is not domiciled in Minnesota and has NOT on any single working day in the past year, employed more than 40 employees in the State of Minnesota, Proposer must provide a statement to that effect. 9.32 If Proposer is not domiciled in Minnesota and has on any single working day in the past year, employed more than 40 employees in the State of Minnesota, Proposer must document their application for a Human Rights Certificate issued by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights. Proposer must also document receipt by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights of that application and the Proposer’s affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and qualified disabled individuals. 9.33 If Proposer is domiciled in Minnesota and has on any single working day in the past year, employed more than 40 employees in the State of Minnesota, Proposer must provide a copy of their “Certificate of Compliance” from the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. W. SEVERABILITY 9.34 In the event that any of the terms of a Contract resulting from this RFP are in conflict with any rule, law, statutory provision or are otherwise unenforceable under the laws or regulations of any government or subdivision thereof, such terms shall be deemed stricken from a Contract resulting from this RFP, but such invalidity or unenforceability shall not invalidate any of the other terms of a Contract resulting from this RFP. X. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES 9.35 No Contract resulting from this RFP shall be considered a contract of employment. The relationship between NJPA and an Awarded Contractor is one of independent contractors each free to exercise judgment and discretion with regard to the conduct of their respective businesses. The parties do not RFP 081411 35 of 47 intend the proposed Contract to create, or is to be construed as creating a partnership, joint venture, master-servant, principal–agent, or any other relationship. Except as provided elsewhere in this RFP, neither party may be held liable for acts of omission or commission of the other party and neither party is authorized or has the power to obligate the other party by contract, agreement, warranty, representation or otherwise in any manner whatsoever except as may be expressly provided herein. RFP 081411 36 of 47 PROPOSER QUESTIONNAIRE Form A Proposer Name: _________________________________________________________________________ Questionnaire completed by: ______________________________________________________________ Please provide an answer to all questions below and address all requests made in this RFP. Please use the Microsoft Word/Excel document version of this questionnaire to respond to the questions contained herein. Please provide your answer to each question indented below the question. Please supply any applicable supporting information and documentation you feel appropriate in addition to answers entered to the Word document. All information must be typed, organized, and easily understood by evaluators. Company Information 1) Why did you respond to this RFP? 2) Provide a brief history of your company that includes its goals and philosophy. 3) Provide profiles and an organizational chart for key sales and marketing executives of your company that will oversee the implementation and operation of a Contract resulting from this RFP. 4) How long has your company has been in the PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, industry? 5) Is your organization best described as a manufacturer or a distributor/dealer/re-seller for a manufacturer of the products and services being proposed? a) If the Proposer is best described as a re-seller, manufacturer aggregate, or distributor, please provide evidence of your authorization as a dealer/re-seller/manufacturer aggregate for the manufacturer of the products you are proposing. b) If the Proposer is best described as a manufacturer, please describe your relationship with your sales/service force and/or Dealer Network in delivering the products and services proposed. Are these people your employees, or the employees of a third party? 6) For public companies, provide your most recent annual report to shareholders. 7) For private companies, provide your most recent year-end financial statements, your bond rating, and/or a credit reference from your bank. 8) Provide a discussion of licenses and certifications both required to be held, and actually held by your organization in pursuit of the commerce contemplated by this RFP. 9) Provide a discussion of licenses and certifications both required to be held, and actually held by third parties and sub- contractors to your organization in pursuit of the commerce contemplated by this RFP. If not applicable, please respond with “Not Applicable.” Industry-Marketplace Successes 10) List and document recent industry awards and recognition. 11) Supply three references/testimonials from customers similar to NJPA Members. Please include the customer’s name, contact, and phone number. 12) Provide names and addresses of the top five (5) governmental or education customers and dollar volumes from the past year. 13) Provide documentation indicating the total dollar volume for each of your sales to government, education, and non- profit agencies for the last three (3) fiscal years. Proposer’s ability to sell and service nationwide. 14) Please describe your sales force in terms of numbers, geographic dispersion, and the proportion of their attention focused on the sale of the products/services contemplated in this RFP? a) Are these individuals your employees, or RFP 081411 37 of 47 are they employees of a third party? 15) Please describe your service force in terms of numbers, geographic dispersion, and the proportion of their attention focused on the sale of the products/services contemplated in this RFP? a) Are these individuals your employees, or are they employees of a third party? 16) Describe in detail your customer service program regarding process and procedure. Please include, where appropriate, response time commitments. 17) Identify any geographic areas or NJPA market segments of the United States you will NOT be serving through the proposed contract. 18) Identify any of NJPA Member segments you will NOT be serving? (Government, Education, Non-profit) Marketing Plan 19) Describe your training program for both greet-the-public and sales management levels relating to a NJPA award. 20) Describe your general marketing program strategy to promote the proposed Contract nationally. 21) Describe your marketing material, and overall marketing ability, relating to promoting this type of partnership and contract opportunity. As much as possible, please send marketing materials in electronic format only to save paper. 22) Describe your use of technology and the internet to provide marketing and product awareness. 23) Describe your perception of NJPA’s role in marketing the partnership and your products/services. 24) Describe the unique quality of the products/services in your proposal in relationship to others available in the market. Value Added Attributes 25) Describe any training programs available as options for members. 26) Describe technological advances your proposal products/services offer. 27) Describe your “Green” program as it relates to your company, your products, and your recycling program, including a list of all green products accompanied by the certifying agency for each. 28) Describe any Women or Minority Business Entity (WMBE) or Small Business Entity (SBE) accreditations of your organization directly involved in a Contract resulting from this RFP. 29) Identify any other unique or custom value added attributes. 30) Identify any service contract options included in the proposed price, or offered as a proposed option, for the products or services being offered. 31) Identify your ability and willingness to service Canada specifically and internationally in general. 32) Describe any unique distribution method employed in your proposal. Payment Terms and Financing Options 33) Identify your payment terms. (Net 30, etc.) 34) Identify any applicable leasing or other financing options as defined herein. 35) Briefly describe your proposed order process for this proposal and contract award. (Note: order process may be modified or refined during an NJPA member’s final Contract phase process). Warranty 36) Describe, in detail, your Warranty Program including conditions to qualify, claims procedure, and overall structure. 37) Do all warranties cover all material and labor? 38) Do warranties impose usage limit restrictions? 39) Do warranties cover the technicians travel time to perform warranty repairs? 40) Please list any other limitations or circumstances that would not be covered under your warranty. 41) Please list any geographic regions of the United States for which you cannot provide a certified technician to perform warranty repairs. How do NJPA Members in these regions receive warranty work? Other Cooperative Procurement Contracts Held 42) Identify all cooperative governmental procurement contracts which are marketed in more than one state held or utilized by the Proposer. RFP 081411 38 of 47 43) Identify all government or state procurement contracts held or utilized by the Proposer with any State of the United States. 44) Identify any GSA Contracts held or utilized by the Proposer. 45) If you are awarded the NJPA contract, are there any market segments (e.g., higher education, county governments, etc.) or geographical markets where the NJPA contract will not be your primary contract purchasing vehicle? If so, please identify those markets and which cooperative purchasing agreement will be your primary vehicle. Products/Services and Pricing 46) Provide a general narrative description of the products/services and services you are offering in your proposal. 47) Provide a general narrative description of your pricing model identifying how the model works (line item and/or percentage discount). 48) Propose a strategy, process, and specific method of facilitating “Sourced Goods” solution as defined herein. 49) Provide an overall statement of method of pricing for individual line items, catalogs and category pricing with regard to all products/services and being proposed. Provide a SKU number for each item being proposed. 50) Provide a “CORE LIST” of products/services (as anticipated and defined by Proposer to meet or exceed the NJPA members needs) as a separate and named spreadsheet. Include special pricing, if any, on these items. 51) Provide, if any, your volume rebate programs 52) Identify any Total Cost of Acquisition (as defined herein) cost(s) which is NOT included “Pricing” submitted with your proposal response. Identify to whom these items are payable and their relationship to Proposer. 53) As an important part of the evaluation of your offer, you must indicate the level of pricing you are offering. Prices offered in this proposal are: ________ a. The same as typically offered to an individual municipality or school district. ________ b. The same as typically offered to cooperative procurement organizations or state purchasing departments. ________ c. Better than typically offered to cooperative procurement organizations or state purchasing departments. (Your proposal will be considered “Non-Responsive” if this question is not answered.) 54) Do you offer quantity or volume discounts? _____ YES _____ NO Outline guidelines and program. 55) Describe your shipping, exchange and return program(s) and policy(s). Also specifically identify those programs as they relate to Alaska and Hawaii. 56) Identify the Proposer’s proposal for an administrative fee payable to NJPA for facilitation and promotion of the Contract opportunity invited here. This fee should be calculated as a percentage of Contract sales. Authorized Signature (Same signature as on Proposal Affidavit Signature and Acceptance Form) RFP111010 Page 39 of 47 Form B PROPOSER INFORMATION Company Name: _________________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________________ City/State/Zip: ___________________________________________________________________________ Phone: _____________________________________ Fax: ____________________________________ Toll Free Number: ___________________________ E-mail: __________________________________ Web site: _______________________________________________________________________________ Voids sometimes exist between management (those who respond to RFPs) and sales staff (those who contact NJPA Members) that result in communication problems. Due to this fact, provide the names of your key sales people, phone numbers, and geographic territories for which they are responsible COMPANY PERSONNEL CONTACTS Contract Manager: _________________________________________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ Name: _________________________________________Title:______________________________________ Email: _______________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ Name: _________________________________________Title:______________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ Name: _________________________________________Title:___________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ Name: _________________________________________Title:___________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ Name: _________________________________________Title:___________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ Name: _________________________________________Title:___________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ RFP111010 Page 40 of 47 EXCEPTIONS TO PROPOSAL, TERMS, CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS REQUEST Form C Company Name: _____________________________________________________________________________ Note: Original must be signed and inserted in the inside front cover pouch. Any exceptions to the Terms, Conditions, Specifications, or Proposal Forms contained herein shall be noted in writing and included with the proposal submittal. Please sign and date the bottom of each page of this document. RFP Page Number Section Term, Condition, or Specification Exception RFP111010 Page 41 of 47 Proposal Offering And Acceptance and Award RFP #102811 FORM D PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, Proposal Offering (To be completed Only by Proposer) In compliance with the Request for proposal (RFP) for PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, the undersigned warrants that I/we have examined this RFP and, being familiar with all of the instructions, terms and conditions, general specifications, expectations, technical specifications, service expectations and any special terms, do hereby offer and agree to furnish the defined products/services and services in compliance with all terms, conditions of this RFP, any applicable amendments of this RFP, and all Proposer’s Response documentation. Proposer further understands they are the sole offeror herein and that the performance of any sub-contractors employed by the Proposer in fulfillment of this offer is the sole responsibility of the Proposer. Company Name: _______________________________ Date: ___________________________________________ Company Address: _______________________________________________________________________________ City:_________________________________________ State: ____________ Zip: __________________________ Contact Person: ________________________________ Title: ___________________________________________ Authorized Signature (ink only): ___________________________________________________________________ (Name printed or typed) Contract Acceptance and Award (To be completed only by NJPA) Your proposal offering is hereby accepted and awarded. As an awarded Proposer, you are now bound to provide the defined goods and services contained in your proposal offering according to all terms, conditions, and pricing set forth in this RFP, any amendments to this RFP, and the Proposer’s Response. The effective date of the Contract be ______________, __________ and continue for four years thereafter AND which is subject to annual renewal at the option of both parties. National Joint Powers Alliance® (NJPA) NJPA Authorized signature: _______________________________________________________________________ (Name printed or typed) Title: ____Executive Director NJPA____________________________________ Awarded this ________________ day of ____________________________ Contract Number # 102811 NJPA Authorized signature: ________________________________________________________________________ (Name printed or typed) Title: _____________________________________________________________ Executed this ________________ day of ____________________________ Contract Number # 102811 RFP 111010 Page 42 of 47 PROPOSER ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE Form E Proposal Affidavit Signature Page PROPOSER’S AFFIDAVIT The undersigned, representing the persons, firms and corporations joining in the submission of the foregoing proposal (such persons, firms and corporations hereinafter being referred to as the “Proposer”), being duly sworn on his/her oath, states to the best of his/her belief and knowledge: 1. The undersigned certifies the Proposer is submitting their proposal under their true and correct name, the Proposer has been properly originated and legally exists in good standing in its state of residence, that the Proposer possesses, or will posses prior to the delivery of any goods and services, all applicable licenses necessary for such delivery, and that they are authorized to act on behalf of, and encumber the “Proposer” in this Contract, and 2. To the best of my knowledge, no Proposer or Potential Proposer, nor any person duly representing the same, has directly or indirectly entered into any agreement or arrangement with any other Proposers, Potential Proposers, any official or employee of the NJPA, or any person, firm or corporation under contract with the NJPA in an effort to influence either the offering or non-offering of certain prices, terms, and conditions relating to this RFP which tends to, or does, lessen or destroy free competition in the letting of the Contract sought for by this RFP, and 3. The Proposer or any person on his/her behalf, has not agreed, connived or colluded to produce a deceptive show of competition in the manner of the proposal or award of the referenced contract, and 4. Neither I, the Proposer, nor, any officer, director, partner, member or associate of the Proposer, nor any of its employees directly involved in obtaining contracts with the NJPA or any subdivision of the NJPA, has been convicted of false pretenses, attempted false pretenses or conspiracy to commit false pretenses, bribery, attempted bribery or conspiracy to bribe under the laws of any state or federal government for acts or omissions after January 1, 1985, and 5. The Proposer has examined and understands the terms, conditions, scope, contract opportunity, specifications request and other documents of this solicitation and that any and all exceptions have been noted in writing and have been included with the proposal submittal, and 6. If awarded a contract, the Proposer will provide the products/services and/or services to qualifying members of the NJPA in accordance with the terms, conditions, scope of this RFP, Proposer offered specifications and other documents of this solicitation, and 7. The undersigned, being familiar with expectations and specifications request outlined in this RFP under consideration, hereby proposes to deliver through valid service request, Purchase Orders or forms for NJPA Members per this RFP, only new, unused and first quality products/services and services to designated NJPA Members, and 8. The Proposer has carefully checked the accuracy of all items and listed total price per item in this proposal. In addition, the Proposer accepts all general terms and conditions of this RFP, including all responsibilities of commitment and delivery of services as outlined, and 9. In submitting this proposal, it is understood that the right is reserved by the NJPA to reject any or all proposals and it is agreed by all parties that this proposal may not be withdrawn during a period of 90 days from the date proposals were opened regarding this RFP, and 10. The Proposer certifies that in performing this Contract they will comply with all applicable provisions of the federal, state, and local laws, regulations, rules, and orders, and 11. If Proposer has more than 40 employees in the state in which their principal place of business is located, Proposer RFP 111010 Page 43 of 47 hereby certifies their compliance with federal affirmative action requirements. Company Name: Contact Person for Questions: _____________________ Phone: _______________________________________ (Must be individual who is responsible for filling out this Proposer’s Response form) Address: ____________________________________________________________________________________ City/State/Zip: _______________________________________________________________________________ Telephone Number: _____________________________ Fax Number: _________________________________ E-mail Address:______________________________________________________________________________ Authorized Signature: _________________________________________________________________________ Authorized Name (typed): ______________________________________________________________________ Title: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Notarized Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______________ the day of ___________________ , 20______________ Notary Public in and for the County of __________________________________________ State of __________ My commission expires: _______________________________________________________________________ Signature: __________________________________________________________________________________ RFP 111010 Page 44 of 47 Form G. OVERALL EVALUATION AND CRITERIA In accordance with accepted standards of competitive sealed proposal awards as set forth in the Minnesota Procurement Code, competitive sealed proposals/awards will be made to responsible Proposers whose proposals are determined in writing to be responsive and also be the most advantageous to NJPA and its NJPA Members. To qualify for the final evaluation, a Proposer must have been deemed responsive as a result of the criteria set for “Proposer Responsiveness.” A proposal must have been submitted on time and materially satisfy all mandatory requirements identified in this document. Evaluation for:____________________________________________________________________ For the Proposed Subject PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, The evaluation criteria for this solicitation, not arranged in order of importance: Available Points Points Awarded Conformance to terms and conditions to include documentation 75 Pricing 300 Industry and Marketplace Successes 50 Bidder's Ability to Sell and Service Contract Nationally 100 Bidder's Marketing Plan 75 Value Added Attributes 75 Invoicing Payment Terms and Financing Options 25 Warranty Coverages and Information. 100 Selection and Variety of Products and Services Offered 200 Total Points 1000 0 Bonus Points awarded for: Bidders "Green" characteristics 50 Bidders Dissadvantaged Business Entity Charactoristics 50 Overall Evaluation Points 1100 0 Proposed Reviewed by: _________________________________________ Its_________________________________ _________________________________________ Its_________________________________ RFP 111010 Page 45 of 47 FORM H State Of Minnesota – Affirmative Action Certification If your response to this solicitation is or could be in excess of $100,000, complete the information requested below to determine whether you are subject to the Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minnesota Statutes 363A.36) certification requirement, and to provide documentation of compliance if necessary. It is your sole responsibility to provide this information and—if required—to apply for Human Rights certification prior to the due date and time of the proposal or proposal and to obtain Human Rights certification prior to the execution of the contract. The State of Minnesota is under no obligation to delay proceeding with a contract until a company receives Human Rights certification BOX A – For companies which have employed more than 40 full-time employees within Minnesota on any single working day during the previous 12 months. All other companies proceed to BOX B. Your response will be rejected unless your business: has a current Certificate of Compliance issued by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) –or– has submitted an affirmative action plan to the MDHR, which the Department received prior to the date and time the responses are due. Check one of the following statements if you have employed more than 40 full-time employees in Minnesota on any single working day during the previous 12 months:  We have a current Certificate of Compliance issued by the MDHR. Proceed to BOX C. Include a copy of your certificate with your response.  We do not have a current Certificate of Compliance. However, we submitted an Affirmative Action Plan to the MDHR for approval, which the Department received on __________________ (date). [If the date is the same as the response due date, indicate the time your plan was received: ________ (time). Proceed to BOX C.  We do not have a Certificate of Compliance, nor has the MDHR received an Affirmative Action Plan from our company. We acknowledge that our response will be rejected. Proceed to BOX C. Contact the Minnesota Department of Human Rights for assistance. (See below for contact information.) Please note: Certificates of Compliance must be issued by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Affirmative Action Plans approved by the Federal government, a county, or a municipality must still be received, reviewed, and approved by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights before a certificate can be issued. BOX B – For those companies not described in BOX A Check below.  We have not employed more than 40 full-time employees on any single working day in Minnesota within the previous 12 months. Proceed to BOX C. BOX C – For all companies By signing this statement, you certify that the information provided is accurate and that you are authorized to sign on behalf of the responder. You also certify that you are in compliance with federal affirmative action requirements that may apply to your company. (These requirements are generally triggered only by participating as a prime or subcontractor on federal projects or contracts. Contractors are alerted to these requirements by the federal government.) Name of Company: Date Authorized Signature: Telephone number: Printed Name: Title: For assistance with this form, contact: Minnesota Department of Human Rights, Compliance Services Section Mail: 190 East 5th St., Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101 TC Metro: (651) 296-5663 Toll Free: 800-657-3704 Web: www.humanrights.state.mn.us Fax: (651) 296-9042 TTY: (651) 296-1283 RFP 111010 Page 46 of 47 Form I State of Minnesota — Immigration Status Certification By order of the Governor’s Executive Order 08-01, vendors and subcontractors MUST certify compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) and certify use of the E-Verify system established by the Department of Homeland Security. E-Verify program information can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs. If any response to a solicitation is or could be in excess of $50,000, vendors and subcontractors must certify compliance with items 1 and 2 below. In addition, prior to the delivery of the product or initiation of services, vendors MUST obtain this certification from all subcontractors who will participate in the performance of the contract. All subcontractor certifications must be kept on file with the contract vendor and made available to the state upon request. 1. The company shown below is in compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 in relation to all employees performing work in the United States and does not knowingly employ persons in violation of the United States immigration laws. The company shown below will obtain this certification from all subcontractors who will participate in the performance of this contract and maintain subcontractor certifications for inspection by the state if such inspection is requested; and 2. By the date of the delivery of the product and/or performance of services, the company shown below will have implemented or will be in the process of implementing the E-Verify program for all newly hired employees in the United States who will perform work on behalf of the State of Minnesota. I certify that the company shown below is in compliance with items 1 and 2 above and that I am authorized to sign on its behalf. Name of Company: _____________________________________ Date: ___________________________________ Authorized Signature: _______________________________________ Telephone Number: ________________________ Printed Name: ___________________________________________ Title: ___________________________________ If the contract vendor and/or the subcontractors are not in compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act, or knowingly employ persons in violation of the United States immigration laws, or have not begun or implemented the E-Verify program for all newly hired employees in support of the contract, the state reserves the right to determine what action it may take. This action could include, but would not be limited to cancellation of the contract, and/or suspending or debarring the contract vendor from state purchasing. For assistance with the E-Verify Program Contact the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-800-375-5283 (TTY 1-800-767-1833). For assistance with this form, contact: E-mail: MMDHelp.Line@state.mn.us Telephone: 651.296.2600 Persons with a hearing or speech disability may contact us by dialing 711 or 1.800.627.3529 Mail: 112 Administration Bldg, 50 Sherburne Ave. St. Paul, MN 55155 Page 47 of 47 Pre-submission Checklist  Have you read and understood the RFP?  Have you attended the Pre-Bid Conference for this RFP?  Have you completed the questionnaire (Form A) to the best of your ability?  Have you submitted pricing for all of the goods and services you offer within the scope of this RFP?  Have you submitted a “Sourced Goods Multiplier?  Have you packaged your bid submission identifying conspicuously “Competitive Bid Enclosed, Please hold for public opening XX-XX-XXX”.  Have you sent your package in sufficient time for physical delivery at 200 1st ST NE Staples, MN 56479 will occur prior to the deadline for delivery?  Have you submitted original completed and executed forms C,D,E,H, and I from this RFP?  Have you submitted verification of liability insurance with the coverage and limits required in the RFP?  Have you provided an electronic copy (saved on a CD or flash drive) of your entire proposal including, but not limited to, Forms A,B,C, D,E,H, and I in your proposal? City of Palo Alto (ID # 4970) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Establishing GO Bond Tax Levy Title: Adoption of Resolution Establishing Fiscal Year 2014-15 Secured and Unsecured Property Tax Levy for the City of Palo Alto’s General Obligation Bond Indebtedness (Measure N) From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Adopt a resolution (Attachments A and B) approving the establishment of the Fiscal Year 2014- 15 property tax levy of $15.94 per $100,000 in Assessed Value (AV) for the secured and utility tax roll and $17.72 per $100,000 in AV for the unsecured tax roll for the City of Palo Alto's Measure N General Obligation Bond Library Bonds (First and Second Series). Background On November 4, 2008, City voters passed Measure N which gave the City authority to issue a maximum amount of $76,000,000 million of General Obligation bonds (the "Bonds") for capital improvements to the Mitchell Park, Downtown, and Main libraries and to the Mitchell Park community center. The City successfully sold the Bonds in two series to provide $76 million in funds for the design and construction costs. Both Standard and Poor's (S&P) and Moody's awarded their highest credit ratings, Triple A, to both series of Bonds. Discussion Debt service payments on these Bonds are paid through ad valorem taxes on all taxable land and improvements (both secured and unsecured assessment roll) within the City. Staff is seeking Council approval of the attached resolution (Attachment A) which authorizes the placement of an ad valorem property tax levy in the amount of $0.01594 per $100 or $15.94 per $100,000 in AV for the secured tax roll; and $0.01772 per $100 or $17.72 per $100,000 in AV for the unsecured tax roll. In comparison, prior years secured and unsecured tax levy was $17.72 and $12.88, respectively, per $100,000 of AV. The assessment rate for FY 2014-15 is decreasing for the secured and increasing for the unsecured property taxes. The secured rate decrease is attributable to the rise in the Assessed Valuation for properties throughout Palo Alto by 6.4 percent, an increase of $1.5 billion. In City of Palo Alto Page 2 addition, the rise in Assessed Valuation during FY 2013-14, due to property sales and new construction, resulted in $0.2 million in excess collections. The collections plus part of a bond issuance premium (see explanation below) will offset the FY 2015 annual assessment by $0.3 million. General Obligation Bonds are unique in that they must be issued, by Government Code, at a par value that does not include an amount to pay the underwriting fee. To generate this fee and to market the bonds, interest rates on the bonds to be paid to investors were set slightly higher than the market rates. The par amount of bonds issued in June 2010 and June 2013 was $55.3 million and 20.7 million, respectively. Of this amount, $75.8 million was deposited into the Project Fund for the projects described above and $0.2 million paid for cost of issuances expenses on the first series bonds (e.g., disclosure counsel, rating agencies). As a consequence of the interest rates to be paid on the bonds and investor demand, a premium of $4.8 million was generated. Of this, $0.8 million went for the underwriter’s discount and $0.2 million for cost of issuance expenses on the second series bonds leaving $3.8 million in remaining premiums. The remaining premium must be used to offset annual debt service. In effect, use of the premium lowers the true interest cost to property owners to that cited at the time of the bond issuances, 4.2 percent for the 2010 (first series) and 3.85 percent for the 2013 (second series) Bonds. Based on the 30 year life of the bonds, staff will amortize the $3.8 million in premiums over 30 years or offset the annual assessment by $126,985 per year. To date $0.5 million of this has been already applied; leaving a balance of $3.3 million to be used to reduce future assessments. As for the unsecured property taxes, per the County of Santa Clara’s methodology, the prior year’s secured tax rate becomes this year’s unsecured tax rate as a result this rate won’t benefit from the coming year’s Assessed Value increase until FY 2015-16. With the new assessment for FY 2014-15, a house with an assessed value of $1 million, for example, would see an annual assessment of $159.40 on their property tax bill. Resource Impact The bond issuances result in a 2015 calendar year debt service expenditure of approximately $4.7 million and Council approval of the attached resolution will result in ad valorem tax levy revenue of $4.4 million with the $0.3 million difference attributable to available funds on hand. Again, secured and unsecured property owners will see a levy of $15.94 and $17.72 per $100,000 of AV on their 2014-15 property tax statement. Environmental Review There is no environmental review required for this report. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution Establishing FY 2014-15 Library Bond Tax Rate Levy (PDF)  Attachment B General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2008, Series 2010 and 2013 Tax Rate Calculation Based on 2014-15 AV (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Property Tax Levy of $15.94 Per $100,000 of Secured and $17.72 Per $100,000 of Unsecured Assessed Valuations for the City’s General Obligation Bond Indebtedness (Measure N Library Projects) R E C I T A L S A. The City of Palo Alto’s (“City”) general election held on November 4, 2008, more than two thirds of voters approved Measure N, authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount not to exceed $76,000,000 (the “Authorization”) to fund construction of a new Mitchell Park Library and Community center and renovation and improvements to Downtown and Main libraries. B. Pursuant to the Authorization, the City issued two series (Series 2010A and 2013A) of general obligation bonds in June 2010 and June 2013 that yielded $75.8 million for project needs. C. The City is obligated to levy ad valorem taxes on all property within the City subject to taxation by the City, without limitation on rate or amount (except with respect to certain personal property which is taxed at limited rates), for the payment of the debt service on the Bonds. D. The City is obligated to direct the County of Santa Clara to collect such ad valorem taxes in such amounts and at such times as is necessary to ensure the timely payment of debt service on the Bonds. E. The amount of the annual ad valorem tax levied by the City to repay the Bonds is determined by the relationship between the assessed valuation of taxable property in the City and the amount of debt service due on the bonds. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the Authorization, an ad valorem property tax is hereby established to be levied on all land and improvements in the City of Palo Alto during fiscal year 2014-15 in the amount of $0.01594 per $100 in assessed value for the secured and utility tax roll and $0.01772 per $100 in assessed value for the unsecured tax roll based on the calculations set forth in the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 2. The City’s Director of Administrative Services shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be delivered to the Auditor of the County of Santa Clara for entry in the assessment book of the respective sums in dollars and cents. 140713 jb 0131234 1 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ______________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ______________________________ Director of Administrative Services / CFO 140713 jb 0131234 2 A) Assessed Valuations (AV) 1)2014-15 Taxable Secured Assessed Valuation (AV)25,575,490,664.00$ 2)2014-15 Taxable Unsecured AV 1,622,636,368.00$ 3 ) Less: Estimated Delinquency 0.00%- 4 ) Net Taxable Unsecured AV 1,622,636,368.00 5 ) Total Assessed Valuation 27,198,127,032.00$ B) Tax Levy Requirement 5)2014-15 Debt Service Payments 6)2010 Bonds February 1,2015 1,211,734.38$ 7)2010 Bonds August 1, 2015 2,281,734.38 3,493,468.76 8)2013 Bonds February 1,2015 411,300.00$ 9)2013 Bonds August 1, 2015 786,300.00 1,197,600.00 10 )Total Calendar Year 2013 Debt Service Payment 4,691,068.76 11 ) Excess Funds on Hand Applied Toward Debt Servce (336,984.64) 12 ) Sub-total 4,354,084.12 13 ) Santa Clara County Administration Fee (0.25% of Principal & Interest)10,885.21 14 )Total 2014-15 Annual Debt Service Requirement 4,364,969.33 C) Secured and Unsecured Tax Rate 15 )2014-15 Unsecured Tax Rate per $100 of Unsecured AV (Prior Year's Secured Tax Rate)0.01772$ 16 )2014-15 Unsecured Tax Rate per $100,000 of Unsecured AV 17.72$ 17 )2014-15 Estimated Revenue from Unsecured AV (line 4 divide by 100 times by line 12) 287,531.16$ 18 )2014-15 Estimated Revenue from Secured AV (line 11 minus line 13) 4,077,438.17 19 )Total 2014-15 Annual Debt Service Requirement 4,364,969.33$ 20 )2014-15 Secured Tax Rate per $100 of Secured AV (line 14 divided by line 1*100) 0.01594$ 21 )2014-15 Secured Tax Rate per $100,000 of Secured AV (line 14 divided by line 1 times 100,000) 15.94$ Attachment B City of Palo Alto General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2008, Series 2010 and 2013 Tax Rate Calculation Based on 2014-15 Assessed Values City of Palo Alto (ID # 4965) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: PUBLIC HEARING: TEFRA Hearing for the Stanford Affordable Apartments Project Title: PUBLIC HEARING: TEFRA Hearing Regarding Conduit Financing for the Stanford Affordable Apartments Project Located at 2450, 2470 and 2500 El Camino Real Palo Alto, and Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Purpose of Financing the Acquisition, Construction and Development of a Multifamily Rental Housing Facility From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council consider the following motion: to adopt a resolution approving the issuance of the bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) for the benefit of Palo Alto ECR Partners, L.P. (Borrower). Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1) Conduct a public hearing under the requirements of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1983 (TEFRA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Code); and 2) Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the issuance of the bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) for the benefit of Palo Alto ECR Partners, L.P. (Borrower). Executive Summary The City has received a request to conduct a TEFRA hearing in order for the Related Companies of California to issue tax exempt bonds (through a conduit agency) to construct the Stanford Affordable Apartments project. Per federal law, a local jurisdiction must pass a resolution approving the issuance of these bonds. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. The City City of Palo Alto Page 2 bears no financial, legal or moral liability for these bonds. Background The Related Companies of California requested that the CMFA serve as the municipal issuer of bonds for the Stanford Affordable Apartments project in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $23,000,000 of tax exempt revenue bonds. Proceeds from the issuance of the bonds will be used to finance the acquisition, construction and development of a 70-unit multifamily rental housing project to be located at 2450, 2470 and 2500 El Camino Real, Palo Alto. The project is located just south of California Avenue on the west side of El Camino Real and is between the Wells Fargo bank and Bank of America. The facilities are to be owned by Palo Alto ECR Partners, L.P. or related entities, and operated by Related Management Company, L.P., and are generally known as Stanford Affordable (the “Project”). All or a portion of the rental units in the facility will be rented to those of low or very low income. In order for all or a portion of the bonds to qualify as tax-exempt bonds, the City of Palo Alto must conduct a public hearing (TEFRA Hearing), providing the members of the community an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the project. Prior to the hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the members of the community. Following the close of the TEFRA hearing, an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit hosting the proposed project must provide its approval of the issuance of the bonds for the financing of the project. Discussion Since the facilities to be financed with the proceeds of the CMFA’s debt are located within the jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto, the City has been asked to conduct a TEFRA hearing and adopt a resolution (Attachment A) that approves the issuance of bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of Palo Alto ECR Partners, L.P. As cited in the published notice of July 18, 2014, the public hearing is simply an opportunity for all interested persons to speak or to submit written comments concerning the proposal to issue the debt and the nature or location of the facility to be financed; however there is no formal obligation on the part of the borrower or the Council to respond to any specific comments made during the hearing or submitted in writing. The bonds are intended to finance the acquisition, and rehabilitation of a multifamily rental housing facility proposed to be located at 2450, 2470 and 2500 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California 94306. The Council’s participation in this hearing is separate from the entitlement review and does not impact the City’s ability to exercise full discretion in connection with future land use entitlements needed for the project. The CMFA is a joint exercise of powers authority that the City became a member of on April 14, 2008. The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement provides that the CMFA is a public entity, separate and apart from each member executing such agreement. The debts, liabilities and City of Palo Alto Page 3 obligations of the CMFA do not constitute debts, liabilities or obligations of the members executing such agreement. The bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the project will be the sole responsibility of the borrower, and the City of Palo Alto will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the project or the repayment of the bonds for the financing of the project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the bonds are not obligations of the City of Palo Alto or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the borrower. The City is in no way become exposed to any financial liability by reason of its membership in the CMFA. In addition, participation by the City in the CMFA does not impact the City’s appropriations limits and will not constitute any type of indebtedness by the City. Outside of holding the TEFRA hearing, adopting the required resolution, no other participation or activity of the City or the City Council with respect to the issuance of the bonds will be required. Based on the benefits of the project to the Palo Alto community and the lack of any financial obligations on the part of the City, staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution. Resource Impact As stated, the City will incur no financial obligation from approval of the recommendations. The Related Companies of California is requesting authority to issue up to $23 million in bonds through the CMFA. The City will receive a fee for its services when the bonds are issued. The City would receive approximately $12,500 if the par amount of the bonds issued is $20 million. Policy Implications Actions recommended in this report are consistent with Council’s prior actions in supporting non-profit financings under the TEFRA (e.g., approving tax-exempt financing through the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Gideon Hauser Jewish Community Center Apartments project, CMR: 184:08). Environmental Review Action on this item does not constitute a project under Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution Stanford Affordable Housing TEFRA (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 140701 jb 0131232 Resolution No._______________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Issuance of The California Municipal Finance Authority Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds In An Aggregate Principal Amount Not To Exceed $23,000,000 for the Purpose of Financing the Acquisition, Construction and Equipping of Stanford Affordable and Certain Other Matters Relating Thereto R E C I T A L S A. Palo Alto ECR Partners, L.P., a California limited partnership (the “Borrower”), has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”) participate in the issuance of one or more series of revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $23,000,000 (the “Bonds”) for the acquisition, construction and equipping of a 70-unit multifamily rental housing project located at 2450, 2470 and 2500 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California, generally known as Stanford Affordable (the “Project”) and operated by Related Management Company, L.P. B. Pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) because the Project is to be located within the territorial limits of the City. C. The City Council of the City (the “City Council”) is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the “applicable elected representatives” required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code. D. The Authority has requested that the City Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”), among certain local agencies, including the City. E. Pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority. The Council of the City of Palo RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds (a) by the “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located in accordance with Section 147(f) of the Code and; (b) by the City Council in accordance with Section 4 of the Agreement. SECTION 2. The issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The City shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Bonds. NOT YET APPROVED 140701 jb 0131232 SECTION 3. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing to acquire or rehabilitate the Project or any refinancing of the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, rehabilitation or operation of the Project; (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (iv) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein. SECTION 4. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute such other agreements, documents and certificates, and to perform such other acts and deeds, as may be necessary or convenient to effect the purposes of this Resolution and the transactions herein authorized. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution to: Justin Cooper, Esq. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 SECTION 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ___________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager or Designee ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 4795) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Weed Abatement Resolution Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the Respective Properties Described Therein (Continued from June 16, 2014) From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends Council (1) hold a public hearing to hear and consider objections from affected property owners of proposed assessments related to completed weed abatement work; and (2) adopt the attached resolution confirming the report and ordering abatement costs to be a special assessment on the properties specified in the report. Background The Weed Abatement Division of Santa Clara County Agriculture and Environmental Management is the administrator of the contract for weed abatement within the City of Palo Alto, in accordance with an agreement established on April 18, 1977 between the City and County. On November 18, 2013, in accordance with Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the City Council passed Resolution No. 9383, declaring weeds to be a nuisance and scheduled a public hearing date for objections to proposed weed abatement. A public hearing was held on January 13, 2014, to consider objections to the proposed destruction or removal of the weeds. No objections were noted. City Council passed Resolution No. 9391, ordering the weed nuisance abated. Once the above steps had been taken, the County Weed Abatement Division instructed its contractor to abate weeds on City and private properties within Palo Alto. That work has now been completed. Property owners were notified the third week in December 2013 that weeds were to be abated by April 30, 2014, either by the owners or by the County. If the property owners chose to have the County abate the weeds, the abatement charges would be levied against the respective properties as an assessment by the County Assessor. The County has since informed the property owners of the costs for destroying and removing the weeds. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The City Clerk has published the required notice of this hearing in the Palo Alto Weekly. The cost report by the County Weed Abatement Division has been posted on the City Hall Plaza bulletin board for ten days prior to this hearing. Discussion Property owners may object to the charges for weed abatement being levied against their properties. The charge consists of the contractor’s cost plus 150 percent administrative charges, in accordance with Palo Alto’s contract with Santa Clara County (Staff Report No. 2945, April 23, 2012). A representative from the County Weed Abatement Division will be present at the public hearing with the records of weed abatement that have taken place. Should there be any modifications in the proposed assessments as a result of the hearing; changes in the assessment spread will be made as necessary. After any recalculations are completed, and Council adopts the attached resolution confirming the abatements and ordering those costs to be imposed as liens on the abated properties, the assessments will be submitted to the County Assessor for entry on the October tax roll upon which general City taxes are to be collected. Resource Impact There is no direct fiscal impact of this action to the City. The assessments identified on Attachment C, totaling $1,112.40 will be imposed as liens on the properties listed and will not be borne by the City. Policy Implications This procedure is consistent with existing City policies. Environmental Assessment The Santa Clara County Counsel has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308. Attachments:  Exhibit A - Resolution (DOC)  Attachment A - Resolution # 9383 (PDF)  Attachment B - Resolution # 9391 (PDF)  Attachment C - 2014 SCC Weed Abatement Assessment Report for CPA (PDF) ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 120626 sh 8261911 1 Resolution No. ________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the Respective Properties Described Therein WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Palo Alto has heretofore declared weeds growing on certain properties within the City to be a public nuisance by Resolution No. 9383, dated December 9, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Council on January 13th, 2013, did adopt Resolution No. 9391 thereby ordering the weed nuisance abated; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the giving of said notice, the Fire Chief, through his Administrator, the Weed Abatement Division of Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management, has caused to be abated the weeds on the herein described properties; and WHEREAS, the Fire Chief, through his Administrator, the Weed Abatement Division of Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management, has filed his report and assessment list for weed abatement as provided by law and a hearing has been duly set and noticed, for objections to said report and assessment list and for confirmation; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered the report and assessment list and any objections thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The report and assessment list is in all respects complete and correct and is hereby confirmed. The amounts of the cost for abating the nuisance are confirmed and those remaining unpaid, as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall constitute special assessments against the respective parcels of land and are a lien on the property for the amount of the respective assessment. SECTION 2. All written or oral protests or objections to said report and assessment list are overruled or denied. SECTION 3. The unpaid assessments shown on Exhibit “A” shall be entered upon the 2013-2014 tax roll against the parcels of land and shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as general City taxes, be subject to the same interest and penalties, and be subject to the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency. All laws and ordinances applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of City taxes are hereby made applicable to this special assessment. ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 140729 sh 8261911 2 SECTION 4. Santa Clara County has determined the weed abatement program to be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ___________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services ___________________________ Fire Chief Resolution No. 9383 Resolution of Intention ofthe Council ofthe City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting December 9th, 2013 for a Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed Weed Abatement RECITALS A. Weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010(b) ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code, are anticipated to develop during calendar year 2013 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within'the City of Palo Alto sufficient to constitute a public nuisance as a fire menace when dry or are otherwise combustible, or otherwise to constitute a menace to the public health as noxious or dangerous. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.01O(b) ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code, which are anticipated to develop during calendar year 2013 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City of Palo Alto, are hereby found and determined to constitute a public nuisance. Such nuisance is anticipated to exist upon some of the streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City, which are shown, described, and delineated on the several maps of the properties in said City which are recorded in the Office ofthe County Recorder ofthe County of Santa Clara, reference in each instance for the description of any particular street, alley, or parcel of private property being hereby made to the several maps aforesaid, and, in the event ofthere being several subdivision maps on which the same lots are shown, reference is hereby made to the latest subdivision map. SECTION 2. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the said public nuisance be abated in the manner provided by Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a public hearing shall be held on Monday, the 9th day of December, 2013, at the hour of 7:00pm, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the Council Chambers ofthe Civic Center of said City, at which the Council shall hear objections to the proposed weed abatement of such weeds and give any objections due consideration; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Fire Chief of the City of Palo Alto is directed to give notice of the public hearing in the time, manner and form provided in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 3. Unless the nuisance is abated without delay by the destruction and removal of such weeds, the work of abating such nuisance will be done by the County of Santa Clara Department of Agriculture and Resource Management Office on behalf of the City of Palo 131204 sh 0170002 1 Resolution No. 9383 Resolution of Intention ofthe Council ofthe City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting December 9th, 2013 for a Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed Weed Abatement RECITALS A. Weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010(b) ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code, are anticipated to develop during calendar year 2013 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within'the City of Palo Alto sufficient to constitute a public nuisance as a fire menace when dry or are otherwise combustible, or otherwise to constitute a menace to the public health as noxious or dangerous. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.01O(b) ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code, which are anticipated to develop during calendar year 2013 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City of Palo Alto, are hereby found and determined to constitute a public nuisance. Such nuisance is anticipated to exist upon some of the streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City, which are shown, described, and delineated on the several maps of the properties in said City which are recorded in the Office ofthe County Recorder ofthe County of Santa Clara, reference in each instance for the description of any particular street, alley, or parcel of private property being hereby made to the several maps aforesaid, and, in the event ofthere being several subdivision maps on which the same lots are shown, reference is hereby made to the latest subdivision map. SECTION 2. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the said public nuisance be abated in the manner provided by Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a public hearing shall be held on Monday, the 9th day of December, 2013, at the hour of 7:00pm, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the Council Chambers ofthe Civic Center of said City, at which the Council shall hear objections to the proposed weed abatement of such weeds and give any objections due consideration; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Fire Chief of the City of Palo Alto is directed to give notice of the public hearing in the time, manner and form provided in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 3. Unless the nuisance is abated without delay by the destruction and removal of such weeds, the work of abating such nuisance will be done by the County of Santa Clara Department of Agriculture and Resource Management Office on behalf of the City of Palo 131204 sh 0170002 1 ) ) Resolution No. 9391 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance,Abated A. On November 18, 2013, the Palo Alto City Council adopted Resolution No. 9383 declaring weeds to be a nuisance and setting December 9, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Civic Center as the time and place for a hearing of objections to the proposed destruction and removal of weeds; and B. In accordance with said Resolution, notice of such hearing was given in the manner provided by law, as appears from the affidavits on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and. C. All persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to said weed abatement were fully heard and considered by this Council. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council ofthe City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Any and all objections to the proposed destruction and removal of such weeds are overruled. SECTION 2. The Fire Chief hereby is ordered to do all things necessary and authorized in Chapter 8.08 ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code to abate such nuisance, or cause the same to be abated by contract with the County of Santa Clara. II II II II II II II II II 140113 sh 0170004 1 ) ) Resolution No. 9391 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance,Abated A. On November 18, 2013, the Palo Alto City Council adopted Resolution No. 9383 declaring weeds to be a nuisance and setting December 9, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Civic Center as the time and place for a hearing of objections to the proposed destruction and removal of weeds; and B. In accordance with said Resolution, notice of such hearing was given in the manner provided by law, as appears from the affidavits on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and. C. All persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to said weed abatement were fully heard and considered by this Council. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council ofthe City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Any and all objections to the proposed destruction and removal of such weeds are overruled. SECTION 2. The Fire Chief hereby is ordered to do all things necessary and authorized in Chapter 8.08 ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code to abate such nuisance, or cause the same to be abated by contract with the County of Santa Clara. II II II II II II II II II 140113 sh 0170004 1 2014 Weed Abatement Program Exhibit A Assessment Report City of Palo Alto TAX ROLL Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT IRA 733 Ramona 120-27-063 Kod3. Ross K Trustee POBoxl56 SOUTH DOS PALOS 93665 $608.60 6001 2 2225 Alma 124-20-001 De Groot, Wilhelm liS A Tr 102 Walter Hays Dr PALO ALTO 94303~2923 $41.00 6001 3 425 Stanford 124-31-027 Nicholls, Ma.-ie L 425 Stanford A v PALO ALTO 94306-1149 S41.00 6001 4 3\01 Middlefield 127-53-007 Fisher Lie 3101 Middlefield Rd. PALO ALTO 94306 $534.40 6001 5 609 Ashton 112-04-102 Dorothea, Diana Po Box 4366 MOUNTAIN VIEW 94040 $41.00 6001 6 3489 Cowper 132-05-108 Me Calley, Roderick C Et AI 3489 Cowper St PALO ALTO 94306-3617 $41.00 6001 7 <y 132-33-o5Q At&t Communicatirms Inc. Attn; 870 N. Mccarthy Blvd Suite MILPITAS 95035-5125 $250.00 6001 8 405 Curtner 132-41-072 Curtner Investment Group Lie 18801 Be1groveCI SARATOGA 95070 $250.00 6001 9 2321 Wellesley 137-02-!lZ4 CUlpepper, James A Trustee 2121 .Amherst St ;'1: PALO ALTO 94306-1205 $41.00 6001 10 2240 Columbia 137-05-094 Guerrero, Charles J Trustee 58 Valley SI SAN FRANCISCO 94110 $291.00 6001 11 No Situs 117-05-!l95 Guerrero, ChArles J Trustee 58 Valley St :;(: SAN FRANCISCO 94110 $291.00 6001 12 2195 Columbia 137-06-036 Edelman, Andrea Trustee 2195 Columbia St PALO ALTO 94306-1233 $41.00 6001 13 3747 Laguna 137 -14-!l69 Benes, Francis M Et AI 3747 LagWlaAv PALO ALTO 94306-2625 $41.00 6059 14 4197 Baker 137-25-038 Vangl Michael X And Xu, Ying·zi 4197 Baker Av PALO ALTO 94306-3908. $41.00 6059 15 4103 Old Trace 175·20-!l78 Smitbwick, Alton D And Smitbwick, Po Box 60065 PALO ALTO 94306 $25000 602() 16 4110 Old Trace 175-20-080 Oliff, Jay RAnd Oliff, Adrienne K 4110 Old Trace Rd PALO ALTO 94306-3727 $41.00 6020 17 Old Adobe 175-20-092 Grove, Andrew S And Grove, Eva R 171 MainSI#278 LOS ALTOS 94022 $250.00 6020 TOTAL $3,094.00 Report Date: 712112014 (List Sorted by APN) Page 1 the California Department of Finance (DOF). DOF will release new Bay Area and statewide projections for second review by regional/county planning agencies this Friday. They will be similar to the levels expected in Plan Bay Area and compared to previous ABAG and DOF projections have a) lower birth rates, b) more growth in the Asian population and c) similar patterns of substantial growth in the older population. So the bottom line, which should not be surprising to residents, policy makers or staff, is that the Bay Area is experiencing substantial growth and remains desired by business and prospective residents alike as a great place to live and work. Implications and Ideas for the Comp Plan 1) The Comp Plan horizon is 2030. The new DOF projections should give a good picture of the age and ethnic population trends for the region and peninsula. I appreciate how difficult it is to think about and plan for the future but I hope that the Council and PTC can incorporate the perspective of our 2030 residents and the kind of city they would like. That perspective will include that of existing residents and the substantial aging that will take place but also, I hope, reflect what newer residents will be like and want. One challenge we face with these incredibly rising home prices is maintaining diversity as much as realistically possibl~. 2) Staff has outlined four broad alternatives for the initial Comp Plan discussion. One difference among the alternatives is in the amount of growth that is planned for. I urge the staff, Council and PTC to include an alternative that at least matches the amount of growth envisioned in Plan Bay Area. My discussions with staff indicate that they may adjust one of the alternatives to achieve this broader range of growth alternatives for consideration. I am well aware of the current mood of many residents about growth but have also seen at the PTC and at the Our Palo Alto meetings that many residents want to see the city offer a broader range of new housing. In addition I am concerned that there are legal risks in preventing discussion of plans that at least study the Plan Bay Area anticipated growth. 3) Staff has identified six areas within the city for studying future growth alternatives while trying to steer growth away from existing residential areas except for possible additional retail opportunities. I think this is a good framework for proceeding. In all of the meetings I have attended residents have worked constructively and seen opportunities in all of these locations. While we will not have exact numbers until the alternatives are fleshed out more, it may well be that these six areas can handle the housing growth without any densification of existing R1 3 neighborhoods. So what has been a controversy about housing growth in. the abstract may be easier to find agreement if we get specific about these six areas. 4) I am encouraging staff to provide rough numbers as soon as possible as to how much growth is allowed under current zoning. I am worried that the current upset about recent growth is encouraging residents to have unrealistic expectations about how much growth can be limited apart from the Camp Plan question of what is desirable for Palo Alto. I am hoping that staff including the city attorney can clarify what is in the discretion of Council (certainly there is a lot and I expect vigorous analysis of public benefits for zoning change applications) and what is less or not discretionary-for example, the changes planned at the Yoga Center and CPK sites in downtown. One factor for all to consider is that office use for tech companies and start-ups is much denser that the way office space was used ten or twenty years ago. This means that a considerable (I hope staff can get an estimate) amount of job growth can occur even if no more buildings are approved. There are solid cost (space is expensive) and productivity {tech workers get benefit from working closely together) for these changes. Our offices downtown have seen two such changes-1) the way Palantir is using the space that our office and the adjacent training ceriter used space before we had to move, 2) the way that the main tenant in our current building has gone from 10 to 40 employees in the same space and 3) we saw the same trend in our visit last week to our son's new workplace in Irvine where four or five people work in each office--40+ people working in a space that previously might have had 10 to 15. 5) There has been a lot of back and forth about what uses are good near transit. My understanding of the best thinking on these issues (which is supported by the Caltrain usage data) is --for reducing commuting trips the best approach is to locate jobs near transit --for reducing travel by households apart from commuting (most rips are not for commuting) the best locations are near services and often used retail. So it is good to locate housing near downtown or Cal Ave, not primarily because they are near Caltrain stations but because they are near places residents go often and can now not need a car. 4 As a result the goal of locating housing within x miles of transit should be replaced by the goal of locating new housing near services and often used retail. There are places like T&C and Stanford Shopping Center for other needs. We cannot eliminate car use but can reduce the need for it by these measures. I am attaching a memo on Caltrain usage. As readers can see Palo Alto ridership is in a strong uptrend and by far the largest use is riders who come to PAin the morning in contrast to those who leave from the city confirming that it is access to jobs that is boosting ridership the most. 6) I am attaching a long memo on retail/dining/services demands and locations. There are three bottom lines --for downtown what we have is what one would expect given the customer base --growth in the customer base downtown and in many PA locations is driven by jobs and visitors (from afar, from neighboring communities and from other parts of PA). The customer base is not dominated by nearby residents (although we feel well served living downtown) and one should expect prospective tenants to think about the needs of their primary cu~tomer base. --many of the residents who call for more retail also call for limiting housing and job growth putting them in a logical disconnect from the perspective of prospective retail/dining/service owners. 7) I commend the city for the three part approach to parking and traffic downtown and wish all participants well. From my perspective there are no villains here and solutions need to respect the perspectives of residents, businesses and workers to solve the problem for everyone and not just move it around. Probably some kind of pricing oriented to incentives to use existing non street parking will be helpful along with capacity increases. 8) I am worried about two potential "mistakes" in the Comp Plan process and associated activities- --a) that residents may underestimate the amount of growth that is coming, which is why I have stressed providing such information and associated legal opinions --b) that as a result of these underestimates or wishful hopes, we may not go as aggressively as I think we need to in improving infrastructure, 5 expanding school capacity, finding approaches to deal with the expanded parking and traffic challenges 6 CENTER FOR CONTINUING STUDY OF THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY 575 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SUITE 110 • PALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA • 94301 TELEPHONE: (650) 321-8550 FAX: (650) 321-5451 www.ccsce.com DATE: July 28, 2014 TO: Palo Alto City Council and PTC Members FROM: Stephen Levy SUBJECT: Caltrain and PA Planning Issues Some Caltrain Trends Average Weekday Ridership The Palo Alto (downtown) station remains the second busiest system wide and shows above average growth since 2010. Interestingly, while the Cal Ave ridership is much lower, the rate of growth exceeds that at the downtown station. Since these are total trips, the number of unique riders is roughly half of the ridership totals. So, for example, the growth of 2,574 boardings at PA represents nearly 1,300 additional riders. Average Weekday Trips To and From Station Growth 2010-14 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number Percent PA 3582 4028 4664 5469 6156 2574 71.9% Cal Ave 777 865 1069 1294 1408 631 81.2% MtView 3049 3368 3670 3876 4274 1225 40.2% Total 34120 37779 42354 47060 52611 18491 54.2% Source: Caltrain Average Peak Morning Ridership These trends are interesting and shed light on two discussions-1) the priority for downtown housing and jobs relative to transit and 2) parking and shuttle service relative to ridership trends. 1 Average MORNING PEAK Weekday Trips to and From Palo Alto Station Going North Going South Total On Off On Off On Off 2010 659 790 161 1399 820 2189 2011 382 826 150 1538 532 2364 2012 726 1037 186 1803 912 2840 2013 746 1333 214 2139 960 3471 2014 820 1493 246 2459 1066 3952 2010-14 161 703 85 1060 246 1763 24.4% 89.0% 52.8% 75.8% 30.0% 80.5% The first point to note is that the station is used by many more coming here than leaving from here. In 2014 in the morning peak hour 3,952 riders got off at PA station and 1,066 got on. The number of riders getting off at PA increased by 80.5% since 2010 while the departing riders increased by just 30.0%. More riders (2,459 in 2014) got off coming from the north than from the south (1 ,493) but there are large numbers and% increases from both directions. Potential Implications Palo Alto is a major destination for jobs for Caltrain morning riders. The increase since 2010 has been 1 ,763. It would be interesting to know the split between those going downtown, to Stanford and perhaps to other locations. I know that many walk downtown after getting off as I see them but I do not have numbers. Perhaps Stanford has and would share shuttle ridership trend information. Each of these arriving passengers eliminates a parking demand. It would be interesting to know how the increase in riders getting off at PA compares to job increases in downtown and Stanford. I had thought the increase on people getting on at PA would have been larger and might have been a larger component of the increase in parking pressure. This looks less likely given the ridership numbers and 1) that PA has the second largest on board bikers (732), 2) some people walk to the station and 3) some are dropped off. I think these data support the idea that locating jobs near transit is the more effective way to reduce auto commute use while locating housing near downtowns remains the most effective way to reduce non co~ mute travel. 2 575 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SUITE 110 • PALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA • 94301 TELEPHONE: (650) 321-8550 FAX: (650) 321-5451 www.ccsce.com DATE: July 28, 2014 TO: Palo Alto City Council and PTC Members FROM: Stephen Levy SUBJECT: Shopping, Dining and Services in Downtown There has been considerable discussion about trends in retail development downtown in the media, on Town Square and somewhat in the Camp Plan update discussions. Neilson Buchanan has continued this discussion in the email that I am forwarding with this memo. Introduction I am not a retail expert nor am I a city planner. My expertise is in regional economic analysis and I am familiar with Bay Area economic and demographic trends, Plan Bay Area and the concepts of "smart growth" in these contexts. I prepared the regional growth forecast that was the foundation for Plan Bay Area and have done similar work for four other regional planning agencies in California as well as for energy and transportation planning. I do not prepare EIRs but have recently reviewed major economic/environmental analyses related to AB 32 for the Air Resources Board and the Southern California air quality district. I serve on the technical advisory committee related to preparation of the new State Housing Element. I served on the PA infrastructure commission. Nor am I an expert in Palo Alto data beyond what I have shared with the council and planning staff. I can guess at what the data will show but to the extent possible staff or PlaceWorks/Joanna Jansen should collect the data I discuss in the Comp Plan update. I lived for 14 years with roommates in College Terrace and then near 101 Alma. Nancy and I lived in two homes in the near Duveneck for 28 years and we have lived downtown in a condo for the past 9 years. I have worked downtown since 1969. I have never driven a car (poor eyesight). I have never represented a developer in a public de~ision process and own no property besides our condo and a week timeshare in Tahoe. Is it just Retail or do Residents Really Mean Retail and Services? 1 Most people "shop" downtown for restaurants/coffee/desert places, services and traditional retail stores that sell goods. My sense is that people mean to include services and eating/drinking places in the discussion of what they want downtown to serve people who live and /or work downtown. At least for our family once you get beyond restaurants/coffee places, Whole Foods, CVS, Walgreens and T Js (we walk-thank you Palo Alto for the Homer tunnel), most of our purchases downtown are of services: I think we need to develop a common understanding that retail really means places that residents, workers and visitors regularly use for dining, shopping and services. The Competitive Environment Downtown retail in the narrow sense of shopping for goods faces a daunting competitive environment, which probably explains most of the recent trends. Here are some trends that affect the environment for retail downtown, but much less so or not at all for many services and eating/drinking establishments. 1) Downtown is adjacent to a major regional shopping center. It is a good walk or short drive and has what most residents would call a full range of retail opportunities. 2) There is a substantially revitalized Town and Country shopping center with, again, a wide variety of smaller retail establishments sprinkled with a few services and a market (T Js) that all appear to be thriving. This competition for downtown is a relatively new occurrence and I would ask a retail expert how this changes what is possible downtown. 3) Both Stanford and T&C have two other competitive advantages: a) they operate under coordinated management and b) they have free onsite parking. One of the challenges of retail "planning" downtown is that we deal with individual owners; not a single management entity. 4) There has been a major increase in online shopping for items that folks use to get at stores. When I came home today, in our 17 unit condo there were 8 packages from Amazon and the like. I feel confident that the increase in online shopping affects the possibilities for downtown in what potential shoppers want. Again, Amazon does not deliver services, just goods. 5) I now get books and ·music on my I Pad. A while back I would go to Borders but no more. I am sure many residents no longer need (or need 2 as many) bookstores, places to get COs or places to rent movies in a Netflix world. 6) Downtown rents and land prices are expensive-very expensive and that will affect who wants to locate there. 7) What remains and what we use and walk to from our downtown condo include Medical care-at PAMC and Stanford Our dentists are downtown Dry cleaning Shoe repair (I also buy shoes at Footwear but this is not a frequent purchase) Clothes alteration (for our son's wedding) Eyeglasses and repair (Nancy walks to T&C) Chico's Watch repair and small purchases Banking (I still do not do mobile banking) Haircuts (Nancy drives to Mt. View) The UPS store (and the post office while it lasts) The Apple, Sprint and Verizon stores which are a mixture of goods and services Extensive use of Whole Foods, CVS, and Walgreens for food, home supplies, prescriptions, Lots of visits to restaurants, places to get frozen yogurt, coffee and goodies-we find lots of places that are not too expensive and mostly they are all jammed. I am interested in what other downtown residents use in the way of shopping or services downtown. So we are quite satisfied as residents and rarely use the car. Who are the Principal Customers? I don't have the data but I have to believe that the largest daytime customers are people who work downtown. I think the customers downtown establishments (and we should) focus on are 1 ) Downtown residents 2) Downtown workers 3) Stanford students and workers 3 4) Visitors It would be interesting to know the numbers in each group. Whatever the numbers I suspect the growth recently has been in downtown workers and associated visitors. The Palo Alto residents who do not live downtown have no real need to get into the downtown retail/services discussion. They have closer better options. They do have an interest in downtown dining or perhaps going to the movies or unique places but in general for everyday shopping, downtown is not needed for them. My observation is that many, if not most, of the new workers downtown are relatively young. I see that in the people getting off Caltrain, the people where our offices have been and the people we see in restaurants and coffee/yogurt places and observe in bars. We also see a lot of families with children downtown in the evening and where we eat. If I were a retailer I would target these folks. I think there is a lot of nostalgia in these retail discussions, often by people who do not live or work downtown. Our favorite not here anymore places are Hobee's, Good Earth and Machismo Mouse. But we do not suffer for places to eat and if our children were still of that age, we would easily find new places (Lyfe Kitchen, Sprouts, Plutos and others) that meet our needs. · But I am reminded often that I am no longer a typical or in demand customer for many goods and services. TV networks routinely cancel shows we love but I do not pretend they are acting irrationally. My trainer had an office next to mine but we both got moved out when Palantir took over the building and offered so much that the our landlords also moved on. Life goes on and we are surviving. What do we make of the Empty Retail Places Downtown? I observe retail places that remain vacant for long periods. The Borders site is one. The Waterworks site is another. There are two on Bryant-the almost kosher restaurant and the restaurant site next to Monique's (vacant seemingly forever). The retail site next to Simply Be has been vacant forever. I am sure there are others. We do not walk around counting vacant sites. I assume this means that the demand for retail space at the rents offered is not sufficient to fill these spaces. This leads to the "you can bring a horse to water but you cannot make her drink" dilemma. These vacant spaces are all ground floor in good locations. So I suspect enforcing more ground floor retail space is not any guarantee that it will 4 be filled and certainly no guarantee that it will be filled by the kind of places the nostalgia folks wish for. What's Not Coming Downtown Big box stores, a giant cheap supermarket (nor any other places in PA with our zoning and land costs). I am interested in hearing from folks what is missing that is realistic to expect and how that might occur through city action. The Palo Alto Contradiction Many of the people who speak to the PTC and council and write on Town Square are indulging in illogical thinking. They want more retail downtown while restricting the growth of the two largest customer bases (workers and residents) and, inferentially by opposing new hotels, restricting the growth of some tourism. Next they want more retail in a parking constrained area while opposing the growth of traffic or spending money for new parking lots and simultaneously wanting to restrict parking on neighborhood streets without as yet any offsetting investments. I AM sympathetic to the downtown parking issues and am just pointing out that wanting the growth or retail while restricting the cu'stomer base and only solving part of the parking challenges is a bit illogical. Conclusions My perspective is that downtown shopping, restaurants and services are serving the main customer bases well. I observe lots of people in Whole Foods, CVS, Walgreens, and the many restaurants and desert/coffee places we frequent and lots of people downtown in general. There are plenty of mainstream shopping options for people who do not live or work in downtown and their voices are not much to be trusted relative to future downtown retail. My perspective in listening to the complaints is that they see retail as a way to block more office growth and not because they are injured by the transitions going on. I am unclear what kind of planning can be done given the many uncoordinated individual property owners or where there is market failure. But expert voices on downtown retail might see other options that are within the city's powers. Two Other Factors Worth Noting 5 I will write more about these but wanted here to get the ideas out. 1) The Comp Plan is to 2030. That means a) going beyond the current RHNA time period ending and anticipating the needs of the next eight year period which will be within the Comp Plan horizon and 2) anticipating the implications of the large demographic changes in the decade 2020- 2030. 2) We should rethink the notion in the current alternative that seeks to locate housing within %mile of transit. To minimize the travel impacts .of new housing it should be located close to services, dining and shopping. The main trips eliminated are non-work trips. Some residents have suggested trying to reduce school driving trips-and interesting idea. Most people (I don't know for sure but this must be right) who take Caltrain drive, walk, bike or get dropped off but most do not live within a half mile of the stations. On the other hand smart growth does suggest placing job sites near transit. Look at the success of the downtown Caltrain station, Stanford shuttle combination. Watch as I do who the folks are getting off the trains and where they go. In the other hand this may be a distinction with only a slight difference in that the train stations are located near services, dining and shopping. But once you shift from thinking housing will reduce commute trips to the concept of reducing not commute trips and associate parking, the half mile from transit is not the right criterion. For example, where Neilson and Eric live are in .the right location for convenient walking trips but are not within a half mile of transit. Our place might make the % mile criterion but a block away might not although in terms of downtown use they are identical. 6 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4944) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Comp Plan Update and Scoping Session Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Update – Discussion of Alternative Futures & Issues for Consideration in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR “Scoping” Meeting). The City will Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Update of its Comprehensive Plan. Staff will Summarize Input Received at Recent Public Meetings and Invite Comments and Suggestions from the Public and the City Council Regarding the Alternatives and Issues that Should be Included for Analysis in the EIR. (Note: After an initial presentation, comments, and discussion, this public hearing will be proposed for continuance to 7:00 PM on Wednesday, August 6, 2014.) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public scoping meeting by accepting public testimony and providing feedback regarding environmental issues and alternatives to be considered in the program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Following the public hearing, staff recommends that the City Council either: (1) direct staff to proceed with preparation of the EIR analysis taking into consideration input received during the scoping period, and based on the four conceptual alternatives described in Attachment I, with specified modifications and refinements as desired; or (2) identify the specific, additional information required to further define the conceptual alternatives prior to initiating the analysis of potential impacts. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Comprehensive Plan amendment was initiated by the City Council in 2006 to focus on preservation of commercial land uses, preservation of retail and community services to support new residential growth, incorporate sustainability concepts, update the housing element and City of Palo Alto Page 2 prepare concept area plans for East Meadow Circle and California Avenue/Fry’s areas. The Comprehensive Plan Update has been the subject of multiple City Council hearings since 2006. Most recently, the Council endorsed on February 3, 2014 a new framework for a more robust public process for the preparation of the Update. A revised scheduled was approved by Council at the March 17, 2014 hearing. The new schedule includes key milestones of a release of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in December 2014 and a City Council hearing for a Draft Comprehensive Plan Update at the end of 2015. The new approach included the identification and analysis of multiple alternatives in order to allow for meaningful public dialog about critical issues, “alternative futures,” and potential impacts and benefits of the alternatives. The adopted schedule assumed that alternatives would be designed through a public scoping process and that the EIR analysis would begin in early to mid-August 2014. Earlier public engagement meetings and these August scheduled hearings before the City Council constitute the public scoping process. To identify issues and alternatives for analysis, staff issued a formal “Notice of Preparation” to solicit input on the scope of the EIR, and initiated public engagement efforts as part of the “Our Palo Alto” initiative. The engagement included three public meetings to solicit feedback from the public regarding (1) critical issues facing our community; (2) growth management strategies and regional growth projections; and (3) alternative futures. These public workshops and the concurrent online engagement efforts are described further in the Background section, below. In the course of the public workshops, members of the community reiterated their longstanding commitment to preserve residential (R-1) neighborhoods and public open spaces in the City, and discussed directing change to other areas in order to protect these neighborhoods and open spaces. The vast majority of Palo Alto (90 plus percent) would remain unchanged and off-limits for any land use plan change. Six “focus areas” emerged from the discussion as locations where the participants felt change could be accommodated if necessary: Downtown and the Stanford Shopping Center; the El Camino Real corridor; the California Avenue area; Stanford Research Park; the East Meadow Circle/Bayshore area; and the South San Antonio area. Participants in the third workshop considered these areas in crafting nine potential alternative futures, or visions for the City. These nine potential alternatives were subsequently condensed to form the four conceptual alternatives presented for discussion this evening. The four conceptual alternatives or scenarios each address any potential future growth in a different way, and would each result in different additions and changes to the draft policy document reviewed by the City Council earlier this year. In brief:  Scenario 1: Do Nothing/Business as Usual represents the No Project Alternative and is required by law. It assumes the Comprehensive Plan is not updated, and that by the end of the planning horizon, the current “cap” on non-residential development City of Palo Alto Page 3 (downtown and citywide) is exceeded due to regional growth pressures and the development potential available under existing zoning. 1  Scenario 2: Slow Growth & No Changes in Land Use Designations would manage growth by metering the pace of non-residential development, and would include policy changes to ensure that new housing is focused on meeting State housing requirements. There would be no changes to the City’s current land use map and zoning and limited transportation infrastructure changes.  Scenario 3: Slow Growth & Adjust the Location of Housing Sites would also manage growth by metering the pace of non-residential development and include policy changes to ensure that new housing is focused on meeting State housing requirements. However this alternative would also eliminate housing sites along South El Camino and San Antonio, and replace them with increased densities and new sites in areas better served by transit and neighborhood services, such downtown, the California Avenue area, and certain “nodes” along El Camino Real. This alternative could also test the idea of depressing the Caltrain tracks south of Page Mill Road.  Scenario 4: Net Zero Concepts would use performance measures rooted in the City’s sustainability goals rather than a growth management strategy to minimize community impacts and would test a number of “Net Zero” concepts. For example, this alternative could include policies and programs to ensure no net increase in vehicle trips between now and 2030, to ensure net zero energy use by new non-residential development, to significantly reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions and improve water conservation. This alternative could potentially allow more non-residential and residential growth than the others if projects could meet these much more stringent requirements that control the impacts of that growth. These four scenarios are described in more detail in Attachment I, and staff is seeking public and City Council input on these as well as the environmental issues that should be included in the EIR analysis. Also, because the four scenarios are high level “vision statements” at this point, they will need to be further developed in order for the consultants to begin the EIR analysis. For example, staff has been assembling data regarding the pace of non-residential development in Palo Alto since 1989 (long term) and since the end of the recession (short term) to inform the selection of an annual non-residential growth rate for Scenarios 2 and 3. Staff has also been researching 1 A 350,000 square foot cap on non-residential development downtown was called for by Program L-8 in the City’s existing Comprehensive Plan and implemented via Municipal Code Section 18.18.040. A 3.2 million square foot cap on non-residential development citywide was included in Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8. This alternative unrealistically assumes the City would not take steps to defend or replace these caps and is intended simply to provide a baseline for comparison with other scenarios rather than speculating as to what the outcome(s) of a future planning process might be. City of Palo Alto Page 4 other jurisdictions that use a performance-based approach to inform a list of performance measures and monitoring/implementation mechanisms for Scenario 4, and considering the specific land use map changes that should be included in Scenarios 3 and 4. Staff is seeking Council’s direction whether to proceed with the conceptual alternatives’ definition at a staff level and begin the EIR analysis, or whether to return to Council with specific information for further discussion prior to beginning the EIR analysis. BACKGROUND The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) contains the City’s official policies on land use and community design, transportation, housing, the natural environment, business and economics, community services, and governance. The Plan’s policies apply to both public and private properties and collectively determine the physical form of the City. The Plan is used by the City Council and PTC to evaluate land use changes and to help inform funding and budget decisions. It is used by City Staff to help regulate building and development and to make recommendations on projects. It is especially important in framing and informing zoning changes. It is used by citizens and neighborhood groups to understand the City’s long-range plans and proposals for different geographic areas. The Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and the foundation for its capital improvements program. Between 2008 and 2010, City staff reviewed the existing Comprehensive Plan elements with the PTC, prepared background reports on baseline growth topics, and developed preliminary information regarding the two concept area plans. In June of 2010, the PTC formed sub- committees to review each Comprehensive Plan element. Work included updating the vision statements, goals, policies and programs. New goals, policies and programs were added where appropriate and existing goals, policies and programs were edited to reflect desired changes. Relevant policies and programs were carried over to the draft elements. Draft elements were reviewed by the full PTC at regularly scheduled public meetings with staff recommendations to include the draft elements into the Comprehensive Plan Update. This PTC sub-committee process continued through 2013. At a December 2, 2013 study session, the City Council discussed ways to initiate a conversation about the community’s shared vision for the future. Staff suggested reframing the long running Comprehensive Plan process to increase community engagement and explore alternatives in an expansive and ongoing way. The discussion, which grew out of community concerns about issues such as traffic/parking and the pace of development, led to the development of an organizational framework for ideas, action, and design we refer to as “Our Palo Alto.” On February 3, 2014 the Council endorsed this framework and directed staff to return to Council with a specific schedule and scope of work to create a blueprint for the future of land uses and development in our City by re-framing the ongoing update to the Comprehensive Plan to include broad community engagement, discussion and analysis of alternative futures, cumulative impacts, and mitigation strategies. City of Palo Alto Page 5 On March 17, 2014 staff presented the Council with a recommended schedule to complete the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated program-level Environmental Impact Report by the end of 2015. The Council voted to approve staff’s recommendations and directed Staff to return to Council with additional considerations of the outreach process, composition and procedures for the Community Leadership Group. The Council also asked staff to review the prior Comprehensive Plan process and SOFA Plan process for lessons learned. On May 5, 2014, the City Council reviewed the draft elements, collectively titled, “Draft Comprehensive Plan 2030, Vision Statement, Goals, Policies and Programs (April 2014)” http://goo.gl/Sq9cvj. Council provided comments on many aspects of the document. At the conclusion of Council’s review, the City Manager indicated that staff would organize the comments into groups of issues and convert the comments into questions that could be further discussed through the community engagement process. The comment groups and questions are contained in Attachment A. Comp Plan Engagement and Workshops Summary The community engagement plan for the Comp Plan update included a series of community workshops to help develop alternatives to study in the EIR. The goal of the Comp Plan Update outreach process is to:  Solicit meaningful input regarding the critical issues facing our City and a design for its future;  Ensure participation by a wide cross section of Palo Altans, including traditionally underrepresented groups, and  Ensure that the public’s input informs the final work product that is presented to decision- makers for their consideration. Three workshops were held in May and June. The workshops were held in various locations of the City to engage the as many members of the public as possible. Summaries of each workshop are provided as Attachment C. The first workshop, the Critical Issues Forum, was held on May 29, 2014 at the Avenidas facility in downtown Palo Alto. The goal of this meeting was to have the community identify Palo Alto’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT). Approximately 40 members of the community attended this first workshop. Participants were placed in small groups and asked to share their opinions on a variety of issues, including housing, transportation, energy, quality of life, technology, and the regional and global economy. Common themes emerged from the group discussion. The themes include the importance of the quality of life, importance of the City’s relationship with Stanford, concerns of traffic, public trust, citizen participation, transit, the high cost of housing and high speed rail. A detailed matrix of the common themes can be found in Attachment C. The summary has also been made available to the public on the Comp Plan Update website. City of Palo Alto Page 6 The second workshop, the Growth Management Forum, was held two weeks later on June 10, 2014 at Palo Alto High School, with approximately 30 attendees. A summary of the last workshop was provided and a presentation on growth management techniques was given. The presentation covered jobs, housing and population growth trends of Palo Alto, as well as an overview of tools used by other jurisdictions. Building upon the themes identified at the last workshop, the public was asked to identify which areas of the City they thought might or should change and which areas should be protected and preserved during the 15 year life of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Attendees were placed in small groups of six to eight people to discuss their opinions and asked to identify the areas on land use maps. Six distinct areas emerged from the discussion as “opportunity sites” or “focus areas,” where the City could direct change and development as a way to protect and preserve other areas. The six focus areas included 1) Downtown and the Stanford Shopping Center, 2) El Camino Real corridor, 3) California Avenue, 4) Stanford Research Park, 5) East Meadow Circle/Bayshore, and 6) South San Antonio. The most recent workshop, Alternatives Future, was held at the Elk’s Lodge on June 24, 2014. This workshop, building on the previous two workshops, was well attended with over 70 participants. The purpose of this workshop was to ask the public to help identify potential alternatives based on the concepts discussed at the previous meetings. The presentation included an overview of the past process and the goals for the workshop. Attendees were placed in small groups to discuss what they thought the City should consider as alternatives. As a guide, the participants were provided with potential alternatives, in addition to a no project alternative: 1) Slow Non-residential Development and Encourage Housing, 2) Slow Non- residential Development and Focus Housing in Transit-rich Areas, 3) Can We Be a Net-Zero City and What Does That Mean? Attendees were also given the option of creating their own alternative. A lively discussion resulted in nine separate alternatives. A number of groups described alternatives that slowed the rate of growth, and focused any new development in one or more of the mixed-use “focus areas” identified. Others suggested allowing more housing and neighborhood serving retail near transit. A detailed summary of the workshop outcomes is provided in Attachment C. In addition to the three planning workshops described above, planning staff and consultants have initiated online tools to continue the discussion and to provide opportunity for input by those who were not able to attend the meetings. The Comp Plan website provides an email list for interested parties to keep informed of the project. It also provides an email for additional questions and comments. Online versions of each small group activity from the workshops have been and will be posted online as part of Open City Hall. The first online event requests the public to identity the critical issues for Palo Alto. The second online exercise requests feedback on the six focus areas. Staff has also solicited applications for the “Leadership Group” that is expected to assist with community engagement for the balance of the planning process. Based on applications City of Palo Alto Page 7 received, the City Manager has appointed 13 members. Over the next 18 months, the group will work with City staff undertaking the community engagement portion of the planning process. The kickoff meeting was held on July 21, 2014. The Leadership Group will provide a regular, monthly forum for discussing community engagement activities, including ways to reach residents and businesses that don’t typically participate in planning efforts. Members are expected to become knowledgeable about the Comprehensive Plan, which is the City’s primary tool for guiding preservation and development in Palo Alto, and the group may advise staff about ways public input that is received could or should inform alternatives and outcomes. All of the community engagement activities planned as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update and all of the community input received will be documented and cataloged so it can be used to inform the analysis and policy decisions that will be made. In the near term, input received this summer will be used to help define issues and alternatives to be analyzed in the program EIR. PTC Hearing A Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) hearing was held on July 9, 2014 to consider the draft alternatives and to solicit scoping comments for the preparation of the EIR. The hearing was attended by approximately 23 members of the public, and eight members of the public provided comments at the hearing. The public comments included the following:  This will be the best vetted comprehensive plan.  An important question is how to keep people engaged.  The development of alternative scenarios is engaging the public. Continue to regularly engage the public.  Need city staff dedicated toward collecting and analyzing land use, transportation and demographic data.  Downtown parking is problem.  Neighborhood quality is important.  Birds and nature have intrinsic value to nature, not just benefit for humans.  Not clear about Concept 4 (the “net zero” concept); this should not be an alternative for Comp Plan.  More housing wanted in E. Meadow Circle with services and a park.  Once the study ends, it is about implementation.  Undergrounding CalTrain tracks is an opportunity and solution.  It will improve east/west connections through Palo Alto.  Create real estate (or get it back).  Create bikeway.  Opportunity for housing and commercial.  Eliminate crossing delay.  Improve quality of life.  Prepare way to underground HSR.  Independence of the PTC is critical.  Alternative #2 resonates most. City of Palo Alto Page 8  Would like stricter allocations with respect to ABAG allocations.  The more companies locate and grow in the city, the more ABAG will require housing.  Palo Alto should preserve quality of life.  Should focus on maintaining existing land use and development and add no more.  Shift growth outside of Palo Alto.  Need to use land wisely.  Support for slow residential and slow non-residential growth.  Keep 50’ height limit.  Place taller buildings in south ECR and the research park.  Keep human scale and quality of life.  Missing is discussion about EIR is the potential for flooding from sea level rise – need to address.  Hazardous materials – need more recent study.  Alternative #1 is most realistic, but #2 is best otherwise.  Development within ½ mile of transit is larger than what ABAG considers for transit oriented development; ½ mile would include Baron Park.  Support keeping 50’ height limit.  Need to find out what the commercial and residential markets want.  Nervous when change proposed for El Camino Real; too many property owners that need to cooperate makes change less likely.  Need to consider Stanford Hospital expansion in discussion.  Palo Alto is not isolated. Need to consider East Palo Alto and to lift them from the outside. Same with Mountain View and Menlo Park.  Need to look at air traffic - More planes, more noise and more impacts.  Need alternative to Stanford for medical services. Stanford is too expensive for everyone.  Beautification of El Camino Real is important.  Need to understand that the areas south of Page Mill Road are different from the areas in the north.  Need to quantify the alternatives to study impacts.  Need to be aware of what is legal and discretionary, need more specificity in the alternatives.  Public needs to know the costs of mitigations.  For alternatives, need to talk about neighborhood supporting services, such as bank, salon, etc.  Focus is too much on commute trips.  Jobs near transit would reduce trips because those people will walk.  Need to place housing near services. The PTC provided extensive feedback on the alternatives as well as the pending Draft EIR. The PTC thanked the public for their participation throughout the process. A detailed list of their comments and suggestions are provided in Attachment B. City of Palo Alto Page 9 DISCUSSION The purpose of this scoping meeting is to allow the City Council and members of the public, individually and/or as a group, to provide comments regarding the alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR, as well as the scope of environmental issues. The City has conducted four earlier workshops or scoping meetings in connection with the Our Palo Alto process (three Community Outreach meetings and one PTC session) and this fifth scoping meeting with the City Council is intended to synthesize some of the earlier comments and provide an opportunity to weigh in on particular environmental issues before the EIR is commenced. Of course, The Council may also amend the schedule and the alternatives under consideration before initiating the EIR. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law that requires California agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and describe feasible measures that can be taken to avoid or mitigate those impacts. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required by CEQA when an agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. An EIR evaluates a proposed project’s potential impacts on the environment, and recommends mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce or eliminate those impacts. Decision-makers use information in an EIR to help determine whether or not to approve a project, and what modifications should be incorporated into the project, if any. In this way, an EIR is used to inform public input and agency decisions; it does not itself constitute a plan or a final decision. The most common type of EIR assesses potential impacts associated with a specific development project. The Comprehensive Plan Update is not a specific development project, and instead constitutes an effort by the City of Palo Alto to determine comprehensive land uses, policies, and programs that will guide public and private decision making regarding land use and development issues over the next 15 years. For the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City will prepare what’s referred to as a Program EIR, which assesses the potential cumulative impacts of development that may occur during the life of the plan, considers potential alternatives, and identifies mitigation measures that should be adopted to reduce or avoid significant impacts. This is the same level of environmental analysis that was prepared for the existing Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Preparing a Program level EIR for citywide growth allows the City to better identify –and mitigate—cumulative impacts of overall growth that may otherwise be missed in a more focused project specific environmental analysis. CEQA specifically requires that a program EIR be prepared for plans that govern a continuing program. Although the legally required contents of a program EIR are the same as project specific EIR, such as the one prepared for the golf course project, a program EIR is more conceptual, with a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives and mitigations. For example, the Comp Plan EIR will include several project alternatives. But those discussions will be more general as it involves the entire city instead of a particular site. Preparation of a program EIR parallels the development of the Comprehensive Plan. CEQA clearance for subsequent projects can “tier” off the program EIR, meaning that they can rely on the program EIR to a limited extent, and focus any new analysis on site-specific impacts or impacts that were City of Palo Alto Page 10 not covered in sufficient detail in the program EIR. Depending on the complexity of the project, such CEQA clearances can include Negative Declarations and Supplement EIRs. An EIR describes the objectives for a proposed project, the location of the project and actions proposed. It evaluates how the existing environment would be changed if the project was approved and provides feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to avoid or reduce significant adverse changes to existing conditions. An important component of the EIR process provides an opportunity for public input regarding environmental issues and alternatives to be addressed in advance of the Draft EIR’s preparation, and this is the “scoping” step that the City is currently engaged in. There is another significant opportunity for public input when the Draft EIR is made available for review and comment. Under the City’s current schedule, the Draft EIR would be released at the end of 2014 for an extended comment period in early 2015, prior to selection of a preferred scenario by the City Council and preparation of a Final EIR. Review of the Draft EIR would be concurrent with an extended review of the revised draft policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (i.e. an 80% draft of the plan). Environmental Analysis- Our Palo Alto 2030 The first step in processing any EIR is issuance of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) by the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency, in this case the City of Palo Alto, issued an NOP for the Comprehensive Plan Update on May 30, 2014. The NOP (Attachment D) was disseminated for public review with an orientation brochure (on the Internet at: http://goo.gl/ah1PMw)), published in multiple newspapers, and mailed to public agencies as required by the State CEQA Guidelines. The end of the NOP public review period was specified as June 30 for public agencies and August 6, 2014 for the general public. All input received during the NOP period will be considered during preparation of the EIR. The NOP also listed 5 public scoping meeting opportunities. As of the end of the agency public review period, staff has received three agency comment letters. Letters were received from the Valley Transportation Agency (VTA), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). As currently envisioned, the Draft EIR that is prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update will examine several alternatives at an equal level of detail, allowing for an informed decision to adopt one of these alternatives at the end of the process, or potentially a blend of the alternatives if the impacts of that blended alternative have been adequately bracketed by other alternatives in the EIR. The EIR will have to describe and define the alternatives in sufficient detail to permit an analysis of their potential impacts and to permit meaningful public input. The alternatives can assess a variety of land use and infrastructure options, and collectively present a range of possible outcomes to inform a final decision about the future of Palo Alto. (See below and attached for further discussion of alternatives.) It’s also important that the alternatives and the EIR consider whether there are proposed policies and programs that might have physical environmental impacts in addition to any changes in land use designations and infrastructure. City of Palo Alto Page 11 The City’s consultant, PlaceWorks, was hired to help staff prepare the Comprehensive Plan Update and the program EIR. The firm, originally known as DCE, was hired in 2008 and has continued to support staff as the Comprehensive Plan update has evolved over the past five years. PlaceWorks offers a range of planning services, including general plan/comprehensive plan preparation, community participation programs, preparation of environmental documents and zoning code/form base code updates. The PlaceWorks team consists of three key staff members. They include Principal Charlie Knox, Associate Principal Joanna Jansen and Associate Andrew Hill. The firm has worked closely with staff in the development of the project website and the various components of the outreach process, including the three recent workshops. PlaceWorks will provide a brief overview of the recent process and the program EIR at the August 4th City Council hearing. The draft EIR will analyze the environmental impacts of each of the alternative future scenarios approved for analysis by City Council in addition to a No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA. In keeping with the requirements of CEQA, the Draft EIR will determine potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures in the following resource categories:  Aesthetics The aesthetics analysis will review Comprehensive Plan Update policies and programs that may impact scenic vistas and other resources, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, such as views of the hills or the Bay. We will describe existing visual resources within Palo Alto, including descriptions of scenic views and corridors within and adjacent to the city. Each resource will be described, photographed, and mapped to provide context for the reviewer. Based on the aesthetic resource significance criteria, PlaceWorks will assess potential significant aesthetic impacts, such as impacts on scenic views and corridors. If necessary, mitigation measures to reduce aesthetics impacts to a less-than-significant level will be recommended in the form of additional or revised Comprehensive Plan policies.  Air Quality and Community Health Risk PlaceWorks will prepare an air quality, community risk and hazards, and GHG emissions analysis to support the Comprehensive Plan Update and EIR. The impact analysis for the EIR will be based on the current methodology of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The technical analysis will be integrated within the EIR and modeling datasheets will be included as an appendix. Air Quality: In accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, a Plan-level analysis will be prepared. This section will include the current air quality within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air Basin) in the vicinity of the City and a summary of regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing health-based impacts associated with poor air quality. Existing levels of criteria air pollutants available from the nearest air quality monitoring station will be incorporated. City of Palo Alto Page 12 The air quality analysis will include a qualitative analysis of criteria air pollutants and precursors generated from buildout of the proposed land uses plan. Buildout of the Comprehensive Plan would generate emissions from an increase in trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) associated with land uses within the City. The Program-level air quality analysis will include a consistency evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan to the BAAQMD’s land use and transportation control measures within the air quality management plan. The SFBAAB is in nonattainment for particulate matter and for ozone. The potential increase in VMT provided by Hexagon Transportation resulting from implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will be discussed in relation to the projected population increase. The air quality impact analysis will also describe land uses within the city that have the potential to generate nuisance odors. Buffer distances and/or control measures for odor sources listed in the BAAQMD’s guidelines will be incorporated. Community Risk and Hazards: The air quality section of the EIR will include an assessment of air quality compatibility based on guidance within BAAQMD’s draft Community Risk Reduction Plans for Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5): Community Development Guidelines. The community risk and hazards evaluation will include a discussion of potential health risks from TACs and PM2.5 in the project vicinity based on BAAQMD’s guidance. BAAQMD does not require site-specific health risk assessments as part of the Plan-level evaluation for the Comprehensive Plan. Recommended measures specified in the BAAQMD’s Guidelines for future sensitive land uses within the areas mapped will be considered. For land uses within areas mapped as having elevated risk, the EIR will detail performance standards for future development project, including requirements to reduce risk from exposure to significant concentrations of PM2.5 and TACs. Recommendations to reduce risk associated with placement of new sensitive land uses associated with the Comprehensive Plan adjacent to major sources of air pollution will be based on the recommended buffer distances based on BAAQMD screening tools, CARB guidance, and the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) guidance.  Biological Resources PlaceWorks’ subconsultant TRA will provide a programmatic evaluation of biological resources in Palo Alto. The Draft EIR analysis of biological resources will address direct impacts on special-status species and sensitive habitats from the implementation of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Indirect impacts on these resources from the urban development that may be carried out will also be analyzed. Special attention will be given to impacts on Barron, Matadero, and San Francisquito Creeks. The Draft EIR will rely on the California Natural Diversity Database and a search of the University of California Museum of Vertebrate Zoology records in describing the affected environment for biological resources. No protocol-level species-specific field surveys are proposed. City of Palo Alto Page 13 The EIR will analyze the effectiveness of the goals and policies in the updated Comprehensive Plan in minimizing and mitigating impacts on listed species, including loss of their habitat, and provide an evaluation of how the goals of the Comprehensive Plan will encourage sustainability and conservation of natural resources.  Cultural Resources PlaceWorks will analyze potential impacts to cultural resources that could result from implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update, drawing on the Palo Alto Historical Inventory and other existing cultural resource surveys and documents prepared for the City. Preservation programs or other measures necessary to address potential impacts resulting from implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update will be suggested for inclusion either in the EIR as mitigation measures or as Comprehensive Plan polices or programs.  Geology, Soils, and Seismicity PlaceWorks will prepare the “Setting” section of the EIR. It is expected that geologic impacts may relate to seismic shaking, liquefaction, erosion, expansive soils, and subsidence. Potential seismic impacts, including ground shaking, surface rupture, liquefaction, and landslides will be described. Additionally, potential impacts related to geotechnical soil properties, such as erosion, expansive soils, and subsidence will be described. The PlaceWorks’ senior geologist, with 30 years of experience, will review the draft Comprehensive Plan policies pertaining to geology, soils, and seismicity, and suggest revisions to these policies or new policies, if necessary, in order to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts.  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implementation of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update would result in an increase in GHG emissions from energy use (natural gas and electricity), transportation sources, water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal. (Although Scenario 4 would effectively mitigate or offset these increases.) The analysis will draw upon past inventories conducted for Palo Alto. The Comprehensive Plan EIR will summarize the most recent community GHG emissions inventory for existing (CEQA baseline) environmental conditions and forecast GHG emissions at the Comprehensive Plan Horizon year. The GHG inventory for CEQA baseline and buildout will be modeled using the latest modeling tools (EMFAC, CalEEMod, and OFFROAD). The boundaries of the community-wide GHG emissions inventories will be based on a combination of sectors over which the City has geographic and jurisdiction control. For example, the transportation sector will be based on VMT generated by trips that start or end in the city and exclude trips that pass through the city. The EIR will evaluate the impact from the change in GHG emissions in the city compared to CEQA baseline conditions pursuant to BAAQMD thresholds. Area-wide construction-related impacts, such as fugitive dust due to earth moving and grading and exhaust emissions associated with construction equipment and material hauling operations, will be discussed commensurate with the City of Palo Alto Page 14 level of detail available regarding construction activity within the Comprehensive Plan area. Standard construction mitigation measures will be identified, where appropriate. The GHG section in the EIR will also discuss the City’s commitment to reducing GHG emissions in accordance with the GHG reduction goals of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). Project consistency with the California Air Resources Board 2008 Scoping Plan and 2013 Scoping Plan Update and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Plan Bay Area will also be reviewed. The City of Palo Alto has a Climate Protection Plan and is embarking on preparation of a Sustainability/Climate Action Plan. The EIR will include a consistency evaluation with the GHG reduction measures identified in the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan, as may be modified by proposed implementation of the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, as well as climate protection programs in the updated Comprehensive Plan.  Hazards and Hazardous Materials Several parts of the city, including the California Avenue/Fry’s Area and East Meadow Circle Concept Plan areas have a history of research and development and high technology industrial uses. A number of these uses generated hazardous materials that contaminated the environment. Volatile organic compounds commonly used by high tech companies are present in groundwater in some areas of the city, so the EIR will need to carefully consider potential impacts from volatile organic compound vapor intrusion into new residential buildings on former industrial sites. To identify potential hazards-related issues, PlaceWorks will identify potential risk areas for subsurface contamination, both soil and groundwater, that may potentially affect development. PlaceWorks will assess available public and private reports and data regarding potential subsurface contamination. PlaceWorks will identify historical activities that may have compromised the environment and identify proactive requirements that will be applied to future development to minimize any future environmental contamination and/or liability. The historical assessment will evaluate the likelihood of subsurface contamination from past activities. PlaceWorks will also describe current regulations that require plans and actions to minimize future environmental issues. Standard Environmental Site Assessment regulatory databases will be utilized along with at least two sources of available historical site information such as Sanborn maps and aerial photographs, as well as information provided by the City of Palo Alto and/or Santa Clara County. PlaceWorks will also utilize the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s 2003 South Bay study, which identifies regional plumes and areas of subsurface concern related to former or current industrial and commercial zones. By identifying general areas of concern, SES will be able to assess potential impacts from future construction dewatering and vapor intrusion. City of Palo Alto Page 15 PlaceWorks will complete the following tasks: Complete a database search and historical site use assessment.  Review the site-specific data, including all pertinent City plans and available regulatory agency reports, to create a site map showing the established areas of groundwater contamination.  Discuss areas of concern with various interested persons within the city.  Identify known zones where VOC plumes have contaminants above the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs).  Evaluate pathways of potential exposure through typical future development.  Identify potential impacts from any existing hazardous waste conditions for expose to the planned area improvements, such new development, infrastructure or daylighting of drainages.  Identify potential impacts and develop or review proposed mitigation strategies to reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.  Hydrology and Water Quality PlaceWorks will evaluate potential impacts of implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update on hydrology and water quality, including stormwater quality. In particular, the EIR will focus on potential impacts related to groundwater contamination (including salt water intrusion), development in groundwater recharge areas, current drainage capacity, sedimentation, and increases in impervious surfaces and flooding. The EIR will also include an overview of relevant federal, State and local regulations as well as a discussion of how these regulations can reduce or avoid the potential impacts to hydrology and water quality that could result from implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update.  Land Use and Planning PlaceWorks will describe the existing regulatory framework applicable to land use, as well as existing land uses in the City and its vicinity, and will evaluate potential impacts from implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update, including impacts associated with Comprehensive Plan land use designation changes. The evaluation will include a thorough analysis of land use compatibility issues associated with future development under the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update.  Noise PlaceWorks will prepare a noise analysis that will identify potential impacts on sensitive land uses associated with the update of the Comprehensive Plan. The EIR will discuss relevant standards and criteria for noise exposure, and the assessment of impacts will be based on federal, State, and local ordinances, policies, and standards. The ambient noise environment in the city will be established through field noise monitoring, and traffic noise modeling. A survey of existing ambient noise levels will be conducted to establish the character of the noise environment within the city. Noise City of Palo Alto Page 16 measurements will be taken at up to twelve (12) locations and observations of noise sources and other noise correlates during each measurement period will be documented. The existing regulatory setting regarding noise will be summarized, and. Documentation of the existing ambient noise environment is important because these baseline noise levels will affect the identification of Comprehensive Plan policies and specific mitigation measures required for future impacts. The Setting section of the Noise Section of the EIR will address:  Transportation Noise: Noise from vehicular traffic will be assessed using a version of the US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model; these contours will utilize the traffic forecasts provided in the traffic impact analyses for the Comprehensive Plan update. These analyses will identify areas along freeway and roadway segments that would be exposed to noise increases above criteria specified in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the noise analysis will identify potential noise and vibration impacts to sensitive uses in the city from rail and aircraft sources.  Stationary Noise: Noise impacts from non-transportation sources such as major retail and commercial/industrial uses will be discussed in terms of potential impacts to nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Future ambient noise and land use compatibility will be discussed, and noise mitigation will be provided to reduce potential impacts to future sensitive land uses related to noise, if applicable.  Noise and Land Use Compatibility: An analysis will be prepared to assess noise and land use compatibility for focused areas in the city that could be affected by land use changes or by changes in traffic patterns. Potential land use conflicts within the city will be identified based on the results of the noise monitoring and modeling results.  Construction Noise and Vibration: Potential construction impacts associated with implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will be evaluated at a programmatic level. Future noise and vibration effects from construction activities will be discussed in terms of accepted federal standards.  Population, Housing and Employment This section will focus on the potential for displacement of people or housing and for population growth that could result from implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. PlaceWorks will describe existing population and housing conditions and summarize the relevant State and local regulatory framework including the City’s Regional Housing Needs Association (RHNA) and the current Housing Element. Based on the population and housing significance criteria, PlaceWorks will assess potential population and housing impacts. If necessary, mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level in the form of Comprehensive Plan policies will be recommended.  Public Services This section will evaluate potential impacts on public services, including fire/emergency City of Palo Alto Page 17 medical services (EMS), police services, and schools. PlaceWorks will describe existing public services within the city. The setting will include a description of each public service provider, including current and projected capacity. Based on the public services significance criteria, PlaceWorks will assess potential impacts. If necessary, mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels in the form of policy recommendations will be identified.  Parks and Recreation The Parks and Recreation section will evaluate potential impacts on existing park and recreation facilities based on the anticipated increase in daytime population. This section will draw on standards and objectives described in City documents, including any master plans for existing City or regional parks. PlaceWorks will describe the existing recreation setting within the City. Based on the recreation significance criteria, PlaceWorks will assess potential parks and recreation impacts. If necessary, mitigation measures in the form of policy recommendations will be listed to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.  Transportation and Traffic This section will address any potential operational and level of service deficiencies on the key transportation facilities based on expected projections of traffic volume, transit ridership, and walking and bicycling levels associated with the Comprehensive Plan Update. In preparing the transportation and traffic study, the consultants will utilize the City’s updated Travel Demand Model to forecast future traffic volumes under the various scenarios in conformance with VTA requirements. The transportation analysis will then use outputs from the Model to estimate the potential cumulative transportation impacts resulting from development that may occur during the life of the Comprehensive Plan, and will result in recommended mitigation measures that can be included in the final plan that is considered for adoption. Transit, pedestrian, and bicycle impacts will be analyzed, and the provision of adequate facilities, including for capacity and safety, will be identified. Pedestrian and bicycle issues were not studied in great detail in the previous Comprehensive Plan EIR.  Utilities and Service Systems The City of Palo Alto is the only municipality in California that operates a full suite of City- owned utility services. The EIR will provide current regulatory agency context, references, and requirements, as well as a description of existing utility and service systems within the city, including current operations, capacity, and facility locations. PlaceWorks will provide a comprehensive analysis of potential impacts related to wastewater, water, stormwater, natural gas, energy and solid waste systems associated with buildout of the Comprehensive Plan Update. If necessary, new or modified Comprehensive Plan policies will be recommended to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. City of Palo Alto Page 18  Alternatives Analysis The current contract scope presumes PlaceWorks will evaluate up to three alternative scenarios in addition to the CEQA-required No Project Alternative -- all at an equal level of detail. This approach is intended to provide ample information upon which the City Council can base selection of a preferred alternative once the Draft EIR is published. At that time, the City Council could select one of the scenarios analyzed in the Draft EIR or a blend of two or more alternatives, as long as the blended option and its potential impacts can be inferred from the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR may also analyze other alternatives at a lesser level of detail if these are needed to reduce or avoid significant impacts associated with the scenarios. The Draft EIR will also identify the Environmentally Superior Alternative as required by CEQA.  CEQA Mandated Assessment PlaceWorks will prepare the appropriate conclusions to fulfill CEQA requirements by providing an assessment of unavoidable significant environmental impacts, if any; significant irreversible environmental changes; growth inducing impacts; and effects found not to be significant. Alternative Future Scenarios As described above, the Program EIR will analyze three possible future scenarios in addition to the No Project Alternative required by CEQA. Each scenario will be described in terms of land uses, policies, overall employment and household growth, and infrastructure changes. While the future scenarios will all be generally consistent with the policies and programs developed by the PTC and presented to the City Council earlier this year, each will likely require some modifications and additions that will be described in the Draft EIR. The reason for analyzing multiple scenarios is that this approach will provide the public and decision-makers with an understanding of the key environmental tradeoffs, allowing an in-depth examination of the relative merit of focusing growth in one geographical area or another and the pros and cons of various public investments. The alternative scenarios can assess different development intensities and land uses in the limited areas of the city proposed for change, and explore concepts such as “net zero” emissions or other performance standards. The recent public engagement activities, described above, were designed in a way to help develop alternative futures that could be described in the Program EIR. To kick start the third public workshop, City staff developed three alternative future concepts, which were modified and expanded on by participants at the workshop. The end result of the workshop was nine separate alternatives, with many unique elements. These nine alternatives and many unique elements have been combined and consolidated to form the four potential concepts described in Attachment I, which are still subject to refinement and revision based on input from the public and the City Council. All of these alternatives assume that R-1 neighborhoods and open spaces would be protected, and that any growth and development that occurs in Palo Alto over the next 15 years will be directed to City of Palo Alto Page 19 specific focus areas where some level of change is deemed to be acceptable. A high-level comparison of the alternatives is included in Table 1, below. Table 1: Comparison of Alternative Futures Suggested for Analysis in the Draft EIR (See Attachment I) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Comp Plan Policy Changes? No Yes Yes Yes Comp Plan Land Use Map Changes? No No Yes Yes Transportation Infrastructure Elements? No Yes Yes Yes Growth Management Strategy? Non-Residential Cap Annual Metering of Non-Residential Growth Annual Metering of Non-Residential Growth Performance Based Approach Projected Increase in Employment 2014-2030? 15,890* Less Less Same (provided performance standards are met) Projected Increase in Households 2014-2030? 2,668** Same Somewhat More Somewhat More (provided performance standards are met) Notes: * Regional Projections Prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments. (Projections are based on regional economic trends. New employment can derive from redevelopment/use of existing buildings and thus does not equate to new development.) **Represents historic trend of 167 new dwelling units/year and is substantially less than the City’s likely Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNAs) for the period 2015-2023 and the period 2024-2030. Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, July 30, 2014 A few ideas were raised at the public workshops and at the PTC scoping meeting that are not reflected in the four scenarios. These include the idea of fully undergrounding Caltrain, which staff felt was a regional project, and perhaps too ambitious to include within the 2030 planning horizon. Also, none of the scenarios include the idea of adding some limited, additional density to R-1 neighborhoods, an idea suggested by the public comment. The City Council is requested to provide comments on the attached scenarios in addition their comments on specific issues that should be addressed in the Program EIR. NEXT STEPS Because the four conceptual alternatives are high level “vision statements” at this point, they will need to be further developed in order for the consultants to begin the EIR analysis. For example, staff has been assembling data regarding the pace of non-residential development in Palo Alto since 1989 (long term) and since the end of the recession (short term) to inform the selection of an annual non-residential growth rate for Scenarios 2 and 3. Staff has also been researching other jurisdictions that use a performance-based approach to inform a list of City of Palo Alto Page 20 performance measures and monitoring/implementation mechanisms for Scenario 4, and has been starting to define the specific land use map changes that would be included in Scenarios 3 and 4. Staff is seeking Council’s direction whether to proceed with the conceptual alternatives’ definition at a staff level and begin the EIR analysis, or whether to return to Council with specific information for further discussion prior to beginning the EIR analysis. In either case, staff assumes that final details about the mechanics of the suggested growth management systems (e.g. how will the implementing ordinance be drafted?) will be worked out after the EIR analysis is underway and that some additional, specific policy language will need to be developed after identification of necessary mitigation measures in the Draft EIR and selection of a preferred alternative. Figure 1, below, illustrates the entire planning process reviewed by the City Council in March 2014. As shown, start-up or lead-in tasks have been completed, and we are drawing toward the end of the “scoping” period. Once the Council has directed staff to begin work, the next steps include several months of hard work by the consultants and staff preparing the Draft EIR and a revised Draft Comprehensive Plan for public review. During the same time period, the Leadership Group will convene to help design community engagement strategies, and the public will be asked to weigh-in on baseline data reports for each topic in the Draft EIR. The current schedule provides for publication of a Draft EIR and a Draft Our Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan document at the end of the year. The public release of these documents would initiate the next formal round of public comments and community engagement in early 2015, during which time the City Council would be asked to select (and shape) a preferred alternative, and offer specific guidance regarding programs and policies in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. In terms of the timeline, the planning process and schedule reviewed by the City Council in March assumed that preparation of the Draft EIR analysis would begin in early to mid-August 2014 upon receipt of City Council’s comments on the conceptual alternatives and issues suggested for inclusion in the EIR. If the Council takes more time on the alternatives identification phase and direction to staff, the overall schedule will, naturally, be extended. The City Council will be involved in every step of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, and the timeline discussed in March envisioned: (1) Council sign-off on the alternatives proposed for analysis in the Draft EIR in early to mid-August 2014; (2) Council review of the Draft EIR and the Draft Comprehensive Plan (80% draft) in early 2015; (3) Council selection of the preferred alternative at the close of the comment period on the Draft EIR and Draft Plan; (4) Council review of the Final EIR and the revised Comprehensive Plan for possible certification and adoption at the end of 2015, and (5) Council review and adoption of a “user’s guide” to the Updated Comprehensive Plan in early 2016. Each of the above steps may take multiple meetings, which have not been called out specifically in Figure 1. City of Palo Alto Page 21 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Figure 1: Planning Process Timeline POLICY IMPLICATIONS The City’s existing Comprehensive Plan is its governing land use policy document or “constitution” and was intended to extend to the year 2010. While the existing plan remains valid, the City has long recognized the need for updating, and the current planning process has been designed to conclude the long-running process by the end of 2015. The process will update the goals, policies, programs of the plan with an eye towards the planning horizon year of 2030, and will also include the data, narratives, maps, and diagrams necessary to communicate the City’s collective vision for the next 15 years. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Comprehensive Plan Update will be the subject of a program-level EIR, and tonight’s public hearing is designed to solicit input regarding the alternatives and issues that should be considered in the Draft EIR. Following public review of the Draft EIR (expected in early 2015), City staff and consultants will prepare written responses to all substantive comments received regarding the Draft EIR and will make necessary changes to the text and analysis in the Draft. A Final EIR containing these responses and changes must be certified before any final decision can be made to adopt the updated Comprehensive Plan. Also, feasible mitigation measures included in the Final EIR to reduce or avoid significant, cumulative effects of development anticipated during the life of the plan will have to be adopted as stand-alone measures or as policies and programs in the updated Plan. Attachments:  Attachment A: City Council Comments (PDF)  Attachment B: Planning and Transportation Commission Hearing Comments (DOCX)  Attachment C: Workshop Summaries (PDF)  Attachment D: Notice of Preparation (PDF)  Attachment E: July 9, 2014 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report without the attachments (PDF)  Attachment F: Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes Draft_EIR_Scoping_07.09.14 (DOC)  Attachment G: Leadership Group Process (PDF)  Attachment H: Orientation Document (PDF)  Attachment I: Draft Alternative Futures for Our Palo Alto 2030 (DOC)  Attachment J: Growth Management Strategies (PDF)  Attachment K: Additional Correspondence (PDF)  Attachment L: Comp. Plan Powerpoint Presentation - Our Palo Alto 2030 EIR Scoping Hearing (PPTX) 1  City Council Summary Comments  and  Questions for Further Consideration, Adapted from Council’s Comments  Our Palo Alto 2030 Policy Document, ver. 1.0  City Council Meeting, May 5, 2014  Housing  Council Comments:  Housing Element‐ Locations for new housing‐ The thirds approach: 1/3 downtown, 1/3 Cal Avenue, 1/3  on ECR (Schmid); difficult to be that prescriptive (Kniss). The document should consider a prescriptive  method for determining where to locate additional housing units. (Kniss)  In multiple family projects or districts, could services be brought to these areas as a means to reduce car  trips? (Price)  Retain existing housing units. (Holman)  Diversity of housing types, but consider the effect of this on existing residences. (Scharff)  A resident‐centered concept focused on livability and quality‐of‐life. Additional housing units would not  improve the quality of life. (Scharff)  No need to consider jobs‐housing imbalance. (Scharff, Klein)  Questions, adapted from comments:  Should the City plan for additional housing beyond what is identified in the 2015‐2023 Housing Element?  If so, where should it be located to take advantage of services without a reliance on automobiles? What  type of housing should the City promote?  Given that residential population is expected to rise over the next 15 years, how do we protect and  enhance Palo Alto’s quality‐of‐live for existing and new residents?  How should we protect existing single‐family and low‐density residential districts?  ATTACHMENT A 2    Density and Floor Area  Council Comments:  Most critical issues: development, growth, long‐term density. (Kniss)  Need polices on maximum and minimum densities. (Schmid)  Density is primary concern (Kniss, Klein). Alternatives should address density issues. (Kniss)  Comp Plan scope should be expanded to include impacts of densification in south ECR. (Shepherd)  Need polices on FAR, minimum and maximums. (Burt).     Questions, adapted from comments:  Should residential density (units per acre) and commercial density (higher floor area ratios) be increased?  If so, where should those higher densities be located?  What areas of Palo Alto should remain the same  or have lower densities?  Should we have minimum residential or commercial densities, or both?  What should exceptional, well‐designed, high‐density projects look like?    Urban Design  Council Comments:  Design and maintain good street frontages, walkability to promote retail vitality (Kniss); difficult to do on  ECR, not currently a good area for walking. (Kniss)  Placing public gathering spaces in each neighborhood is difficult to do. (Kniss)  Public should not have to walk long‐distances to get to gathering spaces. (Burt)  Where are the new public plazas that the City has built? (Klein)   Policy statements to guide design are needed; include policies on compatibility standards. (Holman,  Schmid).   A discussion on the built environment should strongly emphasize design quality and compatibility (Burt).  Exceptional design should be a requirement for every project. (Holman, Schmid)  Quality urban design is very important (Schmid)  3    Questions, adapted from comments:  Are the existing design requirements and standards adequate, including Architectural Review Findings  (PAMC18.76.020(d)), Context‐Based Design Criteria (various sections within Title 18 (Zoning)), Downtown  Urban Design Guidelines, El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and Individual  Review Guidelines?  Should the City undertake a study of the adequacy of these guidelines?  How can these guidelines be better enforced?  What should be the City’s plan to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety along El Camino Real?  How can existing neighborhood gathering spaces be improved to attract more neighborhood activity and  use?  Should the City acquire land to develop public gathering spaces in underserved areas of the City?    Neighborhoods  Council Comments:  Engage with neighbors to determine resident’s wants. (Scharff)  Do Midtown residents really want a plan for their area? (Scharff)  Policies seemed to indicate that neighborhood centers and services encompassed all centers and  services. Existing Comp Plan defined them separately. (Burt)  Some neighborhoods feel underserved with grocery stores. (Shepherd).   Grocery store preservation should be incorporated into the document. (Holman)    Questions, adapted from comments:  Does every neighborhood need a neighborhood center?  Should the City improve pedestrian and bicycle connections between neighborhood centers? If so, how  should this be done?  What specifically should the City do to retain and attract grocery stores?  Should the City retain an existing policy to develop an area plan for Midtown?    4      Growth Issues  Council Comments:  Strategic intelligent growth could benefit the City. (Berman)   Growth management and alternatives are critical.   Comp Plan should contain financial implications for various land use scenarios (Price, Schmid).  Comp Plan should include implications of smart growth, TOD, economic vitality, housing and more  economically diverse community. (Price)  Heart and soul of existing land use goals has been removed. Goals seem to focus on innovation and did  not include character defining details. New goals seem to overemphasize development. (Holman)    Questions, adapted from comments:  Should the City conduct a city‐wide, 15‐year land use and growth study?  Should the City conduct a city‐wide, 15‐year fiscal analysis of the expected growth?  Should the City conduct a fiscal and land use analysis of the effects of a more economically diverse  community?  Can the City adopt land use policies and programs without detailed analysis? Are growth trends  sufficient to provide decision makers with the information needed to plan for growth over the next 15  years?    Business & Commercial Community  Council Comments:  Fair‐share payments for impacts related to development. (Schmid)  Promote diversity of retail. (Scharff)  Business community should pay their fair share. (Holman, Schmid)  What policies should the Comp Plan contain to support local, independent businesses? What’s currently  contributing to their success? (Holman)    5    Questions, adapted from comments:  Should the City adopt impact fees that cover 100% of the costs of business and commercial development  within Palo Alto? Why or why not?  What are the best ways to promote a diverse retail environment?    Transportation  Council Comments:  Transportation Element should discuss implications of TDM and changes in driving behaviors related to  the need for traditional built parking structures.  T2.10.2 is important for routine measurements. (Shepherd)  CP should examine expanding the current shuttle system. (Kelin)    Questions, adapted from comments:  Are parking structures the best use of City resources over the long‐term?  Should the City’s shuttle system be expanded? How and where?    Data  Council Comments:  Historical data should be used to analyze goals for the future. Public won’t respond to abstract planning  issues. (Klein).   Baseline data is critical. Baseline data compared to historical data could track the consequences of  zoning and policy changes. (Holman, Berman, Schmid)    Questions, adapted from comments:  Should the City create a business registry? If so, what information should be collected?  Should the City invest in technology that allows data collection of key metrics (vehicular, bicycle and  pedestrian travel, public facility use, etc.) to assess long‐term trends?  6    Should the Council adopt policies and programs if baseline data is not available or incomplete?    Downtown  Council Comments:  How can we enforce the Downtown Cap? (Shepherd)    Questions, adapted from comments:  Should downtown be allowed to grow beyond the existing non‐residential floor area cap?  Do the existing multiple‐family residential zone districts surrounding downtown provide sufficient  protection and transition from the core downtown district? If not, what should change? What changes  should be made to these “transition districts” so that downtown can continue to grow?  Once the residential permit parking program is in effect, should we continue to provide free parking  downtown?  If our parking programs are successful in reducing vehicle trips and automobile parking downtown,  should we reduce automobile parking ratios?    California Avenue Area  Council Comments:  California Ave could get a cap. (Shepherd)  Cal Ave Area needs a concept plan. (Burt)    Questions, adapted from comments:  Should automobile parking requirements be adjusted to promote development at California Avenue and  adjacent streets?  How should growth in the California Avenue area be managed? Should there be caps on floor area,  automobile trips, and/or other site development regulations?  What steps should the City take to retain the neighborhood serving feel of California Avenue?  7    Will surface parking lots continue to be the best use for these parcels? Why or why not and what are the  trade‐offs?  How should the City take advantage of the Cal Train service at California Avenue?    Environment  Council Comments:  Sustainable landscaping and agricultural landscaping should be included. The City should have a  community discussion on this. (Burt).   Edible gardens should be a part of mixed‐use developments. (Holman)  Environmental sustainability and climate change protection are not synonymous. (Burt)  Recognize salvage and adaptive re‐use of building materials. (Holman)    Questions, adapted from comments:  How should the City enhance and improve its existing environmental regulations?  How should the City adapt to climate change? Are the proposed policies and programs sufficient?  Should the City create policies or requirements for urban agriculture? Is this the best use of in‐fill  development land?    Demographics  Council Comments:  Socio‐economic diversity should be included in public engagement. (Berman)  Listen to millennial and seniors preferences and needs to determine the evolution of needs, polices and  outcomes in the community. (Price)    Questions, adapted from comments:  Should we plan for the next 15 years based upon current needs and wants or should we plan in a manner  that provides the opportunity for change to an extent that would be decided by future citizens and  Councils?  8    Should the City undertake a cost/benefits analysis of a more socio‐economically diverse community  and/or a community with more diverse housing types and affordability levels?    Energy  Council Comment:  Policy document does not address energy use of the existing built environment. This data could help  form appropriate policies (Klein)    Question, adapted from comments:  What else should the City do to address existing and future energy needs?    Noise  Council Comment:  Nosie has impacts on livability that should be considered. Noise thresholds should be reduced. Largest  contributors to noise should be identified. Move noise equipment in‐doors. (Holman)    Question, adapted from comments:  What are the trade‐offs of reducing noise thresholds? What polices would be acceptable to the public to  achieve lower noise thresholds?    Infrastructure  Council Comment:  Infrastructure: are there policies to ensure that infrastructure improvements would serve all areas of  the city fairly? (Kniss)    Question, adapted from comments:   In terms of Infrastructure improvements, how is “fair” defined? Should a sense of fairness be more  important than infrastructure need?  9      Historic Preservation  Council Comment:  Policies on historic preservation are important (L2.6.2), particularly on buffer zones and transitions.  (Holman, Berman)    Question, adapted from comments:  Is preservation of our historic resources still a benefit to the community, and if so, how should the City  incentivize preservation future historic resources?    Comprehensive Plan Format, Language, Voice  Declarative policies as presented would not garner public input. (Klein)  Maximizing programs is not always feasible or desirable. (Scharff)  Staff should exercise caution in utilizing the term “all” and in making firm commitments to something.  (Burt)  Comp Plan should contain preamble or description about the language of the policies. Why were they  written in the way they are presented? The Comp Plan should be able to evolve with the community.  (Price)  Some policies were too prescriptive: energy use and participation on energy program for example.  (Scharff)  Some policies need defining or quantifying. (Shepherd)    Other  “Revitalize” was not the correct word for L3.16. (Scharff)  One‐way street policies (T2.23 and T2.25) should be deleted. (Klein)  L2.32.2 (constructing trails in neighborhood parks) should not be included. (Klein)  Glossary is needed. (Klein)  Staff should review programs and policies for relevancy. (Klein)  10    Are there implications of a City partnership with Stanford to test options? (Price)  Schools and school capacity should be considered. (Price)  The documents should contain more specificity in the meaning of community services.  Council should hear from residents before they consider other critical issues. (Kniss)    Attachment B Summary of Comments Planning and Transportation Commission July 9, 2014  Public participation greatly appreciated.  Good to have diversity of opinions from Commission members.  What is Palo Alto’s municipal identity? Is Palo Alto a small town? A suburb? A college town? A city? Need to clarify our identity to set path.  Quality of life is universal goal, with diversity and opportunity for all.  Creating online version of the Comp Plan Update process is important to make it accessible to a wide audience.  Need financial analysis on the alternatives.  Lack of single overriding vision in the Comp Plan is a fatal flaw. The Comp Plan needs a clear vision.  Need to preserve what the future may see as historic.  Infrastructure should be an important priority.  Location of Municipal Services Center is critical. The current site is subject to sea level rise and has problems with access during emergencies.  Flooding, sea level rise is an issue.  Unlimited demand for housing and office, so need to zone for what we want, not what would make developers money.  Need specific/concept plan for El Camino Real, especially for the areas south of Page Mill Road.  A precise plan for Fry’s is needed.  Technology could change how we move about the city and our approach to land use.  Should consider mixed-use zones, with separation occurring not of uses but on other factors.  Need to map key concerns: quality of life, livability, traffic congestion, enhancing transit, housing cost and affordability, growth or change management, relationship with Stanford, jobs-housing ratio target, PA process and importance of public trust with public transparency, governance, engagement, aging infrastructure, open space, strategy for density, TDM/TMA.  Bay Area as a whole faces this demand for growth. The choices each community makes affects the other cities in our region.  Palo Alto cannot develop in isolation. Palo Alto is part of region. Need more robust method of regional collaboration.  No growth or reduced growth may also affect Palo Alto’s traditionally high quality of life. Makes development more expensive.  Growth is coming, so we need to have plans in place to best manage this growth  A certain amount of higher density is needed.  Focus development on underutilized properties, such as parking lots.  Growth as term is misleading. It is about change.  No change would be a disaster. Change can be good if properly managed.  Development cap does not work because developers will demand to build what is allowed per zoning. Consider allocating/selling air rights instead.  Growth is a choice, not inevitable. It should be residents who decide if city should grow.  Foothills and open space must be protected from development.  Increasing density elsewhere in the region would be better than making Palo Alto grow.  Need to be careful about design to ensure efficient use of space.  Concerned that downtown cap will be exceeded.  Increase density in downtown, so it will encourage walking and biking.  Need more specificity regarding what the concept of growth really means.  Need to consider growth that is palatable.  City services are clustered in north Palo Alto. Should consider relocating services and city hall to center of the city.  California Avenue area should be more vibrant and higher scale. More mixed use, transit oriented development. Move City Hall there.  Should consider meaningful height limit change. 55’ as suggested is odd limit. 60’ is more realistic because it could result in a better design/building.  Would support increase in height in certain areas/transit.  Relaxing 50’ height limit to allow one more story may be appropriate in certain areas.  Better to think of number of stories instead of height.  Avoid increase height on El Camino Real near R-1 neighborhoods, such as Baron Park.  Height increase for housing does not make sense, because height was originally requested for commercial development  Greater utilization of existing space, such as parking lot should be studied before increasing heights elsewhere.  Young people support businesses and money spent at these businesses benefits residents.  Good to have workers who spend money to support retail services near residential areas.  Need a business ecosystem to support retail vibrancy.  Need to evaluate distribution of services around neighborhoods.  Need to study how to sustain services.  Need diversity to support diverse range of businesses.  Retail is second to schools as the most important service.  Office use intensity will increase even without construction of more office space.  Need to encourage retail expansion and a greater mix of retail.  Need to factor in change to future of retail. This change could affect how people purchase and obtain goods.  Retail must be made more robust (walkable).  Need to use data to provide context.  Engage in system-wide thinking and use data to innovate.  Need hard data to support decisions.  Need to rigorously annotate results/assumptions.  Need more specifics, such as inputs and models and how are assumptions developed.  Need to see numbers of consequences of each alternative, such as cost, population, etc.  ½ mile radius is too wide for transit oriented development.  Housing near transit improves transit use a little, but will increase car use more. Should focus on increasing biking and walking opportunities.  Challenge for Palo Alto is that most lots are 6,000 sq. ft., limiting development, not conducive to generating demand for mass transit.  Cars are becoming more gas efficient, so move to non-car transport is more about reduction of trips over carbon.  How does building next to transit impact transit use? What happens if Go Passes are given to all residents? Will policies change as a result?  There has to be a scenario where jobs are also created or at least explicitly addressed.  Jobs near transit reduce carbon footprint more than housing near transit.  Protecting R-1 makes sense.  Smaller units for young people and seniors should be encouraged.  Focus on protecting R-1 type development precludes finding other opportunities.  No inventory for empty nesters looking to downsize from traditional single family homes.  Need senior housing, studios and one bedroom units to provide diversity.  Limit housing to RHNA numbers. No limits on affordable housing.  Market should dictate unit size. Market reacts more quickly than boards/commission.  Preservation of R-1 is important, but need to also need housing for seniors, workers, young single workers.  There is demand for small units if zoned for, such as recent Equinox project.  Undergrounding Caltrain can help create real estate above and value.  Need to plan for Caltrain sooner rather than later.  Take advantage of available money for grade separation construction.  High Speed Rail should be an important discussion in Comp Plan. Will magnify importance of transit-oriented development.  Need to consider impacts on school now.  If we built for demand, schools would be overcrowded and quality would be destroyed.  Preservation of high quality schools is important – it’s an important service.  Schools are over capacity.  Where does assumption that growth is unsupportable for schools come from?  Work with Palo Alto Unified, especially on assumption that growth will damage school quality.  Need to consider 27 University in all alternatives.  Some alternatives need to anticipate some non-residential growth.  The “Do Nothing” alternative can be called “business as usual”.  Make alternatives more results- or mission-based.  One concept/alternative should be about how to maximize quality of life.  Caltrain should be in all alternatives, except Alternative #1.  Concept for increasing commercial growth outside of Alternative #4 needs to be considered.  Mistake to have no Alternative without commercial growth, need to see all options.  Alternative #3, should focus on transit oriented development for jobs, and on housing near services.  Alternative #3- transit is dominated by inter-city trips, consider intra-city trips.  Alternative #4 should combine limiting trips with building strategy.  Alternative #4 should be redesigned as overlay on all other alternatives.  Alternative #4, consider net zero GHG, not VMT. Pay for offsets for auto trips. Should also result in net zero water use and no net overflow parking in neighborhoods.  Alternative #4 is more of a pilot program rather than alternative to see if zero net trips or energy possible. WORKSHOP SUMMARY Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Critical Issues Forum May 29, 2014, 6:00 to 8:00 PM The meeting materials and complete set of feedback from the meeting summarized below are available online at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/ under Community Meetings. OVERVIEW On May 29, Palo Alto citizens gathered at Avenidas for the first of three community workshops that will be held in the next month to elicit input from citizens as the City updates it Comprehensive Plan – to be called Our Palo Alto 2030. The kickoff meeting was a forum on critical issues and covered the tremendous assets the City currently enjoys and how the City could response to a host of changes the future will bring. The event was the first of three community workshops that will be held in May and June to elicit input from community members on potential issues to incorporate throughout the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan – to be called Our Palo Alto 2030. Approximately 40 members of the public participated in the workshop, and two Council members attended as observers. The focus of this workshop was a community discussion to identify Palo Alto’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. Participants formed six small groups of 5 to 7 people to complete a SWOT analysis, sharing their opinions on all aspects of life in Palo Alto today and the changes we might expect to see over the next 15 years – changes in housing, transportation, energy, water supply, climate, technology, and the regional and global economy. The workshop concluded with a spokesperson from each group summarizing the opportunities that their group identified throughout the SWOT analysis. ATTACHMENT C 2 COMMON THEMES EMERGING FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS A number of common themes emerged from two or more of the breakout groups as they prepared the SWOT Analysis. The matrix below includes some of the most common big-picture themes in each category. A more detailed list is available online at Palo Alto’s Open City Hall. The City is encouraging additional responses through an online exercise similar to the one completed at the May 29 workshop, and complete transcriptions of the notes from each small group are available at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/. Positive Negative Strengths  Well-educated population  High-quality school system  City-owned utilities  City services  Thriving arts community  High quality of life  Strong tax base Weaknesses  Jobs-housing imbalance  Traffic congestion  High cost of living  Lack of diversity  Aging infrastructure In t e r n a l Opportunities  Improve public transit opportunities  Take advantage of local talent  Collaborate with neighboring communities and the region as a whole  Increase telecommuting opportunities  Encourage and welcome start-up companies  Increase public safety (i.e. bike, pedestrian, transportation) Threats  Climate change / sea level rise  Water supply  Income disparity  Inefficient regional transportation  High speed rail (concerned with dividing the community) Ex t e r n a l WORKSHOP SUMMARY Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Growth Management Forum June 10, 2014, 6:00 to 8:00 PM The meeting materials and complete set of feedback from the meeting summarized below are available online at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/ under Community Meetings. OVERVIEW On June 10th, about 30 community members gathered in the Palo Alto High School Library for the second of three community workshops to learn more about and discuss the City’s update of its Comprehensive Plan, Our Palo Alto 2030. The meeting was a forum on growth management and covered the jobs, housing, and population growth trends of Palo Alto, along with an overview of growth management tools utilized in other cities. The focus of this workshop was to identify which areas of the city might change, and which should be protected and preserved, over the 15-year life of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Participants formed four small groups of six to eight people to complete an exercise, sharing their opinions on where they believe change should or should not occur. Using land use maps and colored markers, each group circled areas or corridors they believe future growth and change could be accommodated, emphasizing the need to preserve the majority of Palo Alto in open space and single-family neighborhoods, as it is today. After the small group discussions, a spokesperson from each group summarized the opportunity sites that their group identified throughout the group exercise. The community input received at this meeting will be used at the “alternative futures” workshop on June 24 at the Palo Alto Elk’s Lodge. Attendees at the June 24 workshop will be asked to consider and evaluate “alternative futures” that would become the basis for alternatives to be studied in the Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Plan Update. These alternatives would be extensively analyzed and discussed in order to develop a collective vision on the policies and programs that will make up Our Palo Alto 2030. 2 COMMON “OPPORTUNITY SITES” EMERGING FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS A number of common areas that may be appropriate to accommodate growth and change by 2030—dubbed “opportunity sites”—emerged from the breakout groups as they worked through the small group exercise. The map below synthesizes the input from the four groups into a single set of potential opportunity sites. A more detailed map is available online at Palo Alto’s Open City Hall. The City is encouraging additional responses through an online exercise similar to the one completed at the June 10th workshop, and copies of each map from each small group are available at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/. WORKSHOP SUMMARY Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Alternative Futures June 24, 2014, 6:00 to 8:30 PM The meeting materials and complete set of feedback from the meeting summarized below are available online at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/ under Community Meetings. OVERVIEW On June 24th, about 77 community members gathered in the Elk’s Lodge for the third of three community workshops in the first phase of the City’s update of its Comprehensive Plan, Our Palo Alto 2030. The meeting was a forum on alternative futures, asking citizens to explore different ways that Palo Alto might change over the next 15 years. The focus of this workshop was to identify and elicit ideas for a range of scenarios: type of growth, pace of growth, intensity of development, transportation solutions, energy infrastructure, and quality of life. The discussion built upon the six opportunity sites identified based on a synthesis of the input from the June 10th workshop. Participants formed nine small groups of six to ten people to work together to create an alternative scenario, either responding to a preliminary scenario presented by City staff and the consultant team, or an original scenario. The nine alternatives created at the workshop will be used to shape three alternative future scenarios that – along with a legally-required “no project” (or “business as usual”) scenario - will be analyzed in depths in the forthcoming Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Next, the draft alternatives will be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and City Council for review and input before they are finalized for study. ALTERNATIVE FUTURES WORKSHEETS Each of the nine groups used worksheets to record the group’s ideas and comments on the six Opportunity Site building blocks of the alternative scenarios. Scans of each table’s worksheet from each small group are available at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/. All groups either came up with a new alternative or modified one of the preliminary alternatives offered as a starting point for discussion. The City is encouraging additional responses through an online exercise similar to the one completed at the June 24th workshop at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4949) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 7/9/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Comp Plan EIR Scoping and Update Title: Comprehensive Plan Update: Discussion of Alternative Futures & Issues for Consideration in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR “Scoping” Meeting). The City will Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Update of its Comprehensive Plan. Staff will Summarize Input Received at Recent Public Workshops and Invite Comments and Suggestions from the Public and the Commission Regarding the Alternatives and Issues that Should be Included for Analysis in the EIR. From: ůĞŶĂ>ĞĞ͕^ĞŶŝŽƌWůĂŶĞƌ Lead Department: Planning & ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission conduct a public scoping meeting by accepting public testimony and providing Commission feedback regarding environmental issues and alternatives to be considered in the preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) for the Comprehensive Plan Update. BACKGROUND The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) contains the City’s official policies on land use and community design, transportation, housing, the natural environment, business and economics, community services, and governance. Its policies apply to both public and private properties. Its focus is on the physical form of the City. The Plan is used by the City Council and PTC to evaluate land use changes and to inform funding and budget decisions. It is used by City Staff to regulate building and development and to make recommendations on projects. It is used by citizens and neighborhood groups to understand the City’s long-range plans and proposals for different geographic areas. The Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and the foundation for its capital improvements program. A Comprehensive Plan amendment was initiated by the City Council in 2006 (CMR# 253:06) to focus on preservation of commercial land uses, preservation of retail and community services to support new residential growth, incorporate sustainability concepts, update the housing City of Palo Alto Page 2 element and prepare concept area plans for East Meadow Circle and California Avenue/Fry’s areas. Between 2008 and 2010, City staff reviewed the existing Comprehensive Plan elements with the PTC, prepared background reports on baseline growth topics, and developed preliminary information regarding the two concept area plans. In June of 2010, the PTC formed sub- committees to review each Comprehensive Plan element. Work included updating the vision statements, goals, policies and programs. New goals, policies and programs were added where appropriate and existing goals, policies and programs were edited to reflect desired changes. Relevant policies and programs were carried over to the draft elements. Draft elements were reviewed by the full PTC at regularly scheduled public meetings with staff recommendations to include the draft elements into the Comprehensive Plan Update. This PTC sub-committee process continued through 2013. At a December 2, 2013 study session, the City Council discussed ways to initiate a conversation about the community’s shared vision for the future. Staff suggested reframing the long running Comprehensive Plan process to increase community engagement and explore alternatives in a more meaningful way than typically envisioned. The discussion, which grew out of community concerns about issues such as traffic/parking and the pace of development, lead to the development of an organizational framework for ideas, action, and design referred to as “Our Palo Alto.” On February 3, 2014 the Council endorsed this framework and directed staff to return to Council with a specific schedule and scope of work to create a blueprint for the future of land uses and development in our City by re-framing the ongoing update to the Comprehensive Plan to include broad community engagement, discussion and analysis of alternative futures, cumulative impacts, and mitigation strategies. On March 17, 2014 staff presented the Council with a recommended schedule to complete the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated program-level Environmental Impact Report by the end of 2015. The Council voted to approve staff’s recommendations and directed Staff to return to Council with additional considerations of the outreach process, composition and procedures for the Community Leadership Group. The Council also asked staff to review the prior Comprehensive Plan process and SOFA Plan process for lessons learned. On May 5, 2014, the City Council reviewed the draft elements, collectively titled, “Draft Comprehensive Plan 2030, Vision Statement, Goals, Policies and Programs (April 2014)” http://goo.gl/Sq9cvj. Council provided comments on many aspects of the document. At the conclusion of Council’s review, the city manager indicated that staff would organize the comments into groups of issues and convert the comments into questions that could be further discussed through the community engagement process. The comment groups and questions are contained in Attachment A. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Comp Plan Engagement and Workshops Summary The community engagement plan for the Comp Plan update included a series of community workshops to help develop alternatives to study in the EIR. The goal of the Comp Plan Update outreach process is to: x Solicit meaningful input regarding the critical issues facing our City and a design for its future; x Ensure participation by a wide cross section of Palo Altans, including traditionally underrepresented groups, and x Ensure that the public’s input informs the final work product that is presented to decision- makers for their consideration. Three workshops were held in May and June. The workshops were held in various locations of the City to engage the as many members of the public as possible. Summaries of each workshop are provided as Attachment B. The first workshop, the Critical Issues Forum, was held on May 29, 2014 at the Avenidas facility in downtown Palo Alto. The goal of this meeting was to have the community identify Palo Alto’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT). Approximately 40 members of the community attended this first workshop. Participants were placed in six small groups of five to seven people to complete the analysis. Participants were asked to share their opinions on a variety of issues, including housing, transportation, energy, quality of life, technology, and the regional and global economy. Common themes emerged from the group discussion. The themes include the importance of the quality of life, importance of the City’s relationship with Stanford, concerns of traffic, public trust, citizen participation, transit, the high cost of housing and high speed rail. A detailed matrix of the common themes can be found in Attachment B. The summary has also been made available to the public on the Comp Plan Update website. The second workshop, the Growth Management Forum, was held two weeks later on June 10, 2014 at Palo Alto High School. About 30 members attended this forum. A summary of the last workshop was provided and a presentation on growth management techniques was given. The presentation covered jobs, housing and population growth trends of Palo Alto, as well as an overview of tools used by other jurisdictions. Building upon the themes identified at the last workshop, the public was asked to identify which areas of the City they though might or should change and which areas should be protected and preserved during the 15 year life of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Again, attendees were placed in small groups of six to eight people to discuss their opinions and to identify the areas on land use maps. Six distinct areas emerged from the discussion as “opportunity sites” or “focus areas,” where the City could direct change and development as a way to protect and preserve other areas. The six focus areas included 1) Downtown and the Stanford Shopping Center, 2) El Camino Real corridor, 3) California Avenue, 4) Stanford Research Park, 5) East Meadow Circle/Bayshore, and 6) South San Antonio. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The most recent workshop, Alternatives Future, was held at the Elk’s Lodge on June 24, 2014. This workshop, building on the previous two workshops, was well attended with over 70 participants. The purpose of this workshop was to ask the public to help identify potential alternatives based on the concepts discussed at the previous meetings. The presentation included an overview of the past process and the goals for the workshop. Attendees were placed in small groups to discuss what they thought the City should consider as alternatives. As a guide, the participants were provided with potential alternatives, in addition to a no project alternative: 1) Slow Non-residential Development and Encourage Housing, 2) Slow Non- residential Development and Focus Housing in Transit-rich Areas, 3) Can We Be a Net-Zero City and What Does That Mean? Attendees were also given the option of creating their own alternative. A lively discussion resulted in nine separate alternatives. Several groups suggested allowing more housing and neighborhood serving retail near transit. Other groups focused on slowing development. A detailed summary of the workshop outcomes is provided in Attachment B. In addition to the three planning workshops described above, planning staff and consultants have initiated online tools to continue the discussion and to provide opportunity for input by those who were not able to attend the meetings. The Comp Plan website provides an email list for interested parties to keep informed of the project. It also provides an email for additional questions and comments. An online version of each he small group activity from the first and third workshops has also been posted online as part of Open City Hall. The first online event requests the public to identity the critical issues for Palo Alto. The second online exercise requests feedback on the six focus areas. Staff has also solicited applications for the “Leadership Group” that is expected to assist with community engagement for the balance of the planning process. Based on applications received, the City Manager has appointed members, and the group is expected to have its initial orientation meeting before the end of the month. All of the community engagement activities planned as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update and all of the community input received will be documented and cataloged so they can be used to inform the analysis and policy decisions that will be made. In the near term, input received this summer, will be used to help define issues and alternatives to be analyzed in the program EIR. Purpose of the July 9 2014 Meeting The purpose of this scoping meeting is to allow the community and the Commission, individually and/or as a group, to provide comments regarding the scope of the environmental issues and alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law that requires California agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and describe feasible measures that can be taken to avoid or mitigate those impacts. An Environmental Impact City of Palo Alto Page 5 Report (EIR) is required by CEQA when an agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. An EIR evaluates a proposed project’s potential impacts on the environment, and recommends mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce or eliminate those impacts. Decision-makers use information in an EIR to help determine whether or not to approve a project. The most common type of EIR assesses potential impacts associated with a specific development project. The Comprehensive Plan Update is not a specific development project, and instead constitutes an effort by the City of Palo Alto to determine comprehensive land uses, policies, and programs that will guide public and private decision making regarding land use and development issues over the next 15 years. For the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City will prepare what’s referred to as a Program EIR, which assesses the potential cumulative impacts of development that may occur during the life of the plan, considers potential alternatives, and identifies mitigation measures that should be adopted to reduce or avoid significant impacts. This is the same level of environmental analysis that was prepared for the exiting Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Preparing a Program level EIR for citywide growth allows the City to better identify –and mitigate—cumulative impacts of overall growth that may otherwise be missed in a more focused project specific environmental analysis. CEQA specifically requires that a program EIR be prepared for plans that govern a continuing program. Although the legally required contents of a program EIR are the same as project specific EIR, such as the one prepared for the golf course project, a program EIR is more conceptual, with a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives and mitigations. For example, the Comp Plan EIR will include several project alternatives. But those discussions will be more general as it involves the entire city instead of a particular site. Preparation of a program EIR parallels the development of the Comprehensive Plan. CEQA clearance for subsequent projects can tier off the program EIR. Depending on the complexity of the project, such CEQA clearances can include Negative Declarations and Supplement EIRs. An EIR describes the objectives for a proposed project, the location of the project and actions proposed. It evaluates how the existing environment would be changed if the project was approved and provides feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to avoid or reduce significant adverse changes to existing conditions. An important component of the EIR process is to provide an opportunity for public input regarding environmental issues and alternatives to be addressed in advance of the EIR preparation, and subsequent opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR documents prior to preparation and certification of a Final EIR by the City Council. Environmental Analysis- Our Palo Alto 2030 The first step in processing any EIR is issuance of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) by the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency, in this case the City of Palo Alto, issued an NOP for the Comprehensive Plan Update on May 30, 2014. The NOP (Attachment C) was disseminated for public review with an orientation brochure (on the Internet at: http://goo.gl/ah1PMw)), City of Palo Alto Page 6 published in multiple newspapers, and mailed to public agencies as required by the State CEQA Guidelines. The end of the NOP public review period was specified as June 30 for public agencies and August 6, 2014 for the general public. All input received during the NOP period will be considered during preparation of the EIR. Comments can be submitted in writing via hard copy directly to staff or submitted electronically. As currently envisioned, the Draft EIR that is prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update will examine several alternatives at an equal level of detail, allowing for an informed decision to adopt one of these alternatives at the end of the process, or potentially a blend of the alternatives if desired. The EIR will have to describe and define the alternatives in sufficient detail to permit an analysis of their potential impacts, and to permit meaningful public input. The alternatives can assess a variety of land use and infrastructure options, and collectively present a range of possible outcomes to inform a final decision about the future of Palo Alto. (See below for further discussion of alternatives.) It’s also important that the alternatives and the EIR consider whether there are proposed policies and programs that might have physical environmental impacts in addition to any changes in land use designations and infrastructure. Comprehensive Plan Update Consultant Team The City’s consultant, PlaceWorks, was hired to help staff prepare the Comprehensive Plan Update and the program EIR. The firm, originally known as DCE, was hired in 2008 and has continued to support staff as the Comprehensive Plan update has evolved over the past five years. Placeworks offers a range of planning services, including general plan/comprehensive plan preparation, community participation programs, preparation of environmental documents and zoning code/form base code updates. The Placeworks team consists of three key staff members. They include Principal Charlie Knox, Associate Principal Joanna Jansen and Associate Andrew Hill. The firm has worked closely with staff in the development of the project website and the various components of the outreach process, including the three recent workshops. Placeworks will provide a brief overview of the recent process and the program EIR at the July 9th PTC hearing. DISCUSSION As currently envisioned, the Draft EIR will analyze the environmental impacts of each of three alternative future scenarios approved for analysis by City Council in addition to a No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA.. In keeping with the requirements of CEQA, the Draft EIR will determine potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures in the following resource categories: x Aesthetics The aesthetics analysis will review Comprehensive Plan Update policies and programs that may impact scenic vistas and other resources, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, such as views of the hills or the Bay. We will describe existing visual resources within Palo Alto, including descriptions of scenic views and corridors within and adjacent to the city. Each resource will be described, photographed, and mapped to provide City of Palo Alto Page 7 context for the reviewer. Based on the aesthetic resource significance criteria, PlaceWorks will assess potential significant aesthetic impacts, such as impacts on scenic views and corridors. If necessary, mitigation measures to reduce aesthetics impacts to a less-than-significant level will be recommended in the form of additional or revised Comprehensive Plan policies. x Air Quality and Community Health Risk PlaceWorks will prepare an air quality, community risk and hazards, and GHG emissions analysis to support the Comprehensive Plan Update and EIR. The impact analysis for the EIR will be based on the current methodology of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The technical analysis will be integrated within the EIR and modeling datasheets will be included as an appendix. Air Quality: In accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, a Plan-level analysis will be prepared. This section will include the current air quality within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air Basin) in the vicinity of the City and a summary of regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing health-based impacts associated with poor air quality. Existing levels of criteria air pollutants available from the nearest air quality monitoring station will be incorporated. The air quality analysis will include a qualitative analysis of criteria air pollutants and precursors generated from buildout of the proposed land uses plan. Buildout of the Comprehensive Plan would generate emissions from an increase in trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) associated with land uses within the City. The Program-level air quality analysis will include a consistency evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan to the BAAQMD’s land use and transportation control measures within the air quality management plan. The SFBAAB is in nonattainment for particulate matter and for ozone. The potential increase in VMT provided by Hexagon Transportation resulting from implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will be discussed in relation to the projected population increase. The air quality impact analysis will also describe land uses within the city that have the potential to generate nuisance odors. Buffer distances and/or control measures for odor sources listed in the BAAQMD’s guidelines will be incorporated. Community Risk and Hazards: The air quality section of the EIR will include an assessment of air quality compatibility based on guidance within BAAQMD’s draft Community Risk Reduction Plans for Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5): Community Development Guidelines. The community risk and hazards evaluation will include a discussion of potential health risks from TACs and PM2.5 in the project vicinity based on BAAQMD’s guidance. BAAQMD does not require site-specific health risk assessments as part of the Plan-level evaluation for the Comprehensive Plan. Recommended measures specified in the BAAQMD’s Guidelines for future sensitive land uses within the areas mapped will be considered. For land uses within areas mapped as City of Palo Alto Page 8 having elevated risk, the EIR will detail performance standards for future development project, including requirements to reduce risk from exposure to significant concentrations of PM2.5 and TACs. Recommendations to reduce risk associated with placement of new sensitive land uses associated with the Comprehensive Plan adjacent to major sources of air pollution will be based on the recommended buffer distances based on BAAQMD screening tools, CARB guidance, and the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) guidance. x Biological Resources Placeworks’ subconsultant TRA will provide a programmatic evaluation of biological resources in Palo Alto. The Draft EIR analysis of biological resources will address direct impacts on special-status species and sensitive habitats from the implementation of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Indirect impacts on these resources from the urban development that may be carried out will also be analyzed. Special attention will be given to impacts on Barron, Matadero, and San Francisquito Creeks. The Draft EIR will rely on the California Natural Diversity Database and a search of the University of California Museum of Vertebrate Zoology records in describing the affected environment for biological resources. No protocol-level species-specific field surveys are proposed. The EIR will analyze the effectiveness of the goals and policies in the updated Comprehensive Plan in minimizing and mitigating impacts on listed species, including loss of their habitat, and provide an evaluation of how the goals of the Comprehensive Plan will encourage sustainability and conservation of natural resources. x Cultural Resources PlaceWorks will analyze potential impacts to cultural resources that could result from implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update, drawing on the Palo Alto Historical Inventory and other existing cultural resource surveys and documents prepared for the City. Preservation programs or other measures necessary to address potential impacts resulting from implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update will be suggested for inclusion either in the EIR as mitigation measures or as Comprehensive Plan polices or programs. x Geology, Soils, and Seismicity PlaceWorks will prepare the “Setting” section of the EIR. It is expected that geologic impacts may relate to seismic shaking, liquefaction, erosion, expansive soils, and subsidence. Potential seismic impacts, including ground shaking, surface rupture, liquefaction, and landslides will be described. Additionally, potential impacts related to geotechnical soil properties, such as erosion, expansive soils, and subsidence will be described. The PlaceWorks’ senior geologist, with 30 years of experience, will review the draft Comprehensive Plan policies pertaining to geology, soils, and seismicity, and suggest revisions to these policies or new policies, if necessary, in order to mitigate City of Palo Alto Page 9 potential geotechnical impacts. x Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implementation of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update would result in an increase in GHG emissions from energy use (natural gas and electricity), transportation sources, water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal. The analysis will draw upon past inventories conducted for Palo Alto. The Comprehensive Plan EIR will summarize the most recent community GHG emissions inventory for existing (CEQA baseline) environmental conditions and forecast GHG emissions at the Comprehensive Plan Horizon year. The GHG inventory for CEQA baseline and buildout will be modeled using the latest modeling tools (EMFAC, CalEEMod, and OFFROAD). The boundaries of the community-wide GHG emissions inventories will be based on a combination of sectors over which the City has geographic and jurisdiction control. For example, the transportation sector will be based on VMT generated by trips that start or end in the city and exclude trips that pass through the city. The EIR will evaluate the impact from the change in GHG emissions in the city compared to CEQA baseline conditions pursuant to BAAQMD thresholds. Area-wide construction-related impacts, such as fugitive dust due to earth moving and grading and exhaust emissions associated with construction equipment and material hauling operations, will be discussed commensurate with the level of detail available regarding construction activity within the Comprehensive Plan area. Standard construction mitigation measures will be identified, where appropriate. The GHG section in the EIR will also discuss the City’s commitment to reducing GHG emissions in accordance with the GHG reduction goals of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). Project consistency with the California Air Resources Board 2008 Scoping Plan and 2013 Scoping Plan Update and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Plan Bay Area will also be reviewed. The City of Palo Alto has a Climate Protection Plan and is embarking on preparation of a Sustainability/Climate Action Plan. The EIR will include a consistency evaluation with the GHG reduction measures identified in the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan, as may be modified by proposed implementation of the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, as well as climate protection programs in the updated Comprehensive Plan. x Hazards and Hazardous Materials Several parts of the city, including the California Avenue/Fry’s Area and East Meadow Circle Concept Plan areas, have a history of research and development and high technology industrial uses. A number of these uses generated hazardous materials that contaminated the environment. Volatile organic compounds commonly used by high tech companies are present in groundwater in some areas of the city, so the EIR will need to carefully consider potential impacts from volatile organic compound vapor intrusion into new residential buildings on former industrial sites. To identify potential hazards-related issues, PlaceWorks will identify potential risk areas City of Palo Alto Page 10 for subsurface contamination, both soil and groundwater, that may potentially affect development. PlaceWorks will assess available public and private reports and data regarding potential subsurface contamination. PlaceWorks will identify historical activities that may have compromised the environment and identify proactive requirements that will be applied to future development to minimize any future environmental contamination and/or liability. The historical assessment will evaluate the likelihood of subsurface contamination from past activities. PlaceWorks will also describe current regulations that require plans and actions to minimize future environmental issues. Standard Environmental Site Assessment regulatory databases will be utilized along with at least two sources of available historical site information such as Sanborn maps and aerial photographs, as well as information provided by the City of Palo Alto and/or Santa Clara County. PlaceWorks will also utilize the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s 2003 South Bay study, which identifies regional plumes and areas of subsurface concern related to former or current industrial and commercial zones. By identifying general areas of concern, SES will be able to assess potential impacts from future construction dewatering and vapor intrusion. PlaceWorks will complete the following tasks: Complete a database search and historical site use assessment.  Review the site-specific data, including all pertinent City plans and available regulatory agency reports, to create a site map showing the established areas of groundwater contamination.  Discuss areas of concern with various interested persons within the city.  Identify known zones where VOC plumes have contaminants above the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs).  Evaluate pathways of potential exposure through typical future development.  Identify potential impacts from any existing hazardous waste conditions for expose to the planned area improvements, such new development, infrastructure or daylighting of drainages.  Identify potential impacts and develop or review proposed mitigation strategies to reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. x Hydrology and Water Quality PlaceWorks will evaluate potential impacts of implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update on hydrology and water quality, including stormwater quality. In particular, the EIR will focus on potential impacts related to groundwater contamination (including salt water intrusion), development in groundwater recharge areas, current drainage capacity, sedimentation, and increases in impervious surfaces and flooding. The EIR will also include an overview of relevant federal, State and local regulations as well as a discussion of how these regulations can reduce or avoid the potential impacts to hydrology and City of Palo Alto Page 11 water quality that could result from implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update. xx Land Use and Planning PlaceWorks will describe the existing regulatory framework applicable to land us, as well as existing land uses in the City and its Sphere of Influence and will evaluate potential impacts from implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update, including impacts associated with Comprehensive Plan land use designation changes. The evaluation will include a thorough analysis of land use compatibility issues associated with future development under the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. x Noise PlaceWorks will prepare a noise analysis that will identify potential impacts on sensitive land uses associated with the update of the Comprehensive Plan. The EIR will discuss relevant standards and criteria for noise exposure, and the assessment of impacts will be based on federal, State, and local ordinances, policies, and standards. The ambient noise environment in the city will be established through field noise monitoring, and traffic noise modeling. A survey of existing ambient noise levels will be conducted to establish the character of the noise environment within the city. Noise measurements will be taken at up to twelve (12) locations and observations of noise sources and other noise correlates during each measurement period will be documented. The existing regulatory setting regarding noise will be summarized, and. Documentation of the existing ambient noise environment is important because these baseline noise levels will affect the identification of Comprehensive Plan policies and specific mitigation measures required for future impacts. The Setting section of the Noise Section of the EIR will address:  Transportation Noise: Noise from vehicular traffic will be assessed using a version of the US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model; these contours will utilize the traffic forecasts provided in the traffic impact analyses for the Comprehensive Plan update. These analyses will identify areas along freeway and roadway segments that would be exposed to noise increases above criteria specified in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the noise analysis will identify potential noise and vibration impacts to sensitive uses in the city from rail and aircraft sources.  Stationary Noise: Noise impacts from non-transportation sources such as major retail and commercial/industrial uses will be discussed in terms of potential impacts to nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Future ambient noise and land use compatibility will be discussed, and noise mitigation will be provided to reduce potential impacts to future sensitive land uses related to noise, if applicable.  Noise and Land Use Compatibility: An analysis will be prepared to assess noise and land use compatibility for focused areas in the city that could be affected by land use changes or by changes in traffic patterns. Potential land use conflicts within the city City of Palo Alto Page 12 will be identified based on the results of the noise monitoring and modeling results.  Construction Noise and Vibration: Potential construction impacts associated with implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will be evaluated at a programmatic level. Future noise and vibration effects from construction activities will be discussed in terms of accepted federal standards. x Population, Housing and Employment This section will focus on the potential for displacement of people or housing and for substantial population growth that could result from implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. PlaceWorks will describe existing population and housing conditions and summarize the relevant State and local regulatory framework including the City’s Regional Housing Needs Association (RHNA) and the current Housing Element. Based on the population and housing significance criteria, PlaceWorks will assess potential population and housing impacts. If necessary, mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level in the form of Comprehensive Plan policies will be recommended. x Public Services This section will evaluate potential impacts on public services, including fire/emergency medical services (EMS), police services, and schools. PlaceWorks will describe existing public services within the city. The setting will include a description of each public service provider, including current and projected capacity. Based on the public services significance criteria, PlaceWorks will assess potential impacts. If necessary, mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels in the form of policy recommendations will be identified. x Parks and Recreation The Parks and Recreation section will evaluate potential impacts on existing park and recreation facilities based on the anticipated increase in daytime population. This section will draw on standards and objectives described in City documents, including any master plans for existing City or regional parks. PlaceWorks will describe the existing recreation setting within the City. Based on the recreation significance criteria, PlaceWorks will assess potential parks and recreation impacts. If necessary, mitigation measures in the form of policy recommendations will be listed to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. x Transportation and Traffic PlaceWorks will prepare the transportation and traffic section of the EIR, based on the transportation and traffic study completed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants and approved by City staff. This section will address any potential operational and level of service deficiencies on the key transportation facilities based on expected projections of traffic volume, transit ridership, and walking and bicycling levels associated with the City of Palo Alto Page 13 Comprehensive Plan Update. In preparing the transportation and traffic study, Hexagon Transportation Consultants will utilize the City’s Travel Demand Model to develop forecasts of future cumulative traffic volumes under the provisions of the updated Comprehensive Plan. The analysis will use outputs from the Model to estimate the potential cumulative transportation impacts resulting from development that may occur during the life of the Comprehensive Plan, and will result in recommended mitigation measures that can be included in the final plan that is considered for adoption. Transit, pedestrian, and bicycle impacts will be analyzed based on model forecasts, and the provision of adequate facilities, including for capacity and safety, will be identified. This pedestrian and bicycle focused analysis is a somewhat new analysis and was not studied in great detail in the previous Comprehensive Plan EIR.  x Utilities and Service Systems The City of Palo Alto is the only municipality in California that operates a full suite of City- owned utility services. The EIR will provide current regulatory agency context, references, and requirements, as well as a description of existing utility and service systems within the city, including current operations, capacity, and facility locations. PlaceWorks will provide a comprehensive analysis of potential impacts related to wastewater, water, stormwater, natural gas, energy and solid waste systems associated with buildout of the Comprehensive Plan Update. If necessary, new or modified Comprehensive Plan policies will be recommended to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. x Alternatives Analysis PlaceWorks will evaluate up to three alternatives to the proposed project in addition to the CEQA-required No Project Alternative. The alternatives will be based on the alternative future scenarios approved for analysis by City Council. Based on this analysis, the Environmentally Superior Alternative will be identified (as required by CEQA). x CEQA Mandated Assessment PlaceWorks will prepare the appropriate conclusions to fulfill CEQA requirements by providing an assessment of unavoidable significant environmental impacts, if any; significant irreversible environmental changes; growth inducing impacts; and effects found not to be significant. Alternative Future Scenarios An important component of the Program EIR will be the environmental analysis of future scenarios that describe alternatives that differ from the Project Description in terms of land uses, polices, and overall growth of the City. As part of the program EIR, a set of alternatives will be identified and evaluated to provide decision-makers with an understanding of the key environmental tradeoffs between alternative scenarios. The Program EIR would include City of Palo Alto Page 14 evaluations of a limited number of alternative scenarios, allowing us to examine the relative merit of focusing growth in one geographical area or another and to weigh the pros and cons of various public investments. The alternative scenarios can assess different development intensities and land uses in the limited areas of the city proposed for change, and/or explore concepts such as “transit-oriented development” and “sustainable communities.” The recent public engagement activities, described above, were designed in a way to help develop alternative futures that could be described in the Program EIR. To kick start the third public workshop, , City staff developed three alternative future concepts, which were modified and expanded on by participants at the workshop. The end result of the workshop was nine separate alternatives, with many unique elements. These nine alternatives and many, many unique elements have been combined and consolidated to form the following potential concepts, which are still subject to refinement and revision based on input from the public, the Commission, and the City Council. All of these alternatives assume that R-1 neighborhoods and open spaces would be protected, and that any growth and development that occurs in Palo Alto over the next 15 years will be directed to specific focus areas where some level of change is deemed to be acceptable. Concept 1: Do Nothing (This is a legal requirement for the EIR) No changes would be made to Comp Plan land use designations or policies. Projected population and job growth would be accommodated in new development permitted under existing zoning. x Downtown would continue to see redevelopment of low density sites to provide additional office space and the downtown cap on non-residential development would be exceeded. Separate programs related to parking management (e.g. Residential Permit Parking) could be implemented, but no new garages would be constructed, and little residential development would occur. x El Camino Real would continue to evolve consistent with existing land use designations and zoning. Auto-oriented uses would diminish and new mixed use projects would add office and housing over retail where small parcels can be assembled for redevelopment. x The California Avenue area would continue to experience growth pressures, with new office and housing uses on the streets surrounding Cal Ave, and these pressures could spread to the South San Antonio area over time. x The Stanford Research Park, Stanford Shopping Center, and East Meadow Circle/Bayshore areas would remain job centers. Concept 2: No Change in Land Use Designations; Policy Changes would Slow Non-Residential Development & Allow Only Modest Housing Growth to Meet State Requirements In this alternative, the City would establish a procedure for controlling the pace of new commercial (office and R&D) development projects greater than 10K square feet, such as a yearly floor area cap. The City would also modify its policies and development standards to ensure that the amount of residential growth and development is modest, and focused on City of Palo Alto Page 15 meeting State requirements, with an emphasis on smaller units that are affordable to people who work in Palo Alto. R-1 neighborhoods would be protected and policies would encourage the preservation of neighborhood-serving retail where it exists throughout the City. There would not be major new infrastructure investments, except this alternative would test the impacts and benefits of making roadway improvements included in the County Expressway study.  Downtown would not change substantially from its current appearance and mix of uses, although managing the pace of non-residential development downtown would likely result in more residential development instead. The 50’ height limit would remain, and one or more surface parking lots could be redeveloped to provide additional parking.  El Camino Real would see increased setbacks where new buildings are developed and those buildings would not exceed three stories. Any added housing would have to be relatively low density unless it met strict affordability requirements. Retail uses would remain, and would be primarily neighborhood-serving.  California Avenue would keep its eclectic, local-serving character, and no tall buildings would be added. The City would try to keep Fry’s and encourage housing to be built on top. If Fry’s did leave, then medium-density housing would be developed on that site. No new Tech Corridor overlay would be added. Parking would be provided to support any new growth in this area. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements would be prioritized.  The Stanford Research Park, the Stanford Shopping Center, and the East Meadow Circle/Bayshore area would remain job centers. Some services for workers and a shuttle service would be added, but no housing would be added.  The South San Antonio area would continue to support a variety of non-residential uses until market forces result in mixed-use development consistent with existing zoning. Concept 3: Slow Non-Residential Development & Change Land Use Designations to Focus Housing in Transit-Served Areas with Neighborhood Services In this alternative, the City would establish a procedure for controlling the pace of new commercial (office and R&D) development projects greater than 10K square feet and would adjust land use designations and policies to discourage or prohibit new housing unless it’s within one half mile of a Caltrain or Bus Rapid Transit stop and to increase allowable residential densities within those areas. This “swap” would effectively downzone areas that are not immediately accessible to transit in exchange for up-zoning transit served areas that include neighborhood services. R-1 neighborhoods would be protected, and policies would encourage the preservation of neighborhood-serving retail where it exists throughout the City. This alternative could test the impacts and benefits of depressing the Caltrain tracks below-grade between San Antonio Ave. and Page Mill Rd.  High density housing would be added Downtown. A slight increase to the height limit would be allowed, raising it to 55 feet as long as the additional height is used for residential units. Smaller units (studios and 1-bedroom apartments) and/or senior City of Palo Alto Page 16 housing would be encouraged. The 27 University Avenue site would be developed as a transit center with workforce housing.  Along El Camino Real, new development would be focused in nodes at planned BRT stops, and housing would be prohibited outside of identified nodes. Portions of the Stanford Research Park and the Stanford Shopping Center fronting on El Camino Real could be redeveloped to include housing if these areas also incorporate neighborhood services and are coupled with streetscape improvements and pedestrian, bike, and transit connections to Downtown and Cal Ave.  California Avenue itself would remain a “quirky” low scale commercial street, and the surrounding area would accommodate additional multifamily housing at medium densities with underground parking.  The East Meadow Circle/Bayshore and South San Antonio areas would continue to support a variety of non-residential uses, and housing would be prohibited. Concept 4: Explore Innovative Net-Zero Impact Concepts Under this alternative, Palo Alto would lead the state and the country in testing various “net zero” concepts: net zero greenhouse gas emissions, net zero new vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or net zero potable water use. Some policies might be applied citywide; others would be focused on specific areas. Affordable housing and neighborhood-serving retail could be exempted from such requirements, but presumably no specific growth management strategy would be needed on the theory that the “net-zero” requirements would address the pace and impacts of development. R-1 neighborhoods would be protected and policies would encourage the preservation and expansion of neighborhood-serving retail throughout the City.  The current Downtown cap on non-residential development would be replaced with a restriction on net new vehicle trips. The area would retain its current mix of uses and would be promoted as a cultural gathering place for all ages, with a full range of services for residents and employees. Significant pedestrian improvements would be introduced, along with improvements to the Caltrain station and transit center intended to make Downtown a regional transit hub with free shuttle service to destinations throughout the City.  Along El Camino Real, mixed use development with ground floor retail and residential above and behind would be allowed. While new development would be two or three stories in most areas, it could exceed the 50-foot height limit at three nodes along the corridor, where projects would be models of sustainability, with small units, car share and transit access rather than resident parking, net-zero energy, and net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Wider sidewalks and bike enhancements would be prioritized along El Camino, and local energy/solar panels would be strongly encouraged all along the corridor on new and old buildings.  California Avenue itself would see little change in this alternative and would remain an eclectic, neighborhood-serving retail destination but the surrounding area would evolve to include more jobs and housing. Specifically, the Fry’s site would transform to include a mix of uses with housing over commercial, with public gardens serving the new City of Palo Alto Page 17 homes. A Tech Corridor overlay along Park Boulevard would facilitate the creation of small new tech companies and Park Boulevard itself would become a true “boulevard” with substantial pedestrian and bicycle improvements.  The Stanford Research Park would become a cutting-edge proving ground for innovative concepts in energy generation, carbon sequestration, recycled water, urban farming, and drought-tolerant landscaping. In some areas, existing surface parking could be undergrounded and covered with vertical mixed use buildings, surrounding plazas and public gathering places, including restaurants and nighttime retail. In these areas, new housing would include townhomes, apartments, and lofts, and new streets would be added to break up the current “superblocks.” A bike sharing program and a new free shuttle would serve residents and workers alike. All landscaping would be required to utilize low/no water plants.  The East Meadow Circle area would be transformed from a research and office park to a new village center with housing around a central plaza, as well as a potential new school. The office and light industrial uses along Fabian Way and Bayshore would remain as is and transit service to the area would be dramatically improved. In the South San Antonio area, existing businesses would be protected from displacement, although there could be limited new housing once walkability and transit connections to/from Caltrain are improved. The PTC may want to provide comment on these scenarios in addition their comments on specific issues that should be addressed in the Program EIR. NEXT STEPS The PTC’s comments will be forwarded to the City Council for a scoping session to be held on August 4, 2014, along with public input received on the proposed alternatives and issues to be considered in the EIR. Staff will be asking the Council to provide direction regarding alternative future scenarios to be studied in the Program EIR. The meeting will also include an opportunity for the Council and public to provide comments on specific issues that should be addressed. Unless directed otherwise by City Council, the August 4, 2014 Council meeting would initiate preparation of detailed alternative descriptions and the impact analysis. Existing conditions reports would be made available for public review while this work is ongoing, and the Leadership Group would convene and advise City staff regarding continued public engagement. The current schedule provides for publication of a Draft EIR and a Draft Our Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan document at the end of the year. The public release of these documents would initiate the next formal round of public comments and community engagement. Attachments: x Attachment A: City Council Comments on Policy Document (PDF) x Attachment B: Scoping Meeting Summaries (PDF) x Attachment C: NOP (PDF) x Attachment D: Orinetation Brochure (PDF) x Attachment E: Placeholder - Growth Management Memo (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 18 x Attachment F: Placeholder - Demographic Information (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 1 ATTACHMENT F 1 2 Planning and Transportation Commission 3 Draft Verbatim Minutes 4 July 9, 2014 5 6 EXCERPT 7 8 Public Hearing 9 Comprehensive Plan Update: Discussion of Alternative Futures & Issues for Consideration in 10 the Environmental Impact Report (EIR “Scoping” Meeting). The City will prepare a 11 programmatic environmental impact report (EIR) for the update of its Comprehensive Plan. Staff will 12 summarize input received at recent public workshops and invite comments and suggestions from the 13 public and the Commission regarding the alternatives and issues that should be included for analysis in 14 the EIR. For more information contact Elena Lee at elena.lee@cityofpaloalto.org 15 16 Chair Michael: The next topic is the Comprehensive Plan Update: the discussion of alternative futures and 17 issues for consideration in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the EIR scoping, and we’ll begin with 18 a report from staff. Director Gitelman? 19 20 Hillary Gitelman, Director: Thank you Chair Michael and Commissioners. I’m Hillary Gitelman the 21 Planning Director and I wanted to start with just a few remarks before turning this over to Steven Turner 22 who is managing this process with his staff and our consultants. In our earlier discussion it was brought 23 up what’s the Planning Commission’s role in the Comprehensive Plan Update? And I wanted to 24 emphasize that it couldn’t be more important. You all contributed those of you who are on the 25 Commission contributed to a draft policy document that the City Council has received. And that will be 26 valuable input to this process and even more importantly this evening you’re really taking a first step in 27 looking at the input we’ve received so far on general concepts and alternatives and teeing that up for a 28 City Council discussion of alternative futures in early August. We think this is absolutely critical and it’s 29 going to lead to a very we hope fruitful and productive analysis after we decide on the general concepts 30 that are to be analyzed. 31 32 We know that after the City Council discussion on August 4th we owe you a better description of what 33 your role will be in later phases of the Comprehensive Plan process. I want you to be aware that we are 34 thinking about that. A lot of this depends on the Council’s discussion on August 4th and what they choose 35 to do as next steps, but we will get back to you after that discussion with more specifics about your role 36 and how we’ll be able to leverage all the work that you’ve done to date and your discussions this evening 37 to take this plan, planning process to a successful conclusion. As you know our goal is to get to the finish 38 line by the end of 2015 on a comprehensive update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 39 40 You can also help us between now and August 4th spread the word about alternatives. And I see that the 41 Commissioners have some index cards there with website information on it. We’re really trying to get the 42 word out, thank you, and asking you to distribute those cards to 25 of your closest friends because the 43 input doesn’t stop this evening or on August 4th. We really want members of the public who can’t come 44 to meetings to go on our website, provide the kind of input that they would be able to provide if they 45 were here, any other ideas that occur to them about critical issues that are facing the City of Palo Alto, 46 what some alternative futures might look like that we should analyze in this process hoping that by the 47 end of the process we get to forming a collective vision for the future of our City that is every bit as 48 useful and important as the last Comp Plan was to the future generations and that we’re trying to 49 leverage or build on. 50 51 Anyway that’s all I had to say except with one addition, which is I think I referenced it earlier that I 52 wanted the Commission to know that the City Manager did appoint what’s called the Leadership Group, 53 City of Palo Alto Page 2 13 individuals from our community that we’re asking to help us with community outreach and 1 engagement during the Comprehensive Plan Update. The group hasn’t even met yet, but we hope that 2 we’ll convene them this month and that they will help the staff and by extension the Commission get the 3 word out on all of these issues and ensure that by the end of the day we have a full suite of input from 4 all directions on this planning process and everybody’s idea is taken into consideration as we start to 5 winnow down and get to a revised plan. With that I’m going to hand it over to Steven and his 6 consultants for a brief presentation and then we’ll get on to the main event, which is the public testimony 7 and the Commission’s feedback on the materials in your packet. 8 9 Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Great, thank you Hillary. I’m Steven Turner the Advance 10 Planning Manager. I’m very pleased to bring this back to the Commission for your review and comment. 11 The last time that we met with the Commission was back at the end of April on April 30th and at that time 12 staff presented you with a status update on our work on the Comprehensive Plan Update and we also 13 described the Our Palo Alto concept that the City Council had adopted as a framework for organizing all 14 of the concurrent planning efforts that staff has been working on over these past few months. And we 15 also outlined a schedule for completion of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by December of 2015. 16 17 But we have a lot of good news to report since our last meeting. Number 1, Council reviewed the 18 Planning Commission’s work of goals, policies, and programs that were contained in our Comprehensive 19 Plan policy document version 1.0. Council provided a lot of comment and feedback and that feedback is 20 contained within an attachment in your staff report so you can see what they’ve said about those policies 21 and programs. Number 2, Council also accepted our plan for community engagement. Staff has been 22 working extremely hard over the past two or three months to really implement that plan and we have a 23 lot of information to present to you tonight with that regard. Council also accepted the California Avenue 24 Concept Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update and so that will be moving forward with the 25 Comprehensive Plan. As Hillary mentioned we are, have developed the Leadership Group that will advise 26 us on engagement matters and that will start up very shortly. And I think probably the best news is that 27 we’re still on schedule. Which is no small feat given all of the time that it’s taken so far. 28 29 So really where are we now? As I mentioned before we have draft goals, policies, and programs 30 contained within our policy document. We’ve released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) at the end of May, 31 which really signals our intent to prepare a program EIR for the Comprehensive Plan and we’ll talk a little 32 bit about that as well tonight. We’re in the middle of really the period of soliciting public input and 33 comment within the program EIR. And tonight’s meeting is a very important step in obtaining that public 34 input. We have designed two opportunities in addition to the community engagement meetings that we’ll 35 talk about to solicit that input tonight and then also with the City Council on August 4th. Those are two 36 opportunities for people to provide comments and questions that will help guide our environmental 37 review going forward. 38 39 For tonight we really have two main goals: we want to accept the public testimony on environmental 40 issues and the alternatives as proposed, and then have the Commission provide staff and consultants 41 with any feedback that you might have regarding our direction. You’re not taking any direct action 42 tonight. Again, this is just one of the two official scoping meetings that we are having to solicit public 43 input. We’re extremely interested in the comments from the public and from the Commission again to 44 help guide our efforts. We’re not here tonight necessarily to respond to questions or comments on the 45 EIR or the analysis tonight. Really what we’re here tonight is to listen and to take in questions and 46 comments that will help guide our analysis over the next few months. It would be helpful if the Planning 47 Commission could express some concurrence especially over the draft alternatives that staff has put 48 together and are contained within the staff report and that you’ll hear more about this evening, but it’s 49 not required. But certainly having that concurrence that we can then report back to the City Council on 50 August 4th would be very helpful. 51 52 And I think that is about all I wanted to mention before I introduce Joanna Jansen from PlaceWorks. 53 PlaceWorks has been our consultant on the Comprehensive Plan Update for many years now and I think 54 she is as excited as I am to finally get to this point of scoping meetings. With that I’ll give it to Joanna. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Joanna Jansen, PlaceWorks: Thank you Steven. I have a brief presentation to explain to members of the 1 Commission and the public what the EIR is that we’re accepting scoping comments on tonight and also 2 briefly go over the alternatives that we or that the initial concepts rather for the alternatives that we’re 3 hoping to more fully flesh out over the next few weeks and that will be covered in the EIR. Steven’s 4 already told you that our goals for tonight are mainly to listen to the public and to the Commission and 5 hear your comments so with that let me explain a little bit about what the EIR is. The… and I just want 6 to, this is I’m going to talk about the content, purpose, timeline of the environmental review process. 7 Where are opportunities for public input? Touch briefly on the concept of a program EIR and then go 8 through the topics that are going to be covered in the EIR we anticipate. 9 10 The EIR is an Environmental Impact Report. It’s required by State Law, the California Environmental 11 Quality Act (CEQA). It explains the objectives of a given project, the location of the project, any actions 12 that are proposed and potential impacts that could occur to the environment to existing conditions in the 13 environment. And an EIR is also required to present feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to a 14 given project that could reduce or avoid the impacts. In our case the project that we’re talking about on 15 this slide is the update of the Comprehensive Plan and I’ll get into what that means a little bit later. 16 17 So the purposes of the EIR are to disclose information about the project and about its potential impacts 18 as well as about possible mitigation measures, to provide an opportunity for public input, and to support 19 the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the City Council in making a decision about a 20 given project. Again, in this case that project would be the Comprehensive Plan Update. We’re looking 21 at a timeline of going on over about the next year and a half. We’ve already issued what’s called a NOP. 22 That’s a form that states for members of the community and for all State and other public agencies that 23 the City is preparing this document and it gives everyone a chance to respond to the City and say as 24 you’re preparing this important environmental document here are the topics that you really need to make 25 sure you address. And this meeting tonight is an important part of that process. So that NOP was issued 26 on May 30th. Public agencies had until June 30th to give us their comments about what the EIR should 27 cover and the public has until August 6th to give similar comments including at tonight’s hearing. So 28 again this is not comments necessarily on the project, but comments on what the environmental impact 29 analysis needs to keep in mind. It floods behind my house, there’s terrible traffic at this intersection, you 30 need to keep in mind this important special status species, those are the types of comments that we can 31 receive during this scoping period about what we need to cover during the EIR. 32 33 And then once we have a full set of comments and everyone’s had a chance to make sure that we heard 34 from them about what the EIR needs to cover we’ll be conducting the analysis later this year through the 35 end of the year. And we’re aiming to publish the draft EIR containing all of this analysis at the end of the 36 year in December 2014. And then that the public review period that would be yet another public review 37 period for people to review all of the information in the EIR. I’m sure most of you are probably familiar 38 with what an EIR is. It’s often a very lengthy, very detailed document so we have 60 days. Right now 39 we’re anticipating at least a 60 day public review period. That will be for the community as well as for 40 any other public agencies that want to review and comment on the draft EIR. 41 42 The next slide just gives kind of a visual diagram of the process that I just described highlighting again 43 the areas for public input, which is one of the key functions of an EIR. So right now we’re in the on the 44 first column on the left we’re in that white box of the 30 day scoping period, which is for the community 45 members is actually a 69 day scoping period lasting until August 6th. And then we will be working on 46 conducting the environmental review and publishing the draft EIR moving into another public review 47 period. After that second public review period on the draft EIR itself closes then we will be working with 48 City staff to respond to the comments. And the City is required to respond to each comment individually 49 in what’s called a final EIR. There is then yet another public review phase for that final EIR document to 50 review how all of the comments have been responded to. And once that document is published then the 51 PTC can hold their hearings to review the final EIR and make a recommendation to Council. And then 52 the final step is for the City Council to certify the EIR and approve a project. So that approval will be 53 obviously contingent upon the information that’s disclosed in the draft EIR and would likely be some 54 version of one or more of the alternatives that I’m going to talk about a little bit later in the presentation. 55 So the approval would be an adoption of an updated Comprehensive Plan. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 When we’re doing an EIR on a plan especially a plan that affects an area as large as the entire City of 2 Palo Alto we do what’s called a program or programmatic EIR and that’s distinguished from a project 3 level EIR. A project level EIR is, deals with a specific site or a certain number of parcels. You will have 4 diagrams of exactly what the buildings are going to look like on the parcel, where the parking is going to 5 be, where the entrances and exits are, which trees would be kept or removed, a very high level of detail 6 about that specific project. And the EIR on that project would look at that level of detail, look at site 7 specific analyses of hydrology or biological resources or cultural resources and then identify and mitigate 8 any particular impacts for that project. When we’re looking at a document like the Comprehensive Plan 9 obviously it’s much more difficult to say exactly how a given parcel would be developed or where a 10 particular driveway cut would be. We don’t look at the City in that level of detail. 11 12 In a programmatic EIR we’re looking much more conceptually at what type of development would be 13 allowed and where and although there is a quantified analysis of things like traffic impacts and air quality 14 impacts there are not site specific studies for any particular parcel. So it’s a much more conceptual level 15 of detail in a programmatic EIR and because of that additional development projects that go forward 16 under the Comprehensive Plan would then depending on what type of project they are require additional 17 levels of environmental analysis. And that’s the point where you would get the site specific level of 18 detail. So that’s just a little bit about the difference between a project level EIR and a programmatic EIR 19 like the one we’ll be preparing for the Comprehensive Plan Update. 20 21 Both EIRs no matter what level of detail they’re at, both types of EIRs including the programmatic EIR 22 have a similar list of topics that they address and again these are established in the CEQA. So this is a 23 list of the topics that we anticipate addressing in the EIR. Again it focuses on impacts to the existing 24 physical environment and it covers as you can see a very wide range of topics including some topics that 25 are perhaps slightly less about the physical environment like the public services sections, which look not 26 only at the physical environment, but also at the services provided by the City and to serve development. 27 28 So what your EIR is going to cover is a range of alternatives. You can go ahead Elena. And these 29 alternatives are part of your packet tonight in their very initial preliminary form. They have been the 30 result, where we are today is the result of a series of meeting that have been held over about the past 31 month and a half or so since May 29th. The EIR as I mentioned is going to cover each one of the 32 alternatives in the same level of detail, which is rather unusual and innovative for an EIR on a 33 comprehensive plan. And so it’s worthwhile to explain a little bit about what those alternatives are and 34 how they’re shaping up so far. So we’ve had a series of three meetings with the public and I see a lot of 35 familiar faces from those meetings, so thank you all for continuing to be involved in the process. We’re 36 very grateful for your time. We’ve had meetings starting on May 29th, June 10th, and June 24th that built 37 on each other and I’m going to speak briefly about each one of those. 38 39 At the first meeting we talked about critical issues and we asked small groups to complete a SWOT 40 exercise to consider Palo Alto’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. And a number of 41 common themes emerged from the groups in each one of those four categories including the importance 42 of maintaining Palo Alto’s high quality of life, building on and taking advantage of the unique relationship 43 with Stanford, addressing concerns about traffic congestion and public trust, reaching out to citizens and 44 making sure that they’re integrated and engaged in this process, concerns about the high cost of housing 45 both rental and ownership, and interest in high speed rail or Caltrain electrification both as a threat and 46 an opportunity. There were a number of other critical issues that were identified through the SWOT 47 exercises. Those are just some of the highlights that we heard from many of the small groups. The 48 complete feedback from that website, excuse me, from that meeting and all of the meetings is available 49 on the general plan, excuse me, the Comp Plan Update website. 50 51 So if you go to the next page you can see an example of the online engagement that we’ve, is also 52 possible on both this topic and the opportunity sites topic that I’ll address in just a second. In a way, as 53 one of the ways of reaching out to citizens who can’t take three hours out of their evening to come to a 54 meeting we have put up online versions of several of the exercises that we’ve done at the workshops and 55 this is just one of those exercises. So if you go to the project website or if you scan this Quick Response 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 (QR) code with your telephone then you can get immediately to this online tool and we’re definitely still 1 taking input and we’ll welcome additional input through the online tools that are available. 2 3 So after working on some of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats at the first workshop 4 we then moved to talking about potential growth in Palo Alto. What’s projected for the region and for 5 Palo Alto? What do other California cities do to manage growth? And then we asked small groups to get 6 together and look at maps of Palo Alto and brainstorm about areas that might potentially be appropriate 7 to accommodate change and which areas should be preserved over the next 15 years during the life of 8 the updated Comprehensive Plan. So if we see on the next slide there is an example of what one of 9 those table maps look like after the small group discussion and then looking at all four of the small group 10 table maps that were created staff and consultants worked together to collate those into a synthesized 11 map of six specific opportunity site areas that we focused on then at the third workshop. I’m noticing 12 that the top of this map is a little bit cut off so I apologize for that, but there is also an area including the 13 Stanford Shopping Center, Downtown, the entirety of the El Camino corridor, the California Avenue area, 14 the Stanford Research Park area, the East Meadow Circle and Bayshore area, and then the San Antonio 15 Road area as the six opportunity site areas that came out of the small group work at Workshop Number 16 2. 17 18 And then so at Workshop Number 3 we asked the participants there to look at those areas and think 19 about for each of those areas what are some different alternative ways that they might develop? And to 20 help spur that conversation we provided three potential alternatives very conceptual and offered 21 participants the chance to respond to those alternatives and revise them or to create their own new 22 alternative. So we had about 70 people ended up working in about nine small groups and each one of 23 those groups came up with a slightly different variation on the alternatives. Some groups created 24 completely new alternatives. I think we had two groups that chose that alternative that chose to create 25 their new alternative. Other groups worked with one of the three preliminary alternatives that we had 26 suggested and then made changes and refinements to that. So at the end of that workshop we then 27 took the feedback from those groups and tried to synthesize them into the draft alternatives that you 28 have to consider tonight. Before I move on to talking about those I just want to note that in addition to 29 the workshop, the face to face workshop, again online right now we have this tool where we are still 30 collecting input about these particular opportunity sites, what role they should play in the City in 2030, 31 what they should look like, what policies or programs might be necessary to achieve your vision for these 32 areas 15 years from now. So again that’s ongoing and we welcome continued input with that online tool. 33 34 So from all these sources we have now the four alternatives that are described in greater detail in your 35 staff report. They, before I start talking about each one of them individually I just want to stress that all 36 alternatives would preserve existing open space areas and existing areas that are zoned R1. We’ve heard 37 very clearly through this process the importance of residential neighborhoods and the importance of open 38 space to Palo Alto’s character and its quality of life and so none of the alternatives would include changes 39 in those areas. 40 41 The alternatives include a do nothing alternative. In CEQA this is called the “no project alternative.” 42 That doesn’t mean that nothing would happen between now and 2015, it means that none of the existing 43 regulatory documents would be changed. So the project that we’ve been talking about is an update to 44 the Comprehensive Plan. Under the no project alternative the existing Comprehensive Plan and existing 45 zoning would all stay in place as they are. Number 2 would slow, Concept Number 2 would slow non-46 residential development and allow some modest housing growth. That’s contrasted with Concept 47 Number 3, which would slow non-residential development, but would not discourage housing growth or 48 limit it, but would rather focus it in areas that are served by transit. And then finally Concept Number 4 49 is somewhat less about the location of development or type of development and more about ensuring 50 that new development is coupled with exploring potential new net zero impact concepts. And I’ll talk a 51 bit more about each one of these briefly and that will be the end of my presentation. 52 53 So again under Concept Number 1, the do nothing alternative, existing Comprehensive Plan policies and 54 zoning designations would be in place and those designations do allow for some new development. So 55 new development would go on, it would go on under the existing policies that are in place. Under those 56 City of Palo Alto Page 6 existing policies the City is already poised to see a relatively slow change in the types of uses along El 1 Camino Real. The California Avenue area would continue to see the types of there would be nothing to 2 change the types of development projects that are being proposed in the California Avenue area. 3 Existing job centers like the East Meadow Circle area or the Stanford Research Park would remain job 4 centers and would not have any housing or other types of uses added to them. And again in the staff 5 report there is much greater detail about each one of these alternatives. 6 7 Under Concept Number 2 we would slow non-residential development. Housing growth would be focused 8 on that that is necessary to meet State requirements and there would be no change to existing land use 9 designations. Under both this alternative and the next alternative Concept 3 there, the City would adopt 10 a new procedure for metering the pace of office and Research and Development (R&D) projects over 11 10,000 square feet. This is the opportunity for me to emphasize that these concepts are all very 12 preliminary at this point. The ideas are still percolating about what the concepts should be. We’re here 13 to hear from you tonight. We’re going to be hearing from the Council on August 4th. The particular 14 mechanism for example for regulating office growth, the legality of that mechanism, the accommodation 15 of the permit streamlining act, all of those types of details would definitely have to be worked out and 16 they are not worked out yet. So when we have the alternative and when we do the EIR those are details 17 that are definitely going to have to be fleshed out before we begin the EIR analysis. We’re not quite 18 there yet. We’re still working on forming these alternatives. 19 20 But in this alternative again we would focus residential growth on meeting State requirements and 21 limiting residential growth really to that kind of bare minimum that would be needed to meet State 22 requirements. There is not, there would not be a significant change to the existing character or mix of 23 uses in Downtown or along Cal Avenue or in any of the places that are primarily job oriented right now 24 like the Research Park/East Meadow Circle. And along El Camino the character would be a little bit more 25 lower density, increased setbacks away from the road, three story height limit for example on new 26 development. 27 28 Concept Number 3 would similarly slow non-residential development, but in the case of residential 29 development it would shift development, residential development capacity from existing residentially 30 zoned areas to areas that are within a half mile of Caltrain or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations. So the 31 capacity would essentially be down zoned in many areas in order to up zone those areas that are within a 32 half mile of the transit stations and accommodate increased development there as a way of further 33 strengthening protections for existing residential, single family residential areas. Also under this 34 alternative we might test the possibility of depressing the Caltrain tracks from San Antonio to Page Mill 35 Road and we would add, Downtown would change to add more housing, adding housing also along El 36 Camino Real and not along Cal Avenue itself, but in the area around Cal Avenue, and in the Research 37 Park most likely along El Camino again in areas that are particularly close to the BRT stations or 38 otherwise well served with transit. 39 40 And then finally in Concept 4 there would not be growth management instruments added such as a 41 restriction on new office and R&D development, but instead the City would adopt policies to address the 42 impacts of that new development whether it would be from the vehicle trips that the development would 43 generate, the greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, energy consumption, net zero is a very 44 broad concept that could be applied to many different aspects of development. As part of that project or 45 that alternative rather we would consider mixed-use projects along El Camino and some of those could 46 even go over 50 feet in height. That might be in exchange for providing a certain type of housing or 47 achieving a certain net zero goal that the City established. And the Research Park in particular might see 48 the greatest amount of change under this alternative becoming a proving ground or a testing ground for 49 a whole range of concepts that might include additional bike sharing programs, urban farming programs, 50 alternative energy generation, water conservation programs. So the Research Park as a test case for a 51 lot of net zero concepts under this particular alternative. 52 53 Before I end I just want to briefly explain what the process of these alternatives is. We’ve already done 54 Step 1 of synthesizing the input that we heard from the workshops. We’re now on Step 2, presenting the 55 draft alternatives to you and to the City Council. Again, once the alternatives are better fleshed out and 56 City of Palo Alto Page 7 we have a little more input on how they’re evolving then we will need to assign specific estimates of the 1 quantity and type of development to each alternative so that it can be analyzed in the EIR including 2 traffic modeling, air quality modeling, noise modeling, and other quantitative analyses. And then again, 3 each one of those four alternatives will be analyzed at an equal level of detail in the draft EIR which we 4 hope to publish at the end of this year. And I believe that concludes my presentation. So again, as 5 Steven mentioned we’re here to hear from the public and from you on the topics of the EIR and on the 6 content of the alternatives if you have that input. 7 8 Chair Michael: So thank you very much for that excellent presentation. Let’s now open the public hearing 9 and we’ll allow anybody from the public who submitted a speaker card an opportunity to speak. We’re 10 thinking this is an important topic. We want to definitely give you enough time to share your thoughts or 11 raise questions so individuals will have, typically we give three minutes, we’ll give you up to five minutes 12 and if you’re here on behalf of a group then you can have longer. I think there’s at least one such 13 representative. We’ll give you 9 or 10 minutes. Anyway, so Vice-Chair Keller who is first? 14 15 Vice-Chair Keller: Our first speaker is Neilson Buchanan and is he on behalf of a group? So I guess I’ll 16 give you 10 minutes. 17 18 Neilson Buchanan: I brought a companion here and I can take his spot I’m going to be greedy. 19 20 Michael Griffin: My name is Michael Griffin. I’m yielding my time to my comrade in arms here. 21 22 Mr. Buchanan: I want to thank all of you for and all the people that have been working on the process so 23 far for this, the Comp Plan, which is got to be one of the most nebulous documents to describe to 24 someone that there is. There’s one thing for sure for me is this will be certainly one of the best vetted 25 Comp Plans in a long time. The input I got as talking to sort of the middle management neighborhood 26 folks out there is that that’s all and good, I don’t want to get involved. It’ll be updated by people brighter 27 than I am and no more and it will then go back into the usual dead document file. That it’ll be used 28 heavily by people who know how to manipulate the system and nothing wrong with that, but it’s not a… I 29 haven’t heard of anybody in the country that has a dynamic comp plan. And something is missing for me 30 that there’s got to be a companion to the Comp Plan and I’ve talked to the real experts and I still don’t 31 understand what it could be. Maybe it’s a set of concept plans for the critical areas of the City, maybe it’s 32 the precise plan features that’s sprinkled out along to hit the future pressure points that we know are 33 coming. So that’s all I’ve got to say about the Comp Plan. I’m glad I’m not involved. 34 35 A more serious issue is your effort to engage people in the City planning. And the Comp Plan is just one 36 of those engagements. And as far as launching one I think you’ve done about everything that you could 37 expect to be done and it will be done better and all that stuff. But I, for the life of me I haven’t been 38 able to figure out how do you keep people engaged? The Comp Plan itself is not an engaging document 39 in my opinion, but as I honed in on this and talked to a few people and said please take a look at this 40 there’s one thing that began to excite people and that was these very rough scenarios that are coming 41 out through the EIR process. And what I would urge is that if you’re looking for a role to take on that 42 you ought to periodically stop and take a look at the two to three to four scenarios that are going to 43 come out of this. Have them renewed periodically, take them back to the public and get comments on 44 just how does this grab you? Because each one of those scenarios, elements of each one of them excites 45 somebody, I don’t think there’s a single scenario, but there are elements in each one that I guarantee 46 you will fill up rooms if you properly vet that. And that would be a real interesting way I think to keep 47 people engaged. 48 49 I have about eight points here tonight, but I’m only going to cover about four or five of them. In fact I’m 50 going to steal ideas that I hear tonight and I’m going to rewrite them accordingly. None of that scenario 51 development and refinement can happen in my opinion I’ve said this publicly many times with the current 52 staffing of the Planning Department. There needs to be a dedicated data division and that actually spells 53 out 3D, but any normal corporation in America today has forward looking, has people that can capture 54 good data and look forward. And Hillary needs somebody dedicated, I don’t know how much and it’s not 55 my job to worry about how much, that does nothing more than create data, see where we are for 56 City of Palo Alto Page 8 baselines and then make high, low, and medium projections whenever possible. That would drive those 1 scenarios very, in a very healthy fashion. So I don’t think we can get from where we are to where we 2 want to be without a stronger reliance on professional data. Basically you got to have the tools of the 3 trade. 4 5 And I just want to close on one of my pet projects because it’s going to test the mettle of this City. Let 6 me step back because I had a good chance to get some education from Steve Levy about something I 7 think is the overwhelming driver of what we’re into. The regional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is 8 growing at Steve? Five, six, seven percent, the stress on the cities is a couple of points below that. 9 That’s real refined advice from the economist. And that’s creating enormous pressure on every city and 10 town from the Bay Area, of the southern Bay Area from Oakland down to San Jose. And I don’t think 11 we’ve begun to deal with the political and social impacts from the last couple of years and put I think is 12 the next two years. And that’s going to create an enormous stress. 13 14 And let me just illustrate that whatever’s going on in Menlo Park we’ll know a little bit more next week on 15 what the City Council does, the reaction from Save Menlo Park and I’m not going to take sides one way 16 or the other. We had our own Maybell situation. There’s balance Palo, Balance Mountain View going on 17 of trying to figure out what their balance between office and housing and density and very creative work 18 is going to come out of that. I had a chance to talk two hours with people down there yesterday and I 19 just and I’ve said it over again, I just don’t want to throw our City into mass confusion and hate and 20 discontent, but we’re creeping up there on that. Downtown parking is going to be a problem. The 21 parking permit issue is not permit parking, it’s the quality of neighborhood issue and I’m not going to go 22 into that because we’re going to have a chance to vet that very soon. 23 24 And we have an election coming up and whatever this election is I think it’s going to be mild compared to 25 the election in 2016 because of the economic drivers and the social and political consequences. I hope 26 I’m going to conclude with that remark and I don’t want it to be negative. It just means that’s another 27 factor you need to be thinking about. I don’t think the Comp Plan can address that it’s the intermediate 28 planning processes and how the Council and you operate vis-à-vis the citizens that come forward. So I 29 wish you the best. I know there are a lot of people in Palo Alto who want to make this a constructive 30 process. I especially do. Thank you. 31 32 Vice-Chair Keller: Michael Griffin do you want to take any of the remaining time? Thank you. Ok, the 33 next speaker is Shani Kleinhaus to be followed by Stephen Rosenblum. 34 35 Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. I’m Shani Kleinhaus; I’m a resident of Palo Alto and the Environmental 36 Advocate for Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. So I’m going to talk about birds a little bit and about 37 things that concern me as a resident as well. 38 39 So one of the things that we saw in Hillary’s presentation was [unintelligible] issues and it talks about 40 quality of life. So I think there is some kind of an assumption that birds and nature is part of quality of 41 life. Not that it is not, but it has its own value and that was mentioned in several of the tables there; that 42 there is an intrinsic value to nature that is not associated with human benefits or quality of life that needs 43 to be recognized. And the reason I mention that is because in the comments that I have provided 44 previously on the Natural Element of the Comprehensive Plan there were a lot of comments that we tried 45 my group to enter about how do we make this a bird friendly city? And that included how do we plant 46 and how do we trim trees and what kind of windows we have. And what do you do in the natural areas, 47 but also how do you make our City a living city not only for people? And people love birds. We have a 48 lot of birders, we have a lot of people that have a bird feeder in the back yard. We don’t want to lose 49 that. This is the only connection that people still in a city can have to nature is birds. So how do you 50 improve that? That needs to be a part of the general plan or the Comprehensive Plan and not only as a 51 quality of life issue. 52 53 And I had a few other notes. So I want to go back to the four concepts and the Concept 4 that has 54 innovative net zero concept and I’m trying to figure out what that means. I don’t think it’s clear. I think 55 it was really good to have a story about it in the newspaper today, thank you. But it’s still not clear what 56 City of Palo Alto Page 9 this means and I’m not clear whether this is kind of an experiment on a citywide scale, which would be 1 really scary because it could be an outcome that is not what we expect at all. And it could be a 2 mitigation that is actually presented as a general plan and that is not right either. So I think it’s really 3 interesting concept and could be done on one neighborhood. I would love to see it at East Meadow 4 Circle, which is really close to my house and I think that could be a good example, but I would not try to 5 adopt that as an alternative to a general plan or a Comprehensive Plan. 6 7 I have followed some of the processes in Mountain View very, very closely and what is going on in terms 8 of how the North Bayshore area where they have a lot of offices is going to deal with increase. And 9 there were a lot of concepts so they tried to figure out how do we stop growth of car trips, how do we 10 stop emissions, what are the other alternatives? So far a lot of creative solutions, but none of them 11 works to actually have net zero. They just don’t work. So there probably is no solution like that. It 12 would be wonderful to try and find one, but not on a city scale. It has to be an experiment that is much 13 smaller in scale. 14 15 And as a resident near East Meadow Circle I just want to go back to that specific plan to that side and 16 say that I would love to see more housing there. I think that to use the Circle for housing and the center 17 for services and park would be a wonderful thing instead of what’s there right now and a lot of people 18 came in the last 10 years to live there. Initially there was a response from some of the neighbors who 19 did not like it, but I see that they assimilated into the neighborhood very well and it’s a really nice 20 neighborhood to have these people live there. 21 22 What else did I have? The last thing I’m going to say is something about the process. When something 23 is now decided if it’s in a, an alternative is moving forward or something in the EIR is decided and we’re 24 moving forward with that there is no way back almost. It’s almost impossible and the people in the 25 audience might not know this, but once something moves forward going and saying well, we’re only 26 studying this so let’s study what the impact is, the study is not whether or not to do something, the study 27 is how to do something. So once it’s in there it’s not coming out. And we’ve had at Audubon some big 28 issues with that and did manage to get some things out of EIR’s at the last moment, but it’s almost 29 impossible to change a plan after it’s set in motion. And the EIR will not study whether or not something 30 is a good idea, it will only study how to do it and what kind of cost it’s going to cost all of us and mitigate 31 for that to some extent, not completely. Thank you. 32 33 Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Stephen Rosenblum to be followed by Kevin Murray. 34 35 Stephen Rosenblum: Hi, my name’s Steve Rosenblum. I live in Palo Alto as well. I just wanted to bring 36 up an issue that is a vision issue I think and belongs in this study because of its overarching effect on life 37 in Palo Alto and that is the undergrounding of Caltrain. I think to me it represents an opportunity and a 38 solution to many problems. If the Caltrain right of way were underground it would immediately improve 39 the connectivity between east and west sides of Palo Alto. People could cross the train tracks on any 40 street again the way they used to be able to before the grade crossings were there. It would create real 41 estate above the train tracks, which would be accessible to transportation. It would possibly create a 42 bikeway depending on how the land were used and also opportunities to build housing and commercial 43 depending on how it was zoned. And this is really a way of creating real estate, something which God 44 usually doesn’t do except in places like Hawaii. We can actually get real estate back that is, that wasn’t 45 existing. 46 47 And some of the other aspects of it, it would eliminate traffic delays that we have now at the crossings 48 leading to a lot less loss in time of people waiting and concomitantly will allow Caltrain to increase 49 frequency of service because they would no longer be limited by gate downtime. So this would enhance 50 transit in both ways, both mass transit and vehicular and pedestrian transit because of having no more 51 traffic delays. It would also eliminate accidents at grade crossings as well as suicides, which we’ve had 52 many in the past. And so I think that’s another improvement. And it would also eliminate the train noise 53 from our environment. This would include the mechanical noise of the train as well as the horn noise, 54 which they are required to sound at every grade crossing. So that would be, improve quality of life for all 55 people living next to the tracks. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 And then as a final thing it would prepare the way for undergrounding of high speed rail should it 2 eventually come to Palo Alto. And from what I’m understanding from the latest planning in contradiction 3 to what high speed rail had said early on is that they plan to retain grade crossings even when the trains 4 are going by at 125 miles an hour, which I think is not very sensible. I think it’s a real threat to our 5 environment as well as to our life and limb. So I think just I commend this as an idea to the 6 consideration of the Commission and that they should consider this as part of their planning process. 7 Thank you. 8 9 Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Kevin Murray to be followed by Beth Bunnenberg. Is Kevin here? 10 Ok, great. So… 11 12 Kevin Murray: Hi, Kevin Murray, 2091 Harvard. I was listening to all of the presentation, thank you. I’ve 13 looked at the, I’ve read the plans; I’ve had the presentation on the TV. Let me emphasize this 14 Commission, first in terms of process as a political scientist I’m disappointed to hear that you’re 15 appointed by Council Members. I want you to be more independent. So maybe we can revisit that 16 process. Second, I’m not really aware of any of the people on the Commission are in any way related to 17 commercial development or attorneys related to intellectual property rights. Hopefully there’s no 18 connection there either. Again, independence is critical. Because those are like the two triads that make 19 up what is driving Silicon Valley. 20 21 Of the four plans Number 2 resonates with me the most. I would even like stricter allocations however 22 with respect to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) remember the more companies we allow to 23 expand in Palo Alto the more ABAG will pressure us to bring in housing. Now I know we can do plans for 24 housing, but we don’t have to build the housing. So that’s the good news. That’s the good caveat and 25 hopefully we can stay with that. 26 27 Mr. Tanaka spoke earlier about the fact and I appreciate your comments trying to be inclusive that we 28 have to be maybe sensitive to the investment concerns of these commercial developers. Hey folks, 29 c’mon, they are here to invest and get a return. This is really about power, money, control, glory and I 30 for one as a Palo Altoan representing the citizens’ voice rather than the commercial interests want to 31 preserve the quality of life we have here. In my humble opinion your only role should be focusing on 32 how do you manage the existing development rather than plan for future development. Now we’re going 33 to hear a lot of survey questions discussing about look at the growth trends. I know we’re living in a 34 second gold rush boom right now and have been. In fact I saw it in 1984. To me the traffic levels were 35 too bad in 1984 when I lived here, of course I’ve been here since 1960. In the last 15 years my God, 36 what happened to the leadership? They just, they just surrendered. They surrendered to the financial 37 interest. 38 39 Our only power is in numbers. I know that. And if we get enough of us, the people in seats, the rest of 40 the Palo Altoans here it will change, but the true change only comes with electing a whole new slate of 41 non-developers to the City Council. And then they will direct this Commission to come up with ways on 42 how to manage our existing traffic. Push the success, the financial success, which I celebrate of Silicon 43 Valley out of Palo Alto. Shift it to San Jose where it deserves the redevelopment. And for those 44 urbanites who want to have that world experience, that’s great. I want to get you to move to San 45 Francisco, we want to get you to move to San Jose and enjoy those days, but for us we still want to feel 46 like we live in a community. This is the new sea change, so the closest one for a voice for the sea 47 change is Item Number 2, Item Number 2. 48 49 With respect to granny units I own three of those granny units and I applaud Mr. Keller’s earlier remark. 50 Sure, if you want to rezone so some existing property owners can do granny units on their existing 51 properties that might be the one way to accommodate housing crunch. All those become an executive 52 community in terms of the pricing of real estate. The homes are nothing to applaud, but that’s ok. That 53 was the World War II generation that picked up on the mass development of Middlefield. I remember 54 when Middlefield was literally a field prior to the Eichlers, but the housing values have so skyrocketed 55 that we’ve got to be realistic that really again note the success of the Silicon Valley really needs to be 56 City of Palo Alto Page 11 pushed out to other communities not only in California, but throughout the nation. The challenge here of 1 course is, and I don’t blame them venture capitalists they want to talk to one another and go across 2 town. They’re all centered here and again so are the law firms and so are the startups. And they, in 3 their mind’s eye they think that they need to be a part of the action and understandably the real estate 4 development says that’s right and we’ll facilitate that by giving them the infrastructures to succeed. We 5 know what they’re doing here, but it’s gotten out of control. It’s beyond even reasonable. 6 7 So it is my passion and hope that the only thing that will get passed here will be Item Number 2, 2 vision. 8 And I thank you for the time it must have taken to go through all the input. So for a voice of Palo 9 Altoans who really comes from the numbers not from the domestic and foreign investment that’s driving 10 the incredible expansion that I’ve ever seen in the history of this town this will be a voice helping to 11 coordinate a new City Council slate to redirect the direction of this Commission to plan for the existing 12 density and no more. Thanks for your time, I certainly appreciate it. Good night. 13 14 Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Beth Bunnenberg to be followed by Robert Moss. 15 16 Beth Bunnenberg: Beth Bunnenberg speaking tonight as an individual. I am a Palo Alto resident. In 17 terms of vision I don’t envision Palo Alto in 30 years as a collection of skyscrapers that blocks our views 18 of the coastal hills and the bay. We are locked into our present land area and there aren’t any more 19 suburbs for us to annex. Therefore we must use our land very wisely. 20 21 I favor the option that actually was presented by our group at the Elks Lodge, which was a double slow; 22 slow growth on residential, slow growth on non-residential. We already have projects in the pipeline that 23 are greatly going to increase traffic and parking problems. Now history has shown that putting too many 24 people jammed together too tightly and the quality of life goes down. Already Palo Alto or at this point 25 Palo Alto has a pretty good balance between residential and parkland, but still there are traffic jams. 26 Tempers flare, people fight over parking places, and pedestrians are hurt and killed on our streets. We 27 love that parkland and yet we continue to see some threats to those parklands. I strongly recommend 28 keeping the 50 foot height limit and sticking to it. Place those 50 foot high buildings in areas such as 29 Stanford Industrial Park and the southern part of El Camino. Keep the buildings of human scale, both 30 residential and non-residential. Please accept the double slow alternative and let’s keep our quality of 31 life. Thank you. 32 33 Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Robert Moss to be followed by Sea Reddy. 34 35 Robert Moss: Thank you. Couple of comments, in the list of topics one of the things that’s missing is the 36 potential flooding sea level rise. Under hydrology you should be considering that because it’s almost 37 certain that within 20 years the sea is going to go up by more than a foot. And a rise of that amount will 38 flood most of Palo Alto between the bay and Middlefield. So talk about that, you don’t just ignore it. 39 40 Second, in the hazardous materials the staff report talks about having a report from 2003. That’s old 41 data. I have ones from 2005 and I know they’ve been issued from 2010. Furthermore, the toxic levels 42 for trichloroethene (TCE) was significantly reduced about 18 months ago. So something that would have 43 been acceptable a year, three or four years ago is not acceptable and the mitigations are different today 44 than they would have been then. Keep that in mind when you’re talking about building in the California-45 Olive-Emerson (COE) area in particular. 46 47 On the various concepts the two that I think are the most realistic are Number 1, keep the existing 48 Comprehensive Plan. We spent years getting that developed. We don’t have to come up with a revised 49 Comprehensive plan for a few years. Let’s live with what we’ve got. If you want to make some changes 50 Concept 2 makes more sense than the others. One of the things that bothers me about Concept 3 and to 51 a certain extent Concept 4 is you’re talking about allowing densification within a half a mile of the transit 52 routes. ABAG is only asking for densification within a quarter mile of transit routes. A half mile would 53 include almost all of Barron Park, Evergreen Park, I could name the neighborhoods going up and down El 54 Camino, which would be impacted by increasing density along there. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 12 The City Council supposedly adopted a basic principle that all existing R1 zones shall not have an increase 1 in density. That must be adhered to no ifs, no ands, no changes. Same with the 50 foot height limit. 2 There’s no reason why you can’t build housing within 50 feet. I could show you hundreds of housing 3 units along El Camino and other major streets that are 50 feet or less. The reason that the CN zone has 4 a lower height limit is because we wanted it to be compatible with the housing behind it in Barron Park. 5 We didn’t want a 50 foot height limits. 6 7 Now when you talk about housing developments and you’re asking to put in developments that have 8 studio and one bedroom units find out what the market wants because you may find the market hates 9 studio and one bedroom units. Let me give you two examples: there’s a townhouse development on El 10 Camino Way just north of Charleston and there’s another one on San Antonio just east of what used to 11 be Mayfield Mall. Both of those were developed with the allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR), but between 12 half and two-thirds the number of housing units that would have been allowed. And the developers were 13 asked why do you build these big units, 2,000, 2,500 square feet? And the answer was that’s what the 14 market wants. The market doesn’t want 800 square foot units. The market doesn’t want one bedroom 15 units. So find out what the market wants. Don’t tell the market what it ought to be doing, the market’s 16 going to tell you. 17 18 When you talk about changing El Camino I get very nervous because one of the things you’re talking 19 about is getting all of the property owners to band together and combine lots and work as a group. Been 20 there, done that, it crashed and burned. We tried that in the Barron Park Association years ago. For any 21 25 properties along El Camino you will find there are at least 30 property owners, some of whom don’t 22 talk to each other. So unless you can actually get somebody to come in and buy up the properties and 23 combine them you’re not going to be doing that. You’re going to have individual properties developed 24 one at a time. 25 26 And as an example there’s a vacant lot just south of Matadero. It’s been vacant for more than 40 years, 27 since the building that was on there burned. Jim Baer was trying to buy that and develop it as a hotel 28 about 25 years ago and found out that the person who owns it lives in Texas and the amount that she 29 wanted for it he considered grossly excessive and that was years ago, decades ago. So you’re going to 30 find 4146 El Camino, which has now come in with another development and this is the fourth 31 development they’ve come in with that property is owned by a woman in Hong Kong. She’s had two 32 projects approved. Both of them were never built. The approvals expired because she never went 33 forward and actually built them. So getting things done along El Camino is very different than getting 34 things done under normal development projects. 35 36 Vice-Chair Keller: Our final speaker unless we have additional cards is Sea Reddy. 37 38 Sea Reddy: Thanks for taking me in. I came in late. A few things that I would like this team to talk 39 about and include or consider is the Stanford Hospital expansion. Now it’s Stanford and they’re doing 40 what they’re already doing, so how would we incorporate whatever traffic whatever things that 41 happened, 24 hour emergency services, all that so would we probably need to I’m sure you’ve already 42 thought about it, but I just would like to put it as a list of things that we need to talk about. 43 44 And then East Palo Alto, you know we don’t live in an isolated world and I’ve seen this in Manhattan 45 Beach that when we had riots in 1991, Rodney King and all that, so there was Hawthorne and there was 46 Manhattan Beach. It was only two miles, very similar to here. It’s only about half a mile to East Palo 47 Alto. So we need to lift up that community so that we can live peacefully as well. We’re not living in an 48 isolated world, so I think we any of our planning we need to work with them; same thing with Mountain 49 View, same thing with next door, Menlo Park. So we’re not in an isolated community, we… what they do 50 impacts us, what we do impacts them. I think I’m more concerned with what they do that we might be 51 able to understand. So I think that discussion like Stanford would help. 52 53 And the other one is the when I look up on the sky; you know Palo Alto is a beautiful community and all 54 that. I used to live in Newport and there are extensions in the traffic. It seemed like the planes come 55 above wherever they go I haven’t researched whether they go to Oakland or San Francisco, I don’t know, 56 City of Palo Alto Page 13 I haven’t researched it. It needs to be looked at. The more traffic that that comes through it’s going to 1 break us up. An airplane unfortunately could have a mechanical damage, things like that. It’s going to 2 severely impact our life. So we need to participate there, we need to give more inputs, maybe they could 3 take an alternate path later at night? But I see planes beyond 10:00, 11:00 at night, which wasn’t the 4 case in Newport we had restrictions. 5 6 And then I think this is very important to me as we get older we need to have an alternate way for going 7 to the doctor. My five mile zone is Stanford and Menlo Park. We need to allow some other medical care 8 facilities other than Stanford. Not everybody can afford to go to Stanford. They are more expensive and 9 citizens might need alternative means of getting that medical care without having to drive. You know 10 when I call a taxi drive, they need to go they can take a taxi and go $20 and go to the hospital. It’s very 11 important to the community and a lot of people have a lot of money, but a lot of people don’t. Seniors 12 are more frugal too and caregivers and all that that need to be considered. 13 14 The last thing is beautification of El Camino. El Camino Real is not the prettiest thing and I was totally 15 surprised when I saw what’s on El Camino south of Page Mill Road. It’s quite different than what we see 16 on the north side so I think we had one city, one community, I didn’t really consider lifting that 17 community up like look that area up. Thank you. 18 19 Vice-Chair Keller: Speak and then you can turn in the card. So Stephen Levy you will have five minutes. 20 21 Stephen Levy: So I’m Steve Levy and I live about a block from here in Palo Alto. In terms Joanne and 22 Steve of the scoping plan, the EIR, my experience is that the analysis goes forward if you have really 23 specific alternatives. I’m sure you know that. We’re at a conceptual level. You’ve got people arguing 24 growth or no growth, but without numbers on those four alternatives not on individual parcels, but on 25 the program you can’t do your EIR, right? You can’t do the impacts. And nobody here is going to know 26 what happens. So that’s the first piece. You know that piece. 27 28 But there’s a second issue and I’ve been talking to Hillary and Steve back and forth. I don’t know what is 29 discretionary for the Commission and the Council, what is legal? What is legal under the existing Comp 30 Plan? That is how much growth the City can expect unless they do something that violates the law. I 31 think that will inform the discussion in the following way: it will move it to a discussion of where the best 32 locations and what are the best mitigation measures to handle the amount of growth that is legally 33 entitled now as opposed to an argument that may not be realistic about stopping growth altogether. I 34 don’t know the answer, but I think going forward you all need to be informed about what is legal. I 35 remember Steven and Joanna at the last meeting I think Steven you said there’s a lot of development 36 capacity generally in the City. Maybe not in Downtown, but I heard that correctly. So those two things 37 together will bring a lot of specificity to this. 38 39 Third, for the scoping plan I think the public deserves to know what it costs to do the mitigation. Ok? 40 Just saying something’s there, undergrounding Caltrain is a huge expense. I think we know it, need to 41 know the cost. In terms of the alternatives I have two suggestions. One, the document you passed out 42 talks alternately about neighborhood retail and neighborhood services. I think probably the correct 43 concept to think about is services. We have a big shopping center, we have a smaller town and country, 44 most areas have a grocery store or a CVS or something. What makes those neighborhoods walkable is a 45 bank and a dry cleaner and a UPS store and a place to get a haircut and tailor, restaurants, but all of 46 those services I think we focus too much on the commute trips and not enough on reducing walkable 47 evening and daytime trips for services that people take not the commute trips. 48 49 The last point I think the half mile of bus stop or transit is not quite the best way to think about it. When 50 I see Caltrain and those people getting off they’re getting off to go to jobs and it works because half of 51 them walk Downtown, half of them walk to the shuttle, half/half… a third and a third have bikes. Ok? So 52 I think if you’re serious around transit to reduce the commute you’d put jobs, which goes in the face of 53 what a lot of people want. It may not be a distinction which must, with much merit because it turns out 54 the transit stations are in Downtown areas. And so you’re absolutely I think want to put your housing 55 City of Palo Alto Page 14 near where services and everyday retail are to really reduce as much as possible the parking and net 1 commuting of people who can then walk or bike to those services. So thank you. 2 3 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. Are there any more speakers who have come later? I guess not. 4 5 Chair Michael: So I’d like to thank members of the public who spoke this evening very much for your 6 thoughtful comments. It’s always humbling being on a Commission in a City like Palo Alto where the 7 collective Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and knowledge base of the residents far exceeds our seven 8 appointed representatives on the Commission. I think that is instrumental in getting to the best possible 9 Comprehensive Plan Update. 10 11 Let’s, we’re going to close the public hearing and come back to the Commission. And I think given the 12 importance of this topic maybe we’ll allow for two rounds of comments and take say up to five minutes in 13 the first round and then you don’t have to talk all that time. If you have more we’ll give you a second, 14 second chance. So who would like to begin? Commissioner Rosenblum. 15 16 Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you. As opposed to the previous round I may fill up my full time and 17 have to go to the next time. I’m very passionate about this. So I wanted to divide comments into some 18 high level comments and low level comments. 19 20 On the high level side one of my personal talking points is that this Palo Alto that everyone loves and this 21 sort of halcyon notion of walkable streets and low traffic and thriving businesses and I think we had a 22 number of people come up and refer to the Palo Alto of their youth. It’s a system and I think we need to 23 realize that this no growth/reduced growth in perils that system in some ways. So the Palo Alto of your 24 youth I’m sure had teachers living in Palo Alto, maybe policeman living in Palo Alto. Different people 25 could afford to live here. We have a demographic skew that now skews older and skews against young 26 working people without families. That is different from the Palo Alto of your youth. And a no growth or 27 negative growth policy exacerbates that difference. It makes it more expensive for young people to live 28 here, especially if there are no jobs for them. So they’re going to live here, pay a premium to have to 29 commute somewhere else. 30 31 And the interesting thing about young people is they go out every day. When I was a young person I 32 went out probably two times a day because I ate my lunch out, ate my dinner out, maybe meet friends 33 for drinks after work. I now have a young family. I go out maybe once a week. It’s very nice that once 34 a week I occasionally support our Palo Alto businesses, but they don’t live off me. They live off the 35 people who go there every day. And I benefit from that because I like walking to businesses and all of 36 us do, but we are in some ways I don’t want to call us free riders, but we benefit from the people who 37 support businesses intensively. And we make it more difficult for those people to go and support those 38 businesses, makes it more difficult for the businesses, which by the way are paying very high rents 39 because we restrict commercial growth. So my one plea here is to recognize that there’s a system and 40 we talk about changes from the past. A big change from the past frankly is that a lot of people look the 41 same now. We’re getting older and wealthier and a lot of people can’t afford to live here anymore. And 42 it’s not just a pity because a diverse place is I think an exciting place, but actually you need diversity to 43 support diverse businesses. So that’s sort of my high level point. 44 45 One other high level point I think it’s important to put us into context. I don’t think that we are a major 46 city. I also don’t think we’re a suburb. We’re an important college town. If you look at other important 47 college towns be it Pomona or Davis or San Luis Obispo and I’m only naming California college towns, 48 we’re far less dense than any of them. And all of us can look up this data and see what our density is 49 versus others. Even if you get rid of all of our open space and say I’m going to double Palo Alto density 50 we’re still less dense than they are. They have found solutions to make livable places with colleges, with 51 a vibrant ecosystem, manage growth in a healthy way. And so my second plea is let’s use the data. It’s 52 available, we always complain there’s not enough data for this or that and that’s true. A lot of data is 53 outdated and some data is not that useful, but there is certainly data to put this into context. So I’m 54 going to jump into the specifics, but the pleas on the high level is engage in system level thinking and 55 innovate within our context, use the data. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 15 1 On the specific I think all the alternatives that have been mentioned they all are couched in sort of low 2 growth or anti-growth. I understand that there’s a certain environment where there’s great suspicion of 3 growth. Alternatives 3 and 4 anticipate some limited growth. I would say neither of them anticipate any 4 non-residential growth. I think that’s probably wrong. I think there needs to be a scenario where jobs 5 are also created or at least explicitly addressed. Specifically Alternative 3 around the growth strategies 6 limits building height to 55 feet if additional height is used for residential. I’m not sure how the additional 7 five feet really helps to, for residential. I’ve also heard from a number of people that for modern 8 buildings we now have higher ground floors that a 60 foot limit is more palatable or more, makes for a 9 nicer building. I think that also should be considered. The 55 feet limit I think is just an odd limit. If 10 we’re going to violate historic precedent for 50 feet then I think it should be a meaningful violation so to 11 speak. It should make a good building. 12 13 I’d also, I’d like to see something that contemplates a combination. Alternative 4 I view as orthogonal to 14 the others, which is to try to go for zero growth in trips strategy versus other growth strategies in terms 15 of building square footage. I think that can be combined to try to limit trips and have a building area 16 strategy. So I’d like to see kind of the crosstown of those. 27 University is only explicitly discussed in 17 Alternative 4. I think that’s such an important parcel it has to be part I think of every plan. It’s a big 18 parcel. It’s Downtown. I think not talking about it is sort of an elephant in the room. 19 20 And I’ll say one more thing just quickly then I’ll do the rest in my second piece. I agree with Bob Moss. 21 Density drops within .25 miles of transit hubs. I think just saying .5 is kind of a cop out and the 22 usefulness of transit, dense transit oriented design using that big of a radius I think also is a bit of a cop 23 out. I think having more density but closer to transit makes more sense. 24 25 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 26 27 Commissioner Alcheck: So one of the goals is sort of determine consensus here on the Commission’s 28 thoughts? I think if your plan is to prepare a summary for Council that’s similar to the summary you 29 prepared tonight you could add my name behind every single thing Commissioner Rosenblum just said in 30 the bullet point list of comments. That was like a breath of fresh air, really. I don’t think I could have 31 said anything you said better than the way you said it. 32 33 We often use the word… so I’m going to take the same approach; I’m going to talk high level plea and 34 then some specifics. We often use the word developers, yeah, we often use the word developers when 35 we talk about some of the commercial projects that come our way. I really prefer the term 36 redevelopment and one of the reasons why is because I have a since distinction in my mind between infill 37 development and sprawl. And I think there’s a lot of residents that are very interested in the notion of 38 environmental protection particularly when it comes to climate change. And our esteemed community 39 member Stephen Levy is here and he knows better than probably everybody in this room what sort of 40 growth California’s going to see in the next 10, 20, 30 years, which is to say that he knows it’s 41 astronomical. And so the solution is two things, we can create seven more Fresno’s between here and 42 Los Angeles, which will devastate the environment of California. 43 44 Correct me if I’m wrong, not tonight, not at this moment in time, but I once read that California is home 45 to one of every eight Americans. It ought to be its own country. It’s that massive. And when you think 46 about that out loud and you think about the growth we’re about to encounter the notion of taking all of 47 this open space and running water to it and running electricity to it and paving it with concrete is 48 ludicrous. So every time I meet with an individual in this City and they express to me this notion that the 49 50 foot height limit is just daunting and they don’t want to see any more homes being built and the 50 density ideas are awful I like to remind them that the growth is coming, show me where you’d like it. 51 And if you point to the Foothills of Palo Alto I’ll tell you why I don’t like putting it there. 52 53 And so I like to refer to the developers as redevelopers. I like the idea of redeveloping these parcels in a 54 way that enhances the density. I know that’s not popular among the residentialists. I’d like to think that 55 we have a diverse Planning Commission membership here because the City Council wanted to hear 56 City of Palo Alto Page 16 different points of view. I think that’s why I’m on this Commission frankly. Maybe because it pays to 1 have that sort of urbanist perspective every once in a while, but I really just want to emphasize that it is 2 an environmental issue where we will grow. 3 4 And I walk Downtown, I bike Downtown more and I’d like to think that if we increase the density we’ll 5 encourage greater walking and biking. I don’t doubt for one minute that even if we were to triple our 6 residential development in this town there would still end up being maybe three more Fresno’s on the 7 way to Los Angeles in the next 30 years. Because the truth is it doesn’t matter how much we’re going 8 to… the truth is our growth is probably not going to be adequate in any real way to make room for the 9 growth, the population increase. So there will be some impacts to the environment that are essentially 10 unavoidable. But that is one of the biggest components of the way that I like to look at this concept of 11 density, which is to say where do we want to put it? And I don’t think it’s just about well what about 12 Menlo Park and Mountain View and Sunnyvale and San Jose and San Francisco? I think every single one 13 of these communities is essentially facing the same challenge and to look at it as if we’re really separate 14 is myopic in my view. I think it’s the One Bay Area unfortunately. Our towns run into each other and 15 frankly when one town next door makes significant inroads or makes significant decisions it actually 16 impacts us, right? The San Antonio development is going to impact Palo Alto’s traffic situation. 17 18 I’m just going to take 10 more seconds just to say that, well actually you know what I’ll just wait until the 19 next round. 20 21 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 22 23 Commissioner Tanaka: So I think we’ve had some really good comments from the public as well as from 24 the Commissioners on this topic. I think it’s a very important question and issue that we’re talking about. 25 And I think the one comment I think I’ve heard that I think has been pretty consistent whether it be pro-26 growth or keeping things exactly the way they are is I think what’s important is the quality of life. So I 27 think that’s probably one universal goal, which I don’t think there’s anyone in this room that would say 28 no, no, no, I want a decrease in quality of life. I don’t think anyone’s going to say that. I think if 29 anything people want to increase the quality of life. And then the question of course is well, what does 30 that mean, right? Is quality of life meaning more growth or less growth? And I think Commissioner 31 Rosenblum had a very good comment in that Palo Alto from the Sixties to Seventies to Eighties has 32 grown, has changed, and that’s part of the quality of life. I mean the vibrancy that we get from 33 Stanford, from the high tech companies in this area is a blessing and a large part is what made the many 34 property owners in this room wealthy to be honest. And so in terms of quality of life I think we have to 35 think about is how we get this quality of life by freezing everything. Is that how we get it? And 36 everyone basically has some of the other Commissioners had mentioned we basically slowly age into a 37 retirement community. Is that the quality of life, the high quality of life that we all are accustomed to? 38 Or is it having a diverse, vibrant city that welcomes all walks of life and allows opportunities for 39 everyone? And I’m more into the favor of I think we want a diversity that allows opportunities for all, not 40 just the privileged few who came here first. So I think that’s something that we have to think about. 41 42 Now with that said I do think that having a, protecting the R1 areas makes total sense. I think we want 43 to do that. I don’t think there’s anyone here that’s saying that we build a 100 foot skyscraper in the 44 middle of an R1 neighborhood. I mean I for one had not voted for the Maybell project mainly because it 45 was a four foot, four story building in, near a R1 neighborhood. That doesn’t make a lot of sense, but so 46 I think that’s something which I think protection of that makes… this is important because I think that 47 does protect quality of life. But at the same time I think everyone here enjoys having a grocery store 48 near their neighborhood, they enjoy having services near them, they enjoy being able to shop and walk 49 to those places, and I think enabling that to happen is important and enabling that to happen sometimes 50 means a certain amount of density. 51 52 And so I’ve heard this a lot and then I think Palo Alto’s probably at least the citizens think of themselves 53 as one of the greenest places on Earth, but if you look at per capita compared to let’s say a city like 54 Manhattan, that’s not suggesting that we should be Manhattan, but per carbon footprint of a person in 55 Manhattan is much lower than any suburb like Palo Alto because they take transit, they don’t drive, 56 City of Palo Alto Page 17 there’s a whole bunch of reasons why. And one of the comments I think Stephen Levy mentioned and 1 it’s, I’ve read it in so many, from so many different areas is that jobs near transit actually reduces the 2 carbon footprint a heck of a lot more than any housing near transit. So I think having workers who 3 spend money who can support these retail services that we take for granted in our City near residential 4 neighborhoods, but not in residential neighborhoods I think is important. Because if you want the quality 5 of life that we are used to we want this quality of life that is enabled by I think the word that Rosenblum 6 used was system. We want an ecosystem that can support this kind of vibrancy in retail where we walk 7 around and get things without having to jump in our cars, which I think is actually important especially 8 since there is a large, a larger and larger older population which maybe can’t drive all the time anymore. 9 10 And I think that’s also why I think you know there’s one thing to say well what does the market want and 11 there’s another thing to think about well what does it take to keep the quality of life in Palo Alto high? 12 And that might mean smaller units so that the generation that has helped build Palo Alto and kept it 13 vibrant can stay in Palo Alto and walk to services. It also might mean smaller units so that the people 14 that pay all the sales tax and keep all these retail businesses alive so that we can go there one day a 15 week can survive. And so I think that’s something that we need to think about and so anyways I’ll 16 continue next time. 17 18 Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 19 20 Commissioner King: Thank you. I’m going to use my first round at least most of it primarily for 21 questions. I’d like to ask is it Joanne our consultant? Yeah, can you just explain your firm and I assume 22 you do these, have done these for multiple cities and maybe if you could just give me answers like how 23 many towns or cities you’ve done EIRs for in support of Comp Plans? 24 25 Ms. Jansen: Sure. I’ve been with the planning, PlaceWorks, which is formerly The Planning Center DC&E 26 and formerly DC&E for 15 years as of this month. And for most of that time I’ve been working on 27 general plans and the vast majority of general plans that I work on I also manage the preparation of the 28 EIR for that general plan. So I would say probably a dozen general plan EIRs over that time. 29 30 Commissioner King: Of all different size? 31 32 Ms. Jansen: Yeah. 33 34 Commissioner King: Ok, great, thanks. And so let’s see, a question so the way I’m interested in the 35 process of where, how we got here. So now we’ve got the four scenarios, but within each of those 36 scenarios there are maybe four to eight different components. And so really if you were to say hey, 37 we’re going to study do the math there would be hundreds of different ways you could take those 38 components and mix them, mix and match them. But what we’ve ended up with is four scenarios with 39 specific components, a choice of each of those four to eight components within those plans. How, why is 40 that and how is that, how does that support the process? 41 42 Ms. Jansen: It’s a pretty typical process for a community to go through to do what Palo Alto has done 43 and use public input to identify the parts of the city that are most likely to change during the horizon of 44 the general plan or in Palo Alto’s place the Comp Plan like what we did at Workshop Number 2 and then 45 refined in Workshop Number 3. So when we asked for that input from residents and we thought about it 46 as staff and the consultant team we came up with these six areas that are the six kind of building blocks 47 of the alternatives that are in your staff report where it seems like at least some people in some of the 48 groups from the workshops it felt comfortable saying that one or more of those areas could be a place 49 that might change over the next 15 years. And that excludes as you can see from the map that we 50 showed the vast majority of Palo Alto the R1 areas, the open space areas, so when we narrow our focus 51 to those six opportunity sites as we’re terming them in this process then we can kind of just think about 52 those as the building blocks for the individual four alternatives. 53 54 When we do the analysis in the EIR it’s true that there’s kind of an almost an infinite way that the 55 different alternatives could be combined or recombined within those areas even if you limit it to those six 56 City of Palo Alto Page 18 areas, but what we’re going to need is citywide scenarios that we can compare apples to apples for 1 things like the traffic analysis for example. It is really an incomprehensible level of complexity if we were 2 to try to publish a document that looks at 6 alternatives in one area and what would that be compared to 3 12 alternatives in a different area. So we’re going to be using these building blocks to put together four 4 citywide alternatives and what we’re trying to do is come up with alternatives that both explore different 5 options for each one of the six areas across the four alternatives, but are also internally coherent so that 6 they make an alternative that makes sense if it was to be adopted as a whole. But just to be clear 7 there’s no requirement that what’s ultimately adopted has to be exactly one of the alternatives. It could 8 be a mixing and matching of different facets of the, that were considered I the alternatives or even 9 something that wasn’t necessarily considered. 10 11 Commissioner King: Ok, so it’s really to reduce complexity that would be just unmanageable you have to 12 do this. And with the other EIRs you then in support of other general plans, comp plans is this, is that 13 the same on each? So you come up with four alternatives or is that specific to Palo Alto? 14 15 Ms. Jansen: What’s very unique to Palo Alto is that the EIR will cover all of those alternatives at the same 16 level of detail. Many cities do a very similar process as I’ve said, but the analysis of the alternatives 17 might come before the EIR and the City would go through the process that you’re going through now to 18 identity which alternative it thinks it wants to commit to and then only study that one at a great level of 19 detail in the EIR. So Palo Alto’s kind of leaving those options open much longer and getting a greater 20 level of analysis about each one of the alternatives because the EIR level of analysis that we would do if 21 a city had already selected an alternative is much greater than the level of analysis that we would do 22 earlier in the process for them while they’re kind of still exploring the alternatives and thinking about 23 which one they like the best or which one they want to create as their preferred land use plan. 24 25 Commissioner King: So this is sort of the deluxe process? We’re saying hey, we want to invest… ok, 26 great. 27 28 Ms. Gitelman: Could I, I’m sorry, could I just add one comment? I want to amplify a little bit on that two 29 ways. One is the reason we chose to go and the City Council supported this idea of analyzing 30 alternatives at an equal level of detail is it allows us to have a process where we’re getting the kind of 31 input we’ve received here this evening longer into the process. So well after the draft plan and draft EIR 32 on the street we’re still going to be talking about tradeoffs and options between the alternatives. 33 Typically you’d start to narrow that discussion and that engagement process much sooner in the process. 34 So that was the motivation for the process we’ve developed. 35 36 The other thing I wanted to mention is we’re a little bit I don’t know how to say this exactly, but we’re 37 using our crystal ball to try and come up with alternatives that bracket a range of possible outcomes for 38 the City and the planning process. And to a large extent we’re counting on the wisdom of the 39 Commission, the public, and the Council to help us structure that range well so that the plan that is 40 ultimately considered for adoption falls within that range. But I just wanted to make sure everyone 41 understood it’s not a guarantee. We might get to the end of the process and if we’ve guessed wrong and 42 we want to do something outside the range then our EIR is going to be lacking. So we have to do a 43 good job at selecting this range of alternatives to bracket the possible impacts so that we give ourselves 44 the maximum possibility at the end of the day to proceed expeditiously to a decision. I hope that’s clear, 45 that’s a little bit of a (interrupted) 46 47 Commissioner King: No, I think that, yeah you just set basically the largest envelope possible so I 48 understood. Thank you. 49 50 Ms. Gitelman: Ok. 51 52 Chair Michael: Commissioner Gardias. 53 54 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Chair. So before I get to the essence I just want to give a couple of 1 kudos to the audience and a couple of good comments because I felt about the same, so Mr. Neilson 2 Buchanan thank you very much for about your comments about dynamic plan, right? Of course it’s an 3 important comment, but also data division that you recommended to Ms. Gitelman. I think that if you tie 4 it to the conversation about the business registry if we had an analyst to do queries pretty much you 5 would not need to have a business registry because a person like that probably would answer that 6 question with just running the queries out of the data. So that’s one point. 7 8 The second point that the second comment I heard from Mr. Steve Rosenblum about undergrounding 9 Caltrain, which is exactly the same scenario that New York had many years ago when they were pretty 10 much redesigning Grand Central Station they were designing, they were doing this because of the 11 different objectives they just wanted to, the issue was to address the steam locomotives and that was 12 their problem, but because they were able to by engineering this they were able just to create this 13 massive value out of the, for the real estate above the train tracks in the middle of Manhattan and they 14 created this way Park Avenue. It would create automatically probably a billion dollars or maybe more for 15 Palo Alto if we did this [unintelligible] this and for the other adjacent municipalities. So thank you very 16 much for those comments, please come here more often. 17 18 So I want to just, I want to… yes. So I want to address a couple of specific aspects on the, from this 19 concepts that we had. So a couple of Commissioners talked about the Concept Number 4. So it looks 20 like an overlay to me as opposed to a concept itself. It has a mixture of the prescriptive designations and 21 then some policy aspects. And I because of this it’s not as clear as you would like, so it may be 22 confusing for the audience and then may not be clean cut. So I would recommend just to remove it and 23 as others spoke in the same spirit create an overlay on all the other concepts and then drop some 24 aspects that are prescriptive in this so just focus on the net zero energy as opposed to planning aspect. 25 So that’s about Concept Number 4. 26 27 From a perspective of Concept Number 3 I would like to we had from the couple of speakers that they 28 were against 55 feet raising they were against raising 55 limit to the 55 feet and some other, some other 29 growth elements. What I would like to just supporting this, that notion I would like to just focus on this 30 concept because it addresses development or redevelopment around the transit nodes and that’s very 31 important. Other two concepts they don’t have it so maybe by removing this 55 feet limit or increase of 32 the limit to 55 feet height but then as opposed to this focusing on some other areas that are 33 underdeveloped and then when I met with Steven we talk about allowing or discussing development of 34 the parking lots that is not within the Downtown Cap. That could be an opportunity for the Downtown as 35 well as the California Avenue without raising any limit. Ok? Thank you very much. 36 37 Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 38 39 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So firstly I hope that we prominently indicate where people can 40 subsequently in between the meetings email their comments in and I assume they go to the this Palo 41 Alto Comp Plan or Our Palo Alto website and there are places to email your comments. So please keep 42 those cards and letters coming in folks. 43 44 The next thing is with respect to a living Comp Plan one of the things I noticed in the chart, it wasn’t 45 necessarily in the it was in a more Our Palo Alto process in an earlier meeting, not tonight’s meeting was 46 the idea that as the Comp Plan is created they’ll be some interactive web based thing. And I think that 47 the idea of creating a highly hyperlinked, highly searchable, highly indexed, highly integrated Comp Plan 48 that allows you to explore and analyze and find the ones that are relevant I think that it’s possible for 49 Palo Alto to do that. And I think if we do an excellent job we may even win and award for making a 50 Comp Plan actually accessible to the community. I would look forward to that. 51 52 So let me get into the detailed comments. First of all I would consider myself a data scientist and that 53 what I know about being a data scientist is this concept of garbage in, garbage out. If the input to your 54 data is garbage the output will be garbage. So the interesting thing is we need to make sure we have 55 hard data. I’ve spent several days in the last few weeks analyzing census data based on transportation 56 City of Palo Alto Page 20 and such and had a number of conversations with Hillary and with Roland Rivera about this and I was 1 hoping we’d have some data about that. I’ll work on that and produce some of that. But essentially one 2 of the things from that analysis is yes, when you add more housing near transit you get slightly more 3 transit use, but you get a lot more cars too. In fact a lot more cars than you get a slight increase in 4 transit use. And the idea of transit oriented housing makes sense in the East Bay where people are in 5 bedroom communities commuting to San Francisco. It’s not the kind of commute patterns we have in 6 Palo Alto. Somewhere on the order of approximately 60 percent, maybe a little less than 60 percent of 7 people who live in Palo Alto work and are employed work in Palo Alto, Stanford, Menlo Park or Mountain 8 View, ok? So they’re going to drive or bike or walk. And therefore what you really want to do is increase 9 walkability and increase bikeablity. And in fact biking has increased dramatically over the last 10, 12 10 years more than anything else and that’s pretty impressive. 11 12 Ok, a couple of things; first of all we need to think about the school impacts of growth. The 13 Comprehensive Plan is the only time when we look at development or redevelopment as Commissioner 14 Alcheck I guess he would know the term would be is the idea is this is the only time we can look at 15 school impacts. We must look at them now or we will not look at them at all. And I think we should also 16 think about a financial analysis on the City Budget because now’s the time to look at that and it’s not 17 typically part of an EIR process, but should be added to it. 18 19 So alluding to my question is we really need to understand for Palo Alto, not for the East Bay, how much 20 does housing near transit drive transit use versus driving, driving if you will. When you think about 21 expanding retail people want to have more opportunities for retail pushing retail making more services. 22 When we think about services probably the number one service people think about besides schools is 23 retail. Retail uses being able to walk to that and there are other things like libraries and things like that, 24 but we think about we probably use retail more than we use any other service besides schools. 25 26 I mentioned the idea of promoting bicycling and walking to work. We should have renamed the no 27 project alternative it’s not do nothing. It is really business as usual. It is really growing to the maximum 28 allowed by zoning based on market pressures. That’s what it really is, ok. Call it what it is. In terms of 29 Alternative 3, we should focus on transit oriented jobs, which appropriately they are slow growth and 30 service oriented housing. And just think of transit as another service. It shouldn’t be elevated among 31 everything else. Really think about housing near services and I think Stephen Levy’s exactly right, it’s in 32 terms of all those other trips people take, not just the commute trips that are important. In terms of 33 Alternative 4 we have, we used to think in terms of no new net trips and may, can I finish Alternative 4? 34 35 So in terms of no new net trips with offsets, in other words, if you put more cars on the road get 36 somebody else’s cars off the road by paying for shuttles, by particularly for our school kids. Think about 37 the more of our school kids that you get off the roads and parents driving in to school that is a significant 38 improvement. No new, net zero greenhouse gasses. Now in particular I’m not talking about no net 39 vehicle miles traveled. Vehicle miles traveled is considered as part of greenhouse gasses, ok? No new 40 net trips affects Palo Alto and it effects the traffic within Palo Alto. Net zero water and no net overflow 41 parking into the neighborhoods. To me that’s the real issue of net zero and I’ll continue my comments 42 later. 43 44 Chair Michael: So when I was introduced to the current Comp Plan, which was adopted in 1998 on the 45 very first section it says that there is no single vision for the City yet each Element has a beginning 46 portion which is entitled Vision. To me the lack of the single overarching vision is a fatal flaw and I think 47 it is carried out in terms of leadership of the City, of the Council, the Mayor, whatever who can’t speak to 48 what the vision is. So there’s this sense of it’s open for debate or maybe there are seeds of mistrust. 49 And I think that I think it’s critical that the Comp Plan that we adopt from now to 2030 state a clear 50 vision and not miss that opportunity. And I think part of leadership comes from listening to the public, 51 but it also may involve leading. 52 53 I think that the role of the Chair of the Planning Commission, which I’ve been privileged to do for half a 54 year now and will do for a while longer is in some sense to ensure that we have an effective deliberative 55 body and not to show my sort of personal opinions whenever the chance arises, but I think I’m going to 56 City of Palo Alto Page 21 put on my resident hat a little bit and just say that like some of the speakers from the public I was born 1 here in 1951, I grew up here, attended Palo Alto public schools and then Stanford. I’ve been very 2 fortunate I could live anywhere and I sincerely believe that this is a great place to call home. In that 3 sense I may be a residentialist, but I sincerely disagree with the implications from the militant anti-4 growth rhetoric that that faction of the voters is discussing as it relates to the Comp Plan. 5 6 On a personal level in the foreseeable future my wife and I have this lovely home in the Community 7 Center neighborhood. It’s a very large house; it’s now an empty nest. We may be looking to follow in 8 the steps of Stephen Levy and find a nice apartment somewhere. And I think that fact that the Comp 9 Plan is bowing to the concerns of the community and not touching the R1 allocation in our zoneable living 10 space is a mistake because when the time comes I don’t think there’s any inventory for me and my wife 11 to find the kind of place that we’d like to call home much as we’d like to stay in Palo Alto. That inventory 12 doesn’t exist. 13 14 So in no particular sense of priority one of the concerns that comes up throughout the document, 15 different alternatives is preservation of historic character of the City. And when I first saw the Housing 16 Element Policy Number 1 of the Housing Element is preserve the character of existing neighborhoods and 17 I went somewhat berserk because I’d spent decades in large public companies trying to make decisions 18 based on data and they want character. How do you measure it? Where’s the data? And then realized I 19 became a history major at Stanford when I took the course on American character. I thought ok, alright, 20 so I can get my teeth into this, but I think one of the aspects of the preservation of historic character is 21 we should allow for the creation of resources, the future view as historic because I think that that is one 22 of the things that we should do in our planning the legacy of Palo Alto. 23 24 Growth is an unfortunate metaphor to me. I agree with colleagues who note that this is a built out city. 25 Any development is infill development or even redevelopment. I think it’s not although growth is not 26 what everyone uses as the catchphrase I think it’s change. It’s not growth it’s change. And I think if you 27 think of it as change versus no change to me no change is a recipe for entropy, disaster, decline, not 28 anything that any one of us would appreciate. If we have yards we plant flowers. We grow trees. We 29 promote positive change. And I think change is good if properly managed, but it’s always threatening 30 because it’s change. 31 32 Density and height I think that there is many virtues in a community to critical mass relative to vibrancy, 33 walkability, utilization of infrastructure, distribution of City services and so forth. And I think in many 34 ways cities that are that allow for selectively more height, greater density can take advantage of those 35 virtues and leverage those resources which benefit many of us profoundly. My personal opinion although 36 I’m perfectly willing to follow the law is that relaxing the 50 foot height limit selectively would allow an 37 additional story going from four stories to five stories in certain neighborhoods where that may be 38 appropriate, Downtown, perhaps California Avenue, perhaps along El Camino and… can I have more 39 time? Yes I can. And so I think the sacrosanct nature of the height limit is a mistake personally. But if 40 it’s the law I will follow the law, but I won’t necessarily think it’s a good policy. 41 42 With Stephen Levy and Greg Tanaka I served on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) and I 43 think that in the Comp Plan alternatives it’s critical that we address the top priorities of infrastructure 44 needs. I think the Caltrain plan whether it’s the trench, undergrounding, the longer we wait the more it’s 45 going to cost and the longer until we have the benefit of that incredibly sensible idea. What to do with 46 the Municipal Services Center (MSC), which was by the way which was the biggest single ticket item on 47 the list of the half a billion in infrastructure items are unfunded given to IBRC to study, the MSC is going 48 to be under water not too many decades hence and that’s going to be a bad thing. So where do you put 49 it? It’s got emergency response resources and if there’s a catastrophic earthquake and the overpasses 50 get threatened how do emergency vehicles get to put out the fires and save you? Another thing is the 51 location of City services and above ground infrastructure is clustered on the north end of town, which I 52 think is unfair in many ways to the residents who don’t live in the north end of town. And perhaps City 53 Hall and the Public Safety Building should be relocated to the geographic center of the City, which is close 54 to California Avenue and maybe allow for incredible opportunity for this block to be used in a different 55 way. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 Many colleagues have noted that Palo Alto likes to think of itself as special. Sometimes does planning in 2 isolation, but we’re actually part of a region. And figuring out more robust processes for regional 3 collaboration with East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Stanford, Mountain View, and so on, Los Altos is incredibly 4 important such that we have a Comprehensive Plan that dovetails with the Comprehensive Plans of the 5 adjacent communities and the regional plans. 6 7 And then finally Palo Alto likes to think of itself as a city. I did a little research, I was a lawyer once and I 8 did the legal research. It makes no difference under the law if you call yourself a city or a town. It 9 doesn’t matter, but if you call yourself a city and we’re like 113th largest city in the last census. We’re not 10 very big, we’re not very important except in our own minds. I think if you think of yourself as a city that 11 leads you to making decisions that are appropriate to cities. If you think of yourself as a town or a 12 village then maybe you go in a different direction. So I think that that self-image confusion would be 13 important to sort of work out in this version of the Comprehensive Plan because if we want to grow up as 14 a major city then you make different decisions. If we’re perfectly content being a small livable town 15 that’s different. And that’s ok. I mean as I said I grew up here, like it here, I wouldn’t have lived 16 anywhere else, but maybe someday I’ll have to. 17 18 So I’ll stop for now. Round 2 in maybe a different order from Round 1? Anybody primed and ready to 19 go? Vice-Chair Keller is ready. 20 21 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So a couple of things; first of all there is unlimited demand for housing and 22 offices in Palo Alto. And it’s certainly true that if you build it they will come. And if you allow them to 23 build it they will. And that may not be true in the same degree in other communities. And we cannot 24 quench the demand for people to live in Palo Alto and if we did allow everybody to live in Palo Alto our 25 schools would be so overcrowded that their quality would be destroyed. That’s what we face if basically 26 people move here for the schools often. And people want to stay in our community. And therefore it’s 27 not a matter of the idea that the market wants, it’s not the market who wants big units to be built in 28 townhouses. It’s the people who build the big units and want to put them in townhouses they want it 29 because it’s the most profitable, but it’s not our objective to tell to make things as nice for the 30 redevelopers so that they can maximize their profits. What we instead want to do is zone for what we 31 want, which is a saying that I’ve heard one of the Council Members use a lot. Zone for what we want. 32 And in particular the issue is that in order for Chair Michael to stay in the community we need to build the 33 kind of housing we want to build is housing he can downsize to, which is smaller units. Senior housing, 34 studios, and one bedrooms are the kind of housing that’s missing and will provide the kind of diversity 35 that we think we want, that we say we want in Palo Alto. 36 37 We think in terms of height 50 feet, 55 feet. I think we need to think in terms of how many stories that 38 is also. So the reason that the suggestion was to go to 55 feet is because people think of 50 feet as 39 being four stories, but now the discussion is that they want a few extra feet more for the first story in 40 order to have higher height retail because that’s what retail wants. So is 55 feet four stories? Is 60 feet 41 five stories? Well if you go to five stories then you have this short retail. So I think that the idea is to go 42 to 55 five feet but mean four stories, not five. And so think in terms of the number of stories because 43 that also affects the number, the amount of square footage. 44 45 The even if we don’t build another square foot of office space there will still be an increase in jobs in Palo 46 Alto due to an intensification of jobs density. There hoteling, they’re pushing people smaller and smaller 47 spaces. We saw what happened with Facebook when it was adjacent to College Terrace. They crammed 48 them in cheek to jowl and that’s that trend more so than we have some law offices where people get lots 49 of space, but we also have startups in which people are crammed in cheek to jowl. 50 51 So let me make a couple of detailed comments on this. Firstly in order to think about slowing the jobs 52 growth what we really want to think about is allowing retail expansion, considering a mix of retail, and if 53 you’re going to slow the growth of office space of non-residential, non-retail space then you want to think 54 about how to do it. A cap doesn’t work because when you exceed the cap people say ah, you exceeded 55 the cap you’re not allowing me to develop what I have the right to develop because of my zoning rights. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 23 I have the right to develop to my FAR and whatever. Well and so therefore instead what you need to 1 think about is in terms of an air rights allocation. If you say you’re allowed to grow so many square 2 footage more than allocate it out and make sure you leave room for TDR’s. You allocate it out somebody 3 wants to build they got to buy it from somewhere. Other cities do that, they limit the amount of growth 4 by allocating air rights. 5 6 In terms of limiting the market the residential growth you can do that by I believe by limiting market rate 7 housing to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) allocation for above moderate. You’re not 8 limiting Below Market Rate (BMR) housing if the BMR housing developers can build, can buy the land and 9 develop the housing they can do it without having a cap. That’s the way you can, I think that that’s a 10 legal process for accomplishing the limit of residential growth. 11 12 I think that it is very important to limit Caltrain, I’m sorry, underground Caltrain. Now I was an advocate 13 in back in 2008 before the election the Palo Alto Weekly had a stint about undergrounding Caltrain high 14 speed rail and I was the advocate for cut and cover. And there’s a zippering approach where you 15 consider alternating which side you cover and do things like that in order to be able to cover most of it 16 and yet allow for the escape so it’s not too expensive in terms of if there’s a crash or something like that. 17 To the extent that we working with SVLG in getting money to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), which is 18 going to happen and we get money for Caltrain and make sure some of that money goes for grade 19 separations for Caltrain. There will be money for grade separations for the four grade separation in Palo 20 Alto. If, with that money we could either have overpasses built, a basically train going over or we could 21 figure out how to spend the additional money through a bond issue that I think would be partly paid for 22 by developing over that land to put the train underneath. And you could do that both south of Oregon 23 Expressway, but I think that we should also collaborate with Menlo Park to underground north of Oregon 24 Expressway. Now you can’t underground where Oregon Expressway is because changing the 25 interchange is just too expensive, but north of Oregon Expressway into Menlo Park working with Menlo 26 Park to underground until it gets to Atherton, maybe Atherton wants to pay for undergrounding further, 27 that’s a possibility. And with a cut and cover approach with the tracks the road is slightly raised over the 28 tracks, you don’t have to cut under and you sort of essentially tunnel slightly under San Francisquito 29 Creek, under the El Palo Alto, which you can do because redwood trees go laterally out. Ok. 30 31 In terms of El Camino height limit increase we have to be careful about not next to R1 residential 32 particularly in Barron Park. There are places where the lots are deeper. There are places where the lots 33 are shallower. There are places where the shallow lots are separated from R1 housing by a narrow 34 alleyway. You don’t want a 41, a 50 foot or higher canyon to be happening over towering the R1 35 properties that are often one story and sometimes two on the other side. So we have to think about 36 where you need to do that and that’s why we need to have an El Camino Real, particularly South El 37 Camino Real Concept Area Plan so we can study where it makes sense for higher, where it makes sense 38 for non-higher, and where it makes sense to in fact lower the heights because you want to do it context 39 based not… you want to do it concept based, based on context not other things. 40 41 So let me mention the comment that was made about distribution of services around the City by 42 neighborhood. I agree with that as a thing that we need to evaluate. In terms of flooding and sea level 43 rise I think that’s an important consideration particularly for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. I 44 won’t even use the expression I would use in terms of what happens if that’s underwater. I think we 45 need a Fry’s Area Precise Plan in order to understand that big piece of land redevelopment. It’s 46 comparable to what happened when we redeveloped the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) when it 47 moved. If SOFA deserved a precise plan which it has, in fact there are two of them for South of Forest 48 Avenue (SOFA) 1 and SOFA 2. We need one for Fry’s. 49 50 And I’ll close by asking this question, when… of staff I guess. When will we choose an alternative among 51 these four? How does that process happen for choosing an alternative among these four including the 52 mix and match along them? Because I presume that we may not take one alternative over another 53 alternative, we may pick a mix and match. So maybe you can sort of give that answer tonight. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Ms. Gitelman: Sure let me start and then Joanna and Steven can add on if necessary, but I think our 1 concept is that we’ll continue to get input on these, on three or four concepts try and get direction from 2 the Council at some point to move them forward into the EIR analysis, carry them through to the draft 3 EIR stage, and the draft EIR will tell us what their relative merits and impacts are. So we’ll understand 4 their benefits and impacts at a greater level of detail when the draft EIR is available and after the 5 comment period on the draft EIR that’s when we would try and narrow it down to what our preferred 6 alternative is. And we could choose one of the alternatives. If we guessed right and one of the 7 alternatives in the range we described is it, we love it, we’ll go with that. If we want to massage them 8 and choose one alternative with modifications or elements from another alternative as long as we’ve 9 captured the impacts of that blend in the range of alternatives we should be ok to proceed to the final 10 EIR and plan adoption. So that’s the strategy for now. So if we stay on schedule we’re talking about first 11 quarter of 2015 we’d be making the decision how to get down from four alternatives to one. 12 13 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 14 15 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I just wanted a few specifics. I think in the focused development 16 alternative I share the view that I think Commissioner Michael suggested which is that in those selected 17 sites I think the approach should consider a meaningful deviation from the height limit. And I know 18 we’ve articulated this notion of sort of a greater height on ground floor retail. I’m not sure, I’m not sure, 19 I’m not just suggesting 55 or 65 or I guess that part is open. I’m not suggesting a specific height 20 increase, just that that increase could be exceeded potentially. 21 22 I’d also like to state that I, this is a unique moment. I share Bob Moss’ opinion regarding dictating 23 market preference, dictating preferences to the market. I don’t believe this body or the City Council for 24 that matter has the expertise to dictate what size units should be developed in Palo Alto. I believe the 25 marketplace and the market players should have freedom and flexibility there especially because I like to 26 throw this out there I was at Planning Commissioner Academy this year and the key note speaker talked 27 about the future of transportation specifically personal vehicles. And he showed a picture of 5th Avenue 28 in 19 whatever, I can’t recall, Twenties, Thirties, and then he showed a picture of it 10 years later. And 29 the picture basically represented there was a single horse and carriage on 5th Avenue and then 10 years 30 later there were probably 30 or 40 cars. And he suggested that in that 10 year span this was a just an 31 unbelievable change in the way we transported ourselves. And then he suggested that do you think that 32 the change from potentially cars we have to drive to cars that are self-driven will take that long and what 33 will that, how will that look if we depicted it in a picture? And I only mention that because he suggested 34 and potentially very accurately what would we do with all our parking garages if suddenly the cars that 35 took us everywhere didn’t have to be parked because after we used them they picked up another person 36 and kept on running indefinitely. And so I was astonished after he made that comment because all I 37 kept picturing were four or five story parking garages that were suddenly empty and what would we do 38 with all our garages? Obviously that change is not going to be overnight, but I mention it because the 39 market reacts much more quickly to the needs, its own needs then I think boards and commissions and 40 councils can really determine. 41 42 And so I think part of the Our Palo Alto process will always be flawed to some extent because technology 43 is changing at a very fast pace and there will be some potentially magnificent impacts specifically in the 44 transportation, in the transportation category over the next 15 years. We’re all talking about what it was 45 like 10, 15, 20 years ago and we’re all making the assumption that in 15 years traffic’s going to be 10 46 times worse. What if this keynote speaker, he was a Stanford professor in the business school and a 47 transportation expert, what if his predictions come true and suddenly we’re all in self automated cabs 48 that we own some, have some ownership percentage, I have no idea. 49 50 But anyway in a similar vein when it comes to the discussion of rail and transportation infrastructure I’m 51 reminded of a lecture I attended by Tom Friedman at De Anza and his quote was something like if you 52 visited Grand Central Station in New York or Grand Central in New York and then you went to the Central 53 Station in Berlin you would think they won the war. Something to the effect of how we’ve really avoided 54 investing any money in our mass transit infrastructure. I continue to think that this high speed rail 55 discussion has a place in our Comprehensive Plan and its alternatives. And I know that there’s significant 56 City of Palo Alto Page 25 expenses to some of the ideas that people have mentioned and maybe even significant opportunities if 1 you think about it, but it’s a huge asset to this community and so the potential changes that may come 2 from the State’s investment in high speed rail. I don’t know how we incorporate that, but that will 3 magnify the value of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) I think. I think if the rail was faster maybe it 4 would be even more appealing or I’m not exactly sure how to kind of put that into words, but I just think 5 there’s some real innovative opportunities for discussion. I think it can be incorporated into the notion of 6 how we plan for TOD. Ok. 7 8 Chair Michael: Commissioner King I see you have some notes there? 9 10 Commissioner King: Thanks. Let’s see. I’ve got some questions still, but I guess in keeping with the 11 theme that we want to do our big picture position statements so regarding Palo Alto as a system and 12 somehow that resulting in a compelling need for growth I think that every physical system has a 13 maximum capacity. And in our case our City has a fixed geography and there, that means there’s a fixed 14 amount of how many humans and how much built stuff can exist within our City. So to ask as if growth 15 is perpetual and inevitable is not makes, is not logical. Just as if you own a home on a lot you can’t keep 16 growing infinitely, indefinitely. At some point you’ve got enough stuff there. So I’m not saying we’re 17 there, but I’m saying that growth is a choice. That’s a stolen quote. And that it’s a function of what’s 18 here now. It’s a function of the infrastructure we have, how much infrastructure we can put in, and the 19 type of zoning that we have built now. And that ultimately it’s the residents should decide when is there 20 enough growth. Again, it cannot go on infinitely. 21 22 And regarding the Palo Alto as a town versus a city I call Palo Alto a town. It may be changing, but I 23 believe it to be a town. If you look at the great cities, the great transport cities they were built, they’ve 24 got zoning of 20 to 50 units per acre. And so that enables say Manhattan to have transit that’s within a 25 five to ten minute walk of just about everybody. And so it, in that case density works great and it draws 26 the services so all residents are I think Commissioner Keller’s quote was service oriented basically. The 27 issue we have here in Palo Alto, and that’s true also of smaller towns along historical rail districts, along 28 Caltrain if you look at the core downtowns along Caltrain before the post war boom. If you look at Marin, 29 Larkspur, Sausalito, Fairfax, all those places have density of probably 20 to 40 units per acre. The 30 change we have, a challenge we have in Palo Alto is the bulk of the town is on 6,000 square foot lots. So 31 that’s like five units per acre. And so if you as we densify the Downtown that means and therefore there 32 will always be with any density there’s not 100 percent usage of transit that means that the impacts to 33 those people who live on 6,000 square foot lots and are not within a quarter mile walking distance to 34 services and transport becomes a significant burden. And so I think we have to be very careful in 35 assuming that this, the density that it, that continued density Downtown or in the identified areas is 36 manageable without horrendous impacts to those people who can’t change their zoning, their on a one of 37 those 6,000 square foot lots. 38 39 I’d also say regarding the transit versus car, cars are I think I actually did the, looked at the numbers. 40 Cars are actually getting quite efficient. If you put four people in a Prius it’s about as fuel efficient carbon 41 efficient as riding the train. There’s an assumption amongst many people that trains and buses are 42 they’re there so there must be no carbon usage, but in fact trains particularly are a big huge things that 43 need to be moved up and down tracks that burn a lot of fuel. So in my mind the non, the move to non-44 car transport is probably more for congestion issues than it is for our carbon footprint. And so my point 45 is that where we have non-TOD here in Palo Alto the car is probably going to be the solution and 46 hopefully we can improve its efficiency. 47 48 Regarding the climate change and the densification of zoning here saving the planet or materially altering 49 climate change I’m very hopeful that that could be the case. I’d like to see that scientifically supported. 50 It may actually make more sense to have seven Fresno’s built with 20 to 50 units per acre for saving the 51 planet than it does us trying to make 20 to 40, 20 to 50 units per acre in our town and therefore 52 potentially causing more and more gridlock. 53 54 And the other, ok that’s my statement. Statements. Then I’d like to go back for the comments. So I 55 would like to make sure that we are considering the future of retail. I mean if you look around you see 56 City of Palo Alto Page 26 how many competitors Google, I think EBay, all these competitors that are about delivering the services 1 to us rather than us going and purchasing the services so I am curious as to how we factor that into a 2 plan during which time we can expect significant changes in how we purchase and obtain goods. 3 4 And one last one; can you tell me regarding the online input for the Comp Plan is that anonymous? 5 6 Ms. Jansen: Users have to register to use the system if you want to provide a comment or respond to a 7 comment you have to register with your name and address. You don’t have to have an address here in 8 Palo Alto. Anyone can register it’s just a process of verifying that there is an actual person and not a 9 robot behind the input that is being received. But once the person registers they have the option of 10 displaying their name or not displaying their name. 11 12 Commissioner King: And so why would we think that that’s appropriate that residents of any town can 13 have equal input on our Comp Plan? 14 15 Ms. Jansen: Sure. There’s, it, there’s not a restriction on registering and people from Palo Alto could 16 register and give comments on another person’s site as well if they wanted to, but what there are online 17 are a number of tools if you go to the online forum and look there are tools where you can map the 18 location of any, not the specific location, but you can map the responses from inside versus outside Palo 19 Alto and that’s another reason for collecting that address information. 20 21 Commissioner King; Oh that’s based on the, but that’s self… they’re not verified by anybody. 22 23 Ms. Jansen: It’s just an automatic, automated verification system that this is a legitimate address, but 24 there’s not a background check to make sure that one person lives at that exact address. 25 26 Commissioner King: Ok, well that’s of some concern to me because it means that we don’t know really 27 who is commenting on our Comp Plan. Thank you. 28 29 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 30 31 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, well lots of good comments. So I have a suggestion that might help. So I’ve 32 been looking at the different concepts, Concept 1, 2, 3, 4. And these concepts are all very kind of like 33 zoning code based, which is not surprising. But I was thinking that rather than making zoning code 34 based maybe what we should do is make it more results based. Like what do we want out of it? So for 35 instance maybe, I mean I guess what I’m trying to say is make it more mission based. So maybe one is 36 Concept 1 although Vice-Chair Keller cynically called it the, I forgot what he called it… business as usual 37 one, ok. Concept 2 maybe is or I guess Concept 2, 3, 4 are all very similar, but basically no growth 38 whatsoever or something to that effect. 39 40 And then maybe there’d be a third concept or a fifth concept, but maybe and it’s kind of a concept I’m 41 going to call like trying to maximize not for no development or de facto, but maybe trying to optimize it 42 for quality of life. And I know that’s extremely subjective and it depends on who you’re talking to, but I 43 think we’ve heard various comments on the Commission and from the attendees tonight, but what do we 44 do to maximize the quality of life? And rather than thinking about it in terms of zoning or in terms of like 45 zero development, development as it is, but what about how do we maximize quality of life? And so I 46 think that’s a hard one because it’s so very subjective, but I’ve listened to a few thoughts and these will 47 probably be controversial so I’d love to get feedback and thoughts on it, but so one of them I do think 48 that the preservation of R1 is important although I do sympathize with the fact that we need housing for 49 seniors as well as the workers, young single workers in the City, but I think that’s actually kind of an 50 important tenant for the City. I think also it’s important to if I and I think Vice-Chair Keller said it very 51 well earlier, which is aside from schools the service that people use most are these retail establishments. 52 I do agree that the nature of retail is changing dramatically and I think about that a lot all the time, but I 53 mean what makes I think Palo Alto great is exciting University Avenue. It’s Cal Ave. it’s being able to 54 walk go somewhere close without having to jump on a train or car and go up to San Francisco, right? I 55 think that’s actually very important. So how do we make this robust, awesome retail experience that’s 56 City of Palo Alto Page 27 second to none that makes this place lively? That makes it a place that we want to live, not just a place 1 we want to retire. And so those are kind of the first two thoughts I’ve been thinking about in terms of 2 how do we get an awesome quality of life. 3 4 I do think preservation of really high quality schools is also important because that’s a service. So I 5 guess how do you maximize kind of the top level of things how do you maximize the highest level of 6 service for everyone? And then the thing about it is how do you sustain these services? And I think so 7 there’s a couple of thoughts there. So one thought is you know I think the tax base in Palo Alto is 8 actually very important. So we, the Chairman and I both served on IBRC and we know the state of our 9 infrastructure and the lack of infrastructure funds and the fact that even though we’re a very wealthy city 10 as individuals, the City itself is not wealthy. I mean compared to a lot of neighboring cities it’s not 11 wealthy at all. So how do you enable a robust sales tax base or tax base so that it allows us to do all of 12 the things that we want to do and have the vibrancy that we all want to live in? And so, so I think 13 thinking about how do we financially make the City strong and robust so we can do the cool things like I 14 think everyone, there’s no one, I don’t think there’s anyone in this room who thinks that Caltrain should 15 be above ground. I don’t think there’s anyone here that thinks that. But the problem is that nobody has 16 a really good answer to how are you going to finance that. I mean could you finance it by selling the 17 space to make office space perhaps, but could you sell the space to… how do you turn a wish into a 18 reality? And so if we had the finances if we are able to monetize the land, if we’re able to make these 19 dreams come true rather than just talk about it I think that’s important. So and because it’s one thing to 20 wish it or to say oh this is our preference, it’s another thing to actually make it happen. And I think 21 making a super high quality of life city is something we should make happen. 22 23 And yeah, so ok. I’d love to get feedback from others on this quality of life concept. 24 25 Chair Michael: Commissioner Rosenblum. 26 27 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah as I mentioned I used my first session… is it on? Ah, there we go. I 28 used my first session for some large hopefully not boring but more high level concepts then moving into 29 specific input for the consultants. And I think this is a really good job and I think it’s easier to engage 30 with these concepts. And I agree with Mr. Levy that it has to get more specific for it to really have teeth 31 and so my comments are really about this now. 32 33 Ideally people really are going to react to impact on traffic, parking, and then finally schools. The schools 34 bit may be outside your scope, but I want to come back to that in a second. And so what I’d love to be 35 able to see is the actual model that you use so the EIR makes mention of the Transportation Demand 36 Model. I’d like to know the inputs and outputs so what inputs and what assumptions do you use? So 37 Vice-Chair Keller brought up an excellent point. I’m glad he’s doing the data research. I’d love to see 38 this that you put a building next to transit that you increase transit use slightly, but you increase car use 39 dramatically. I think that that’s a difficult data point to digest because that means what if I put a building 40 there with no other policies? What if I as we do make sure we have adequate parking for all residents or 41 what if you made sure that all residents had to have Caltrain Go Pass? Would that change the dynamics? 42 Would the input change if it was optimized for younger people who tend to not have cars or people who 43 have families that tend to all have cars and have to use their cars? 44 45 I think all these things change and so I agree, garbage in, garbage out. It’s a great piece of data, but I’d 46 like to see if innovative policies change the assumptions. And in particular I’d like to see the consultant’s 47 models and how they handle these assumptions because I think it’s very subtle. The policies that you 48 have will influence the variables that you use. I’d like to know how we understand those variables. 49 50 Even more specific again we talked about the 55 foot height limit. I completely agree again with Vice-51 Chair Keller that probably 55 came up because people said oh, you need more height in retail ground 52 floor it’s probably four stories. So it’s inconsistent with the comment that the additional height should be 53 used for residential. If that is the case than it has to be even higher, if it’s not the case then you’re 54 talking about a three story building with additional height for residential, but even then I’m not sure it 55 actually makes sense. So that one I think go back and see what the actual logic was. I would say in the 56 City of Palo Alto Page 28 right area I would support a higher height limit. Again taking Bob Moss’ comment to heart, much closer 1 to transit, but again taking Arthur’s comments to heart. Let’s find out what happens under different 2 circumstances and policies to encourage transit use. 3 4 Next, again 27 University I would like it to be in basically all of them except the business as usual where 5 by definition it’s not considered. But it’s such a large and important strategically located parcel it has to 6 be considered. We need a concept that contemplates commercial growth outside of Concept Number 4. 7 Concept Number 4 I view as a pilot program to see if we can get to zero net trips or energy used or 8 some concept of zero net. That’s the only way that has any commercial growth whatsoever. I think it’s a 9 mistake to have no policy specific that would have an increase in commercial cap. As unpalatable as that 10 may be to some people I think it’s if you’re creating a solution set that goes from one end to the other 11 and we’re trying to see all the impacts we’re explicitly not using one of the axis, which is increased 12 commercial space. 13 14 Caltrain I had mentioned. We have Caltrain being discussed only in Option Number 3. It probably needs 15 to be again in all the options except for Number 1. Also you had mentioned it’s from San Antonio to 16 Page Mill. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, in fact if anything it’s from Page Mill through 17 Downtown. And again I admire Vice-Chair Keller’s knowledge of the root systems of redwoods. I think 18 that it’s, it would be great if we (interrupted) [unintelligible Ms. Bunnenberg off microphone]. Oh are 19 they really? Ok, I’m glad you brought that up. I was amazed. 20 21 Ms. Bunnenberg: They were, it was searching for water. 22 23 Commissioner Rosenblum: Oh, is that so? We should feed it on suds. Ok, well (interrupted) 24 25 Ms. Bunnenberg: [Unintelligible] Yeah, so they’re all [unintelligible] around those [unintelligible] that hold 26 up the bridge. 27 28 Chair Michael: So Commissioner Rosenblum has the floor. Thank you very much. 29 30 Commissioner Rosenblum: Sorry, I invited it. It’s my fault. And so finally when we do this model as I’ve 31 asked for so I’ve given some specific inputs on some of the things I think need to get adjusted in the 32 scenarios. We need to rigorously annotate the assumptions. So for example the woman from the 33 Autobahn Society had made a statement saying there have been a lot of net zero proposals, none of 34 them work. I think that that’s demonstrably untrue. There are net zero proposals. Stanford is in our 35 backyard and has had a net zero trips operation for 10 years. I worked at Google for a while. The 36 number of Googlers on campus has increased dramatically. The number of cars has also increased at a 37 much lower rate though through active management of these programs. So with innovative programs 38 there are things that can be done. There are programs that have worked in many areas of the country, 39 but her point is generally correct, which is there’s a lot of flimflam. And so when we have the 40 assumptions it would be good to document why do we believe this is so? Who else has done it, why do 41 we believe it would work in our case, is our case like their case? 42 43 And so the final thing to come back to the things I think are the big tests the two straw men that are 44 always brought up: growth will lead to more traffic so anything around traffic just rigorous annotations I 45 want to see where the assumptions come from, and 2) growth puts unsupportable pressure on our 46 schools. We’re well below the peak population of Palo Alto schools. We’re well above the Nader of Palo 47 Alto schools. I’m not sure that there’s a correlation necessarily between the degradation of schools 48 versus the growth or decline, but again to the extent that it can be thought of this has to be done in 49 conjunction with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). They’ve been very good at projecting their 50 population. I’d be shocked if they are surprised by what’s going on and that the overcrowding schools in 51 inevitable and destructive, but it has to be contemplated. 52 53 Chair Michael: Commissioner Gardias. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 29 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you very much Chair; a couple of points and then a couple of other 1 comments, but first two major points. In terms of some discussions that we had here about raising 2 height what I would like to see in all these plans, right, to giving prioritization of utilization of the existing 3 opportunities. There is so much open space in Palo Alto that taking that space and I’m talking parking 4 lots, garages, unusual lots, right, before we start considering going over limit height, which should be in 5 this sequence, right? Because otherwise if we’re going to start just going over the limits and increasing it 6 it’s easy of course we can do it, right? But then we would be losing that opportunity, which from the 7 planning perspective it may be an opportunity to build more of the retail space, walking area, and so 8 forth, right? I’d like to just see it as a continuous walkable spaces streets on the retail left side and right 9 side, right, as opposed to the higher buildings that have parking or garages between. So that would be 10 one of the priorities. 11 12 And then I can give a couple of examples; for example, we talked in the past about moving cars 13 underground. All this precious retail area that we have is taken by cars. In some buildings it has 14 garages underneath, but they need the ramp and ramp takes majority of the retail or the potential retail 15 area in the ground space or garages, that retail space or some other space for public should be instead. 16 So that’s a great opportunity I would like just make sure that we don’t miss it. Or at least this should be a 17 priority. Have this before some other heights. 18 19 There is also another opportunity that I see here in the plan in the zoning. Zoning that we have in Palo 20 Alto and zoning historically right is pretty much based on the historical, on the historical separation of 21 different land uses. That’s not true today with the material and technology progress. And then also 22 different laws, you can mix them and match them as you please. And then in many areas, in many 23 municipalities mixed zoning it’s standing up and then zones are not for the land separation but rather for 24 regulation of the heights or some other factors, but then larger mixed usage is allowed thus reducing a 25 number of trips, greenhouse gases commuting to the work and so forth,. And of course greater 26 utilization of the parking spaces as well. 27 28 And then so those are just two main points. A couple of other smaller items that when you prepare the 29 studies please just give us some numbers. We would like to see the consequences of all of this, all of 30 this plans that have. It would be for us easy to grasp what is the consequence of Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4. 31 Hopefully we’re going to go away with four, so one, two, and three. Quantify it and just show us some 32 numbers from the perspective of cost, additional population, and so forth. Thank you. 33 34 Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 35 36 Vice-Chair Keller: I think I already went, but I’m going to just add very two, three quick things. Ok, so 37 the first think is that it was mentioned that PAUSD at its peak 15,000 or so students. There are 24 38 elementary schools, 3 high schools, 3 middle schools. Now it’s about over 12,000, which is somewhat 39 over 50 percent where the trough was if you will. There are only about a dozen elementary schools, two 40 high schools; each of these two high schools is at not quite double their original design capacity. And not 41 only that but if you look at the PAUSD projections the ones that came out in December, which I read, it 42 says they assumed no increase in housing. They can’t project housing that doesn’t exist. They only 43 project specific housing units. So when the housing unit is built they project for it. Before the housing 44 unit is built they don’t project for it. So they actually have this drop off if you look at it showing the rate 45 of growth of the housing and what happens is that housing they basically had this nice drop off that 46 happens as the housing gets filled and students flow through the system, but they don’t project out far 47 enough in terms of additional housing. 48 49 And in terms of smaller units I just want to point out that the development that’s replacing Equinox and 50 We Fix Macs is small units. And so there is demand for it in certain circumstances if we zone for it. 51 Thank you. 52 53 Chair Michael: Actually before the public leaves tonight I just wanted to make a very sad announcement 54 that former Chair Eduardo Martinez who preceded me as Chair of the Planning Commission and served 55 with distinction for two terms and was recently honored by the City for service passed away last week. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 30 And so he was a, he had a wonderful sense of compassion, he brought a sense of humor to discussions 1 that were often contentious and controversial and I think many of us also were honored to be his friend 2 and he is, he was a wonderful colleague. So he had a passion for good planning. Hopefully the 3 Comprehensive Plan will honor his passion and will reflect the collective wisdom of the community. He 4 worked a lot on the Land Use Element proposed revision. I would just note that perhaps the Land Use 5 Element is the place where we should identify the need for any specific plans for Downtown or specific or 6 precise plans South El Camino, East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, and East Embarcadero. 7 8 Commenting on the alternative futures I think this has almost been completely covered by my colleagues 9 and by the public. I think that the Alternative Number 1 the do nothing or business as usual, well it just 10 left me with one big question and that’s the reference, the causal reference that the Downtown 11 Development Cap would be just exceeded. I think that this is too important of a policy for that statement 12 to be left hanging there. I think that we should understand exactly what the enforcement of this policy 13 would be or if it needs to be strengthened with an ordinance or a Downtown specific plan. My personal 14 bias is the Alternative Future Number 1 is not my favorite nor is the Number 2, the slow growth. And 15 again I’m not seeing many takers in my suggestion that we substitute the metaphor of change for growth 16 because I think I’m willing to work with the concept of growth because obviously this is meaningful to 17 most of us if not all of us, but I don’t think it’s parsed in terms of what it actually means sufficiently. So 18 does this mean population increase? Does it mean absolute number of employees as tabulated in a 19 business registry against some ongoing metric of sorts? Does it mean non-residential square footage 20 divided further into retail and office? Does it mean housing units? But I think that if growth at some 21 level slow, slower, slowest, rapid is the topic we should be more precise. 22 23 Option Number 3, which my notes is slow development but focused housing in transit served areas I 24 think that the question that I’ve always had about the transit and how it serves us is that it’s almost it’s 25 dominated by intercity commuting transit. And it’s not, doesn’t recognize any particular infrastructure 26 associated with intra-city movement. And I think that one of the changes in the way we live and work is 27 that many of us don’t commute intercity. This may be us being fortunate, but I think that for example 28 most of us came here probably other than Commissioner Alcheck on his skateboard we probably drove 29 here because there is no intra-city transit that is efficient. So I think if you’re going to have focus on 30 transit served areas I think that we ought to broaden what transit served means. And I think it ought to 31 include intra-city transit. 32 33 And the two things that disappointed me in Number 3, which was otherwise probably my preferred 34 bucket was the notion that the ideas in the California Avenue Area Concept Plan would be validated in 35 terms of keeping California Avenue low scale. And putting off my impartial fiduciary role as Chair of the 36 Commission I would prefer to see California Avenue sort of more vibrant a little bit higher scale. And I 37 think that that would provide some more mixed use, more opportunities for retail, more leveraging of 38 transit and perhaps evening putting City Hall and the Public Safety Building there would be an 39 improvement in the allocation of resources of the City. Likewise for the what came out of the workshops 40 I was disappointed that in this notion of walkability and sort of clustering things around sort of villages 41 that are scattered around the City, places like Midtown and Charleston Plaza seem to be opportunities for 42 bolstering what’s there that people could use, walk to, and maybe even allow for a little more density, 43 more height. 44 45 And I think I said pretty much everything else in the first round and I’m going to yield to Commissioner 46 Alcheck. 47 48 Commissioner Alcheck: There was one other comment I wanted to make about and you just reminded 49 me about it and I’ve been thinking about it all week, which is I was sort of hoping that out of the Our 50 Palo Alto meetings there would be an opportunity to explore this notion of a limitation on chain stores, 51 particularly in a California Avenue specific environment. I mention that because San Francisco has 52 implemented chain store limitations in several areas of the City and people often describe San Francisco 53 as being a retail rainforest. You look at Hayes Valley or the Mission for example you won’t find stores 54 that have more than 10 locations nationwide. What that does is it changes the way an investor or a 55 developer looks at a project. They’re not building it for a Chipotle or a McDonald’s or a Gap, they’re 56 City of Palo Alto Page 31 building it for a potentially local business owner. What I’m hoping exploring that idea will do is it will 1 encourage potentially an alternative that considers growth in for example the California Avenue area, 2 mixed-use growth, but it does so in a way that alleviates some of the concern that there won’t be a place 3 for our mom and pop businesses. So I just wanted to add, I’m not sure how to incorporate that in the 4 alternatives we have. I also agree with my colleagues here that there should be an alternative that 5 explores those growth options potentially with certain policies in place that affect the growth in a way 6 that is palatable. That’s it. 7 8 Chair Michael: So I had forgotten to make one comment, which doesn’t respond directly to your 9 alternatives and that is as one comes to study the Comp Plan it takes a while to figure out where to find 10 stuff. And what I heard from coming out of the workshops were a number of pretty articulate concerns 11 that should be in the Comp Plan and should be easy to find. And I’m not sure where they go in terms of 12 mapping them to the elements or to the alternatives that you’ve laid out, which may be useful for moving 13 this forward. But the concerns that I noted from the workshops and this was just in the materials that 14 everybody had, quality of life in Palo Alto, livability, dealing with traffic congestion, enhancing transit, 15 housing cost and affordability, growth management or change management, utilizing a relationship with 16 Stanford and neighboring cities, some notion of what’s the target jobs/housing ratio whether that’s an 17 imbalance or there’s something ideal, something about the Palo Alto process and the importance of trust 18 with the public transparency, governance, engagement, and so forth I think is coming out of these 19 workshops is one of the elements in the Comp Plan. Dealing with the aging infrastructure from those of 20 us who suffered or served on IBRC; we had 300 meetings. Open space, what’s the strategy relative to 21 density or lack thereof, and then Transit Demand Management, Transportation Management 22 Associations… TDM/TMA for you TLA fans. But I think that if there are key concerns we ought to figure 23 out how to map them to what we publish and so somebody who wants to focus on livability can find 24 what’s relevant to that. And maybe it’s in the glossary or maybe it’s right up front. Maybe it’s in the 25 structure of some innovative way of presenting the Comp Plan. 26 27 I’d like to thank everybody who showed up tonight who listened and commented. Thank my colleagues, 28 thank staff, consultants. I have more confidence after this evening’s discussion in what will be the end 29 result than I think I’ve had for the last several years. So hopefully that’s shared. We’re about to go into 30 some housekeeping items. Maybe we’ll take a five minute break while people can relocate. 31 32 Ms. Gitelman: And Chair Michael if I can just for the benefit of everybody talk about the next steps? We 33 talked about it before the August 4th City Council meeting is our next step. We’re soliciting input on these 34 concepts, these four concepts between now and then. We’d love that input. We have to decide based 35 on your input this evening and the public’s input this evening whether we start making changes before 36 this gets to Council. My instinct is that yes we should. We should reflect all of this and continue to 37 evolve and change these alternatives until the Council sees them. It might create some confusion 38 because we’ve asked people to comment on this version, but I think that’s ok. We’re at the part of the 39 process where all of the input we get will be valuable in starting to winnow down the ideas and get to 40 one final set of alternatives. So I thank you all for the input. I’m… we’ll have to see what we can do to 41 open up the hood and get a lot of the ideas you’ve articulated into one or more of these concepts as they 42 move forward. Thank you. 43 44 Chair Michael: Ok, so quick break and then we’ll do some housekeeping. 45 46 Commission Action: No action taken, provided comment and suggestions only. 47 March 17 May 5 August 4 Early 2015 Mid‐2015 Late‐2015   DESIGN   Lead‐In  • Baseline Data Report •Website re‐launch •Orientation Document • NOP released Visioning •Our Palo Alto • Community  Meetings • Online Engagement •Alternative Futures Draft CPU  & EIR • Public review •EIR workshop • Online Engagement •Out to the community  campaign Final CPU  & EIR • Public Review • Incorporation of  comments • Public Hearings User's  Guide • online tool City Council Review April – May 2014 Aug – Nov 2015 2016May – August 2014 Dec – July 2015 WE ARE HERE:  Convene Leadership Group   Conclude Alternative Futures Discussion   Disseminate Baseline Data   Begin EIR analysis  Our Pal O a lt O 2030 An Orientation ATTACHMENT H 3 Contents 1. o ur Growing Region 4 2. How to Get Involved in the Plan Update: o ur Palo Alto 2030 6 3. the Land Use and Community Design element 8 4. t he transportation element 10 5. t he natural and Urban environment and s afety element 12 6. t he Community s ervices and Facilities element 14 7. t he Business and economics element 16 8. t he Housing element 18 9. t he Governance Chapter 19 10. Accompanying Concept Plans 20 Source: siliconvalleyindex.org Population Growth 2012-2013 SANTA CLARA & SAN MATEO COUNTIES CALIFORNIA 2,562,760 2,596,396 37,872,431 38,204,597 JULY 2012 JULY 2013 +1.31% +0.88% % CHANGE HOusing As incomes in Silicon Valley approach pre-recession levels, rents and sales prices for residential property are increasing. Even with significant new residential development in the region, the percentage of first time homebuyers that can afford to live where they work dropped last year after six straight years of improvement. Also, as of the latest available Census data from 2012, about one-third of Palo Alto households, including 40% of renters, were “overpaying” for housing by spending more than 30% of their combined incomes on housing costs. All indications are that this trend has become even more pronounced over the past two years. And, according to the Silicon Valley Index, more people are coming here than at almost any time over the past three decades: the regional population grew about 1.5 times as fast as it did statewide last year, with a net regional influx unparalleled since 1997. WOrk Employment in Silicon Valley is growing across almost all commercial and industrial sectors. Rising venture capital investment in local companies, innovations in science and engineering, and renewed small-business loan activity are contributing to a new phase of regional job growth. Office space is the predominate form of new commercial development. Increased job growth and commercial development, while good for the regional economy, create conditions that impact our city. Perhaps most strikingly, most of the employees at both new and established jobs —about 75% of the Silicon Valley workforce—are driving to work alone. Independent of commuting to jobs in Palo Alto from other places in Santa Clara County, at last count about 55,000 people from Santa Clara County commute northward through Palo 1 oUR GRow In G ReGIon Renewed prosperity, growth, and opportunity have returned to Palo Alto and the Silicon Valley region. These positive developments come with associated complications, including development pressures, traffic congestion, and parking scarcity. Accordingly, we need a plan for Palo Alto that recognizes this context, preserves our quality of life, and charts a course for our future. The plan must define where and how Palo Alto will grow, and how the City can maintain its global reputation for innovation and still be a livable, sustainable community for generations to come. The pressures of regional growth and change mean that doing nothing—that is, not updating the current Comprehensive Plan—is simply not an option. 5 San FranciscoCounty San MateoCounty Santa ClaraCounty 75,426 55,044 41,430 21,644 41,919 13,503 Regional Commute Patterns Source: siliconvalleyindex.org Source: siliconvalleyindex.org Silicon Valley Employment Growth by Major Areas of Economic Activity Percent Change in Q2 (year-on-year) COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES INNOVATION AND INFORMATION PRODUCTS & SERVICES +3.0% +2.9% +3.4% +2.1% BUSINESS INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES +3.8% +6.4% OTHER MANUFACTURING +4.4% +3.1% TOTALEMPLOYMENT +2.8% +3.4% 2011-2012 2012-2013 Alto. Meanwhile, more than 75,000 people commute south from homes on the Peninsula and in San Francisco, also primarily into and/or through Palo Alto. Some of these commuters are opting to use Middlefield Road, Alma Street, El Camino Real and other Palo Alto roadways to avoid traffic on Highway 101 and Interstate 280. sustainability Palo Alto residents and City officials are environmentally proactive. Solar installations, alternative-power vehicle use, and utilization of recycled water are ever-increasing at local homes, businesses, and government facilities. Electricity consumption is trending downward locally, and the City-owned utility now provides only carbon-neutral power, some of it generated in Palo Alto and all of it within California. As another measure of both our commitment to the environment and the importance of the city’s special places, our multi-modal transit stations make Palo Alto second only to San Francisco in Caltrain ridership. The fact that our highly transit-accessible business districts are complemented by a variety of residential neighborhoods, an abundance of parks and community facilities, and hillside and bayfront open space defines the truly unique character of Palo Alto, as well as what’s at stake if we don’t plan properly to protect these precious resources. So how do we manage the pressures of growth while preserving the quality of life, neighborhoods, open space, and the environment in Palo Alto? The solutions will come from us, the Palo Alto community, and will be embodied in our Comprehensive Plan—Our Palo Alto 2030. They include playing a meaningful role in decisions involving Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Caltrain, Stanford, and Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, and helping the region to embrace prescriptions for improving our health by substituting walking, biking, transit use, and carpooling as much and as often as we can for single- occupant automobile trips that crowd our streets and require ever-more parking. Put simply, Our Palo Alto 2030 must reflect our agreement as a community regarding the contribution to resolving our traffic and parking issues that will be required of new growth or development before it is allowed to be approved. How to Get Invo LveD In tH e PLAn U PDAte:Our Pal O a lt O 2030 The Comprehensive Plan is the primary tool for guiding preservation and development in Palo Alto. It builds on shared community values and aspirations to guide preservation and to manage growth and change. The Plan fulfills the State requirement that the City adopt a General Plan to serve as its constitution, with internally consistent goals and policies that reflect the community’s priorities regarding land use, circulation, conservation, housing, open space, noise, and safety. The Plan provides a foundation for the City’s development regulations, capital improvements program, and day-to-day decisions. The current revisions will bring all the Plan Elements up to date, address changing demographic, economic and environmental conditions, and look forward to 2030. The Housing Element is being updated separately to meet a January 2015 deadline set by the State. The Comprehensive Plan was last updated from 1998 to 2002, with the intent of being re-examined by 2010. City Staff and consultants started work with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) in late 2008 to review each Element and to shape conceptual plans for the California Avenue/Fry’s and the East Meadow Circle/ Fabian Way areas. From then until recently, the PTC has carefully reviewed each Element. As needed amendments have been identified to create a clearer, more cohesive document, the update program has grown to include changing the format and organization of the Plan. Ext End Ed Public rE vi EW Meanwhile, renewed development pressures have exacerbated concerns about traffic, parking, and other quality of life issues in Palo Alto. Accordingly, the City is initiating a new community dialog to ensure that the updated Plan, to be called Our Palo Alto 2030, is a blueprint for preservation, change, and growth management over the next two decades that truly reflects our collective community vision. The newly expanded process includes a series of phases that efficiently integrate the planning and environmental review components of the update: »»The Lead-In phase will involve collecting detailed background data to inform the community and updating the project website to post the findings. »»The Visioning phase will introduce the community to Our Palo Alto 2030, engages residents in conversations about critical challenges, determines the scope of environmental review, and develops three alternative futures for detailed study. »»The Draft Plan and Draft EIR will present draft policies, programs, alternative futures, and mitigation strategies. Extensive public input will help shape these for consideration by the City Council. »»The Final Plan and EIR will incorporate substantive public comments for consideration and finalization by the PTC and City Council in late 2015. »»A User’s Guide in print and interactive online forms will explain how the City will use Our Palo Alto 2030; how its goals, policies, and programs will affect the community; and how the Plan can be amended in the future. 2 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 User’s Guide » Baseline Data Report » Website Update » NOP Released » Community Meetings » Online Engagement » Alternative Futures » EIR Workshops » Online Engagement » Out to the Community Campaign » Additional Public Review » Incorporation of Comments » Public Hearings » Online Companion Draft Plan & EIR Lead-In Final Plan & EIR Visioning 7 General Plan Update Elements State-Mandated Element Current Comprehensive Plan Our Palo Alto 2030 LAND USE CIRCULATION LAND USE & COMMUNITY DESIGN TRANSPORTATION HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION SAFETY NOISE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT BUSINESS & ECONOMICS COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES LAND USE & COMMUNITY DESIGN NATURAL & URBAN ENVIRONMENT & SAFETY BUSINESS & ECONOMICS COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES TRANSPORTATION a c Ontinuum Of Engag EmEnt The City is offering a variety of engagement tools and techniques to create a welcoming and interactive environment for the community to share ideas and concerns about what should be addressed in Our Palo Alto 2030. These opportunities range from informal discussions with City officials and staff to online surveys and community meetings. The engagement opportunities are scheduled throughout the planning process and tailored to each phase. For instance, during the Visioning phase, emphasis is placed on community meetings and online input to inform the development of alternative futures. Public involvement activities will build awareness, encourage comment on vital issues, and promote participation by Palo Altans who might not otherwise get involved. The City welcomes your voice in improving our efforts. If you would like City staff to speak to your neighborhood organization, service club, or other group, please let us know at:www.paloaltocomplan.org. A Blueprint for the Future: Put the Plan into action with informed decision-making Regulate the pace and location of growth Identify and prioritize existing challenges and opportunities Goals Policies Programs In-depth focus on specific concerns Virtual meetings, surveys, forums, etc. Planning & Transportation Commission, City Council Events, street stalls, coffee times, etc. COMMUNIT Y M E E T I N G S G O O U T T O T H E PEOPLE P U B L I C H E A RINGS ONLINE E N G A G E M E N T tH e LAn D Use An D Comm Un Ity Des IGn eLement The Land Use and Community Design Element is the guiding force behind the physical form of our city. It lays out a framework for conservation and development to preserve neighborhoods, protect historic and natural resources, channel growth and commercial activity to suitable sites, respond to climate change, reduce pollution, and promote active and healthy lifestyles. State law requires a Land Use Element to establish the location and intensity of housing, business, industry, open space, recreation, natural resources, and public facilities. The added Community Design component reflects a special interest in Palo Alto in maintaining historic integrity and enriching the built environment. Commercial Multi-Family Residential Research/Office Park Open Space/Controlled Development Mixed Use 0.2% 0.8% Land Use Distribution Light Industrial 24% 3%3% 19% 6% 2% School District Land 42%Public Conservation Land/Park/Open Space Single Family Residential 3 Vision Statement Palo Alto’s land use decisions shall balance our future growth needs with the preservation of our neighborhoods, address climate protection priorities, focus on sustainable development near neighborhood services, and enhance the quality of life in our community. 9 tHE c urr Ent Plan: a sOlid fO undati On Palo Alto was an early adopter of compact development principles, as embodied in the Urban Service Area designated to manage growth in the current Comprehensive Plan. Through this strategy, the City has endeavored to direct new development into appropriate locations—such as along transit corridors and near employment centers—while protecting and preserving low-scale residential neighborhoods and open space lands that together comprise about 80% of the city. The Land Use and Community Design Element identifies the residential areas, commercial centers, and employment districts that together constitute the city’s “structure.” Understanding how these parts of the community are connected to each other and the region is essential to resolving transportation and traffic issues and ensuring that businesses can thrive in places where they can serve residents and visitors without increasing impacts on neighborhoods. As the appearance of buildings and public spaces greatly affects how people experience Palo Alto, the Element calls for high-quality design to encourage social gathering in attractive settings. The existing Land Use and Community Design Element is ably supporting the community’s objectives for growth management, and its cornerstone policy themes will be carried forward to guide future land use decisions, including: »»Supporting the city’s future needs by accommodating an appropriate mix and amount of residential, commercial, and employment uses within the Urban Service Area. »»Maintaining and enhancing Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods, while ensuring that new development respects existing neighborhood character. »»Providing adequate public services and facilities, parks, and open space. »»Reducing emissions through energy efficiency standards and land use decisions that support walking, biking, and transit. »»Fostering high quality design by improving streetscapes, maintaining and increasing connectivity, and enhancing gateways. »»Preserving and protecting historic buildings and cultural and natural resources. Our Pal O alt O 2030 The updated Plan is intended to build on the solid foundation of the existing Land Use and Community Design Element to direct growth, provide clear development standards, reexamine the growth caps for the City and Downtown, and focus on the relationship between infrastructure, transportation investments, land use, and development. The updated Element is expected to respond to emerging trends and community concerns, including by: »»Limiting the conversion of retail to residential use. »»Requiring proposed development to demonstrate that adequate public services are available and that its design supports walking, biking, and transit. »»Instituting new California Green Building Code requirements. »»Distributing priority infrastructure improvements equitably across the city. »»Providing infrastructure to strengthen Downtown as a regional economic center. »»Expanding the City’s tree network, and restoring the Baylands. »»Meeting the City’s adopted greenhouse gas reduction targets. The Land Use and Community Design Element also will include maps and diagrams to depict densities and distribution of land uses. What do you think? Share your thoughts at: www.paloaltocompplan.org tHE c urr Ent Plan: a sOlid fO undati On The Transportation Element lays the foundation for a multi-modal circulation network that serves vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. Transportation and land use are inextricably linked, as higher density and mixed use generally lead to more transit usage and pedestrian activity. The Transportation Element encourages a land use pattern that supports reduced dependence on cars and guides City decision-makers to take into account the environmental and social costs of increased traffic when considering future projects. The Element capitalizes on the fact that Palo Alto is the second largest generator of weekday Caltrain trips behind San Francisco and a nationally recognized leader in innovative bicycle projects and programs. Transportation Element policies call for more northeast-southwest bike routes, easier navigation at railroad tracks and freeways, and better accommodation for bicycles on trains and buses. Much of Palo Alto is ideal for pedestrians, but tH e tRA ns Po Rt At Ion eLement The State requires this Element to address transport of people and goods and related infrastructure such as streets and highways, truck and transit routes, bus and rail stations, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and airports. Its policies take into account the physical, social, and economic effects of circulation, as well as regional impacts and coordination needs. The Element supports traffic safety, roadway improvement, parking and transportation management solutions, special transportation needs for mobility-impaired persons, and efforts to increase bus and rail use. A significant focus of the Transportation Element is congestion, which contributes to air, water, and noise pollution, and to frustration for drivers, bicyclists, and other travelers. Increases in roadway capacity are not anticipated in Palo Alto, so the Transportation Element addresses congestion with policies aimed at reducing automobile dependency, increasing travel alternatives, and encouraging fewer trips. Change in Per Capita Transit Use, 2010-2013 San Mateo & Santa Clara Counties TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPOTATION AUTHORITY �VTA� ALL SERVICE 16.69 0.38 5.57 4.79 16.74 0.53 4.73 6.05 0.3% 38.3% �15.1% 26.4% EXPRESS BUS SERVICE SAM TRANS CALTRAIN 2010 PER CAPITA RIDERSHIP 2013 PER CAPITA RIDERSHIP PERCENTCHANGE 4 Vision Statement Maintain and promote a sustainable network of safe, accessible and efficient transportation and parking solutions for all users and modes, while protecting and enhancing the quality of life in Palo Alto neighborhoods including alternative and innovative transportation practices and supporting regional transit facilities and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. 11 Our Pal O alt O 2030 The effort to update the Comprehensive Plan is expected to build on the forward-thinking Transportation Element, fine-tuning it to respond to emerging trends and community concerns, including by: »»Requiring proposed development to demonstrate that adequate public services are available and that its design supports walking, biking, and transit. »»Supporting reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and promoting electric and alternative fuel vehicle technology. »»Reinforcing “complete streets” concepts and policies to position the City to qualify for regional grant funding. »»Supporting Caltrain modernization, including by exploring the potential for grade-separated crossings. »»Supporting the regional Grand Boulevard Initiative for El Camino Real, including Bus Rapid Transit Improvements to enhance VTA service. »»Transitioning the Municipal Airport from County to City control. »»Strengthening policies on preservation of neighborhood residential streets, Safe Routes to School, and general traffic safety. additional policies emphasize filling in gaps in the sidewalk system and making intersection crossing easier. The Transportation Element in the Comprehensive Plan continues to support the community’s vision of a less congested and more walkable, transit-rich environment, with the majority of its policies being carried over into Our Palo Alto 2030, including: »»Reducing auto use through carpooling, increased emphasis on electronic information services, and education about transportation alternatives. »»Encouraging employers to develop shuttle services connecting employment areas with the multi-modal transit stations and business districts. »»Supporting efforts to integrate train, bus, and shuttle schedules at multi-modal transit stations to make public transit use more time-efficient. »»Acquiring easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through new private developments. »»Reducing neighborhood street and intersection widths and widening planting strips to slow speeds and improve safety. »»Providing sufficient parking in business districts to address long-range needs.What do you think? Share your thoughts at: www.paloaltocompplan.org Vision Statement Palo Alto shall preserve its ecosystems, including its open space, creeks, habitats, and air quality while working towards a sustainable urban environment of urban forests, water quality, waste disposal reduction, emergency preparedness, community safety and a plan for climate change mitigation. tH e nA t URAL An D URBAn env IRonment An D sAF ety eLement The Natural Environment Element in the Comprehensive Plan addresses the management of open land and natural resources in Palo Alto and the protection of life and property from natural hazards. It is one of the broadest elements of the Comprehensive Plan, satisfying the requirements for four of the State- mandated General Plan elements: 5 »»Open Space—with policies describing the use of open space for the preservation of natural resources, the managed production of natural resources, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety. »»Conservation—with policies to protect creeks and riparian areas, wetlands, the urban forest, water resources, wildlife, and air quality; to regulate and limit the use and transport of hazardous materials; and to minimize solid waste disposal and promote clean energy. »»Safety—with policies describing how exposure will be reduced to natural hazards such as earthquakes, flooding, and wildfires. »»Noise—with policies to decrease exposure to undesirable levels of noise in the community. tHE c urr Ent Plan: a sO lid fO undati On Palo Alto has vast open space resources for a city of our size. The Natural Environment Element seeks to protect the 29 neighborhood and district parks, large holdings in the Baylands, Foothills Park, Montebello and Arastradero Preserves, and Barron, Matadero, and San Francisquito Creeks. All of these areas provide important habitat, scenic, and recreational value. With more than 300 tree species, Palo Alto’s urban forest is an extension of the natural woodland and grassland plant communities and provides a bridge for wildlife between the foothills and the Bay. The Element supports this resource both for its biological benefits and contribution to the aesthetic appeal of Palo Alto. The Natural Environment Element has also proven effective in protecting the health and safety of our community by limiting noise and exposure to hazards. Most of its policies will be carried over into Our Palo Alto 2030, including: 13 32% 43% 28% 29% 38% 30% RecyclableMaterials Items Found in Palo Alto Garbage Bins Recyclable Materials CompostableMaterialsCompostableMaterials GarbageGarbage 20132005 »»Seeking opportunities for adding open space, including connections between Skyline Ridge and San Francisco Bay. »»Re-establishing riparian and other natural features that have been diminished by development, and protecting surface and ground water from pollutants. »»Expanding the urban forest, including by requiring development to provide landscaping and street trees. »»Conserving water and energy, and securing long- term water supplies and renewable, clean energy. »»Reducing waste, recycling construction materials, and encouraging reusable, returnable, recyclable, and repairable goods. »»Protecting the community from noise, air pollution, hazardous chemicals, and natural hazards. Our Pal O alt O 2030 To better describe its importance and, in light of new issues and trends that have emerged subsequent to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Our Palo Alto 2030 is expected to feature a renamed Natural and Urban Environment and Safety Element, with added major concepts, including: »»Monitoring and adapting to impacts caused by climate change. »»Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. »»Emphasizing and supporting community emergency preparedness. »»Protecting sensitive habitat from human threats. »»Balancing conservation with improved open space access and encouraging low impact recreational use. »»Addressing State regulations requirements for transportation noise generated from roadways, airways, and railways, and limiting construction noise around sensitive receptors. What do you think? Share your thoughts at: www.paloaltocompplan.org tH e Comm Un Ity s eRv ICes An D FACILIt Ies eLement The Community Services and Facilities Element is not a State requirement. It is added to the Comprehensive Plan to reinforce the significance and importance of services like libraries and schools in Palo Alto and the vital role they play in shaping community life. Vision Statement This generation must invest in the people, places, programs, and environment of Palo Alto to ensure that the quality and vitality of community services and facilities are present and responsive to the generations to come. 6 Palo Alto is a full-service City, with park and recreation divisions and police and fire departments, library and cultural arts programs, and youth, senior and childcare services. In each of these areas, the City is committed to providing responsive customer service for residents and businesses, even going so far in this Element to specify staff management techniques, performance review criteria, and public contact processes in an effort to ensure the quality of service delivery. tHE c urr Ent Plan: a sO lid fO undati On Palo Alto residents have access to a rich array of public services that cater to all ages, cultures, and levels of mobility and education. The City provides a range of direct services to all citizens, and also partners with community organizations and jurisdictions to assist those with disabilities. Palo Altans also have access to cultural and recreational opportunities on the adjacent campus of Stanford University. The Community Services and Facilities Element calls for maintaining and enhancing all of the services, and it supports the excellent schools run by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), an independent local government institution separate from the City of Palo Alto. The Community Services and Facilities Element acknowledges that parks and recreational and social services play a significant role in shaping a healthy and dynamic community and calls for the City to encourage and enhance access for all Palo Altans. The Element also recognizes that there are fiscal limits to what the City can provide and calls for collaboration with outside agencies and jurisdictions to fill any service gaps. The Community Services and Facilities Element provides a solid framework to help the City deliver the services required to meet the needs of the community and add to quality of life in Palo Alto. The majority of its policy themes are expected to be carried forward into Our Palo Alto 2030 to continue to maintain and strengthen public services, including: »»Providing services that meet the needs of all cultures, ages, and abilities. »»Meeting fiscal challenges by partnering with other agencies, jurisdictions, non-profits, and businesses. »»Partnering with PAUSD to maximize the use of school facilities for community use during non- school hours. »»Maintaining parks and facilities so they can be enjoyed by future generations. »»Ensuring and expanding access to recreational and public services for disabled and low-income residents. »»Locating public facilities and services near children and seniors. »»Expanding new parks and community facilities to meet the needs of a growing community. 15 Our Pal O alt O 2030 In light of new issues and trends that have emerged since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Community Services and Facilities Element in Our Palo Alto 2030 is expected to include major new concepts, including: »»Advocating for healthy lifestyles for all residents. »»Helping teens combat depression, isolation, stress, and other mental health issues. »»Expanding programs to engage seniors in the community. »»Encouraging universal access to parks, public places, and community facilities. »»Carrying out the recommendations of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee regarding the potential need for new and/or upgraded public facilities. What do you think? Share your thoughts at: www.paloaltocompplan.org Vision Statement Palo Alto supports a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship that welcomes innovators, entrepreneurs, business professionals, the University, visitors and the community. The City’s business policies, balanced economic goals, vibrant downtown, and diverse local and regional-serving businesses combine to stimulate and support viable business opportunities. tH e BUs Iness An D eConom ICs eLement The Business and Economics Element is not required by State law, but it is just as important as the mandated elements in shaping the future of Palo Alto. Renowned globally for innovation in research and technology, Palo Alto also has regional commercial districts and neighborhood shopping centers that play a major role in local quality of life. The Element offers policies that emphasize diversity, growth, and flexibility of businesses, as well as compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses, including residential neighborhoods. 7 tHE c urr Ent Plan: a sO lid fO undati On The City has long acknowledged that revenue generation and other positive effects of business growth have the potential to be offset by impacts on the community, especially concerning traffic and parking but also including loss of community character if not properly addressed. Accordingly, the Element calls for modest economic growth in balance with preservation of residential neighborhoods. In addition to growth limits, the City uses zoning, development review, environmental review, coordinated area plans, and other planning tools to maintain compatibility between residential and nonresidential areas. The Business and Economics Element has helped lead to successful efforts to attract and retain commercial activities that fit with—and are prized by—our community. The majority of its policy directions are proposed to appear in Our Palo Alto 2030, including: »»Maintaining distinct business districts as a means of retaining local services and diversifying the City’s economic base. »»Ensuring that neighborhood shopping areas, including California Avenue, are attractive, accessible, and convenient to nearby residents. »»Promoting public/private partnerships as a means of revitalizing selected areas and providing community benefits and services. »»Supporting advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that facilitate the growth of emerging industries. »»Encouraging pedestrian-oriented neighborhood retail along El Camino Real. The Element also recognizes the important role that Stanford University plays in our local economy as the largest employer in Palo Alto and as an incubator of new technologies that have helped make Palo Alto a global leader in innovation. The policy framework in the Element supports Stanford Research Park as a thriving employment district and seeks to sustain Stanford Shopping Center as a major regional commercial attraction. 17 Our Pal O alt O 2030 The Plan update will assess growth management strategies, including potential alternatives to the citywide development cap in the current Comprehensive Plan. Policies will ensure that economic prosperity does not result in unconstrained growth and unacceptable impacts on Palo Alto neighborhoods. Other policy guidance proposed for inclusion in the Business and Economics Element in Our Palo Alto 2030 includes: »»Encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation. »»Enhancing and diversifying the retail mix through business retention and attraction. »»Developing positive parking solutions for businesses in California Avenue and Downtown. »»Support for creation of business registry. »»Enhancing Palo Alto’s appeal to visitors and tourists. »»Replacing the cap on non-residential development in the City and in Downtown with an updated or alternative growth management strategy. What do you think? Share your thoughts at: www.paloaltocompplan.org tH e Ho Us In G eLement The Housing Element is required by State law, and ensuring its consistency with the other Elements, especially Land Use and Community Design, is very important. Its primary purpose is to ensure that the City addresses changing housing needs in Palo Alto by identifying sufficient opportunities to provide housing for all economic segments of the community. 2007-14 Housing Element Vision Statement “Our housing and neighborhoods shall enhance the livable human environment for all residents, be accessible to civic and community services and sustain our natural resources.” 8 Housing Elements are updated on a State-mandated schedule that does not apply to the other Elements. The City must complete its Housing Element update for the period 2015-2023 and have it accepted by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by the end of January 2015. As a result, the Housing Element will be adopted as a separate document from Our Palo Alto 2030, although the City can consider additional amendments to the Housing Element when it adopts Our Palo Alto 2030 if those amendments are acceptable to HCD. The Housing Element must contain: »»An evaluation of existing housing needs. »»Estimates of projected housing needs. »»A review of goals and programs from the previous Housing Element. »»An inventory of adequate sites for housing and an evaluation of infrastructure condition and requirements. »»Identification of any governmental and non- governmental constraints on housing production. »»Programs to address identified needs. »»Quantifiable objectives for construction, rehabilitation and conservation of housing. Community Workshops on the 2015-2023 Housing Element were held in April 2014. Anyone interested may continue to submit comments via the City’s website or at public hearings on the Draft Housing Element, which run through November 2014. Vision Statement Palo Alto will maintain a positive civic image and be a leader in the regional, state, and national policy discussions affecting the community. The City will work with neighboring communities to address common concerns and pursue common interests. The public will be actively and effectively involved in City affairs, both at the Citywide and neighborhood levels. Where appropriate, the City Council will delegate decision-making responsibilities to local boards and commissions. The Council will also assign advisory roles to these bodies as well as other community groups. Residents, businesses, and elected and appointed officials will work collaboratively to address the issues facing the City in a timely manner. This inclusive, participatory process will help build a sense of community. tH e Gove Rn An Ce CHAPteR The Governance Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan goes beyond the State-required Elements to affirm Palo Alto’s commitment to public participation in decision-making. The Chapter informs citizens about how to participate in government, and it provides guidance to City staff and officials carrying out the policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan. The Chapter describes how local planning decisions are made, profiles the City’s governing bodies and staff departments, and includes goals, policies, and programs to ensure that inclusion and clarity surround all City decisions. 9 The City offers many opportunities for citizens to participate in governance through a variety of boards and commissions that advise the City Council, and in some cases are responsible for final decisions on project proposals. These include the: »»Architectural Review Board »»Historic Resources Board »»Human Relations Commission »»Library Advisory Commission »»Parks and Recreation Commission »»Planning and Transportation Commission »»Public Art Commission »»Storm Drain Oversight Committee »»Utilities Advisory Commission Palo Altans also have a voice in regional planning via the City Council members that represent the community in organizations such as the Santa Clara County Cities Association, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Governance Chapter embodies Palo Alto‘s commitment to conducting City business in a collaborative and transparent manner. Its objectives will be featured in the Executive Summary for Our Palo Alto 2030, its policies will be carried over in the updated Plan, and it will inform the Our Palo Alto 2030 User’s Guide. The Governance Chapter’s initiatives include: »»Building relationships among City staff and officials and neighborhood groups. »»Providing access to information via all available media. »»Encouraging volunteers, including youth and seniors, to provide community services. »»Developing innovative new planning processes that emphasize collaborative exchanges of ideas. »»Providing decision-makers and residents with clear tools for understanding planning regulations. ACCom PAny In G Con CePt PLAns c alif Ornia av Enu E a r Ea In conjunction with the creation of Our Palo Alto 2030, a conceptual plan is being developed to guide future land use in the area between Cambridge Avenue, the railroad tracks, Lambert Avenue, and El Camino Real. This area is home to a number of important landmarks, destinations, and popular local institutions. Through community input, three distinct subareas have been identified where change can be accommodated: California Avenue, Park Boulevard, and the Fry’s site. 10 The California Avenue Area Concept Plan weaves together a variety of prior planning initiatives for the area, including Caltrain station area development regulations, streetscape improvements, a design guidelines update, designation as a Priority Development Area, and a rail corridor study, together in a unified vision to guide future change while preserving and enhancing the quality of life in nearby residential neighborhoods. Developed on the basis of public input received during a series of four community meetings between 2010 and 2012, the Concept Plan generally maintains existing Comprehensive Plan land use designations. POlici Es and Pr Ograms f Or c alif Ornia av Enu E: »»Incentivizing mixed-use development and requiring active uses on the ground floor of buildings. »»Supporting development of a hotel and associated hospitality uses in proximity to transit. »»Working with employers and transit agencies to encourage transit use. POlici Es and Pr Ograms f Or Park bOul Evard: »»Adopting a Technology Corridor Overlay and determining incentives to encourage smaller, technology-related firms. »»Studying safety for cyclists and pedestrians along Park Boulevard and alternative routes, and incorporating additional recommendations for improvements into the BPTP. POlici Es and Pr Ograms f Or t HE f ry’s sit E: »»Encouraging mixed-use development at the higher end of the allowed density range. »»Coordinating site planning and outreach to improve the relationship of the site to its surroundings. »»Requiring a minimum of 20% of the total square footage on the Fry’s site be residential. Together the California Avenue and East Meadow/Fabian areas present much of where Palo Altans expect change to occur during the life of Our Palo Alto 2030. As has been the case for decades, change is also expected in the Downtown, where the current Development Cap is being re-examined to reflect the community’s vision for the future. 21 East mEad OW c ircl E/f abian Way ar Ea Developed in 2012, this Concept Plan outlines a vision for the area between Highway 101, Charleston Road, and Louis Road. The Plan includes recommendations for improvements to the local bicycle network, as well as specific policies and programs for three subareas: West Bayshore Industrial; East San Antonio; and Charleston Road. A product of a series of stakeholder meetings and well-attended public workshops, the Concept Plan identifies the kinds of uses and types of future development that would be desirable in the area. The Concept Plan maps potential new pedestrian and bike routes along Adobe Creek, Barron Creek and Sterling Canal, and calls for improving access to the Baylands across Highway 101. Residential and day care uses are prohibited in the Plan area, with schools allowed only on selected West Bayshore parcels with conditional use permit review. POlici Es f Or W Est bays HOr E: »»Encouraging expansion and attraction of high-end research and development uses with appropriate transitions to adjacent neighborhoods. »»Supporting construction by Space Systems Loral of a new facility in an appropriate location to accommodate assembly of larger telecommunication satellites. POlici Es f Or East san ant Oni O: »»Encouraging larger-scale commercial development that generates revenue, complements existing development, and provides a lively streetscape that accommodates vehicles while encouraging pedestrian use. »»Retaining existing land use and zone designations. POlici Es f Or cH arl Est On rO ad: »»Exploring opportunities to rehabilitate the Fairchild Building by working with the owner to assess challenges such as parking, possible clean up, and flood-zone requirements, and considering historic designation. »»Retaining manufacturing and light industry uses. 23 c ity Of Pal O alt O Planning & Community Environment Department Hillary Gitelman, Director Phone: (650) 329-2441 Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org 250 Hamilton Avenue 5th Floor – City Hall Palo Alto, CA 94301 www.cityofpaloalto.org Our Palo Alto 2030 Draft Alternative Futures -- for Discussion August 4, 2014 Page 1 Our Palo Alto 2030: Draft Alternative Future Scenarios The following four conceptual alternatives or scenarios were developed based on public input received during and after a series of public workshops in May and June 2014 regarding the City of Palo Alto’s ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update. Each scenario presents a somewhat different vision for Palo Alto in the year 2030, and would result in different adjustments and additions to the City’s current Comprehensive Plan. All of the scenarios would protect and preserve single-family residential (R-1) neighborhoods and public open spaces. Commercial and multiple-family development would occur in areas described within each concept. These four draft conceptual alternatives are intentionally described at a high level in an effort to receive input from the public and the City Council. At this stage, staff and consultants are interested in whether these alternative visions represent a reasonable range of possible futures worth analyzing in detail in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Once there is agreement or direction from the City Council on this point, the hard work of quantifying and analyzing each scenario in detail can begin. The mechanics of implementing each scenario can also be worked-out. Selection of one preferred concept will happen after the detailed analysis – presented in the form of a Draft EIR for public review – is complete and after the public has had an opportunity to weigh-in on the potential impacts and benefits of each scenario and on draft policies and programs proposed for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Once selected, the preferred scenario will be memorialized in the goals, policies, programs, narrative and maps of the updated Comprehensive Plan presented for the City Council’s consideration and adoption at the end of 2015. Scenario 1: Do Nothing/Business as Usual This concept represents a business-as-usual scenario, describing the change and development in Palo Alto that is likely to occur by 2030 if the existing Comp Plan remains in place with no change to current land use designations, policies, or programs. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires analysis of this scenario for the purpose of comparing its impacts with those of other alternatives. Under this scenario, new job growth would be accommodated in the City's existing employment districts, which would see an anticipated annual rate of growth of 1.04 percent, in line with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections for the City. This rate of growth represents approximately 990 new jobs per year for a total of 15,840 new jobs in Palo Alto by 2030. While some new jobs would be created in existing and re-developed buildings, the net increase in new non-residential square footage in this alternative could exceed the Citywide “cap” by the planning horizon of 2030. (This Citywide cap is found in Policy L-8 of the existing Comp Plan.) There Attachment I Our Palo Alto 2030 Draft Alternative Futures -- for Discussion August 4, 2014 Page 2 would be no additional protections or incentives for neighborhood-serving retail under this alternative, and no major transportation infrastructure improvements. Under the Do Nothing/Business as Usual scenario, housing growth would likely continue at a rate of approximately 167 units per year, in line with the historic trend, resulting in 2,668 new units in the city by 2030. New housing would be built primarily through redevelopment of property as permitted under existing zoning. In the short- to medium-term, housing construction is anticipated on the sites identified in the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element. These sites are concentrated primarily Downtown, along El Camino Real and in the California Avenue/Fry’s site area. Change and future development would not be specifically focused in one or more geographic areas. Existing land use designations and zoning regulations would continue to define development throughout the City. For the purposes of this discussion, the following are descriptions of development that may be likely within six focus areas identified by community members at workshops in June:  Downtown would retain a predominantly commercial character. Redevelopment of lower density sites would continue and new office and retail space would be constructed until the cap of 350,000 square feet of new non-residential development is reached. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18.18.040, when the Downtown cap is reached, a moratorium would go into effect. While the moratorium is in effect, redevelopment activity would be curtailed, although the City would be under pressure to permit the addition of square footage “earned” through the two incentive programs included in the zoning ordinance (related to seismic upgrades and historic preservation) and this scenario assumes some development would continue. The 27 University site would remain in its existing use and configuration as a transit center and restaurant. Some housing would likely be built downtown under this alternative consistent with existing zoning, but the focus of future development and redevelopment would be predominantly commercial office and retail. To address the increased traffic and parking demand that would accompany this change, the City could implement parking management programs (such as residential permit parking) and construct new parking structure(s). Additional parking would also be provided in new development in accordance with the requirements of existing zoning.  The El Camino Real corridor would continue to evolve as permitted under the existing land use designations and zoning. South of Stanford Avenue, the corridor would take on a more mixed-use character. Auto-oriented uses would be replaced with new projects providing office space and housing over retail as low intensity sites are redeveloped and where smaller parcels can be assembled.  The California Avenue area would continue to experience strong development pressure and much of the area would ultimately take on a more mixed-use character, consistent with the existing land use designations and zoning. New housing and office space would be built on California Avenue and surrounding streets through the utilization of the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development District overlay, which is available on sites Our Palo Alto 2030 Draft Alternative Futures -- for Discussion August 4, 2014 Page 3 including Cambridge Avenue in the north to Olive Avenue in the south, bounded by the Caltrain tracks to the east and El Camino Real to the west. Retail and restaurant uses would continue to evolve on California Avenue itself, with a trend towards more corporate or “formula” retail/restaurant tenants. South of Olive Avenue, the Fry's site would retain its existing multi-family residential land use designation and zoning. If Fry's were to leave its current location, the site would likely be redeveloped with housing in accordance with existing land use regulations.  The Stanford Research Park would continue as a major employment district, absorbing a significant portion of the new job growth anticipated under this alternative. Dedicated on-street and off-street bicycle lanes would be added to serve this area as proposed in the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan; however it is not anticipated that VTA or other transit service providers would increase service. Private vehicles would continue to be the most convenient mode of access to this site for people who work there in 2030.  Stanford Shopping Center and the East Meadow Circle/Bayshore areas would have a similar character in 2030 to the character they have today. No change in land use designations or zoning would be made, and these areas would absorb some of the new job growth anticipated under this alternative. No new housing would likely be built in either area under this alternative since the land designated for residential development in the East Meadow Circle/Bayshore area is already developed, and the Stanford Shopping Center has used nearly all of the development potential allowed by zoning. . Private vehicles would continue to be the most convenient mode of access to these areas for many people who work there in 2030.  The South San Antonio area would retain its current mix of light industrial uses and multi-family housing; however, this area could begin to experience development pressure as available sites in the California Avenue area and El Camino Real corridor get built out. Scenario 2: Slow Growth & No Changes in Land Use Designations Under this scenario, existing Comp Plan land use designations would remain unchanged, however, Comp Plan policies and programs would be modified to slow the pace of non- residential growth in the city and to focus modest housing growth on meeting State requirements. To implement this vision, the City would replace the current Downtown and Citywide “cap” on new non-residential square footage with an annual limit to control the pace of growth. The annual limit would apply to new research & development, office, and light industrial development on a Citywide basis, and procedures would be established to evaluate proposed projects subject to the cap based on their location and other criteria, and to ensure the annual limit was not exceeded. The City would also modify its policies and programs to ensure that the modest amount of residential growth and development that is anticipated annually would be focused on meeting State requirements, with an emphasis on smaller units that are affordable to people who work in Palo Alto and to plan for the wave of existing “baby boomers” desiring to downsize. Comprehensive Plan policies and programs would continue to focus on protecting the quality of life in Palo Alto's R-1 single-family neighborhoods, and the City would Our Palo Alto 2030 Draft Alternative Futures -- for Discussion August 4, 2014 Page 4 adopt policies to encourage the preservation of neighborhood-serving retail and services where they currently exist throughout the city. This alternative would test implementation of improvements to the regional expressway system planned by the County of Santa Clara, including:  Oregon-Page Mill Expressway widening west of El Camino Real;  Freeway interchange improvements on the Oregon-Page Mill Expressway;  Full or partial grade separation at the Alma and Foothill/Junipero Serra Boulevard interchanges on the Oregon-Page Mill Expressway; and  Full grade separation of the Arastradero interchange on the Foothill Expressway. The character of each of the six focus areas identified by community members at workshops in June would be as follows under the Scenario 2 in 2030:  Downtown would generally retain its current appearance and mix of uses. The 50-foot height limit would remain in place; however, the citywide mechanism for metering non- residential growth would likely result in less non-residential development and more residential development downtown. The 27 University site would retain its function as a transit center and restaurant. Comp Plan policies would encourage smaller-sized, workforce and senior housing units with reduced parking requirements. The City would redevelop one or more existing surface parking lots to provide additional parking downtown.  The El Camino Real corridor would take on a more residential character by 2030 because many of the housing sites identified in the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element are located along El Camino Real south of the Stanford Research Park. Retail and services uses would remain in order to serve the adjacent neighborhoods. Development and redevelopment would be consistent with existing zoning regulations, which allow building extending three to four stories high and City regulations would require relatively low densities unless strict affordability requirements are met. Development standards would result in increased setbacks where development and redevelopment takes place.  California Avenue would keep its eclectic, local-serving character, and no tall buildings, beyond what would be allowed under existing zoning, would be added. The City would work to ensure Fry’s Electronics remains at its current location and would encourage redevelopment of the balance of the site with housing, consistent with its existing zoning. Formula retail and restaurant uses would be discouraged along California Avenue, in favor of independently owned and operated establishments. The pace of non-residential development of vacant and underutilized lots in the area would slow, and additional parking would be added to support any new growth in the area. Additionally, Comp Plan policies and programs would prioritize circulation and safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists.  The Stanford Research Park, Stanford Shopping Center and East Meadow Circle/Bayshore areas would have a similar character in 2030 to the character they have today. No change in land use designations or zoning would be made and these areas, which would continue to serve as employment districts. Some retail and service uses Our Palo Alto 2030 Draft Alternative Futures -- for Discussion August 4, 2014 Page 5 catering to the daytime employee population would be added in these areas, but additional housing would not be built in these areas. Comp Plan policies and programs would encourage the use of transit, carpooling, cycling and walking over the use of private automobiles.  The South San Antonio area would continue to support a variety of residential and non- residential uses in 2030. Land use and zoning for this area would not change; however, as other areas of the city are redeveloped, market forces will likely result in more mixed- use development in this area, as permitted under existing zoning. Scenario 3: Slow Growth & Adjust the Location of Housing Sites This scenario would experience the same amount of job growth and residential development as would Scenario 2, and would similarly replace the current Downtown and Citywide “cap” on new non-residential square footage with an annual limit to control the pace of non-residential development. This scenario would also adjust land use designations and policies to discourage or prohibit new housing unless it’s within a transit-rich area with ample neighborhood services. This scenario would also test the idea of depressing the Caltrain tracks below-grade between San Antonio Road and Page Mill Road. By changing Comp Plan land use designations and policies to discourage or prohibit new housing unless it’s within one half mile of a Caltrain station or one quarter mile of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop, and by increasing allowable residential densities within those areas, this scenario would effectively downzone areas along South El Camino Real that are not immediately accessible to neighborhood services and transit in exchange for up-zoning transit-served areas with neighborhood services. Land use designations would foster mixed use development in nodes at planned BRT stops along El Camino Real to support the evolution of the corridor into a grand boulevard. Comp Plan policies would encourage small-unit workforce and senior housing with reduced parking requirements. Comp Plan policies and programs would continue to focus on protecting the quality of life in Palo Alto's R-1 single-family neighborhoods and the City would adopt policies to encourage the preservation of neighborhood-serving retail and services where they currently exist throughout the city. The character of each of the six focus areas identified by community members at workshops in June would be as follows under Scenario 3 in 2030:  The role of Downtown in the cultural and commercial life of the community would be supported with the addition of some higher density housing. A slight increase to the height limit to a maximum of 55-60 feet would be allowed, as long as the additional height is used for residential units. Comp Plan policies would encourage studio and one- bedroom units or senior housing. Existing surface parking lots Downtown could be redeveloped with either housing or non-residential uses, as long as the overall amount of parking provided is consistent with trends and projections for automobile use in the Downtown area. The 27 University Avenue site would be developed to serve primarily as a transit center with some workforce housing.  Along El Camino Real, new development would be focused in nodes at planned BRT stops, and housing would be prohibited outside of identified nodes. Comp Plan policies Our Palo Alto 2030 Draft Alternative Futures -- for Discussion August 4, 2014 Page 6 would allow for additional height and density within these nodes and would encourage retail and services catering to residents of the adjacent neighborhoods.  The Stanford Research Park and the Stanford Shopping Center would retain the current character, with some housing added in the portions of these areas fronting El Camino Real as long as redevelopment incorporates neighborhood services and is coupled with streetscape improvements and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to Downtown and the California Avenue area.  California Avenue itself would remain an “eclectic,” low-scale commercial street providing services and shopping for local residents. Formula retail and restaurant uses would be discouraged along California Avenue, in favor of independently owned and operated establishments. The surrounding area would accommodate additional multifamily housing at medium densities with underground parking. Existing surface parking lots would be redeveloped and parking consolidated in a manner consistent with trends and projections for automobile use in California Avenue area. The City would work to encourage Fry’s Electronics to remain at its current location, and Comp Plan policies would encourage the addition of housing to site. In the event that Fry's elected to relocate elsewhere, medium-density housing would be developed on that site. Additionally, Comp Plan policies and programs would prioritize circulation and safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the California Avenue area.  The East Meadow Circle/Bayshore and South San Antonio areas would continue to support a variety of primarily non-residential uses. Additional housing would be prohibited in these areas, but land use designations would be adjusted to foster the development of neighborhood services that cater to employees and the residential population in adjacent areas. Scenario 4: Net-Zero Concepts This scenario would concentrate growth into key areas of the city in order to create complete centers with a rich array of housing, job and cultural opportunities in proximity to transit. This scenario would include the most job and residential growth of the four alternatives; however, growth would be allowed only on the condition that it (individually or collectively) satisfies "net zero" performance standards, such as net zero energy for new non-residential construction, net zero greenhouse gas emissions, net zero new automobile trips or vehicle miles traveled (VMT), net zero potable water use, and/or no new natural gas hookups. Under this scenario, Palo Alto would lead the State and the country in pioneering “net zero” concepts. Some policies might be applied citywide; others would be focused on specific areas. Affordable housing and neighborhood-serving retail could be exempted from such requirements, but presumably no specific growth management strategy would be needed on the theory that the “net-zero” requirements would address the pace and impacts of development. To meet the performance standards, the City would institute an aggressive transportation demand management program and adopt new development fees to fund community transit services, including new Citywide shuttle routes and/or new “on-demand” transit services designed to provide residents with an attractive alternative to the private automobile for non-commute trips. R-1 neighborhoods would be protected and policies would encourage the preservation and expansion of neighborhood-serving retail throughout the City. Our Palo Alto 2030 Draft Alternative Futures -- for Discussion August 4, 2014 Page 7  The current Downtown cap on non-residential development would be replaced with a restriction on net new vehicle trips. The area would retain its current mix and proportion of uses, including jobs, housing, and retail/entertainment, and would be promoted as a cultural gathering place for all ages, with a full range of services for residents and employees. Pedestrian improvements would be introduced, along with improvements to the Caltrain station and transit center intended to make Downtown a regional transit hub with free shuttle service to destinations throughout the City. The 27 University site would be improved primarily as a transit center with some non- residential office space, potentially geared towards non-profit organizations that might otherwise be priced out of Palo Alto.  Along El Camino Real, including within the Stanford Shopping Center and the Stanford Research Park, mixed use development with ground floor retail and residential above and behind would be allowed similar to Alternative 3. While most new development would be two or three stories, it could exceed the 50-foot height limit at two or three nodes along the corridor, where projects would be models of sustainability, with small units, car share and transit access rather than resident parking, net-zero energy, and net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Wider sidewalks, bike enhancements, and beautification (street trees, benches, lighting, plantings) would be prioritized along El Camino, and local solar would be strongly encouraged all along the corridor on new and old buildings.  California Avenue itself would see little change in this alternative and would remain an eclectic, neighborhood-serving retail destination, but the surrounding area would evolve to include both more jobs and more housing given the proximity of the Caltrain station and neighborhood services. Specifically, the Fry’s site would transform to include a mix of uses with housing over commercial uses such as offices, with public gardens serving the new homes. A Tech Corridor overlay along Park Boulevard would facilitate the creation of small new tech companies and Park Boulevard itself would become a true “boulevard” with substantial pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements connecting workers along the Tech Corridor and on the Fry’s site with the Cal Ave Caltrain station.  The Stanford Research Park would become a cutting-edge proving ground for innovative concepts in energy generation, carbon sequestration, recycled water, urban farming and forestry, and drought-tolerant landscaping. In some areas, existing surface parking could be undergrounded and covered with vertical mixed use buildings, surrounding plazas and public gathering places, including restaurants and nighttime retail. In these areas, new housing would include townhomes, apartments, and lofts, and new streets would be added to break up the current “superblocks.” A bike sharing program and a new free shuttle would serve residents and workers alike. All landscaping would be required to utilize low/no water plants and would be selected to support native birds and insects.  The East Meadow Circle/Bayshore area would be slowly transformed from a research and office park to a new village center with a mix of housing types around a central plaza, as well as a potential new school. The office and light industrial uses along Fabian Way and Bayshore would remain as is and transit service to the area would be dramatically improved. Our Palo Alto 2030 Draft Alternative Futures -- for Discussion August 4, 2014 Page 8  In the South San Antonio area, existing businesses would be protected from displacement, although there could be limited new development once walkability and transit service (including Caltrain service) are improved. MEMORANDUM DATE July 29, 2014 TO Palo Alto City staff FROM PlaceWorks consultant team SUBJECT Growth Management Strategies applied in a Sample of California Cities This memo presents a brief outline of growth management strategies put in place in a sample of California cities to offer context for the alternative scenarios currently being formulated for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update. The sample includes communities with strategies addressing both residential and non-residential development, as well as communities with strategies addressing only one type of development or the other. The communities covered are, in alphabetical order, Carlsbad, Cupertino, Mountain View, Pleasanton, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Monica, and Walnut Creek. The following examples are not intended as a recommendation to adopt one or more of these strategies. Any program adopted in Palo Alto would need a high degree of customization to fit its unique local conditions. In addition, other than the Pleasanton example, these strategies have not been “tested” in court. Legal analysis would have to be prepared for any growth management strategy that Palo Alto may want to adopt. Strategies Addressing Both Residential and Non-residential Development Carlsbad Carlsbad, located on the Pacific Coast in northern San Diego County, is known for its successful growth management program, which ties the provision of public services and infrastructure to new development. In the 1980s, Carlsbad experienced a building boom that put pressure on public services and infrastructure. In response to this growth, voters passed Proposition E, the City’s Growth Management Ordinance, in 1986. The Growth Management Program (GMP) plans for an estimated citywide buildout of 54,600 dwelling units or an estimated population of 135,000. (The City’s current population is about 105,000.) This buildout estimate serves as the basis of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. The GMP divides the City into 25 geographic sub-areas, each of which has a Local Facility Management Plan that outlines improvements necessary to accommodate new development. In addition, the Local Facility Management Plan establishes any necessary development impact fees to help fund identified improvements. The GMP requires that residential and non-residential Attachment J July 29, 2014 | Page 2 development meet 11 citywide public facility performance standards, established in the Capital Improvement Plan, as well as the specific standards outlined in the applicable Local Facility Management Plan. City staff actively monitor the GMP to make certain that development and services are appropriately timed, as well as to ensure that the growth cap is not exceeded.1 The Carlsbad system is not focused on controlling the pace of growth. The issue in 1986 when it was established was the belief that too much housing was planned, so the program intends to reduce potential density citywide and make sure that (primarily residential) development provides adequate public facilities and services by geographic zone (“pays its way”). • Does the system include an overall cap on jobs/square feet? No. There’s only a cap on residential buildout. • Does the system include an annual limit on approvals? No. Controlling the pace of growth is not one of the goals of this system. (For residential development, there’s a “growth control point” to ensure range and distribution of dwelling unit/development sizes/types. It operates like a citywide TDR program under the voter approved CAP and tends to leads to master planned communities.) • Does the system include competitive scoring that pits projects against each other? Are any categories of project exempt (e.g. certain type of industry, projects under 10k sf)? No. • Does the system extract community benefits from developers? If so, what types of benefits and how successful has this been? Yes. For nonresidential projects benefits are extracted through negotiated conditions of approval. Typical benefits include streetscape amenities and open space to serve the development. • How flexible is the system/How does it allow for exceptions and/or creativity? For nonresidential development, the system is relatively flexible and allows for exceptions through the negotiated conditions of approval. • What is the staff burden of administering the system? Are there lessons learned about keeping the system simple to administer and easy to understand while achieving goals? Carlsbad’s GMP divides the City into 25 sub-regions. Although the system has managed growth well for the City, it does require active staff monitoring of a multifaceted system. The 1 City of Carlsbad, http://web.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/pages/growth- management.aspx, accessed on July 2, 1014. July 29, 2014 | Page 3 Facilities Management Plan consistency creates an additional layer of review, and the specific accounting system for residential development (e.g. tracking exact amounts and types of development in 25 sub-regions) creates a challenging staff burden. • Does the system get the results the community desires? Are there any unintended consequences? The system is working well. The Council and community are happy and satisfied with resulting services. The residential development tracking system could be more efficient. Walnut Creek Walnut Creek has regulated commercial growth since 1985, when voters approved Measure H, crafted by Citizens for a Better Walnut Creek, a growth-control initiative that would have limited or prevented non-residential development until traffic congestion at major intersections improved. Measure H was a reaction to resident concerns about traffic and the construction, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, of a number of large commercial office buildings in downtown Walnut Creek, primarily around the Walnut Creek BART station. A major local landowner sued the City, and the case eventually went to the California Supreme Court. In 1990, the Court ruled that Measure H was invalid because it functioned as a zoning ordinance but conflicted with the City’s adopted General Plan, which called for Walnut Creek to be a regional job and retail center. Although Measure H was invalidated, the City continued to regulate the amount of commercial and residential development allowed each year, acknowledging the residents’ desire to meter growth in Walnut Creek. In 1993, the City Council adopted a Growth Limitation Program that limited new commercial growth to 75,000 square feet per year, metered in increments of 150,000 square feet every 2 years, and was adopted for 10 years. The program helped the City to limit growth to 620,000 square feet of new commercial development in the first 10 years (1993-2003), and was extended through 2015 in the City’s 2005 General Plan Update. The Growth Limitation Program excludes the Shadelands Business Park.2 • Does the system include an overall cap on jobs/square feet? If so, how is that set? Changed? Enforced? Yes. The Walnut Creek Growth Management Program includes an annual cap of 75,000 commercial square feet/year metered in 2-year increments, but no total overall cap. The purpose of Walnut Creek's Growth Management Program is to meter the pace commercial growth, rather than to cap it at a specific level. The 75,000 square foot annual limit was 2 City of Walnut Creek, Walnut Creek General Plan 2025, page 4-13. Available online at http://www.walnut- creek.org/citygov/depts/cd/planning/documents/general_plan_2025.asp. July 29, 2014 | Page 4 derived on the basis of pipeline projects and growth projections available at the time the original program was put in place in the 1990s. The cap is set in the General Plan (which incorporated an earlier Growth Limitation Program from the 1990s). It is enforced by the Planning Division. Staff tracks available allocation and a building permit cannot be issued unless an allocation is available. If the building permit is allowed to expire prior to construction, the allocation is revoked and returns to the pool. Residential development is capped at no more net new dwelling units than the total Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for all income levels assigned to the City. See Policy Bulletin No. PB-041 - Growth Management Program: http://www.walnut-creek.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=5035 • Does the system include an annual limit on approvals? What is it? How is it set and changed? Yes, there is an annual limit of 75,000 commercial SF/year, metered in two year increments starting April 4 of even numbered years. Therefore allocations for 150,000 square feet of commercial development are available in each two year cycle. This limit is set in the General Plan and is not changed or adjusted. Unused allocations from one cycle are rolled over to the next cycle. Project applicants get credit for any existing commercial SF that would be demolished with construction of their project. For residential projects, the cap is linked to the RHNA cycle rather than an annual limit. Credit is given for existing dwelling units that would be demolished with construction of the project. If the number of units demolished exceeds the number to be newly constructed, the difference gets added back to the allocation pool. • Does the system include a competitive point system pitting projects against each other? Any categories of project exempted (e.g. certain type of industry, projects under 10k sf)? There is no “beauty contest” type competition. Allocations are awarded on a first-come, first- served basis when the project planner deems a project application complete. Development in the Shadelands Business Park on the eastern edge of the City, and specific types of Community Facilities, are exempt from the Growth Management Program (see Policy Bulletin No. PB-041 for complete list). Additionally, the Planning Manager can grant exemptions to larger, more complex projects so that their allocation can be reserved for longer than the 12-month period for which allocations are usually reserved. July 29, 2014 | Page 5 • Does the system extract community benefits from developers? What types of benefits? How successful has this been? Community Facilities are exempt. Also, the following types of dwelling units are exempt:  Income-restricted dwelling units for Moderate, Low, or Very Low Income Households as defined by Part 1, Article 3 of the Zoning Ordinance  Second Family Residential Units permitted pursuant to Part 3, Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance  Inclusionary Units required pursuant to Part 3, Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance  Density Bonus units permitted pursuant to Part 3, Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance • How flexible is the system? (How) does it allow for exceptions and/or creativity? Yes, the system does have a far degree of flexibility built in – not in the cap, but rather in how it is calculated and implemented. That it is calculated in 2-year increments of up to 150,000 sf offers some flexibility; that unused allocation is carried over to the next cycle also offers flexibility; that certain community facilities and the Shadelands Business Park are exempt provides flexibility too. Further, the system allows project applicants to reserve allocations as soon as their application is deemed complete and to have it held for up to one year, with the possibility of having that reservation extended at the discretion of the Planning Manager for larger, more complex projects. • What is the staff burden of administering the system? Tracking is done on a quarterly basis, requiring approximately 4-5 hours of staff time per quarter. One Senior Planner is charged with compiling allocations and tracking the total versus the cap. In recent years, the level of staff effort required to complete the task has not been excessive; however, Walnut Creek has not come close it its cap recently. Tracking would be more complex and more time-consuming if the City were running up against the cap each year. • Does the system get the results the community desires? Are there any unintended consequences? The purpose of Walnut Creek's Growth Management Program is to meter the pace commercial growth, rather than to cap it at a specific level. In the late 1990s, the program was tested when the City ran up against the cap on more than one occasion, and it was judged a success because it achieve the aim of metering the pace of growth without sacrificing projects deemed beneficial to the community. The original Growth Limitation Program July 29, 2014 | Page 6 (precursor to the Growth management Program) included a safety valve whereby it was possible -- where certain conditions were met -- to borrow ahead from future allocations in order to allow for the right project at the right time. Borrowing ahead required a special Council resolution and was done only once in about 2001. Subsequently, the program was streamlined, renamed Growth Management Program, and incorporated into the General Plan when that document was last updated in 2006. Since then the City has not come near its annual cap and the program will not be renewed when it sunsets in 2015. Strategies Addressing Non-residential Development Only Cupertino Cupertino, like Palo Alto, is a city that caps the amount of growth that may occur in certain areas. The City’s current General Plan controls the area and density of commercial, office, and hotel uses built in the city through development allocations in terms of square feet (commercial and office) or rooms (hotel).3 Currently, allocations are geographically assigned in certain neighborhoods, commercial and employment centers, so that private development fulfills City goals and priorities, and reduces adverse impacts to the environment. The City allocates development potential on a project-by-project basis to applicants for net new office and commercial square footage and hotel rooms. As a result of several recent approvals of projects, including Apple Campus 2, a large amount of the current office, commercial and hotel development allocation has been granted, leaving an inadequate pool to allocate to additional development in the city. The City Council expressed concern that future development projects, which would benefit retail sales and employment growth in the city, would not have sufficient available development allocation necessary to move forward through the 2020 Horizon year of the current General Plan. Accordingly, in the summer of 2012, the City Council directed staff to evaluate ways to replenish citywide office, commercial, and hotel development allocation to ensure the City’s economic needs and goals are met. That effort is currently underway as the City has drafted a General Plan Amendment to increase the allocations for all development types and has published a Draft EIR analyzing the impacts of the increased development allowances. (See http://www.cupertinogpa.org for more information.) 3 City Of Cupertino, General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, And Associated Rezoning Draft EIR, June 2014. Pages 3-7 and 3-8. Available online at http://www.cupertinogpa.org/documents/view/180 July 29, 2014 | Page 7 • Does the system include an overall cap on jobs/square feet? If so, how is that set? Changed? Enforced? Development allocation caps the amount of commercial, office, and retail space, hotel rooms, and residential units. Housing and mixed use development allocation is determined based on certain commercial, office and industrial sites, consistent with long-term City revenue projections.4 Neighborhood residential units are allocated through the building permit process unless subdivision or planned unit development applications are required. Overall, development activity should be controlled so that private development fulfills City goals and priorities. • Does the system include an annual limit on approvals? What is it? How is it set and changed? No annual limit. Development allocation is determined on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration such as community benefits, fiscal benefits, and traffic. • Does the system include a competitive point system pitting projects against each other? Any categories of project exempted (e.g. certain type of industry, projects under 10k sf)? On a case-by-case basis, the City may allocate development potential to private developments based on the community benefits the project would provide.5 Allocations may be adjusted to ensure the City’s economic and goals are met. Citywide development potential is calculated by summing the development potential from each of the City’s areas. Individual properties are assigned base development potential, but most property owners will need to apply for additional allocations to develop their properties. o Strategy 3 Major Companies. Prioritize expansion of office space for existing major companies in Cupertino. Retain a pool of 150,000 square feet to be drawn down by companies with Cupertino sales offices and corporate headquarters. New office development must demonstrate that the development positively contributes to the fiscal well-being of the City. o Strategy 4 Flexible Allocations. Allow flexibility among the allocations assigned to each geographical area. Allocations may be redistributed from one geographical area to another if necessary and if no significant environmental impacts, particularly traffic, are identified. o Strategy 5 Allocation Review. Review allocations of the development priorities periodically to ensure that the development priorities meet City needs and goals. 4 City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan, Land Use/Community Design, page 2-15. 5 City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan, Land Use/Community Design, page 2-16. July 29, 2014 | Page 8 o Strategy 6 Development Agreements. Unused development potential committed in development agreements may be reallocated following the expiration of each development agreement, after a public hearing. • Does the system extract community benefits from developers? What types of benefits? How successful has this been? General Plan Policy 2-23.A states that, at the discretion of the City Council, and as indicated in certain land use policies, the City Council may approve heights different from the maximum base height standard in gateways and nodes, if a project includes a retail component and provides community benefits. The community benefits that can be proposed by developers and agreed upon by the City include: o Transportation and Mobility Improvements  Funding towards and/or create new or expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities above those required by the project to mitigate project impacts  Contributions toward facilities, transit improvements and/or amenities including adaptive traffic signal management systems, above those required by the project to mitigate project impacts  Contributions toward ongoing operation and maintenance of community shuttles (to move people around to key commercial centers) above that which might be required by the project to mitigate project impacts. o Schools and Education  Funding to the City towards facilities and/or operations benefitting the school district, above that required by the project to mitigate project impacts  Public education facilities within a project  Teacher housing  Contributions toward tax revenue generators specifically for education o Affordable Housing above and beyond Below Market Rate (BMR) requirements  Affordable housing within a project  Land to build an affordable housing project  Funding to build, buy or renovate an affordable housing project o Public Art and Cultural Facilities  Funding toward and/or construction of a new community senior, teen, or youth facility  Funding toward and/or construction of a community gathering space (e.g. conference space or cultural center) or a museum o Parks and Open Space July 29, 2014 | Page 9  Funding towards new or expanded publicly accessible but privately maintained parkland  New park and/or open space with a project (including rooftop parks open to the public • How flexible is the system? (How) does it allow for exceptions and/or creativity? Policies/strategies in the General Plan 2020 allow for flexibility so that development allocations can be redistributed from one geographical region to another in order to meet economic goals and community benefit. • What is the staff burden of administering the system? We did not receive a response from Cupertino staff. • Does the system get the results the community desires? Are there any unintended consequences? Unintended consequences largely result in allocations in some land use categories being depleted sooner rather than later by one company or industry (e.g. Apple 2 Campus depleted nearly all office allocation), requiring replenishment or reallocation of development from one area to another earlier than expected. Mountain View In its recently-adopted General Plan (July 2012), Mountain View calls out eight “Planning Areas,” identified based on extensive community input as areas where Mountain View might significantly change over the life of the General Plan. Planning Areas are distinct from the rest of the City, which is not expected to change significantly. The General Plan identifies new uses and new land use designations within the Planning Areas, including Mixed Use designations, and increases the allowed intensity of both non-residential and residential development above what was allowed in the 1992 General Plan. Most Planning Areas are located along El Camino Real and/or near BRT or light rail stops. Most of the change in the city is focused in the North Bayshore area and along transit corridors in the East Whisman, El Camino Real and San Antonio areas. Currently, the City is preparing Precise Plans and accompanying Supplemental EIRs for each of the Planning Areas. The Precise Plans will add an additional layer of regulation to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and will establish the specific amount of development that can occur in each Planning Area without additional environmental review. Although development is not restricted only to Planning Areas, the General Plan includes an overarching strategy “to support Mountain View’s sustainability” by “focusing future growth around July 29, 2014 | Page 10 major transportation corridors to increase transit ridership.”6 Outside of the Planning Areas, Mountain View does not limit development that is consistent with the adopted General Plan and zoning provisions. However, any project that either a) would require a General Plan or zoning amendment, or b) is inside a Planning Area that does not yet have an adopted Precise Plan, must go through the “gatekeeper” process, which the City uses to allocate available staff resources. In the gatekeeper process, the City Council considers proposals on a quarterly basis to determine whether they should be allowed to move forward. The current generations of Precise Plans are still being formulated and no drafts have been released yet, so many questions about how this system will work are not yet answered. The most recent Precise Plan adopted by City Council is the South Whisman Precise Plan (http://archive.mountainview.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5889), adopted in April 2009. Responses below are based on that document. • Does the system include an overall cap on jobs/square feet? If so, how is that set? Changed? Enforced? The South Whisman Precise Plan limits growth in this 38-acre area to 1,120 units and 37,000 square feet of retail. It specifies that the retail will be built in two phases, a first phase of at least 17,000 feet and a second phase of 20,000 feet. • Does the system include an annual limit on approvals? What is it? How is it set and changed? There is currently no instrument to regulate the pace of development that occurs consistent with a Precise Plan. • Does the system include a competitive point system pitting projects against each other? Any categories of project exempted (e.g. certain type of industry, projects under 10k sf)? No. The Precise Plan provides very specific guidance on amount of development, types of uses, density, phasing, design, etc. Within those parameters projects are approved on a first come, first served basis. In the case of the South Whisman Precise Plan, the Precise Plan requires that a Master Plan be submitted for all development within the Plan area, followed by or concurrent with the submittal of a Planned Community (PC) Permit for the first phase of development. 6 City of Mountain View, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, Chapter 2. Available online at http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10702. July 29, 2014 | Page 11 • Does the system extract community benefits from developers? What types of benefits? How successful has this been? Section 2 of the Precise Plan, Development Framework, clearly defines requirements for the specific amenities required as part of development, including street trees, gateway treatments, public and private open space, pedestrian and bike improvements, connections to the Light Rail station, and improvements to existing at-grade rail crossings. Section 3, Development Standards and Design Guidelines, includes both mandatory and advisory guidance on site planning, facades, materials, lighting, signage, open space design, etc. Development has not yet occurred under the South Whisman Precise Plan. • How flexible is the system? (How) does it allow for exceptions and/or creativity? There is a great deal of flexibility during the Precise Plan process. The City is currently completing a new set of Precise Plans to implement the updated General Plan, and the ultimate content and parameters of what a Precise Plan is and does may change as part of this new generation of plans. However, once the Precise Plan is in place, it sets relatively detailed and specific guidance on development, down to the level of detail of fenestration, building materials, signage, and lighting, as well as specific direction on how and in what order the area will develop. The adopted Precise Plan provides great certainty but does not necessarily encourage flexibility or exceptions. The process to amend an adopted Precise Plan is similar to a Specific Plan or General Plan Amendment, potentially requiring community workshops, consultant support, CEQA review, and multiple Planning Commission and City Council hearings, depending upon the nature and extent of changes. • What is the staff burden of administering the system? Precise Plans add an additional layer of regulation to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Staff must oversee the preparation and adoption of numerous Precise Plans and accompanying Supplemental EIRs (a process that can be expected to take at least two years and cost in the $500,000 to $700,000 range per plan). Following the adoption of the Precise Plan, staff (as well as applicants, decision-makers, and community members) then need to be familiar with the document and review and consider applications in reference to it. • Does the system get the results the community desires? Are there any unintended consequences? Results of the Precise Plans have varied. In general, development is likely to be consistent with the Precise Plan in the first few years after adoption, but Precise Plans do not always reflect changing conditions over time. City staff indicated that the results of the Downtown Precise July 29, 2014 | Page 12 Plan have been very successful, and that the Precise Plan process is successful in achieving the desired outcome of focused input in a given area. Overall, the Precise Plan process and tool has been successful for the City of Mountain View. Santa Monica Goal T19 in the Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the Santa Monica General Plan (adopted in 2010) is to “Create an integrated transportation and land use program that seeks to limit total peak period vehicle trips with a Santa Monica origin or destination to 2009 levels”. This goal is also known as the “No Net New Evening Peak Period Vehicle Trips” goal. The LUCE focuses not only on reducing vehicle trips, but also on encourage walking, bicycling and transit use, creating pedestrian- oriented neighborhoods, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The LUCE foresees the creation of a multi-modal transportation system and “identifies local strategies to manage trips, treating the entire City as an integrated transportation management system with aggressive requirements for trip reduction, transit enhancements, pedestrian and bike improvements, and shared parking. Transportation demand management (TDM) programs that reduce automobile travel demand and incentivize alternative modes such as carpool, vanpools, and shuttles, walking, bicycling, and shared parking are all encouraged.”7 The LUCE calls for the City to manage new trips from new development and reduce trips from existing major employers. New trips must be offset through the development of new transportation infrastructure providing alternatives to automobile travel, including public transit, bicycling, ridesharing, and walking. The LUCE also contains a list of transportation policies, projects, and programs that are necessary to accommodate projected growth with no net increase in PM peak hour vehicle trips through 2030. The LUCE identifies the establishment of fees as a tool to manage vehicle trips and increase alternative transportation options. The LUCE states that “New projects will be required to minimize the trips they generate and contribute fees to mitigate their new trips.” However, the LUCE also states that “To achieve the No Net New Trips goal, developers cannot be expected to have every project generate zero trips by itself;” rather, developers will pay mitigation fees that will fund capital improvement projects citywide, such that the net impact of each development project ultimately is zero. Fees will be used for improvements that benefit the City’s transportation system overall, such as additional buses to increase 7 City of Santa Monica, Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study (Final), April 2012. Page 1-3. Available online at http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Transportation/Developers/Santa-Monica-Nexus- Study.pdf July 29, 2014 | Page 13 frequency, improved walking routes and new bike lanes.”8 The provision that the City as a whole will achieve no net new trips by 2030, but that individual projects will not be required to generate no net new trips, has created some confusion and concern among Santa Monica residents as the LUCE is implemented. Strategies Addressing Residential Development Only Pleasanton Pleasanton is another jobs-rich Bay Area city that historically capped the amount of growth. Pleasanton capped residential growth with a voter-approved growth management ordinance in 1986. Revisions in 1998 added a limit of 750 housing permits per year and an ultimate maximum cap of 29,000 homes. This cap was re-approved by voters in 2008. However, the cap prevented Pleasanton from meeting its Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA), and therefore from achieving a certified Housing Element. The City was sued by affordable housing advocacy organizations, in a case joined by then-Attorney General Jerry Brown, and in 2010 an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled that the City was in violation of State statute and that the population cap was invalid. As a result of the ruling, the City was ordered to rezone adequate land to accommodate affordable housing within 120 days (not within one year, as the City had proposed) and required to halt all non-residential development immediately. The City did not appeal the ruling, but settled with the plaintiffs.9 San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo County utilizes a Resource Management System, enshrined in the Land Use Element of its General Plan, to monitor key infrastructure, service, and environmental indicators and prevent residential development that would exceed the County’s capacity or affect public health. The six resources addressed by the Resource Management System are: 1. Water 2. Sewage Disposal 3. Schools 4. Roads 5. Air Quality 6. Parks 8 City of Santa Monica, Land Use and Circulation Element, July 2010. Page 4.0-12. Available online at http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Plans/General-Plan/Land-Use-and-Circulation- Element.pdf 9 Fulton, William. Guide to California Planning, 4th ed., 2012. Pages 235-236. July 29, 2014 | Page 14 The County’s Planning and Building Department prepares biannual reports on the status of these resources. If resource monitoring indicates that existing development in a given area is beginning to affect a given resource, staff presents the Board of Supervisors with an advisory memo. The memo identifies the severity of the issue, from Level I (Resource capacity problem) through Level III (Resource capacity met or exceeded), and recommends a corrective action or actions. The Board of Supervisors then holds a public process to consider whether there is indeed a problem that needs to be addressed, and if so, what solutions should be implemented. The County may pursue one or more solutions, such as limiting new development; metering new development to allow additional time to solve the problem; instituting new developer fees to fund improvements to address the problem; or funding improvements with public money. The County must be cautious to ensure the solutions it imposes do not prevent it from meeting the housing obligations imposed by State law. Attachment K Additional Correspondence 1 DATE: July 28, 2014 TO: Palo Alto City Council and PTC Members FROM: Stephen Levy SUBJECT: Background and Ideas for Comp Plan Update on Regional Trends Growth and strategies to address growth challenges in Palo Alto are influenced by job and population trends in the region. Recent Job Trends—Job Growth Surges Above Plan Bay Area Forecast The region has added nearly 100,000 jobs per year since 2010 led by strong growth in the San Jose and San Francisco metro areas, which have often been among the five fastest job growth areas in the nation. Unemployment rates in the region declined to 5.3% in June 2014 with lower rates in San Francisco and San Mateo counties. The recent job growth has outpaced the ABAG projected growth path to 2020 as shown below. In four years since 2010 the San Jose metro area (Santa Clara and San Benito counties) have recorded 75% of the job growth projected by ABAG between 2010 and 2020 while the SF metro area added 84% of anticipated 10-year growth and the region was 65% of the way to the ten year forecasted growth. It is likely that job growth will slow somewhat over the rest of the decade as discussed below but fears that the ABAG growth projections were far too high have not been borne out by actual events. 2 Recent Population Trends—Growth Accelerated in 2012 and 2013 The region added nearly 275,000 residents between 2010 and 2014 or 40% of the ten-year growth anticipated in Plan Bay Area. It is very unusual for job growth to outpace population growth (usually there are roughly 2 added residents for every new job) but this was possible so far as many jobs were filled by existing residents who were unemployed. But a large share of recent population growth came in the last two years as unemployment fell and more of the jobs required people moving to the region—a trend that will continue now that unemployment is near 5%. In 2012 and 2013 the Bay Area was the fastest growing region in the state and Santa Clara County was the fastest growing county. Information Relevant to the Near Term Future and to 2030 Job growth will slow toward the end of the decade and beyond but that is already anticipated in the Plan Bay Area forecasts, which now look low for the period to 2030. For the near term the outlook is for continuing strong job growth. The U.S, and state job growth is expected to be strong through 2016. And the latest venture capital data show that the Bay Area is receiving a record high share of VC funding and 2014 shapes up as the second highest funding year after the dot.com boom record in 2000 based on data for the first half of the year. In addition to normal economic activity the south bay will see extra activity surrounding the new 49er stadium and soon to open BART stations. Two years ago there was discussion in Palo Alto questioning the Plan Bay Area population projections because they were much higher than those released by 3 the California Department of Finance (DOF). DOF will release new Bay Area and statewide projections for second review by regional/county planning agencies this Friday. They will be similar to the levels expected in Plan Bay Area and compared to previous ABAG and DOF projections have a) lower birth rates, b) more growth in the Asian population and c) similar patterns of substantial growth in the older population. So the bottom line, which should not be surprising to residents, policy makers or staff, is that the Bay Area is experiencing substantial growth and remains desired by business and prospective residents alike as a great place to live and work. Implications and Ideas for the Comp Plan 1) The Comp Plan horizon is 2030. The new DOF projections should give a good picture of the age and ethnic population trends for the region and peninsula. I appreciate how difficult it is to think about and plan for the future but I hope that the Council and PTC can incorporate the perspective of our 2030 residents and the kind of city they would like. That perspective will include that of existing residents and the substantial aging that will take place but also, I hope, reflect what newer residents will be like and want. One challenge we face with these incredibly rising home prices is maintaining diversity as much as realistically possible. 2) Staff has outlined four broad alternatives for the initial Comp Plan discussion. One difference among the alternatives is in the amount of growth that is planned for. I urge the staff, Council and PTC to include an alternative that at least matches the amount of growth envisioned in Plan Bay Area. My discussions with staff indicate that they may adjust one of the alternatives to achieve this broader range of growth alternatives for consideration. I am well aware of the current mood of many residents about growth but have also seen at the PTC and at the Our Palo Alto meetings that many residents want to see the city offer a broader range of new housing. In addition I am concerned that there are legal risks in preventing discussion of plans that at least study the Plan Bay Area anticipated growth. 3) Staff has identified six areas within the city for studying future growth alternatives while trying to steer growth away from existing residential areas except for possible additional retail opportunities. I think this is a good framework for proceeding. In all of the meetings I have attended residents have worked constructively and seen opportunities in all of these locations. While we will not have exact numbers until the alternatives are fleshed out more, it may well be that these six areas can handle the housing growth without any densification of existing R1 neighborhoods. So 4 what has been a controversy about housing growth in the abstract may be easier to find agreement if we get specific about these six areas. 4) I am encouraging staff to provide rough numbers as soon as possible as to how much growth is allowed under current zoning. I am worried that the current upset about recent growth is encouraging residents to have unrealistic expectations about how much growth can be limited apart from the Comp Plan question of what is desirable for Palo Alto. I am hoping that staff including the city attorney can clarify what is in the discretion of Council (certainly there is a lot and I expect vigorous analysis of public benefits for zoning change applications) and what is less or not discretionary—for example, the changes planned at the Yoga Center and CPK sites in downtown. One factor for all to consider is that office use for tech companies and start-ups is much denser that the way office space was used ten or twenty years ago. This means that a considerable (I hope staff can get an estimate) amount of job growth can occur even if no more buildings are approved. There are solid cost (space is expensive) and productivity (tech workers get benefit from working closely together) for these changes. Our offices downtown have seen two such changes—1) the way Palantir is using the space that our office and the adjacent training center used space before we had to move, 2) the way that the main tenant in our current building has gone from 10 to 40 employees in the same space and 3) we saw the same trend in our visit last week to our son’s new workplace in Irvine where four or five people work in each office—40+ people working in a space that previously might have had 10 to 15. 5) There has been a lot of back and forth about what uses are good near transit. My understanding of the best thinking on these issues (which is supported by the Caltrain usage data) is --for reducing commuting trips the best approach is to locate jobs near transit --for reducing travel by households apart from commuting (most rips are not for commuting) the best locations are near services and often used retail. So it is good to locate housing near downtown or Cal Ave, not primarily because they are near Caltrain stations but because they are near places residents go often and can now not need a car. As a result the goal of locating housing within x miles of transit should be replaced by the goal of locating new housing near services and often used 5 retail. There are places like T&C and Stanford Shopping Center for other needs. We cannot eliminate car use but can reduce the need for it by these measures. I am attaching a memo on Caltrain usage. As readers can see Palo Alto ridership is in a strong uptrend and by far the largest use is riders who come to PA in the morning in contrast to those who leave from the city confirming that it is access to jobs that is boosting ridership the most. 6) I am attaching a long memo on retail/dining/services demands and locations. There are three bottom lines --for downtown what we have is what one would expect given the customer base --growth in the customer base downtown and in many PA locations is driven by jobs and visitors (from afar, from neighboring communities and from other parts of PA). The customer base is not dominated by nearby residents (although we feel well served living downtown) and one should expect prospective tenants to think about the needs of their primary customer base. --many of the residents who call for more retail also call for limiting housing and job growth putting them in a logical disconnect from the perspective of prospective retail/dining/service owners. 7) I commend the city for the three part approach to parking and traffic downtown and wish all participants well. From my perspective there are no villains here and solutions need to respect the perspectives of residents, businesses and workers to solve the problem for everyone and not just move it around. Probably some kind of pricing oriented to incentives to use existing non street parking will be helpful along with capacity increases. 8) I am worried about two potential “mistakes” in the Comp Plan process and associated activities— --a) that residents may underestimate the amount of growth that is coming, which is why I have stressed providing such information and associated legal opinions --b) that as a result of these underestimates or wishful hopes, we may not go as aggressively as I think we need to in improving infrastructure, expanding school capacity, finding approaches to deal with the expanded parking and traffic challenges 6 1 CENTER FOR CONTINUING STUDY OF THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY 575 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SUITE 110 • PALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA • 94301 TELEPHONE: (650) 321-8550 FAX: (650) 321-5451 www.ccsce.com DATE: July 28, 2014 TO: Palo Alto City Council and PTC Members FROM: Stephen Levy SUBJECT: Caltrain and PA Planning Issues      Some Caltrain Trends Average Weekday Ridership The Palo Alto (downtown) station remains the second busiest system wide and shows above average growth since 2010. Interestingly, while the Cal Ave ridership is much lower, the rate of growth exceeds that at the downtown station. Since these are total trips, the number of unique riders is roughly half of the ridership totals. So, for example, the growth of 2,574 boardings at PA represents nearly 1,300 additional riders. Average Weekday Trips To and From Station  Growth 2010‐14  2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number Percent  PA 3582 4028 4664 5469 6156 2574 71.9%  Cal Ave 777 865 1069 1294 1408 631 81.2%  Mt View 3049 3368 3670 3876 4274 1225 40.2%  Total 34120 37779 42354 47060 52611 18491 54.2%  Source: Caltrain  Average Peak Morning Ridership These trends are interesting and shed light on two discussions—1) the priority for downtown housing and jobs relative to transit and 2) parking and shuttle service relative to ridership trends. 2 Average MORNING PEAK Weekday Trips to and From Palo Alto Station  Going North  Going South Total  On Off On Off On  Off  2010 659 790 161 1399 820 2189 2011 382 826 150 1538 532 2364 2012 726 1037 186 1803 912 2840 2013 746 1333 214 2139 960 3471 2014 820 1493 246 2459 1066 3952 2010‐14 161 703 85 1060 246 1763 24.4% 89.0% 52.8% 75.8% 30.0% 80.5% The first point to note is that the station is used by many more coming here than leaving from here. In 2014 in the morning peak hour 3,952 riders got off at PA station and 1,066 got on. The number of riders getting off at PA increased by 80.5% since 2010 while the departing riders increased by just 30.0%. More riders (2,459 in 2014) got off coming from the north than from the south (1,493) but there are large numbers and % increases from both directions. Potential Implications Palo Alto is a major destination for jobs for Caltrain morning riders. The increase since 2010 has been 1,763. It would be interesting to know the split between those going downtown, to Stanford and perhaps to other locations. I know that many walk downtown after getting off as I see them but I do not have numbers. Perhaps Stanford has and would share shuttle ridership trend information. Each of these arriving passengers eliminates a parking demand. It would be interesting to know how the increase in riders getting off at PA compares to job increases in downtown and Stanford. I had thought the increase on people getting on at PA would have been larger and might have been a larger component of the increase in parking pressure. This looks less likely given the ridership numbers and 1) that PA has the second largest on board bikers (732), 2) some people walk to the station and 3) some are dropped off. I think these data support the idea that locating jobs near transit is the more effective way to reduce auto commute use while locating housing near downtowns remains the most effective way to reduce non commute travel. 1 575 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SUITE 110 • PALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA • 94301 TELEPHONE: (650) 321-8550 FAX: (650) 321-5451 www.ccsce.com DATE: July 28, 2014 TO: Palo Alto City Council and PTC Members FROM: Stephen Levy SUBJECT: Shopping, Dining and Services in Downtown There has been considerable discussion about trends in retail development downtown in the media, on Town Square and somewhat in the Comp Plan update discussions. Neilson Buchanan has continued this discussion in the email that I am forwarding with this memo. Introduction I am not a retail expert nor am I a city planner. My expertise is in regional economic analysis and I am familiar with Bay Area economic and demographic trends, Plan Bay Area and the concepts of “smart growth” in these contexts. I prepared the regional growth forecast that was the foundation for Plan Bay Area and have done similar work for four other regional planning agencies in California as well as for energy and transportation planning. I do not prepare EIRs but have recently reviewed major economic/environmental analyses related to AB 32 for the Air Resources Board and the Southern California air quality district. I serve on the technical advisory committee related to preparation of the new State Housing Element. I served on the PA infrastructure commission. Nor am I an expert in Palo Alto data beyond what I have shared with the council and planning staff. I can guess at what the data will show but to the extent possible staff or PlaceWorks/Joanna Jansen should collect the data I discuss in the Comp Plan update. I lived for 14 years with roommates in College Terrace and then near 101 Alma. Nancy and I lived in two homes in the near Duveneck for 28 years and we have lived downtown in a condo for the past 9 years. I have worked downtown since 1969. I have never driven a car (poor eyesight). I have never represented a developer in a public decision process and own no property besides our condo and a week timeshare in Tahoe. Is it just Retail or do Residents Really Mean Retail and Services? 2 Most people “shop” downtown for restaurants/coffee/desert places, services and traditional retail stores that sell goods. My sense is that people mean to include services and eating/drinking places in the discussion of what they want downtown to serve people who live and /or work downtown. At least for our family once you get beyond restaurants/coffee places, Whole Foods, CVS, Walgreens and TJs (we walk—thank you Palo Alto for the Homer tunnel), most of our purchases downtown are of services. I think we need to develop a common understanding that retail really means places that residents, workers and visitors regularly use for dining, shopping and services. The Competitive Environment Downtown retail in the narrow sense of shopping for goods faces a daunting competitive environment, which probably explains most of the recent trends. Here are some trends that affect the environment for retail downtown, but much less so or not at all for many services and eating/drinking establishments. 1) Downtown is adjacent to a major regional shopping center. It is a good walk or short drive and has what most residents would call a full range of retail opportunities. 2) There is a substantially revitalized Town and Country shopping center with, again, a wide variety of smaller retail establishments sprinkled with a few services and a market (TJs) that all appear to be thriving. This competition for downtown is a relatively new occurrence and I would ask a retail expert how this changes what is possible downtown. 3) Both Stanford and T&C have two other competitive advantages: a) they operate under coordinated management and b) they have free onsite parking. One of the challenges of retail “planning” downtown is that we deal with individual owners, not a single management entity. 4) There has been a major increase in online shopping for items that folks use to get at stores. When I came home today, in our 17 unit condo there were 8 packages from Amazon and the like. I feel confident that the increase in online shopping affects the possibilities for downtown in what potential shoppers want. Again, Amazon does not deliver services, just goods. 5) I now get books and music on my IPad. A while back I would go to Borders but no more. I am sure many residents no longer need (or need 3 as many) bookstores, places to get CDs or places to rent movies in a Netflix world. 6) Downtown rents and land prices are expensive—very expensive and that will affect who wants to locate there. 7) What remains and what we use and walk to from our downtown condo include Medical care—at PAMC and Stanford Our dentists are downtown Dry cleaning Shoe repair (I also buy shoes at Footwear but this is not a frequent purchase) Clothes alteration (for our son’s wedding) Eyeglasses and repair (Nancy walks to T&C) Chico’s Watch repair and small purchases Banking (I still do not do mobile banking) Haircuts (Nancy drives to Mt. View) The UPS store (and the post office while it lasts) The Apple, Sprint and Verizon stores which are a mixture of goods and services Extensive use of Whole Foods, CVS, and Walgreens for food, home supplies, prescriptions, Lots of visits to restaurants, places to get frozen yogurt, coffee and goodies—we find lots of places that are not too expensive and mostly they are all jammed. I am interested in what other downtown residents use in the way of shopping or services downtown. So we are quite satisfied as residents and rarely use the car. Who are the Principal Customers? I don’t have the data but I have to believe that the largest daytime customers are people who work downtown. I think the customers downtown establishments (and we should) focus on are 1) Downtown residents 2) Downtown workers 3) Stanford students and workers 4 4) Visitors It would be interesting to know the numbers in each group. Whatever the numbers I suspect the growth recently has been in downtown workers and associated visitors. The Palo Alto residents who do not live downtown have no real need to get into the downtown retail/services discussion. They have closer better options. They do have an interest in downtown dining or perhaps going to the movies or unique places but in general for everyday shopping, downtown is not needed for them. My observation is that many, if not most, of the new workers downtown are relatively young. I see that in the people getting off Caltrain, the people where our offices have been and the people we see in restaurants and coffee/yogurt places and observe in bars. We also see a lot of families with children downtown in the evening and where we eat. If I were a retailer I would target these folks. I think there is a lot of nostalgia in these retail discussions, often by people who do not live or work downtown. Our favorite not here anymore places are Hobee’s, Good Earth and Machismo Mouse. But we do not suffer for places to eat and if our children were still of that age, we would easily find new places (Lyfe Kitchen, Sprouts, Plutos and others) that meet our needs. But I am reminded often that I am no longer a typical or in demand customer for many goods and services. TV networks routinely cancel shows we love but I do not pretend they are acting irrationally. My trainer had an office next to mine but we both got moved out when Palantir took over the building and offered so much that the our landlords also moved on. Life goes on and we are surviving. What do we make of the Empty Retail Places Downtown? I observe retail places that remain vacant for long periods. The Borders site is one. The Waterworks site is another. There are two on Bryant—the almost kosher restaurant and the restaurant site next to Monique’s (vacant seemingly forever). The retail site next to Simply Be has been vacant forever. I am sure there are others. We do not walk around counting vacant sites. I assume this means that the demand for retail space at the rents offered is not sufficient to fill these spaces. This leads to the “you can bring a horse to water but you cannot make her drink” dilemma. These vacant spaces are all ground floor in good locations. So I suspect enforcing more ground floor retail space is not any guarantee that it will 5 be filled and certainly no guarantee that it will be filled by the kind of places the nostalgia folks wish for. What’s Not Coming Downtown Big box stores, a giant cheap supermarket (nor any other places in PA with our zoning and land costs). I am interested in hearing from folks what is missing that is realistic to expect and how that might occur through city action. The Palo Alto Contradiction Many of the people who speak to the PTC and council and write on Town Square are indulging in illogical thinking. They want more retail downtown while restricting the growth of the two largest customer bases (workers and residents) and, inferentially by opposing new hotels, restricting the growth of some tourism. Next they want more retail in a parking constrained area while opposing the growth of traffic or spending money for new parking lots and simultaneously wanting to restrict parking on neighborhood streets without as yet any offsetting investments. I AM sympathetic to the downtown parking issues and am just pointing out that wanting the growth or retail while restricting the customer base and only solving part of the parking challenges is a bit illogical. Conclusions My perspective is that downtown shopping, restaurants and services are serving the main customer bases well. I observe lots of people in Whole Foods, CVS, Walgreens, and the many restaurants and desert/coffee places we frequent and lots of people downtown in general. There are plenty of mainstream shopping options for people who do not live or work in downtown and their voices are not much to be trusted relative to future downtown retail. My perspective in listening to the complaints is that they see retail as a way to block more office growth and not because they are injured by the transitions going on. I am unclear what kind of planning can be done given the many uncoordinated individual property owners or where there is market failure. But expert voices on downtown retail might see other options that are within the city’s powers. Two Other Factors Worth Noting 6 I will write more about these but wanted here to get the ideas out. 1) The Comp Plan is to 2030. That means a) going beyond the current RHNA time period ending and anticipating the needs of the next eight year period which will be within the Comp Plan horizon and 2) anticipating the implications of the large demographic changes in the decade 2020-2030. 2) We should rethink the notion in the current alternative that seeks to locate housing within ½ mile of transit. To minimize the travel impacts of new housing it should be located close to services, dining and shopping. The main trips eliminated are non-work trips. Some residents have suggested trying to reduce school driving trips—and interesting idea. Most people (I don’t know for sure but this must be right) who take Caltrain drive, walk, bike or get dropped off but most do not live within a half mile of the stations. On the other hand smart growth does suggest placing job sites near transit. Look at the success of the downtown Caltrain station, Stanford shuttle combination. Watch as I do who the folks are getting off the trains and where they go. In the other hand this may be a distinction with only a slight difference in that the train stations are located near services, dining and shopping. But once you shift from thinking housing will reduce commute trips to the concept of reducing not commute trips and associate parking, the half mile from transit is not the right criterion. For example, where Neilson and Eric live are in the right location for convenient walking trips but are not within a half mile of transit. Our place might make the ½ mile criterion but a block away might not although in terms of downtown use they are identical. 1 Our Palo Alto 2030: Attachment L EIR Scoping Hearing City Council Meeting -August 4 & 6, 2014 2 Goals for Tonight Update the City Council on public engagement Accept public testimony on environmental issues and alternatives Provide Council feedback to staff and consultant team including Council direction to: –begin the EIR analysis; or –provide specific additional information for refinement of the alternative scenarios 3 Environmental Impact Review 4 Environmental Review Content Purpose Timeline Opportunities for Public Input Explanation of Program EIR To pics to be Covered 5 EIR: Timeline (NOP) issued May 30, 2014 Close of NOP comment period –Agencies: June 30 –Public: August 6 Conduct analysis: August-December 2014 Publish Draft EIR: End of 2014 Draft EIR public comment period: early 2015 6 EIR: Public Input Notice of Preparation (NOP) Scoping Period Environmental Review Draft EIR Published Public Review Period for Draft EIR Response to Comments and Final EIR prepared PTC Review and Recommendation City Council Certifies the EIR and Approves the Plan = Opportunities for public input May 30 Aug. 6 End 2014 Early 2015 Mid 2015 Fall 2015 Late 2015 7 What is a Program EIR? Project-level EIR Program EIR Same legally-required contents Covers a specific development project Includes high level of detail including site-specific analyses Identifies and mitigates project- specific and cumulative impacts Covers policies and programs that will guide future development citywide Includes a general/conceptual level of detail, not site-specific analyses Identifies and mitigates program and cumulative impacts of development during the life of the plan 8 EIR: Topics Aesthetics Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural, Historical & Archaeological Resources Geology, Soils & Seismicity Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population, Housing & Employment Public Services Parks & Recreation Transportation & Traffic Utilities & Service Systems 9 Community Engagement and EIR Alternatives 10 “Scoping” Meetings #1: Critical Issues, May 29, Avenidas #2: Growth Management, June 10, Palo Alto High School #3: Alternative Futures, June 24, Elks Lodge 11 #1: Critical Issues Overview of Comp Plan process Identify Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) About 40 attendees Common themes: quality of life, relationship with Stanford, traffic congestion, public trust, citizen engagement, high cost of housing, High Speed Rail/Caltrain Electrification 12 Online Engagement Participate online throughout the process –whenever, wherever, and however you want. Accessible via PC, smartphone, or tablet. 14 #2: Growth Management Presentation on population, housing and employment projections Brief overview of growth management strategies in Palo Alto and other cities (an updated version is attached to tonight’s staff report) About 30 attendees Small groups identified potential areas for change 17 #3: Alternative Futures Review of past two meetings and focus areas identified Explanation of alternatives exercise and description of 3 potential alternatives About 80 attendees Nine small groups created 9 variations on the conceptual alternatives 18 Online Engagement Participate online throughout the process –whenever, wherever, and however you want. Accessible via PC, smartphone, or tablet. 19 Alternative Future Scenarios All scenarios would preserve open space and protect R-1 neighborhoods 1.Do Nothing/Business as Usual 2.Slow Growth & No Changes in Land Use Designation 3.Slow Growth & Adjust the Location of Housing Sites 4.Net-Zero Concepts 20 Concept 1: Do Nothing Required by CEQA Keep existing Comp Plan designations and policies Accommodate new development under existing zoning Continued growth in Cal Ave area; evolution of South El Camino No major infrastructure improvements 21 Concept 2: Slow Growth, No change in Land Use Designations New procedure for metering office and R&D projects Focus modest residential growth on meeting State requirements Policies to preserve and enhance neighborhood serving retail & regulate “formula” retail Increased setbacks and 3-story height limit on El Camino 22 Concept 3:Slow Growth, Adjust Location of Housing Sites New procedure for metering office and R&D projects Housing sites along South El Camino and San Antonio would be replaced New sites and increased densities in transit- rich areas with neighborhood services Depress Caltrain tracks 23 Concept 4: Net Zero Approach Lead California and US in testing various “net zero” concepts Restrict new vehicle trips Downtown, add pedestrian improvements Mixed use along El Camino, over 50’ New housing and tech companies near, not along, Cal Ave Research Park as a “proving ground” 24 Scenario Development 1.Synthesize input from workshop and online exercises 2.Present draft alternatives to The Planning Commission and City Council 3.Estimate quantity and type of development under each scenario 4.Analyze all four scenarios at equal level of detail in Draft EIR, published at the end of 2014 26 Goals for Tonight Accept public testimony on environmental issues and alternatives Provide Council feedback to staff and consultant team including Council direction to: –begin the EIR analysis; or –provide specific additional information for refinement of the alternative scenarios 27 Our Palo Alto 2030: EIR Scoping Hearing City Council Meeting -August 4 & 6, 2014 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4973) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/4/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Implementation of Dry Year Conservation Measures Title: Adoption of a Resolution Implementing Outdoor Water Use Restrictions in Compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board's July 15, 2014 Emergency Drought Regulations From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) implementing outdoor water use restrictions in compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board’s July 15, 2014 emergency drought regulations. Executive Summary In response to the Governor’s January 17, 2014 drought emergency proclamation, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) at its July 15th, 2014 meeting approved emergency regulations to ensure water agencies, their customers, and state residents increase conservation in urban settings, with a specific emphasis on outdoor irrigation (Attachment B). The decision by the SWRCB prohibits, statewide, specific actions regarding water use and also requires that urban water suppliers such as the City of Palo Alto implement all requirements and actions of the stage of their Water Shortage Contingency Plan (part of their Urban Water Management Plan) that impose mandatory restrictions on outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water. Background On January 17th, 2014, in response to the ongoing dry conditions, Governor Brown issued a drought emergency proclamation and asked for all Californians to reduce water use by 20%. On April 25th, 2014 Governor Brown issued an Executive Order directing the SWRCB to adopt emergency drought regulations, as it deems necessary. The City of Palo Alto purchases 100% of its potable water supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Regional Water System (RWS). Like many water systems in the State, the RWS is affected by the ongoing dry conditions, and on January 31, 2014, the SFPUC City of Palo Alto Page 2 asked its retail and wholesale1 customers to voluntarily curtail water consumption by 10%. The City of Palo Alto responded to the voluntary request and has reduced consumption by approximately 17% for usage from February through June 2014, as compared to the same period in 2013. Staff has been monitoring this and other drought-related outcomes that may impact both the Water and Electric Enterprises. The City has a long standing commitment to water conservation and recently stepped up efforts in response to the dry year conditions. Some examples include: 1. Recent doubling of rebates for outdoor irrigation efficiency, including turf grass replacement, irrigation hardware, and laundry to landscape gray-water systems. 2. Delivering Home Water Reports to residents. 3. Advanced water metering pilot for access to real-time data. 4. Delivering water use reports to businesses. 5. Providing landscape water budget reports to large landscape irrigation customers. 6. Evaluating increased recycled water opportunities. 7. Increased public outreach about water supply situation, ways to conserve and available programs. On July 15, 2014, in response to ongoing dry conditions and concerns that conservation efforts were not achieving desired results statewide, the SWRCB adopted emergency regulations. The emergency regulations, effective August 1, 2014, prohibit all Californians from using potable water for activities such as driveway washing, irrigation that results in runoff, or in decorative fountains (with certain limited exceptions), and require urban water suppliers to activate the sections of their Water Shortage Contingency Plans that restrict outdoor irrigation. Violations could result in penalties of up to $500 per day for individuals and could include larger fines for water agencies that fail to implement outdoor irrigation restrictions. Discussion The action by the SWRCB imposes requirements on all agencies in the state, regardless of their individual water supply situation. The SFPUC, the City’s wholesale water supplier, has requested customers voluntarily reduce consumption by 10% and the SFPUC wholesale customers are on track to meet that goal. The SFPUC has not declared a water shortage emergency nor triggered mandatory cutbacks to its wholesale customers. However, the action by the SWRCB imposes requirements on the City to initiate measures, specifically, elements of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which normally would only be triggered after certain milestones have been met. These milestones could include a declaration 1 The Wholesale Customers are the 24 cities and water districts, and two private utilities that purchase water wholesale from the San Francisco regional water system. These entities provide water to 1.7 million people, businesses and community organizations in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. City of Palo Alto Page 3 of a system-wide shortage by the SFPUC pursuant to California Water Code Section 3502, followed by a City Council declaration of a local water shortage emergency. Since the City’s ability and flexibility to respond to local water shortage emergencies is captured in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC” or “Municipal Code”) and the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (approved by City Council on June 13, 2011 - Staff Report 1688) , responding to the regulatory action by the SWRCB presents unique challenges. Nevertheless, staff is proposing a modified process that complies with the SWRCB’s emergency regulations and maintains the Council’s discretion to craft water conservation measures that are responsive to local conditions. Statewide Prohibited Activities Specifically, Section 864 of the SWRCB’s emergency regulations prohibits certain activities. The City has permanent water use restrictions in place (PAMC Section 12.32.010, “Water Use Regulations”) that already cover two out of the four activities that are part of SWRCB’s emergency regulations. The City does not currently prohibit washing down sidewalks and driveways or expressly require a recirculating system if potable water is used in a fountain or decorative water feature. A comparison of the SWRCB emergency regulations prohibiting certain water uses and the City’s existing Municipal Code restrictions is provided in Table 1. 2 Water Code section 350 specifies an entity “…may declare a water shortage emergency condition to prevail within the area served by such distributor whenever it finds and determines that the ordinary demands and requirements of water consumers cannot be satisfied without depleting the water supply of the distributor to the extent that there would be insufficient water for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Table 1: SWRCB Emergency Regulations Compared to the City’s Existing and Proposed Water Use Regulations Prohibitions in SWRCB Emergency Regulations City of Palo Alto’s Existing and Proposed Water Use Regulations Section 864 (a)(1): The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures PAMC Section 12.32.010(a): Potable water shall not be allowed to flood or run off into gutters: driveways, sidewalks, streets or other un-landscaped areas. Section 864 (a)(2): The use of a hose that dispenses potable water to wash a motor vehicle, except where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle or device attached to it that causes it to cease dispensing water immediately when not in use PAMC Section 12.32.010(b): No use of water by means of a hose to wash cars, boats, trailers, buses or other vehicles or to wash sidewalks, building structures, other hard-surfaced areas or parts thereof without an operating automatic shut- off valve. Use of a hose for such purposes should be avoided whenever possible. Section 864 (a)(3): The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency. Prohibition proposed as part of this report Section 864 (a)(4): The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature, except where the water is part of a recirculating system. Prohibition proposed as part of this report3 Does not address PAMC Section 12.32.010(c): Potable water for consolidation of backfill and other nondomestic uses in construction shall not be used if other water sources such as reclaimed water are available, as determined by the director of utilities or his or her designee. Applicants for hydrant permits from the city of Palo Alto shall be deemed to have consented to restrictions on water use which may be imposed by the director of utilities or his or her designee. Does not address PAMC Section 12.32.010(d): Any broken or defective plumbing, sprinklers, watering or irrigation systems which permit the escape or leakage of water shall be repaired or replaced as soon as possible, but no later than the date established by the director of utilities, or his or her designee, as reasonable after observation of the broken or defective system. 3 Pursuant to the California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (Cal. Govt. Code § 65591 et seq.), cities must adopt a Model Ordinance, the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO), or equivalent local plan that is “at least as effective” as the WELO, which Palo Alto has adopted a local plan that satisfies this requirement (see PAMC Section 12.32.040 of the Municipal Code) The WELO includes a requirement that recirculating water systems shall be used for all water features, but only applies to new development or remodels that meet certain criteria. The prohibition proposed as part of this report would apply more broadly - to all fountains and decorative water features, not just new construction and categories of remodels. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Violations of Chapter 12.32 of the City’s Municipal Code are punishable as a misdemeanor or an infraction. The City Manager and his designated employees are also specifically authorized to enforce Chapter 12.32 via written warnings, followed by the installation of water flow restrictors at customer expense, for the most serious violations. Mandates for Urban Water Suppliers The SWRCB’s emergency regulations also require urban water suppliers, such as Palo Alto, to “implement all requirements and actions of the stage of its water shortage contingency plan that imposes [sic] mandatory restrictions on outdoor irrigation”4. Urban water suppliers are also required to submit a monthly monitoring report to the SWRCB that includes the amount of potable water produced in the prior month, and the gallons of water used per capita in its service territory. The City’s 2010 UWMP specifies, via its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, what actions the City could take in response to different stages of water shortage emergencies. As stated in the City’s UWMP, “there is a need for some flexibility in selecting the exact strategy to be used to respond to a particular water shortage situation.”5 Thus, although all four of the different stages are listed below, staff’s expectation is that the exact requirements to be implemented during each stage would be directed by Council in response to local conditions. Staff’s proposal includes the elements that restrict outdoor irrigation taken from Stage II of the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan. These outdoor irrigation restrictions are directly responsive to the current situation, in which the state has adopted emergency water regulations and directed outdoor irrigation restrictions, but neither the City nor its wholesale supplier has declared a local water shortage emergency. Water Shortage Stages Stage I (5% to 10% supply reductions) calls for a low level of informational outreach and enforcement of the permanent water use ordinances. Stage II (10% to 20%) there will be a stepped up outreach effort and the adoption of some additional water use restrictions. Drought rate schedules may be implemented. Stage III (20% to 35%) calls for increased outreach activities and additional emergency water use restrictions. Drought rates in each block would increase from those in Stage II. Fines and penalties would be applied to users in violation of water usage restrictions. In some cases, water flow restriction devices would be installed on customers’ meters. 4 Sec. 865 (b)(1) 5 2010 UWMP, p. 108. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Stage IV (35% to 50%) requires very close management of the available water supplies. Allocations of water for each customer will be introduced. Informational outreach activities would be operating at a very high level. Severe water use restrictions and a restrictive penalty schedule would be implemented. The SWRCB emergency regulations specify that water agencies will implement their water shortage contingency plan to a level where outdoor irrigation restrictions are mandatory. Irrigation restrictions for the City begin in Stage II, and the City’s 2010 UWMP states that landscape irrigation shall not be allowed between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., except for drip irrigation, soaker hoses and hand watering. (See Appendix H of the City’s UWMP). To comply with the SWRCB directive, staff is recommending City Council adopt a Resolution implementing the sections of Stage II of the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan that pertain to outdoor irrigation, and adding prohibitions on the application of water to driveways and sidewalks, and use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature. Reporting The SWRCB is in the process of preparing templates for monthly reports that urban water suppliers must submit by the 15th of each month. At a minimum, the reports will likely include the items below: 1. The amount or potable water produced or purchased from wholesalers in the preceding calendar month with a comparison to the same calendar month in 2013. 2. Beginning October 15, 2014, an estimate of the gallons of water per person per day used by residential customers. Timeline The SWRCB regulations are in effect starting August 1st, 2014. Following Council approval, staff will coordinate with different City departments to ensure law enforcement and other involved staff (eg. Utilities, Public Works and Building) are informed of the SWRCB’s request to increase enforcement of water use violations, and are prepared to issue warning citations and fines if necessary. The regulations will remain in effect for 270 days after the SWRCB files them with the State Office of Administrative Law, unless the SWRCB extends the regulations due to continued drought conditions. The term of the City’s Resolution will remain in effect for the 270 day period, or as extended by the SWRCB. Resource Impact Staff anticpates this new requirement may require additional staff time or may require hiring new part-time outtreach. It may also require hiring new or paying overtime for existing staff for enforcement activities. Staff anticipates additional costs will be covered by the Water Fund reserves. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Policy Implications The City has permanenent water use restrictions in place and has already increased messaging and water conservation efforts in response to the dry conditions. The recommended action is consistent with those efforts and the strategies outlined in the 2010 UWMP and expires 270 days from the date the SWRCB files the emergency regulations with the State Office of Administrative Law, approximately April 30, 2015, unless the SWRCB takes action to extend the regulations. Environmental Review Council’s adoption of the proposed Resolution is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines 15307 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources). Attachments:  Attachment A: Reso re July 15, 2014 Emergency Drought Regulations (PDF)  Attachment B: SWRCB Emergency Regulations (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Implementing Outdoor Water Use Restrictions in Compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board’s July 15, 2014 Emergency Drought Regulations R E C I T A L S A. On January 17, 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued Proclamation No. 1- 17-2014 declaring a State of Emergency to exist in California due to severe drought conditions and calling on Californians to reduce their water usage by 20 percent. B. On April 25, 2014, the Governor issued an Executive Order to strengthen the state’s ability to manage water and directed the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) under its authority in California Water Code Section 1058.5 to adopt emergency regulations as it deems necessary to address water shortage conditions. C. On July 15, 2014, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Sections 863, 864, and 865, emergency regulations finding a drought emergency in California and imposing water conservation measures on individuals and water suppliers. D. Section 864 applies to all Californians and prohibits certain activities in promotion of water conservation, many of which are already required by Palo Alto Municipal Code 12.32.010. E. Section 865 requires mandatory outdoor irrigation restrictions and reporting by water suppliers, including urban water suppliers like the City of Palo Alto. F. The City of Palo Alto receives 100% of its potable supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). G. The SFPUC has requested a 10% voluntary water consumption reduction in response to the drought and their determination of available supplies in the regional water system. H. The SFPUC has not declared a water shortage emergency nor imposed mandatory cutbacks upon Palo Alto or any of SFPUC’s wholesale customers. I. The City of Palo Alto has responded to SFPUC’s voluntary water consumption reduction request and has achieved an approximate 17% reduction in water use relative to 2013. 140722 jb 0180048 NOT YET APPROVED J. The City’s Municipal Code and Urban Water Management Plan (approved by the City Council on June 13, 2011) include a Water Shortage Contingency Plan and other tools to encourage responsible management of the City’s water resources. K. The City supports the SWRCB’s efforts to encourage conservation, with an emphasis on outdoor water use, to the extent it may do so within the context of its Council- approved Urban Water Management Plan and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The following outdoor water use restrictions are hereby adopted, in compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board’s July 15, 2014 emergency drought regulations (collectively, the “Outdoor Water Use Restrictions”): a. No outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water is permitted between the hours of 10am and 6pm, except for drip irrigation, soaker hoses and hand watering; b. The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks is prohibited, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency; and c. The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature is prohibited, except where the water is part of a recirculating system. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the Outdoor Water Use Restrictions implemented as a result of this action were taken from Stage II of the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which is itself a part of the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, approved by the Department of Water Resources July 8th, 2014. The Outdoor Water Use Restrictions are intended to complement the City’s existing and permanent water use restrictions, codified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.32.010. SECTION 3. The Council finds that adoption of the Outdoor Water Use Restrictions meets the requirements of California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 865(b)(1). SECTION 4. The Outdoor Water Use Restrictions will remain in effect for the 270 day period specified in SWRCB Resolution No. 2014-0038, or as extended by the SWRCB. SECTION 5. Council directs staff to further promote water conservation by preparing and submitting to the SWRCB the monitoring reports described in California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 865(d). Council also directs staff to monitor compliance and to explore increased enforcement in the event the desired response is not being achieved. 140722 jb 0180048 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 6. Council’s adoption of the proposed Outdoor Water Use Restrictions is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines 15307 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services 140722 jb 0180048 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2014-0038 TO ADOPT AN EMERGENCY REGULATION FOR STATEWIDE URBAN WATER CONSERVATION WHEREAS: 1.On April 25, 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an executive order to strengthen the state’s ability to manage water and habitat effectively in drought conditions and called on all Californians to redouble their efforts to conserve water. The executive order finds that the continuous severe drought conditions present urgent challenges across the state including water shortages in communities and for agricultural production, increased wildfires, degraded habitat for fish and wildlife, threat of saltwater contamination, and additional water scarcity if drought conditions continue into 2015. The National Integrated Drought Information System reported that nearly 80% of the state was reported to be under "extreme" drought conditions at the end of June; 2.The executive order refers to the Governor’s Proclamation No. 1-17-2014, issued on January 17, 2014, declaring a State of Emergency to exist in California due to severe drought conditions. The January Proclamation notes that the state is experiencing record dry conditions, with 2014 projected to become the driest year on record. Since January, state water officials indicate that reservoirs, rainfall totals and the snowpack remain critically low. This follows two other dry or below average years, leaving reservoir storage at alarmingly low levels. The January Proclamation highlights the State’s dry conditions, lack of precipitation and the resulting effects on drinking water supplies, the cultivation of crops, and the survival of animals and plants that rely on California’s rivers and streams. The January Proclamation also calls on all Californians to reduce their water usage by 20 percent; 3.There is no guarantee that winter precipitation will alleviate the drought conditions that the executive orders address, which will lead to even more severe impacts across the state if the drought wears on; 4.Water Code section 1058.5 grants the State Water Board the authority to adopt emergency regulations in certain drought years in order to: “prevent the waste, unreasonable use, unreasonable method of use, or unreasonable method of diversion, of water, to promote water recycling or water conservation, to require curtailment of diversions when water is not available under the diverter’s priority of right, or in furtherance of any of the foregoing, to require reporting of diversion or use or the preparation of monitoring reports”; 5.Over 400,000 acres of farmland are expected to be fallowed, thousands of people may be out of work, communities risk running out of drinking water, and fish and wildlife will suffer. ATTACHMENT B 2 6. Many Californians have taken bold steps over the years and in this year to reduce water use; nevertheless, the dire nature of the current drought requires additional conservation actions from residents and businesses. Some severely affected communities have implemented water rationing, limiting water use in some cases to only 50 gallons per person per day, foregoing showers, laundry, toilet flushing, and all outdoor watering. 7. Water conservation is the easiest, most efficient and most cost effective way to quickly reduce water demand and extend supplies into the next year, providing flexibility for all California communities. Water saved this summer is water available next year, giving water suppliers the flexibility to manage their systems efficiently. The more water that is conserved now, the less likely it is that a community will experience such dire circumstances that water rationing is required ; 8. Most Californians use more water outdoors than indoors. In many areas, 50 percent or more of daily water use is for lawns and outdoor landscaping. Outdoor water use is generally discretionary, and many irrigated landscapes would not suffer greatly from receiving a decreased amount of water; 9. Public information and awareness is critical to achieving conservation goals and the Save Our Water campaign, run jointly by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Association of California Water Agencies, is an excellent resource for conservation information and messaging that is integral to effective drought response (http://saveourwater.com). 10. Enforcement against water waste is a key tool in conservation programs. When conservation becomes a social norm in a community, the need for enforcement is reduced or eliminated; 11. The emergency regulations set a minimum standard requiring only modest lifestyle changes across the state. Many communities are already doing more and have been for years. They should be commended, but can and should do more. Others are not yet doing so and should at least do this, but should do much more given the severity of the drought; 12. On July 8, 2014, the State Water Board issued public notice that the State Water Board would consider the adoption of the regulation at the Board’s regularly-scheduled July 15, 2014 public meeting, in accordance with applicable State laws and regulations. The State Water Board also distributed for public review and comment a Finding of Emergency that complies with State laws and regulations; 13. On April 25, 2014, the Governor suspended the California Environmental Quality Act’s application to the State Water Board’s adoption of emergency regulations pursuant to Water Code section 1058.5 to prevent the waste, unreasonable use, unreasonable method of use, or unreasonable method of diversion of water, to promote water recycling or water conservation; 14. As discussed above, the State Water Board is adopting the emergency regulation because of emergency drought conditions, the need for prompt action, and current limitations in the existing enforcement process; 3 15. Disadvantaged communities may require assistance in increasing water conservation and state agencies should look for opportunities to provide assistance in promoting water conservation; 16. Nothing in the regulations or in the enforcement provisions of the regulations, preclude a local agency from exercising its authority to adopt more stringent conservation measures. Moreover, the Water Code does not impose a mandatory penalty for violations of the regulations adopted by this resolution and local agencies retain their enforcement discretion in enforcing the regulations, to the extent authorized, and may develop their own progressive enforcement practices to encourage conservation. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The State Water Board adopts California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 863, 864, and 865, as appended to this resolution as an emergency regulation; 2. The State Water Board staff will submit the regulation to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for final approval; 3. If, during the approval process, State Water Board staff, the State Water Board, or OAL determines that minor corrections to the language of the regulation or supporting documentation are needed for clarity or consistency, the State Water Board Executive Director or designee may make such changes; 4. These regulations shall remain in effect for 270 days after filing with the Secretary of State unless the State Water Board determines that it is no longer necessary due to changed conditions, or unless the State Water Board renews the regulations due to continued drought conditions as described in Water Code section 1058.5; 5. The State Water Board directs staff to provide the Board with monthly updates on the implementation of the emergency regulations and their effect; 6. Directs State Water Board staff to condition funding upon compliance with the emergency regulations, to the extent feasible; 7. Directs State Water Board staff to work with the Department of Water Resources and the Save Our Water campaign to disseminate information regarding the emergency regulations; and 8. Directs State Water Board staff in developing an electronic reporting portal to include data fields so that local agencies may provide monthly reporting data on (i) conservation- related implementation measures or enforcement actions taken by the local agency and (ii) substitution during the drought of potable water with recycled water to extend water supplies. 4 THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: 9. The State Water Board commends water suppliers that have increased conservation messaging and adopted innovative strategies to enhance customer awareness of water use, such as applications that let customers compare their water use to water use by others; reduce system losses, such as fixing system leaks which can deplete supplies by 10 percent or more; and establish incentives to reduce demand, such as tiered or drought rate structures. The State Water Board also commends all Californians that have already been working to maximize their conservation efforts, both at home and at work; 10. The State Water Board calls upon water suppliers to take the following actions: Educate customers and employees  Retail water suppliers should provide notice of the regulations in English and Spanish in one or more of the following ways: newspaper advertisements, bill inserts, website homepage, social media, notices in public libraries;  Wholesale suppliers should include reference to the regulations in their customer communications;  All water suppliers should train personnel on the regulations;  All water suppliers should provide signage where recycled or reclaimed water is being used for activities that the emergency regulations prohibit with the use of potable water, such as operation of fountains and other water features;  All water suppliers should redouble their efforts to disseminate information regarding opportunities and incentives to upgrade indoor fixtures and appliances;  All water suppliers should use education and the tools available through the Save Our Water website (http://saveourwater.com); and  All water suppliers should educate and prepare their boards and councils on the drought response actions contained in the emergency regulations and in this resolution, and to make sure that drought response items are placed on agendas as early as possible; Increasing local supplies  All water suppliers should accelerate the completion of projects that will conserve potable water by making use of non-potable supplies, such as recycled water, “greywater,” and stormwater collection projects;  All water suppliers should improve their leak reporting and response programs and request that police and fire departments and other local government personnel report leaks and water waste that they encounter during their routine duties/patrols;  Smaller water suppliers – those with fewer than 3,000 service connections – should take proactive steps to secure their communities’ water supplies and educate their customers about water conservation and the status of their supply reserves;  All water suppliers should conduct water loss audits and make leak detection and repair a top priority for the duration of the drought; and  All urban water suppliers should evaluate their rate structures and begin to implement needed changes as part of planning for another dry year. Information and assistance on setting and implementing drought rates is available from the Alliance for Water Efficiency. (http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/). 5 11. The State Water Board calls on all Californians to take the following additional actions:  Further reduce water demand, whether by using less water in daily routines indoors and out, retrofitting appliances and installing greywater and rainwater catchment systems; and  Check residential and business water bills to see if there are high charges that may indicate a leak and to fix the leak, if they are able, or contact their local water utility if they need assistance. 12. The State Water Board encourages its staff, the Department of Water Resources, the Public Utilities Commission, urban water suppliers, and other local agencies to look for opportunities to encourage and promote new technologies that reduce water usage, including through timely access to water usage information and behavioral response. 13. The State Water Board encourages all state and local agencies to look for additional opportunities to minimize potable water use in outdoor spaces. 14. The State Water Board encourages investor-owned utilities to expeditiously submit applications for implementation of the regulations to the California Public Utilities Commission. CERTIFICATION The undersigned Clerk to the Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on July 15, 2014. AYE: Chair Felicia Marcus Vice Chair Frances Spivy-Weber Board Member Steven Moore Board Member Dorene D’Adamo NAY: None ABSENT: Board Member Tam M. Doduc ABSTAIN: None Jeanine Townsend Clerk to the Board PROPOSED TEXT OF EMERGENCY REGULATIONS Article 22.5. Drought Emergency Water Conservation Sec. 863 Findings of Drought Emergency (a) The State Water Resources Control Board finds as follows: (1) On January 17, 2014, the Governor issued a proclamation of a state of emergency under the California Emergency Services Act based on drought conditions; (2) On April 25, 2014, the Governor issued a proclamation of a continued state of emergency under the California Emergency Services Act based on continued drought conditions; (3) The drought conditions that formed the basis of the Governor’s emergency proclamations continue to exist; (4) The present year is critically dry and has been immediately preceded by two or more consecutive below normal, dry, or critically dry years; and (5) The drought conditions will likely continue for the foreseeable future and additional action by both the State Water Resources Control Board and local water suppliers will likely be necessary to further promote conservation. Authority: Wat. Code, § 1058.5. References: Wat. Code, §§ 102, 104, 105. Sec. 864 Prohibited Activities in Promotion of Water Conservation (a) To promote water conservation, each of the following actions is prohibited, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency: (1) The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures; (2) The use of a hose that dispenses potable water to wash a motor vehicle, except where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle or device attached to it that causes it to cease dispensing water immediately when not in use; (3) The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks; and (4) The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature, except where the water is part of a recirculating system. (b) The taking of any action prohibited in subdivision (a) of this section, in addition to any other applicable civil or criminal penalties, is an infraction, punishable by a fine of up to five hundred dollars ($500) for each day in which the violation occurs. Authority: Wat. Code, § 1058.5. References: Wat. Code, §§ 102, 104, 105. PROPOSED TEXT OF EMERGENCY REGULATIONS Sec. 865 Mandatory Actions by Water Suppliers (a) The term “urban water supplier,” when used in this section, refers to a supplier that meets the definition set forth in Water Code section 10617, except it does not refer to suppliers when they are functioning solely in a wholesale capacity, but does apply to suppliers when they are functioning in a retail capacity. (b)(1) To promote water conservation, each urban water supplier shall implement all requirements and actions of the stage of its water shortage contingency plan that imposes mandatory restrictions on outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water. (2) As an alternative to subdivision (b)(1), an urban water supplier may submit a request to the Executive Director for approval of an alternate plan that includes allocation-based rate structures that satisfies the requirements of chapter 3.4 (commencing with section 370) of division 1 of the Water Code, and the Executive Director may approve such an alternate plan upon determining that the rate structure, in conjunction with other measures, achieves a level of conservation that would be superior to that achieved by implementing limitations on outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water by the persons it serves to no more than two days per week. (c) To promote water conservation, each urban water supplier that does not have a water shortage contingency plan or has been notified by the Department of Water Resources that its water shortage contingency plan does not meet the requirements of Water Code section 10632 shall, within thirty (30) days, limit outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water by the persons it serves to no more than two days per week or shall implement another mandatory conservation measure or measures intended to achieve a comparable reduction in water consumption by the persons it serves relative to the amount consumed in 2013. (d) In furtherance of the promotion of water conservation each urban water supplier shall prepare and submit to the State Water Resources Control Board by the 15th of each month a monitoring report on forms provided by the Board. The monitoring report shall include the amount of potable water the urban water supplier produced, including water provided by a wholesaler, in the preceding calendar month and shall compare that amount to the amount produced in the same calendar month in 2013. Beginning October 15, 2014, the monitoring report shall also estimate the gallons of water per person per day used by the residential customers it serves. In its initial monitoring report, each urban water supplier shall state the number of persons it serves. (e) To promote water conservation, each distributor of a public water supply, as defined in Water Code section 350, that is not an urban water supplier shall, within thirty (30) days, take one or more of the following actions: (1) Limit outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water by the persons it serves to no more than two days per week; or (2) Implement another mandatory conservation measure or measures intended to achieve a comparable reduction in water consumption by the persons it serves relative to the amount consumed in 2013. Authority: Wat. Code, § 1058.5. References: Wat. Code, §§ 102, 104, 105; 350; 10617; 10632. Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Saturday, July 26, 2014 9:26 PM Elvert, Catherine Council, City Re: water ',, ·'· CITY OF PALO ALTO. C,A crry cr rpws 05 EICi 14 JUL28 AH 8:21 Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I arn, however, left with the impression that since the 17% savings seems to be coming out of a small percentage of households, mine being one of them, that 11) should make much less effort and start watering my plants because it's really the city's responsibility to make these slackers do their fair share and 2) that city administration, your work included, is being irresponsible to a degree that is a little scary. I lived in Palo Alto in 1976/77/78. The response from the city during that last drought was very, very different and much more effective. The SCWD monthly drought report I guess made somebody happy, but not me. I don't know what the point of it was, although it was nice to see that Los Altos Hills (Purissima District) has, of all things, been socially responsible and drasticaly cut it's water usage. I've lived here for SO years and I know just how much rain we did not get last winter. NWS is predicting a 50/SO chance that we will get a wetter than average winter next yeat. I don't think those are very good odds. Droughts can go on for decades. You just don't know. Deb Goldeen On Jul18, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Elvert, Catherine <Catherine.Eivert@CityofPaloAito.org> wrote: > Ms. Goldeen, > > >Thank you for your message. The City is very aware of California's current water supply situation and is closely monitoring ongoing conditions. We are engaging in many actions to help Palo Alto stretch its water supplies, actively promoting efficiency measures for residents, businesses and at City facilities. We have significantly expanded our outreach and programs to educate the community about ways to conserve water. > > >The first tier of Palo Alto's residential water rates includes usage up to 6 hundred cubic feet (ccf), or about 4,500 gallons per month. The second tier rate would go into effect when a residential account holder used more than 6 ccf/month, or about 148 gallons per day. The first tier charge is $4.99 per ccf and the second tier is $7.58 per ccf. The increase in cost from tier 1 to tier 2 is 52% per ccf. > > >Our water supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), has asked its wholesale customers, including Palo Alto, for a 10% voluntary water use reduction. Our community has successfully responded to this request. To encourage more conservation, the City has increased its rebate amounts (our landscape rebates are the highest in the Country), offered new water efficiency programs (including the Home Water Reports), received two grants for innovative water-saving technologies and significantly expanded customer outreach. The resulting 17% cumulative savings through May exceeds the 10% reduction goal. · > > >You may be interested in viewing this Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Monthly Drought Status Report< http://www .va lleywater .org/ uploaded Files/Newsroom- other_pages/Drought2014/Drought%20Monthly%20Report_070614_BA.pdf?n=3269> (first edition) for water savings achieved county-wide and for each individual water retailer (pages 12 and 19) in Santa Clara County. This ongoing monthly report includes information on current water supply conditions, the methodology for calculating savings, short-term and long-term water use efficiency strategies. More information on Palo Alto's water supply through SF PUC, drought updates and links to efficiency programs can be found at www.cityofpaloalto.org/water<http:/ /www.cityofpaloalto.org/water> > > > >This week, the State Water Resources Control Board passed a resolution implementing emergency regulations intended to increase water conservation. The final resolution can be found online here<http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/resolutions/2014/rs2014_0038_regs.pdf>. We are currently reviewing implementation and enforcement of additional water use restrictions for Palo Alto. Early next month, we will present the City Council with a proposed resolution for how we plan to comply with the emergency regulations. > > >The City of Palo Alto will continue its community outreach and education efforts to encourage all to use water as efficiently as possible, particularly during the drought. Thank you for your conscientious involvement. > > > >Sincerely, > >Catherine > > > Catherine Elvert >Communications Manager >City of Palo Alto Utilities > 250 Hamilton Ave. >Palo Alto, CA 94301 >Office: (650) 329-2417 >Cell: (650) 833-9433 > catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org<mailto:catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org> > > > > >-----Original Message----- > from: Deborah Goldeen [mailto:palamino@pacbell.net] >Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:39 PM >To: Elvert, Catherine; Council, City > Subject: water > > > >This evening, I asked a neighbor of mine if he was conserving water. He said, "No, but my sons don't shower very often so we probably don't use all that much." I said, "Are you watering your landscaping?" He said, "yes." I said, "When I water in the summer, we use 300 gallons a day, but I've stopped and our household of four is using 80 gallons a day." He said, "I don't really know how many gallons a day we use." > > > > Later in the evening, I told this story to the life guard at lap swim. He shrugged his shoulders and said, "There isn't any penalty so why should we conserve?" > > > >Palo Alto's "tiered" rates don't kick in until you start using over 500 gallons a day and then it only increases your rate by about 12%. County of Santa Cruz has got it's residents to cut back by 30% because if you use over a certain amount, they charge up the wazoo. What's up with the City of Palo Alto? > > > >Deb Goldeen-2130 Birch St., 06, 321-7375 > > Catherine Elvert >Communications Manager >City of Palo Alto Utilities > 250 Hamilton Ave. >Palo Alto, CA 94301 >Office: {650) 329-2417 >Cell: (650) 833-9433 > catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 4, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Designation of Voting Delegate for the League of California Cities Annual 2014 Conference PROPOSED MOTION The City Council should designate a voting delegate and one alternate voting delegate for the 2014 League Conference. BACKGROUND The League’s 2014 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 3-5 in Los Angeles. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (at the General Assembly), scheduled for noon on Friday, September 5, at the Los Angeles Convention Center. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. The resolutions will be agendized for Council consideration prior to the conference. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, the City Council must delegate a voting delegate and could appoint up to two alternate voting delegates. Mayor Shepherd and Council Member Scharff will be attending the League Conference. Attached please find correspondence received from the League of California Cities. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachement A: Voting Delegate Informational and Form (PDF) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2